One hundred years ago "Palestinianism" wasn't a thing, and hopefully it won't be a thing in another hundred. Meanwhile, the Jews continue 3000+ years of their connection to their actual homeland as it is even stated in the Quran.

Pardon. Please allow me to ask you a single, simple question, from a regulatory point of view. And by the way, I admit that I am ignorant.

What is Palestine if not the ancient Philistine?

There was a native, Arab population living the that area of the Ottoman empire labelled "Palestine". After WWI, the winning Western powers carved up the Arab area into "mandates" - quasi-sovereign states under European control (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine). Great Britain ruled Palestine. While the other mandates moved toward self-determination, Great Britain decided to turn their property into a homeland for Jews. At the time, Arabs lived in towns, villages and cities spread across Palestine. They wanted a state of their own, like the other mandates. Jews were a minority population, less than 10%. This grew during WW2 to 30%. After the WW2, the UN voted to partition Palestine to create the state of Israel. Native Arabs were ejected.

So it's not that there was some loyalty to a state, but a sense that they were entitled to their geographical home- like everyone else in the region. Now they're being ejected again.

The Philistines were likely from Crete or somewhere in the Aegean. They were not Arabs.

The original UN plan had the territory divided between Jewish and Muslim land. The Arab Muslims rejected any independent Jewish state, so the moment one was declared the Arabs attacked from all sides. Had the Arabs won, it would have been a second holocaust. Yet since they were fought off and the Jews counterattacked and saved themselves from annihilation some of the Arabs living in Palestine fled and cry foul. Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba."

The other Arab nations should have taken them in and integrate them but they would rather just leave this as a perpetual problem for Israel and treat the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank as front line soldiers for Islamic expansion which has always been the aim of their religion from the very beginnings.

Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba." — BitconnectCarlos

You've completely ignored the history. These Arabs were in Palestine, and were forced out. Israel often excuses this as perfectly fine, because it's so similar to the treatment of native Americans in the US. They see that as perfectly fine.

I'm not defending the actions of Palestinians, I'm explaining why they won't accept the theft of their "reservation". You had claimed it was no big deal. That's utter nonsense.

Some of them fled because Arab leaders told them to. Some of them fled for fear of the Israeli army coming to their towns. Some of them fled because attacks were being launched from their towns. Some of them fled expecting a quick victory. It's common for civilians to flee in wartime for a variety of reasons.

It's more similar to tribes fighting among each other and boundaries shifting. This problem would have been resolved had the Arab states integrated their own or had the Palestinians not chosen violence towards civilians as a way to avenge their loss.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war.

EDIT: Jews are indigenous to the land. You can tell this because of various ancient festivals that speak to their connection to the land. The "Palestinians" - a 60 year old identity - have no festivals.

Jews are indigenous to the land — BitconnectCarlos

Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war. — BitconnectCarlos

And you think this means they should just accept their lot, like native Americans did? What "should" happen isn't the point. It's what WILL happen. They won't accept it, and neither will their Arab neighbors.

Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement. — Relativist

Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. Jewish identity was formed in the land. I understand that Arabs have lived in in the land for many years, but Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. They come from places like Lebanon and Syria and settle in Israel and adopt the name "Palestinian" as did anyone who lived in Israel/Palestine/Canaan etc. So Jews were "Palestinian" too in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

This all changed in the 1960s when it suddenly became an explicitly non-Jewish name for an ethnicity rather just a geographical descriptor as it had always been. But it is lies. Many of these "Palestinians" settled in the land in the 19th century when the Ottomans imported Arab workers.

Yet there was no "free Palestine" movement during the Ottoman empire. There was no need for it. The land was already Muslim -- which is what it's always been about. It is humiliating for them that land that was once Muslim has reverted back to being Jewish.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war.
— BitconnectCarlos
And you think this means they should just accept their lot, like native Americans did? What "should" happen isn't the point. It's what WILL happen. They won't accept it, and neither will their Arab neighbors. — Relativist

Many countries lose wars and accept the new reality and move on. Why won't the Palestinians?

Many countries lose wars and accept the new reality and move on. Why won't the Palestinians? — RogueAI

There's not many close analogies of a conquered people being ejected from their land. But regardless, I'm discussing the reality that they aren't likely to be docile about it.

I'll tell you what you don't do: You don't go on a multi-decade terror spree and deepen enmity with an enemy who is stronger than you.

It would be like native americans choosing to go around murdering and kidnapping random white people.

Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. — BitconnectCarlos

History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time.

The Google ai sez: "after World War II, large numbers of ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from territories that were ceded to other countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, which had previously been part of Germany; this event is often referred to as the "Flight and expulsion of Germans" and is considered one of the largest single instances of ethnic cleansing in history."

What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't?

What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't? — RogueAI

What difference does it make? You're judgement of what they "ought" to do doesn't compel them to do so.

History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time. — Relativist

Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century under one of their caliphates. Just as they conquered many cities and regions at that time. It's funny how people compare them to native americans given they came to control the land as a way to expand their empire. Imperialism would be the better term.

Anyway, yes initially they were welcoming but mostly jews under muslim rule were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizya (extra taxation for non-muslims.) It was hard to move there because of the political climate and very high taxation and oppression for non-muslims.

What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't?
— RogueAI
What difference does it make? You're judgement of what they "ought" to do doesn't compel them to do so. — Relativist

Of course it doesn't. That's Israel's job. The war will continue until Palestinians accept their defeat. It took huge amounts of suffering for Germany and Japan to get there. What Israel is doing isn't any different than what the Allies did, except Israel is being much more careful. The punishment we inflicted on Japanese and German cities before they surrendered was incredible, but that's war.

Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century — BitconnectCarlos

So you think think it was appropriate to correct a situation established 1300 years earlier. That's as ludicrous as suggesting Israel should be abolished because of the past injustices to Palestinians. Irrespective of Palestinian claims, Israel exists and has a right to continue. That doesn't doesn't justify ethnic cleansing. I absolutlely understand Israel's need for security, but this approach seems likely to provoke more resentment from Palestinians and more hostility from Israel's neighbors.

Zero apologies offered. The Muslims come in and take by the sword, but then cry foul when they are defeated by the sword by that land's previous owners and indigenous inhabitants. Cry me a river. And this was after many centuries of Jews being treated as second class citizens.

Israel's very existence is considered "ethnic cleansing" so excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies.

The war will continue until Palestinians accept their defeat. It took huge amounts of suffering for Germany and Japan to get there. What Israel is doing isn't any different than what the Allies did, except Israel is being much more careful. The punishment we inflicted on Japanese and German cities before they surrendered was incredible, but that's war. — RogueAI

International standards developed after WW2 in the Geneva Conventions (1949 and 1976) would consider our "punishment" of civilians as war crimes.

International standards developed after WW2 in the Geneva Conventions (1949 and 1976) would consider our "punishment" of civilians as war crimes. — Relativist

Who cares? War itself is a crime against humanity. The only unforgiveable crime in war is to lose. I posted a poll awhile back:
Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion.
Was Churchill's use of poison gas justified?

Most people said yes. I think that's the obvious answer.

Thank you for answering my question.

So you believe the end justifies the means and might makes right. Let's agree to disagree.

I don't believe might makes right. I do believe the ends often justify the means. Normally, you wouldn't send a trolley car barreling down on someone, am I right? But if there's five people stuck on it...

excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies. — BitconnectCarlos

You have been misreading if you inferred I was trying to arouse your sympathy. I simply trying to get across to you how Palestinians would take it, and that this will have consequences. You had suggested this would all go away.

Yes, consequences for sure. I suggested it would go away if the Arab countries choose to accept them and integrate them into their populations. And all this after many decades. They would start a new life and other affairs would occupy their minds.

Or if they were dispersed to other countries.

Pardon. I'm under the impression (I could be wrong, I admit it) that part of the conflict involves religion. Is that correct?

Pardon. I'm under the impression (I could be wrong, I admit it) that part of the conflict involves religion. Is that correct? — Arcane Sandwich

Well, some of the Arab combatants scream allahu akbar! before raping women to death, so....

If you don't mind, my question was specifically directed at Carlos. I want to know his opinion.

I don't mind. Just throwin my 2 cents in from the peanut gallery