|
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 |
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 11:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, 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, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did and in 1948 the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. Wow the British are so noble, and the jews so evil. Quite the version. It is like when you watch a based on a true story movie where the writer has a agenda. I thought the "that's just how Israel is" really drove home the hatred and how evil you think them. It seems a touch one sided though, hard to believe such a one dementional character. Here's a more impartial history, not written by me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israelhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_peopleInterestingly kind of like you Wyoming idea the Zionists first considered a area in Australia but it was shot down by the Aus prime Minister. I just learned that and that Martin Luther King was a supporter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZionismNow as far as what kwark leaves as a impression the nazis and the zionists were buddy's. It's a lot more like the jews paid the nazis to get out of Germany. And they did not have a fascist government, they began very social democratic and moved to more liberal democracy much later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_AgreementNow what Kwark is telling you about appears to be the Holocaust denying theory that the zionists and the nazis were working together and the kills were made up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_ZionismThis is a new low, wow unexpected and so very disappointed.
Quit making shit up. I explicitly referred to the Holocaust in the post you're pretending denies the Holocaust. This vendetta against me is reaching absurd levels with your random assertions that I'm some kind of Holocaust denier despite me listing the Holocaust as a causal factor in the narrative you're quoting. Get a fucking grip man.
|
|
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 11:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 11:50 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 11:48 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, 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, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did and in 1948 the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. Wow the British are so noble, and the jews so evil. Quite the version. It is like when you watch a based on a true story movie where the writer has a agenda. I thought the "that's just how Israel is" really drove home the hatred and how evil you think them. It seems a touch one sided though, hard to believe such a one dementional character. Here's a more impartial history, not written by me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israelhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_peopleInterestingly kind of like you Wyoming idea the Zionists first considered a area in Australia but it was shot down by the Aus prime Minister. I just learned that and that Martin Luther King was a supporter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZionismNow as far as what kwark leaves as a impression the nazis and the zionists were buddy's. It's a lot more like the jews paid the nazis to get out of Germany. And they did not have a fascist government, they began very social democratic and moved to more liberal democracy much later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_AgreementNow what Kwark is telling you about appears to be the Holocaust denying theory that the zionists and the nazis were working together and the kills were made up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_ZionismThis is a new low, wow unexpected and so very disappointed. Quit making shit up. I explicitly referred to the Holocaust in the post you're pretending denies the Holocaust. This vendetta against me is reaching absurd levels with your random assertions that I'm some kind of Holocaust denier despite me listing the Holocaust as a causal factor in the narrative you're quoting. Get a fucking grip man. Read the last link, and source your nazi claims. Then you understand what I'm saying.
The source was linked in one of the previous posts you angrily didn't bother to read.
Your allegation that I wrote in a way to absolve Britain of all blame is also a complete failure to read what I wrote. I ascribed the majority of the blame to Britain who had the responsibility for the protection and administration of Palestine but bailed without ensuring any kind of transition. I have zero clue how you read
On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition.
and concluded that I was saying
On May 18 2021 11:48 JimmiC wrote:
Wow the British are so noble, and the jews so evil. Quite the version.
I could not condemn the British more strongly. The Zionists after WW2 could at least argue that the trauma of Hitler literally trying to wipe them out justified their actions. The British were cowardly and abdicated their responsibility to the Palestinians.
Also could you please elaborate on your previous argument that one of the principle differences between the Jewish settlers in Palestine and the Pilgrims in North America is that they were both seeking a new homeland to escape religious persecution? I feel like you perhaps neglected to respond to that in your eagerness to start randomly accusing me of Holocaust denial.
|
On May 18 2021 12:06 KwarK wrote:
I could not condemn the British more strongly. The Zionists after WW2 could at least argue that the trauma of Hitler literally trying to wipe them out justified their actions. The British were cowardly and abdicated their responsibility to the Palestinians.
Even though I disagree with JimmiC's judgement of your depiction of events, I don't think we can put this much blame on the British either. They made very poor decisions in Palestine, that's for sure. But I'm not sure how harshly exactly we can judge them when they were in the middle of waging the greatest war of their lifetime against the Third Reich. Calling them "cowardly" would imply that they had little else to worry about in their own land, which couldn't be further from the truth.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 12:06 KwarK wrote:
I could not condemn the British more strongly. The Zionists after WW2 could at least argue that the trauma of Hitler literally trying to wipe them out justified their actions. The British were cowardly and abdicated their responsibility to the Palestinians. Even though I disagree with JimmiC's judgement of your depiction of events, I don't think we can put this much blame on the British either. They made very poor decisions in Palestine, that's for sure. But I'm not sure how harshly exactly we can judge them when they were in the middle of waging the greatest war of their lifetime against the Third Reich. Calling them "cowardly" would imply that they had little else to worry about in their own land, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The British gave up in '47 and unilaterally pulled out leaving no transition plan in '48. They were suffering at the hands of Zionist terrorists but when they took responsibility for the administration and protection of Palestine that included an implicit promise to bleed if that's what it took to honour that responsibility. It's no coincidence that it all went to shit the same day the British pulled out.
They should not have pulled out until an agreement was complete and the transition underway. On the day they pulled out neither side had accepted the UN partition agreement and yet they pulled out anyway.
|
On May 18 2021 12:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On May 18 2021 12:06 KwarK wrote:
I could not condemn the British more strongly. The Zionists after WW2 could at least argue that the trauma of Hitler literally trying to wipe them out justified their actions. The British were cowardly and abdicated their responsibility to the Palestinians. Even though I disagree with JimmiC's judgement of your depiction of events, I don't think we can put this much blame on the British either. They made very poor decisions in Palestine, that's for sure. But I'm not sure how harshly exactly we can judge them when they were in the middle of waging the greatest war of their lifetime against the Third Reich. Calling them "cowardly" would imply that they had little else to worry about in their own land, which couldn't be further from the truth. The British gave up in '47 and unilaterally pulled out leaving no transition plan in '48. They were suffering at the hands of Zionist terrorists but when they took responsibility for the administration and protection of Palestine that included an implicit promise to bleed if that's what it took to honour that responsibility. It's no coincidence that it all went to shit the same day the British pulled out. They should not have pulled out until an agreement was complete and the transition underway. On the day they pulled out neither side had accepted the UN partition agreement and yet they pulled out anyway.
That's a huge oversimplification of how things went down with the British troops in Palestine.
Here's a timeline of what is known:
http://www.britishforcesinpalestine.org/whothere.html
During 1945 most troops were withdrawn. Following that the remaining personell was caught between a rock and a hard place. Considering what had happened during WW2, it also can't be stated so bluntly that - in the aftermath of the war - British troops were being "cowardly". British soldiers had their own lives to live, and relations with Palestine had been falling apart. Do you think it would've been right for more troops to be sent right back into that hellhole where they weren't welcomed by either side, and without full backing from their own government either? And do you think the only group showing aggression against British personell was Zionists?
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 12:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 12:26 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 12:18 Magic Powers wrote:On May 18 2021 12:06 KwarK wrote:
I could not condemn the British more strongly. The Zionists after WW2 could at least argue that the trauma of Hitler literally trying to wipe them out justified their actions. The British were cowardly and abdicated their responsibility to the Palestinians. Even though I disagree with JimmiC's judgement of your depiction of events, I don't think we can put this much blame on the British either. They made very poor decisions in Palestine, that's for sure. But I'm not sure how harshly exactly we can judge them when they were in the middle of waging the greatest war of their lifetime against the Third Reich. Calling them "cowardly" would imply that they had little else to worry about in their own land, which couldn't be further from the truth. The British gave up in '47 and unilaterally pulled out leaving no transition plan in '48. They were suffering at the hands of Zionist terrorists but when they took responsibility for the administration and protection of Palestine that included an implicit promise to bleed if that's what it took to honour that responsibility. It's no coincidence that it all went to shit the same day the British pulled out. They should not have pulled out until an agreement was complete and the transition underway. On the day they pulled out neither side had accepted the UN partition agreement and yet they pulled out anyway. That's a huge oversimplification of how things went down with the British troops in Palestine. Here's a timeline of what is known: http://www.britishforcesinpalestine.org/whothere.htmlDuring 1945 most troops were withdrawn. Following that the remaining personell was caught between a rock and a hard place. Considering what had happened during WW2, it also can't be stated so bluntly that - in the aftermath of the war - British troops were being "cowardly". British soldiers had their own lives to live, and relations with Palestine had been falling apart. Do you think it would've been right for more troops to be sent right back into that hellhole where they weren't welcomed by either side, and without full backing from their own government either? And do you think the only group showing aggression against British personell was Zionists?
The troops weren't cowardly, the troops went where they were deployed. I'm not alleging that there was some kind of mass desertion, it's not about the individual soldiers, it's about the government policy. I'm accusing the British government of lacking the courage to honour the commitments they made. I'm saying that the British government made a commitment to Palestine and that if they lacked the will to administer Palestine they shouldn't have denied Palestine the right to administer itself. Troops should have remained until such a time as either UN peacekeepers took over or provisional governments of the two states had been formed per the UN partition plan. It would have been immensely unpopular, both in Britain and abroad, but could have avoided the last 73 years of war in Palestine. The two state solution collapsed when the government responsible for implementing it fucked off leaving anarchy behind them.
|
British troops are people, too. With lives and everything. They'd been fighting the worst war imaginable, and to keep them stationed in Palestine and send reinforcements (which would've been absolutely needed) would've been unusually cruel to them. The soldiers wanted to withdraw, it's not like the British government just told them to and that was that. The government made the choice to let them return to Britain rather than further exhaust them in Palestine.
This is yet another example of a situation that isn't black and white. I fully understand the decision of the British government to withdraw most of their troops in 1945. It's not like the stationed soldiers were having a party over in Palestine, they were facing intense terrorist aggression and they weren't exactly experienced at dealing with that.
If WW2 hadn't just happened, you'd have a perfectly valid argument. But in that context things aren't that simple.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 13:29 Magic Powers wrote:
British troops are people, too. With lives and everything. They'd been fighting the worst war imaginable, and to keep them stationed in Palestine and send reinforcements (which would've been absolutely needed) would've been unusually cruel to them. The soldiers wanted to withdraw, it's not like the British government just told them to and that was that. The government made the choice to let them return to Britain rather than further exhaust them in Palestine.
This is yet another example of a situation that isn't black and white. I fully understand the decision of the British government to withdraw most of their troops in 1945. It's not like the stationed soldiers were having a party over in Palestine, they were facing intense terrorist aggression and they weren't exactly experienced at dealing with that.
If WW2 hadn't just happened, you'd have a perfectly valid argument. But in that context things aren't that simple.
British troops remained on the Suez and National Service continued long after 1945. Britain didn’t abandon all imperial commitments, nor even all imperial commitments in the region. It’s not that Britain abandoned the empire, it’s that a decision was made on which commitments were worth British lives. A British military occupation of the Suez was judged to be necessary, a British military occupation of Palestine was judged to not be worth it. The capacity existed, the will was lacking and Palestinians have paid the price for that ever since.
|
The point you made was that British withdrawal was an act of cowardice, not unwillingness. It was a mixture of a lack of will and political incompetence. You can say that and I would agree. If it had been a matter of courage, then Britain could've easily kept sufficient troops stationed.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 18 2021 14:20 Magic Powers wrote:
The point you made was that British withdrawal was an act of cowardice, not unwillingness. It was a mixture of a lack of will and political incompetence. You can say that and I would agree. If it had been a matter of courage, then Britain could've easily kept sufficient troops stationed.
I don’t think we disagree. Political will and a lack of political courage are synonymous. My argument was that the British government lacked the courage to risk an unpopular policy for the sake of peace in Palestine. They preferred abandoning Palestine to risking their careers and reputations for it. I did not intend to impugn the courage of the individual troops who I am certain would have done their duty had their government asked it of them.
|
On May 18 2021 11:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, 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, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did and in 1948 the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. Wow the British are so noble, and the jews so evil. Quite the version. It is like when you watch a based on a true story movie where the writer has a agenda. I thought the "that's just how Israel is" really drove home the hatred and how evil you think them. It seems a touch one sided though, hard to believe such a one dementional character. Here's a more impartial history, not written by me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israelhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_peopleInterestingly kind of like you Wyoming idea the Zionists first considered a area in Australia but it was shot down by the Aus prime Minister. I just learned that and that Martin Luther King was a supporter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZionismNow as far as what kwark leaves as a impression the nazis and the zionists were buddy's. It's a lot more like the jews paid the nazis to get out of Germany. And they did not have a fascist government, they began very social democratic and moved to more liberal democracy much later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_AgreementNow what Kwark is telling you about appears to be the Holocaust denying theory that the zionists and the nazis were working together and the kills were made up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_ZionismThis is a new low, wow unexpected and so very disappointed.
Wikipedia is not a great source for 'impartial information' on hot issue topics such as this, surely you know that. Israel literally had SS members training their soldiers, so the cool story about 'just paying nazis to get out of Germany' is just that, a story. You're obviously not going to find anything about that on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Klaus Polkhen is a good start on the subject if you were going to ask for sources and are genuinely interested in learning more about this, also Mahmoud Abass' controversial thesis -- it's obviously biased as fuck, but many of the references in it are not, and it's quite obvious that the links between Nazis and the Zionists of that time run much deeper than 'just paying to get out of Germany.'
This has nothing to do with holocaust denial, by the way. Most people have no problem accepting that Nazi Germany and Soviet Union had for a while worked together, and talking about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact does not equate 'denial' of anything; this isn't any different. It's not as if shitty statesmen ever really cared about massacres and genocide.
As for Israel's government having been a social democracy that had nothing to do with nazis... Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ring a bell?
|
Wasn't Ken Livingstone kicked out of the Labour party for mentioning that Israelis worked with Hitler?
I didn't realise that its an actual fact.
I have huge issues with Israel's worldwide policy of censorship. You would have thought the USA's apparent dedication to freedom of speech would mean that they have something to say about it, but it seems not.
|
On May 18 2021 08:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 08:11 maybenexttime 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. So you agree you were selling a false narrative of helpless Palestinians "finally being willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options" after decades of passively accepting abuse from the Israelis? And by the way, Muslims were oppressing minorities in the Middle East for centuries and deciding who can live where and on what terms for centuries before the British took over. Also, Jewish pogroms in the Middle East predate the Balfour Declaration. What do you mean by false? That's literally why Hamas was formed and gained power: Show nested quote +Hamas was founded in 1987,[i] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood[26] which in its Gaza branch had previously been nonconfrontational toward Israel and hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[27] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[28] Since 1994,[29] the group has frequently stated that it would accept a truce[j] if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, paid reparations, allowed free elections in the territories[31] and gave Palestinian refugees the right to return.[k] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas I never said that the Palestinians never attempted to fight back against the Israelis before Hamas existed, but clearly previous attempts at stopping Israel from infringing on the rights of Palestinians had failed, and there was sufficient support for a more militant organization to try doing things *their way*. Heck, even Hamas is currently failing at protecting Palestinians from the Israelis.
By "false" I mean the fact that Palestinians did not finally start exploring "more confrontational and aggressive options" with the formation of Hamas. They had been engaging in massacres of the Jewish population, terrorist attacks (on both military and civilian targets) and outright war for decades prior to the formation of Hamas. How was Hamas any more confrontational and aggressive?
|
On May 18 2021 11:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, 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, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did and in 1948 the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. Wow the British are so noble, and the jews so evil. Quite the version. It is like when you watch a based on a true story movie where the writer has a agenda. I thought the "that's just how Israel is" really drove home the hatred and how evil you think them. It seems a touch one sided though, hard to believe such a one dementional character. Here's a more impartial history, not written by me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israelhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_peopleInterestingly kind of like you Wyoming idea the Zionists first considered a area in Australia but it was shot down by the Aus prime Minister. I just learned that and that Martin Luther King was a supporter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZionismNow as far as what kwark leaves as a impression the nazis and the zionists were buddy's. It's a lot more like the jews paid the nazis to get out of Germany. And they did not have a fascist government, they began very social democratic and moved to more liberal democracy much later. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_AgreementNow what Kwark is telling you about appears to be the Holocaust denying theory that the zionists and the nazis were working together and the kills were made up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_ZionismThis is a new low, wow unexpected and so very disappointed.
Besides being a bit dramatic, which part do you dispute? I mean, he is definately not denying the holocaust. He is also not writing that Israel started as with a fascist government, just that one of the former right wing terrorists later became Prime minister. Maybe Kwark can tell who he is talking about. The rest of the story, do you dispute that the zionist movements did the things Kwark mentionsor do you claim that the British were much more shady, or do you claim that Kwark has left out context, that would make the situation more nuanced? Wiki is certainly not a good source, the one you linked has 2 sentences about Zionist terrorism in it. I would not call that unbiased.
|
On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 11:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 10:10 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:59 Mohdoo wrote:On May 18 2021 09:49 KwarK wrote:On May 18 2021 09:26 JimmiC wrote:
I am referring to political persecution and being murdered, I am not saying the pilgrims were not. Let's recap. DarkPlasmaBall said that the colonization of Palestine after the Second World War appeared to be a parallel of the colonization of North America. On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. You disagreed and provided a list of pertinent facts that you would have to leave out to make the parallel work. Your specific argument was that the similarities could only be drawn if you left out these facts. "if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts ... you can draw similarities". That these facts would disprove any similarity due to their obvious differences between the settlers of North America and the colonization of Palestine. 1) What was happening to the Jews in Europe and the rest of the world compared to the colonizers of North America (you subsequently clarified this was an explicit reference to religious persecution) 2) Whether they were colonizing to extract wealth 3) Whether they sent wealth back to a motherland 4) Whether they intended to turn the new country into their motherland On May 18 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On May 18 2021 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Seems like an eerily accurate parallel to colonizing North America. If you use the recent, forget the whole part about the history, 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, it was not the Jews deciding this but rather the same colonizers that were still pillaging much of the world, that no other country was willing to accept the Jews (one of Canada's great shames is we turned away a boat of Jewish refugees that no one would take and they ended up all dying at the sea. So yes if you leave out a whole bunch pertinent facts and make it for a specific time frame you can draw similarities! If you're now saying that the pilgrims were victims of religious persecution and were seeking a new home in North America then I fail to see why that's a pertinent fact which proves the dissimilarity of the settlers of North America vs the Jews settling Palestine after WW2. Is your argument now that the Jews didn't face religious persecution or is it that both groups did face religious persecution and it is that very similarity that makes them so dissimilar? Just as a FYI, you can at any time cease to argue that what makes NA a colonization and Israel not a colonization is that the settlers of NA weren't fleeing religious persecution and trying to found a new homeland where they could practice their religion freely. Nobody is going to make you argue that. Maybe it would be helpful to boil it down to this: Do you think the formation of Israel after WW2 was ethical? I would say it was not. Unquestionably not. I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that a group of armed people can move into an area uninvited, commit terror attacks on the local authorities, and set up their own exclusionary state. The question of what to do with their descendants who were born on the seized land is much more ethically complex as it would not be just to force them all out. But the formation of Israel is unquestionably unethical and there is no nation in the world that would have not responded to the violence of the Zionist movement with violence. The blame principally falls on Britain. Palestine was a League mandate and was not permitted its own military nor control of its own borders. Instead it was forced to entrust Britain with these powers and hope Britain defended the interests of the people who it had denied the right to defend themselves. Britain fundamentally failed to protect the people of Palestine and once the crisis reached melting point British forces bailed and left the question to be settled by bloodshed. The radical Zionist invasion of Palestine never should have been allowed by Britain and once it had taken place Britain should have stayed to ensure a peaceful transition. For those of us who don't know much history, how in the world was Israel able to be formed? It feels like this would have been opposed be a lot of countries. So many obviously wrong things here. But maybe back then brown people were even less important? The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did. The UN came up with a partition plan in 1947 and Britain decided to withdraw without any plan for implementing the partition plan. The US also changed its mind on the partition plan and felt like an expanded Arab Jordan might be able to absorb the new Palestinian state. Ultimately the question was moot because the day the British left the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The neighbouring Arab states all declared war on the new Israel because it wasn't doing the orderly transition and partition the UN had recommended but the Zionists had secured sufficient weapons and training ahead of time to defend themselves. They had a fun rationalization for why the Israel declared in their coup got to be bigger than the UN partition plan. Basically they argued that because the Palestinians thought that the Zionists should get less land than the UN agreement then it was only fair if the Zionists in turn tried to make the Palestinians get less land than the UN agreement. They made the argument that because they accepted the UN agreement (they didn't) but the Palestinians didn't (they didn't) then they didn't have to accept the UN agreement and so they wouldn't accept the UN agreement because although they did accept the UN agreement (they didn't) it wouldn't be fair if they were the only ones who accepted it and so they didn't have to be bound by it even though they accepted it (they didn't). The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. It's not so much that nobody cared as it was that nobody cared enough to actually bleed for it. Britain made a good faith effort to protect the Palestinians until it became clear that the only people who gave a shit about the Palestinians were the Palestinians. The United States was giving them shit for putting Zionist migrants into camps (what else are you going to do with illegal migrants who keep showing up in excess of immigration caps) while funding the Zionist movement and it wasn't like Britain had manpower and treasure to spare after WW2. If you make a list of groups who were meant to stop the Zionist takeover of Palestine then it was chiefly 1) Britain. Made a good faith effort through the 20s and 30s, got burned out in 1947 because it was a thankless job made much harder by the United States being dicks about it and nobody wanted to put Jews in camps after WW2. Bailed the moment the UN came up with a plan without actually doing anything to make that plan happen. They're the most responsible for the current crisis because they were responsible for the administration of Palestine and they fucked off. 2) The UN. Sent a mediator who was killed by Zionist terrorists. Came up with a two state solution but never sent anyone to actually transition British Palestine into those two states. Watched as shit hit the fan. Zero actual effort made. 3) The Arab world. Got pissed about Israel randomly declaring itself but then lost the war so put them down as made an attempt. Also it wasn't a great attempt because they probably weren't planning on defeating the new Israel only to partition Palestine in accordance with the UN plan. Probably for the best that they lost.
You've tried really hard to make it as biased as possible. You conveniently ignored the fact that Palestinian Arabs responded to the Jewish migration after the Balfour Declaration by committing massacres on the Jews. What would later become Zionist terrorist organizations, started as militias defending Jews from the Arab attacks.
|
At the moment of the first massacres of Jews in in Palestina, 1929, there were already militant nationalistic movements on both sides. Sources are pretty scarce on the internet, but i think it is safe to say that the Jewish Zionists were not deescalating anything and used the mandate of the British to create a Jewish state to excerpt a lot of influence over areas they were not settling in.
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots:
Several months earlier Zionist leader Menachem Ussishkin gave a speech demanding "a Jewish state without compromises and without concessions, from Dan to Be'er Sheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan." He concluded, "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest and will not remain silent until its national home is built on our Mt Moriah," a reference to the Temple Mount.[11]
Now, i am sure he intended to do that without harming, displacing or subjugating the people already living there. And of course the arabian uprising in 1929 and later were largely arab mobs killing Jews. But to say that the Jewish zionists were just defending themselves and then later might have become terrorist organisations is also conveniently ignoring the beginnings of the state. And while some of these settlers were just fleeing progroms and persecution in eastern europe and were just happy to have a new home, others were militantly pushing the idea of creating their holy land. It's messy and complicated, but the situation is certainly not as easy as "they started it, we had to defend ourselves".
|
On May 18 2021 17:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2021 08:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 18 2021 08:11 maybenexttime 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. So you agree you were selling a false narrative of helpless Palestinians "finally being willing to explore more confrontational and aggressive options" after decades of passively accepting abuse from the Israelis? And by the way, Muslims were oppressing minorities in the Middle East for centuries and deciding who can live where and on what terms for centuries before the British took over. Also, Jewish pogroms in the Middle East predate the Balfour Declaration. What do you mean by false? That's literally why Hamas was formed and gained power: Hamas was founded in 1987,[i] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood[26] which in its Gaza branch had previously been nonconfrontational toward Israel and hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[27] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[28] Since 1994,[29] the group has frequently stated that it would accept a truce[j] if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, paid reparations, allowed free elections in the territories[31] and gave Palestinian refugees the right to return.[k] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas I never said that the Palestinians never attempted to fight back against the Israelis before Hamas existed, but clearly previous attempts at stopping Israel from infringing on the rights of Palestinians had failed, and there was sufficient support for a more militant organization to try doing things *their way*. Heck, even Hamas is currently failing at protecting Palestinians from the Israelis. By "false" I mean the fact that Palestinians did not finally start exploring "more confrontational and aggressive options" with the formation of Hamas. They had been engaging in massacres of the Jewish population, terrorist attacks (on both military and civilian targets) and outright war for decades prior to the formation of Hamas. How was Hamas any more confrontational and aggressive?
Hamas distinguished itself from the PLO in a few key ways, such as focusing on religious ideology and extremism (compared to PLO's secular approach) and had initially taken a stance that was much more resistant to peace talks and compromise (as opposed to the attempts at conversations and resolutions that had preceded their rise to power), although Hamas eventually walked back their refusal to engage in conversation with the Israelis. One of the central premises of Hamas's origin was "In its 1988 charter, Hamas maintained that Palestine is an Islamic homeland that can never be surrendered to non-Muslims and that waging holy war to wrest control of Palestine from Israel is a religious duty for Palestinian Muslims. This position brought it into conflict with the PLO, which in 1988 recognized Israel’s right to exist." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hamas
So yes, Palestinians weren't pacifists or completely passive before Hamas came to power, but there was a very significant philosophy change (for a while) between the previous idea of "let's talk about a two-state solution" and the new (albeit temporary) "one-state solution only - Palestine - because Israel shouldn't have ever existed in the first place and we want to go back to the way things were".
Here's a bit more on how Hamas escalated things and acted more aggressively/confrontationally, from the above source:
"Hamas soon began to act independently of other Palestinian organizations, generating animosity between the group and its secular nationalist counterparts. Increasingly violent Hamas attacks on civilian and military targets impelled Israel to arrest a number of Hamas leaders in 1989, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement’s founder. ... From its foundation, Hamas rejected negotiations that would cede any land. The group denounced the 1993 peace agreement between Israel and the PLO and, along with the Islamic Jihad group, subsequently intensified its terror campaign using suicide bombers. ... Hamas activists further escalated their attacks on Israelis and engaged in a number of suicide bombings in Israel itself."
For a while, Hamas wouldn't even play nice with other Palestinian organizations, due to Hamas's extremism and hard-line stances. Fortunately, the source goes on to explain how Hamas ultimately started to moderate its views and consider peace talks and two-state solutions, not that I think we're anywhere near solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
How can you claim that Kwark is portraying the British as the good guys when one of the posts in this whole quote chain states 'The blame principally falls on Britain'? This, combined with you having the gall to state 'It would be appreciated if you didn't just read my posts for gotcha's, its sad.' has made following your interaction quite frankly, hilarious, in all its ridiculousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
