|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
So when I asked the question about the two entering full war, I didn't mean to skew the topic off of US politics. Apologies.
|
On May 18 2021 03:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 02:48 Archeon wrote:
On the settlement issue: Does Israel confiscate the areas and disown the owners where they are settling? Do they displace the inhabitants?
Because I honestly have no idea and how they approach it makes a huge difference. They move their military in, take the land and then start building settlements on the land for their citizens. They then build roads which Palestinians aren't allowed to use (often in the process locking Palestinians out of land that belongs to them or land that they need to work on). Then they populate the areas with their citizens, From wiki: Show nested quote +A 1996 amendment to an Israeli military order, states that land privately owned can not be part of a settlement, unless the land in question has been confiscated for military purposes.[126] In 2006 Peace Now acquired a report, which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government's Civil Administration, indicating that up to 40 percent of the land Israel plans to retain in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.[162] Peace Now called this a violation of Israeli law.[163] Peace Now published a comprehensive report about settlements on private lands.[164][165] In the wake of a legal battle, Peace Now lowered the figure to 32 percent, which the Civil Administration also denied.[166] The Washington Post reported that "The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case." Also, from the Guardian today: Show nested quote +Sheikh Jarrah today smells of dirty socks and rotting flesh. Israeli police vehicles, known as “skunk trucks”, have been spraying Palestinian homes, shops, restaurants, public spaces and cultural institutions with putrid water at high pressure. The water causes vomiting, stomach pain and skin irritation, and was originally developed by an Israeli company to repel protesters. The stench lasts for days on clothes, skin and homes, leading Palestinians to joke that Jerusalem all smells like shit. Protesters are also targeted in other ways. They are brutally beaten, arrested by the police, some on mounted horses, attacked by settlers and sprayed with rubber bullets.
These forms of collective punishment aim to stop the growing movement to save Sheikh Jarrah and halt the dispossession of 27 Palestinian families of their homes there Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 02:59 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 02:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 17 2021 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 21:30 nojok wrote:On May 17 2021 21:04 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 20:55 nojok wrote:
You're a fool parotting Israelian propaganda and refusing any other viewpoint. The aggressor is Israel, not the other way around, the fact you don't even see that is mind boggling.
I'm not parotting anything, and not refusing any viewpoints. I've expressed numerous times that the Israeli government has done things wrong, and I've named some of those things myself, for example the displacement of Palestinians. I'm refusing only the black and white notion that Israel is the only party at fault here, and that without them doing what they do, things would be all rosy and lovey dovey. Anyone who thinks that way doesn't understand why the tensions between Jews and Arabs really exist. This is not something that would end if Israel laid down its arms, stopped forced evictions and put no restrictions on freedom of religion. Do you really think it would simply end after that? Then I'm not the fool here. It is the whole point of their propaganda, they want to make it look like it's Israel against a huge mindless antisemitic horde whereas the main focus should be Israel stealing Palestinian lands. I keep hearing the word "propaganda" being thrown around, yet I have seen nothing that substantiates that. Are you saying that Hamas would stop firing rockets if Israel took a softer stance? Based on what? And no one's calling them "mindless". In fact I think Hamas is quite smart. I've pondered Israel's options, and my conclusion is that neither a more aggressive stance nor a less aggressive stance would be doing them any favors. Because of that I believe Hamas is banking on the off-chance that Israel makes a significant mistake (one of which could be an attempt to wage a full-on war against Gaza, conquer the region and claim the land). Hamas don't mind dying in their holy war if it results in a weakened Israel, either militarily or politically. And Israel completely backing off from Gaza would only strengthen Hamas, so that would also be a win for them. Either way they have nothing to lose. That doesn't seem mindless to me at all. Sorry being a bit late back to this, i had to go out all day. Do you include the land stealing when you say neither a more nor less aggressive stance would help Israel? Because I don't see what stealing land has to do with Israel's wellbeing in this matter. other than a sadistic need on the part of their government to make Palestinians suffer, which escalates the conflict every single time. I do actually agree that this isn't as simple as its easy to make it out to be. The fact is Israel has the power to do whatever they want with Palestine, and people are pissed because of what they choose to do. I'm fairly sure that were the positions reversed, Israelis would be suffering horribly, but that is a hypothetical situation (unless you want to go back generations, and I don't agree with that when it comes to political decision making). The reality of the situation is that Palestinians are being oppressed and abused by Israel, and the hypothetical reverse situation doesn't justify that. The saddest thing for Jewish people is that Israel's actions in this conflict are fuelling antisemitism all over the world. I know previously good, anti-racist people who have become anti-Semitic because of their disgust at Israel's actions, and perceived Jewish support of it over here in the UK. Its not a particularly noticeable change from disagreeing with Israel to hating on Jewish people, and people slip from one to the other pretty easily. Is this not that excuse that people used on why black people should not riot? Racism/anti-Semitism is never all right, people in leadership are abusing it on both sides of this conflict to justify evil acts against each other and enrich themselves. I never said it was alright. I'm not getting the link to BLM. Edit: I kinda get it, but I'm not blaming Jewish people for the racism directed at them, I'm blaming Israel's policies of land stealing and worldwide censorship of criticism, and the racists of course, who are definitely wrong.
Thanks for the answer. Sounds like the comparison to the native Americans is adequate, driving people out of their private property and taking the land on a large scale is basically a genocidal strategy if you can't offer them alternatives.
|
On May 17 2021 23:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2021 23:15 nojok wrote:On May 17 2021 22:51 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 22:27 nojok wrote:
What in your opinion is the cause of the recent events? Did you even follow the news? Palestinians being evicted so Israelis can take their place in East Jerusalem, does it ring a bell? Did you read my comments in full? I've expressed numerous times that the Israeli government is acting morally dubious and sometimes arguably strictly immoral. This is one of those things. It's not "one of those things", it's the centre of the problem. Hamas is continuously losing popularity until Israel steals more lands, Palestinians know they lost, they want to keep whatever they have and maybe recover a bit from what was stolen, it's Israel's actions which are pushing them towards Hamas. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-settlements-population-in-the-west-bankJust check those numbers. What is the territory Palestinians are left with? Will it stop? How is it fighting Hamas to send people live in the West Bank? ![[image loading]](https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/settleblocs.jpg) Hamas will find any excuse to kill innocent people. They've found an excuse just recently, they'll find another one whenever they like. Would you say it's acceptable or even understandable to kill innocent people because of police doing their job (not killing anyone)?
Your take on this situation is nothing short of outrageous. It's basically "If the Palestinians really wanted peace they would give up their homes and land to the Israelis without creating a stink about it!" It takes a lot of nerve to frame what's happening as simply "police doing their job" and pretending that's not too bad because they are "not killing anyone" when they displace Palestinians from their homes. Thou shalt not kill is only 1 of the ten commandments, you're forgetting about thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Imagine if I came here and posted on and on and on about acts of violence and hostility committed by Natives Americans against white settlers/colonists and then every once in a blue moon I sprinkled in a "but I also think the US's policies are dubious" to feign the appearance of impartiality. Then I had the gall to be bewildered when someone accused me of propaganda.
|
On May 18 2021 04:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 01:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 17 2021 23:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 23:41 Broetchenholer wrote:Why? The democratically elected government of Israel has not made any attempts at deescalating the situation. Instead, they keep pushing the Palestinians further into the sea. They do that because the majority of their people want it or the majority of their people does not oppose it loud enough. Every society is defined by the action of their majority. The political majority of Israelis do not want their government to improve the situation of Palestinians. Where am i wrong?
Hamas will find any excuse to kill innocent people. They've found an excuse just recently, they'll find another one whenever they like. Would you say it's acceptable or even understandable to kill innocent people because of police doing their job (not killing anyone)?
Again, why is it okay for israel to kill people in response? It's not ok for Israel to kill innocent people in response. But they also can't sit still and do nothing. To my knowledge they're not purposely targeting innocent people. Hamas on the other hand is doing exactly that. Again, I've said multiple times that the Israeli government isn't perfect either. What are we arguing about? I will always argue that they're doing some things that are wrong. I will not, however, agree that Israel is worse than Hamas, which is what I was disputing when I originally posted historic facts for context. And I will also not agree that the attacks against Israel will stop if Israel simply stops doing what it's been doing. And I also not agree that Israel should just surrender and let their land be reclaimed. None of that seems outrageous or obviously false to me. I'll have to go now, my day's over. Isn't the very existence of Hamas a direct byproduct of Israeli violence towards Palestinians? Hamas was formed in 1987, which was after (at least) 20 years of Israelis settling on Palestinian land and terrorizing Palestinians; the rest of the world (sans the United States) seemed to acknowledge that what Israelis had been doing for decades was illegal and antithetical towards peace in the region. The protests and riots during the First Intifada indicated that Palestinians had had enough of being helpless, and were finally willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options against Israel to try to make their voices heard. Without the consistent poking and prodding and occupying and invading and evicting and killing by Israeli forces, I don't think Hamas ends up ever gaining the traction it needed to counter Israel (because there would have been no overwhelming violence to "counter"). If Hamas is a monster, then Israel is responsible for creating a monster. Hamas is considered to be a terrorist group by some countries, but wayyy more countries acknowledge Israel to be the party primarily responsible for terrorizing the "other side", going so far as to cite international human rights violations and the Geneva convention: In February 2011, the United States vetoed a draft resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal.[57] The resolution, which was supported by all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations,[58] would have demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard."[59] ... On January 31, 2012 the United Nations independent "International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" filed a report stating that Israeli settlements led to a multitude of violations of Palestinian human rights and that if Israel did not stop all settlement activity immediately and begin withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank, it potentially might face a case at the International Criminal Court. It said that Israel was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention forbidding transferring civilians of the occupying nation into occupied territory. It held that the settlements are "leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations#2010s Also, to your point about Israel hypothetically surrendering and losing all their land, I don't think that's what the majority of Palestinians are even interesting in seeing happen (and it certainly isn't possible). Most people on both sides say they support a two-state solution. If anything, Palestinians generally want Israelis to just stay on their side of the drawn borders, even after Palestinians have compromised and conceded a majority of their land to Israel. On the other hand, a lot of Israelis are saying they want a two-state solution... yet their military is clearly interested in keeping control over *both* states. A two-state solution implies that both sides are independent entities, not "Israel + Israeli-controlled Palestine". You're talking as if Palestinians hadn't been engaged in political violence (including numerous massacres and terrorist attacks against civilians) for decades prior to the formation of Hamas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence
I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but the dates from that source appear to begin when British imperialists started screwing with Palestine and who is "allowed" to live there (e.g., the Balfour Declaration, which undermined the fact that 90% of the Palestinian residents were Muslim and Christian, not Jews): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine
So if your point is that other groups, such as the British, were screwing with the Palestinians decades before Israel ever existed, then I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
So if you want to go back far enough it is the Jewish people reclaiming their land. Islam didn't even start until the 7th century.
I don’t know how you don’t know this but Palestinians are a Semitic people. The argument that Jews follow an older holy book than Muslims does not in any way imply that their claim on the land is older. They’re both Semitic peoples.
To put it another way. My brother’s favourite Harry Potter book is Chamber of Secrets. Mine is Half Blood Prince. Would you argue that my brother must be older than me or would you recognize that the book isn’t relevant?
Muslims didn’t spring out of the ground in the 7th Century. The people who converted to Islam actually existed before converting and had claims based on their own histories. They even had ancestors in other religions. The idea that Muslims have a newer claim to the land because Islam is a newer religion presumes that all claims are, for some reason, reset during a conversion.
|
|
|
On May 18 2021 06:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 05:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 18 2021 04:08 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2021 01:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 17 2021 23:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 23:41 Broetchenholer wrote:Why? The democratically elected government of Israel has not made any attempts at deescalating the situation. Instead, they keep pushing the Palestinians further into the sea. They do that because the majority of their people want it or the majority of their people does not oppose it loud enough. Every society is defined by the action of their majority. The political majority of Israelis do not want their government to improve the situation of Palestinians. Where am i wrong?
Hamas will find any excuse to kill innocent people. They've found an excuse just recently, they'll find another one whenever they like. Would you say it's acceptable or even understandable to kill innocent people because of police doing their job (not killing anyone)?
Again, why is it okay for israel to kill people in response? It's not ok for Israel to kill innocent people in response. But they also can't sit still and do nothing. To my knowledge they're not purposely targeting innocent people. Hamas on the other hand is doing exactly that. Again, I've said multiple times that the Israeli government isn't perfect either. What are we arguing about? I will always argue that they're doing some things that are wrong. I will not, however, agree that Israel is worse than Hamas, which is what I was disputing when I originally posted historic facts for context. And I will also not agree that the attacks against Israel will stop if Israel simply stops doing what it's been doing. And I also not agree that Israel should just surrender and let their land be reclaimed. None of that seems outrageous or obviously false to me. I'll have to go now, my day's over. Isn't the very existence of Hamas a direct byproduct of Israeli violence towards Palestinians? Hamas was formed in 1987, which was after (at least) 20 years of Israelis settling on Palestinian land and terrorizing Palestinians; the rest of the world (sans the United States) seemed to acknowledge that what Israelis had been doing for decades was illegal and antithetical towards peace in the region. The protests and riots during the First Intifada indicated that Palestinians had had enough of being helpless, and were finally willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options against Israel to try to make their voices heard. Without the consistent poking and prodding and occupying and invading and evicting and killing by Israeli forces, I don't think Hamas ends up ever gaining the traction it needed to counter Israel (because there would have been no overwhelming violence to "counter"). If Hamas is a monster, then Israel is responsible for creating a monster. Hamas is considered to be a terrorist group by some countries, but wayyy more countries acknowledge Israel to be the party primarily responsible for terrorizing the "other side", going so far as to cite international human rights violations and the Geneva convention: In February 2011, the United States vetoed a draft resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal.[57] The resolution, which was supported by all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations,[58] would have demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard."[59] ... On January 31, 2012 the United Nations independent "International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" filed a report stating that Israeli settlements led to a multitude of violations of Palestinian human rights and that if Israel did not stop all settlement activity immediately and begin withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank, it potentially might face a case at the International Criminal Court. It said that Israel was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention forbidding transferring civilians of the occupying nation into occupied territory. It held that the settlements are "leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations#2010s Also, to your point about Israel hypothetically surrendering and losing all their land, I don't think that's what the majority of Palestinians are even interesting in seeing happen (and it certainly isn't possible). Most people on both sides say they support a two-state solution. If anything, Palestinians generally want Israelis to just stay on their side of the drawn borders, even after Palestinians have compromised and conceded a majority of their land to Israel. On the other hand, a lot of Israelis are saying they want a two-state solution... yet their military is clearly interested in keeping control over *both* states. A two-state solution implies that both sides are independent entities, not "Israel + Israeli-controlled Palestine". You're talking as if Palestinians hadn't been engaged in political violence (including numerous massacres and terrorist attacks against civilians) for decades prior to the formation of Hamas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but the dates from that source appear to begin when British imperialists started screwing with Palestine and who is "allowed" to live there (e.g., the Balfour Declaration, which undermined the fact that 90% of the Palestinian residents were Muslim and Christian, not Jews): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine So if your point is that other groups, such as the British, were screwing with the Palestinians decades before Israel ever existed, then I totally agree with you. It goes on way before that, it even goes back before the crusades. That is why this is holy land to the Muslims, Christians and Jews. Depending on your belief in some of the very ancient history it could be said it was Jewish since 1850 BCE. But it is for sure as of 1010 BCE. It was sacked and attacked repeatedly. So if you want to go back far enough it is the Jewish people reclaiming their land. Islam didn't even start until the 7th century. And various groups and religions took and fought over it. It was around when Islam started that they first held it (because of course you couldn't before that and at that time they actually for the first time since roman rule allowed Jewish people to live and worship their. Many more various wars, some of the groups were cool with various religions others like the Fatimid Caliph were all about destroying all the church's and synagogues. The you get into the whole crusade era where now the Christians are the ones invading and capturing. They also have a very "mixed" history and are also not good guys in the story. Then Mongols took it over, Jews too it back, Muslims as well. Then the Ottoman period starts around 1500ADE and lots of wars and so on happen but they mostly keep hold. Then at 1917 you get when the Brits start messing around after they finally defeat the Ottomans. This is why the whole "natives" and talking about this like America is so silly. This is not a case where a bunch of people with technical advantages showed up to take over and colonize. This is where multiple groups lay claim on the place both because their ancestors lived their and because it is holy land. The Jews were there first of the three religions I'm not sure who technically held it the longest, most recently it was mostly Muslim other than the crusades. There is a chart at the bottom of the link that shows what groups held it and their religions that is kind of helpful to look at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_JerusalemThis is a place where no one/everyone has claim too. I have no idea how you get the Muslims and Jews to live in peace there, it really has not happened often in the areas 3k year history. This is the ugliness of religion that when god is involved and people that people trust are giving them the "word of god" they are willing to horrific things to each other.
Yep, and the Jewish people slaughtered the Canaanites who lived there first; it's all about where each group wants to conveniently start their own timeline that best fits their interests, which is why I personally don't care much for the historical claims for having the "right" to live there / reclaim land over anyone else. The Jews were there before the Muslims, because Judaism predates Islam, but the Jews weren't the first people to inhabit the land. Everyone has a historical claim to the land. Everyone has a cultural and religious claim too. None of those claims by one group is any more convincing to me than the identical claims made by other groups.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 06:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 06:33 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
So if you want to go back far enough it is the Jewish people reclaiming their land. Islam didn't even start until the 7th century. I don’t know how you don’t know this but Palestinians are a Semitic people. The argument that Jews follow an older holy book than Muslims does not in any way imply that their claim on the land is older. They’re both Semitic peoples. To put it another way. My brother’s favourite Harry Potter book is Chamber of Secrets. Mine is Half Blood Prince. Would you argue that my brother must be older than me or would you recognize that the book isn’t relevant? Muslims didn’t spring out of the ground in the 7th Century. The people who converted to Islam actually existed before converting and had claims based on their own histories. They even had ancestors in other religions. The idea that Muslims have a newer claim to the land because Islam is a newer religion presumes that all claims are, for some reason, reset during a conversion. No shit, but the reason for the conflict is the religion. The point of that was this is not a invading colonizing army like people are suggesting, this is why I talked about it around religion and not around race. If you would prefer, the Israeli Semitics were displaced long before the Muslim Semitics were displaced.
So you’re not arguing that the Israeli Semitic people have a senior claim to the land based on their preferred religious book being older? It seemed an awful lot like you were but I’m glad to learn you’re not because that would clearly be a ridiculous argument. Why did you bring up the comparative ages of Judaism vs Islam?
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 06:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 05:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 18 2021 04:08 maybenexttime wrote:On May 18 2021 01:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 17 2021 23:52 Magic Powers wrote:On May 17 2021 23:41 Broetchenholer wrote:Why? The democratically elected government of Israel has not made any attempts at deescalating the situation. Instead, they keep pushing the Palestinians further into the sea. They do that because the majority of their people want it or the majority of their people does not oppose it loud enough. Every society is defined by the action of their majority. The political majority of Israelis do not want their government to improve the situation of Palestinians. Where am i wrong?
Hamas will find any excuse to kill innocent people. They've found an excuse just recently, they'll find another one whenever they like. Would you say it's acceptable or even understandable to kill innocent people because of police doing their job (not killing anyone)?
Again, why is it okay for israel to kill people in response? It's not ok for Israel to kill innocent people in response. But they also can't sit still and do nothing. To my knowledge they're not purposely targeting innocent people. Hamas on the other hand is doing exactly that. Again, I've said multiple times that the Israeli government isn't perfect either. What are we arguing about? I will always argue that they're doing some things that are wrong. I will not, however, agree that Israel is worse than Hamas, which is what I was disputing when I originally posted historic facts for context. And I will also not agree that the attacks against Israel will stop if Israel simply stops doing what it's been doing. And I also not agree that Israel should just surrender and let their land be reclaimed. None of that seems outrageous or obviously false to me. I'll have to go now, my day's over. Isn't the very existence of Hamas a direct byproduct of Israeli violence towards Palestinians? Hamas was formed in 1987, which was after (at least) 20 years of Israelis settling on Palestinian land and terrorizing Palestinians; the rest of the world (sans the United States) seemed to acknowledge that what Israelis had been doing for decades was illegal and antithetical towards peace in the region. The protests and riots during the First Intifada indicated that Palestinians had had enough of being helpless, and were finally willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options against Israel to try to make their voices heard. Without the consistent poking and prodding and occupying and invading and evicting and killing by Israeli forces, I don't think Hamas ends up ever gaining the traction it needed to counter Israel (because there would have been no overwhelming violence to "counter"). If Hamas is a monster, then Israel is responsible for creating a monster. Hamas is considered to be a terrorist group by some countries, but wayyy more countries acknowledge Israel to be the party primarily responsible for terrorizing the "other side", going so far as to cite international human rights violations and the Geneva convention: In February 2011, the United States vetoed a draft resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal.[57] The resolution, which was supported by all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations,[58] would have demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard."[59] ... On January 31, 2012 the United Nations independent "International Fact-Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" filed a report stating that Israeli settlements led to a multitude of violations of Palestinian human rights and that if Israel did not stop all settlement activity immediately and begin withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank, it potentially might face a case at the International Criminal Court. It said that Israel was in violation of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention forbidding transferring civilians of the occupying nation into occupied territory. It held that the settlements are "leading to a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations#2010s Also, to your point about Israel hypothetically surrendering and losing all their land, I don't think that's what the majority of Palestinians are even interesting in seeing happen (and it certainly isn't possible). Most people on both sides say they support a two-state solution. If anything, Palestinians generally want Israelis to just stay on their side of the drawn borders, even after Palestinians have compromised and conceded a majority of their land to Israel. On the other hand, a lot of Israelis are saying they want a two-state solution... yet their military is clearly interested in keeping control over *both* states. A two-state solution implies that both sides are independent entities, not "Israel + Israeli-controlled Palestine". You're talking as if Palestinians hadn't been engaged in political violence (including numerous massacres and terrorist attacks against civilians) for decades prior to the formation of Hamas... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but the dates from that source appear to begin when British imperialists started screwing with Palestine and who is "allowed" to live there (e.g., the Balfour Declaration, which undermined the fact that 90% of the Palestinian residents were Muslim and Christian, not Jews): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Opposition_in_Palestine So if your point is that other groups, such as the British, were screwing with the Palestinians decades before Israel ever existed, then I totally agree with you. It goes on way before that, it even goes back before the crusades. That is why this is holy land to the Muslims, Christians and Jews. Depending on your belief in some of the very ancient history it could be said it was Jewish since 1850 BCE. But it is for sure as of 1010 BCE. It was sacked and attacked repeatedly. So if you want to go back far enough it is the Jewish people reclaiming their land. Islam didn't even start until the 7th century. And various groups and religions took and fought over it. It was around when Islam started that they first held it (because of course you couldn't before that and at that time they actually for the first time since roman rule allowed Jewish people to live and worship their. Many more various wars, some of the groups were cool with various religions others like the Fatimid Caliph were all about destroying all the church's and synagogues. The you get into the whole crusade era where now the Christians are the ones invading and capturing. They also have a very "mixed" history and are also not good guys in the story. Then Mongols took it over, Jews too it back, Muslims as well. Then the Ottoman period starts around 1500ADE and lots of wars and so on happen but they mostly keep hold. Then at 1917 you get when the Brits start messing around after they finally defeat the Ottomans. This is why the whole "natives" and talking about this like America is so silly. This is not a case where a bunch of people with technical advantages showed up to take over and colonize. This is where multiple groups lay claim on the place both because their ancestors lived their and because it is holy land. The Jews were there first of the three religions I'm not sure who technically held it the longest, most recently it was mostly Muslim other than the crusades. There is a chart at the bottom of the link that shows what groups held it and their religions that is kind of helpful to look at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_JerusalemThis is a place where no one/everyone has claim too. I have no idea how you get the Muslims and Jews to live in peace there, it really has not happened often in the areas 3k year history. This is the ugliness of religion that when god is involved and people that people trust are giving them the "word of god" they are willing to horrific things to each other. Yep, and the Jewish people slaughtered the Canaanites who lived there first; it's all about where each group wants to conveniently start their own timeline that best fits their interests, which is why I personally don't care much for the historical claims for having the "right" to live there / reclaim land over anyone else. The Jews were there before the Muslims, because Judaism predates Islam, but the Jews weren't the first people to inhabit the land. Everyone has a historical claim to the land. Everyone has a cultural and religious claim too. None of those claims by one group is any more convincing to me than the identical claims made by other groups.
The Jews weren’t there before the Muslims. The ancestors of both are dead. The ancestors of both are Abraham. The religious predate argument doesn’t work and it never has because followers of Islam and followers of modern Judaism are equal successors to ancient Semitic culture. If I couldn’t justly claim the holy land and a right to displace the current occupants by converting to Judaism (and I’m sure you’d agree I can’t) then the inverse must also follow, someone cannot forfeit their claim to the holy land and be deservedly replaced by converting from Judaism.
|
He's bringing up the history to respond to the idea that this is a recent colonial thing that can be viewed as the empire vs the "natives". I think that point is fine.
I do think it's fair to say that israel as a cultural group has an older claim to that specific bit of dirt. Somewhere around 1000 BC, israel unquestionably had control of the area around Jerusalem. They also unquestionably took it from someone else, but the modern Palestinians don't trace their cultural lineage back to the Canaanites or whoever. When Palestine states its case, they talk about the Caliphates afaik.
The real point, that everyone seems to agree with, is that doesn't freaking matter who was there first because everyone involved has a case and the whole thing is just a mess. I don't agree with everything Jimmi has said here but that post is broadly correct to me.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
He's bringing up the history to respond to the idea that this is a recent colonial thing.
I think it's fair to say that israel as a cultural group has an older claim to that specific bit of dirt. Somewhere around 1000 BC, israel unquestionably had control of the area around Jerusalem. They also unquestionably took it from someone else, but the modern Palestinians don't trace their cultural lineage back to the Canaanites or whoever. When Palestine states its case, they talk about the Caliphates afaik.
The real point, that everyone seems to agree with, is that doesn't freaking matter who was there first because everyone involved has a case and the whole thing is just a mess. I don't agree with everything Jimmi has said here but that post is broadly correct to me.
Palestinians trace their ancestry back to Abraham, same as all Semitic peoples. There is no senior and junior claim here.
Regarding colonizers vs natives. There was one group of people in recent history who lived there and one group who came there from Europe with guns and displaced the people living there. It’s not an equivalent situation.
|
On May 18 2021 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
He's bringing up the history to respond to the idea that this is a recent colonial thing.
I think it's fair to say that israel as a cultural group has an older claim to that specific bit of dirt. Somewhere around 1000 BC, israel unquestionably had control of the area around Jerusalem. They also unquestionably took it from someone else, but the modern Palestinians don't trace their cultural lineage back to the Canaanites or whoever. When Palestine states its case, they talk about the Caliphates afaik.
The real point, that everyone seems to agree with, is that doesn't freaking matter who was there first because everyone involved has a case and the whole thing is just a mess. I don't agree with everything Jimmi has said here but that post is broadly correct to me.
That is the bottom line for me, as well. There's too much hypocrisy surrounding the various assertions of "my people have a historical / religious / cultural right to live here, and yours don't".
Quite frankly, the thing I care most about is whether or not neighbors are willing to live together peacefully. And that general philosophy applies pretty much everywhere, imo. You don't have to become best friends with the people on your street; you don't even have to talk to each other. Just... coexist. If you're willing to do that, then cool: enjoy your home. If you're not willing to do that - if you insist on harming others and breaking laws - then gtfo.
|
|
|
On May 18 2021 06:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
He's bringing up the history to respond to the idea that this is a recent colonial thing.
I think it's fair to say that israel as a cultural group has an older claim to that specific bit of dirt. Somewhere around 1000 BC, israel unquestionably had control of the area around Jerusalem. They also unquestionably took it from someone else, but the modern Palestinians don't trace their cultural lineage back to the Canaanites or whoever. When Palestine states its case, they talk about the Caliphates afaik.
The real point, that everyone seems to agree with, is that doesn't freaking matter who was there first because everyone involved has a case and the whole thing is just a mess. I don't agree with everything Jimmi has said here but that post is broadly correct to me.
Palestinians trace their ancestry back to Abraham, same as all Semitic peoples. There is no senior and junior claim here. Regarding colonizers vs natives. There was one group of people in recent history who lived there and one group who came there from Europe with guns and displaced the people living there. It’s not an equivalent situation.
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:07 JimmiC wrote:
It was clear some people were not aware of the long history of Judaism in the area.
Who wasn’t aware of the history of Jews in Jerusalem?
|
|
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 07:15 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 JimmiC wrote:
It was clear some people were not aware of the long history of Judaism in the area. Who wasn’t aware of the history of Jews in Jerusalem? Apparently a few posters, since they keep mischaracterizing the Jews.
So you can't name them?
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 18 2021 06:57 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
He's bringing up the history to respond to the idea that this is a recent colonial thing.
I think it's fair to say that israel as a cultural group has an older claim to that specific bit of dirt. Somewhere around 1000 BC, israel unquestionably had control of the area around Jerusalem. They also unquestionably took it from someone else, but the modern Palestinians don't trace their cultural lineage back to the Canaanites or whoever. When Palestine states its case, they talk about the Caliphates afaik.
The real point, that everyone seems to agree with, is that doesn't freaking matter who was there first because everyone involved has a case and the whole thing is just a mess. I don't agree with everything Jimmi has said here but that post is broadly correct to me.
Palestinians trace their ancestry back to Abraham, same as all Semitic peoples. There is no senior and junior claim here. Regarding colonizers vs natives. There was one group of people in recent history who lived there and one group who came there from Europe with guns and displaced the people living there. It’s not an equivalent situation. Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If ignore what was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world, forget that unlike the Europeans the Jews were not coming to extract wealth, nor were they sending it back to any motherland, this was going to be their motherland
Just to be clear, are you arguing here that one of the key differences between Jews settling Palestine after WW2 and Europeans settling the Americas is that the Jews were escaping religious persecution in Europe and seeking a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely?
If so, I have some bad news for you about the pilgrims.
|
The area is a mess / the situation is complicated / there's lots of history to work through are all true.
The fact that there has been conflict in the middle east for millennia is true.
But these things are not said because they are true. They are said to conveniently absolve one of their responsibility to see through the fog and acknowledge the oppression and domination of the Palestinian people by Israel.
Essentially the entire international community agrees that some of the land Israel is attempting to annex and is settling is not theirs to take in this way. But they still do it.
The ANC, the South African HSRC and multiple Israeli human rights groups consider Israel to be committing the crime of apartheid (which is, and I shouldn't have to say this, impossible to justify or defend, regardless of whatever complexities exist). Yet Israel has done nothing to alleviate this situation (the recent spate of "evictions" in Sheikh Jarrah being just one piece of evidence).
Israel is vastly more powerful, and Hamas is nothing without the hatred spawned as a direct result of the fact that most Palestinians live in a giant prison with no real sovereignty, poor amenities and regular exposure to violence at the hands of the IDF. And yet here we are, with Israel striking Gaza, causing massive collateral damage and civilian casualties, as it has done for decades.
So all this noise about how complicated it is does nothing but serve the status quo. A long established status quo in which Israel is the oppressor, because the US allows it to be.
Yes it's complicated, but that's not the fucking point.
(EDIT: I know I've made this point a few times, but it feels rather important since some people seem very keen to use the complexity as a shield against acknowledging the most severe and actionably important parts of the situation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
