It’s the primary funder, the president said that if Israel didn’t exist the US would have had to create it, because it’s so geopolitically critical. There’s a large number of US ships there right now, in support of Israel.
I’m probably older than you
The existence of Israel is predicted on the bloody murder, and ethnic cleaning of Palestine, and completely unjustified.
The history is far more complicated than that. Israel wasn’t really born out of a desire to ethnically cleanse Palestine, it was born out of a desire for a Zionist homeland and for independence from the British. Immediately afterwards, literally the following day, the Arab nations attacked.
Furthermore, Palestine was never really a country over the last 500 years, not until 1988. It was a region in the Ottoman empire, then it was under British control, then it was proposed to be split such that a nation of Israel and a nation of Palestine could be established - however Palestinians rejected this multiple times. Even in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence they didn’t really define their territory, saying “The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be” but referencing the UN Partition Plan.
By all accounts, when Israel was established in 1948 they wanted their own territory in the region as partitioned by Britain/the UN, they didn’t want control over the entire region. It was only after successive fighting between Israel and Palestine that Israel developed the attitude they display today.
Whether or not Zionists, Israel, the British or the UN were right in pushing for the formation of an Israeli state is another matter, but the Israel we have now is a direct result of the wars that were fought, wars that Israel won each time. This is markedly different from colonialism, where one nation rules over another but then later grants independence and goes back to ruling its own territory - Israel do not have any other territory to go back to. Palestine taking an “all or nothing” position, as they have over the last 70 years, just isn’t a workable solution as it puts Israel in the same boat.
you literally just misspelled ‘criticize’ in the comment above, but I didn’t correct you because I don’t fucking care and nobody else does either.
also fuck off colonizer genocide apologist, this is why you got banned
By all accounts, when Israel was established in 1948 they wanted their own territory in the region as partitioned by Britain/the UN, they didn’t want control over the entire region.
The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) were passengers on a Jewish bus near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November, after an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others.
But you can always go back a little further with this stuff, it’s been going back and forth seemingly forever:
This was stated to be a retaliation for the Shubaki family assassination, the killing of five Palestinian Arabs by Lehi near Herzliya, ten days’ prior to the incident.
In any case, a more accurate assessment of the civil war before the birth of Israel is that it was a bloody tit for tat:
From January onward, operations became increasingly militarized. In all the mixed zones where both communities lived, particularly Jerusalem and Haifa, increasingly violent attacks, riots, reprisals and counter-reprisals followed each other. Isolated shootings evolved into all-out battles. Attacks against traffic, for instance, turned into ambushes as one bloody attack led to another.
The UN proposed 2 separate nations, this satisfied the Palestinian Jews, but not the Palestinian Arabs. Palestinian Arabs fought a civil war against the Jewish Palestinians, they lost. Israel was formed. Arab nations got together and fought a war against Israel, and they lost again. Then again in the War of Attrition. And again in the 1st Yom Kippur War. Once more in the Lebanon War. It doesn’t look like Palestinians have the upper hand in this Yom Kippur War, either.
Why should the party who keeps starting wars and keeps losing them get complete control of the region?
A one-state solution might be the ideal outcome, but there’s no way of that happening with either side taking over. It would have to be the dissolution of both state governments alongside the cooperative formation of a new government. With the back and forth conflict that’s always been happening, there’s just no way this can happen right now. The two sides need to separate themselves, stop fighting, then maybe some time a long way in the future they can come together.
I would say that Israel was the foothold, Saddam used to be the US’s ‘guy’ until he wasn’t and the Iraq war was a bunch of criminal opportunists seizing on an opportunity to invade and loot a country with a flimsy pretext.
It’s the primary funder, the president said that if Israel didn’t exist the US would have had to create it, because it’s so geopolitically critical. There’s a large number of US ships there right now, in support of Israel.
I’m probably older than you
The existence of Israel is predicted on the bloody murder, and ethnic cleaning of Palestine, and completely unjustified.
*predicated.
The history is far more complicated than that. Israel wasn’t really born out of a desire to ethnically cleanse Palestine, it was born out of a desire for a Zionist homeland and for independence from the British. Immediately afterwards, literally the following day, the Arab nations attacked.
Furthermore, Palestine was never really a country over the last 500 years, not until 1988. It was a region in the Ottoman empire, then it was under British control, then it was proposed to be split such that a nation of Israel and a nation of Palestine could be established - however Palestinians rejected this multiple times. Even in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence they didn’t really define their territory, saying “The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be” but referencing the UN Partition Plan.
By all accounts, when Israel was established in 1948 they wanted their own territory in the region as partitioned by Britain/the UN, they didn’t want control over the entire region. It was only after successive fighting between Israel and Palestine that Israel developed the attitude they display today.
Whether or not Zionists, Israel, the British or the UN were right in pushing for the formation of an Israeli state is another matter, but the Israel we have now is a direct result of the wars that were fought, wars that Israel won each time. This is markedly different from colonialism, where one nation rules over another but then later grants independence and goes back to ruling its own territory - Israel do not have any other territory to go back to. Palestine taking an “all or nothing” position, as they have over the last 70 years, just isn’t a workable solution as it puts Israel in the same boat.
you literally just misspelled ‘criticize’ in the comment above, but I didn’t correct you because I don’t fucking care and nobody else does either.
also fuck off colonizer genocide apologist, this is why you got banned
after the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticise
Mine was an alternate spelling, yours had a completely different meaning.
this is where our conversation ends colonizer- I hope a brown person fills your mouth with shit someday
That’s a neat way of putting it:
But you can always go back a little further with this stuff, it’s been going back and forth seemingly forever:
In any case, a more accurate assessment of the civil war before the birth of Israel is that it was a bloody tit for tat:
The UN proposed 2 separate nations, this satisfied the Palestinian Jews, but not the Palestinian Arabs. Palestinian Arabs fought a civil war against the Jewish Palestinians, they lost. Israel was formed. Arab nations got together and fought a war against Israel, and they lost again. Then again in the War of Attrition. And again in the 1st Yom Kippur War. Once more in the Lebanon War. It doesn’t look like Palestinians have the upper hand in this Yom Kippur War, either.
Why should the party who keeps starting wars and keeps losing them get complete control of the region?
A one-state solution might be the ideal outcome, but there’s no way of that happening with either side taking over. It would have to be the dissolution of both state governments alongside the cooperative formation of a new government. With the back and forth conflict that’s always been happening, there’s just no way this can happen right now. The two sides need to separate themselves, stop fighting, then maybe some time a long way in the future they can come together.
Disengage colonizer, nobody wants to read your genocide denial
What genocide am I denying? You’re a pathetic liar.
The one happening now.
Fuck off
I’ve not denied the one happening now, I’ve criticised it.
Looks like we’ve come full circle and you’ve run out of material.
You both sides it you disgusting person
Your one routine is to smugly pass judgement on colonize people for resisting their own extermination, also you’re British 🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮
@Diva @TWeaK wasn’t the secret point of the Iraq War to use it as our foothold in the ME…
I would say that Israel was the foothold, Saddam used to be the US’s ‘guy’ until he wasn’t and the Iraq war was a bunch of criminal opportunists seizing on an opportunity to invade and loot a country with a flimsy pretext.