History lives in the present

The secret ingredient is running the fuck away before either of them notice.

And the Soviets did the same with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Well, since those former colonies can't quite work it out on their own, maybe they should just be brought back into their respective empires again? 🤔

“Spicy diplomacy”

Britain is still one the Hydra's snake heads in World politics even today

Don't forget Belgium and the Dutch.

The Palestinians are descendants of the ancient canaanites. Most of the people in that region never left they just changed their religion at some point. This hasn't always been happening, in Ottoman times Christians Jews and Muslims peacefully coexisted in the region.

That's why I love this video, it explains it very well in a graphic manner:

https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY?si=maslr0cZLs-xmTl5

The other has been attacking them for decades...

Both sides constantly attack civillians.

All the yelling of "Allahu akbar" while celebrating the death and destruction in Israel, would seem to be in conflict with your statement.

So then, why is their official goal to destroy Israel? Thats 100% a religious war

Except in this case it costs you not just your backyard but basically your entire life.

In this case the land owner has been renting for 100 years and doesn't really care what the tenant thinks.

wut

The Balfour Declaration was in 1917, and Britain began discussing support for the Zionist project in Palestine immediately after declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914. The idea dates back to at least 1896 when Theodore Herzl proposed it as a solution to the "Jewish question" which, itself, was being asked as early as the 1750s.

The meme is wrong though and should say WW1, not WW2. The creation of the State of Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust, all of it was planned before WW2.

Interesting info and I'm not arguing against your point, but that source doesn't address their point at all. The cited source covers recent demographics. The previous user is referring to events that occurred in 1947ish. The time periods are not close enough to be relevant to each other, especially considering the massive changes that occurred throughout that period in the area.

That's kind of like if someone said that the Caribbean was entirely populated by natives when the Europeans showed up in 1492, and someone responded with demographics from the 1570s after the Spanish had established settlements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad, and conquered the Aztecs to dismiss the initial point. The demographics are going to be vastly different. It kind of sheds doubt onto your rebuttal since there seems to be a logical disconnect.

Does anyone have any sources on the demographics right before the British invited Jewish people to move to the Levant?

Ashkenazim have European surnames because Europeans literally forced them unto Jews. Austro-Hungary, Russian Empire - both had policies for giving Jews "local" surnames (for taxation purposes). It's how you get Jews with German surnames in eastern and central Europe (i.e.the ones you have listed), and how you get Jews with Ukrainian and Russian-ish surnames in the appropriate areas (see Abramovich, Litvak)

I guess technically ww1 wasn't even over.

Yeah sure. There is absolutely no pattern of former colonizers creating structures that lead to tensions and violence as they leave. Destabilizing entire regions would never be in the interest of receding former global powers or in the interest of current global powers. They all want all the humans in the world to love each other and live in peace and harmony.

Lol you're as dumb as you are a jerk

It's not that complicated, the land in question has been owned by a conquering empire for the better part of two millenia. After WWII and emipres falling out of favor, splitting it up was decided. The locals didn't like the jews getting a country and attacked, they lost. They mobilized for round two, and Israel hit first and won again. Since then Israel started giving back land it seized to the respective countries, in exchange for not attacking again. The region has been at an uneasy truce for 50ish years other than Palestine launching terrorist attacks every few years.

Why not both?

laughs in emu

Animals kill and eat their young. They roll or eat shit. They rape. You sure that's the argument you want to use here?

These comments read like a realism vs idealism debate

Interesting how you ignore the reality of constant ethnic clashes and raids inside the borders of many african nations and also across borders e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Kosovo vs Serbia, Russia vs Ukraine or... Palestine vs Israel.

"animals do it why shouldn't we" is one of the worst reasons to do something. Animals are literally dumber than us.

The animals argument is bad. We are animals and the idea is to refrain of our bad instincts in favour of the greater good most of the time.

That being said abolition of borders is a very bad idea, a very basic visit of human history will squash any misplaced idealism regarding that subject.

That also being said immigration is most of the time a good idea as long as you put a consideratr effort into integration for your newly minted citizens.

Now I realize most of those are opinions without substance, the idea is to realize where people push back and why before backing them up.

What makes you think we should act just like wild animals?

The reason ethnic clashes are happening in the first place, is because there was not enough intermingling between neighbors, in big part because people like you thought humans aren't smarter then animals and should be separated.

The animals argument is fucking stupid.

How exactly are borders helping? In what was specifically?

Compared to now it was a utopia.

I generally agree. It's often used as yet another form of oppression.

But right now, capitalism and its byproducts of colonialism and imperialism are a bigger problem for a bigger number of people than religion.

The root for Palestine Israel conflict isn't religious. Religions have cohabitatedthe region for centuries in relative peace.

If you just state it's religious, you open up space for "Muslim bad", or "Christian bad" arguments. Which lead to nonsense and prosecution to specific peoples

If you use imperialism concepts, everything fits well together, and it leads to structural criticism of capitalism, and prosecution (to use the same word) against oppressive ideas and power structures, not against specific peoples.

But I can agree that imperialistic forces oppress religions that are not the same as theirs, if that's what you meant.