• @gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      128 months ago

      You understand you’re literally just arguing semantics right?

      And even then its still a good comparison because there was never a country of India until after the British took over either.

    • @Globeparasite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      28 months ago

      well yes but actually no. Arab states in palestine, yes. However they’ve been under Turkish occupation for most of their modern history

        • @Globeparasite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          48 months ago

          ah yes because being under the rule of a foreign empire doesn’t imply occupation by said empire… I think you have a lot to teach to the entire english speaking world

          • @SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -6
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Occupation requires you to own land prior to that Empire, and no Palestinian has ever laid claim to their own territory without that territory belonging to someone else, throughout all of human history.

            Before the Ottoman Empire was a mix of caliphates and crusaders. Before that was the Roman empire. Before that was the Persian Empire, before that was the Egyptian Empire and before that it was Israel/Judah.

            I skipped a couple of minor empires, but it’s pretty much a chain of “someone’s” forever, and that “someone” has never referred to themselves as Palestinian prior to the mid-20th century.

            • @Globeparasite@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              The arabs caliphate were arabs and claiming the land was theirs and calling it Palestine. The question you should ask is : why were there no massive independentist fight under the Ottoman rule ?