Thats a complete arbitrary point in time. Why that one and not one hundred years earlier during the ottoman empire?
Comment on [deleted]
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 months agoOr we can draw a line at the very real point where Britain, in all their hubris, said, “Fuck all y’all Arabs, this land is for the Jews” shortly after WWII.
GenEcon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 months ago
Because it’s not an arbitrary point in time. Jews weren’t there as a nation prior to that point. Then Britain made it so. There’s a before and after that’s clearly demarcated in history where the people in the area, whoever they were, was displaced by a foreign power to give land to people who hadn’t been there before.
Why can’t we just do it again, but this time displace ourselves? Wouldn’t the Republican party prefer the white skin of Jewish refugees than the brown skin of Palestinians? And then we can give them South Dakota, as someone suggested. And then Palestinians can have their state.
dpkonofa@lemmy.world 8 months ago
This is the part I don’t get. You can easily set aside the history from hundreds of years ago because the point you describe is such recent history that there are people still alive who remember when this period of shit started. There is no one alive to settle the dispute about when the area went from Canaan to Israel and who was right/wrong but there is a lot of documented knowledge about what happened when Britain got involved after WWI up through WWII.
nucawysi@lemmy.world 8 months ago
there is a thing called oral history and that is also documented. this is how jews believe that that G-d spoke to them on mount sinai, it was passed down and recounted by witnesses from generation to generation. I heard a scientific proof about this compared to claims other religions make that was quite interesting, but the point is there have always been witnesses to history and some of those witnesses create a record that is verifiable in a number of ways and hard to dispute.