|
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. |
On May 31 2021 04:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 03:15 Doublemint wrote:Israeli opposition parties reach agreement to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu@WaPo JERUSALEM — A diverse coalition of Israeli opposition parties said Sunday that they have the votes to form a unity government to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader and its dominant political figure for more than a decade.
Under their agreement, reached after weeks of negotiations spearheaded by centrist opposition leader Yair Lapid, former Netanyahu defense minister and ally Naftali Bennett will lead a power-sharing government.
“We could go to fifth elections, sixth elections, until our home falls upon us, or we could stop the madness and take responsibility,” Bennett said in a televised statement Sunday evening. “Today, I would like to announce that I intend to join my friend Yair Lapid in forming a unity government.”
Netanyahu has been struggling to hold onto power after four inconclusive elections in the past two years while facing an ongoing corruption trial. Bennett is one of several former loyalists who have flirted with joining the so-called change coalition, a collection of parties that span the political spectrum but share a desire to end Netanyahu’s 12-year tenure. now that is quite the development. Apparently Naftali Bennett is going to be prime minister for a while and then the "centrist" will take his place? Don't expect things to get better. More likely that some kind of threat emerges that forces the fascists to stay in power, as threats tend to do.
Yeah Bibi is a scumbag imo but Naftali Bennet describes himself as "more right-wing than Bibi" and The Times of Israel gives this description from their interview
he is a man of “the national camp” — a firm and proud right-winger who will oppose Palestinian statehood forever, under any and every circumstance; who wants to extend Israeli sovereignty to some 60 percent of the West Bank; who thinks Israel has already relinquished too much of its Biblical land. He’s aiming to form “a government with national values.”
www.timesofisrael.com
He's also got a bit of a checkered past with his role in the Qana massacre as well as openly advocating for "The Stability Initiative"
That "centrists" have allied with him comes as little surprise to me though.
|
|
|
On May 31 2021 06:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 04:03 Nebuchad wrote:On May 31 2021 03:15 Doublemint wrote:Israeli opposition parties reach agreement to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu@WaPo JERUSALEM — A diverse coalition of Israeli opposition parties said Sunday that they have the votes to form a unity government to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader and its dominant political figure for more than a decade.
Under their agreement, reached after weeks of negotiations spearheaded by centrist opposition leader Yair Lapid, former Netanyahu defense minister and ally Naftali Bennett will lead a power-sharing government.
“We could go to fifth elections, sixth elections, until our home falls upon us, or we could stop the madness and take responsibility,” Bennett said in a televised statement Sunday evening. “Today, I would like to announce that I intend to join my friend Yair Lapid in forming a unity government.”
Netanyahu has been struggling to hold onto power after four inconclusive elections in the past two years while facing an ongoing corruption trial. Bennett is one of several former loyalists who have flirted with joining the so-called change coalition, a collection of parties that span the political spectrum but share a desire to end Netanyahu’s 12-year tenure. now that is quite the development. Apparently Naftali Bennett is going to be prime minister for a while and then the "centrist" will take his place? Don't expect things to get better. More likely that some kind of threat emerges that forces the fascists to stay in power, as threats tend to do. Certainly possible, at times it almost seems like Hamas (also super right wing) is working with the Israeli right. Every time it looks like Netanyahu is out, something happens.
They are both profiting from the ongoing conflict. They don't have to actively cooperate for this, but they both have no interest in a peaceful solution, and would rather have a constant low-to-mid-level conflict going on.
|
On May 31 2021 03:13 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 01:25 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2021 17:33 MWY wrote:On May 30 2021 02:41 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 17:19 MWY wrote:On May 29 2021 09:10 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders. How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately? The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war. A declaration of independence is not a declaration of war. It does not contain anything that declares violence against palestinians as far as i read it. It also mentions the UN partition plan and does not claim all the land. "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. " What prevented palestinians from doing the same? What prevented the arab league from just defending the UN partition plan's borders instead of immediately declaring war? A Declaration of Independence that declares that land that was part of one state is now part of the newly declared state is absolutely a declaration of war. The territory declared by Israel included land allocated to Palestine by the UN partition plan. Except that all of this is wrong. It was a british-controlled territory and those brits AND the UN wanted and supported Jews in creating an Israel. Nice, while I gave you a direct quote from the declaration of independence that says the UN-partition plan is supported, you give me (again) zero sources for your claim how Israel claimed more land. Your rebuttal is wrong, my statement was correct. You're pretending that there was a British/UN support for the Israeli declaration of independence but there was not. The British had been actively warring with Zionist forces, turning around ships of Jewish refugees to protect the Palestinians, and getting murdered by Zionist terror attacks. Eventually they just left with a single Palestine behind them. The UN representative also got murdered by Zionist terrorists but the UN came up with a partition plan which was completely ignored by the Zionists who preferred to settle the matter by arms. This is a historical fact that you can check yourself. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept? David Ben-Gurion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#BordersThey explicitly claimed that whatever land they could seize by arms would be Israel. There is no context in which this isn't a declaration of war. So the best you can come up with is a statement you selectively and intentionally cutted to make it seem atleast somewhat agressive. Nice. The complete quote says "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" which is completely valid and not agressive at all. It's a statement that israel will defend itself incase it is attacked and that territories might change in that war and since the arab side can't be trusted to give captured territory back, it would be stupid to declare that one-sidedly. And again, working towards the UN partition plan is in the actual declaration of independence. And now you're argument is that the brits/UN didn't support the UN partition plan? Well okay then.
That is exactly the problem. With this kind of narrative, you are again absolving the Jewish settlers from responsibility because the other side would have been worse. Or started it. Or did not accept the UN treaty. The state of israel did not enforce the UN partition plan when they did win the war that was in their interest to give them an indepentend state. They did not try to stop those 750k Arabs from relocating, instead they claimed the Arab leaders asked the population to relocate out of Israel. Later, historians concluded that it might have had something to do with Arabs fleeing from the IDF. How very convenient, when you want to have an ethnostate. To this day, the official line of thinking is, that it was okay for them to allow the displacement of a large part of the Arab population, because the alternative would have been all settlers dying. If Israels intentions had been pure, and all they wanted was a peaceful place of their own, in land that the "natives" did not want, they had acted very differently. Maybe the area would be peaceful now, if they had decided to keep the people from fleeing and integrated them happily into their new non-jewish state. Maybe not. History tell us what happened, they took more land then they claimed to have agreed to, they did not care if they displaced 750k Arabs and took their land and they made the remaining arab population not exactly feel at home and part of the resulting state.
On May 30 2021 18:56 MWY wrote:Why that comparison is flawed: 1. Palestine had never been a state. Never in history. I had always been a region in a larger state or empire, sometimes it was split up between empires. 2. I'm not even sure when or if people identified as palestinians before the 20. century. I think Wiki states something that the palestine national identity was even somewhat born within the context of the conflict with the zionists. 3. Jews had been living there for ages before they were displaced by several states/empires. There were even some jews still living there. Let's say, all of that was the case for poland and the land was sparsely populated enough for both people to live peacefully besides eachother. Let's also assume that some displacement was necessary (it obviously would be) but you manage to actually displace very few people and compensate them fairly. In doing so, you (as the british) allow both people to form a state of their own and live independently. Now if we add the terribly violent historical context of that time, doesn't that sound like a very civil solution? Lastly, adressing the invasion talk (again), in around 1920, when the first progroms against jews started to happen, there were about as many jews in Palestine as there are muslims in germany right now. Population overall was less than a million people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Sorry, those points make no sense.
1) So if Germany were to be desolved now, Jewish settlers would automatically be invited to settle in Bavaria and create the state of Bavaria because Bavaria had never been a state before. By that argument, the displacement of the native americans was totally okay, because they didn't have a nation state that claimed all the land.
2) So what? Germany wasn't a nationstate before 1871 either. National identity famously formed in a lot of states in the 1900th century. This is what killed almost all traditional Empires, including the Ottoman one.
3) Also, Christians were living there. So, are Christian Europeans now allowed to just come there and create a Christian state in Palestine? Or is this window now closed as Israel is a state?
No, we have to agree to disagree here. Your arguments why this was civil are only sound if you compare it to actual colonialism. If that's the argument you want to make, fine. The Jewish settlement of Palestine was more civil compared to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico. Congratulation. Maybe in the beginning, the first Jewish settlements were small and in areas that created little conflict with Palestinians. But they continued to settle, they continued after they realized that it alienated the natives more and more. They settled land that was inhabited by other people and then evicted them. A long the line, the civil manner of it all certainly faded. Palestina was not chosen as the new home for the Jewish refugees because it was well suited for it. It was chosen because it hadreligious and national value.
And your last point, so you do believe that if another 4 million refugees would now arrive in germany (and they would all be making their own settlements and promoting a arabic state in germany), this would not create tension with the people already living here?
|
On May 31 2021 14:43 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 03:13 MWY wrote:On May 31 2021 01:25 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2021 17:33 MWY wrote:On May 30 2021 02:41 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 17:19 MWY wrote:On May 29 2021 09:10 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:On May 28 2021 06:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
In what world did the Palestinians ever had a chance at an independent state which they denied? Please give me one time the Israelis agreed to having an independent Palestinian state. Or are we talking about 1948 here, where someone told them they are allowed to keep half their land and they considered that a bad deal? Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders. How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately? The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war. A declaration of independence is not a declaration of war. It does not contain anything that declares violence against palestinians as far as i read it. It also mentions the UN partition plan and does not claim all the land. "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. " What prevented palestinians from doing the same? What prevented the arab league from just defending the UN partition plan's borders instead of immediately declaring war? A Declaration of Independence that declares that land that was part of one state is now part of the newly declared state is absolutely a declaration of war. The territory declared by Israel included land allocated to Palestine by the UN partition plan. Except that all of this is wrong. It was a british-controlled territory and those brits AND the UN wanted and supported Jews in creating an Israel. Nice, while I gave you a direct quote from the declaration of independence that says the UN-partition plan is supported, you give me (again) zero sources for your claim how Israel claimed more land. Your rebuttal is wrong, my statement was correct. You're pretending that there was a British/UN support for the Israeli declaration of independence but there was not. The British had been actively warring with Zionist forces, turning around ships of Jewish refugees to protect the Palestinians, and getting murdered by Zionist terror attacks. Eventually they just left with a single Palestine behind them. The UN representative also got murdered by Zionist terrorists but the UN came up with a partition plan which was completely ignored by the Zionists who preferred to settle the matter by arms. This is a historical fact that you can check yourself. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept? David Ben-Gurion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#BordersThey explicitly claimed that whatever land they could seize by arms would be Israel. There is no context in which this isn't a declaration of war. So the best you can come up with is a statement you selectively and intentionally cutted to make it seem atleast somewhat agressive. Nice. The complete quote says "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" which is completely valid and not agressive at all. It's a statement that israel will defend itself incase it is attacked and that territories might change in that war and since the arab side can't be trusted to give captured territory back, it would be stupid to declare that one-sidedly. And again, working towards the UN partition plan is in the actual declaration of independence. And now you're argument is that the brits/UN didn't support the UN partition plan? Well okay then. That is exactly the problem. With this kind of narrative, you are again absolving the Jewish settlers from responsibility because the other side would have been worse. Or started it. Or did not accept the UN treaty. The state of israel did not enforce the UN partition plan when they did win the war that was in their interest to give them an indepentend state. They did not try to stop those 750k Arabs from relocating, instead they claimed the Arab leaders asked the population to relocate out of Israel. Later, historians concluded that it might have had something to do with Arabs fleeing from the IDF. How very convenient, when you want to have an ethnostate. To this day, the official line of thinking is, that it was okay for them to allow the displacement of a large part of the Arab population, because the alternative would have been all settlers dying. If Israels intentions had been pure, and all they wanted was a peaceful place of their own, in land that the "natives" did not want, they had acted very differently. Maybe the area would be peaceful now, if they had decided to keep the people from fleeing and integrated them happily into their new non-jewish state. Maybe not. History tell us what happened, they took more land then they claimed to have agreed to, they did not care if they displaced 750k Arabs and took their land and they made the remaining arab population not exactly feel at home and part of the resulting state.
What are you even talking about. I'm arguing that the declaration of independence was not a declaration of war. You suddenly change to things that happened after or during the war. Tell me one thing, which does sound more agressive to you? "We will work towards the UN partition plan" or statements like this: "The decision of the United Nations has united the Arabs as never before, not even against the Crusaders [...] A Jewish state has no chance of survival now that the holy war has been declared. In the end, all Jews will be massacred." I mean it's a really subtle difference admittedly...
What happened during or after the war is a completely different topic but the intentions of both sides before the war were very clear. One side supported the UN partition plan, the other side declared war with an intention of genocide.
|
On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion?
Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years.
|
United States44241 Posts
On May 31 2021 22:50 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 14:43 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 31 2021 03:13 MWY wrote:On May 31 2021 01:25 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2021 17:33 MWY wrote:On May 30 2021 02:41 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 17:19 MWY wrote:On May 29 2021 09:10 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:On May 28 2021 07:39 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Just to add onto this, they never really got a chance to accept the 1948 partition in 1948. They probably wouldn’t have but the Zionists decided to settle the issue by arms anyway and did not limit their declaration of Israel to the proposed UN borders. How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately? The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war. A declaration of independence is not a declaration of war. It does not contain anything that declares violence against palestinians as far as i read it. It also mentions the UN partition plan and does not claim all the land. "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. " What prevented palestinians from doing the same? What prevented the arab league from just defending the UN partition plan's borders instead of immediately declaring war? A Declaration of Independence that declares that land that was part of one state is now part of the newly declared state is absolutely a declaration of war. The territory declared by Israel included land allocated to Palestine by the UN partition plan. Except that all of this is wrong. It was a british-controlled territory and those brits AND the UN wanted and supported Jews in creating an Israel. Nice, while I gave you a direct quote from the declaration of independence that says the UN-partition plan is supported, you give me (again) zero sources for your claim how Israel claimed more land. Your rebuttal is wrong, my statement was correct. You're pretending that there was a British/UN support for the Israeli declaration of independence but there was not. The British had been actively warring with Zionist forces, turning around ships of Jewish refugees to protect the Palestinians, and getting murdered by Zionist terror attacks. Eventually they just left with a single Palestine behind them. The UN representative also got murdered by Zionist terrorists but the UN came up with a partition plan which was completely ignored by the Zionists who preferred to settle the matter by arms. This is a historical fact that you can check yourself. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept? David Ben-Gurion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#BordersThey explicitly claimed that whatever land they could seize by arms would be Israel. There is no context in which this isn't a declaration of war. So the best you can come up with is a statement you selectively and intentionally cutted to make it seem atleast somewhat agressive. Nice. The complete quote says "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" which is completely valid and not agressive at all. It's a statement that israel will defend itself incase it is attacked and that territories might change in that war and since the arab side can't be trusted to give captured territory back, it would be stupid to declare that one-sidedly. And again, working towards the UN partition plan is in the actual declaration of independence. And now you're argument is that the brits/UN didn't support the UN partition plan? Well okay then. That is exactly the problem. With this kind of narrative, you are again absolving the Jewish settlers from responsibility because the other side would have been worse. Or started it. Or did not accept the UN treaty. The state of israel did not enforce the UN partition plan when they did win the war that was in their interest to give them an indepentend state. They did not try to stop those 750k Arabs from relocating, instead they claimed the Arab leaders asked the population to relocate out of Israel. Later, historians concluded that it might have had something to do with Arabs fleeing from the IDF. How very convenient, when you want to have an ethnostate. To this day, the official line of thinking is, that it was okay for them to allow the displacement of a large part of the Arab population, because the alternative would have been all settlers dying. If Israels intentions had been pure, and all they wanted was a peaceful place of their own, in land that the "natives" did not want, they had acted very differently. Maybe the area would be peaceful now, if they had decided to keep the people from fleeing and integrated them happily into their new non-jewish state. Maybe not. History tell us what happened, they took more land then they claimed to have agreed to, they did not care if they displaced 750k Arabs and took their land and they made the remaining arab population not exactly feel at home and part of the resulting state. What are you even talking about. I'm arguing that the declaration of independence was not a declaration of war. You suddenly change to things that happened after or during the war. Tell me one thing, which does sound more agressive to you? "We will work towards the UN partition plan" or statements like this: "The decision of the United Nations has united the Arabs as never before, not even against the Crusaders [...] A Jewish state has no chance of survival now that the holy war has been declared. In the end, all Jews will be massacred." I mean it's a really subtle difference admittedly... What happened during or after the war is a completely different topic but the intentions of both sides before the war were very clear. One side supported the UN partition plan, the other side declared war with an intention of genocide.
How is it that the side which explicitly explained why they weren’t accepting the partition plan is, in your narrative, accepting the partition plan?
|
On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years.
Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people. As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland?
The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
|
If there was enough land for everyone, why did they then buy land where other people were living and evicted them out of the land? I mean, both can be true. There is also a component of time, the character of the process between 1900 and 1920 was probably different then 1920 to 1940. I am not arguing that the Jewish settlement process was literally Cortez, i am just saying the goal of the process for the militant side of the settlement process was to establish a Jewish Palestine. They said so and it is the definition of the movement. So, if a movement says it is for the creation of a ethnostate, causes the people living there to fear the creation of an ehnostate, so that a civil war erupts ending in the creation of an ethnostate, the argument that some of the settlements were just isolated settlements in before densely populated area is kinda meh. Or would you say, that in the whole part of the country that was meant to be the UN partition for the Jewish population, there were no non-jewish communities?
Nothing about that means the Palestinians were in the right to call for the death of all jewish people in Palestine. It just means there was a clear intention to create settlemts in an area big enough to call it a state and that means lots and lots of displacements were needed to make that happen. And these displacements then conveniently happened after the side that wanted that ethnostate won. I really do not understand how you can come to another conclusion.
|
On June 01 2021 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2021 00:27 maybenexttime wrote:On May 30 2021 07:14 Broetchenholer wrote:
Sorry, your question was not clear to me. Maybe i am stupid, maybe your question was not precise enough. Does not matter. So when i read your post, you seem to want to find out if the Jewish settlers were only settling land that was not already settled by "natives". I gave you a source for an example that clearly states, that a Jewish organisation bought land in the most fertile region of Palestine, settled their people and then forced the natives living there out. Some of them got money. I am sure they did not feel like someone alient to their society was taking their land from them. You seem to assume, that Palestine somehow had large patches of land that were waiting for someone to finally work them, because the Palestinians just let them lay dormant. And then the settlers could come in and take that land without hurting anyone. Palestine had not been just hit by a disaster killing of 50% of their population, it was a settled land like anywhere else around the mediteranean sea. There probably were areas that were able to be developed with modern technology, but let's change the variables a little bit.
After WW1, the British Empire is left as overlord of Poland. They have to decide what to do with the land. Poland is of course no state, it hasn't been one in 2 centuries, so why should the Polish people have a polish state. Instead, Britain decides that the Polish land is a perfect candidate for a new Jewish state. So, they allow Jewish settlers from Russia and other parts of Europe to build their own communities in the territory of Poland. After WW2, the Jewish controls more then half of the land of now Poland. Would you in this example say
a) the land wasn't part of a Catholic Polish state anyway, so you can't argue half the polish land was taken.
b) It wasn't Polish land. Did any of the land settled by Jewish people belong to Polish people before?
It is ridiculous how you assume that this land in Palestine was just free and that the people living their for centuries had no right to call it theirs. You can only make that argument if you believe that somehow palestinean people have less rights then polish or german or jewish. That their right for self determination is less real then that of other people.
Not saying you agree with that decision, but how many refugees did Poland accept in the migrant crisis? In Germany, 1 million refugees was very much doable and we got a huge spike in nationalism and a jump to the right in our politics.How can you not see that to the people of Palestine, this was an invasion? Before you make such analogies you'll have to prove that the demographic situation of Poland or Bavaria was actually comparable to that of the 19th/20th century Palestine. Poland was quite densely and uniformly populated. The same cannot be said about Palestine, from what I can tell. Between the 1st and the 5th century its population was estimated to be around 2-3M. By the 14th century it dropped to just 150k. In the 19th century it reached 250-500k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)I have yet to see any evidence that the Palestinian Arabs controlled, settled, cultivated or owned nearly the entirety of Palestine prior to the Balfour Declaration. The region appears to have been quite underpopulated for over a thousand years. Your own link shows that the population of Palestine in 1947 was 2 million people.
How is that relevant? Nobody is denying that a large number of Palestinians had to (or chose to in many cases) relocate as a result of the 1948 war. What I'm trying to determine is how valid the assertion that the Arab Palestinians lost half of their country as a result of the 1948 war is. I'm under the impression large swaths of Palestine were indeed largely unpopulated, for similar reasons to how large swaths of what is now Ukraine were. I'm trying to find out whether the Arab population expanded to previously unused parts of Palestine as their population exploded around the same time the Jews were colonizing Palestine or the Arabs lived more or less across the whole of Palestine and their population just grew across the board.
As well as that the Jewish population was the minority since the 5th century. Poland is not uniformly populated. Even today before the massive population increase that comes with the agriculturaland industrial revolution and medical technology, there will surely be many areas with low population, woodland or simply areas of lower agricultural worth. Would it then be fine for a Jewish nation to be made there, taking a chunk out of Poland?
I'm using criteria of using the land that are very charitable to the Palestinians - living on it, cultivating it, owning or controlling it. In that sense, there wasn't any piece of land that the population of Poland at the time didn't use. The principle of self-determination doesn't give anyone the right to claim land they don't actually use in any way.
The argument is strange anyways. It doesn't make it anymore right if certain areas were or were not as densely populated, nor that the modern concept of a nation state had not been achieved by military might by those people, if that people lived in the area we now call Isreal have been forced out and oppressed on the basis of race and religion. If 300 years ago, there was no real concept of a united Italy, nobody called themselves Italians, would then it would be fine for formerly stateless ethnic religios groups to carve out a nation state from the geographical area of Italy?
But it does matter if both Jews and Arabs were effectively colonizing Palestine around the same time. It invalidates the "we've been here before you" card that the Arabs use.
I don't understand what the modern concept of a nation state has to do with anything. I'm trying to establish which parts of Palestine the Arab population used in any way so as to be able to claim it as part of their country.
|
@Broetchenholer
Certainly there were varied opinions within the Zionists movement regarding the extent of the future state and how to deal with Arabs. Some parts of the movement were on a collision course with the Arab world, but the declaration of independence seems to favor a UN-approved two-state solution. At the same time, the opinions among the Arabs ranged from peaceful coexistence to genocide.
I'm sure some people would've ended up getting displaced as a result of the UN partition. Those people would have had to have been compensated.
I also don't think that the anti-Jewish violence was necessarily provoked by how the Jews went about their colonization of Palestine, as some people are suggesting. Pogroms and other outbursts of violence have been happening across North Africa and the Middle East throughout the 19th century. And Arabs would've had no reason to fear a Jewish ethnostate hand't they treated the Jews as second class citizens for centuries.
|
|
|
I am not intent to paint Jewish settlers as fascists or comic book villains, i am just arguing that they were as human as all other people. And that maybe they should have known better, as they had this history of oppression. The current state is the result of 100 years of fuck ups on both sides, and the British, it's just important to understand the motivation of the Jewish newcomers and the Arab population. And the prospect of suddenly losing their homes or their chance for self determination was a big motivation. And they inevitably clashed, creating what we see now.
In regards to the elections and the government being formed now, the person that is going to rule now is being called ultra right by german media and the washington post says:
He has advocated for annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which Israel has occupied since the 1967 war. But in his role as prime minister in a mixed government, he would be unlikely to translate those ideological views into official policy, analysts say.
Even when he leaves the office and Lapid takes over, the left and center are not automatically for a change in policy towards the Palestinians, this issue is not a matter of left or right in Israel. We would get rif of a corrupt politician, but everything else might remain exactly the same.
|
Lapid is a piece of shit too. He claims that the Poles built and operated the extermination camps alongside the Nazis.
|
|
|
I am just a bit worried about giving an "ultra-right" candidate the chancellorship bause the moderate parties have failed to create a government. This does not have the best track record. But yes, if it works and Netanyaho is out without creating more problems, then good for the region.
|
|
|
No, it means he wants right-leaning voters to fear that it's a shift to the left.
|
On June 01 2021 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2021 22:50 MWY wrote:On May 31 2021 14:43 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 31 2021 03:13 MWY wrote:On May 31 2021 01:25 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2021 17:33 MWY wrote:On May 30 2021 02:41 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 17:19 MWY wrote:On May 29 2021 09:10 KwarK wrote:On May 29 2021 07:25 MWY wrote:
[quote]
How did the Zionists solely decide to settle the issue by arms? And do you really think including the UN borders into their declaration of independence would have stopped the arab nations from declaring war immediately? The Zionists declared first by declaring Israel unilaterally rather than following any kind of UN managed partition and by claiming territory allocated to Palestine in the partition plan. It’s not hugely meaningful because a conflict would have happened either way but the Palestinians didn’t get a chance to reject the plan because the other side rejected it first. They most likely would have also rejected it though, as I noted. I’m not saying that Palestine accepted the 1948 agreement and that Israel is solely responsible, I’m saying they probably would have rejected it but never got the chance due to the Zionist declaration of war. A declaration of independence is not a declaration of war. It does not contain anything that declares violence against palestinians as far as i read it. It also mentions the UN partition plan and does not claim all the land. "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. " What prevented palestinians from doing the same? What prevented the arab league from just defending the UN partition plan's borders instead of immediately declaring war? A Declaration of Independence that declares that land that was part of one state is now part of the newly declared state is absolutely a declaration of war. The territory declared by Israel included land allocated to Palestine by the UN partition plan. Except that all of this is wrong. It was a british-controlled territory and those brits AND the UN wanted and supported Jews in creating an Israel. Nice, while I gave you a direct quote from the declaration of independence that says the UN-partition plan is supported, you give me (again) zero sources for your claim how Israel claimed more land. Your rebuttal is wrong, my statement was correct. You're pretending that there was a British/UN support for the Israeli declaration of independence but there was not. The British had been actively warring with Zionist forces, turning around ships of Jewish refugees to protect the Palestinians, and getting murdered by Zionist terror attacks. Eventually they just left with a single Palestine behind them. The UN representative also got murdered by Zionist terrorists but the UN came up with a partition plan which was completely ignored by the Zionists who preferred to settle the matter by arms. This is a historical fact that you can check yourself. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept? David Ben-Gurion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#BordersThey explicitly claimed that whatever land they could seize by arms would be Israel. There is no context in which this isn't a declaration of war. So the best you can come up with is a statement you selectively and intentionally cutted to make it seem atleast somewhat agressive. Nice. The complete quote says "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" which is completely valid and not agressive at all. It's a statement that israel will defend itself incase it is attacked and that territories might change in that war and since the arab side can't be trusted to give captured territory back, it would be stupid to declare that one-sidedly. And again, working towards the UN partition plan is in the actual declaration of independence. And now you're argument is that the brits/UN didn't support the UN partition plan? Well okay then. That is exactly the problem. With this kind of narrative, you are again absolving the Jewish settlers from responsibility because the other side would have been worse. Or started it. Or did not accept the UN treaty. The state of israel did not enforce the UN partition plan when they did win the war that was in their interest to give them an indepentend state. They did not try to stop those 750k Arabs from relocating, instead they claimed the Arab leaders asked the population to relocate out of Israel. Later, historians concluded that it might have had something to do with Arabs fleeing from the IDF. How very convenient, when you want to have an ethnostate. To this day, the official line of thinking is, that it was okay for them to allow the displacement of a large part of the Arab population, because the alternative would have been all settlers dying. If Israels intentions had been pure, and all they wanted was a peaceful place of their own, in land that the "natives" did not want, they had acted very differently. Maybe the area would be peaceful now, if they had decided to keep the people from fleeing and integrated them happily into their new non-jewish state. Maybe not. History tell us what happened, they took more land then they claimed to have agreed to, they did not care if they displaced 750k Arabs and took their land and they made the remaining arab population not exactly feel at home and part of the resulting state. What are you even talking about. I'm arguing that the declaration of independence was not a declaration of war. You suddenly change to things that happened after or during the war. Tell me one thing, which does sound more agressive to you? "We will work towards the UN partition plan" or statements like this: "The decision of the United Nations has united the Arabs as never before, not even against the Crusaders [...] A Jewish state has no chance of survival now that the holy war has been declared. In the end, all Jews will be massacred." I mean it's a really subtle difference admittedly... What happened during or after the war is a completely different topic but the intentions of both sides before the war were very clear. One side supported the UN partition plan, the other side declared war with an intention of genocide. How is it that the side which explicitly explained why they weren’t accepting the partition plan is, in your narrative, accepting the partition plan?
1. Not putting the borders of the partition plan into the declaration of independence is not the same as not accepting or rejecting the partition plan.
2. It's even still directly within the declaration of independence: "The State of Israel will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the decision of November 29, 1947, and will strive for the establishment of the all-Palestinian economic unity. "
3. The jewish agency as the official representative organization of the jewish people in palestine accepted the partition plan, as well as most of the population.
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the jews were the ones declaring war here or that this was such an agressive act that the other side couldn't react any differently than to launch a full-on invasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
