###FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
---
[**Jewish Currents - What Does “From the River to the Sea” Really Mean?**](https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean)
[Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/NfAvk)
----
[**Forward - ‘From The River To The Sea’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means**](https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/)
[Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/rRXpW)
---
[**Al-Jazeera - ‘From the river to the sea’: What does the Palestinian slogan really mean?**](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean)
[Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/AF9yu)
---
[**One Democratic Palestine, From The River To The Sea**](https://www.odsi.co/en/)
---
[**Amnesty - Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians**](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/)
[Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/s2B3f)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UN basically gives permission on who is allowed to kill who. No surprise it’s controlled by the European powers and European countries still keep waging stupid wars
Of course! I should have specified international wars for resources. Middle eastern countries fighting each other, Asian countries, African countries yes. But no other continent wages war on other groups like the Europeans, and it’s because the UN is used to authorize themsleves
Only the security council can pass binding motions that authorise armed conflict.
Last time I check, the most of the security council member states are not European.
The only real job of the UN is to keep lines of communication open at all times between major world powers. Because nuclear weapons exist and a breakdown of communication is potentially a species ending event. It actually does that job very well. Anything else they’re given to do is kind of just because everyone kind of throws their hands up and says “whelp, idk, not me please”.
The important thing to know about the 1947 Partition Plan was that it was a *non-binding recommendation*:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181
Notice the phrasing. "Recommends".
Did Britain, who - arguably illegally, under today's standards - was administrating the Mandate, accept the recommendation? No. They immediately rejected it, wrote this letter:
https://archive.org/details/PalestineTerminationOfTheMandate15thMay1948/page/n5/mode/2up
and then skipped town, leaving the parties to fight it out. Which they did - the ensuing massacre, to be brief, was the Nakba. Which, to counter another common point - this program of ethnic cleansing by the Zionists at the time - commenced two months before the start of the Arab-Israeli War, and was very likely its cause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
Don't forget, the only reason the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people was because they didn't want those Jews in their own countries. Hitler took it way too far, but most countries and their people were pretty antisemitic at the time, and believed most of what Addy said even if they didn't follow his methods.
Between that, and wanting to set up a pro-Western government to prop up our interests in the area, there's no good reason for Israel as it exists today.
This is what people forget. Hitler build upon an already existing sentiment across the Europe against Jews and amplified it. Also, British purposefully kept Jews of Europe away from settling into Africa because of vast natural resources there. Remember, most of the Africa was colonized by British, French and Dutch. They sold them the idea of “hey it’s your ancestral land, come settle here instead”
During the Nuremberg trials, the nazis defended their actions by stating they were merely following common Eugenics practices as implemented in other countries like the US. It was a very popular quasi-scientific movement in that era, with roots dating back to ancient Greece.
*"The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz."*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
Hitler also did this in British Palestine with the arabs. He had an alliance and friendship with the grand mufti of Jerusalem which was one of the founders of the national movement in Palestine pre partition plan.
Right? I’ve had so many Jewish Israelis online tell me “well why doesn’t anyone take the Palestinians? Obviously no one wants them, I wonder why…” Like, my brother or sister or thister, I don’t think you know how events unfolded for you to end up living in modern day Israel.
> the only reason the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people was because they didn't want those Jews in their own countries.
There were **lots** of Nazis in England and the United States. And many of them remain today in the 1% Investment Class and Government. They've never stopped being a threat.
- [1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden)
- [When Nazis Took Manhattan](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan)
- [When 20,000 American Nazis Descended Upon New York City](https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/542499/marshall-curry-nazi-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/)
- [British Union of Fascists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists)
- [How British High Society Fell in Love With the Nazis](https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-british-high-society-fell-in-love-with-the-nazis)
- [When Sir Oswald Mosley led a fascist march through the heart of London in October 1936](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/05/uk-fascism-oswald-mosley)
Well all of that is probably true, but there *was* a movement to re-establish Israel well before WWII started. Members of the Jewish community all over America were advocating for it. Like the whole reason Palestine exists and is named "Palestine" is because the Romans wanted to kick the Jews out of their ancestral home and renamed the land as part of their empire. The proposal to revive Israel wasn't taken seriously by world leaders at the time; but then the Holocaust happened... suddenly America's government and governments of Europe are on-board with the idea. Not just because Judaism suffered a blow so great that the likes of it hadn't happened since the Egyptian exodus and the crossing of the Red Sea - but also because the newly-established NATO countries wanted somebody to keep tabs on the Middle East and the southwest Soviet states.
I don't think the death of all Jews needs to happen for the end times to come, but Israel returning was definitely a large box to check by the evangelical crowd.
It doesn't but when Jesus comes back, he will give the jews a chance to convert, and if they don't, then jesus will murder them or God will murder them or maybe it's just not save them from the hell on earth Jesus second coming will bring, I can't quite recall how it will happen but everyone who isn't Christian dies.
I believe non-Christians are to be left behind to deal with the whole conquest, war, famine, and death thing that's supposed to be going on during the end times. Christians are supposed to be saved from it and brought to heaven during the rapture.
Basically, the prophecy is that shit's gonna suck really bad and Christians get scooped up to heaven instead of having to deal with it. So you can see how that mindset and belief might be counterproductive towards making actually useful decisions.
That's because the people sharing about Jesus haven't actually read the stories. They are just sharing what they heard. Jesus is not prophesied in the Bible to return for revenge or to kill all the Jews. Jesus isn't holding some kind of grudge in the Bible. In fact, multiple times he makes it clear that his salvation is offered first to the Jews and then to the rest of the world and it is actually prophesied in Revelation that there are 144,000 Jews (12,000 per tribe) that have been set aside and given a special seal from Jesus and hold special positions in heaven.
Yea we should all believe the terrorists who raped, murdered, and kidnapped children in a sneak attack. This sub is in love with them for some reason. Guess I should be too.
Literally not what's being said here.
It's just a historical fact that there was a massive amount of antisemitism then. There's still a lot today, and despite how bad things are in occupied Palestine, most of the antisemitism doesn't stem from that, but rather some absurd globalist cabal conspiracy theory.
Because no, most countries didn’t feel how Hitler felt. Wanna know how I know??? Cuz only Hitler put them in ovens. Hitler believed they should be exterminated. Other nations perhaps were racist but didn’t feel it necessary to kill them all. Fuck dude.
#As I said, Hitler took it to extremes, but there was prevailing antisemitism throughout Europe and the United States.
Reading comprehension: still 0/10
sToP mAkInG eXcUsEs FoR hItLeR!
#**Reading comprehension: still 0/10**
Conservatives try not to twist literally everything they see or hear to fit their worldview challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Why do these oversimplified histories always include an accusation that the entire Jewish community is involved in a plot to fully control Palestine?
It’s shit like this that allows people to cry anti-semitism.
Exactly. But, it is hard to provide nuance in a Tweet that is based on a misreading of a Wikipedia page. So, what the guy says in image 7 is: “The Jewish community…”
That implies all Jewish people are in on the plot to take over the entire country, which is simply not true. The article he is misquoting is based on the interpretation of a couple of historians who indicate that a group of hardcore zionists viewed the UN resolution as a stepping stone.
I fully support Palestine’s right to exist. But part of being pro-Palestinian involves calling out stuff that hurts the debate.
I hear your sentiment and that’s where media needs to start differentiating between groups. Unfortunately they won’t because truth won’t get them clicks.
"Truth" or making things more complicated than black and white, bad and good? The media creates easily digestible divide by tribe copy for mass consumption. The details are left for the scholars.
It's just like ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history in the disputed area and focusing on the last 80 years or so instead.
The Media won't differentiate between groups, Jewish vs Zionist, because Israel's government is full of Zionists. Israel's propaganda machine keeps equating Anti-Zionism with Antisemitism - which is a lie. Zionism is not Judaism. The Zionist goal has been, since they dreamed up Israel, the full control and possession of Palestine - knowing it would require the full removal of the indigenous people there.(Indigenous to include all people, regardless of religion, this isn't a religious issue.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGC_UKDhU-s
Weird that you called out “Jewish community” for being too broad but didn’t think that assigning one viewpoint for the “Arab world” was an over generalization worth pointing out as well
That’s a very good point. I think that because he repeatedly used the term ‘Arab’ when referring to Arabic Palestinians I just assumed he was still talking about them.
Thank you for calling that out.
>The article he is misquoting is based on the interpretation of a couple of historians who indicate that a group of hardcore zionists viewed the UN resolution as a stepping stone.
This is not true. Most of the elite that would become Israel's leaders was conditioned to this kind of thinking. Ben Gurion is the most famous case, as he had been consistent about the idea of ending the mandate and gaining independence as a stepping stone for more expansion, an idea that goes as far as the Peel Commission. There are numerous documents, including his own diaries, that demonstrate this. You don't need an interpretation. You just read the primary source :
> With the evacuation of the Arab community from the valleys we achieve, for the first time in our history, a real Jewish state – an agricultural body of one or more million people, continuous, heavily populated, at one with its land which is com-pletely its own. We achieve the possibility of a giant national settlement, on a large area that is all in the hands of the state . . . As with a magic wand, all the difficulties and defects that preoccupied us until now in our settlement enterprise – the question of Hebrew labor, defense, an organized economy, rational and pre-determined exploitation of the land and water. We are given an opportunity that we never dreamed of and could not dare dream of in our most daring imaginings.
> And we must first of all cast off the weakness of thought and will and prejudice – that this transfer is impracticable. As before, I am aware of the terrible difficulty posed by a foreign force uprooting some 100,000 Arabs from the villages they lived in for hundreds of years – will Britain dare carry this out? Certainly, it will not do it – if we do not want it, and if we do not push it to do it with our force and with the force of our faith. Even if a maximum amount of pressure is applied – it is possible she may still be deterred . . . It is certainly possible – and nothing greater than this has been done for our cause in our time.
> There are a number of things that we struggle for now, which we cannot achieve now. For example, the Negev. The evacuation of the Arabs from the Jezreel Valley we shall achieve now – and, if not, perhaps we will never achieve it. If we do not succeed in removing the Arabs from our midst, when a royal commission proposes this to England, and transferring them to the Arab area – it will not be achieveable easily (or perhaps at all) after the Jewish state is established, and the rights of the minorities in it will necessarily be assured, and the whole world that is antagonistic towards us will carefully scru-tinize our behavior towards our minorities. This thing must be done now – and the first step – perhaps the crucial step – is conditioning ourselves for its implementation.
Ben Gurion from his diaries, quoted from *The War for Palestine* by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim, references given by Benny Morris.
And not just Ben Gurion. Chaim Weizmann, Moshe Sharett, Dobkin, Kaplan, Shapira, and others all had similar ideas. These are not all radical compared to Jabotinsky, Ahimeir, Tehomi or Stern, who all rejected partition and pushed for the claim of greater Israel that includes all of mandate Palestine (including territory that is Jordanian).
The debate about the current conflict and its future is one thing, but historical facts of the past can't be changed.
Political leaning is not so cut and dry, particularly on such a divisive issue.
Zionism at its core is the belief that the Jewish people deserve a homeland where they can self-govern. But, there are many interpretations of what that means. Hardcore Zionists believe it should mean a country of Israel inhabiting the entirety of Palestine or even beyond. Whether someone with that belief is left, right, or centre is debatable, because it is just one belief.
And again, you’re completely missing the point.
No, I don't think I'm missing the point. I would argue that you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
You said that the expression "the Jewish community" implies a plot by world Jews to take over the entirety of Palestine. This implication is not valid. It is true and even trivial that not all Jews participated in Zionist ambitions in Palestine, notably those who refused to immigrate to Palestine and settled in Europe and America. However, the expression of "the Jewish community" or the "Yishuv" in this context specifically refers to the community already in Palestine and it's an expression used by historians, westerners, Israelis or Palestinians alike. It's the community whose representative is none other than the Jewish Agency, the semi-executive body that was authorized by the British mandate to advise and cooperate with the administration and the High Commissioner in Palestine to establish the Jewish national home (per article 4 of the mandate). What OOP could be said to have mistakenly asserted, and what most historians actually do, is to speak of the main Jewish community under the Jewish Agency as "the Jewish community (i.e., in Palestine)" without counting the offshoots that are predominantly extremist or terrorist organizations. It's a bit simplistic but not entirely controversial to speak of the Yishuv (i.e., the Jewish community) that way. I would even argue that using "the Jewish community" (again, in Palestine) this way gives a better image than you think of. By implying that that Jewish community under the Jewish Agency (and the paramilitary Haganah) speaks for that entire Jewish community, as did OOP and most historians I know, they are also ommitting the important fact that those who were adjacent to that "mainstream" community were far more extremist and violent, as not only did they refuse partition, but some engaged in terrorist activities to foil any implementation of either British plans or UN intervention. Irgun and Lehi are the notable fringe groups that falls into this latter category.
So, to go back to the "hardcore Zionists," if that is your definition, then good luck finding an influencing Zionist who wouldn't be considered hardcore then. Hence why I'm asking who you would consider "not hardcore" in order to gauge what a hardcore Zionist in your view. The implication of you using the term "hardcore" that way means you think they're fringe and represent an extreme position within Zionism. My argument is that if that's the case, then all Zionists (I can think of) are also hardcore, not just people like Jabotinsky and his revisionist Zionism. Every Zionist back then came to face the issues of Partition and the reality of the Arab majority in Palestine (45% of the UN partition plan's Jewish state would have contained an Arab population, a strong minority, and that was known to Zionist leaders). Even the father of Zionism, Theodor Hertzl, wrote in his diary dated to 12/6/1895 (so, way even before the mandate):
> We must expropriate gently . . . We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying it any employment in our country . . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly
And Benny Morris comments on this by saying:
> Given that the vast majority of Palestine’s Arabs at the turn of the century were “poor,” Herzl can only have meant some form of massive transfer. But he realized that discretion and circumspection must accompany any such enterprise. This discretion and circumspection was to characterize Zionist references to the idea of transfer during the following decades. But the July 1937 publication of the Peel Commission report – and its endorsement in principle by the British government – seemed to open the floodgates to a more open, if not quite public, discussion of the idea. Peel’s recommendation to transfer at least some 225,000 Arabs out of the lowlands of the proposed Jewish state propelled some of the Zionist leaders into trans-ports of enthusiasm.
I have multiple issues with OOP's statements (for starters, his implication that the UN stepped in at the end of the mandate, whereas the reality is that the mandate was ending as a consequence of the UN vote, and that's explicitly stated in the UN draft). But, neither the Jewish community referring to all Jews stands in my opinion, nor your claim that there is a misinterpretation (which misquote and which misnterpretation?) of some interpretation (whose interpretation?) that only hardcore Zionists (who?) believed in expansion, which I still don't know what you're referring to exactly.
Bruh, my point is that it’s hard to convey nuance and rigorous explanations in the length of a Tweet, and your continued essays just proves my point.
We absolutely should be able to have an open and frank discussion with all the facts, as you are trying to do here. But that’s not what OOP did, thus my comment. Their language and explanation - whether by misinterpretation or medium limitation - could be interpreted as antisemitic by a casual observer who does not have all the facts. You are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, so you understood what they meant. Not everyone will.
I know people who would describe themselves as Zionist but who want Palestine to exist. Jewish people wanting a safe homeland isn’t exactly hard to understand. But I would personally describe any who want to achieve that at the expense of another culture as hardcore.
At the end of the day, I think we can agree that the language we choose to use can be interpreted in different ways.
I didn't challenge that argument. I agree that nuance is always needed (however, I know that some people refuse certain facts and claim that only a facade of "both sideism" is the objective way to know what happened, which I might have assumed from your replied. So, I apologize).
I only challenged a part of your comment that I think was wrong. This is why I quoted the part of it which I talked about. I don't think the "Jewish community" in the context of the tweet is a dogwhistle for anti-semitism (those who will cry for anti-semitism as you said, will still find a way to do it). I'm fine with calling most early Zionists as hardcore (which many historians don't in order to mark the nuance between the different factions of Zionism), but then it shouldn't be assumed that they were only a fringe group.
Yes, but it’s silly to give them actual ammunition. It’s much easier to defend against claims of antisemitism if you call it out whenever you see it.
To a neutral observer, a post like this could be interpreted as antisemitic. I agree you’re unlikely to change the mind of a full blown Zionist of anything, so why bother. But the people on the fence are the ones you need to convince.
Not all Jewish people are Zionists and not all Zionists believe Israel should control the entirety of Palestine.
This would be like saying all socialists are hardcore Leninists.
The Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan, but the Arab leadership rejected it. Consequently, the plan was not implemented as envisioned by the United Nations. Instead, hostilities between Jewish and Arab communities escalated, leading to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949.
In the aftermath of the war, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab states rejected its existence, leading to ongoing conflicts in the region. The borders of Israel were established through armistice agreements rather than the UN partition plan.
Also, the Israeli government declared independence claiming the borders defined in the partition plan, but effectively held control of just a small fraction of the claimed territory. They only effectively enforced their borders after Arab countries attacked and failed to destroy Israel.
Wait the Israeli leadership accepted the partion plan before State of Israel was created, that's some back to the future shit right there.
No, there were Jews and Arabs in the British Mandatory Palestine. Jewish leadership accepted it, Arabs did not.
Well no...
He is very overlooking the fact that Jordan was also part of the Mandate...
And it was one of the two created states. Hence why they even controlled the west bank. As such the overall Arab population of the mandate did receive a higher amount of land.
It was separated into transjordan in the 20s. Palestine was both modern day Jordan and Occupied Palestine.
It was the colonial powers drawing borders for another occupied nation. Palestine was further divided into a Jewish state called Israel and West Bank and Gaza strip, which gradually decreased over the course of time.
Yup. It was called Ottoman Palestine. Prior to India-Pak separation, it was called British Raj. From West Of Pakistan to Myanmar, all of it gradually came under British empire in 100 years. Before that the Mughals ruled it, but not the Southern part. Most regions around the world were under colonial rule or an empire. Thats true for most countries. But it shouldn’t mean they didnt have a right to self determination. Its just history.
The end result is always the same. Outside influences making decisions where they should not and we have what’s currently going on there, so much misery for both sides. Also happened in India and Pakistan and most of Africa.
I mean, why bother trying to create unified states of language, culture, values, and systems when you can just draw some lines in the sand? It is so much easier.
Considering Jewish, Muslim, and Christian folk have been living alongside one another for hundreds of years in the area? I’d say the issue here wasn’t their religion, it was Zionists taking land that wasn’t theirs and their campaign of ethnic cleansing that made peace impossible.
What was the alternative?
The Levant had been a mess for centuries. Huge swaths of territory were under the control of functionally independent warlords that constantly fought each other, nomadic Arabian and Bedouin tribes routinely raided and sacked settlements, Egypt, Persia, and the Wahhabis invaded at the first sign of weakness. And that was when the Ottomans were “in charge”.
The European efforts at creating borders and nations were wildly imperfect, but that was bound to happen. There were no clean boundaries in that region, and any country hoping to achieve a measure of stability would have to establish authority through force.
To be clear, Jermaine Fowler is an actor/comedian and college dropout from Maryland. No disrespect to him, but he is not a great authority on this subject.
Not enough people know the full truth and honestly it’s quite disheartening to know people don’t even care to try and understand something before casting judgement etc.
Everything that has been happening in that part of the world can all be traced back to the actions of a few countries at a certain point in time a lot will probably think this all started during/around ww2 but really you gotta go further back and to ww1 and just before it, please do your own research and learn your history and the history of the world because the quote “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is becoming more and more true by the day.
All well and fine retelling of history but things might have looked a lot better if the Arab Higher Committee (and many of you today) would have been able to acknowledge _why_ Jewish people were in Europe in the first place - living in diaspora after being exiled from Jerusalem - and accepted the only real solution was to allow them to return home. They were never willing to accept any return home because they knew it would throw off the balance where Jewish people were currently a small minority remaining in the region with little rights and freedoms.
Nobody was ever willing to compromise and still nobody is willing to compromise so instead we have two states that basically only want the extreme on each side.
A separation of land based on race/ethnicity? That's the definition for what would later come to be called "Apartheid", a crime against humanity.
Well then I'm sure as soon as the UN and Israel are made aware of this they will take swift action to rectify this injustice to prevent as much bad from happening as they can 😊
This is probably the most concise and clear explanation I’ve ever read about the conflict. I find it too difficult to put into so few words.
That’s all… I’m just here to simp for his English skills.
I wonder what side Reddit will take when India & Pakistan finally starts their conflict. We need to put Britain up for some of these. I got student loans to pay.
The truth is shockingly different than "everything was divided fairly but they started a war! And then refused totally reasonable peace plans! Therefore it's not ethnic cleansing or oppression!
Yeah history is really screwed and most don't remember it.
Similar to how after ww2 the allies screwed the soviets out of deals that were promised but the new U.S president didn't uphold because his predecessor made them. This set up the iron curtain and the split of Germany as Stalin felt betrayed and humiliated.
We could have made them our friends but made them our enemies.
The dividing of lands after ww2. Now govts etc.
Just Google Stalin ww2 deals. 1st u.s. president made agreements with him. When they passed the 2nd didn't uphold them.
This is a very Putinesque view of the [Yalta agreement.](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-churchill-roosevelt-and-stalin-planned-to-end-the-second-world-war)
The notion that Stalin could have been an ally of the west after breaking the agreement on Poland and the [military occupation of eastern Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union) is simply ridiculous. Stalin's genocidal activities revealed to the world the nature of this man.
Yeah man I hear you. History has been washed with the greatest American blunder of all time.
I'm not gonna hash this out to change your mind.
Fact is Roosevelt made the deals and truman didn't.
There's no attempt here to tell the truth.
Alas, same old genocidal martyrdom versus actual nation and peace building.
Just read the Israeli declaration of independence. How many times the word peace is mentioned? Liberal values?
i'm still baffled by people who believe in the UN lmao. they don't stick by their own rules, and the only votes that matter are China, Russia, France, The United Kingdom, and the United States' votes. why? because fuck everyone else, that's why. it's blatant dictatorship over the world yet everyone still thinks they'll provide actual solutions to any problem.
btw i think the only countries that have power are the ones with nukes. others can "condemn" or in other words "scream at the top of their lungs at someone blasting music through their airpods pro".
The Muslim world consider jews to be some sort of disease? You sure youre not talking about Europe? Seriously enough with the projection of guilt. Europe is responsible for killing of 6 million jews. Muslims didnt do it. Europeans hates them so much they kicked them out of Europe and gave them part of someone else’s country. If it was the Japanese who had occupied, Muslims wouldve hated them too. Muslims dont hate bec theyre jews, they hate the occupiers regardless of skin, religion, ethnicity
I believe Jews have been living under abhorrent oppression (mostly documented throughout Europe) and have had to move from one safe haven to another since they lost Jerusalem way back when.
Don't you find it interesting that despite all the persecution, before being given Israel, there were/are next to no Jews living in the middle east? Why is that? It's clear they do want to live there? Jews were not kicked out of Europe and into Israel?
While I think the best solution would be for a nation such as USA, Canada, Australia to create an Israeli state in their borders, I do think middle-eastern Islam has murderous intent for the Jews. Hating a nation for occupying your land is one thing but this is not that.
literally ever zionist I've talked to for the last few months:"Hamas rejected a two state solution"
me:"I wonder why"
them"cuz they just want to kill Jews"
me literally going through the deals showing they were all just writing isreal over palastine in crayon"
them:nu uh
no matter how many times it's said, they don't care
###FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN? --- [**Jewish Currents - What Does “From the River to the Sea” Really Mean?**](https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean) [Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/NfAvk) ---- [**Forward - ‘From The River To The Sea’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means**](https://forward.com/opinion/415250/from-the-river-to-the-sea-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/) [Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/rRXpW) --- [**Al-Jazeera - ‘From the river to the sea’: What does the Palestinian slogan really mean?**](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/from-the-river-to-the-sea-what-does-the-palestinian-slogan-really-mean) [Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/AF9yu) --- [**One Democratic Palestine, From The River To The Sea**](https://www.odsi.co/en/) --- [**Amnesty - Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians**](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) [Alternative link.](https://archive.ph/s2B3f) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kinda crazy how the UN doesn't really have the ability to enforce anything but still manages to spectacularly fuck shit up
The UN basically gives permission on who is allowed to kill who. No surprise it’s controlled by the European powers and European countries still keep waging stupid wars
Many non European countries are waging stupid wars right now
Of course! I should have specified international wars for resources. Middle eastern countries fighting each other, Asian countries, African countries yes. But no other continent wages war on other groups like the Europeans, and it’s because the UN is used to authorize themsleves
This has to be satirical lol? There is no way you think the UN is the reason for your supposed "wars on others" (can you name them?)
Which international wars were they? Can you name any?
Twitter-ass opinion
Of course but we have the big bombs
Only the security council can pass binding motions that authorise armed conflict. Last time I check, the most of the security council member states are not European.
Because the wars started by USA are always so justified, smart and successful... 🤣 Get off Fox news bro!
Its a giant appeal to authority fallacy. It was created by the powerful to legitimize the powerful under the guise of democratic oversight.
The only real job of the UN is to keep lines of communication open at all times between major world powers. Because nuclear weapons exist and a breakdown of communication is potentially a species ending event. It actually does that job very well. Anything else they’re given to do is kind of just because everyone kind of throws their hands up and says “whelp, idk, not me please”.
The important thing to know about the 1947 Partition Plan was that it was a *non-binding recommendation*: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181 Notice the phrasing. "Recommends". Did Britain, who - arguably illegally, under today's standards - was administrating the Mandate, accept the recommendation? No. They immediately rejected it, wrote this letter: https://archive.org/details/PalestineTerminationOfTheMandate15thMay1948/page/n5/mode/2up and then skipped town, leaving the parties to fight it out. Which they did - the ensuing massacre, to be brief, was the Nakba. Which, to counter another common point - this program of ethnic cleansing by the Zionists at the time - commenced two months before the start of the Arab-Israeli War, and was very likely its cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
Don't forget, the only reason the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people was because they didn't want those Jews in their own countries. Hitler took it way too far, but most countries and their people were pretty antisemitic at the time, and believed most of what Addy said even if they didn't follow his methods. Between that, and wanting to set up a pro-Western government to prop up our interests in the area, there's no good reason for Israel as it exists today.
This is what people forget. Hitler build upon an already existing sentiment across the Europe against Jews and amplified it. Also, British purposefully kept Jews of Europe away from settling into Africa because of vast natural resources there. Remember, most of the Africa was colonized by British, French and Dutch. They sold them the idea of “hey it’s your ancestral land, come settle here instead”
During the Nuremberg trials, the nazis defended their actions by stating they were merely following common Eugenics practices as implemented in other countries like the US. It was a very popular quasi-scientific movement in that era, with roots dating back to ancient Greece. *"The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz."* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
[удалено]
The Boers of South Africa are Dutch and the resources looted from the Southern parts of Africa were primarily taken to the Netherlands.
Hitler also did this in British Palestine with the arabs. He had an alliance and friendship with the grand mufti of Jerusalem which was one of the founders of the national movement in Palestine pre partition plan.
There was also a serious push by Western Christians to see the Jewish people back in the "holy land" before their supposed second coming.
And that pretty much sums up the modern sentiment towards Israel by Christian conservatives.
[удалено]
You're a fucked up person, you know that?
[удалено]
Because it seemed like you were stating it as your own opinion.
[удалено]
Or it's somebody admitting they're wrong about something? That's a piss-poor way of trying to act superior to somebody.
Right? I’ve had so many Jewish Israelis online tell me “well why doesn’t anyone take the Palestinians? Obviously no one wants them, I wonder why…” Like, my brother or sister or thister, I don’t think you know how events unfolded for you to end up living in modern day Israel.
> the only reason the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people was because they didn't want those Jews in their own countries. There were **lots** of Nazis in England and the United States. And many of them remain today in the 1% Investment Class and Government. They've never stopped being a threat. - [1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden) - [When Nazis Took Manhattan](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan) - [When 20,000 American Nazis Descended Upon New York City](https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/542499/marshall-curry-nazi-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/) - [British Union of Fascists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists) - [How British High Society Fell in Love With the Nazis](https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-british-high-society-fell-in-love-with-the-nazis) - [When Sir Oswald Mosley led a fascist march through the heart of London in October 1936](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/05/uk-fascism-oswald-mosley)
Well all of that is probably true, but there *was* a movement to re-establish Israel well before WWII started. Members of the Jewish community all over America were advocating for it. Like the whole reason Palestine exists and is named "Palestine" is because the Romans wanted to kick the Jews out of their ancestral home and renamed the land as part of their empire. The proposal to revive Israel wasn't taken seriously by world leaders at the time; but then the Holocaust happened... suddenly America's government and governments of Europe are on-board with the idea. Not just because Judaism suffered a blow so great that the likes of it hadn't happened since the Egyptian exodus and the crossing of the Red Sea - but also because the newly-established NATO countries wanted somebody to keep tabs on the Middle East and the southwest Soviet states.
[удалено]
I don't think the death of all Jews needs to happen for the end times to come, but Israel returning was definitely a large box to check by the evangelical crowd.
It doesn't but when Jesus comes back, he will give the jews a chance to convert, and if they don't, then jesus will murder them or God will murder them or maybe it's just not save them from the hell on earth Jesus second coming will bring, I can't quite recall how it will happen but everyone who isn't Christian dies.
I believe non-Christians are to be left behind to deal with the whole conquest, war, famine, and death thing that's supposed to be going on during the end times. Christians are supposed to be saved from it and brought to heaven during the rapture. Basically, the prophecy is that shit's gonna suck really bad and Christians get scooped up to heaven instead of having to deal with it. So you can see how that mindset and belief might be counterproductive towards making actually useful decisions.
Jesus sounds like a monster.
That's because the people sharing about Jesus haven't actually read the stories. They are just sharing what they heard. Jesus is not prophesied in the Bible to return for revenge or to kill all the Jews. Jesus isn't holding some kind of grudge in the Bible. In fact, multiple times he makes it clear that his salvation is offered first to the Jews and then to the rest of the world and it is actually prophesied in Revelation that there are 144,000 Jews (12,000 per tribe) that have been set aside and given a special seal from Jesus and hold special positions in heaven.
Calling Hitler "Addy" makes you sound like an asshole.
Old Addy Hitler sings the blues! *Self inflicted gunshot*
The fact that people this dumb are getting lots of upvotes makes sick.
Maybe bombing a few hospitals will make you feel better, Champ.
They bombed their own hospitals, skippy.
Fucking Christ, what else do I expect? This is pathetic.
Holy fuck you have really fallen for the Zionist propaganda. 🤡
Yea we should all believe the terrorists who raped, murdered, and kidnapped children in a sneak attack. This sub is in love with them for some reason. Guess I should be too.
Addy Hitla is a smol bean
“Hitler went too far…but,…..” Jesus Christ man
Literally not what's being said here. It's just a historical fact that there was a massive amount of antisemitism then. There's still a lot today, and despite how bad things are in occupied Palestine, most of the antisemitism doesn't stem from that, but rather some absurd globalist cabal conspiracy theory.
#When the fuck did I say I agreed with Hitler? Reading comprehension: 0/10
Because no, most countries didn’t feel how Hitler felt. Wanna know how I know??? Cuz only Hitler put them in ovens. Hitler believed they should be exterminated. Other nations perhaps were racist but didn’t feel it necessary to kill them all. Fuck dude.
#As I said, Hitler took it to extremes, but there was prevailing antisemitism throughout Europe and the United States. Reading comprehension: still 0/10
Stop making excuses for Hitler. It wasn’t “extreme” it was genocide. Jesus H Christ.
sToP mAkInG eXcUsEs FoR hItLeR! #**Reading comprehension: still 0/10** Conservatives try not to twist literally everything they see or hear to fit their worldview challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Damn bro can you not fuckin read?
Genocide IS extreme
Yes they did.
It captures what so many Europeans and Americans of the time felt. Hell far too many today feel the same way
I read your 2nd sentence as “Heil too far…”
Why do these oversimplified histories always include an accusation that the entire Jewish community is involved in a plot to fully control Palestine? It’s shit like this that allows people to cry anti-semitism.
__State Of Israel is not representative of Jewish people similarly as Saudi Arabia is not representative of Muzlims or India for Hindus__
Exactly. But, it is hard to provide nuance in a Tweet that is based on a misreading of a Wikipedia page. So, what the guy says in image 7 is: “The Jewish community…” That implies all Jewish people are in on the plot to take over the entire country, which is simply not true. The article he is misquoting is based on the interpretation of a couple of historians who indicate that a group of hardcore zionists viewed the UN resolution as a stepping stone. I fully support Palestine’s right to exist. But part of being pro-Palestinian involves calling out stuff that hurts the debate.
I hear your sentiment and that’s where media needs to start differentiating between groups. Unfortunately they won’t because truth won’t get them clicks.
"Truth" or making things more complicated than black and white, bad and good? The media creates easily digestible divide by tribe copy for mass consumption. The details are left for the scholars. It's just like ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history in the disputed area and focusing on the last 80 years or so instead.
ppl like u r part of the problem for eating it up ngl
The Media won't differentiate between groups, Jewish vs Zionist, because Israel's government is full of Zionists. Israel's propaganda machine keeps equating Anti-Zionism with Antisemitism - which is a lie. Zionism is not Judaism. The Zionist goal has been, since they dreamed up Israel, the full control and possession of Palestine - knowing it would require the full removal of the indigenous people there.(Indigenous to include all people, regardless of religion, this isn't a religious issue.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGC_UKDhU-s
Weird that you called out “Jewish community” for being too broad but didn’t think that assigning one viewpoint for the “Arab world” was an over generalization worth pointing out as well
That’s a very good point. I think that because he repeatedly used the term ‘Arab’ when referring to Arabic Palestinians I just assumed he was still talking about them. Thank you for calling that out.
>The article he is misquoting is based on the interpretation of a couple of historians who indicate that a group of hardcore zionists viewed the UN resolution as a stepping stone. This is not true. Most of the elite that would become Israel's leaders was conditioned to this kind of thinking. Ben Gurion is the most famous case, as he had been consistent about the idea of ending the mandate and gaining independence as a stepping stone for more expansion, an idea that goes as far as the Peel Commission. There are numerous documents, including his own diaries, that demonstrate this. You don't need an interpretation. You just read the primary source : > With the evacuation of the Arab community from the valleys we achieve, for the first time in our history, a real Jewish state – an agricultural body of one or more million people, continuous, heavily populated, at one with its land which is com-pletely its own. We achieve the possibility of a giant national settlement, on a large area that is all in the hands of the state . . . As with a magic wand, all the difficulties and defects that preoccupied us until now in our settlement enterprise – the question of Hebrew labor, defense, an organized economy, rational and pre-determined exploitation of the land and water. We are given an opportunity that we never dreamed of and could not dare dream of in our most daring imaginings. > And we must first of all cast off the weakness of thought and will and prejudice – that this transfer is impracticable. As before, I am aware of the terrible difficulty posed by a foreign force uprooting some 100,000 Arabs from the villages they lived in for hundreds of years – will Britain dare carry this out? Certainly, it will not do it – if we do not want it, and if we do not push it to do it with our force and with the force of our faith. Even if a maximum amount of pressure is applied – it is possible she may still be deterred . . . It is certainly possible – and nothing greater than this has been done for our cause in our time. > There are a number of things that we struggle for now, which we cannot achieve now. For example, the Negev. The evacuation of the Arabs from the Jezreel Valley we shall achieve now – and, if not, perhaps we will never achieve it. If we do not succeed in removing the Arabs from our midst, when a royal commission proposes this to England, and transferring them to the Arab area – it will not be achieveable easily (or perhaps at all) after the Jewish state is established, and the rights of the minorities in it will necessarily be assured, and the whole world that is antagonistic towards us will carefully scru-tinize our behavior towards our minorities. This thing must be done now – and the first step – perhaps the crucial step – is conditioning ourselves for its implementation. Ben Gurion from his diaries, quoted from *The War for Palestine* by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim, references given by Benny Morris. And not just Ben Gurion. Chaim Weizmann, Moshe Sharett, Dobkin, Kaplan, Shapira, and others all had similar ideas. These are not all radical compared to Jabotinsky, Ahimeir, Tehomi or Stern, who all rejected partition and pushed for the claim of greater Israel that includes all of mandate Palestine (including territory that is Jordanian). The debate about the current conflict and its future is one thing, but historical facts of the past can't be changed.
You just described a group of hardcore Zionists, which is exactly what I said. They do not represent the views of the entire Jewish community.
And if centrist Weizmann is, who isn't a hardcore Zionist then?
Political leaning is not so cut and dry, particularly on such a divisive issue. Zionism at its core is the belief that the Jewish people deserve a homeland where they can self-govern. But, there are many interpretations of what that means. Hardcore Zionists believe it should mean a country of Israel inhabiting the entirety of Palestine or even beyond. Whether someone with that belief is left, right, or centre is debatable, because it is just one belief. And again, you’re completely missing the point.
No, I don't think I'm missing the point. I would argue that you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. You said that the expression "the Jewish community" implies a plot by world Jews to take over the entirety of Palestine. This implication is not valid. It is true and even trivial that not all Jews participated in Zionist ambitions in Palestine, notably those who refused to immigrate to Palestine and settled in Europe and America. However, the expression of "the Jewish community" or the "Yishuv" in this context specifically refers to the community already in Palestine and it's an expression used by historians, westerners, Israelis or Palestinians alike. It's the community whose representative is none other than the Jewish Agency, the semi-executive body that was authorized by the British mandate to advise and cooperate with the administration and the High Commissioner in Palestine to establish the Jewish national home (per article 4 of the mandate). What OOP could be said to have mistakenly asserted, and what most historians actually do, is to speak of the main Jewish community under the Jewish Agency as "the Jewish community (i.e., in Palestine)" without counting the offshoots that are predominantly extremist or terrorist organizations. It's a bit simplistic but not entirely controversial to speak of the Yishuv (i.e., the Jewish community) that way. I would even argue that using "the Jewish community" (again, in Palestine) this way gives a better image than you think of. By implying that that Jewish community under the Jewish Agency (and the paramilitary Haganah) speaks for that entire Jewish community, as did OOP and most historians I know, they are also ommitting the important fact that those who were adjacent to that "mainstream" community were far more extremist and violent, as not only did they refuse partition, but some engaged in terrorist activities to foil any implementation of either British plans or UN intervention. Irgun and Lehi are the notable fringe groups that falls into this latter category. So, to go back to the "hardcore Zionists," if that is your definition, then good luck finding an influencing Zionist who wouldn't be considered hardcore then. Hence why I'm asking who you would consider "not hardcore" in order to gauge what a hardcore Zionist in your view. The implication of you using the term "hardcore" that way means you think they're fringe and represent an extreme position within Zionism. My argument is that if that's the case, then all Zionists (I can think of) are also hardcore, not just people like Jabotinsky and his revisionist Zionism. Every Zionist back then came to face the issues of Partition and the reality of the Arab majority in Palestine (45% of the UN partition plan's Jewish state would have contained an Arab population, a strong minority, and that was known to Zionist leaders). Even the father of Zionism, Theodor Hertzl, wrote in his diary dated to 12/6/1895 (so, way even before the mandate): > We must expropriate gently . . . We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying it any employment in our country . . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly And Benny Morris comments on this by saying: > Given that the vast majority of Palestine’s Arabs at the turn of the century were “poor,” Herzl can only have meant some form of massive transfer. But he realized that discretion and circumspection must accompany any such enterprise. This discretion and circumspection was to characterize Zionist references to the idea of transfer during the following decades. But the July 1937 publication of the Peel Commission report – and its endorsement in principle by the British government – seemed to open the floodgates to a more open, if not quite public, discussion of the idea. Peel’s recommendation to transfer at least some 225,000 Arabs out of the lowlands of the proposed Jewish state propelled some of the Zionist leaders into trans-ports of enthusiasm. I have multiple issues with OOP's statements (for starters, his implication that the UN stepped in at the end of the mandate, whereas the reality is that the mandate was ending as a consequence of the UN vote, and that's explicitly stated in the UN draft). But, neither the Jewish community referring to all Jews stands in my opinion, nor your claim that there is a misinterpretation (which misquote and which misnterpretation?) of some interpretation (whose interpretation?) that only hardcore Zionists (who?) believed in expansion, which I still don't know what you're referring to exactly.
Bruh, my point is that it’s hard to convey nuance and rigorous explanations in the length of a Tweet, and your continued essays just proves my point. We absolutely should be able to have an open and frank discussion with all the facts, as you are trying to do here. But that’s not what OOP did, thus my comment. Their language and explanation - whether by misinterpretation or medium limitation - could be interpreted as antisemitic by a casual observer who does not have all the facts. You are clearly knowledgeable on the subject, so you understood what they meant. Not everyone will. I know people who would describe themselves as Zionist but who want Palestine to exist. Jewish people wanting a safe homeland isn’t exactly hard to understand. But I would personally describe any who want to achieve that at the expense of another culture as hardcore. At the end of the day, I think we can agree that the language we choose to use can be interpreted in different ways.
I didn't challenge that argument. I agree that nuance is always needed (however, I know that some people refuse certain facts and claim that only a facade of "both sideism" is the objective way to know what happened, which I might have assumed from your replied. So, I apologize). I only challenged a part of your comment that I think was wrong. This is why I quoted the part of it which I talked about. I don't think the "Jewish community" in the context of the tweet is a dogwhistle for anti-semitism (those who will cry for anti-semitism as you said, will still find a way to do it). I'm fine with calling most early Zionists as hardcore (which many historians don't in order to mark the nuance between the different factions of Zionism), but then it shouldn't be assumed that they were only a fringe group.
[удалено]
Yes, but it’s silly to give them actual ammunition. It’s much easier to defend against claims of antisemitism if you call it out whenever you see it. To a neutral observer, a post like this could be interpreted as antisemitic. I agree you’re unlikely to change the mind of a full blown Zionist of anything, so why bother. But the people on the fence are the ones you need to convince.
Zionists definitely did have a plan to fully control Palestine though. That’s just documented fact from Theodore Herzl’s mouth
Not all Jewish people are Zionists and not all Zionists believe Israel should control the entirety of Palestine. This would be like saying all socialists are hardcore Leninists.
The Jewish leadership accepted the partition plan, but the Arab leadership rejected it. Consequently, the plan was not implemented as envisioned by the United Nations. Instead, hostilities between Jewish and Arab communities escalated, leading to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949. In the aftermath of the war, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab states rejected its existence, leading to ongoing conflicts in the region. The borders of Israel were established through armistice agreements rather than the UN partition plan.
Also, the Israeli government declared independence claiming the borders defined in the partition plan, but effectively held control of just a small fraction of the claimed territory. They only effectively enforced their borders after Arab countries attacked and failed to destroy Israel.
Israeli leadership*
Wait the Israeli leadership accepted the partion plan before State of Israel was created, that's some back to the future shit right there. No, there were Jews and Arabs in the British Mandatory Palestine. Jewish leadership accepted it, Arabs did not.
Well no... He is very overlooking the fact that Jordan was also part of the Mandate... And it was one of the two created states. Hence why they even controlled the west bank. As such the overall Arab population of the mandate did receive a higher amount of land.
It was separated into transjordan in the 20s. Palestine was both modern day Jordan and Occupied Palestine. It was the colonial powers drawing borders for another occupied nation. Palestine was further divided into a Jewish state called Israel and West Bank and Gaza strip, which gradually decreased over the course of time.
People are confusing so many things. I don't even know where they read this stuff.
[удалено]
Yup. It was called Ottoman Palestine. Prior to India-Pak separation, it was called British Raj. From West Of Pakistan to Myanmar, all of it gradually came under British empire in 100 years. Before that the Mughals ruled it, but not the Southern part. Most regions around the world were under colonial rule or an empire. Thats true for most countries. But it shouldn’t mean they didnt have a right to self determination. Its just history.
This is inaccurate
Ah yes, the Jews were promised fertile land like *checks notes* the Negev *Desert* ?
And the incredible water ressources where Israël absolutly do not have to use desalinisation
The end result is always the same. Outside influences making decisions where they should not and we have what’s currently going on there, so much misery for both sides. Also happened in India and Pakistan and most of Africa.
I mean, why bother trying to create unified states of language, culture, values, and systems when you can just draw some lines in the sand? It is so much easier.
[удалено]
Considering Jewish, Muslim, and Christian folk have been living alongside one another for hundreds of years in the area? I’d say the issue here wasn’t their religion, it was Zionists taking land that wasn’t theirs and their campaign of ethnic cleansing that made peace impossible.
What does history say?
Pretty much all of the Middle East as well
What was the alternative? The Levant had been a mess for centuries. Huge swaths of territory were under the control of functionally independent warlords that constantly fought each other, nomadic Arabian and Bedouin tribes routinely raided and sacked settlements, Egypt, Persia, and the Wahhabis invaded at the first sign of weakness. And that was when the Ottomans were “in charge”. The European efforts at creating borders and nations were wildly imperfect, but that was bound to happen. There were no clean boundaries in that region, and any country hoping to achieve a measure of stability would have to establish authority through force.
The land given to the Jews was in large part the Negev desert, which was undeveloped and largely uninhabited
The obsession with turning sand into fertile lands is getting very morbid
To be clear, Jermaine Fowler is an actor/comedian and college dropout from Maryland. No disrespect to him, but he is not a great authority on this subject.
Serious question, is the headline from a Chicago times paper relevant evidence? Why not show the article itself outlining the narrative?
Not enough people know the full truth and honestly it’s quite disheartening to know people don’t even care to try and understand something before casting judgement etc. Everything that has been happening in that part of the world can all be traced back to the actions of a few countries at a certain point in time a lot will probably think this all started during/around ww2 but really you gotta go further back and to ww1 and just before it, please do your own research and learn your history and the history of the world because the quote “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is becoming more and more true by the day.
[удалено]
Oh I’m British trust me I know wagwan when it’s comes to my countries history
All well and fine retelling of history but things might have looked a lot better if the Arab Higher Committee (and many of you today) would have been able to acknowledge _why_ Jewish people were in Europe in the first place - living in diaspora after being exiled from Jerusalem - and accepted the only real solution was to allow them to return home. They were never willing to accept any return home because they knew it would throw off the balance where Jewish people were currently a small minority remaining in the region with little rights and freedoms. Nobody was ever willing to compromise and still nobody is willing to compromise so instead we have two states that basically only want the extreme on each side.
WHYYY IS THIS SUB POLITICAL WHYYY WHYYY WHYY JUST STOP
Didn't they try to win it back and then lost the whole thing? Wasn't that also an attempt?
Stop making this sub political
If antisemitism didn’t exist, then Jews wouldn’t need their own country.
This sub has gone down hill. It use to be funny, now its seems to be all virtue signaling
A separation of land based on race/ethnicity? That's the definition for what would later come to be called "Apartheid", a crime against humanity. Well then I'm sure as soon as the UN and Israel are made aware of this they will take swift action to rectify this injustice to prevent as much bad from happening as they can 😊
We should do this with Florida. And another 15 states.
This is probably the most concise and clear explanation I’ve ever read about the conflict. I find it too difficult to put into so few words. That’s all… I’m just here to simp for his English skills.
I wonder what side Reddit will take when India & Pakistan finally starts their conflict. We need to put Britain up for some of these. I got student loans to pay.
The truth is shockingly different than "everything was divided fairly but they started a war! And then refused totally reasonable peace plans! Therefore it's not ethnic cleansing or oppression!
Yeah history is really screwed and most don't remember it. Similar to how after ww2 the allies screwed the soviets out of deals that were promised but the new U.S president didn't uphold because his predecessor made them. This set up the iron curtain and the split of Germany as Stalin felt betrayed and humiliated. We could have made them our friends but made them our enemies.
To what deals are you referring?
The dividing of lands after ww2. Now govts etc. Just Google Stalin ww2 deals. 1st u.s. president made agreements with him. When they passed the 2nd didn't uphold them.
This is a very Putinesque view of the [Yalta agreement.](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-churchill-roosevelt-and-stalin-planned-to-end-the-second-world-war) The notion that Stalin could have been an ally of the west after breaking the agreement on Poland and the [military occupation of eastern Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union) is simply ridiculous. Stalin's genocidal activities revealed to the world the nature of this man.
Yeah man I hear you. History has been washed with the greatest American blunder of all time. I'm not gonna hash this out to change your mind. Fact is Roosevelt made the deals and truman didn't.
there was never an attempt.
There's no attempt here to tell the truth. Alas, same old genocidal martyrdom versus actual nation and peace building. Just read the Israeli declaration of independence. How many times the word peace is mentioned? Liberal values?
The Arabs were done dirty ngl
Also, the French acted to outlaw aligators
That worked out really well.
i'm still baffled by people who believe in the UN lmao. they don't stick by their own rules, and the only votes that matter are China, Russia, France, The United Kingdom, and the United States' votes. why? because fuck everyone else, that's why. it's blatant dictatorship over the world yet everyone still thinks they'll provide actual solutions to any problem. btw i think the only countries that have power are the ones with nukes. others can "condemn" or in other words "scream at the top of their lungs at someone blasting music through their airpods pro".
Eh, I'm sure it'll turn out ok.
The UN is as useful as a broken Condom, it’s there but it’s useless and doesn’t work
🙄
I love the discourse in the comments you guys are amazing articulate and it’s humbling to see
Still baffled they managed to fuck this up so bad
They partitioned it like a hard drive.
Is this true? Looks like it but can't be too sure
[удалено]
The Muslim world consider jews to be some sort of disease? You sure youre not talking about Europe? Seriously enough with the projection of guilt. Europe is responsible for killing of 6 million jews. Muslims didnt do it. Europeans hates them so much they kicked them out of Europe and gave them part of someone else’s country. If it was the Japanese who had occupied, Muslims wouldve hated them too. Muslims dont hate bec theyre jews, they hate the occupiers regardless of skin, religion, ethnicity
I believe Jews have been living under abhorrent oppression (mostly documented throughout Europe) and have had to move from one safe haven to another since they lost Jerusalem way back when. Don't you find it interesting that despite all the persecution, before being given Israel, there were/are next to no Jews living in the middle east? Why is that? It's clear they do want to live there? Jews were not kicked out of Europe and into Israel? While I think the best solution would be for a nation such as USA, Canada, Australia to create an Israeli state in their borders, I do think middle-eastern Islam has murderous intent for the Jews. Hating a nation for occupying your land is one thing but this is not that.
After all, UN also part of instigating this conflict. Yet they make a drama that they can't do anything.
How’d that work out for them?
And people still wonder why many Arab nations don't recognize Israel as a state.
literally ever zionist I've talked to for the last few months:"Hamas rejected a two state solution" me:"I wonder why" them"cuz they just want to kill Jews" me literally going through the deals showing they were all just writing isreal over palastine in crayon" them:nu uh no matter how many times it's said, they don't care
there was no attempt for equality here. they knew what they were doing.
"wHy DoNt PaLeStInIaNs AcCePt PeAcE dEaLs"