Hmm, since the last time I checked for Americans everything was about them, as well as for Russians, French, Germans, and the list going on.
That doesn't justify this type of thinking. The point is, just because Jewish people were treated badly, especially in Germany and Eastern Europe, it doesn't give the right for them to treat Palestinians badly. Zionist arguments don't seem to recognize that, but not everything's about them, and even if it was, they should at least be demanding German land instead as the Nazis took antisemitism to the most extreme degree.
Whether Americans/Germans/Russians think everything is about them or not has nothing to do with it (nor is it even true. I don't see you, for example, only thinking about what properties YOU have to give to Israel to compensate them for every antisemitic thing they faced).
Let's put it that way: the land was contested. And speaking of abusing Jewish people: very few nations in Europe and the Middle East can claim innocence.
All ethnic displacement to force one group to make way for another ethnicity to live in said land, would make the land "contested". The insistence on merely calling it "contested" is a false equivalency, as is the argument that "nobody's innocent".
Calling such land "contested" doesn't erase the forced ethnic displacement.
Not true. On the contrary, the White Paper put harsh restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British government didn't want to antagonize Arabs.
Churchill voted against the White Paper. So it is true for my statement: "Take Churchill, during a time when the British didn’t want Jewish people in Britain. They wanted to move them to East Africa, Churchill pushed to move them to Palestine."
Even the White Paper still pushed for an independent Israeli state in Palestine. Britain should have just used its own home islands to create an independent Israeli state, if it wanted one so much.
Yeah. That's the human nature :-(
It might be natural for some humans, in order to attain the results they wanted, to expect someone ELSE to make that sacrifice even though that someone else don't benefit from it. The fact that Malaysia ceded Singapore showed that this so called "human nature" you speak of is not universal. Some black people in America wanted to carve their own state in Africa, most fought for equal rights in the land they were born in. Human nature is malleable, depending on the environment they were raised in. Some environments were more hypocritical than others.
Even if ethnically displacing other people is "human nature", that's hardly a justification. You don't describe all the antisemitism as just "human nature" ,yet when Palestinians get ethnically displaced you use the term "human nature"/"contested land"/"others do it too"/etc...
Don't you think they had a reason to view themselves as oppressed?
Again, this is besides the point. Whether they are oppressed or not doesn't give Zionists the right to oppress others. The entire world is a history of oppression, it doesn't give people the right to kick down. Not everything is about them.
They tried with not much success.
Zionists tried ethnic displacement with far greater effort, compared to the effort of fighting for equal rights in Britain.
Not true. Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people where they lived for millenniums.
The statement was: "they fought to take rights from the people of another land they themselves never stepped foot in."
Whether their ancestors stepped foot on the land 2000 years ago, doesn't mean they themselves stepped foot on said land. And even if this was somehow a justification, Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Caanites too. It's utter hypocrisy given that its biggest supporter would hardly have any land if we use the "historic homeland" argument, and you wouldn't need to go back 2000 years for it to float.
Then it means that Jews who live all over the world and don't want to move to Israel must hate it or they are just a bunch of fools.
Fools imply that they were tricked by something that a person with normal intelligence wouldn't have been tricked into.
Where did I say that Jewish immigrants as a whole did that?
And do you know how many attacks in Muslim countries were committed by Zionists vs. how many terrorist attacks Muslims committed against Jews? If you wanted to make a point you shouldn't bring it up.
There's the collective Arab punishment again, as if Palestinians should be held responsible and offered restitution not just for all the antisemitism in Germany and Europe but also all the Muslim countries as well. You say it's "human nature" to make everything about oneself, but it seems the mere existence of the Palestinians make it seem as if at least all the world's antisemitism were about Palestinians. Suddenly it's about what they could do to offer recompense for crimes they never committed, not what you could do to offer recompense with your own property.
The point was that Israel was not a stalwart defender for Jewish people, if anything its own atrocities fuels antisemitism and it used antisemitism as a tool to bring about the demographic change it wants to bring.
For example, in Yemen, "
Tens of thousands of Jews were urged to leave their homes and travel to Israel. As for the Jews who opted to stay [in Yemen], the Jewish emissary in Aden, Shlomo Schmidt, asked permission to propose that Yemeni authorities expel them, but Yemeni authorities did not" - The truth behind Israeli Propaganda on the 'Expulsion' of Arab Jews, by Joseph Massad.
Whereas in North Africa:
"A year later it was reported that there was a sharp decline in the number of immigrants from North Africa, as a result of the information that reached them concerning the hardships of settling in Israel. "The first thing one notices now is the obvious reluctance to go to Israel," wrote one of the Jewish Agency emissaries after visiting the transit camps in Marseilles. According to him, it had become a widespread attitude: "The people virtually have to be taken aboard the ships by force." - 1949 The First Israelis by Tom Segev
These actions show the Israeli state valued its own demographic domination more than NOT ethnically displacing Jewish people in other countries. Ergo any claim similar to the idea that all other countries can be hostile to Jews "at will", is ignoring that Israel itself could also act as a hostile force against Jews. Your claim that "Muslim countries attacked Jews" doesn't make the anti-Jewish acts of the Israeli state any less true. Palestinian emissaries actually bothered to argue that Muslim countries should give restitution to the Jews who escaped from abuse in said Muslim countries and to provide Jews the right of return (of which they at least partially succeeded, it's just that not many in Israel wants to go back to their grandparent's home in, say, Iraq). Palestinians weren't offered that same right of return to their ancestral homeland.
"Understanding that the emigration of Arab Jews to Israel was a boon to the Israeli settler-colony, the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] demanded, in a much-publicized 1975 memorandum to the Arab governments whose Jewish populations had left to Israel, that they issue formal and public invitations for Arab Jews to return home."
Notably, none of the governments and regimes in power in 1975 were in office when the Jews left between 1949 and 1967. Public and open invitations were duly issued by the governments of Morocco, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Iraq and Egypt for Arab Jews to return home, especially in light of the institutionalised Ashkenazi racist discrimination to which they had been subjected in Israel. Neither Israel nor its Arab Jewish communities heeded the calls." - The truth behind Israeli Propaganda on the 'Expulsion' of Arab Jews, by Joseph Massad.
www.camera.org
