Darryk

It's to do with the issue of ethnic cleansing. If the Jews were trying to do it as everyone accused they clearly weren't that successful since 20% of the country is still Arab, where as the Arab nations appear to have done a much more effective job of it. AS I said the land purchased by Zionist settlers was sparsely inhabited because it was cheaper. The people who were displaced in the 1948 wars lived in villages closer to the centre of the mandate where the soil was more fertile. These were people Herzl was referring to, although Herzl's quotes didn't reflect the attitude of the settler movement as a whole, and he himself was in two minds about it. For example there's the quote you mention above, but also wrote: " ...Jews will bring nothing but benefits to the native population. He often wrote that the Zionists bore no grudge against these people: we will give them our technology; they’ll be better farmers; they’ll have better health" https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/theodor-herzl-and-trajectory-of-zionism/ How does the disputes around Aqsa Mosque relate to the specific issue we're discussing?

There were Arabs, Jews and Christians living there, yes. The Arabs themselves also included Christian and Jewish Arabs. The Ottomans didn't forbid land ownership rights. The Zionist settlers made no attempt, nor did most of them even intend, to displace local Arabs. That didn't happen until 1948. They wouldn't have had the ability to displace local Arabs even if they tried, they were basically refugees fleeing the pogroms, were funded by Jewish organizations, had no military as yet, and were not backed by any empire. People like T.E.Lawrence, a champion of the Arabs, actually believed the Zionist settlement would benefit local Arabs as well as it would modernize the region. Much of the land purchased was sparsely occupied due to the low quality of the soil. The Arabs living there were mostly Bedouins, who have always been content to be part of Israel. The Zionists drained these largely hostile regions of malaria and cultivated the land despite low quality soil. 6.6% was a low percentage of the mandate as a whole but a sizeable portion of the part of the mandate that was allotted to Israel. During the 1948 war, many of the Arabs in the region left their homes willingly because they believed they'd be able to return after the surrounding Arab nations had destroyed Israel. Many were also driven out by Israeli forces, it's true, but this is not unusual thing to happen during a war. They weren't allowed back in because their Arab brothers had just tried to destroy Israel. No country would be expected to let back in a hostile population whose allies had just tried to destroy them. However, despite all that, Israel still has a 20% Arab population. How many Jews are there in the surrounding Arab nations?

The region was Ottoman territory, not Arab territory. The Jewish nation building was taking place on land they had purchased from Arab landlords. The Arabs who had been living on the land for so long were only driven out when the surrounding Arab nations attacked and tried to destroy Israel in its crib. In fact most of said Arabs left willingly because the surrounding Arab nations told them they could return after Israel was wiped out.

The Arabs wanted to get rid of the Zionists who had been building a state there since the 1800s as well. As shocking as those comments from Herzl and Gurion are, they have to be considered in the wider context of the tensions that had been building between Jews and Arabs in the region, making it clear the two communities couldn't co-exist peacefully. The Hebron massacre is an example of an event that may have led Gurion to take the view he did.

Hasn't this always been the case in America?

So when Jews kill Muslims it's Israel's fault, and when Muslims kill Jews, it's also Israel's fault? Arabs in that region were chanting "the Jews are our dogs" long before Israel was founded.

I met a Sunderland fan just last night and he was so looking forward to the big derby. Poor fella.

Well maybe my brother will canvass for Biden like he did last time and that will win him the election

I know I'm not American but I'm still worried about how badly Biden is doing in polls vs Trump. Is there any chance of Democrats fielding an alternative candidate?

I was just curious. Sorry if I did, I don't remember.

What do people think of RFK Junior as an alternative to Biden? He has some controversial positions but he's doing well in the polls.

That was one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. I definitely recommend it to fans of thrillers.

I'm a big fan of romance and sex in video games. I think Bioware does it better than Larian though.

City's just going to win 20 games in a row and overtake everyone again, aren't they?

Really enjoyed Godzilla Minus One. Surprisingly emotional for a monster movie.

Well I was talking specifically about how Israelis felt as that's where my relative was but obviously the same question applies in Gaza.

I'm sure it will change over time as the heat of pain and rage gradually wears off.

My sister-in-law's brother-in-law (Moroccan Jew) went to Israel a week ago to visit his daughter who's just joined the Israeli navy and he says the country's in a worse state than he's ever seen it. The general sentiment among Israelis is: The current government needs to go The hostages need to be brought back at ANY cost Peace is no longer an option

What is Ho14?I've only played Medieval: Total War.

Jews have been living as strangers in other people's lands and always treated as alien for centuries. I wouldn't expect British, Germans etc who have always felt at home in their own nation to get it. For the record I believe the Kurds should have their own nation as well. Especially since they're currently getting the shit bombed out of them by the Turks.

Israel is a lot more sacred to Jews than Constantinople is to Hellenes. And as I keep saying there were Jews there for centuries and them and Arabs didn't want to be under the rule of each other.

It may not be within living memory but it still matters to the people it happened to. A lot. As does what happened to the Palestinians matter. But the point is the founding of Israel had a bit more meaning to it than just a British colonisation project. Anyway it was the United Nations that allowed for the founding of Israel. And yes, that means Israel shouldn't be trodding on the land that the UN allotted to the Palestinians.

There were Jews emigrating to Israel long before the British got involved (the zionist movement). In fact the British blocked Jewish immigration. Thankfully the Ottomans didn't care much and allowed it to happen, and most of the land the Jews settled were purchased from warlords. How do people think Muslims / Arabs ended up in control of all these countries? They're one of the most successful colonisers in history. But I guess it doesn't matter because it's "beyond living memoery". Good to know.

So what does it mean? How long do people have to live before it's no longer in "living memory". Cause as I said, whatever amount of time you give, I guess if just wait long enough the so-called "colonisation" will be beyond "living memory" and it'll be fine. We'd best hold onto that land then! Oh wait, does "living memory" just mean the point where the people it didn't happen to (ie. non-jews) no longer care? Cause I'm pretty sure they didn't care at any point.