feddit.org

-4 points

26 days ago

You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.

I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.

report

[ - ]

small44@lemmy.world

6 points

26 days ago

What’s dumb is comparing a conflict between two native populations over territorial conflict to an actual occupation by people who came from all over Europe to steal land of people who lived there

The 67 occupation is connected to the partition where zionists didn’t really believe in it as stated by their own admission

report

[ - ]

-5 points

26 days ago

You seem to have a very, very simplistic idea of the rather complicated and less black and white history here

The first immigrants that expanded the congregation that eventually grew into Israel were ‘internal’ , hoping that this would allow them to escape or alleviate discrimination by their Ottoman rulers. But the first ‘big push’ in those early days came from Ukraine and Russia, hoping to escape the genocides and creating a new country from a slice of the crumbling Ottoman Empire.

report

[ - ]

small44@lemmy.world

6 points

26 days ago

The ottoman empire was not only hostile to Jews but also Arabs that’s why there was Arab tribes that revolted against them. Palestinians has nothing to do with the ottomans wrong doing and to what happened to Jews in Europe.I will also reiterate that zionist leader didn’t believe in respecting the potential partition

report

[ - ]

-4 points

26 days ago

Do you think the Arab Palestinian leaders believed in respecting the potential partitition??

Indeed, many regions saw uprisings against the Ottomans, with some being genocided and some managing to break off and form their own country. Depending on the period and sultan, jews were actually better off under the Ottomans than they were under other muslim or christian rulers. Relatively speaking of course, because they were always still systemically discriminated against based on their religion. When they saw the Ottoman empire itself turn away from the relative self-rule system for religions towards forced pan-islamism, and the regions that managed to break away towards their own religious fundamentalism (because the factions coming out on top were almost always of such aligment), one could see the writing on the wall and the logical escape path would be to try and form their own country as well.

report

[ - ]

small44@lemmy.world

5 points

26 days ago

Again why would people living in the area accept recent immigrant making a state in the land? Zionists logic is was that an Jewish kingdom in the land few centuries ago so it’s their land only eternally. With the same logic muslims would have the right to reoccupy the Iberian peninsula because they ruled it for 800 years

report

[ - ]

-1 points

25 days ago

Very correct indeed! When you look at history, there’s almost no country existing today that was created from friendship

report

[ - ]

3 points

26 days ago

First Aliyah (1881-1903): Approximately 25,000 (Primarily from Eastern Europe and Yemen)
Second Aliyah (1904-1914): Approximately 35,000 (Mainly from Russia and Yemen)
Third Aliyah (1919-1923): Approximately 35,000 (Mostly from the Soviet Union, Poland, and the Baltic countries)
Fourth Aliyah (1924-1931): Around 82,000 (Predominantly from the Balkans and the Near East)
Fifth Aliyah (1932-1939): About 250,000 (Primarily from Germany and Austria)
Post-World War II (1945-1946): An additional 100,000 (Including Holocaust survivors from various European countries)

So the majority wasn’t internal migration

report