Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 138

On December 04 2023 00:58 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm not a fan of how you use this thread. And I'm definitely holier than you.

On December 04 2023 01:37 Ryzel wrote:


Seems I struck a nerve. How exactly am I using the thread that you find so distasteful?

On December 04 2023 02:26 Nebuchad wrote:
Ryzel, that is fair too. I started with the assumption that you were following the conflict much more closely than that, but now that I look back there was no reason for me to believe that, that was wrong of me. If I had that in mind I wouldn't have written the post that set you off either, I apologize.

On December 04 2023 02:36 Magic Powers wrote:


I missed that Cerebrate was talking about pre 1948. It was an honest mistake on my part.

He has attempted to rewrite history in a number of ways. I could curb my expectation of how far he's willing to go with the misinformation, but I'll provide the context necessary to make people understand why I generally don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

1) Quote:
"I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right (*Note: this is in response to me saying that Israel enforces strict Apartheid). There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed."
Cerebrate is arguing that Apartheid stopped the terrorist attacks and other violence.
Obviously this ignores the fact that, since Israel occupied the West bank for the first time, illegal settlements popped up all over the place, all funded by Israel. Cerebrate purposefully leaves out the fact that these settlements constitute an act of aggression and a war crime under international law. In this way he omits the cause of the attacks. The Palestinians had every right to fight back against the settlements, but they had no means to seriously stop them because Israel's grip on them was too powerful. We can conclude that Cerebrate attempts to paint the situation as the following: Palestinian violence first, Apartheid second. However, the real order of events was Jewish war crimes first (supported by the State of Israel), then Palestinian resistance... ahem, sorry, "terrorist attacks" of course, and then Apartheid to quell the resis... ahem, sorry, the "terrorist attacks".

Cerebrate could of course correctly represent the historic timeline if he acknowledged that it was Israel which started the aggression against Palestinians in the West bank, not the other way around. But with his pro-Israel bias this doesn't seem possible for him.

2) Quote:
"I just wanted to pull this one out to point out that, whatever your definition of oppression, I have a hard time imagining it applying to anything between 1949 to 1967. Israel gave all the local Arabs full citizenship and rights and integrated them into society like any democracy would." (*Note: this is in response to me saying that Israel has never attempted to not oppress Palestinians)
Cerebrate relativizes the oppression of Palestinians by pointing to a specific period in time during which it can be argued that there was no strict Apartheid. This is not a refutation of the argument, he just deflects from the point to attempt to prove that the State of Israel can act reasonably given other circumstances.
However, as point 1) shows, this is in context of Cerebrate omitting the true order of events.

3) He doubled down on the claim that ME countries have generally been warring with Israel.
But the most recent case of a war has been between Israel and Hezbollah (not Lebanon, the state) in 2006. It wasn't between countries. Otherwise also none of the ME countries have engaged in warfare against Israel in the last 40 years. It's strictly a false claim.
This was regarding the fact that Palestinians are the only ones who are actually serious about taking up arms against Israel, and the fact that they somehow happen to be the only ones being oppressed by Israel.
He also attempted to paint the relations between Syria and Israel as an ongoing war. This is also false.
He also makes little to no distinction between acts of terrorism and acts of war.
Cerebrate therefore attempted to reframe Israel's history of fighting terrorists as a history of war against countries, and he did so in order to undermine the obvious correlation between oppression and resistance.

4) Argued that Israel's existence is threatened because they're surrounded by enemy states, and that the threat would only increase if Palestinians had their own country without prior elimination of Hamas.
In truth Israel has successfully fought against several ME countries at once and not only come out victorious, but it did so in an absolutely dominating fashion. Israel also has the US as an ally, and a gigantic nuclear arsenal.
Therefore from a military perspective there is no realistic threat to the State of Israel. There is only a threat to some people of Israel at any given time due to terrorist attacks. That is an issue, but it's not something that requires bombarding Gaza.
Furthermore, none of these ME countries have engaged in warfare with Israel since 1982. As I said the 2006 war doesn't count because it was not against the state of Lebanon, it was against Hezbollah. This means there haven't been any signs of aggression by ME countries in the last 40 years. It is not a coincidence that these countries are all not oppressed by Israel, while the only area (Gaza) which directs serious aggression towards Israel is in fact oppressed.
The "fight for existence" argument is on very shaky grounds. It also somehow happens to be a claim that all bloodthirsty oppressors always make, and it never turns out to be true. Palestinians, much more than Israelis, could argue that they're fighting for their existence, because their land is being actively stolen and their houses are being bombarded.

5) Cerebrate claimed that Israel's strikes are pre-emptive because "the Arabs" are "building up to a war".
Quote:
"Unless you count pre-emptive strikes as the Arabs muster for war, Israel is not the one that starts those up."
Oh, pre-emptive missile strikes can prevent a war? So ME countries or "the Arabs" have the capacity to seriously threaten Israel? But no wait, they actually don't have the capacity because Israel can just shoot down their weapons from afar? Incredible. Brilliant. That's an awfully convenient combination of strength and weakness both at the same time.
Does this remind people of something? The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. I'm reminded of another conflict in which people always apply the same reasoning.
Cerebrate of course provided no evidence of "the Arabs" building up for war.

Meanwhile Israel is actively engaging in warfare against Palestinians, a war that is yet again completely dominated by the overwhelming power of the IDF.
This again leads back to the claim that Israel has to somehow be afraid of a multi-pronged attack from several directions. Oh really, is that why so much of Israel's military is tangled up in Gaza right now? Because Israel's back is so open and vulnerable? Interesting, fascinating.

6) Quote:
"I agree with you that great leaders are not always the things that create movements. Quite often, popular movements simply thrust someone into the lead of what the people were already were headed towards. The issue with Palestine is that there is neither a great peaceful leader nor any popular movement of peace. There are dozens of different ways to start a non-violent movement and none of those is happening or has ever happened to any real degree in Palestine."

This claim yet again tactically misleads by reframing history.
Since the conception of the State of Israel (and before) there have been a number of Palestinian leaders who were willing to come to the table on peaceful terms. However, since day one the more aggressive Palestinian resistance groups were actively undermining these efforts. After the State of Israel was conceived, the Israeli leaders have made no attempts to negotiate or make any other diplomatic efforts with any Palestinian leaders to continue debating a two-state solution. The debate was strictly over. This was in spite of neither Jews nor Palestinians generally being at fault for the escalation of the tensions that led to the Zionist takeover.
The State of Israel has since never had a movement to seriously consider negotiating with Palestinians on eye-to-eye terms. It is unsurprising that Palestinians could therefore not be expected to peacefully surrender the lost land, and therefore the tensions continued. Eventually this led to an (actual) war between Israel and several other ME countries, which Israel won convincingly. And yet again Israel engaged in the same acts of aggression as before: stealing land.
With such a consistent history of land being stolen from them, it's completely understandable that Palestinians by and large saw Israel as an aggressor that can't be reasoned with.
Cerebrate however attempts to put blame squarely on the Palestinians yet again.


I could go on and on about how he's been doing this the whole time. Reframing history, sometimes straight up inventing facts that paint Palestinians as aggressive and unreasonable without making a single mention of Israel's own unreasonable aggression.


* = Notes from me, not part of the quote

On December 04 2023 02:36 Magic Powers wrote:


I missed that Cerebrate was talking about pre 1948. It was an honest mistake on my part.

He has attempted to rewrite history in a number of ways. I could curb my expectation of how far he's willing to go with the misinformation, but I'll provide the context necessary to make people understand why I generally don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

1) Quote:
"I don't want to get into the altered definition of this term for this conflict, but regarding the quote being discussed, it actually proves the quote right (*Note: this is in response to me saying that Israel enforces strict Apartheid). There were tons of suicide bombings, stabbings, car rammings and other terrorist actions killing many Israelis in the Intifadas before the security fences and checkpoints were set up. Those mechanisms stopped the killings. It's literally an example of how Israel needs a strong defence to not have it's people killed."
Cerebrate is arguing that Apartheid stopped the terrorist attacks and other violence.
Obviously this ignores the fact that, since Israel occupied the West bank for the first time, illegal settlements popped up all over the place, all funded by Israel. Cerebrate purposefully leaves out the fact that these settlements constitute an act of aggression and a war crime under international law. In this way he omits the cause of the attacks. The Palestinians had every right to fight back against the settlements, but they had no means to seriously stop them because Israel's grip on them was too powerful. We can conclude that Cerebrate attempts to paint the situation as the following: Palestinian violence first, Apartheid second. However, the real order of events was Jewish war crimes first (supported by the State of Israel), then Palestinian resistance... ahem, sorry, "terrorist attacks" of course, and then Apartheid to quell the resis... ahem, sorry, the "terrorist attacks".

Cerebrate could of course correctly represent the historic timeline if he acknowledged that it was Israel which started the aggression against Palestinians in the West bank, not the other way around. But with his pro-Israel bias this doesn't seem possible for him.

2) Quote:
"I just wanted to pull this one out to point out that, whatever your definition of oppression, I have a hard time imagining it applying to anything between 1949 to 1967. Israel gave all the local Arabs full citizenship and rights and integrated them into society like any democracy would." (*Note: this is in response to me saying that Israel has never attempted to not oppress Palestinians)
Cerebrate relativizes the oppression of Palestinians by pointing to a specific period in time during which it can be argued that there was no strict Apartheid. This is not a refutation of the argument, he just deflects from the point to attempt to prove that the State of Israel can act reasonably given other circumstances.
However, as point 1) shows, this is in context of Cerebrate omitting the true order of events.

3) He doubled down on the claim that ME countries have generally been warring with Israel.
But the most recent case of a war has been between Israel and Hezbollah (not Lebanon, the state) in 2006. It wasn't between countries. Otherwise also none of the ME countries have engaged in warfare against Israel in the last 40 years. It's strictly a false claim.
This was regarding the fact that Palestinians are the only ones who are actually serious about taking up arms against Israel, and the fact that they somehow happen to be the only ones being oppressed by Israel.
He also attempted to paint the relations between Syria and Israel as an ongoing war. This is also false.
He also makes little to no distinction between acts of terrorism and acts of war.
Cerebrate therefore attempted to reframe Israel's history of fighting terrorists as a history of war against countries, and he did so in order to undermine the obvious correlation between oppression and resistance.

4) Argued that Israel's existence is threatened because they're surrounded by enemy states, and that the threat would only increase if Palestinians had their own country without prior elimination of Hamas.
In truth Israel has successfully fought against several ME countries at once and not only come out victorious, but it did so in an absolutely dominating fashion. Israel also has the US as an ally, and a gigantic nuclear arsenal.
Therefore from a military perspective there is no realistic threat to the State of Israel. There is only a threat to some people of Israel at any given time due to terrorist attacks. That is an issue, but it's not something that requires bombarding Gaza.
Furthermore, none of these ME countries have engaged in warfare with Israel since 1982. As I said the 2006 war doesn't count because it was not against the state of Lebanon, it was against Hezbollah. This means there haven't been any signs of aggression by ME countries in the last 40 years. It is not a coincidence that these countries are all not oppressed by Israel, while the only area (Gaza) which directs serious aggression towards Israel is in fact oppressed.
The "fight for existence" argument is on very shaky grounds. It also somehow happens to be a claim that all bloodthirsty oppressors always make, and it never turns out to be true. Palestinians, much more than Israelis, could argue that they're fighting for their existence, because their land is being actively stolen and their houses are being bombarded.

5) Cerebrate claimed that Israel's strikes are pre-emptive because "the Arabs" are "building up to a war".
Quote:
"Unless you count pre-emptive strikes as the Arabs muster for war, Israel is not the one that starts those up."
Oh, pre-emptive missile strikes can prevent a war? So ME countries or "the Arabs" have the capacity to seriously threaten Israel? But no wait, they actually don't have the capacity because Israel can just shoot down their weapons from afar? Incredible. Brilliant. That's an awfully convenient combination of strength and weakness both at the same time.
Does this remind people of something? The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. I'm reminded of another conflict in which people always apply the same reasoning.
Cerebrate of course provided no evidence of "the Arabs" building up for war.

Meanwhile Israel is actively engaging in warfare against Palestinians, a war that is yet again completely dominated by the overwhelming power of the IDF.
This again leads back to the claim that Israel has to somehow be afraid of a multi-pronged attack from several directions. Oh really, is that why so much of Israel's military is tangled up in Gaza right now? Because Israel's back is so open and vulnerable? Interesting, fascinating.

6) Quote:
"I agree with you that great leaders are not always the things that create movements. Quite often, popular movements simply thrust someone into the lead of what the people were already were headed towards. The issue with Palestine is that there is neither a great peaceful leader nor any popular movement of peace. There are dozens of different ways to start a non-violent movement and none of those is happening or has ever happened to any real degree in Palestine."

This claim yet again tactically misleads by reframing history.
Since the conception of the State of Israel (and before) there have been a number of Palestinian leaders who were willing to come to the table on peaceful terms. However, since day one the more aggressive Palestinian resistance groups were actively undermining these efforts. After the State of Israel was conceived, the Israeli leaders have made no attempts to negotiate or make any other diplomatic efforts with any Palestinian leaders to continue debating a two-state solution. The debate was strictly over. This was in spite of neither Jews nor Palestinians generally being at fault for the escalation of the tensions that led to the Zionist takeover.
The State of Israel has since never had a movement to seriously consider negotiating with Palestinians on eye-to-eye terms. It is unsurprising that Palestinians could therefore not be expected to peacefully surrender the lost land, and therefore the tensions continued. Eventually this led to an (actual) war between Israel and several other ME countries, which Israel won convincingly. And yet again Israel engaged in the same acts of aggression as before: stealing land.
With such a consistent history of land being stolen from them, it's completely understandable that Palestinians by and large saw Israel as an aggressor that can't be reasoned with.
Cerebrate however attempts to put blame squarely on the Palestinians yet again.


I could go on and on about how he's been doing this the whole time. Reframing history, sometimes straight up inventing facts that paint Palestinians as aggressive and unreasonable without making a single mention of Israel's own unreasonable aggression.


* = Notes from me, not part of the quote

From the 1880s to the 1930s, most Jewish land purchases were made in the coastal plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley and to a lesser extent the Galilee.[11] This was due to a preference for land that was cheap and without tenants.[11] There were two main reasons why these areas were sparsely populated. The first reason being when the Ottoman power in the rural areas began to diminish in the seventeenth century, many people moved to more centralized areas to secure protection against the Bedouin tribes.[11] The second reason for the sparsely populated areas of the coastal plains was the soil type. The soil, covered in a layer of sand, made it impossible to grow the staple crop of Palestine, corn.[11] As a result, this area remained uncultivated and underpopulated.[5] "The sparse Arab population in the areas where the Jews usually bought their land enabled the Jews to carry out their purchase without engendering a massive displacement and eviction of Arab tenants".[11]

In the 1930s, most of the land was bought from landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, 52.6% were bought from non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian landowners, 13.4% from government, churches, and foreign companies, and only 9.4% from fellaheen (farmers).[14]

On 31 December 1944, out of 1,732.63 dunums of land owned in Palestine by large Jewish Corporations and private owners, about 44% was in possession of Jewish National Fund. The table below shows the land ownership of Palestine by large Jewish Corporations (in square kilometres) on 31 December 1945.

On December 04 2023 06:16 KwarK wrote:
The idea that “it wasn’t stolen from the people living there for generations because the new occupants had the legitimate ownership obtained from the British colonial administration” seems a bit of a stretch. I wonder how many people making that argument unconditionally accept British ownership rules elsewhere. My suspicion is that in general they don’t recognize the authority of the British colonial administration to declare who owns land but that in this instance it’s convenient to make an exception.