05-08-2024, 11:26 AM
(05-08-2024, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree. Arab nations were aiding Palestinians who were defending their land, which is not comparable to what we saw with Germany in either of the world wars. Let me draw you a comparison using real places but a fictional circumstance.
Say the Gabrieleno people start buying up land in your area to establish a tribal territory. There is resistance to this by the people living in the area but it is put down, often violently, by the US government and a militia of the Gabrieleno. Several years later, the US government declares that the land once belonging to the Gabrieleno people will once again be under their governance. The governor of California resists this as the area is home to many Californians and includes the coastline from Santa Monica to Capistrano and inland as far as San Bernadino, so includes Burbank, Glendale, and of course LA. There is armed resistance from within (we all know some of these areas have plenty of firearms that are illegal by CA standards) that is violently retaliated against by the Gabrieleno who are backed by the US military. The governors of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, all in a stunning show of solidarity but united by federal overreach come to the aid of California but the US and Gabrieleno prevail, forcing about half of the Californians that were not of the Gabrieleno peoples in the area to flee their homes. There are many that settle in the San Fernando Valley area, but over the years the Gabrieleno have claimed this land as their own as well and because their numbers have grown as they welcome in more indigenous people from other tribes across North America that have been displaced, they start building settlement areas in that territory as well, using violent tactics to take land with no one stopping them other than saying "you shouldn't do that."
This is what has been going on in Israel/Palestine. The Gabrieleno are the Zionist settlers of the late 19th century and early 20th, the US is Great Britain, and the Californians living in the area previously the Palestinians.
There's a rather important difference and it is underlined above. The bought the territory, they didn't seize it. If I buy land that you occupy you don't get to "resist" my ownership, at least not in any lawful society. Where the analogy starts to work a bit is that land being declared part of a separate nation. Oddly enough, you essentially described the majority of US territorial expansion. Should we give all those lands back to the Native Americans?
The point being that the toothpaste is well out of the tube on this one. We're dealing with a problem started by another country close to eighty years ago. The biggest issue being that there is no compromise that will accommodate both sides now, it's become entrenched in religion and racism. It may not have been when this started but it damned sure is now. Even if you shrank Israel back to its 1948 borders this conflict would continue in exactly the same manner.
So, serious question, do you see any compromise that would be remotely accepted by either side that would actually end this conflict? Let's say you have deific powers to impose a "solution" that cannot involve changing peoples way of thought. What solution could you impose that would resolve this?
