Anonymous #2 1d

Correct

0

Anonymous #4 1d

That’s why the totality of the circumstances should be taken into account and ruled on a case by case basis

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

but like… what’s the point ?

4

Anonymous OP 1d

For what ends? Is the fact that it’s more modern (but still very much in the past) make it more salient? I think it’s an effort in futility to try and moralize history.

3

Anonymous #4 1d

Because something can still be done about it, as it stands right now Israel’s genocide of Palestine can be stopped and its perpetrators held accountable

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

if ur talking about israel that would be 80 years ago, not a century and a half, and as much as i would like to, you can’t realistically kick jews out of israel

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I mean… on a long enough timeframe, the Israelites do have a claim to that land. That’s the problem with trying to determine who has a “right” to land. Nobody has a right to land, we agree as a human race where we draw boundaries, but beyond that it’s arbitrary. Israel may have colonized alongside English approval (who controlled it when the initial Israelites moved there), but that was decades ago. I do think they should allow for Palestine to exist freely, but your argument isn’t practical. 🤷‍♂️

1

Anonymous #1 1d

European settlers began colonizing the land that would become Israel a little bit before the start of the 20th century, it didn’t officially become a state until 1948. I’m not proposing anybody be kicked out, just that the region be reorganized under a government that isn’t a genocidal ethnostate

0