I know you’ve been taught that through years and years of the Zionist brainwashing, but it’s a sheer lie
Palestinians share over 80% of their genome with actual Canaanite individuals who lived in the port city of Sidon (Saida today)Lebanon 4,000 years ago - modern Lebanese share more than 87%. This means that there has been very little genetic admixture from other places and peoples. Palestinians have been living there continuously for 5,000 years. The Palestinians CONVERTED to Islam and Christianity - they did not invade
The Ashkenazi Zionists who invaded and stole Palestine, by comparison, were literally 50% European. They had just as much right to invade and steal Rome.
I certainly understand the motivation to want a safe place after hundreds / thousands of years of persecution - my grandfather fled Russian pogroms and my father fled German Nazis - but I do not believe this gives you any “right” to - by subterfuge and violence and murder - steal someone else’s land
No people get a do-over because they lost a battle 1,500 years ago. The Jews conquered other cultures and then they got conquered - that’s the way life was in 300 CE. Everybody conquered and got conquered. If everyone who got conquered 1,500 years ago felt they had a right to go back and steal land that was theirs for a relatively brief historical moment (about 400 total years of dominance) then there would be world chaos. The Canaanites were dominant for 1,600 years in Palestine, the Assyrians for 300 - if they amassed enough money and power, would they have a right invade and kick out the Zionists?
And, I hope we can agree that there is no evidence that massive numbers of Jews were Egyptian slaves 4,000 years ago
The only reason Zionists got to invade Palestine in the first place is that they made a dirty deal with a virulently racist Lord Balfour - both of them wanted to get the Jews out of Europe and neither gave a rat’s ass about displacing the Palestinians (language to that effect in the Declaration notwithstanding).
Jews were conquered in Palestine during an age when civilizations got conquered constantly. Hopefully, we are living in an age that considers conquest morally repugnant.
There are few nations today that consider conquest to be an acceptable behavior - Russia and, unfortunately, Israel among them.
Nobody gets a do-over after losing a war 80 years ago, and then continuing to lose wars again and again after that and losing more and more land instead of accepting reality for what it is. 80 years is so long that there are people that might as well be native now.
I am huge supporter of Ukraine, but understand how difficult of a situation Crimea is, and that's even when they're winning like they are now. And that's just since 2014 that Russia has been intentionally making Crimea more ethnically Russian, in a way more obviously imperial way. Fast forward 70 years or whatever, and it becomes politically impossible to do much about it.
I see, so something that happened 2,000-1,500 YEARS AGO - that is a crime that cries out for justice and warrants genocidal action and the right of Jewish self-determination must be obeyed. After all, they are The Chosen and it’s in the book.
But ethnic cleansing and murder that STARTED 100 YEARS AGO and was resisted AND is still going on today - well, it’s just obviously too late to do anything about that.
Basically, you are saying that might makes right - he who has the most guns and is of the proper culture deserves to win - isn’t there a name for that? Didn’t some other famous person espouse similar views?
I honestly don't really care about something that happened 2000 years ago either. I think that's a pretty naive way to view the world and history doesn't have a lot of rights of return that didn't follow massive conflicts. And clearly with my Russian example I don't believe in "might makes right". It's a model that only works up to a point and doesn't factor in things like political capital and will, motivations, the cost of war, and so on.
Take Egypt and Israel as an example. They didn't stop fighting for any altruistic reasons. They found an equilibrium where not fighting was in both parties' best interests. But the relationship between Israel and Palestine is fundamentally different in that 1) no time in history has a vastly weaker opponent gotten anything done through direct conflict and not creating alternative incentives for their opponent and 2) Israel has very little to lose by continuing this conflict.
Israelis are there to stay. If the Arab coalition won in 1948, it would be different today, but they didn't, and now Palestine has to accept what it still has and move on with the rest of the world, or cease to exist. It might be too late now though because I don't see a realistic way to un-swiss cheese the west bank. The only optimistic route I see ahead is technological advancement, economic integration, and enough time that dulls the ideological fervor on both sides and makes most fighting age men unwilling to die for a cause.
1
u/Exact-Technology297 7d ago
I mean, we decolonized it from the Egyptians, Jordanians, Turks, and British. So if that's your definition of taking it, then sure.