What are your thoughts on this image? Is it real or fake...

What are your thoughts on this image? Is it real or fake? Did the Jewish people push the Palestinians out of this territory and take it for themselves?
Before this devolves into a false dichotomy, I don't support the Muslims or the Jews. If it were up to me, I'd cut the funding to both of them and just let them kill themselves. I just want to know if this acquisition of territory is justified. Was it acquired through war? If so, doesn't the Jewish government get aid from the rest of the Western world? How one-sided was the war? I've seen pictures of dead Arab kids, but I can't help but think it's the Muslims playing victim to get sympathy so they can wipe out the kikes.
Similarly, the Jews pull the same shit as well, play victim to get help.

Thoughts or opinions? I am all for conquest if the people you are killing are a few eras behind your people, then they deserve it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-bomb-attack-several-injured-after-blast-targets-police-bus-during-rush-hour-in-turkey-a7068431.html
youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

When you receive millions of dollars everything is posible.

Of course, that much is obvious.

I just find it interesting that Jews play victim with the Holohoax, but are taking part in this conflict as well.
At the same time, I don't think that the land under Muslim rule would be any better, it would be objectively worse. They aren't innocent little doves waiting to be slaughtered as well, but I do think that it is rather one-sided.
Weren't the Jews originally supposed to move to Madagascar? Niggers love it when smarter people give them handouts, why don't they just move there?

>I just find it interesting that Jews play victim with the Holohoax

youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

>Weren't the Jews originally supposed to move to Madagascar?

Thanks to the ETERNAL ANGLO they(jews)are now in Palestinia, They think is their ancient land and shit. But genetics proved they are atleast half caucasian, ergo all that sand belongs more to muslims than jews.

For example, was the land purchased? If so, then I understand. It just seems like a nigger-tier thing to do, it's like eating your seeds instead of planting them (selling land for the temporary wealth).
If the image is correct, then there is something wrong. It just seems like much of it was through war, who would willingly do this. Media blackout on Jewish involvement says something about it as well, I would like to know more but every article is "muh Jewish homeland" or "Allah will smite you all!"

Well, first of all you have to set a definition for what a Palestinian is. You have to remember that Palestine has never been an independent state historically; Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 considered themselves either British subjects, Pan-Arabs, or belonging to another Arab state, e.g, Southern Syrian, West Jordanian, Northern Egyptian, etc.

This becomes very important, because in 1947 the Palestinians really didn't own any land as a nation; they were British subjects until May 15, 1948. The map in question is privately owned land in white that belongs to Jewish owners, and land held in common/public being owned by non-Jewish owners in green.

In the partition plan, a neutral committee divided Palestine by majority population in each region except Jerusalem, which was neutral. The Pan-Arabs at this point rejected the proposal and went to war. The war itself initially went rather well, but with rough UN support, Israel quickly forced back the invaders taking regions they deemed necessary for security. Keep in mind, Palestine still doesn't exist as a nationality at this point; Jordan claimed the West Bank, Syria claimed the heights, and Egypt, Gaza.

With a few more wars for territorial disputes and the last gasps of pan-Arab thought, Palestinianism didn't become a thing until 1964, and even then it was extremely careful on making claims as they would be immediately fighting a war with their Arab neighbors if they did gain a state.

So, right now there is an awkwardness in the region; Egypt would prefer to not deal with Israel post Nassar, Jordan has struck an uneasy defacto peace, Syria is too much of a cluster fuck to do anything. Israel is itself not particularly interested in the land itself in the West bank, where a Palestinian state would likely be, but is more concerned with whether or not this new state would be simply a point to launch attacks on Israel.. and their concern is valid.

Who cares, Israeli Jews are based, Palestinians are Muslim savages, I wish Israel actually genocides them.

The bad Jews are the globalist banker-media Jews not Isrealis

>If it were up to me, I'd cut the funding to both of them and just let them kill themselves.

Seems we agree that it'd be best to let both sides wipe each other out. Imagine how wonderful the world would be....

Why does anyone even give a shit about a country the size of a paperclip and the meaningless bullshit that goes on there

Agreed. Shit, even other Arabs don't want (((Palestinians)))

>Syria is too much of a cluster fuck to do anything

Yes, now. Maybe if you amerifats stop bombing all these mudslims...

Nah, they started with less, but the decline was pretty hefty.
At first they just sold the land for scrap, it was deserted and the palestinians left it to bake in the sun.
Then the jews came and make it useful and th palestinians felt cheated.
Cue endless whinng that hasn't stopped 'till this day.

Add to that the loss of territory over war and plentiful other fuck ups and Palestina has ever reason to be in as shit a position as it currently is in.

t. Schlomo Goldstein from Jew York.

Muzzies ain't gonna bomb themselves, partner.

alright well let me just tell you that Israel is a very very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them one hundred percent. One hundred percent! They've been our most reliable. Its our true friend over there and were going to protect Israel one hundred percent.

Really?

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-bomb-attack-several-injured-after-blast-targets-police-bus-during-rush-hour-in-turkey-a7068431.html

That is fuuuucking stupid bro. So a bunch of Russians, Hungarians and Sephardim show up in a foreign country, call it home and themselves Israelis, and somehow it's only the native Arab population that has to "set a definition" in order to avoid ethnic disqualification?

I don't know about them being as white, I thought Arabs were also Semitic.


I agree, I have heard of this before, that Palestinian land was very ill-defined.
>In the partition plan, a neutral committee divided Palestine by majority population in each region except Jerusalem, which was neutral.
Does this plan resemble the current situation? If so, this is not very neutral.

>deemed necessary for security.
I hear that the Jews are propping up the enemy as being a national threat, but aren't they one of the military superpowers? It could be an excuse to paint a boogeyman to take up as much land as they want.

Remember the false dichotomy.
The question is not whether or not there are based "fags", "blacks", or "jews", the question is this: Is it worth it to retain relations with a group of people if it means dealing with the lowest common denominator? And for the Jews, that certainly is a low bar. There is no lie they will not tell, no political platform they won't assume, and no practice they won't undergo to fool the gentile.

This, I feel that they dug their own grave dealing with people who were smarter than they were. Some people are just destined for failure.

That is a joke, my Texan friend.

The point is the validity of claim, and of state. The Israelis did make a formal claim, it was recognized, and they do business as a nation state.

>But the claim is not valid!
Says who? How is this different from Palestinians trying to claim land that their great grand father fucked goats on while they were going to Cairo?

>Ethnic disputes!
I really don't give a damn about this. I'd argue Americans have a right to the Americas over the natives because they actually own the land currently.

>Setting definitions
If you don't set definitions, nor control the land, nor have recognition, in what sense are you a state?

I agree with this man, if you cannot defend something or have not done something of worth (i.e. are several technological eras behind another people), then you don't deserve the land. However, Jews do receive a lot of "outside support".
My main point is that I don't think either group are the sheep being lead to slaughter. Jews have more of a claim because they can fight the war and win it, but I wouldn't really call it a war at this point, more of a slaughter. It can be argued that they are painting a false picture of the enemy to be able to acquire more land than they already have (through UN rules, purchased prior to this case, or through conflict).

>Does this plan resemble the current situation? If so, this is not very neutral.
It looked a bit like this.

>I hear that the Jews are propping up the enemy as being a national threat, but aren't they one of the military superpowers? It could be an excuse to paint a boogeyman to take up as much land as they want.
To be completely blunt, the land isn't particularly useful or valuable. If you look it from a long term view, it's more a demographics bomb.

If Israel accepts the Palestinian state in the West Bank, it would make sense that the Palestinians that have now 3 generations of children in exile would return, or claim a right to return. That would mean about 12 million people that are by and large poor and anti-Israel on their border that are laying soft claim to Israel as well.

Ideally, Palestinians would just assimilate into other cultures, and the issue would fade, but the future of Israel as Jewish majority state is a bit of a mess.

>Israel is itself not particularly interested in the land itself in the West bank... but is more concerned with whether or not this new state would be simply a point to launch attacks on Israel.. and their concern is valid.

Is that what all the Settlements are for? Rocket detecting outposts? Is that why Israel has risked international condemnation to continue moving 350,000 people into East Jerusalem? Is that why Israel rejected the Kerry plan which would have given them total military control over the West Bank with demilitarized Palestinian territories in areas of their choosing? Is that why settlements began decades before a Qasam rocket had ever been invented?

The entire history of Israel revolves around the issues of land and people. Everything the states has ever done post 1948 has been motivated by a desire for land which is only matched by a hatred for Palestinians. The remaining Palestinian territories exist to hold 3.5 million Arabs in a containment zone while the ethno-obsessed Israelis build their Jewish Blood Only state. It's for exactly this reason that Israel is one of the most anti-immigrant (Jews aside) countries on earth.

By the way, the rockets come from Gaza, not the West Bank. A serious military threat hasn't existed East of the Jordan in decades. The threat of civil insurgency (which is what the walls are really for) remains, though it dwindles every day.

who cares? Israeli women are so much hotter than their Palestinian counterparts, if you support Palestine you're probably gay.

>It can be argued that they are painting a false picture of the enemy to be able to acquire more land than they already have (through UN rules, purchased prior to this case, or through conflict).

Well, they did infact have more land than currently which was traded in peace deals. So much so that Israel has a bit of a bad taste in its mouth concerning land for peace.

>Outside Support
This is a bit of an interesting thing; if this was 1964, I'd agree with you. Israel as it is now is actually rather self sufficient; fearing international pressure against them akin to Rhodesia, they put a huge amount of effort into acquiring fuel sources, efficient farming techniques, and self developed technology.

They still do take American money, though. Not a huge portion of their annual budget, but money is money.

>The point is the validity of claim, and of state. The Israelis did make a formal claim, it was recognized, and they do business as a nation state.

So you agree with the UN Resolution 181 (1947) borders as an officiated and formal response to the dual claims of Palestinians and Israelis for (respective) statehood in post-Mandatory Palestine?

Who cares it's a shitty desert.

Best pro-Israel argument I've ever heard.

The one Israeli girl I've ever met was a gorgeous blonde.

Kill Palestine. Best thing the kikes ever did.

>The remaining Palestinian territories exist to hold 3.5 million Arabs in a containment zone while the ethno-obsessed Israelis build their Jewish Blood Only state. It's for exactly this reason that Israel is one of the most anti-immigrant (Jews aside) countries on earth.

Exactly. The threat to the Jewish state is the Palestinians, and Arabs within their borders.

>What are settlements for?
Because the settlements have a significant say in the knesset, and they give defacto control over regions that would otherwise go to Palestinians.

>A serious military threat hasn't existed East of the Jordan in decades. The threat of civil insurgency (which is what the walls are really for) remains, though it dwindles every day.

I'd argue the reason for this is Israel's dickwaving and increased security measures, but seriously, if you put a densely populated Palestinian state with a counter claim to Israel on Israel's border, do you think this would not result in future wars?

Nothing nods to an adolescent machismo like hot girls in the army and not giving a fuck about human suffering, amirite?

Honestly? Yeah. If Israel was willing to go back to 1947 borders, and give up claim to Jerusalem, I'd be fine with this. But what is in it for the Jews?

That's not that bad, I can see the Arabs getting bootyblasted over it, but it's better than what it is today.
>the land isn't particularly useful
Requesting the meme of the Arab and Jew arguing that they own the desolate wasteland and that God is on their side.

Requesting the article outlining how Jewish media is influencing Westerners by broadcasting attractive Jewish women in military outfits to boost Israeli support.

>So much so that Israel has a bit of a bad taste in its mouth concerning land for peace.
Wait, I don't understand what you mean, are you saying that they don't want any more land because they got everything they need, or that they are not willing to give up the land they acquired outside of UN rule and purchasing?

The support is more than monetary, but that is a big part. I was referring to being anti-Semetic, goy!

exactly, it's literally some shitty desert, really couldn't give a fuck if Israel genocided the Palestinians. I'd prefer there to be a nation of more attractive women than a nation with less attractive women.

Palestinians are just as bad, some mudslime brutally murdered a young jewess last week

>Because the settlements have a significant say in the knesset, and they give defacto control over regions that would otherwise go to Palestinians.

Oh? Can you tell me more about this? You seem to really know your stuff.

>That's not that bad, I can see the Arabs getting bootyblasted over it, but it's better than what it is today.
Well, barring Jerusalem, it was a pretty much demographic majority split without any concern for what was actually there.

>Wait, I don't understand what you mean, are you saying that they don't want any more land because they got everything they need, or that they are not willing to give up the land they acquired outside of UN rule and purchasing?
The government would be giving up land it fought and bled for and helped develop for peace that it is more or less maintaining through force.

In past discussions, land for peace trades seem a bit like a no benefit trade for Israel. Like the 1947 borders were agreed to by the Israeli state, why would the Palestinians accept it now? Why should Israel go back to it anyway?

its bullshit because of just exterminating they want to move the muds into the west. cant put them in asian countries because they wont tolerate that shit and we shouldnt either.

if israel wants more land they need to just spill the blood and be done with it.

>implying its a one way street

Im cool with people who are critical of isreal...until they start acting like Palestine is full of angels.

> Jews leave in mass after WW2 and go to the ME In an area that is a British colony legally.
> Arabs start getting pissed that there are so many Jews in the British colony
> Arabs and Jews trade attacks with each other
> Britain says fuck that shit, and withdraws all British citizens from the colony, leaving the Arabs and Jews to fight it out
> UN urges for peace and a two state solution
> Both Israel and the Arabs say fuck that. They want to fight.
> The world puts an arms embargo on the former British colony, keeping arms from going there
> The surrounding Arab countries build up a massive force to "drive the Jews into the sea"
> The Arabs get BTFO horribly and spend the next 60 years crying for a re-do

The Jews won fair and square. The land belongs to them.

I can go to Israel and walk around peacefully without any fear of being killed. Once I step into Islam land right next to Israel, my chances of being killed because I'm white, skyrocket.

Only Muslims and liberals support Palestine. And swing that you are a leaf. You're probably both.

As I understand it, the knesset has about 1/5 of its seats going to a coalition of pro-Settlement parties. Mostly Ultra-Orthodox Zionists.

So, it becomes this kind of dilemma.
>We could let these shit holes be filled with Palestinians or nothing
>Or the rapidly reproducing Jews that do nothing, but cause fights

I imagine at this point the more liberal parties are getting a bit buttblasted.

Jews stared into the holocaust void and it stared right back. Only the state of ISIS is more evil than Israel or its mindless golem the USA

The Palestinians and Arabs also got millions from the USSR, probably much more than what Israel was receiving, yet somehow it didn't turn out well for them. Really makes you think....

hello jidf

Nobody has seriously floated the idea of going back to the 47 borders since the 1960s. They're irrelevant in present political and diplomatic efforts/negotiations.

Are you familiar with the Oslo Accords?

>But what is in it for the Jews?

Call them Israelis, not Jews, or you sound like an idiot. The Israelis agreed to the Oslo Accords and then abandoned the peace process it entailed (gradual recognition of Palestinian statehood in certain discontinuous areas of the West Bank and Gaza). Israel's strategy is to use settlements to decrease the viability /practicality of a Palestinian state while simultaneously striving to make life as difficult as possible in the territories (so as to encourage emigration of Palestinians) and running a PR blitz to paint their military efforts as regretful (but just, if disproportionate) reprisals against a stiff-necked and unrelentingly stupid Palestinian population.

>The government would be giving up land it fought and bled for and helped develop for peace that it is more or less maintaining through force.
This land in question, is it beyond the bounds of the plan outlined in your previous post (of what the line-in-the-sand was)? Or is it more than what those boundaries outlined?
Did the wars end when the Palestinians gave the Jews land?

>In past discussions, land for peace trades seem a bit like a no benefit trade for Israel. Like the 1947 borders were agreed to by the Israeli state, why would the Palestinians accept it now? Why should Israel go back to it anyway?
Why would it be no-benefit? The Jews won most of the war waged against them, so they could just say give us this land here and we'll end it. Is this not a reason for the Palestinians to go back to the borders drawn before the land disputes? I am still not fully understanding you here, sorry.

There never was an Israel, it's always been palastine or palastina.

also I kek how kikes try to pretend they're not arabs.

>
>Nobody has seriously floated the idea of going back to the 47 borders since the 1960s. They're irrelevant in present political and diplomatic efforts/negotiations.

Pretty much.

>Call them Israelis, not Jews, or you sound like an idiot.
No. It's a nicety I'm not calling them kikes.

>viability /practicality of a Palestinian state while simultaneously striving to make life as difficult as possible in the territories (so as to encourage emigration of Palestinians) and running a PR blitz to paint their military efforts as regretful (but just, if disproportionate) reprisals against a stiff-necked and unrelentingly stupid Palestinian population.

Pretty much. A Palestinian state would simply create future problems. At this point, there are more refugees from the war, or people claiming the right to be Palestinians that Jews in general.

>it's always been palastine or palastina.

depends on how far back you go, it was Judea long before it was palastine.

Basically this. And you can hate on Jews for shilling and lying and promoting degeneracy and lies WITHOUT denying a historical event that clearly took place, and without siding with a bunch of lying, small brained Palestinians. My great grandpa liberated a concentration camp. He talked about it exactly once and then never again
That was the only time I ever saw that man cry

Exactly. I mean don't get me wrong, Jews are a conniving tribal like peoples. But I'm not going to deny what happened historically because only Muslims do that.

Islamic history in the ME teaches complete bullshit about the world. That's why they are so fucking brainwashed.

>This land in question, is it beyond the bounds of the plan outlined in your previous post (of what the line-in-the-sand was)? Or is it more than what those boundaries outlined?

It's much more, and Jerusalem. At this point, it's more of "What part of the West Bank should Israel give up."

>Why would it be no-benefit? The Jews won most of the war waged against them, so they could just say give us this land here and we'll end it. Is this not a reason for the Palestinians to go back to the borders drawn before the land disputes? I am still not fully understanding you here, sorry.
The Palestinians lost. They really don't own anything. Israel would be trading land to a non-state for a peace they already pretty much have that would have a really doubtful lasting impact.

>Did the wars end when the Palestinians gave the Jews land?
No. Palestine wasn't a nation state, nor capable of waging independent negotiations until rather recently.

The wars ended when Arab supporters realized the war was lost and sued for a ceasefire.

>"da joos""
>ur great grandfather obviously was brainwashed by the ZOG, am I right????

Damn. I wanna make some half goyim babies with her.

I was being sarcastic.

The settlers don't have any more representation in the Knesset than anyone else since Israel's ballots are national.

The right wing parties cater to the settlers because nationalism in Israel is exactly synonymous with territorial expansion and a mono-ethnic state.

The right wing parties are gaining political power in Israel because its people are moving to the right (this isn't even debated in the Israeli press-- everyone knows it).

The Settlers don't "have a significant say in the knesset" anymore than soldiers "had a significant say" in Bush's White House. All politicians cater to certain sacred cows of their party's ideology. In America conservatives pay incessant rhetorical and legislative respects to the military. In Israel (they do the same) but also to the Settlements and the expansion of Israel into the West Bank (or as Caroline Glick and co. call it-- "Judea and Sumeria"). The Settlers don't have any kind of substantial political connections beyond this. Their influence is on public opinion-- if they paint certain politicians as anti-settlement, it will damage them (see "price tag attacks" for just how insane this actually gets in practice-- settlers will lash out in violence at Palestinians in order to force more mainstream politicians to act in their interests).

>I am all for conquest if the people you are killing are a few eras behind your people, then they deserve it.

So you're totally fine with an advanced species of extra-terrestrial space fares destroying our species to preserve the planet for themselves, right?

The Palestinians are the real Jews. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, Palestinians were viewed as Jews and they lived peacefully, side by side with Muslim and Christian neighbors.

It all went to hell when the European Jews settled in Palestine after WW2 and established Israel.

There is no denying that the Jews won the wars and fought to defend what they were given, the degree to which external support helped them (and continues to do so in the media, financially, etc.) is noteworthy, but I doubt it would be game-changing.
I just object to what I am seeing today, was all the land from the original image I posted a result of war (going from your image in this post here: to my picture)? At what point was it deemed a slaughter and just unnecessary, why didn't they just sign a ceasefire and keep wha they had instead of lose more? Seems really moronic, I have a feeling that there must be some boogeyman set up for them to continue the war, there is a huge difference between the two maps.

We can defend ourselves with our superior technology, if they start a war, we will kill them until they say stop or assimilate.

Okay. So, settlements are a significant issue in the knesset.

Jeez, not this shit again.

How many times do we have to prove that map to be absolutely fake and incorrect? God damn are people getting lazy.

Well, if those aliens are able to kill us all then they deserve the resources.

That's how war works...

> At what point was it deemed a slaughter and just unnecessary, why didn't they just sign a ceasefire and keep wha they had instead of lose more? Seems really moronic, I have a feeling that there must be some boogeyman set up for them to continue the war, there is a huge difference between the two maps.

Because the odds were really fucking stacked against Israel by the estimates of most of the Arab wars.

It's sort of laughable how badly the wars ended for them.

too late, shes 40, a computer scientist,married to an IDF Fighter pilot, and a Jewish home member with a seat in the Knesset.

>inb4 GOYED

Well, these are Muslims were talking about.

>She's 40

I like older women.

What an awful image, Afghanistan was rocked by the Soviet invasion in the 80's, not the UN supported coalition led by the US in the 00's.

>A Palestinian state would simply create future problems.

Perhaps for Likud politicians. For Israelis it would decrease the need for insane defense preparations and a militarized state by voiding the main grievance of Palestinian violence and civil insurrection.

For Palestinians, it would be the beginning of a long road towards living in a stable, politically healthy society after nearly a half century floating between imaginary borders, lingering in economic depression (>30% unemployment in the West Bank, cf. 20% unemployment in Depression era US) and squirming under Israel's iron fisted (and cold hearted) military.

It's the only step in the right direction the "peace process" can hope to achieve. Anything else is buying time for ethnically obsessed and increasingly far-right Israelis, and photo ops for diplomats.

>At this point, there are more refugees from the war, or people claiming the right to be Palestinians that Jews in general.

There are maybe 12 million Palestinians and 20-30 million Jews.

>No. It's a nicety I'm not calling them kikes.

It's a shame I'm not calling you stupid.

Okay. So, you read an article on Haaretz and now you think yourself a significant authority on the knesset.

Funny how often the underdog gets the leg up, huh.
I just think that both sides should stop playing victim, the Muslims were just gonna murder each other anyways, doing nothing with the land, no real Palestinian region. The Jews have won already won, they've Shoah'd everybody. They should stop mentioning the Holohoax as a reason for their "homeland", it's getting old.
I still have this suspicion in my mind that from getting from my original picture to your picture, something more happened besides war. Your image seemed reasonable, but what do you think about the 1947 image in my post? Where is the leap from that to what you posted here:

>Implying a real Palestinian state wouldn't just end up in civil war for the next few decades between moderate and hardcore Islamists ...

Again... these are Muslims were talking about. A state is the last thing they need when there are tons of other Islamic countries they can go to

>TFW no other Islamic countries want Palestinians

What's wrong with the maps, exactly?

A bunch or Eastern European/Khazar hybrids claiming clay they dont rightfully have a claim to. If it got all the jews out of USA/Western Europe, that would be one thing.

t. a Jewish-American guy that wants white countries to be left alone.

>Claiming clay that doesn't belong to them

Um... you mean how Europeans did to America? Kek. Fuck off you idiot.

>implying Fatah and Hamas didn't agree to form a unity government
>implying you know what that means

Why do you believe that Palestinians will be satisfied with a two state solution? Remember, they rejected the UN partition plan in 1947 and went to war over it, a war that despite having assistance from literally every surrounding Islamic country, they lost emphatically. Remember, Fatah, Hamas and surrounding nations like Iran reject the Jewish state in its entirety, if it were to be halved they still would not recognise it. Hamas' number one ambition is to destroy Israel completely, not just a bit of it. And before you say that is not representative of wider Palestinian sentiment, Hamas was democratically elected on those principles.

If you were to give the PLO a finger, they would take an arm.

>It's the only step in the right direction the "peace process" can hope to achieve. Anything else is buying time for ethnically obsessed and increasingly far-right Israelis, and photo ops for diplomats.
Or genocide, really, but it's hard to genocide a population that isn't mostly there nor is it really publicly viable when the population reproduces crazily fast.

>Perhaps for Likud politicians. For Israelis it would decrease the need for insane defense preparations and a militarized state by voiding the main grievance of Palestinian violence and civil insurrection.
Do you genuinely think having a nation with a counter claim and bad blood on your border is viable in the long run?


>There are maybe 12 million Palestinians and 20-30 million Jews.

Fampai, if you're flexible with definitions there are maybe 15 million Jews period;i.e. people that could claim right of return. The entire population of Israel is 8 million with a considerable amount of that being Arab.

>It's a shame I'm not calling you stupid.

You're on Sup Forums, you can call me what you like, kike-sama.

Of course! I've got all these citations I'm pulling out of my ass.

>G-guys look. These two autistic Islamists groups joined forces to destroy Israel so that means everything will be okay if we give them a state

HAHAHAHA!

Khazar theory hasn't been proven, look at this graph, Non Jewish russians are more asian than eastern european jews.
also, diaspora scum, hope you die. You have your own country.

That is the second picture in your picture. That was the UN partition plan. The map of the modern day is the last map with the West bank being vaguely counter claimed.

Jews wanted a little bit of land in their ancestral homeland, Muslims say no even though they own land like 10,000 times bigger. try to murder the jews non-stop. jews beat their ass and take a little bit more. Its still tiny as fuck but all the liberals and muslims flip out about it.

This.

That's basically it in a nutshell.

>Inb4 it's not their land

It was a British colony before it was Israel you stupid cunts.

Ah, that makes sense. Then is the first image a fabrication by the Arabs for sympathy points?
They do that a lot, with the images of the dead kids. The war was started by them when the Jews came in and they lost it.
One thing that I don't understand is why it was stressed for the Jews to move to that particular place? Is it because of ancestral claims? Didn't the Nazis want the land to be in Madagascar? Not sure why they chose some place with people still living there, I think it to be irrelevant who was there first (Arabs have a claim at one point, then the Jews, then other groups of people). It just seems like common sense, why move to a place where there is no space? Or am I wrong, was the region not densely populated?
I know the the land was owned by the Brits, so they could do what they wanted with it, but how did the Brits acquire it in the first place?

>Or genocide, really, but it's hard to genocide a population that isn't mostly there nor is it really publicly viable when the population reproduces crazily fast.

Oh, do explain.

>Do you genuinely think having a nation with a counter claim and bad blood on your border is viable in the long run?

Good Friday Agreement? Franco-German border in 1950? Ah who am I kidding, once an enemy always an enemy, right?

>there are maybe 15 million Jews period;i.e. people that could claim right of return.

You insisted on describing Israelis in general as Jews a moment ago. Now you want to define a Jew as anyone who could potentially become an Israeli. Can you clarify? I'm tempted to think you define Jews as is convenient for whatever you feel like saying, but I must be wrong since you "have to set a definition" for a people, after all.

I'm not sure about BCE history mate, but I know that the Brits owned Palestine because they got it off the Ottoman Empire after WWI, which had previously owned the area.

Didn't Great Britain own that land, then gave it to the Jews, because of muh holocoaster?

It was theirs to do with as they pleased.

Not quite.

The land was a British colony when the Jews moved in, but then the Brits pulled out to let the Jews and Muslims fight.

Then after the Muslims lost, it became Israel. So the Brits didn't give it to the Jews, they just left to let them fight over it.

But most importantly the land didn't belong to the Arabs.

If I murder a guy, take his shit and give it to my son, does he have a legitimate right to own it?

>Why Palestine
You have to remember that most of the Zionists weren't particularly religious and the first Zionist conference was more or less open to a Jewish state in Uganda, or Argentina for instance.

The problem was that they really had no claim to these regions, and the more religious bulk of Jews, especially the more Eastern European Jews were already immigrating to either the United States or Palestine.

Immigration of Jews into Palestine pretty much kept constant until terrorism and infighting in the region caused the British to restrict immigration post Balfour declaration, which essentially was a decree to establish a Jewish home in Palestine.

>Why Israel?
There was enough of a claim, post WW1 the British supported it enough, and Jews were already leaning towards it, really.

Ah, makes sense.

My main point is that I don't support the Muslims doing all their shit that they're known for (also because the land was never technically theirs, no real 'Palestine'), but I don't like it when the Jews curbstomp and "overstep" their duties in the war, it just leads to anti-Western sentiment. They have left nothing for the Arabs to live on, if the image I originally posted referrencing the current state of affairs is truthful (I just Googled it).
Great video on this stuff: youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ

That depends. If you murder him in war, then yes.

Oh look. The Jews won the war and they won the spoils.

Learn how war works you autistic 13 year old.

A governing mandate and a land deed are not the same thing, fool.

>Palestinianism didn't become a thing until 1964
PLO formed in 64
Palestine Liberation Organization

Not Palestinian, but Palestine Liberation
It is an important difference because their goal was to take control of the land kick out the jews, and not free Palestinians.

Palestinians as a group didn't really become a thing until after the 67 war.

More Jews and Arabs from all over moved into the area after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Been fighting with each other for control ever since.

Is anyone going to do anything about it?

It was a British colony you stupid cunt.

After Israel won, most nations in Europe agreed they won fair and square which is why Israel was recognized and become the state it is today.

Kill yourself.

You can tell they're fake because there's 50 different versions and every one has a different map. The only thing they have in common is the first three panels and basically random blobs of dots for Palestine in the last panel.

>There was enough of a claim
This is because of the Lollercoasters, right?
I just don't understand, it doesn't add up logically. If the Arabs realized that, if the war were to continue, then they would lose miserably, why continue? Why are they continuing today? I don't think the little babies they keep on showing in the pictures appreciate it all that much, it doesn't really seem like a realistic war.

One of the things which is at stake in a war (sometimes) is legitimacy of land ownership. Saying the victor has unlimited right to determine land ownership (including in his own favor) in all cases is essentially saying that conquest is legitimate in all cases, which one could argue I suppose but it's a rather boring and crude opinion.

Typically one discusses these situations (especially 20th century history) in terms of international law or a moral perspective on justice.

Good argument.

When are you giving your land back to native Americans?

>What are your thoughts on this image?

Fucking jews, always messing around with the red sea.

By your autistic hippie ideology. The United States of America should be handed over to the Native Americans.

The US is a land built on military conquest. If you don't like it. Then you can fuck off.