> People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so.
This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?
No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.
It is a lie that Israel was founded on an ethnic cleansing hiding the fact that the Arab league wanted to wipe out all Jewish settlements. Just like it happened in other Arab countries at that time and just how they want to do it today.
War erupted which Israel won and hence their claim to the land. They did not ethnically cleanse anyone, in many cases they even bought the land, which I have never seen in a similar conflict. Usually it is just taken.
Man what do you want to call the forced removal of an ethnic group from a geographic area so they can be replaced by another one? Ethnic cleansing has been the accepted term for this for a couple generations but I'm flexible on nomenclature here as long as we agree that the forced removal happened.
If we don't agree that it did then we literally cannot have a conversation across this boundary on this subject. I also don't see how you can adequately explain the current situation in the region when you deny this part of its history but that's your problem I guess.
Any admittance of fault would be abused and very one-sided, so we cannot have a discussion on this topic indeed. I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
If you only hold discussions where one party must confess to ethnic cleansing, conflict is inevitable.
No I hold plenty of discussions where no one has to confess to an ethnic cleansing. But only ones where neither participant has committed one.
> I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
What does it mean "stand by" a statement that an assertion is a lie without attempting to refute the assertion? This is a nonsense action, it is nothing. I said I'm flexible about the vocabulary we use when we talk about what happened, so what happened? Why do so many palestinians live in gaza? How did they get there, under what conditions do they remain? Why aren't there more of them in other parts of israel?
I'm giving you an opportunity to describe it on your terms. So describe it.
I'm not making an argument, I'm making an assertion that you called a lie. So clearly you understood the point I'm making, I don't see that it requires further litigation on the details.
So, again, what happened? What is your description of the events that led to palestinians being so concentrated in gaza, and no longer living in the land they inhabited before.
Again I am giving you an opportunity to tell this story in the words you prefer. What, other than your cowardice, is preventing you from taking it?
That comparison doesn't fit because the Jews in Germany didn't want to exterminate Germans. That was Nazi propaganda. Perhaps that perspective survived from the closeness of Hitler with the Mufti.
This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?
No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.