Change the name of Israel

[Hermit]

Palestine has never been a terra nullius...

You must have skipped the post where the concept of terra nullius, its implications and consequences have been outlined. To summarise: It is the single most important tool to subjugate people and steal their land.

[Svartalf]

that argument may have been used, but it was used even more wrongfully than it ever was during the conquest of the Americas. Granted, after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, there was no central government anymore to guarantee who owned what land in what area, but those lands still were lawfully owned and seizing them as has been done in 48 and since is unconscionable.

[Hermit]

that argument may have been used...

Coito Two is using it all the time - without naming it. That's why I decided to focus on the deceit. Yes, of course it's used wrongfully. It is always used wrongfully. The only terra nullius on earth worth mentioning is the antarctic plate.

[pErvinalia]

Or Europe before Man left Africa.

[Forty Two]

Lot of words to deny that Palestine was a thing before 1948.

Before 1948 "Palestine" wasn't a thing, other than the name of a "region" with no borders, government or citizenry. There weren't any citizens of "Palestine." The area was part of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine (from 1918 to 1947). That's what it was. Before 1918, it was the Ottoman Empire. Before 1435, it was the Byzantine Empire (trading off conquest of various cities between the Muslim Caliphate and the Christian empire. Before about 476 it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Before Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE it was Judea, before that it was the Hasmoneans, and before that the Hellenized Jews (starting with Alexander the Great's empire in the 4th century BCE), and he conquered it from the Persians.

Please, by all means, tell us when in that timeline you believe a country called "Palestine" existed. That's the same as the country called "Israel." That didn't exist since pre-Hellenic times, if ever, and certainly what the land was 2500+ years ago is of rather limited relevance today. However, there also wasn't a "Jordan," "Syria," "Lebanon," "Turkey," or "Iraq" for that period of time. These countries are all 20th century inventions of the League of Nations and the British and French Empires. Israel's existence is no more, or less, legitimate than any of those countries, and its existence as a Jewish state is no more, or less, legitimate than the existence of Muslim states. The only difference is Jewishness, as opposed to Muslim-ness. Some folks may want to ask themselves if Israel was drawn along the 1947 lines just as it was, but it was called "The Islamic Republic of Israel," would it be any more legitimate? What if those same borders were called "The Islamic Republic of Palestine?" If one's answer is "Yes," why would those borders - the 1947 partition map of Israel (not including Gaza, West Bank or the Golan Heights or the Arab Muslim half of Jerusalem -- why would that properly be officially Muslim?

[Forty Two]

that argument may have been used...

Coito Two is using it all the time - without naming it. That's why I decided to focus on the deceit. Yes, of course it's used wrongfully. It is always used wrongfully. The only terra nullius on earth worth mentioning is the antarctic plate.

I never called it "terra nullius" - I've been very clear about this - saying that the countries of Israel and/or Palestine did not exist before 1947 is accurate. It's not a claim that nothing was there or nobody was there. It was the British Mandate for Palestine from 1918 to 1947. There was also the French Mandate for Palestine -- the entire area of the two Mandates for Palestine included Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the current Palestinian territories and Israel, etc. -- that's what "Palesinte" was before 1948 - a huge swath of territorial region that once was owned by the Ottoman Empire.

This is not "deceit," and frankly, your resort to this bullshit accusation that I'm engaging in some sort of deception, as opposed to arguing a view opposing yours, is indicative of the weakness of your position. You know you are factually wrong, so you go off on your personal attack tangents. Fuck off with that.

[Forty Two]

Or Europe before Man left Africa.

Countries do have beginnings.

[Forty Two]

that argument may have been used, but it was used even more wrongfully than it ever was during the conquest of the Americas. Granted, after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, there was no central government anymore to guarantee who owned what land in what area, but those lands still were lawfully owned and seizing them as has been done in 48 and since is unconscionable.

We're not talking about seizing lands. We're talking about drawing borders.

The land was no more "seized" than when the Brits and the League of nations drew Iraq and Jordan. The fact that their "Muslim" States doesn't make them more or less legitimate than a Jewish one drawn around major Jewish populations.

[Brian Peacock]

That hole sure ain't getting any smaller is it?

[Hermit]

that argument may have been used...

Coito Two is using it all the time - without naming it. That's why I decided to focus on the deceit. Yes, of course it's used wrongfully. It is always used wrongfully. The only terra nullius on earth worth mentioning is the antarctic plate.

I never called it "terra nullius" - I've been very clear about this - saying that the countries of Israel and/or Palestine did not exist before 1947 is accurate.

You're still confused about the meaning of terra nullius. It doesn't actually mean anything like "no humans live here". It means instead "this land is owned by nobody". I've briefly outlined the concept and its implications here, but you seem to have skipped over that post.

[pErvinalia]

Lot of words to deny that Palestine was a thing before 1948.

Before 1948 "Palestine" wasn't a thing, other than the name of a "region" with no borders, government or citizenry.

Except the map you showed has Palestine on it with borders. Not reading the rest.

[JimC]

All the mapping pedantry in the world doesn't change the fact that the post WW2 influx of Jews, and the subsequent formation of Israel, displaced many Palestinian Arab land-owners from their land.

[pErvinalia]

Yebbut Hermit's dog cartoon wasn't 110% accurate.

[Hermit]

All the mapping pedantry in the world doesn't change the fact that the post WW2 influx of Jews, and the subsequent formation of Israel, displaced many Palestinian Arab land-owners from their land.

Yabbut it's their fault for resisting the influx on their land.

Oh, wait. It wasn't even their land because there never was a Palestine nation. It was terra nullius, land up for grabs.

[Svartalf]

actually, their fault for NOT resisting enough the influx into their lands.

the fact that the ultimate owners of the lands were mostly absentee Ottoman Lords, who lost most of their property when the empire collapsed did not turn Palestine into a terra nullius, at worst, the rights to the lands should have devolved to the occupants.