Who is Right ?

[Secruss]

Israel.

[Dyakovo]

The UN divided the mandate into two seperate (sic) territories, one Israel, the other Palestine.

Because you obviously missed it the first time, he is saying both Palestine and Israel got some land from the UN, so your "short end of the stick" argument is being refuted.

Palestine existed. The UN took a big old chunk and gave it to the Jews naming it Israel. How did the Palestinians not get hosed in the exchange?

I do believe that was British territory before the UN took control of it, not "Palestinian" territory.

If anything the UK should be complaining.

To answer the question: everyone's wrong. Even I'm wrong. But I, unlike the Israelis and Palestinians, accept that.

Palestine predated the British Mandate of Palestine

In the reorganisation of 1873, which established the administrative boundaries that remained in place until 1914, Palestine was split between three major administrative units. The northern part, above a line connecting Jaffa to north Jericho and the Jordan, was assigned to the vilayet of Beirut, subdivided into the sanjaks (districts) of Acre, Beirut and Nablus. The southern part, from Jaffa downwards, was part of the special district of Jerusalem. Its southern boundaries were unclear but petered out in the eastern Sinai Peninsula and northern Negev Desert. Most of the central and southern Negev was assigned to the wilayet of Hijaz, which also included the Sinai Peninsula and the western part of Arabia.

Nonetheless, the old name remained in popular and semi-official use. Many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries have survived. During the 19th century, the Ottoman Government employed the term Ardh-u Filistin (the 'Land of Palestine') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922". However, the Ottomans regarded "Palestine" as an abstract description of a general region but not as a specific administrative unit with clearly defined borders. This meant that they did not consistently apply the name to a clearly defined area.[120] Ottoman court records, for instance, used the term to describe a geographical area that did not include the sanjaks of Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus, although these had certainly been part of historical Palestine. Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjak alone or just to the area around Ramle.

The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of Zionist immigration. The "First Aliyah" was the first modern widespread wave of Zionist aliyah. Jews who migrated to Palestine in this wave came mostly from Eastern Europe and from Yemen. This wave of aliyah began in 1881–82 and lasted until 1903. An estimated 25,000–35,000 Jews immigrated during the First Aliyah. The First Aliyah laid the cornerstone for Jewish settlement in Israel and created several settlements such as Rishon LeZion, Rosh Pina, Zikhron Ya'aqov and Gedera.

The "Second Aliyah" took place between 1904 and 1914, during which approximately 40,000 Jews immigrated, mostly from Russia and Poland, and some from Yemen. The Second Aliyah immigrants were primarily idealists, inspired by the revolutionary ideals then sweeping the Russian Empire who sought to create a communal agricultural settlement system in Palestine. They thus founded the kibbutz movement. The first kibbutz, Degania, was founded in 1909. Tel Aviv was founded at that time, though its founders were not necessarily from the new immigrants. The Second Aliyah is largely credited with the Revival of the Hebrew language and establishing it as the standard language for Jews in Israel. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda contributed to the creation of the first modern Hebrew dictionary. Although he was an immigrant of the First Aliyah, his work mostly bore fruit during the second.

Ottoman rule over the eastern Mediterranean lasted until World War I when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. During World War I, the Ottomans were driven from much of the region by the United Kingdom during the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.


In European usage up to World War I, "Palestine" was used informally for a region that extended in the north-south direction typically from Rafah (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included.

Under the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine.

(quote taken from wikipedia)

[Yootopia]

Israel.

Why -_-

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

I do believe that was British territory before the UN took control of it, not "Palestinian" territory.

It was a League of Nations 'Mandate'. As in "Colony with some legitimacy".

If anything the UK should be complaining.

Don't really see why, nothing even remotely good about owning a territory where both sides stick bombs up you, and each other, and try to act as if they had no choice.

But, but, it was a colony of the Emparh! Dominion by Her Majesty would surely smack some sense into the natives. White man's burden and all that.

Ok, fine, I'm leaving. :(

[Yootopia]

I do believe that was British territory before the UN took control of it, not "Palestinian" territory.

It was a League of Nations 'Mandate'. As in "Colony with some legitimacy".

If anything the UK should be complaining.

Don't really see why, nothing even remotely good about owning a territory where both sides stick bombs up you, and each other, and try to act as if they had no choice.

But, but, it was a colony of the Emparh! Dominion by Her Majesty would surely smack some sense into the natives. White man's burden and all that.

Ok, fine, I'm leaving.

Well... the bombed us instead of each other for a bit... but wouldn't you just fuck off back home instead of wasting money on a colony whose main exports were olives and terrorism?

[Secruss]

Israel.

Why -_-

It's in the Bible. G-d gave it to 'em.

[Dyakovo]

Israel.

Why -_-

It's in the Bible. G-d gave it to 'em.

The Palestinians, "God" gave it to them...

[Yootopia]

Israel.

Why -_-

It's in the Bible. G-d gave it to 'em.

Mmm religion as a former of world policy. Fuck that shit. Less Jews kicking about than Muslims by hundreds of millions of them. Does that mean the commandment to hunt them down overrules a "minority" belief that they're Chosen?

[Secruss]

The military does in this case. Every war the two ethnicities have had in the last 50 years ended with a massive (relative) Israeli expansion and the defeat of the Arab coalition.

Did the Palestinians make this much noise when the British were in charge? And weren't there still Jews there in kibbutz?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Over the years Palestine and The Muslim world have consistently argued with Israel. Here are some examples:

Six Day War: 1967
Yom Kippur War: 1973
Various small scale Muslim Attacks: 1973-Present
Israeli aggression in Palestine and vice versa: 1947-Present

So why do they hate each other so much in the first place and who is right?

I think after reading the other posts, asking 'who is right', isn't going to get results, i think a more effective question might be "what is the most effective way to sort this mess out and reduce damage all round".
although i admit this isn't as catchy as your one.

Hey was the six day war when Israel went around thumping every single army within reach?

[Secruss]

Yep.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Over the years Palestine and The Muslim world have consistently argued with Israel. Here are some examples:

Six Day War: 1967
Yom Kippur War: 1973
Various small scale Muslim Attacks: 1973-Present
Israeli aggression in Palestine and vice versa: 1947-Present

So why do they hate each other so much in the first place and who is right?

I think after reading the other posts, asking 'who is right', isn't going to get results, i think a more effective question might be "what is the most effective way to sort this mess out and reduce damage all round".
although i admit this isn't as catchy as your one.

Hey was the six day war when Israel went around thumping every single army within reach?

Yes, that's the one where they attacked first instead of just defending -- hence, presumably, why it only lasted for six days (considering the relative proficiency of the IDF vs. the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, et al.).

[Secruss]

The Arabs had already decided they were going to attack anyway.

[Yootopia]

The military does in this case. Every war the two ethnicities have had in the last 50 years ended with a massive (relative) Israeli expansion and the defeat of the Arab coalition.

Good call. Might makes right n shit, aye?

[South Lorenya]

Over the years Palestine and The Muslim world have consistently argued with Israel. Here are some examples:

Six Day War: 1967
Yom Kippur War: 1973
Various small scale Muslim Attacks: 1973-Present
Israeli aggression in Palestine and vice versa: 1947-Present

So why do they hate each other so much in the first place and who is right?

It should be obvious who's right: the ones who say "Fuck the leaders, let's have a peaceful coexistence!"

[Secruss]

The military does in this case. Every war the two ethnicities have had in the last 50 years ended with a massive (relative) Israeli expansion and the defeat of the Arab coalition.

Good call. Might makes right n shit, aye?

Might makes fact.

[Soheran]

So why do they hate each other so much in the first place

Mostly it goes back to disputes about Israel's founding, and the consequences for the Palestinians there, and the fuss Arab nationalists have made about it (which the Arab regimes have variously either exploited or been pressured into catering to.) Add the understandable stubbornness of Israeli Jews in maintaining a secure homeland, and you get a recipe for conflict.

and who is right?

Everyone who accepts that a workable and just settlement will have to include a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, the removal of most/all of the Israeli settlements, compensation rather than return for the Palestinian refugees, and an end to Palestinian terror.

And that we will not get there by killing more people on the other side.

[Bears Armed]

The UN divided the mandate into two seperate (sic) territories, one Israel, the other Palestine.

Because you obviously missed it the first time, he is saying both Palestine and Israel got some land from the UN, so your "short end of the stick" argument is being refuted.

Palestine existed. The UN took a big old chunk and gave it to the Jews naming it Israel. How did the Palestinians not get hosed in the exchange?

The Jews had been moving in as [mostly] peaceful settlers for several decades before that, buying land from its previous owners -- who, admittedly, may in some cases have been absentee landlords who sold it out from under their previous tenants -- but many of the Palestinian Arabs had refused to accept them as neighbours, and a history of Arab raids on Jewish settlements led to the Jews arming themselves in self-defence & strengthened the position of the extremists on their side. By 1947 it was clear that the single nation with a mixed population that both Britain and the League of Nations had favoured wouldn't be a workable idea, so when Britain -- under attack from both sides -- announced its intention to give up on the place the UN drew up plans for a reasonably fair partition instead. The Palestinian Arabs and their allies then tried to grab the whole land, and to drive the Jews into the sea, but failed so badly that they even lost some of the territories that were originally on their side of the border.

[Buffett and Colbert]

"Holy shit! The Jews just took our land!!!"
*fighting*
*Fifty years later*
Me: "Let it go."
Israel and surrounding countries "Never!"

Once again, I must applaud your accurate dissection of the world's sociopolitical dilemmas. Although this time, it merrited a chuckle.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I hate people who say "both" or "neither" in these types of situations but I must hypocritically do so. Each side has so much against them, it's impossible to pick which side is "right." I'm fairly certain that Israel committed war crimes in the more or less recent Gaza conflict but it is also unacceptable that Hamas, unprovoked (well sort of anyway) fired rockets into Israel. I tend to lean towards to Palestine's side but again, it's a tough situation.

[Gravlen]

and who is right?

Everyone who accepts that a workable and just settlement will have to include a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, the removal of most/all of the Israeli settlements, compensation rather than return for the Palestinian refugees, and an end to Palestinian terror.

And that we will not get there by killing more people on the other side.

[Aurono]

I am

That just ought to happen. for getting the first post, though.

[Aurono]

The military does in this case. Every war the two ethnicities have had in the last 50 years ended with a massive (relative) Israeli expansion and the defeat of the Arab coalition.

Good call. Might makes right n shit, aye?

Might makes fact.

And those who set facts go on to set the moral system by which we judge (in absence of any other benchmark that survives the creation of the new facts). Because we were not involved in any of these wars, we think them all wrong by judging them along the values imprinted by the reality we experience. If we would have been brought up as a palestinian who lost a relative to an israeli airstrike, we would judge differently, as would we if we would be blind and paralysed since that day a palestinian decided to blow himself up on the bus we happened to use to go to work that morning.

So yes, might makes fact, might makes value systems, and by that, might makes right. Power is the thing with which all starts and with which all ends. There are no answers to right or wrong that transcend the material reality they grow from.

[Altergo]

None are, none of them were there first, Sumerians were there first, which means the Pagans win the argument.

[Aurono]

None are, none of them were there first, Sumerians were there first, which means the Pagans win the argument.

What about them Neanderthals?