The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before.
The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings.
I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.
That's probably true: of Jewish people in Israel, "most" originate in the MENA countries surrounding Israel, both in the Levant and from places like Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, and Iraq. As the Palestinians were driven from their homes during the 1948 war, so too were Jewish people from their homes throughout the rest of the region.
> The vast majority of Israel's Jews don't come from Palestine and descend very remotely from Hebrews. It's akin to say that Christians owe a right to Palestine as well because Christians, who are a successful "jewish fork", lived there before.
My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things.
> The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers?
My point was that this conflict is characterized by lots of back and forth retaliation. I'm not justifying terrorism from either side however. In any case the Irgun was disbanded following the establishment of the state of Israel.
> I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies.
Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically, I agree there should be a negotiated peace but at the moment neither side seems to be all that interested in figuring out a solution.
> Which is simply an application of the international law.
International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.
> My point was just that both sides have arguably legitimate claims to being native to the region, depending on how you look at things.
The fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim".
> Irgun
Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after.
> Unilateral disengagement doesn't work historically
Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.[0]
What are the options for Palestinians, when every night settlers come to their houses, point guns and lasers at them, wait for half an hour, then leave? (Documented in Louis Theroux's "The Settlers"). The only option is to leave, which is why settlers do this with the support of the military.
If Israel wanted peace, it would stop this: the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights. With the same line of thinking one could argue that Afghani women could do some efforts to be nice to their husbands, heh.
> International law is far from clear in general, especially since the original occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank(Egypt and Jordan) relinquished all claims to the land.
> The fact that you consider that a blond ashkenazi ukrainian jew has the same "legitimate claim" than a Palestinian to live in the West Bank tells me all about your bias here. A large part of Palestinians have lived uninterrupted for 2000 years there - you can find sects such as the Samaritans that were referenced in the Bible. And even then, it's stupid to consider a religious book as a sufficient proof for a "claim".
When did I reference a religious book as proof of anything? I'm just referring to historical evidence in general regarding Jews being clearly native to the region as well. Jews have of course maintained a presence in Israel for the past 2000 years to various degrees.
> Most of the actions of the Irgun were assassinations against the British, which weren't exactly doing pogroms in Palestine at the time. The Irgun was a terrorist organization, Israel continued to operate with the same rulebook after.
The British were however preventing Jewish immigration to some degree and I'm not really convinced all those attacks on British officers would fall under terrorism due to the military nature of British officers...western countries preventing Jewish immigration is one of the reasons so many Jews died in the Holocaust. The Irgun was dissolved by the IDF shortly after Israel became independent, essentially by force[0], having rogue militias operating within ones borders tends to be incompatible with a stable state(i.e. Lebanon). It's interesting that you seem far more concerned about a short lived Jewish paramilitary organization with a history of some terrorism compared to the long standing Palestinian paramilitary organizations with an extensive history of terrorism.
> Israel decided unilaterally to steal, colonize and support settler violence. The argument "but both parties don't want peace" is really a manipulation when there are 250 settler attacks per month and the Israeli police refuses to act.
Unilateral disengagement simply does not lead to peace regardless of how the conflict started, this is mostly an argument that peace must be negotiated prior to disengagement from a conflict, otherwise the conflict will simply continue. Israel learned that disengagements without a negotiated peace deal like in Gaza/Lebanon do not work. Obviously right now neither side seems to be all that interested in negotiating peace, Israelis in general probably want to see some sort of peace agreement but after Oct 7 they are obviously not likely to think the Palestinians are really interested in peace(the second intifada came after peace negotiations failed, largely due to Palestinian leadership being unwilling to finalize a deal).
> the balance of power is so unbalanced that it's hard to blame Palestinians for not wanting to give their last sovereignty rights.
Maybe Palestinian leadership could try something new like making a good faith attempt at a real peace deal? I mean clearly terrorism as a strategy for them to get sovereignty rights isn't working out too well.
You're linking to an agreement that more or less deferred many things like borders to be negotiated at a later point...so yeah international law is not very clear in general.
The justification of the Irgun terrorism because of the Arab riots is comical - then does that mean that groups such as the Hamas are justified in their existence as they resist against the Israeli colonizers? The Irgun was a political organization at its core, which also heavily targeted the British administration, including assassinations and bombings.
I think that it's not "one-sided" to say that Israel should stop supporting the colonization and dismantle the current colonies. Which is simply an application of the international law.