I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.
The specific place is important for historical reasons and there have been migrations of Jews back to the area (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal, etc) since the 1490s.
The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain.
Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv.
Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.
I largely agree but the community was pretty persecuted and dispersed from the early 5th century through basically the 1200s.
The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
I kind of take the opposite position. History is complicated, always. However, the basic problem of Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians either live under military law (the West Bank) or in a big prison (Gaza). That's obviously not a democratic, dignified, or otherwise morally defensible situation.
Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
Well then you really should look at how the West Bank came to fall under military law, and how the Gaza Strip became overpopulated with both its neighboring countries closing its borders.
History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
You cannot be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and use the excuse that the other countries are making you be authoritarian despots. That makes you just another authoritarian country with trappings of democracy for part of the population.
> You cannot be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and use the excuse that the other countries are making you be authoritarian despots.
I agree with you. Where we disagree is the I "use the excuse that the other countries are making [us] be authoritarian despots". I do not think that we are authoritarian despots. I think that we have been maintaining a military occupation for over fifty years, that we have been trying desperately to rid ourselves of for thirty years. We have nobody to hand that territory over to.
If you can find a body to administer the West Bank, I'd love to hear your suggestion. The obvious bodies who have been tasked with developing this authority, such as the PA, have proven themselves time and time again of being incapable of such.
By that logic, the US is an authoritarian country. There’s a meaningful distinction to be made between whether your own citizens have a direct say in their governance or not, regardless of how foreigners in foreign countries may be oppressed.
> Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country
Palestinians who live in the lands that Israel has ruled since 1948 are citizens of Israel. The West Bank is not a foreign country, there was never an independent state/country established there. I do not know why the Arabs did not establish an independent Arab state in the West Bank in 1948. In any case, Jordan militarily occupied the area from 1948 to 1967 and Israel militarily occupies the area since. And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years. But no such entity existed or exists today. The PA would be the first contender, but they are incapable of actually administrating the area, and also they rejected every single offer that Israel made to pass the duty of administering the land to them.
> that Israeli settlers are invading
The Israeli settlers are not invading. I've repeated this a few times in this thread, so this is a copy-paste:
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
> And Israel has been trying to pass off that occupation to an entity that would establish an independent state there for almost 30 years.
I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
> I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. They washed their hands of that mess years ago.
> I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
Yes, there are many facets to the occupation, and no government body is 100% attached to any facet - sometimes they'll flip flop. But being that despite the narrative commonly mentioned in social media that the settlements are illegal, I do understand how a government agency tasked with a purpose will fulfill that purpose to the best of its ability to all Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide - that is the stated purpose of the state. I'll remind you that even our Home Force of the army has traveled to foreign countries to help Jews there, such as Ethiopia, Turkey, etc. We are a state for the Jews, even if those Jews are not on our sovereign territory.
> So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
It is actually very practical. In fact Israel has allowed self-determination for specific areas in coordination with the PA. And Israel has completely left the Gaza strip.
You need to understand that these organizations are for the benefit of a future state called Palestine, not for the benefit of the people who would live in that state. The people - and their suffering - are a means to an end to establish that state. I know that is very difficult for Westerners to comprehend, as Western states are _for_ the citizens.
> Because Israel as a state 'for the jews' is an ethnostate, it must keep a jewish demographic majority. So long as that is the case, there is no way for Palestinians to have rights without having their own state.
Yes, we agree on that point.
> Second, that suffering is directly caused by Israel. You can't blame the political projects of the Palestinians for the actions of the IDF.
No, the Palestinians suffering is far more due to their own governing bodies, UNRWA, and Arab states' actions to deliberately subject the Palestinian people to oppression and to prevent the establishment of viable population-focused (instead of state-focused) institutions. The Israeli state (not the IDF specifically) may be responsible for some percentage of suffering, but it is dwarfed by the aforementioned bodies.
> Thirdly, what form of self-determination would actually be acceptable to Israel? Would it include the banning of settlement activity, and the settlers having to live under Palestinian law? Would it include palestinian's right to border control? Or a military?
Good question, and every Israeli's idea of an answer is different. For the most part, the vast majority of Israelis would like the Palestinians to live in their own productive state alongside Israel. Productive, happy neighbours make for good neighbours.
> The reason why people call Gaza a prison is because the Palestinians had absolutely no ability to leave, import, or export, because it did not have control over its own borders. That is obviously just as intolerable as an explicit military occupation.
Borders have two sides. Gaza controls one side of her border, Egypt and Israel control the other. No state has control over both sides of its borders, not even in the Schengen states or the US.
> Borders have two sides. Gaza controls one side of her border, Egypt and Israel control the other. No state has control over both sides of its borders, not even in the Schengen states or the US.
Yes, but the kind of blockade that Israel employs around Gaza would be considered an act of war by essentially every state on earth.
I think this idea you have that Palestinians are oppressed by basically everybody except Israel is totally insane, and comes across as strategic blindness rather than honest conviction. If you just go to Hebron, you have to be pretty deluded not to see oppression, even if you're unwilling to think through the fact that Israel having defacto power in the West Bank entails that the rights of Palestinians are being denied by Israel, and it's immaterial whether that's by commission or omission, even if you're going to ignore any of the many ways in which the Palestinians rights are regularly infringed by Israeli security forces.
> The people - and their suffering - are a means to an end to establish that state.
I think this is really wrongheaded on a couple of counts. Because Israel as a state 'for the jews' is an ethnostate, it must keep a jewish demographic majority. So long as that is the case, there is no way for Palestinians to have rights without having their own state.
Second, that suffering is directly caused by Israel. You can't blame the political projects of the Palestinians for the actions of the IDF.
Thirdly, what form of self-determination would actually be acceptable to Israel? Would it include the banning of settlement activity, and the settlers having to live under Palestinian law? Would it include palestinian's right to border control? Or a military? The reason why people call Gaza a prison is because the Palestinians had absolutely no ability to leave, import, or export, because it did not have control over its own borders. That is obviously just as intolerable as an explicit military occupation.
If this is true (I don't know), a good percentage of the European settler Jews would have had to converge upon Jerusalem. In 1800, before the European Zionist settler colonialist project began, there were only 7000 Jews in all of historic Palestine. A large increase from the period ending just 20 years prior where there were only 2000 Jews in all of Palestine.
You have to go back to the 4th century, and earlier, for Judaism to have a significant presence in Palestine.
You might want to note that the rulers of the holy land at the time that you are referring to specifically enacted laws to encourage settling the nearly-empty holy land. Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike.
You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renews (for the most part) every three years or so.
> You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today
I don't know where you are getting this from, it isn't true. The League of Nations Palestine Mandate [0] granted the UK "full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate" (Article 1). You will not find any limitation preventing them from making permanent laws within it.
The UK imposed its own legal system on the Mandate, as Article 1 allowed. It ended up mostly abolishing Ottoman law, although it retained it in certain areas (especially family law, inheritance, religious affairs and real estate). The laws it imposed were not necessarily those of the metropolitan UK – the criminal code was largely copied from colonial India. The starting point of Israeli law is Israel's decision at the time of independence to continue the British Mandate's legal system, until such time as the Knesset decided to alter things. It wasn't until 1977, for example, that Israel completely replaced the British-imposed penal code with its own. Palestinian law has the same fundamental starting point, although with the added complexity of being overlaid with Egyptian and Jordanian legislation (in Gaza and the West Bank, respectively), and then a mixture of Israeli and Palestinian legislation laid on top of that.
Thank you. You are correct, I did not want to make an already-complicated matter more complicated for purpose of discussion, as the relevant part (real estate) remained Ottoman.
As far as I’m aware, the reason why the UK retained Ottoman real estate law in Mandatory Palestine was pragmatic rather than due to any international obligation that they do so-all the existing land titles were based on Ottoman law, changing them to a different system of real estate law would have involved a lot of work for little practical benefit, so the British decided to leave the existing Ottoman system in place. But, if they’d felt strongly enough about it, they could have done otherwise
Actually, the article supports my statement. Before the laws encouraging immigration with no regard to ethnicity, there were 275,000 people living in the area. After, 532,000 people.
>Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I find this hard to believe because the majority of the area was not uninhabited swamps back during the time of the Roman Empire, so why would it have become uninhabited swamps at some point between then and the 1940s? Of course terrain does change over time, but I've never heard of the Levant turning into swamps in post-Roman times.
> The 17th century saw a steep decline in the Jewish population of Palestine due to the unstable security situation, natural catastrophes, and abandonment of urban areas, which turned Palestine into a remote and desolate part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman central government became feeble and corrupt, and the Jewish community was harassed by local rulers, janissaries, guilds, Bedouins, and bandits. The Jewish community was also caught between feuding local chieftains who extorted and oppressed the Jews. The Jewish communities of the Galilee heavily depended on the changing fortunes of a banking family close to the ruling pashas in Acre. As a result, the Jewish population significantly shrank.
For a couple of hundred years prior there were tens of thousands of Jews in the region, including at one point 30,000 counted just in Safed by the end of the 16th century.
Also keep in mind that in 1800 populations were an order of magnitude smaller than they are now.
> Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s
Citation needed.
Nearly 2M people called Palestine their home in the 1940s, the majority Muslim.
We also know that the Palestinian villages bulldozed by the Israeli European Jewish settler colonialists over the last 75 years had existed for many hundreds of years-- many of the parks in Israel are built on top of the ruins of these destroyed Palestinian villages, to hide these crimes from the world. We know that the Palestinian olive orchards bulldozed by the Israelis were filled with trees that were hundreds of years old. Gaza itself, was a prosperous ancient city that once stood upon a crossroads of trade. Besides the 10s of thousands of civilians majority women and children murdered by Israel (war crimes) in this latest massacre of the many massacres by the Israelis, the Israelis are destroying all the buildings and civilian infrastructure in Gaza (war crimes), there may be no more Gaza when the Israelis are finished.
Short version, you are spreading falsehoods in defense of genocidal behavior.
European Jews do not make up the majority of Israeli citizens. More Jewish Israelis are Mizrahi than Ashkenazi. It's notable when people only talk about "Israeli European Jewish settler colonialists", while ignoring all the MENA Jews who migrated or already lived in the region. It's notable because it's framing the issue as Israel being a modern European colony, which is misleading and incorrect.
It's funny because people scream "citation, citation" but these numbers are all over any wikipedia page covering the population and history of the region, with adequate citations. I've done little more beyond quote some pages.
That's even putting aside the absurdity of calling the flight of Jews from Europe "colonialism" in the first place.
Just because Hitler blew his brains out, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory fine again. There were pogroms against people who had survived the concentration camps, Stalin was now in charge of the majority of nations where Jews had lived, local authorities that had collaborated with the Nazis were still in charge in many places...
Does one crime against humanity justify another? The Jews escaped the holocaust then immediately displaced 700,000 people during the formation of their state. That included the massacre of several villages.
I do think simply calling Israel a colonial state is insufficient. The Jewish people didn't have a place they could return to like the British or the French, and the contemporary events obviously created an extremely dire situation. I'm not sure that makes what was done to the native Muslim population in Palestine okay, and there were certainly elements of a colonial project on display that continue to this day (notably, the formation of Jewish settlements in the west bank in violation of international law). The zionist movement also pre-dates the rise of the Nazis. That they were vindicated doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a colonial project.
