[racional]

Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.

"Invasion" perhaps isn't the best term to use, as it implies some sort of one-shot military deal. The actual process involved multiple steps of course -- Resolution 181 (imposed by European powers); the additional land gains by 1949 (unequivocally by force); the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 (same); and of course the fact that very few people were allowed to return after they were brutally expelled and/or temporarily left during the course of events.

Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.

[edanm]

Resolution 181 was the UN looking at a complicated situation that had arisen, an area that contained two different people who wanted to build a homeland there, and trying to figure out how to deal with it. It was accepted by the Jews, just as they had accepted even earlier plans that gave them even less land. It was rejected by the Palestinians.

The Arab states instead attacked Israel, which is why additional land was gained in 1949. It's true that it was by force, but it's just as true that it was unequivocally a defensive war the Israel fought. If you launch a multi-state attack on another state and you lose, it makes sense you'd lose territory.

1967 is a more complicated story. Israel considers the things Egypt were doing to be tantamount to declaring war, so it launched a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Israelis usually consider this a defensive war, though I think majority opinion outside of Israel is that it was an Israeli attack.

> Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.

This is simply flattening the actual history. Look, there were legitimately two peoples on that land at the time. They both wanted a home state. One group, the Jews, agreed to every single compromise put forward. The other refused every single one, and with their neighboring friends, launched a war of annhilation against the Jews.

You can't refuse every single compromise without offering an alternative, launch a war to force your way, and then complain when you lose!

It's also worth noting that Arab countries controlled the WB and Gaza for twenty-something years after the founding of Israel. And yet none ever did anything to give Palestinians independence or create a Palestinian state on that land, the same land that everyone is shouting "free Palestine" about, including all those Arab countries.

[racional]

There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.

I'm not trying to flatten history - just to get to the basic point. The other aspects that you're bringing up (Arab aims during 1947-1949; which side has been more intransigent since, etc) touch on narratives that are hotly contested as you know, but in any case are even further from the original topic of this thread (which had something do with Microsoft and Minecraft, apparently).

So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.

And of course of further attempts at encroachment upon anyone else's land.

[edanm]

Edit: I removed language that, on reflection (after it being pointed out by my co-partner in this discussion), I shouldn't have used.

> There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.

While it might be a "true fact", it's gaslighting to suggest that despite Jews agreeing to a non-violent plan, despite Israel being attacked with the probable intent of wiping it out completely, despite all that, it's ok to characterize the land capture to help protect itself in this defensive war as "land taken by force". That's just not how most people would use that phrase.

> So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.

This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have no idea what is best for the future (I don't see any peace being achieved with Hamas in place, frankly) but the current situation is awful and has to change.

[racional]

I punch you, and you punch me back ...

That's not my vibe, man. And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.

[edanm]

I apologize, I wasn't trying to be offensive or hurtful, I was just reaching for an example and phrased it poorly and thoughtlessly.

(I'll also edit my comment.)

> And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.

Fair enough.

For the record, from what I've read of your comments so far, I think we mostly agree about things, apologies that I let the topic make me talk in a way that is inappropriate. (I also like your username for the record)

[racional]

Apology accepted, and I appreciate the thoughtful clarification.

I'd pick up on the other topic (the Nation-State law, etc), but apparently there's a very insecure person out there right now who is vindictively flagging nearly all of my recent posts -- including the one just above your, just now.

Okay, it seems in one post I was quick to misread someone, so I can see an issue there. But definitely not in all of them).