Anonymous #1 4w

Being Jewish means you don’t deserve being genocided by the Germans but you also don’t get to take other people’s land to form your own country in the first place

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Modern nation states formed off the basis of religion are abominations

1

Anonymous OP 4w

I rest my case.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Mfw when engaging in apartheid, illegal land grabs, illegal imprisonment, violating UN charter, and currently carrying out a genocide is the grounds to just exist

1

Anonymous #1 4w

No one deserves a country formed from the soil of an already existing country

2

Anonymous OP 4w

By that token, most countries today shouldn’t exist. Where do we draw the line?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

What was already existing before world war 1 in the era before nation-states

0

Anonymous OP 4w

And why is that the line? Why not WW2? Why not the treaty of Westphalia? Why not the normal invasion? Why not the Roman Empire? Why not the fall of the Berlin Wall ? Just curious what makes WW1 so special—Just because Israel wasn’t there?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

In a perfect world the native Americans would have their own countries on equal standing with the rest of the world. It’s preposterous to say that you can just make a country in 1947 after world wars 1 and 2 established the nation state as the default for a “country” and ruled that no nation can take the land of another nation

1

Anonymous #1 4w

WW1 is the war that phased out the ancient standard of “kingdoms and empires” and WW2 killed it completely with the British and French empires decolonizing shortly after. These were replaced by the modern nation state giving all countries big and small equal footing on the diplomatic stage. It is illegal to take the land of another in such a setting because it is predetermined that all nation states have right to self determination

1

Anonymous OP 4w

All nations except Israel have this determination? Palestine was still part of the British empire. Before that, the land was under several other empires. Now - your words - it finally was given self determination. But for some reason, it doesn’t count.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Palestine was not artificially created off the basis of religion since it is a historical region home to multiple ethnic groups. Therefore it became a nation state as it was decolonized by the British empire and subsequently recolonized by the newly artificially created nation state of Israel which has no basis in the last millennium.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Sure the British drew some really horrible boundaries in the Middle East and Asia when decolonizing the empire into nation states but the regions had historical presence with no countries being formed specifically for a religious purpose except for Israel and maybe Pakistan due to the 2 nation theory

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Should the Baltic states exist? What about the central Asian republics? Should Catalonia exist then? Should all independence movements in the world thus be put down?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

again the Baltic states and central Asian republics are nation states born out of Russian decolonization that followed preexisting ethnic lines (debatable in Central Asia). Independence movements would fall under the same category. Israel was forcefully implanted into Palestine by foreign zionists, a VERY different case.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

But by what bases do they exist? Foreign zionists. Interesting. You mean descendants of those who were expelled before. Use this argument in Europe, Africa, and America. WW1 conveniently protects them, doesn’t it? Should the USA and by extension every nation in the west surrender its existence?

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Read what I said the British decolonization turned an already existing region of Palestine (well established over the last millennium) into a nation state which was subsequently taken over

3

Anonymous OP 4w

So conveniently, the people whose nation was occupied get screwed?

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

And what makes you the authority on this topic? Just curious.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

If we judge the foundation and expansion of the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and the rest of Latin America by our modern post WW2 century standards of the rights of nation state sovereignty then yeah it’s wrong. It would be impossible to create a country like the USA today. Foreign Zionists born as European and American citizens have no claim over a land that they have not inhabited for thousands of years. They could have chosen to share it with the Arabs and Yishuv/Mizarahim but no

1

Anonymous OP 4w

Same can be said of native Americans now, right? Be careful.

0

Anonymous OP 4w

They were offered that. And they agreed. It was the Arabs who said no. In fact, that happened eight times since WW1. Israel and Palestine were offered peace and a settlement. 8 time Israel agreed; 8 times Arabs said no. So…war.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Like I said by our modern standards of human rights the Native Americans would have their own countries however they were conquered by the US in a completely different era when this was acceptable around the world. What the United States did to them by definition counts as ethnic cleansing and genocide. Just like Canada, Australia, Mexico etc… very different from the post imperial world after WW2 where after the crimes of the axis and imperial powers and we no longer tolerate such things.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Almost like Israel as a completely separate polity should not have been attempted in the first place? It wasn’t the Zionists’ land to settle on in the first place. I’m neither Arab nor Muslim nor White I’m looking at this through an objective view based off international laws and historical facts

3