Can someone objectively explain the origin of the Israel Palestine conflict in detail for me beyond 'they think it's...

can someone objectively explain the origin of the Israel Palestine conflict in detail for me beyond 'they think it's their holy land?' think it's about time I properly understood

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JfFN8gw1jSI
youtube.com/watch?v=CUZaR3op1qw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Modern Zionism was born around the late 1800s which had the belief that the land of Palestine rightfully belonged to Jews irregardless of genetic connection to the land.

In 1882 Zionist Jewish supremacists from Europe started immigrating to Palestine and slowly stealing land from the Palestinians and ethnically cleansing them. Prior to this Palestine was made up of over 95% Arabic speaking population (Palestinians) and had been under Islamic rule for over 1200 years.

Fast forward to WW1 Britain backstabbed the Arabs and awarded the Jews a "rightful homeland in the land of Palestine" which was basically Britain giving someone else's land to the Rothschilds family.

Through the 20s and 30s more illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British mandate and Jewish terrorist groups started bombing innocent Palestinians in buses, trains, markets, etc...

Eventually the Zionists used the helped orchestrate the Holocaust as an excuse to herd the rest of the Jews to Palestine and finish ethnically cleansing Palestinians before declaring their own state on Palestinian land.

Watch these 2 videos:

youtube.com/watch?v=JfFN8gw1jSI

youtube.com/watch?v=CUZaR3op1qw

irregardless doesn't exist you cunt

Rich jews funded hitler to get poor jews killed to make a state of Israel legitimate
Then they stole land from the local arabs and now they're basically spending their time destabilising the middle east
I don't like the Palestinians much but at least they don't meddle in my countrie's politics

>irregardless doesn't exist you cunt
What?

regardless means "without regard", "ir" is a negative suffix. "irregardless" means "with without regard"
Just say regardless you retard

MartyrMade podcast

True but it still exists as a informal word.

Kikestar used their war golem to invade Palestine after ww2, palestines wer e BTFO and they are resisting the aggression until this very second.

which is used by retards, like "I could care less"

topkek

>and had been under Islamic rule for over 1200 years.
So who's land was it before the Palestinians took it?

yeah right ashkenazi jews are 100% middle eastern

Why did you say "yeah right"? I didn't make a claim, I referenced a part of user's post and asked a question about it.

Also, if you're really serious about it you could read this book. It has all the details.

Hi Moshe.

The Palestinians always lived there but it was under the rule of up to 70 difference powers throughout history and a lot of mixing happened. However DNA shows that Palestinians are native to the land going back as far as the canaanites.

I guess in the end the whole argument is moot. The land belongs to whoever is strong enough to take it and hold it.

not all the jews in israel are ashkenazi

fuck off shlomo

No, it has been inadmissible to gain land though war since WW1, this is not biblical times. Also, the Zionists never conquered the land themselves, they had Britain do most of the work for them.

ok sry

This is /pol
Wikipedia is that way ---->

(((Wikipedia))) is that way ---->

It doesn't matter. My statement is still true, whoever is strong enough to take the land and hold it owns it.
It may not be "admissable" for a someone to creep up on you at a redlight, shoot you in the head and take your car but guess what? That's their car now. It may not be legitamately theirs, but they took that shit from you and it is in their possession, until the police use their greater power to take it from the criminal.
That's how it's always been. Just because some countries agreed to not conquer land anymore doesn't change that fact.

There's a difference between conquering land and massacring or ethnically cleansing unarmed civilian inhabitants of the land. Throughout history the land has been conquered while leaving the civilian populations largely unharmed. The Zionists had massacred unarmed Palestinians and is still ethnically cleansing them to this day.

>There's a difference between conquering land and massacring or ethnically cleansing unarmed civilian inhabitants of the land.
Yes, there is a difference. The conquering of land is what we were talking about.
The ethnic cleansing of unarmed civilians is a tangent you just brought up.

>The ethnic cleansing of unarmed civilians is a tangent you just brought up.
No it's not a tangent because this is precisely what the Zionist Jews did and are still doing to the Palestinians.

Also, if you conquer another population without giving them equal rights then it is occupation or apartheid so I don't know what you are trying to justify here Isaac.

All I said was whoever is strong enough to take and hold land is the one who owns it, legitimately or not.

How they treat the people they conquered, if they impose their culture on them, if they wear polka dots or fucking beatbox with their pussies is all a tangent to what the point of my statement was.

>All I said was whoever is strong enough to take and hold land is the one who owns it, legitimately or not.
Yeah but this is the 21st century so you're wrong because that mechanism doesn't work anymore. Even empires used to give their inhabitants rights and autonomy.

This is the 21st century, so we as nations cooperate with each other in the interest of peace and agree to not conquer land. That doesn't make what I said wrong. What I said is still fundamentally true.

What if, for example, the US decided to conquer France with brute military force? We probably could. It would be politically retarded, but we would own the land. That is, unless NATO unified against us. They would represent a power greater than the US, therefore they would control the land. Do you see? It's really not complicated.

>Even empires used to give their inhabitants rights and autonomy.
There you go with your tangents again.