israel displaced millions of palestinians and replaced them with settlers. the blood is on israel government not hamas. they could easily not replace millions of people and we would not be here today.
i have been saying the same thing from the beginning, but i think your perspective of the situation is holding you back from understanding what im saying.
you can put innocent people anywhere in the world and they dont stop being innocent. but that does not change the fact that they are in someone elses home illegally.
if they did not want to be in someone elses home then it is the fault of the government, if they did want to be in someome elses home then it is their fault.
Again, what’s the justification for killing innocents? Because they walk on land that another claims theirs? That sort of thinking always and everywhere only led to war and war crimes.
As for the Israelis, for those who live there, it’s their home, for many going back three generations. In many cases those ancestors took it it legally under ottoman law. I find that 24-undisputed-hour-rule questionable myself, but your story doesn’t hold up legally in many cases, nor historical. Everyone’s ancestors lived someplace. That doesn’t automatically make that place theirs.
Pointing to an old map and claiming the territory that another currently occupies never leads to peace.
Ok, so before 1918, the Ottomans had that piece of land for about 400 years. I guess that makes a turkish claim is older, and therefore stronger, by your logic, am I right?
Before that there was the Mamluks for 200 years, but that doesn’t seem an ethnicity that’s notable today, so let’s forget that.
Before that, the cruzaders had that land for 200 years, I suppose that means Europe also has an older claim.
Before that, Arabs for 400 years, so I see we’re back to their claim.
But hold on, before that, it was Roman territory for a whopping 700 years. That’s notable. Italia has a really good claim, I’d say.
But even before, there were the Jews there, and for close to a thousand years. So, following your logic the state Israel has all right to be there.
Before that there also lived people, of course, but it’s hard to pinpoint those to ethnicity. Egypt was there shortly. That’s an older claim even, but not very long.
Hmm. Are now all those people justified in killing innocents on some grounds that hasn’t been “theirs” for generations?
I understand. you list here injustice that when experienced are beyond words.
Now tell me: in what cases does is the punishment of innocents justified?
your assumption is wrong.
israel displaced millions of palestinians and replaced them with settlers. the blood is on israel government not hamas. they could easily not replace millions of people and we would not be here today.
Now you named one factor that explains this mess, and no objection here. But I’m still missing the answer how killing innocents can be justified.
It seems to me that you think that every person that lives in Israel is responsible for everything that the Israeli government did over the years.
How is that any different from this weeks retaliation that this Israel government hands out over the massacres of citizens by hamas from last weekend?
i have been saying the same thing from the beginning, but i think your perspective of the situation is holding you back from understanding what im saying.
you can put innocent people anywhere in the world and they dont stop being innocent. but that does not change the fact that they are in someone elses home illegally.
if they did not want to be in someone elses home then it is the fault of the government, if they did want to be in someome elses home then it is their fault.
deleted by creator
Again, what’s the justification for killing innocents? Because they walk on land that another claims theirs? That sort of thinking always and everywhere only led to war and war crimes.
As for the Israelis, for those who live there, it’s their home, for many going back three generations. In many cases those ancestors took it it legally under ottoman law. I find that 24-undisputed-hour-rule questionable myself, but your story doesn’t hold up legally in many cases, nor historical. Everyone’s ancestors lived someplace. That doesn’t automatically make that place theirs.
Pointing to an old map and claiming the territory that another currently occupies never leads to peace.
ok then look at the demographic between 1917~1948, you will see how the land was not bought but stolen, not from the ottomans but the british.
when you illegally occupy a land long enough, it does not make the occupation go away. its still an occupied territory.
Ok, so before 1918, the Ottomans had that piece of land for about 400 years. I guess that makes a turkish claim is older, and therefore stronger, by your logic, am I right?
Before that there was the Mamluks for 200 years, but that doesn’t seem an ethnicity that’s notable today, so let’s forget that.
Before that, the cruzaders had that land for 200 years, I suppose that means Europe also has an older claim.
Before that, Arabs for 400 years, so I see we’re back to their claim.
But hold on, before that, it was Roman territory for a whopping 700 years. That’s notable. Italia has a really good claim, I’d say.
But even before, there were the Jews there, and for close to a thousand years. So, following your logic the state Israel has all right to be there.
Before that there also lived people, of course, but it’s hard to pinpoint those to ethnicity. Egypt was there shortly. That’s an older claim even, but not very long.
Hmm. Are now all those people justified in killing innocents on some grounds that hasn’t been “theirs” for generations?
no, the ottomans were the occupiers, so thats just not my logic.
and the same goes for the rest.
this discussion turned into a loop, so i guess good day to you.
Ok, I guess then there is no logic to understand. I’ll stop trying. Have a good day.
Oh really? Then we’d have war everywhere. There is no place on earth that was not at some point taken by force by this or that group of people.