I think you’re getting confused. Before the creation of Israel there were jewish palestinians, and Christian Palestinians and muslim Palestinians. And then the apartheid ethnostate of Israel was created, and israel made everyone who was not jewish a 2nd class citizen or a refugee.
Before the creation of israel people of the three faiths were living together in Palestine.
Ah, so you’re moving the goalposts from May 14th, 1948 to November 2nd, 1917?
Admittedly, there seems to be fewer records of violence towards Jews in the region. Probably under a 1000 killed through violence throughout the 1800s. But there were oppressive laws set by the Ottoman regime - limiting land sales, requiring Jews to work in certain industries and forbidding them from others, etc. You know, apartheid.
I don’t think it’s unfair to link the statement “there was less violence and hate towards Jews before Israel” with you know, actually checking dates before Israeli settlers started arriving.
If you want to debate perv this, which group was there first and can lay claim to the land? Oh look, it’s Egyptian Arabs. Source. And before you debate perv me with context. It certainly wasn’t the Jews who were first, and you know it.
I mean even your link says it wasn’t Egyptians first. That Egyptians settlers went to the area when an Egyptian pharaoh unified Egypt. But there people there before that.
Which is why you have to pick a starting point and go from there. And if we are talking about forming a legitimized form Palestinian state, then starting at the partition plan is probably the most reasonable. Why? Because Israel exists and dissolving it and making the whole region Palestine is unreasonable and will not happen. It won’t. If you want peace, that is something you must accept.
What needs to happen to settlers, what the exact borders will be, what happens to refugees, and people living on one side of the border but wishes to be a citizen of the other, all has to be discussed. But dissolving an entire country with nearly 10 million people is off the table. Not just because I think so, but because I’m the real world international legitimization matters. Israelis who have are multigenerational at this point will also not accept that and it won’t bring peace.
I don’t think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population. I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
I don’t think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population.
No clue if they’re genetically the same people, but it’s not really important. That region has been recognized as Palestine for a long time. Any argument about statehood is just Eurocentric justification to steal land from the natives.
I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn’t like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.
Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.
And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?
Edit: and how doesn’t it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn’t matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what’s funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn’t of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.
So what you’re saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?
I think you’re getting confused. Before the creation of Israel there were jewish palestinians, and Christian Palestinians and muslim Palestinians. And then the apartheid ethnostate of Israel was created, and israel made everyone who was not jewish a 2nd class citizen or a refugee.
Before the creation of israel people of the three faiths were living together in Palestine.
So i’m quite sure the problem is actually israel
Are just the big ones I pulled from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine
All three of those riots are the result of the Balfour declaration, which is what lead to the creation of Israel.
Ah, so you’re moving the goalposts from May 14th, 1948 to November 2nd, 1917?
Admittedly, there seems to be fewer records of violence towards Jews in the region. Probably under a 1000 killed through violence throughout the 1800s. But there were oppressive laws set by the Ottoman regime - limiting land sales, requiring Jews to work in certain industries and forbidding them from others, etc. You know, apartheid.
I don’t think it’s unfair to link the statement “there was less violence and hate towards Jews before Israel” with you know, actually checking dates before Israeli settlers started arriving.
So Israel began with Jewish settlers first arriving, the Balfour declaration, or Israeli Independence?
Just so I don’t waste time for you sealions.
If you want to debate perv this, which group was there first and can lay claim to the land? Oh look, it’s Egyptian Arabs. Source. And before you debate perv me with context. It certainly wasn’t the Jews who were first, and you know it.
I mean even your link says it wasn’t Egyptians first. That Egyptians settlers went to the area when an Egyptian pharaoh unified Egypt. But there people there before that.
Which is why you have to pick a starting point and go from there. And if we are talking about forming a legitimized form Palestinian state, then starting at the partition plan is probably the most reasonable. Why? Because Israel exists and dissolving it and making the whole region Palestine is unreasonable and will not happen. It won’t. If you want peace, that is something you must accept.
What needs to happen to settlers, what the exact borders will be, what happens to refugees, and people living on one side of the border but wishes to be a citizen of the other, all has to be discussed. But dissolving an entire country with nearly 10 million people is off the table. Not just because I think so, but because I’m the real world international legitimization matters. Israelis who have are multigenerational at this point will also not accept that and it won’t bring peace.
Everything else is blather. Free Palestine.
Palestine is literally the Philistines from the bible. The land has been recognized as Palestine since the romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina
The person you’re responding to is distorting the truth on purposeEdit: Added the strikethrough, I was responding to the wrong person
I don’t think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population. I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
No clue if they’re genetically the same people, but it’s not really important. That region has been recognized as Palestine for a long time. Any argument about statehood is just Eurocentric justification to steal land from the natives.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2015-10-29/ty-article/.premium/why-are-palestinians-called-palestinians/0000017f-e7d6-dc7e-adff-f7ffc2390000
Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn’t like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.
Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.
And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?
Edit: and how doesn’t it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn’t matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what’s funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn’t of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.
So what you’re saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?
There has never been a state of Palestine. In world history. And that region has never been very stable. With populations or governments.
People don’t need statehood designation to exist. They’re just, ya know, born.
Never said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?
Just that people and cultures can exist without a designation of statehood.
Do you often like to toss out obvious statements that no one was debating into conversations?
Not generally. Only when someone comments a non sequitur.
But I didn’t comment a non sequitur. Or if I did, where was the gap in the logic?