• gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we’re Indians wanting to get rid of the British Raj all genocidal maniacs?

    • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a great comparison as Brits have Britain to live in already (I’m British, if it matters).

      If you displaced the Brits from India back in the day, they could return to Britain.

      If you displace the Jews from Israel now, where could they go?

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a lot of places where Jews can already live safely

        The hilarious part is upper middle class Jews from like New York running over to colonize Palestine to be “safer”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the Jewish people in Israel came from other countries though and a very large percentage of the population of Israel maintain dual citizenship. So they can return to the country they are a citizen of, or return to the country there parents or grandparents came from.

        Yes, they weren’t being treated well in those countries (to put it lightly) but that doesn’t make them entitled to someone else’s land. He’ll the reason most western countries supported creating Israel is because they wanted their Jewish populations to leave.

        It would be like unilaterally decided were going to take part of balkans and give it to the Romani people so they have their own country. They are persecuted and don’t have a country of their own, so why not?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The vast majority of Israel’s Jewish population is native-born at this point. They have no connection to those countries. They likely don’t even speak the language. I do not see how that would be a good solution.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no easy solution to this where everyone gets what they want and is happy.

            There is only least bad solutions.

            And and I think dismantling Israel is that least bad solution. They can go to other countries or become part of Palestine. But either way as the colonising population they have the moral duty to bare that burden.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              What if the countries their ancestors came from don’t want to take them and the Palestinians don’t want them there either? I don’t think it is a solution.

              My solution would be put the whole area under UN control until something equitable can be worked out that will make people at least satisfied. They won’t be happy, but they could be satisfied if they were forced to have negotiations.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You understand you’re literally just arguing semantics right?

        And even then its still a good comparison because there was never a country of India until after the British took over either.

      • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        well yes but actually no. Arab states in palestine, yes. However they’ve been under Turkish occupation for most of their modern history

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            ah yes because being under the rule of a foreign empire doesn’t imply occupation by said empire… I think you have a lot to teach to the entire english speaking world

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Occupation requires you to own land prior to that Empire, and no Palestinian has ever laid claim to their own territory without that territory belonging to someone else, throughout all of human history.

              Before the Ottoman Empire was a mix of caliphates and crusaders. Before that was the Roman empire. Before that was the Persian Empire, before that was the Egyptian Empire and before that it was Israel/Judah.

              I skipped a couple of minor empires, but it’s pretty much a chain of “someone’s” forever, and that “someone” has never referred to themselves as Palestinian prior to the mid-20th century.

              • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The arabs caliphate were arabs and claiming the land was theirs and calling it Palestine. The question you should ask is : why were there no massive independentist fight under the Ottoman rule ?