Palestine discussion

[JGrimez]

Jews were there before Islam existed.

The issue is that today's Jews cannot prove a genetic link to the ancient ones who were believed to have lived in the region . There's more evidence that the Ashkenazi group of Jews are actually Khazarian who converted en masse and their historic homeland is far eastern Europe, not Palestine.

Dude... theft of WHAT?
What did "they" "steal" ?

Roughly 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed or fled in 1948.
Do you support this move? Be clear if you support colonialism or not.
They stole houses, land and they stole people's lives by massacring villages.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how history works.

This is very ironic coming from someone who knew nothing of historical Zionist terrorist attacks against civilians.
I highly doubt you even know the details of what happened in 1948 when the stated was created (with the help of paramilitary terrorists).

It's not as if Palestine was an actual independent country and the conniving Jews came and "stole" it from them.

I don't see how it not being a country at the time justifies killing people or expelling them from their homes.

But you know this already.

I know you're playing a weird semantic game to avoid admitting the truth.
You would only support these types of actions because it's the chosen people.

Also what ethnicity is being cleansed?

Palestinians from the region. I thought that was already pretty obvious.
Go look at a map of the original partition plan borders. Look at the borders today.

Let's see if you can answer this time.

You refuse to answer my questions.
Are you pro-colonialism? If not, how is this different?

 

[mal3volent]

The issue is that today's Jews cannot prove a genetic link to the ancient ones who were believed to have lived in the region . There's more evidence that the Ashkenazi group of Jews are actually Khazarian who converted en masse and their historic homeland is far eastern Europe, not Palestine.

You say "Muslim" and require no genetic links but when it comes to Jews you start splitting hairs between far Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Roughly 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed or fled in 1948.
Do you support this move? Be clear if you support colonialism or not.
They stole houses, land and they stole people's lives by massacring villages.

You said the Jews stole the land when it's clear they didn't. They land was controlled by someone else and given to them. If you have an issue with colonialism more broadly that is a separate discussion that spans all of history and has touched every continent.

You would only support these types of actions because it's the chosen people.

What chosen people? I'm not religious and don't believe any certain group of people are "chosen".

Palestinians from the region. I thought that was already pretty obvious.
Go look at a map of the original partition plan borders. Look at the borders today.

The Palestinian ethnicity? Hmmm...I've never heard of that one before.

You see, if you would have stated the actual ethnicities of the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank, I would have responded that those are the same peoples who live in Israel too and serve in their government. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity or race but that's what some people boil everything down to.

But thanks for illustrating how you guys manipulate language to further your goals.

You refuse to answer my questions.
Are you pro-colonialism? If not, how is this different?

I'm not pro anything other than pro accurate portrayal of history , and pro correct usage of words. I think it is hilarious though that you are railing against colonialism while arguing for a religion that was built on conquest and desires nothing more than conquest.

 

[JGrimez]

You say "Muslim" and require no genetic links but when it comes to Jews you start splitting hairs between far Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Some of the children and grandchildren of people that were forced out of their homes are still living in refugee camps. We have proof regarding who the people were that were expelled from the lands they were living on because it was only 75 years ago. To justify that by saying "we lived there first" 2,000 years ago according to biblical history is not the same.

You said the Jews stole the land when it's clear they didn't. They land was controlled by someone else and given to them. If you have an issue with colonialism more broadly that is a separate discussion that spans all of history and has touched every continent.

That's like saying I didn't steal that car, I told my friend to steal that car and he gave it to me. So the car wasn't stolen?
And you seem to be unaware of the strong influence the early Zionists had on English politics.

What chosen people? I'm not religious and don't believe any certain group of people are "chosen".

Then you agree that there's no justification for Israel to have been created.
Please agree with this or if you disagree explain why it was justified (inbe4 holocaust)

The Palestinian ethnicity? Hmmm...I've never heard of that one before.

I'm sure that I've said a lot regarding this issue and history that you've never heard before.
Are Italians and Greeks the same because they're both white and from the same region? Obviously not.
Palestinians are a distinct people.

You see, if you would have stated the actual ethnicities of the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank, I would have responded that those are the same peoples who live in Israel too and serve in their government. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity or race but that's what some people boil everything down to.

It's forbidden by law for Jews to marry an Arab in Israel. Race is very clearly defined there with numerous pieces of legislation and also unofficially in culture and society. They refuse the 'right of return' for Palestinians who lived there one generation ago. But they will accept any Jewish people from around the world (including converts) to live emigrate there even if they had zero connection at all to the land. It's a racist country because if it treated the races equally then Jews would get outnumbered, outvoted and ethnically cleansed themselves (like what's happening to white nations today).

But thanks for illustrating how you guys manipulate language to further your goals.

King projection over here. You're saying that a genocide can't happen if the overall population grows over time.

I'm not pro anything other than pro accurate portrayal of history , and pro correct usage of words. I think it is hilarious though that you are railing against colonialism while arguing for a religion that was built on conquest and desires nothing more than conquest.

So you would agree that the justification for the creation of Israel is based on a book with obviously crazy and nonsensical stuff in it?
And would you consider this colonialism? Do you support colonialism?

 

[mal3volent]

Some of the children and grandchildren of people that were forced out of their homes are still living in refugee camps. We have proof regarding who the people were that were expelled from the lands they were living on because it was only 75 years ago. To justify that by saying "we lived there first" 2,000 years ago according to biblical history is not the same.

you keep moving the goal posts. Before it WAS about who was there first, now that it doesn't suit you anymore, it's not about that.

That's like saying I didn't steal that car, I told my friend to steal that car and he gave it to me. So the car wasn't stolen?
And you seem to be unaware of the strong influence the early Zionists had on English politics.

Oh yes, I'm well aware of the mystical influence that Jews can cast upon unsuspecting governments. How many antisemitic tropes can you pack into one post?

The car analogy is faulty. And this is where your flawed understanding of history comes in. All land was stolen from some other group, then some other group before them, and on and on. Go back to the native people of each land, they were at war with each other too. To pretend like war and conquest began when Britain took control of that land is absurd. The point is: it was legally given to them. The "Jews" didn't steal anything. Unless you want to point to their settlements in the West Bank which is another issue that no one here defends.

It's forbidden by law for Jews to marry an Arab in Israel. Race is very clearly defined there with numerous pieces of legislation and also unofficially in culture and society. They refuse the 'right of return' for Palestinians who lived there one generation ago. But they will accept any Jewish people from around the world (including converts) to live emigrate there even if they had zero connection at all to the land. It's a racist country because if it treated the races equally then Jews would get outnumbered, outvoted and ethnically cleansed themselves (like what's happening to white nations today)

What are you talking about? If a Jew wants to marry a non Jew , they can, they just have to convert. The same shit happens in the US abd everywhere. There is no law that says Arabs can't marry Jews, not that I know of. It's the same in Islam. A Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman, but they are converted.

By the way, how many Jews are in the surrounding Arab states?

Seems to be quite the problem. Seems to me Israel is far more pluralistic than their counterparts in the region.

King projection over here. You're saying that a genocide can't happen if the overall population grows over time.

I'm saying "Palestinian" isn't an ethnicity any more than "New Yorker" is. You know, words, they have meanings. You can't cry ethnic cleansing when they aren't cleansing an ethnicity. And you can't cry genocide when the population is skyrocketing. One second Gaza is the most densely populated area on earth, bursting at the seams (which isn't true, but that's the line you guys use when it fits whatever argument you're making) then the next second Israel is genociding them and have been for years. Something doesn't quite add up. You would expect a population to decrease when being genocided, right?

So you would agree that the justification for the creation of Israel is based on a book with obviously crazy and nonsensical stuff in it?

No, absolutely not. The reason for its creation was the Jews needed a country of their own after centuries of displacement and the Holocaust. And it was given to them. Their historical claim to that land is independent from any religious text, as I've said over and over. There is archaeological evidence of a Jewish civilization there centuries before Islam existed. Nothing based on religious texts.

And would you consider this colonialism? Do you support colonialism?

No I do not actively support colonialism. But I support casting an even handed portrayal of historical events regardless of personal agenda. If you're against colonialism and think Israel should give back their land that was colonized by Britain, then you should also forfeit the land you are living on. Your country should dissolve their government and return all land ownership to the native tribes.

 

[DesertHarp]

There are many who claim that Palestine has right to the land because they were there first. I am curious about a few detail concerning the nation of Palestine.

If 'Palestine' is a country, we should be able to answer a few basic questions:


1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What was its underlying economy What did it produce and who did they trade with?
6. What form did its government have?
7. Can you name at least one 'Palestinian' leader before Arafat?
8. Was 'Palestine' ever recognized by a country whose existence, at one time or another, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the 'State of Palestine'?
10. What was the most common religion in the 'State of Palestine'?
11. What was the name of its currency?
12. Choose any date - what was the approximate exchange rate of the 'Palestinian' currency against the U.S. dollar, German euro, British pound, Japanese yen or Chinese yuan?
13. Since there is no such country today, what caused its destruction and when did it happen?
14. If we mourn the "slow decline" of the “former proud” country." When exactly was this "state" proud and what was it proud about?
15. Are the "Palestinians" something other than generic Arabs gathered from everywhere or thrown out of the Arab world?
16. Do they really have a genuinely unique ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination?

Let's assume that they're generic Arabs. Palestine is home to over 7 million of them. What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to flee to Egypt, Jordan and wherever, so Israel can have all the land? Between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, there are an equal number of Jews and Arabs - over 7 million of each. Why should the Israelis get to own everything?

I suppose the Navajo people would not meet your tests of deserving to be considered a nation. (They don't have their own currency.)

The Arabs living in Palestine have the following ethnic distinction: they're not Jews. (Though, actually, DNA research suggests they are partially descended from those ancient Jews who never left the Levant.) In any case, Israel does not want to give citizenship to any more non-Jewish residents. It wants to rule over the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank, pretty much the way Old South Africa ruled over blacks. For years, Israel limits the volume of food that can enter Gaza, keeping the people insufficiently nourished. Who would not rise up against that?

 

[JGrimez]

you keep moving the goal posts. Before it WAS about who was there first, now that it doesn't suit you anymore, it's not about that.

I'm saying that there's no direct evidence today's group is linked to the ancient people who lived there.

Oh yes, I'm well aware of the mystical influence that Jews can cast upon unsuspecting governments. How many antisemitic tropes can you pack into one post?

Are you saying that political lobbying and using wealth to wield influence is an antisemitic trope?
You seem to imply that Jews are some magical creatures sent from God who always act moral and genuine.

The point is: it was legally given to them. The "Jews" didn't steal anything. Unless you want to point to their settlements in the West Bank which is another issue that no one here defends.

So would you support the suggestion to dismantle the settlements and return to the pre-1967 borders? That doesn't even mention the original partition plan but would be better than nothing.

What are you talking about? If a Jew wants to marry a non Jew , they can, they just have to convert. The same shit happens in the US abd everywhere. There is no law that says Arabs can't marry Jews, not that I know of. It's the same in Islam. A Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman, but they are converted.

No it's not the same. An ethnically Jewish person who doesn't believe in God cannot marry a Muslim or Christian person in Israel. As for converting, it's heavily discouraged and not easy especially if someone is doing it just to marry a Jewish person.

By the way, how many Jews are in the surrounding Arab states?

Seems to be quite the problem. Seems to me Israel is far more pluralistic than their counterparts in the region.

Before terrorism founded the state of Israel, Jews had less problems living in Arab countries. Muslims (especially the Sunni as opposed to the Shia) actually don't have a problem with Jews, as they are people of the book. A muslim man can marry a jewish woman under Islamic rules for eg. The Muslims have an issue with Zionists (understandably). However most Jews are taught that all Arabs hate them and want them killed. Then that fuels xenophobia and so they rarely give any Arab a chance to see that it is in fact not true.

I'm saying "Palestinian" isn't an ethnicity any more than "New Yorker" is. You know, words, they have meanings. You can't cry ethnic cleansing when they aren't cleansing an ethnicity. And you can't cry genocide when the population is skyrocketing. One second Gaza is the most densely populated area on earth, bursting at the seams (which isn't true, but that's the line you guys use when it fits whatever argument you're making) then the next second Israel is genociding them and have been for years. Something doesn't quite add up. You would expect a population to decrease when being genocided, right?

Do you differentiate between Italian and Greek?
How about Saudi and Moroccan?
You are an ethnicity-denier (would that be a form of genocide, to deny a group even exists?)
And yes, states can commit genocide (and Israel has) according to many experts on the subject, even though the population grew. Look at how many tens of millions of people died in the Soviet Union while looking at the population numbers.

No, absolutely not. The reason for its creation was the Jews needed a country of their own after centuries of displacement and the Holocaust. And it was given to them.

The problem is that there were people living there already, so forcing people from their homes and indiscriminate murder (something they claimed to be against) were implemented.

Their historical claim to that land is independent from any religious text, as I've said over and over. There is archaeological evidence of a Jewish civilization there centuries before Islam existed. Nothing based on religious texts.

But there's no proof of today's people being directly genetically linked to that group from that long ago. So anyone can say anything. Can Native Americans kick Americans out of their homes and slaughter them if they resist? They'd have more of a claim.

No I do not actively support colonialism. But I support casting an even handed portrayal of historical events regardless of personal agenda. If you're against colonialism and think Israel should give back their land that was colonized by Britain, then you should also forfeit the land you are living on. Your country should dissolve their government and return all land ownership to the native tribes.

Does even-handed include honesty? Because being "even" can be quite subjective. You're definition of even is excusing Jewish crime while dehumanizing Palestinians. I consistently state that ALL countries should follow international law and the Geneva convention. You can't even say that you agree with that. What's more even?
Israel exists and since its inception has spawned a national culture so I don't think it's fair to the people born there that it just be dismantled.
But for eg. the settlements must be dismantled. There has to be some fair negotiation and large action in order to prove that they're serious for peace. But anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that they are definitely not for peace.

 

[mal3volent]

You are an ethnicity-denier (would that be a form of genocide, to deny a group even exists?)

you aren't answering my questions (because you can't) or even trying to engage with me in good faith. So I'm done with you. It was stupid of me to even try.

 

[December Flower]

you aren't answering my questions (because you can't) or even trying to engage with me in good faith. So I'm done with you. It was stupid of me to even try.

Egypt was there first tho. Loooooong before the Jews. I answered that in my last post

It's not like this place isn't thoroughly documented for at least 5000 years. The Jews had it for 500 for these 5000, and they didnt have it for 2500 years when GB annexed it and gave it away...not to the people who owned the place, but to the people that have a little book that claims they once owned the place..to which there isn't even much evidence

I mean for Muricans everything is a claim to land, as long as you got better weapons.

But that doesn't fly in the Old World. Everything here has been highly civilised over thousands of years. You all kinda behave like the world was formed in 1776. well it wasn't. And even then Islam ruled over Palestine. And it was called Palestine. And it was an Emirate.

Muslim/Asch'arite people have over 5000 years of history with this place, cmon. How can you even dare to suggest Jews have any claim to it. Because they say they do? There isn't any proof of this yknow. It's just letters in a book that speaks of ppl that cure blindness and do other magic tricks, or someone that can split an ocean. Sounds like a true story right off the bat. Believable

How can you as Americans even speak about this? I would sink into shame. You have 0 claim to your own land. You stole it and murdered around 200 million people to get it. But you keep fingerpointing at WW2 so nobody forgets how evil Germany is. Yeah you got that white west going, barely any blood on it..

Semites have a lot more claim to Palestine than you have for North America. But 500 years is still nothing in the Old world. Muslim(Asch'arite) culture has almost 10 times that claim.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Egypt was there first tho. Loooooong before the Jews. I answered that in my last post

It's not like this place isn't thoroughly documented for at least 5000 years. The Jews had it for 500 for these 5000, and they didnt have it for 2500 years when GB annexed it and gave it away...not to the people who owned the place, but to the people that have a little book that claims they once owned the place..to which there isn't even much evidence

I mean for Muricans everything is a claim to land, as long as you got better weapons.

But that doesn't fly in the Old World. Everything here has been highly civilised over thousands of years.

How can you as Americans even speak about this? I would sink into shame. You have 0 claim to your own land. You stole it and murdered around 200 million people to get it. But you keep fingerpointing at WW2 so nobody forgets how evil Germany is. Yeah you got that white west going, barely any blood on it..

Semites have a lot more claim to Palestine than you have for North America. But 500 years is still nothing in the Old world. Muslim(Asch'arite) culture has almost 10 times that claim.

No, Egypt was not. Before it was Israel it was Canaan

The land known as Canaan was situated in the territory of the southern Levant, which today encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon. The nation of Israel conquered Canaan and occupied the area building the city of Jerusalem.

 

[Mjäll]

No valid arguments have been put forth in response to the obvious rebuttals

No westerner should pick a side in this

Let's celebrate when you've all thunk the think

 

[December Flower]

No, Egypt was not. Before it was Israel it was Canaan

The land known as Canaan was situated in the territory of the southern Levant, which today encompasses Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon. The nation of Israel conquered Canaan and occupied the area building the city of Jerusalem.

Yeesh are you really not understanding that Canaanites are the Roman Empire? Byzantium. East Roman Empire.

the Phoenicians had it yes, for 300 years - and not before the Egyptians dude... read a book ffs, BC means before year 0. Egyptians were there since 3000 BC documented, since around 5000 BC is the true estimation.
But officially, Egypt had it 3000 years before the Phoenicians/Byzantines/Canaanites even E X I S T E D
and even they called the region "Palestine" or "Shaybanid". The LARGER region was called Canaan by the Greeks, and Palestine was a PART of Canaan, although renamed to something weird and Greek

Where is that fucking map even from? It also claims Cyprus belonged to Cyprus :D I mean...when did that ever happen?

But you are correct I forgot about the 300 years the Greeks had the place. Hard to get all the facts right when a place has as much history as Palestine.
But the East Roman Empire having conquered it is not helping your case at all dude...not one bit.
Essentially you're telling me that even Byzantium/Greece has a bigger claim to Israel than the Jews.
Also the Romans took the place from the Jews, and Byzantium lost it TO the Jews (who were working with Persia - and then only Persia ruled it, whatever)

Yeah they conquered everything, bro. It was the Roman Empire ffs.
The guys that ate the Mediterranean Sea for breakfast

It was still Egyptian in 3000 BC. It was Egyptian in 2000 BC. They owned it in 1000 BC
They lost it in 500 BC. To Israel. The Israelites lost it again around year 0
Then the Greeks had it from 300-600, that's true. too. Somewhere before that the Romans (re)built a lot of the city of Jerusalem.
So say from 0 - 600 the Roman Empire had it, first West Roman, then East Roman.
After that it was: Persian, Abbasit, Egyptian, Abbasit, Egyptian, Abbasit, then Persian, Arabian, Persian, Arabian, Persian, Arabian, Osmanian

How does any of this negate that it was Egyptian for over 3000 years?
How does any of this negate that for 2000 years the region was Asch'arite/Islam since taking it back from the Romans/Byzantium?
The region, the people living in the region, were literally Muslim/Asch'arite for almost 2000 years before the UK annexed it.
And gave it to their mortal enemies. would you NOT be pissed? 2000 years and the West just takes a giant shit on it?

Oh but we were once there for 5 minutes: so it must belong to us.
Typical Western attitude: "fuck sand people." and then being totally stunned when something like 9/11 happens.
Yeah who didn't see this coming from a mile away? Muslims hate us so much it's hard to even put in words.
We literally tried to wipe their culture out.

We kicked them out of Spain and Italy, we tried kicking them out of North Africa and making that all Catholic.
We even tried to convert the Middle East. Almost all our Crusades were against Muslims.
And to this day we still kill them. We destroyed Osmania. Then you got Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Obama? Nobody gives a fuck about Muslims. It's sickening.

And why shouldn't they hate us? Globally? We are fucking bullies and fucking arrogant assholes that think the world belongs to us.
We walked over so many corpses, nothing even phases us anymore. We are absolutely unaccepting about the fact that we live in a multipolar world.
I hate us, and I'm part of this fucking colonialist culture.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

That's fine, @December Flower, it was directly from Wikipedia, but there are many, many copies of essentially the same geographical info if you cared enough to have researched it yourself. It was called Judea until it was was renamed Syria Palaestina (later simply called Palaestina), according to Eusebius of Caeseria (Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, chapter 6. That was during the time it was held by the Roman Empire.

 

[December Flower]

That's fine, @December Flower, it was directly from Wikipedia, but there are many, many copies of essentially the same geographical info if you cared enough to have researched it yourself. It was called Judea until it was was renamed Syria Palaestina (later simply called Palaestina), according to Eusebius of Caeseria (Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, chapter 6. That was during the time it was held by the Roman Empire.

So? Neither the Roman Empire, nor Byzantium, nor the HRE exist today, so why does the UK get the Holy land? They let us keep it because the UK promised to give it back once things have stabilised - they just wanted to prevent wars over who gets to own it, and then gives it to the Jews.
Before it was Roman it was Egyptian. And when Egypt became a Roman vasall, it was mostly under Arab control. You can wikipedia that too. I don't think Egypt has a claim either, I'm not that crazy. But neither does Rome.

The land was MUSLIM, Asch'arite (Proto Islamic) and later Islamic for 1500 years before the UK took it.
Were the people Greek? No. Were they Roman? Fuck no. Were they Jewish? No. They were Muslim. End of fucking discussion.


Sorry I like you, but this hairsplitting over the fucking name of a region that's called Palestine for 1500 years and was owned by Muslims for 1500 now is ridiculous. Or 1400.
Fucking long time still.

My info was pulled from memory, i'm sorry it's not as exact as Wikipedia. And the info is correct, you can google that too. My numbers are probably off because I round up or down, sometimes by a bit too much, cuz i don't remember the exact numbers and am too lazy to look it up.

O and btw: "Palestine" is derived from a Greek word "Philistia", so I was actually quite fucking certain when I said Palestine was a region IN Canaan. Also the name the Greeks gave Palestine was derived from a similar sounding and even older name that was used by Egyptians, Assyrians and Hebrews.
Although some Arab Emirates/Sultanates/Empires called it "Shaybanid" when they had control over it, and "Palestine" when Egypt had control over it, until around 1000AD (again not the EXACT fucking number, but +/- 50-80 years) then it was ONLY called Palestine no matter who controlled it. Usually Persia or Arabia. Later Osmania(or guess that's Ottoman in English whyever the fuck you use the old name for it). For 1500 years Arab control.

You English natives are often not aware that there's a billion ways to name a place because there's a billion languages. We're not Germany, we're no Germanenland, wtf. We're Deutschland, Deutsch Teutsch: Teutons, not fucking Germans. We are a unification of Teutonic duchies and kingdoms, not Germanic ones - you even named us after the wrong fucking people! Did we sue you? Did ANYONE stop you from giving us the wrong name? Nuremberg is really called Nürnberg. Polish people say Norymberga. Munich is München. The Italians call it Monaco di Baviera for fucks sake. We're talking in English here, a language that's so fucking young, it didn't even exist at the time - and never had any other name than Palestine for the place. Yes it was Shaybanid to some Arabs, and Palestine to Egypt(who are Arab btw if anyone doesn't know that), but later JUST Palestine to Persia/Abbasit/Arabia/Egypt/Osmania(Ottoman) - etc. And as a zinger: the place is ACTUALLY called فلسطين if you wanna get nitpicky.

How is any claim stronger than 1500 years of Arab rule? I realize the more I talk to some people living in Western lands, the more I realize Arabs/Muslims are not really seen as people by us.
We talk all big about inclusion of everyone. But then we call people evil by default, like any nation that's Socialist, or Arabs, anyone that's not NATO really. Those evil fuckers.

So it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians. Because they are evil. Every man, every woman, every newborn child. Evil by default. Or God said so. Worked for George Bush.

Look before anyone asks: I put no blame on the Jews, they got a gift of the Holy land. Like..how CAN you even say no? But us, the collective West? Jesus we're evil motherfuckers, wherever you look.
And Jerusalem is one of the worst things we did. 1500 years of Muslim control. We give it to their enemies. We're the evil fuckers, truly. We wanted this conflict, no one else.

 

[mal3volent]

Most scholars agree that ancient Israel first appeared in the highlands of Canaan in about 1200 B.C.E. Here disparate bands of newly settled farmers and herders gradually coalesced into a single people united by their deity Yahweh.

The Hebrews – Western Civilization

pressbooks.nscc.ca

 

[mal3volent]

the Phoenicians had it yes, for 300 years - and not before the Egyptians dude... read a book ffs, BC means before year 0. Egyptians were there since 3000 BC documented, since around 5000 BC is the true estimation.
But officially, Egypt had it 3000 years before the Phoenicians/Byzantines/Canaanites even E X I S T E D
and even they called the region "Palestine" or "Shaybanid". The LARGER region was called Canaan by the Greeks, and Palestine was a PART of Canaan, although renamed to something weird and Greek

What is your problem anyway? Read a book? You need to cut that out.

The Canaanites were the indigenous native people of Canaan, in the Levant region. They were descendants of the prehistoric humans that dwelled in that area over a million years ago. "Egypt" was not there before them. The Canaanites spoke a language similar to Hebrew.

There is evidence of Semitic speaking people in the area around 3000 BC that doesn't exist anywhere in Northern Africa or Egypt.

I mean obviously the first human beings originated on the continent of Africa , and Egypt is in Africa, but beyond that I have no idea what you're talking about. To suggest the Egyptians "had" that land 3000 years before the Canaanites existed is absurd.

 

[Mjäll]

You're all right; you're all wrong!

 

[mal3volent]

You're all right; you're all wrong!

Luckily archaeology doesn't care about your feelings.

 

[mauve]

Seems like everyone wanted a chunk of the area, if we go back thousands of years to each countries history, im sure a lot would show up as invaded and natives killed. Anyway going forward in modern history it was a British overseas territory, it was called Palestine, Israel didn't exist then. However the way the Brits left it kind of sparked what is going on in modern day Palestine.

My question is why is Israel a nuclear armed state?!

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Seems like everyone wanted a chunk of the area, if we go back thousands of years to each countries history, im sure a lot would show up as invaded and natives killed. Anyway going forward in modern history it was a British overseas territory, it was called Palestine, Israel didn't exist then. However the way the Brits left it kind of sparked what is going on in modern day Palestine.

My question is why is Israel a nuclear armed state?!

because of Oppenheimer ?

But seriously:

The State of Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads,[2][5][6][7][8][9] and the country is believed to possess the ability to deliver them in several methods, including by aircraft, as submarine-launched cruise missiles, and via the Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles.[18][19] Its first deliverable nuclear weapon is thought to have been completed in late 1966 or early 1967; which would make it the sixth country in the world to have developed them.[2][20][21]

However, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, never officially denying nor admitting to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".[22][23][24] Israel has also declined to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite international pressure to do so, saying that would be contrary to its national security interests.[25]

Additionally, Israel developed the Begin Doctrine of counter-proliferation and preventive strikes, denying other regional actors the ability to acquire their own nuclear weapons. The Israeli Air Force conducted Operation Opera and Operation Orchard, destroying the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007, respectively, and the Stuxnet malware that severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities in 2010 is thought to have been developed jointly by the United States and Israel. As of 2019, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East believed to possess nuclear weapons.[21] The Samson Option refers to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.[26]

Israel began to investigate the nuclear field soon after it declared independence in 1948 and, with French co-operation, secretly began building the Negev Nuclear Research Center,[d] a facility near Dimona housing a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant in the late 1950s. The first extensive details of the weapons program came on October 5, 1986, with media coverage of revelations from Mordechai Vanunu, a technician formerly employed at the center. Vanunu was soon kidnapped by the Mossad and brought back to Israel, where he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.[27][28]

wikipedia

 

[Mjäll]

Luckily archaeology doesn't care about your feelings.

What feelings? Do you mean my lack of theatrical feelings for faraway shithole countries or my strong healthy feelings in favor of not having theatrical feelings for faraway shithole countries?

Archaeologically the question is an obvious can of worms. It's playing out in this thread. The pro-Israel argument is far from fool proof. OP can't even address basic rebuttals.

The great sense it makes to not pick a side far outweighs any murky sense of rightness in your token can of worms.

All this bickering is a vicarious living for bored people. Dare to bicker against it. Own the weirdness.