So I think I have a basic grip on this conflict, the modern times at least, it’s basically a back and fro attacks of Israel and Palestine military, about who the territory of Gaza Strip and West Bank.

But who the most legitimate claim to those lands? The region is called Palestine, and Israeli only settled there after the second world war after the land was “assigned” to them. So am I right to presume that Palestinians are the native people of this land, and the State of Israel is just trying to get rid of them?

  • CoachDomOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sure, so the Palestinians, not matter if they are suited to rule this land, but they are the native people on it? Meaning, they were living there before Israelis were relocated there?

    I’m just trying to put in perspective, if a whole nation would be moved onto my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland, but theirs. Is that how it worked?

    • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Simply determining which group is the single “native” people to that area is difficult. So many groups have inhabited, controlled, and fought over the region for millennia.

      I agree with Horsey. The more I read about the conflict, and the farther back I go in history, the messier it all gets. I will be amazed if someone can write up a good ELI5 on this particular topic.

      • CoachDomOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True! But I think everyone in here managed to shed a little light on the complexity of this particular conflict and the hopelessness of it.

    • Crul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      ~not the user who you were replying to~

      if a whole nation would be moved onto my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland, but theirs. Is that how it worked?

      The thing is… that describes the situation of multiple existing countries (USA, ahem) and, if you go back enough in history, probably almost every country in the world.

    • Horsey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “If a whole nation would be moved into my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland”

      Yes, this is your ELI5. Majorities come and go. Governments come and go. I’ll give you two examples right next door to Israel:

      1. Egypt was a dynastic system, then Geek, then Roman, then Christian nation then an Arab nation beginning in the 7th century. During each of the periods, a particular ethnicity did exactly the above: they moved in and became the majority. There was a point where it was overwhelmingly correct to call Egypt any one of the above after dynastic rule concluded. Today, Egypt is a Muslim majority country, but if for some reason christians poured in (the British kindof started to do this in the early 19th-20th century in the protectorate period) it would, at some point, become christian.

      2. Constantinople was a Christian capitol city for centuries until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. The city was renamed Instanbul in 1928, but wasn’t recognized as such until a year later in 1929.

      The takeaway from all this is that land changes hands in various ways. It’s the point at which the definition of a land changes that is sometimes controversial until a kind of revolution takes place.

      • CoachDomOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting point!

        In your opinion, who is at wrong in this conflict? Or would you say both sides are right to some extent and there is no “fair” outcome?

        Who do you side with?

        • Horsey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My personal opinion is that both sides are in the wrong here. Israel is overstepping its borders, but Palestine is not controlling Gaza and isn’t exactly cracking down on the extremism or defending their borders. Israel is taking advantage of the weak, poorly organized, poorly administered Palestinian (and Syrian!) land by annexing small plots slowly over time.

          If you talk to Palestinians, they want to return Palestine and its lands to a Muslim country. They have an overall nationalistic view that I don’t find conducive to peace or overall benefit to everyday people.

          As a general idea, I’m all for self determination, but I’m also for the rule of plurality. Because of that, and Israel’s general secular liberal principals (not in the modern American definition of the term), I side with Israel.

          My genuine gut feeling is to benefit the most amount of people possible, and thus support the side that more closely adheres to the declaration of human rights.

    • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The thing is, the land itself is not the issue, there is enough land there. Rather, both parties have vastly different political ideals (and religions) and the people from neighbouring countries heavily disagree with Isreals politics.

      After WW2, Great Britain gave most of the land to the surrounding countries (as far as I understand) but reserved some land for what is now known as Israel for Jews to be able to form a state. However, this did not sit well with the overwhelmingly muslim countries around it.

      Good to know: Whether Palestine is a country depends on who you ask. Most countries in North America, Central/Western Europe and Oceania (Australia etc.) DONT consider Palestina a country while countries in South America, Africa and Asia overwhelmingly DO recognize it as a country (there are exceptions).