when i was a young brat i soaked in, without anybody specifying, just the way people talked about borders... that war "captured" land.
i did not connect it to a certain bit of religious propaganda kuz i was too young. does anyone recall the old dice game called risk? capturing land! it is mine and i get resources and benefits. but that is just a game.
then i started to hear the complaints about the "occupation in the west bank" and that did not match... war captured... could it be that they were isolating jew different that would be bad discrimination and jew hatred?
in order to measure i needed to get info about when people are not biased. so i thought about the different wars, knan mecca and ottoman and the familiar biasses in society and found one that i thought was a good sample.
i went to my pal in university who i know was openly muslim and chose to ask about mecca or ottoman. i chose to ask about the muslim loss in a specified religious holy war juhad that ottoman had declared in the "14-18 war" called world war one due to the loss of german colonies in the pacific ocean... which coulda baan done in the franco prussian war 1870's i think prussia had some pacific colonies but france did not bother using its navy nor pacific colonies to battle prussian colonies that can be a world war.
anyway when new zealand and australia and japan conquered german colonies they stopped being german and became whichever captured... so i asked the muslim "when the british battled ottoman and ottoman surrendered, it stopped being ottoman, right?" giving him a chance to say no islam is different wfor whateer reason... luckily as an enlightened university student he said "british captured it. what is your point?"
well i was not gonna say checkmate equaly for west bank... i would lose a pal.
equally same as mecca was "stolen" by muhamed and justifiably ruled and owned to "donate to alla" for religious use, same british victory against ottoman turks, despite brit by jordan was NOT defensive war in contrast to israel against jordan in year 1967 when the border changed when jordan surrendered, still conquerer gets so equaly if not discriminate against jews... same for israel, modern israel getting west bank and ancient israel conquering canaan regardless of what color on maps and border lines due to fear of oil embargo.
the alternative would be to say a straw man would say, "no brits took it by force they stole it unjustly and occupied it" echo all the complaints toward israel at the brits... and equaly at mecca and muslim conquest and even id so, modern israel was a defensive war as judge stephens a european judge published a legal opinion soon after the 1967 war.
the cananites were "inherited" and extinct nobody claims i am canaan and can prove they are entitled. the one guy an israeli newspaper interviewed got caught lying, when he said "jews stole it from canan and we msulims those arabs are us" the interviewer responded "i know you celebrate the holy sacrifice kurban when your ancestor ishmael... you know what i mean." the interviiew ended in the newspaper with that.
so even if war is stealing with no ownership still modern israle fought a defensive war that legally entitled it to land equal as any other nation regardless of a majority of u.n. which has many muslim countries and oil dependant countries who dont wanna anger the arab oil countries. but nobody claims that when the do not have bias involving jews as above without even equating same as mecca, no issue to argue "the brits conquered the jordan river region from ottoman" no issue and equaly same when jews conquered canan in ancient times even if we could find a canaaniite and equally and more justified from jordan in a defense war in more recent century.
endnote religious propaganda, jews 1000 years ago wrote "war is stealing except when the CREATOR OF THE world decides to give his product to ancient israel" then called judea for the jews who lived there, kuz creator never "gave" in prophecy, land to anybody else. did he?
