Not counting the territory seized since the initial “foundation” of Israel, of course.
Which was 70 years ago. We’re in this spot because a bunch of people are still bitter about the Seven Day War, and the nationhood of the Gaza strip was never officially declared. After all, how the hell can Palestine lay claim or maintain a territory that is totally disconnected from the West Bank? The short answer is “you can’t”. You can’t police it as a separate entity. You can’t ask its citizens to move from one area to another without having to deal with passports crossing over the country. You can’t govern it.
Israel was formed. It has its own government, and it is a recognized nation. What is not its own nation, and is a lawless neutral zone that has been actively housing terrorist groups, is Gaza.
deleted by creator
That’s nice of you to counter with a complete lack of information.
Please. Enlighten me. What part of the history of Palestine am I not understanding?
From your initial comment it seems like the main misunderstanding is that nation states unilaterally declared by European powers in Africa and Western Asia from the nineteenth century until around the middle of the 20th century have been utterly disastrous to those places rather than being the only source of order in those places. Although these nation states are seen as legitimate by the powers which established them, in the opinion of many of the victims of these European powers whose population is much larger and much more relevant since they are physically present for the consequences of this establishment, tend not to consider them as legitimate and more of an encroachment. Colonization is not a neutral or natural process but an act of aggression by parties with superior military might on parties vulnerable to that might. If your view is that might makes right, then the issue here isn’t in historical misunderstanding but more of a moral dissonance. If that isn’t your view I’d be willing to entertain a more detailed conversation.
From your initial comment it seems like the main misunderstanding is that nation states unilaterally declared by European powers in Africa and Western Asia from the nineteenth century until around the middle of the 20th century have been utterly disastrous to those places rather than being the only source of order in those places.
Is this the starting volley of an argument that unfair colonization from the 1800s is justification for a nation’s lack of sovereignty?
tend not to consider them as legitimate and more of an encroachment.
Yes, there it is.
I thought it was moral dissonance. I’m at least glad that in youger generations mass murder is coming to be seen more universally as evil even when committed against groups who are not white. I’m sorry about whatever happened to you to make you this way.
As I pointed out in another post, using decades- or centuries-old arguments for sovereignty has been used as justification for terrorism. When bin Laden smashed a couple of planes into the Twin Towers, that’s exactly the kind of argument he used as justification.
It’s not about moral dissonance. It’s about how hate spreads through ancient spites and grudges. The decades of failed peace attempts in the Middle East have been brought about by clinging on to these ancient grudges, and it’s exactly why Palestine has had much less of a standing in being officially recognized as a nation than Israel has.
