No, they (both sides) need to respect the other sides historical right to the land and need accept that they might need to live beside each other if they want to live on that piece of land.
Since the end of the cold war Israelis have pushed her to peace. Since the assassination of Rabin Israel, while divided on the issue, has largely been willing to go down a path to peace, independent coexistence. As evidenced by the various peace deals they’ve signed to that extend.
The violence from Gaza after the 2004 deal, which established the 67 borders and evicted all settlers from Gaza; has unfortunately caused Israel to stop believing peace is possible.
Gaza was a prove it deal, if there’s no peace im Gaza there’s no reason to believe a similar action in the West Bank would lead to peace.
Today there are roughly 48,000 people who live in Acre. Among Israeli cities, Acre has a relatively high proportion of non-Jewish residents, with 32% of the population being Arab.
Now, how many Jewish residents there are in Gaza strip (after 2005 unilateral disengagement)?
Which side seems to respect the other side historical right to live in peace?
No country (ethnostate especially) has a right to exist. The people have rights to live unmolested lives to the fullest (just like the Palestinians), but states have no rights.
Are we referring to the right to exist in ancestral lands where largely, the only claim to such lands are a millennias old religious text? The current occupants of said land have actual, clear historical precedence rooted in fact to occupy said land.
Also, as others have pointed out, I think it’s pretty clear that Israel could exist anywhere. The concept of a nation is largely driven by the shared collective of human experiences, culture, norms, and beliefs of the people that inhabit said Nation, not geographical boundaries.
Jews have always lived in that area (called Transjordan) and one of the reasons the British empire created the ethnostate of Israel was to stop another mass exodus of Jews happening. This time in a land where they have lived for thousands of years. Their claim is not different from the one of Palestinians.
There is plenty of archeologial and genetic proof that Jews are native to the area. It’s not simply a claim because of religion.
Palestine on the other hand was not happy with the decision from the beginning and didn’t want to accept sharing the land with a group that was a (not well liked) minority.
Now we know that probably Israel also wasn’t happy with the sharing, though they pretended to be (or perhaps they were, who knows). Because they proceeded to take land from Palestine.
The reason it is where it is now is because they were trying to find somewhere to go when fleeing the Holocaust, and literally everywhere said, “no, eff off” until GB was like, “here, go live in this colony that we have that’s kinda your ancestral homeland or whatever.”
Yeah, I’m with the other guy. Your link just talks about how British Colonies had some level of autonomy after 1929. I’m not sure how that is relevant…
I’d rather not take sides on this clusterfuck of an issue but I do want to point out that if your ancestors leave your homeland for hundreds of years and then you return, your claim to the land in a self-righteous ethnostate is a little questionable.
And then if you can hold that land against multiple invading countries at the same time and defeat them in six days, your claim is really fucking strong.
So that land is just Israel until they can’t hold it.
I didn’t say it was a guarantee. I said that they can be strong. If billionaire gives you one dollar you can say “funded by” yet you still have one dollar.
“returning the lands” is literally denying Israel’s right to existance
No, they (both sides) need to respect the other sides historical right to the land and need accept that they might need to live beside each other if they want to live on that piece of land.
OMG YOU CANT JUST SUGGEST PEOPLE BE TOLERANT
I BET YOU JUST WANT EVERYONE TO STOP KILLING EACH OTHER.
YOU MUST WANT ISRAEL/PALESTINE/NO-ONE TO WIN YOU OUT OF TOUCH WESTERNER.
Only one side categorically rejects that, and it’s not Israel.
Yea im not so sure about that when it has been Israel who has been taking more and more land.
Since the end of the cold war Israelis have pushed her to peace. Since the assassination of Rabin Israel, while divided on the issue, has largely been willing to go down a path to peace, independent coexistence. As evidenced by the various peace deals they’ve signed to that extend.
The violence from Gaza after the 2004 deal, which established the 67 borders and evicted all settlers from Gaza; has unfortunately caused Israel to stop believing peace is possible.
Gaza was a prove it deal, if there’s no peace im Gaza there’s no reason to believe a similar action in the West Bank would lead to peace.
After being attacked with the intention of removing the state from existence.
Man, imagine being this stupid and thinking “I’m not stupid”.
Imagine not being able to read Hamas’s charter.
From wikipedia article on a city of Acre:
Now, how many Jewish residents there are in Gaza strip (after 2005 unilateral disengagement)? Which side seems to respect the other side historical right to live in peace?
No country (ethnostate especially) has a right to exist. The people have rights to live unmolested lives to the fullest (just like the Palestinians), but states have no rights.
Do you know why Israel was created? What happened that caused Jewish people to want to have a place to live?
States have no rights other than those they can enforce at the end of a gun.
Are we referring to the right to exist in ancestral lands where largely, the only claim to such lands are a millennias old religious text? The current occupants of said land have actual, clear historical precedence rooted in fact to occupy said land.
Also, as others have pointed out, I think it’s pretty clear that Israel could exist anywhere. The concept of a nation is largely driven by the shared collective of human experiences, culture, norms, and beliefs of the people that inhabit said Nation, not geographical boundaries.
Jews have always lived in that area (called Transjordan) and one of the reasons the British empire created the ethnostate of Israel was to stop another mass exodus of Jews happening. This time in a land where they have lived for thousands of years. Their claim is not different from the one of Palestinians.
There is plenty of archeologial and genetic proof that Jews are native to the area. It’s not simply a claim because of religion.
Palestine on the other hand was not happy with the decision from the beginning and didn’t want to accept sharing the land with a group that was a (not well liked) minority.
Now we know that probably Israel also wasn’t happy with the sharing, though they pretended to be (or perhaps they were, who knows). Because they proceeded to take land from Palestine.
But they need the land their fairytale book specifies, otherwise their magical sky wizard will be angered.
“Israel” can exist anywhere. Doesn’t have to be on top of Palestine.
Where would you recommend they go?
The reason it is where it is now is because they were trying to find somewhere to go when fleeing the Holocaust, and literally everywhere said, “no, eff off” until GB was like, “here, go live in this colony that we have that’s kinda your ancestral homeland or whatever.”
Ummm no…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926
E: Sorry, wrong link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
So you’re pointing out Israel was no longer a colony at the time? Not sure what your point is here.
Are you stupid
Edit:
Sorry I’m stupid, I meant to post this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
What is it with people calling others morons and idiots when asked to clarify. Come on now.
Sorry, I’m very jaded by people being intentionally stupid, I on the other hand am just stupid…
LOL Alright, all is forgiven. Greetings from another idiot on the internet 👋
Yeah, I’m with the other guy. Your link just talks about how British Colonies had some level of autonomy after 1929. I’m not sure how that is relevant…
Cheers, I posted the wrong link
deleted by creator
Germany.
Before or after they throw out those of the Muslim refugees who are already now indulging in anti-semitism in Germany?
Not relevant
Palestine can be anywhere. It doesn’t have to be on top of the Byzantine Empire territory. The land clearly belongs to Italy.
And if someone else was still claiming that land legitimately I’d favor them too. See how objectivity works when ur not a complete hack?
There has never been a “Palestine”
The only country that ever tried to create Palestine was Israel.
Not true. There has never been a Palestinian state. Hude difference u don’t seem to get. Go Google 1948 Palestine map.
I’d rather not take sides on this clusterfuck of an issue but I do want to point out that if your ancestors leave your homeland for hundreds of years and then you return, your claim to the land in a self-righteous ethnostate is a little questionable.
And then if you can hold that land against multiple invading countries at the same time and defeat them in six days, your claim is really fucking strong.
So that land is just Israel until they can’t hold it.
Well, morally questionable, that is. But yeah, anyone can be really strong when funded by a major world superpower.
North Korea is funded by a major world power and isn’t strong at all.
I didn’t say it was a guarantee. I said that they can be strong. If billionaire gives you one dollar you can say “funded by” yet you still have one dollar.
rent to own?
Yes, that is correct.