maybe you should have taken a land from Europe since they're the ones that committed the holocaust against Jews.
Earliest arab settlement in Israel Judea 600ad.
Palistinians are the decendents of colonists who conqured the region from the roman (byzintine) empire as part off the Jihad of the prophet Mohammad. And empire that extened from modern day mauritania to indonesia and spain to tanzania.
So No the existance of the state of Israel is not a crime against humanity.
But the constant terrorism and attempted genocide of Palistinian terrorists is.
Oh and the first recorded terrorist attacks by palistinians on Jews in the region occured in 1922, 37 years before the state of Israel was created
Hermione: You might want to look up the history of population exchanges which took place between Pakistan and India. Or something about the Danes, Frisians, Sinti, Roma, and Sorbs of Germany.
tshalla: once in a while we agree on something. But I imagine if we had a deeper conversation about this we'd disagree on a lot, especially on what a settler colonial state is. Or even if such a thing realistically exists. People are people. We all have equal claim to the planet. Nobody has any special claim to geography by virtue of ancestry, religious affiliation, or anything else in my opinion. But it's the unfortunate reality of all human history that we are prone to fight over things and to think selfishly, tribally, and territorially.
More serious answer: the 13 original United States were organized as mercantilist British colonies. There were cultural and ethnic differences between each state but none that adopted statehood with these differences in mind as an organizing principle. Later states added to the Union sometimes had something like that, but only rarely, and never in any lasting way. The original petitions for Oklahoma statehood were often about creating a state for Native Americans; and Oregon was at first created as a "whites-only" state. But even in these cases, it's not the same thing as ethnic nationalism. Most of the tribes in Oklahoma, and most of the "white" families in Oregon, at the time of statehood, were not originally from there, nor did they share any particular cultural similarities with their neighbors.
I can't think of any documentaries on the region that I would particularly recommend. I highly recommend the book Jerusalem: A Biography by Simon Montefiore, if you want something to read. Would love to see a 10-part Ken Burns documentary produced from that.
As for documentaries in general... um... some of my favorites include:
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Precious Life (which does take place in Israel/Palestine)
Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?
April 1865: The Month That Saved America
March of the Penguins
White Light/Black Rain
The Fog of War
those are the first ones that come to mind.
Ken Burns' Vietnam was also good.
As to Kosovo and Taiwan, which I didn't mention in the last comment, what are the validity of those disputes? How much territory in Kosovo does Serbia exert control over? How much of Taiwan does the PRC control?
Yemen has or at least had been a sovereign country for a long time, currently facing a violent well-armed and foreign-supported insurrection. The Houthi rebels were in control of the capital city last I checked though so you may have a point. Perhaps the country will be divided in the future, or the civil war will end and one side or the other will reestablish control over the whole country. I think the difference is that this is seen as a temporary setback in the country's history; unlike Palestine which was never sovereign.
The U.N. does not have its own definition of a country and most of its member states do not either.
The U.N. is actual three organisations, the bureaucratic organisation of a number of sub organisations which are staffed by people hired by the U.N.s bureaucracy (eg UNICEF).
the assembly of the U.N. which are representitives of each member state.
The security council. Which are countries that basically spend there time vetoing certian decisions made by the assembly and are former and current super powers of the second world war (perminant members) and a hand full of selected countries that dont have veto powers but are basically honerary members (members but with no real aurthority)
As such the U.N. does not actually recognize countries only member states. With membership being basically decided by the veto holding members of the security council.
No it's not bias. But the fact that "Palestine" has observer status at the UN clearly is a product of politics and bias. The case of Taiwan not being a member of the UN even more so... in that case the bias and politics could not be any less ambiguous. In 1971, though no facts on the ground had changed at all, the UN passed a resolution to shift it's bias from Taiwan to China. JetPunk recognizes that both sovereign countries exist at the same time. So you could call the JetPunk stance a product of the absence of bias; thus the disconnect with the UN.