• AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not a great comparison as Brits have Britain to live in already (I’m British, if it matters).

      If you displaced the Brits from India back in the day, they could return to Britain.

      If you displace the Jews from Israel now, where could they go?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The vast majority of Israel’s Jewish population is native-born at this point. They have no connection to those countries. They likely don’t even speak the language. I do not see how that would be a good solution.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              What if the countries their ancestors came from don’t want to take them and the Palestinians don’t want them there either? I don’t think it is a solution.

              My solution would be put the whole area under UN control until something equitable can be worked out that will make people at least satisfied. They won’t be happy, but they could be satisfied if they were forced to have negotiations.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s a lot of places where Jews can already live safely

        The hilarious part is upper middle class Jews from like New York running over to colonize Palestine to be “safer”

      • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        well yes but actually no. Arab states in palestine, yes. However they’ve been under Turkish occupation for most of their modern history

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            ah yes because being under the rule of a foreign empire doesn’t imply occupation by said empire… I think you have a lot to teach to the entire english speaking world

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Occupation requires you to own land prior to that Empire, and no Palestinian has ever laid claim to their own territory without that territory belonging to someone else, throughout all of human history.

              Before the Ottoman Empire was a mix of caliphates and crusaders. Before that was the Roman empire. Before that was the Persian Empire, before that was the Egyptian Empire and before that it was Israel/Judah.

              I skipped a couple of minor empires, but it’s pretty much a chain of “someone’s” forever, and that “someone” has never referred to themselves as Palestinian prior to the mid-20th century.

              • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                The arabs caliphate were arabs and claiming the land was theirs and calling it Palestine. The question you should ask is : why were there no massive independentist fight under the Ottoman rule ?