To wish those in Israel safety in these coming times

Unfortunately that’s not how international law works, but those supporting Israel seem to want to interpret the law only when it helps Israel.

Here is but one reference

“In modern times, there are only three forms of legal territory gain. They are cession, accretion, and occupation. Cession is when a treaty is reached and land is willingly given from one state to another, without the use of force. Accretion is simply the natural addition of land mass through geological processes. Anything other than these three forms is considered an aggressive act of conquest, and is seen as illegal. A distinction will be made between occupation and conquest, as the two can appear very similar at times. Occupation will be defined as a temporary military takeover of a local government, with no intention of extended physical presence, no alteration of local government, and full relinquishment of local territory upon foreign withdrawal (International Committee of the Red Cross 2004).”

https://www.processjmus.org/the-principle-of-conquest

Yup... repeat over and over again.

Quite the pattern isn't it?

Start a war.
Lose the war.
Complain about direct consequences of said war.

And the reason many eventually did lose their personal property, is because they went to war. First with the Jews (Nov 1947) then with Israel (May 1948).

No one is gaslighting anybody. You surely can't believe that Hamas sole objective is based on killing all Jews? It is an Islamist resistance movement which violently rejects the existence of Israel, which it claims is occupying Palestine. This is a mainstream view.

Quite the pattern isn't it?

Start a war.
Lose the war.
Complain about direct consequences of said war.

That framing ignores both the reality on the ground at the time and what actually followed. The idea that Palestinians could have “remained where they were under the Israeli flag” overlooks the fact that over 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled or fled in fear during and after the 1948 war. Their homes and villages were destroyed, and they were never allowed to return. Many still hold the keys to homes that no longer exist.

Yes, some Palestinians remained and became Arab citizens of Israel, but they lived under military rule for nearly 20 years and continue to face discrimination to this day. Simply pointing to their existence does not erase the Nakba or its consequences.

As for the claim that Palestinian identity did not exist, identities evolve, especially in response to political realities. By that logic, Zionist identity also developed over time. The absence of a formal Palestinian state does not mean people lacked a national consciousness or a rightful connection to the land.

And while it is true that Arab states and Palestinian militias rejected the partition and went to war, that does not justify the scale of the ethnic cleansing that followed. Entire villages were wiped out, and a massive refugee crisis was created, one that has never been resolved.

If the goal is to understand and not just defend, we need to acknowledge that Palestinians were not simply paying the price for starting a war. They were dispossessed and made stateless through a process that continues in many forms today. Ignoring that only deepens the injustice.

Once again, nobody was being asked to give up their personal property. They could have remained where they were under the Israeli flag. As indeed many did, and are now Arab Israeli citizens.

It's not even a question of asking anyone to give up their national identity, as a Palestinian identity didn't exist then.

That is a very selective reading of history. The idea that the land “was not anyone’s” is simply not true. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were living there — in cities, villages, and on farms — with homes, schools, and communities. To suggest they had nothing to give up is to erase their existence.

The partition plan may have looked like a compromise to some, but to many Palestinians it felt like being asked to give up more than half their land to a newly arrived population, much of it supported by foreign powers. Their rejection was not only religious. It was also political and rooted in the fear of displacement, which turned out to be well-founded. Over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee or were expelled in 1948. That was not a theoretical concern. It became their lived reality.

If Jewish connection to the land is considered valid based on ancient ancestry, why is Palestinian connection, based on centuries of continuous residence, dismissed so easily?

If you believe Israel has a legitimate claim, why deny Palestinians the same right? And if giving up land is such a reasonable expectation for them, why does Israel refuse to give up land it illegally occupies today?

The conflict is not simply anti-Jewish. That framing reduces a complex history of colonisation, displacement, and occupation into a single religious issue. It allows people to avoid taking responsibility for the political and human rights violations that have taken place. Peace will not come through erasure or denial. It will come through justice, accountability, and equal rights for both peoples.

That is a very selective reading of history. The idea that the land “was not anyone’s” is simply not true. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were living there — in cities, villages, and on farms — with homes, schools, and communities. To suggest they had nothing to give up is to erase their existence.

The partition plan may have looked like a compromise to some, but to many Palestinians it felt like being asked to give up more than half their land to a newly arrived population, much of it supported by foreign powers. Their rejection was not only religious. It was also political and rooted in the fear of displacement, which turned out to be well-founded. Over 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee or were expelled in 1948. That was not a theoretical concern. It became their lived reality.

If Jewish connection to the land is considered valid based on ancient ancestry, why is Palestinian connection, based on centuries of continuous residence, dismissed so easily?

If you believe Israel has a legitimate claim, why deny Palestinians the same right? And if giving up land is such a reasonable expectation for them, why does Israel refuse to give up land it illegally occupies today?

The conflict is not simply anti-Jewish. That framing reduces a complex history of colonisation, displacement, and occupation into a single religious issue. It allows people to avoid taking responsibility for the political and human rights violations that have taken place. Peace will not come through erasure or denial. It will come through justice, accountability, and equal rights for both peoples.

FFS there was nothing for them to give up in the first place. The land as a whole didn't belong to 'them' - whoever the heck that might be.

The Jews had a legitimate claim for their state to be (re)established in their ancestral homeland. The Arabs living in the region - mostly in what is now West Bank and Gaza - had a competing claim, based on centuries of residency.

But crucially, at the time, it wasn't anyone's yet. The partition plan was a very reasonable compromise, giving part to the Jews and part to the Arabs.

The reason - the only reason - the Arabs rejected it, was because they saw it as sacrilegious for Jews to rule over what they saw as Islamic land. The conflict is at its core anti Jewish.

Thankyou. Thats what I was trying to say but this is much more succinctly put.

It's not about nationalism at all. Had it been about that, they would hava spent 18 years building Gaza instead of firing missiles at Israel.

You would be amazed at just how much support Israel has got, outside the MN bubble.

FFS there was nothing for them to give up in the first place. The land as a whole didn't belong to 'them' - whoever the heck that might be.

The Jews had a legitimate claim for their state to be (re)established in their ancestral homeland. The Arabs living in the region - mostly in what is now West Bank and Gaza - had a competing claim, based on centuries of residency.

But crucially, at the time, it wasn't anyone's yet. The partition plan was a very reasonable compromise, giving part to the Jews and part to the Arabs.

The reason - the only reason - the Arabs rejected it, was because they saw it as sacrilegious for Jews to rule over what they saw as Islamic land. The conflict is at its core anti Jewish.

@purpletablet best leave it some people have very one dimensional thinking it's weird because what you are saying is something pretty much acknowledged everywhere

Point out where the poster has said that Hamas don't hate Jews? They've acknowledged that numerous times. Do you believe they are solely about?

Honestly the level of debate on here is ridiculous. As I've said before it is a pretty mainstream view even the US government describes Hamas's ideology as combining Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism.

If it should have been easy for the Palestinians to give up their land for the creation of Israel- why is Israel not happy to go back to 1967 borders? And for the sake of peace - why have they not stopped the settlements which are continuing at pace? Can they have half of Jerusalem if it creates peace?

Is it so easy to give up land? If it’s hard for Israel - why not for Palestinians?

You’re so naive @purpletablet if you really believe that just because a terrorist organisation changes the wording from Jew to Zionism that reflects a genuine change of heart.

The glee that Hamas have displayed towards Jewish suffering on October 7th and afterwards - at the hostage exchange releases for example - shows us who they are & that the Jew hate is still strong.

Why are you & others so keen to defend them?

Me too. How is it possible to read the words that come out of their mouths and conclude they do not hate Jews.