Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(05-08-2024, 12:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not a difference to the analogy because that is how the Zionist movement began in the 19th century. They started buying land in the area with the intention of establishing a Jewish state. Then, after WWII Britain just gave them the remainder. And I am aware that the analogy is very similar to US territorial expansion; why do you think almost all of the Native activists over here side with the Palestinian cause? They see what happened to them in those people.

Well, maybe by default. 

Jewish immigrants had bought up roughly 6% of the Mandate by '47, but the UN partition gave them a big chunk of Arab, public and other lands
in the Jewish partition. The Statistical Handbook of Jewish Palestine seems to be the authoritative source on this that everyone else uses.
https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/V2/Statistical-Handbook-of-Jewish-Palestine-1947-p-121.jpg

Palestinians didn't want to give up their homes, so getting the remainder, and the desired demographic imbalance, required violence and terror.
That's why your Native American analogy is apt and the Nazi analogy is not.

Most Americans are unaware of this history, however.

They believe Israel just formed a state on who knows what (empty land?) and then angry Arab nations attacked them--David vs Goliath--and
got their asses kicked. The history begins there, with these "aggressors," who won't make peace.