From your initial comment it seems like the main misunderstanding is that nation states unilaterally declared by European powers in Africa and Western Asia from the nineteenth century until around the middle of the 20th century have been utterly disastrous to those places rather than being the only source of order in those places. Although these nation states are seen as legitimate by the powers which established them, in the opinion of many of the victims of these European powers whose population is much larger and much more relevant since they are physically present for the consequences of this establishment, tend not to consider them as legitimate and more of an encroachment. Colonization is not a neutral or natural process but an act of aggression by parties with superior military might on parties vulnerable to that might. If your view is that might makes right, then the issue here isn’t in historical misunderstanding but more of a moral dissonance. If that isn’t your view I’d be willing to entertain a more detailed conversation.
From your initial comment it seems like the main misunderstanding is that nation states unilaterally declared by European powers in Africa and Western Asia from the nineteenth century until around the middle of the 20th century have been utterly disastrous to those places rather than being the only source of order in those places.
Is this the starting volley of an argument that unfair colonization from the 1800s is justification for a nation’s lack of sovereignty?
tend not to consider them as legitimate and more of an encroachment.
I thought it was moral dissonance. I’m at least glad that in youger generations mass murder is coming to be seen more universally as evil even when committed against groups who are not white. I’m sorry about whatever happened to you to make you this way.
As I pointed out in another post, using decades- or centuries-old arguments for sovereignty has been used as justification for terrorism. When bin Laden smashed a couple of planes into the Twin Towers, that’s exactly the kind of argument he used as justification.
It’s not about moral dissonance. It’s about how hate spreads through ancient spites and grudges. The decades of failed peace attempts in the Middle East have been brought about by clinging on to these ancient grudges, and it’s exactly why Palestine has had much less of a standing in being officially recognized as a nation than Israel has.
What percentage of Palestinians currently don’t live in the family home they were born / grew up in, because the place they grew up in has been destroyed or taken by the Israelis during their lifetime? I mean obviously for Gaza, the percentage is pretty near 100% at this point, but I’m curious what you think the number is for all Palestinians put together.
I would say that we happen to be posting in an Internet forum, where we all have access to the Internet, and I could just look that up. But, it’s a more nuanced question that isn’t as easy to look up. According to Wikipedia, more than half are stateless and 21 percent of Israelis identify as Palestinians.
But, I’m sure you’re leading this question into an answer that you already have a page up for, so let’s hear it.
You sounded like you were saying that Palestinian grievances were reaching back 70 years ago. My point was that there are large numbers of Palestinians who have much more recent grievances than 70 years – like dead relatives of all ages, or lost homes, within their lifetime. What percent of them have that, I have no idea, and I’m genuinely curious what you think the percentage is. But honestly the point wasn’t needing to dig up an exact number, 4% or 20% or 50% or whatever. Any of those is too many, and you seem to define Palestinian retribution for it as “terrorism” while Israeli retribution is defined as “defense.”
My point was that there are large numbers of Palestinians who have much more recent grievances than 70 years – like dead relatives of all ages, or lost homes, within their lifetime.
Which all stem from that original conflict from 1947. A wave of hatred against the Jews who took their country, which spawned more violence, not all of it balanced, which spawns more terrorism, which spawns more violence, until we get to today.
From your initial comment it seems like the main misunderstanding is that nation states unilaterally declared by European powers in Africa and Western Asia from the nineteenth century until around the middle of the 20th century have been utterly disastrous to those places rather than being the only source of order in those places. Although these nation states are seen as legitimate by the powers which established them, in the opinion of many of the victims of these European powers whose population is much larger and much more relevant since they are physically present for the consequences of this establishment, tend not to consider them as legitimate and more of an encroachment. Colonization is not a neutral or natural process but an act of aggression by parties with superior military might on parties vulnerable to that might. If your view is that might makes right, then the issue here isn’t in historical misunderstanding but more of a moral dissonance. If that isn’t your view I’d be willing to entertain a more detailed conversation.
Is this the starting volley of an argument that unfair colonization from the 1800s is justification for a nation’s lack of sovereignty?
Yes, there it is.
I thought it was moral dissonance. I’m at least glad that in youger generations mass murder is coming to be seen more universally as evil even when committed against groups who are not white. I’m sorry about whatever happened to you to make you this way.
As I pointed out in another post, using decades- or centuries-old arguments for sovereignty has been used as justification for terrorism. When bin Laden smashed a couple of planes into the Twin Towers, that’s exactly the kind of argument he used as justification.
It’s not about moral dissonance. It’s about how hate spreads through ancient spites and grudges. The decades of failed peace attempts in the Middle East have been brought about by clinging on to these ancient grudges, and it’s exactly why Palestine has had much less of a standing in being officially recognized as a nation than Israel has.
What percentage of Palestinians currently don’t live in the family home they were born / grew up in, because the place they grew up in has been destroyed or taken by the Israelis during their lifetime? I mean obviously for Gaza, the percentage is pretty near 100% at this point, but I’m curious what you think the number is for all Palestinians put together.
I would say that we happen to be posting in an Internet forum, where we all have access to the Internet, and I could just look that up. But, it’s a more nuanced question that isn’t as easy to look up. According to Wikipedia, more than half are stateless and 21 percent of Israelis identify as Palestinians.
But, I’m sure you’re leading this question into an answer that you already have a page up for, so let’s hear it.
I don’t know the percentage.
You sounded like you were saying that Palestinian grievances were reaching back 70 years ago. My point was that there are large numbers of Palestinians who have much more recent grievances than 70 years – like dead relatives of all ages, or lost homes, within their lifetime. What percent of them have that, I have no idea, and I’m genuinely curious what you think the percentage is. But honestly the point wasn’t needing to dig up an exact number, 4% or 20% or 50% or whatever. Any of those is too many, and you seem to define Palestinian retribution for it as “terrorism” while Israeli retribution is defined as “defense.”
Which all stem from that original conflict from 1947. A wave of hatred against the Jews who took their country, which spawned more violence, not all of it balanced, which spawns more terrorism, which spawns more violence, until we get to today.
bruh how you gonna flat admit israel took their country then beef when i say thats fucked up wheres your head