Israel is carrying out massacres against civilians every day . The inevitable result of the West turning a blind eye to Israel's war crimes.
"one Palestinian state, from the river to the sea" and where do all the Jews go, eh? Yeah, anyone who has looked into that saying known what the original Arabic means
Dude just dodge the whole article and quote something that didn't exists in the article.
Acrobatic 100
It's written on the banner in the top image that you have to scroll past to read even the first sentence of the article:
40 Years After The Massacre Of
Sabra and Chatila...
The Right Of Return lives On
One Palestinian State, from The RiVer To The Sea!
No clue why they capitalized random letters.
EDIT: formatting
Whoop, my bad, i don't have the habit of looking at the pic when reading news article, they tend to be file pic(the picture in question is from last year)
They can be citizens of Palestine. They don't need to go anywhere. Would that work for you?
No. Israel exist. It has a right to exist.
So does Palestine, it has a right to be free.
Didn't say otherwise. Perhaps if they stopped attacking Israel and used diplomacy then that might happen. They've had multiple opportunities. Going all the way back to the partition plan.
Everyone said that, but go read the last peace talk between Israel and Palestine, and especially the interview from an anonymous officer working closely with the US mediator team, it's interesting. Because Netanyahu have no intention for that to happen.
Are you asking about the country or the policy of apartheid?
Edit to add more detail
Are you asking if I think that the country had a right to exist or if it should have been dissolved entirely and started from scratch?
Are you asking if I think all of the Afrikaners should have left and left only natives? Are you asking if the policy should have been permitted?
It's pretty obvious if you think about it for more than one second.
I can answer that. Apartheid south africa had no fucking right to exist; the policies and the country. It should have been dissolved entirely long before it eventually was.
South Africa did start from scratch after the end of the Apartheid, if you know anything about how much the Apartheid government looted the state coffers bare before democracy.
Talking about Afrikaaners leaving and natives staying is disingenuous. Everyone wanted Apartheid sympathisers gone, and to coexist as equal citizens in the new democratic country.
I can draw so many parallels between Apartheid south africa and israel.
See. You obviously weren't actually interested in my answer. You just wanted to spew overly simplified nonsense. You didn't answer a single question I asked so that I could answer your question appropriately. SA didn't start over entirely. They didn't dissolved the state and then just decide on things like the border after apartheid. Apartheid was a policy. An awful one. South Africa is a place. So what the fuck are you even asking as you talk to yourself.
I mean, you can draw parallels with events from any 2 random countries. That doesn't make it the same. If anything a closer comparison would be the events with South West Africa. But that would have more to do with the territorial aspects than the apartheid aspects.
Oh i answered every one of your questions.
Borders absolutely did change internally in south africa, despite you claiming that borders did not. And i want to point out that israel is the occupying force in gaza and west bank, so if they go for a one state solution then borders would be internally changed. If they go for a two state solution borders would still be internally affected, so i don't know what you are complaining about.
South africa did start over from scratch, did you read about the new constitution drawn up, the overhaul of the apartheid laws set in place, the putting in place of a government of national unity, the democratic elections, the overhauling of the judicial system, etc. There was a whole fucking lot of change. And, let me repeat this from my previous reply, the apartheid government stealing the state coffers dry, so the new government started from scratch.
Apartheid wasn't just a policy, it was an ideology, a state of being for the racist minority, a hellish state of being for the majority. So fuck you for being reductive about Apartheid. This is the reason why so many south africans could and can always absolutely relate to the hell that palestinians are living through.
Israel is practicing a worse form of Apartheid, that is absolutely clear for any south african to see, so the comparison between israel and Apartheid south africa is more valid than many other comparisons.
Lastly, i was answering your questions because i have some knowledge on the subject. And fuck me for engaging with people on a social media platform all about engagement, right?
Jesus fuck. I wasn't reductive of apartheid. I was pointing out that apartheid was the policy and south Africa was the nation state. You are reductive of apartheid by trying to simplify it enough that Israel fits your definition of it.
And again, it did not start from scratch. There was a lot of things that were done and existed during the change. A constitution is only one part of a nation state. They already had international recognition. No one was disputing the borders of south Africa. Changing internal borders is an entirely different thing to changing international borders. Literally right next door was south West Africa. Which, if you really want to shoehorn this comparison is a clearly better comparison. But they had an entire civil war forming national and international boundaries. Seriously. It is clear you've just read a few lefty articles about how some people from SA say that Israel is an apartheid state.
But let me show you. SWA was a territory controlled by Germany until WWI (check), British gain control (check), UN defines it as mandatory swa governed by SA governed by great Britain (check), great Britain makes plan for SA to be independent and swa to be independent, but (now this is where things differ) SA is like nah and takes control, doesn't give it up, and institutes apartheid there as well. Eventually the whole region falls into a border war and closely intertwined civil war in Angola. And then we got Namibia.
There are a lot of parallels. But that doesn't mean it is the same. And when you try to make it the same it is reductive for both sides. The apartheid of SA and SWA is orders of magnitude above the restrictions in the west bank and Gaza. It ignores the backgrounds and why some of those things exist. It was made to have essentially an entire slave class in SA and SWA. Palestinians are not slaves. Arab Israelis certainly experience systemic racism in Israel. But not something that can be classified as apartheid.
Like what things specifically do you think qualifies it as apartheid.
Do people have the right to exist, where ever they are born, live, work? - yes
Do people have the right to practice any religion they want? - yes
Does a religious ethno state have the right to exist and displace people of different religions and ethnicities? No - by its very nature its exclusive, and doesn't represent the people who live on the land, and it precludes people from switching religions.
What about Palestinians right to exist? Why not go for the two state solutions like everyone suggested and worked things out instead of creating and funding Hamas to stay in power and now it's surprised Pikachu face all over again. And then go around and threatening even UN members to get their approval of your genocide and war crimes.
You know what, I don't care about Hamas or Netanyahu or his terrorist settlers who are torturing, beating, displacing and arresting West bank palestinians now, I only care and worry about the hostages and the civilians on both sides that are dying now. And of course the victims that survived and still are surviving.
Why doesn't anyone talk about the hostages anymore? Also, you've had your blood revenge by killing 5x more Palestinians than they did. There were also women, men and babies in there. So just STOP justifying everything.
Or at least stop acting like a coward, keep your word, and get in there and fight Hamas one on one. You have killed and pushed more than a million people south, instead of bombing them there (easy targets right) from your ivory tower, get into the tunnels and fight your real enemy.
We all know why you're bombing civilians to oblivion: because you're chickens that would rather kill a million civilians and then go in and seem like the victor. Really at this point I'm boiling.
I didn't say Palestine doesn't have a right to exist. There have been many opportunities for it to exist. However, a large enough portion of the population has decided Israel does not have a right to exist that they accept no compromise. You could look up the actual history, but that's asking too much I suppose.
You act like the situation is so simple to deal with. But I wonder how would you deal with having people right next to you that insist you need to die. And regularly attack you, your friends, and family.
Threatening UN members? How? Do you mean UN workers? Because Israel certainly isn't walking around the UN threatening member states.
And people aren't talking about the hostages, because they were practically dead the moment they were taken in to Gaza during the third largest terrorist attack in history.
Fair enough. Let's see:
You gave them terrorists as a government, put them into a nicer concentration camp really, put an embargo on them, even studying how much calories they need to be on the verge of starvation but not dying and only allow that much food in. That's only the last 16 years I'm talking about. I would join Hamas or whomever too, were I to be born and oppressed in those conditions. It's like there's a push for blanket amnesia every time Israel commits a war crime.
The most important thing, everybody hates Hamas and everybody hates Netanyahu and settlers. That's how the world feels about it. And paying off influencers, arresting and killing journalists won't change a shit, pressing the UN chief to resign, just because he wants humanitarian aid and pointed out that these things didn't happen in a vacuum...
The UN thing: Israel-Hamas war live: Israel vows to ‘teach the UN a lesson’ as row over secretary-general’s speech escalates
Yes I do know a lot about their history, let's put that aside.
Also, I do live in a country where I was assaulted just because they think I'm a Muslim. So there's that.
Why can't there be Jewish Palestinians?
How are Jews treated in Palestine right now? What are the goals of the major Palestinian organizations when it comes to Jews?
I think you're getting confused. Before the creation of Israel there were jewish palestinians, and Christian Palestinians and muslim Palestinians. And then the apartheid ethnostate of Israel was created, and israel made everyone who was not jewish a 2nd class citizen or a refugee.
Before the creation of israel people of the three faiths were living together in Palestine.
So i'm quite sure the problem is actually israel
There has never been a state of Palestine. In world history. And that region has never been very stable. With populations or governments.
People don’t need statehood designation to exist. They’re just, ya know, born.
Never said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?
Just that people and cultures can exist without a designation of statehood.
Do you often like to toss out obvious statements that no one was debating into conversations?
Not generally. Only when someone comments a non sequitur.
But I didn't comment a non sequitur. Or if I did, where was the gap in the logic?
All three of those riots are the result of the Balfour declaration, which is what lead to the creation of Israel.
Ah, so you're moving the goalposts from May 14th, 1948 to November 2nd, 1917?
Admittedly, there seems to be fewer records of violence towards Jews in the region. Probably under a 1000 killed through violence throughout the 1800s. But there were oppressive laws set by the Ottoman regime - limiting land sales, requiring Jews to work in certain industries and forbidding them from others, etc. You know, apartheid.
I don't think it's unfair to link the statement "there was less violence and hate towards Jews before Israel" with you know, actually checking dates before Israeli settlers started arriving.
So Israel began with Jewish settlers first arriving, the Balfour declaration, or Israeli Independence?
Just so I don't waste time for you sealions.
If you want to debate perv this, which group was there first and can lay claim to the land? Oh look, it’s Egyptian Arabs. Source. And before you debate perv me with context. It certainly wasn’t the Jews who were first, and you know it.
I mean even your link says it wasn't Egyptians first. That Egyptians settlers went to the area when an Egyptian pharaoh unified Egypt. But there people there before that.
Which is why you have to pick a starting point and go from there. And if we are talking about forming a legitimized form Palestinian state, then starting at the partition plan is probably the most reasonable. Why? Because Israel exists and dissolving it and making the whole region Palestine is unreasonable and will not happen. It won't. If you want peace, that is something you must accept.
What needs to happen to settlers, what the exact borders will be, what happens to refugees, and people living on one side of the border but wishes to be a citizen of the other, all has to be discussed. But dissolving an entire country with nearly 10 million people is off the table. Not just because I think so, but because I'm the real world international legitimization matters. Israelis who have are multigenerational at this point will also not accept that and it won't bring peace.
And before you debate perv me with context. It certainly wasn’t the Jews who were first.
The person you're responding to is distorting the truth on purpose
Edit: Added the strikethrough, I was responding to the wrong person
I don't think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population. I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
I don’t think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population.
No clue if they're genetically the same people, but it's not really important. That region has been recognized as Palestine for a long time. Any argument about statehood is just Eurocentric justification to steal land from the natives.
I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn't like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.
Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.
And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?
Edit: and how doesn't it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn't matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what's funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn't of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.
So what you're saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?
Think about how Jews were treated before Israeli apartheid in Palestine... As in they were Palestinian Jews who lived in peace with everyone. Until the colonists came.
They stay exactly where they were and get treated as citizens with rights. Just like they were when Palestine was part of Syria, and after it became a British mandate for a while.
Israel is carrying out massacres against civilians every day . The inevitable result of the West turning a blind eye to Israel's war crimes.
"one Palestinian state, from the river to the sea" and where do all the Jews go, eh? Yeah, anyone who has looked into that saying known what the original Arabic means
Dude just dodge the whole article and quote something that didn't exists in the article.
Acrobatic 100
It's written on the banner in the top image that you have to scroll past to read even the first sentence of the article:
No clue why they capitalized random letters.
EDIT: formatting
Whoop, my bad, i don't have the habit of looking at the pic when reading news article, they tend to be file pic(the picture in question is from last year)
They can be citizens of Palestine. They don't need to go anywhere. Would that work for you?
No. Israel exist. It has a right to exist.
So does Palestine, it has a right to be free.
Didn't say otherwise. Perhaps if they stopped attacking Israel and used diplomacy then that might happen. They've had multiple opportunities. Going all the way back to the partition plan.
Everyone said that, but go read the last peace talk between Israel and Palestine, and especially the interview from an anonymous officer working closely with the US mediator team, it's interesting. Because Netanyahu have no intention for that to happen.
probablyaCat is full of shit and they know it.
Oh right I forgot about all those Palestinian settlements inside Israel. I forgot how Palestinians (backed by Hamas) were forcing Israelis from their homes. Silly me /s
Did Apartheid South Africa have a right to exist?
Are you asking about the country or the policy of apartheid?
Edit to add more detail
Are you asking if I think that the country had a right to exist or if it should have been dissolved entirely and started from scratch?
Are you asking if I think all of the Afrikaners should have left and left only natives? Are you asking if the policy should have been permitted?
It's pretty obvious if you think about it for more than one second.
I can answer that. Apartheid south africa had no fucking right to exist; the policies and the country. It should have been dissolved entirely long before it eventually was.
South Africa did start from scratch after the end of the Apartheid, if you know anything about how much the Apartheid government looted the state coffers bare before democracy.
Talking about Afrikaaners leaving and natives staying is disingenuous. Everyone wanted Apartheid sympathisers gone, and to coexist as equal citizens in the new democratic country.
I can draw so many parallels between Apartheid south africa and israel.
See. You obviously weren't actually interested in my answer. You just wanted to spew overly simplified nonsense. You didn't answer a single question I asked so that I could answer your question appropriately. SA didn't start over entirely. They didn't dissolved the state and then just decide on things like the border after apartheid. Apartheid was a policy. An awful one. South Africa is a place. So what the fuck are you even asking as you talk to yourself.
I mean, you can draw parallels with events from any 2 random countries. That doesn't make it the same. If anything a closer comparison would be the events with South West Africa. But that would have more to do with the territorial aspects than the apartheid aspects.
Oh i answered every one of your questions.
Borders absolutely did change internally in south africa, despite you claiming that borders did not. And i want to point out that israel is the occupying force in gaza and west bank, so if they go for a one state solution then borders would be internally changed. If they go for a two state solution borders would still be internally affected, so i don't know what you are complaining about.
South africa did start over from scratch, did you read about the new constitution drawn up, the overhaul of the apartheid laws set in place, the putting in place of a government of national unity, the democratic elections, the overhauling of the judicial system, etc. There was a whole fucking lot of change. And, let me repeat this from my previous reply, the apartheid government stealing the state coffers dry, so the new government started from scratch.
Apartheid wasn't just a policy, it was an ideology, a state of being for the racist minority, a hellish state of being for the majority. So fuck you for being reductive about Apartheid. This is the reason why so many south africans could and can always absolutely relate to the hell that palestinians are living through.
Israel is practicing a worse form of Apartheid, that is absolutely clear for any south african to see, so the comparison between israel and Apartheid south africa is more valid than many other comparisons.
Lastly, i was answering your questions because i have some knowledge on the subject. And fuck me for engaging with people on a social media platform all about engagement, right?
Jesus fuck. I wasn't reductive of apartheid. I was pointing out that apartheid was the policy and south Africa was the nation state. You are reductive of apartheid by trying to simplify it enough that Israel fits your definition of it.
And again, it did not start from scratch. There was a lot of things that were done and existed during the change. A constitution is only one part of a nation state. They already had international recognition. No one was disputing the borders of south Africa. Changing internal borders is an entirely different thing to changing international borders. Literally right next door was south West Africa. Which, if you really want to shoehorn this comparison is a clearly better comparison. But they had an entire civil war forming national and international boundaries. Seriously. It is clear you've just read a few lefty articles about how some people from SA say that Israel is an apartheid state.
But let me show you. SWA was a territory controlled by Germany until WWI (check), British gain control (check), UN defines it as mandatory swa governed by SA governed by great Britain (check), great Britain makes plan for SA to be independent and swa to be independent, but (now this is where things differ) SA is like nah and takes control, doesn't give it up, and institutes apartheid there as well. Eventually the whole region falls into a border war and closely intertwined civil war in Angola. And then we got Namibia.
There are a lot of parallels. But that doesn't mean it is the same. And when you try to make it the same it is reductive for both sides. The apartheid of SA and SWA is orders of magnitude above the restrictions in the west bank and Gaza. It ignores the backgrounds and why some of those things exist. It was made to have essentially an entire slave class in SA and SWA. Palestinians are not slaves. Arab Israelis certainly experience systemic racism in Israel. But not something that can be classified as apartheid.
Like what things specifically do you think qualifies it as apartheid.
Do people have the right to exist, where ever they are born, live, work? - yes
Do people have the right to practice any religion they want? - yes
Does a religious ethno state have the right to exist and displace people of different religions and ethnicities? No - by its very nature its exclusive, and doesn't represent the people who live on the land, and it precludes people from switching religions.
What about Palestinians right to exist? Why not go for the two state solutions like everyone suggested and worked things out instead of creating and funding Hamas to stay in power and now it's surprised Pikachu face all over again. And then go around and threatening even UN members to get their approval of your genocide and war crimes.
You know what, I don't care about Hamas or Netanyahu or his terrorist settlers who are torturing, beating, displacing and arresting West bank palestinians now, I only care and worry about the hostages and the civilians on both sides that are dying now. And of course the victims that survived and still are surviving.
Why doesn't anyone talk about the hostages anymore? Also, you've had your blood revenge by killing 5x more Palestinians than they did. There were also women, men and babies in there. So just STOP justifying everything.
Or at least stop acting like a coward, keep your word, and get in there and fight Hamas one on one. You have killed and pushed more than a million people south, instead of bombing them there (easy targets right) from your ivory tower, get into the tunnels and fight your real enemy.
We all know why you're bombing civilians to oblivion: because you're chickens that would rather kill a million civilians and then go in and seem like the victor. Really at this point I'm boiling.
I didn't say Palestine doesn't have a right to exist. There have been many opportunities for it to exist. However, a large enough portion of the population has decided Israel does not have a right to exist that they accept no compromise. You could look up the actual history, but that's asking too much I suppose.
You act like the situation is so simple to deal with. But I wonder how would you deal with having people right next to you that insist you need to die. And regularly attack you, your friends, and family.
Threatening UN members? How? Do you mean UN workers? Because Israel certainly isn't walking around the UN threatening member states.
And people aren't talking about the hostages, because they were practically dead the moment they were taken in to Gaza during the third largest terrorist attack in history.
Fair enough. Let's see:
You gave them terrorists as a government, put them into a nicer concentration camp really, put an embargo on them, even studying how much calories they need to be on the verge of starvation but not dying and only allow that much food in. That's only the last 16 years I'm talking about. I would join Hamas or whomever too, were I to be born and oppressed in those conditions. It's like there's a push for blanket amnesia every time Israel commits a war crime.
The most important thing, everybody hates Hamas and everybody hates Netanyahu and settlers. That's how the world feels about it. And paying off influencers, arresting and killing journalists won't change a shit, pressing the UN chief to resign, just because he wants humanitarian aid and pointed out that these things didn't happen in a vacuum...
The UN thing: Israel-Hamas war live: Israel vows to ‘teach the UN a lesson’ as row over secretary-general’s speech escalates
It's a live thingy, you can follow here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/25/israel-hamas-war-live-news-gaza-child-deaths-unicef-jenin-west-bank-strike?page=with:block-6538a4a08f08fea9e14d9b67&filterKeyEvents=false
Yes I do know a lot about their history, let's put that aside.
Also, I do live in a country where I was assaulted just because they think I'm a Muslim. So there's that.
Why can't there be Jewish Palestinians?
How are Jews treated in Palestine right now? What are the goals of the major Palestinian organizations when it comes to Jews?
I think you're getting confused. Before the creation of Israel there were jewish palestinians, and Christian Palestinians and muslim Palestinians. And then the apartheid ethnostate of Israel was created, and israel made everyone who was not jewish a 2nd class citizen or a refugee.
Before the creation of israel people of the three faiths were living together in Palestine.
So i'm quite sure the problem is actually israel
There has never been a state of Palestine. In world history. And that region has never been very stable. With populations or governments.
People don’t need statehood designation to exist. They’re just, ya know, born.
Never said otherwise. What point are you trying to make?
Just that people and cultures can exist without a designation of statehood.
Do you often like to toss out obvious statements that no one was debating into conversations?
Not generally. Only when someone comments a non sequitur.
But I didn't comment a non sequitur. Or if I did, where was the gap in the logic?
Are just the big ones I pulled from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine
All three of those riots are the result of the Balfour declaration, which is what lead to the creation of Israel.
Ah, so you're moving the goalposts from May 14th, 1948 to November 2nd, 1917?
Admittedly, there seems to be fewer records of violence towards Jews in the region. Probably under a 1000 killed through violence throughout the 1800s. But there were oppressive laws set by the Ottoman regime - limiting land sales, requiring Jews to work in certain industries and forbidding them from others, etc. You know, apartheid.
I don't think it's unfair to link the statement "there was less violence and hate towards Jews before Israel" with you know, actually checking dates before Israeli settlers started arriving.
So Israel began with Jewish settlers first arriving, the Balfour declaration, or Israeli Independence?
Just so I don't waste time for you sealions.
If you want to debate perv this, which group was there first and can lay claim to the land? Oh look, it’s Egyptian Arabs. Source. And before you debate perv me with context. It certainly wasn’t the Jews who were first, and you know it.
I mean even your link says it wasn't Egyptians first. That Egyptians settlers went to the area when an Egyptian pharaoh unified Egypt. But there people there before that.
Which is why you have to pick a starting point and go from there. And if we are talking about forming a legitimized form Palestinian state, then starting at the partition plan is probably the most reasonable. Why? Because Israel exists and dissolving it and making the whole region Palestine is unreasonable and will not happen. It won't. If you want peace, that is something you must accept.
What needs to happen to settlers, what the exact borders will be, what happens to refugees, and people living on one side of the border but wishes to be a citizen of the other, all has to be discussed. But dissolving an entire country with nearly 10 million people is off the table. Not just because I think so, but because I'm the real world international legitimization matters. Israelis who have are multigenerational at this point will also not accept that and it won't bring peace.
Everything else is blather. Free Palestine.
Palestine is literally the Philistines from the bible. The land has been recognized as Palestine since the romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina
The person you're responding to is distorting the truth on purposeEdit: Added the strikethrough, I was responding to the wrong person
I don't think the Philistines have any relation to the modern Palestinian population. I believe they were all killed at the end of the Bronze Age by the Sea People. Or maybe they were the Sea People. 🤷♂️
No clue if they're genetically the same people, but it's not really important. That region has been recognized as Palestine for a long time. Any argument about statehood is just Eurocentric justification to steal land from the natives.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2015-10-29/ty-article/.premium/why-are-palestinians-called-palestinians/0000017f-e7d6-dc7e-adff-f7ffc2390000
Yes, because borders, territories, and statehood are only creations of eurocentric policies. They are definitely not a natural progression of tribalism that was capable of centralizing authority in some form. I mean it isn't like the earliest examples are largely in Asia and Africa.
Formalizing it for the purposes of stopping wars in the current nation state is somewhat from Europe, but existed in Asia previously in a similar form.
And how is it used as a justification to steal land from natives?
Edit: and how doesn't it matter? Like you tried to make a point and then just said it didn't matter when challenged. And the name being used for a region is not the same as existing as a nation or state or nation state. And what's funny is you ignored the part about how the name started to be used for the area isn't of Judea, because the Greeks wanted it to have a purely geographical name rather than something connected to the Jews.
So what you're saying is that Palestine itself is just some eurocentric creation used to drive off the natives from Judea?
Think about how Jews were treated before Israeli apartheid in Palestine... As in they were Palestinian Jews who lived in peace with everyone. Until the colonists came.
They stay exactly where they were and get treated as citizens with rights. Just like they were when Palestine was part of Syria, and after it became a British mandate for a while.
Thanks for reading the article.