Quote (BardOfXiix @ May 16 2018 10:51am)
When the British OETA took over governance the land was about 80% Islamic and about 10% Jewish. They then pushed a Jewish agenda (not some conspiracy or w/e, an actual agenda of promoting Zionism and establishing a Jewish nation, which was one of the agreements when the British OETA was given the task of governance) to increase the Jewish population and economic hold, giving Jews disproportionate representation in the local puppet government, and promoting Jewish dominance in an area that had been dominated by Islam (and was still, population-wise, dominated by Islam) for several centuries.
The Jews, obviously, were quite happy with what shook out in terms of the official creation of a Jewish state. The Arabs, who had lived in that land for centuries, were obviously not. The British, being the conquerors, imposed their will.
To me it's very strange that you support these actions, which all seem to involve big-government intervention and an imposition of what feels like a "Social Contract" of sorts on the members of Palestine, where the persons living in the area had no say over what happened to their area. The Palestinians are naturally defending the land that they view as theirs, which had been theirs for centuries, against what they view as unlawful seizure. I know you tend to support autonomy of individuals (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy), so I'm wondering what makes this situation distinct from those moments.
Both Jews and Palestinians want to self-determine, and when they were afforded the opportunity, only the Jews embraced it. The Palestinians basically said "there will be no self determination for the Jews so we don't accept our own autonomy in protest." Instead, they started a war to deny self-determination to the Jews.