You seem to be using a lot of regurgitated talking points so I’m going to break this down very simply.

It does not matter if Palestinians did not have a national identity before the 1800s. Modern nationalism is a new concept in the Middle East. What matters is that there were people there in that area that were kicked out of their homes by the nationalist movement for a Jewish ethnostate called Zionism. The region, as you alluded to, had a wide array of ethnic and religious backgrounds all living in harmony. Jews and Christians and Muslims were neighbors and brothers.

The UN, a bunch of white colonizing nations who were not from the region, decided that 57% of that land would be taken away from the population that was living there. The indigenous people. They revolted. In the ensuing ethnic cleaning, zionists siezed 78% of that land. The indigenous population went from ~1.3 million in 1947 to ~150,000 in 1948.

It doesn’t matter who lived on that land 2000, 3000, however many years ago. You cannot go to someone’s home and say my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago so I’m taking it back now. If that was the case for even 400 years ago, America wouldn’t be a country.

The modern state of Israel militarily occupies the West Bank and Gaza and continually kicks Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They are about to annex the West Bank. They armed and funded Islamic terrorists in order to create a rift in the Palestinian population and pull support away from the primary Palestinian political party. Now, they collectively punish all Palestinians living in Gaza with a blockade that controls water, electricity, construction materials, access to their air and sea space, natural resources, etc. 57% of Gaza children are anemic and 90% of the water is unsafe to drink. You’re quick to brush this off as a failed gamble, but it is a cold and calculated move. They even calculated the caloric intake required to keep people on the brink of starvation but wouldn’t die. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Israel is not even a nation of its citizens. It is, by law, a Jewish nation. The Jewish nation state law declares the right to self-determination in Israel/Palestine “is unique to the Jewish people,” and the “state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation,” effectively encouraging racial segregation in housing.

Former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have both warned that a continuation of the occupation will lead to Israel becoming an "apartheid" state. Barak stated: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

There are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, heroes of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, have both compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to apartheid.

These are not actions that the good guy takes. Fascism and apartheid have always been inevitable for Israel, and maybe this new government of theirs will convince you of that. But honestly, I doubt it.

So your argument is, yea this tech is dystopian and terrifying so rather than fight against its use we’re going to do the bad thing first?

I don’t get it, are you a nihilist?

That is incorrect. They didn’t care until they tried to create a Jewish country in a place that was 90% non-Jewish.

That land has always been worth a lot of money, ask the crusaders or Romans or ottomans or British

Did we read the same article?

““These are capabilities that were previously unimaginable,” says human rights lawyer Alon Sapir. “This is a dystopian technology from a human rights perspective. Just its mere existence raises serious questions.

In theory, such tech can be abused, he says, “One can imagine video being manipulated to incriminate innocent citizens or shield guilty parties that are close to the system, or even just manipulative editing for ideological or even political purposes should it fall into the wrong hands,” he says.”

This does not sound like the type of tech used by the good guys in defense. This technology is terrifying.

I’m sorry, are you suggesting that modern development is a prerequisite for land ownership? So no rural community has a right to the land they live on?

You do realize that sounds crazy, right?

That’s a weird false premise and very distopian/Orwellian of you.

You sound like big brother himself.

Your assumption is that people in power are benevolent actors doing what’s in the best interest of the common person. You’re telling me the only options are sacrifice your rights/privacy for safety or die?

A far more plausible explanation for this rhetoric is fear mongering, which far right governments do all the time in order to consolidate their power and maintain it.

There is such a thing as deescalation

Lol with a username like “jewishMaleSupremacy”, you sound real trustworthy on matters like peace and equality

So, just to make sure I’m understanding, your philosophy is that there is no point in taking the moral high ground because other people do not? What makes you right and them wrong in that case? Doesn’t that make you just another bad guy?

How so? How else do you explain the population being 60,000 Jewish / 600,000 Palestinian in 1918 and 630,000 Jewish / 1,324,000 Palestinian in 1947 then 716,700 Jewish / 156,000 Palestinian in 1948?

Ok first of all, if Israel doesn’t want Islamic fundamentalists in power, it shouldn’t arm and fund them. That’s the only reason Hamas has any power in the first place.

In what sense did Israel not take the land by force? Zionists and the United Nations came to Palestinians with a proposal where israel would take 57% of the mandate of Palestine and Palestinians would keep 43%. This 1947 proposal was called the Palestine partition. Palestinians rejected this. When the British mandate ended in 1948, israel seized what we know as modern day israel, which comprised of 78% of the land that made up the mandate of Palestine.

To say that Palestinians didn’t exist before the 1800s is an egregious lie. That region has historically been referred to as Palestine for millennia, first written record is 5th century bce by a green historian. Modern nations and nationalities are made up of a bunch of different ethnicities. When regions change rulers, they don’t normally change populations. Throughout history, peoples have often changed how they identified politically. The Sardinians eventually became Italians, Prussians became Germans. It would be laughable to suggest that the Sardinians were kicked out and replaced by a distinct foreign Italian people. We must separate the political nationalist identity of people from their personhood as human beings, as nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East.

Also, it seems to me that you are suggesting that Jews were the only people to exist in this region historically which, again, is patently false. And the Jews that did live there had a variety of ethnic backgrounds. There were two primary reasons Jews became a minority in Palestine in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD 1) diasporas caused by Jewish rebellions against the Roman Empire and 2) conversions to Christianity.

The people who remained in Palestine and the Jews who left are brothers. To say the Jews are the only people with a right to live on their ancestral land is a crazy take.

Palestinians are not a monolith. There is a wide array of racial/ethnic/religious backgrounds. There is Sunni Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Druzism, Samaritanism, Shia Islam. From an ethnic perspective, Arabs, Jews, Samaritans, Assyrians, Arameans, etc.

As a result, Palestinians are not looking for an ethnostate. Just the return of the land they owned before Israel took it by force

Morals, right? Isn’t that what being the good guys is all about? Being better and leading by example?

It’s weird how you phrase this. Makes it seem like Palestinians don’t think Jews have the right to exist when really they’re just opposed to the creation of a Jewish ethnostate where they lived before they were forcefully removed from their homes.

Isn’t the concept of an ethnostate inherently discriminatory?

Your argument is that they should’ve accepted Israel taking 57% of their land, and when they didn’t, they lost the right to 78% of it? And deserve to be occupied militarily?

Name any group of people on the planet that would accept that.