|
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. |
Yes, there were and still are some conflicts about things in the region to this day. How exactly does that prove that British colonial authorities were 'legitimate' or how their decisions about borders should be respected?
|
Hm. I wasn't expecting you to be siding with the "actually the British authority to draw lines on a map is questionable" side of the argument. So kudos for that.
But indeed, none of those countries are particularly happy with the borders that the English and French drew on a map. It's a bit of a difficult situation, because for instance when I was in Jordan and spoke to Jordanian bedouins, they said that their ancestors made far larger migration routes than they can today. They don't really understand why the concept of borders are even necessary in the first place, when they share kinship with bedouin tribes in Palestina, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen. The borders were drawn up, and suddenly wherever they happened to be at the time, *that* was the country they were given statehood. Many bedouins don't recognize the state's authority, and the state (in Jordan at least) has ongoing issues with figuring out how to make a modern nation-state work with migratory lifestyle of bedouin tribes. Long story short: their solution seems to be to pay them a lot of money if they build a house and decide to live there instead of moving around in a tent. There's plenty of discrimination as well, with people in the city resenting the amount of money and effort spent on the Bedouins, and the Bedouins resenting how more and more unnecessary restrictions are placed on their lifestyle.
Drawing lines on a map and then installing a monarch has been the British way of doing foreign policy since at least the Napoleonic war, and it didn't even work then, in Europe, so I'm surprised people point to the colonies and say "you see, if you reject British authority, you need to reject those borders" as if that isn't exactly what has been happening by locals since those lines were drawn on a map.
|
On December 04 2023 16:19 Salazarz wrote:Yes, there were and still are some conflicts about things in the region to this day. How exactly does that prove that British colonial authorities were 'legitimate' or how their decisions about borders should be respected?
No need to be hostile, I think he's agreeing with you and offering further supporting evidence.
|
I'm really confused by you guys. He's said multiple times he's not arguing about whether the borders upheld by current international law are morally justifiable, he's simply stating what they are and where they came from. He's about as cut and dry about this as you can possibly be, I don't understand. Is there a separate set of borders that the international community acknowledges in terms of legal territory that are not based on the Brits that we don't know about?
If you want to say fuck it to the Brit-drawn borders that everyone operates with that's fine, but then you're not discussing the same thing anymore.
|
Northern Ireland24385 Posts
Somewhat understandable (at times) fractiousness aside cheers folks for the well-articulated, often well-sourced posts that have often graced this thread. Have gleaned both some new perspectives from a both moral angles, as well as some raw facts and chronology, so thanks for that.
Guilty myself of plenty of pissiness and bad posting so can’t go full ‘ma, pa stop fighting’ on it but if we could avoid the circular arguments and a tendency to take the least possible generous interpretations of each other’s posts, that would be great.
But thanks for all the effort in discussing this difficult topic, as circumstance and routine leave me pretty much leaning solely on TL for coverage of this and the Russian/Ukrainian conflict, I don’t feel too ignorant despite leaning on a StarCraft forum for my geopolitics!
|
Northern Ireland24385 Posts
On December 04 2023 16:33 Acrofales wrote:Hm. I wasn't expecting you to be siding with the "actually the British authority to draw lines on a map is questionable" side of the argument. So kudos for that. But indeed, none of those countries are particularly happy with the borders that the English and French drew on a map. It's a bit of a difficult situation, because for instance when I was in Jordan and spoke to Jordanian bedouins, they said that their ancestors made far larger migration routes than they can today. They don't really understand why the concept of borders are even necessary in the first place, when they share kinship with bedouin tribes in Palestina, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen. The borders were drawn up, and suddenly wherever they happened to be at the time, *that* was the country they were given statehood. Many bedouins don't recognize the state's authority, and the state (in Jordan at least) has ongoing issues with figuring out how to make a modern nation-state work with migratory lifestyle of bedouin tribes. Long story short: their solution seems to be to pay them a lot of money if they build a house and decide to live there instead of moving around in a tent. There's plenty of discrimination as well, with people in the city resenting the amount of money and effort spent on the Bedouins, and the Bedouins resenting how more and more unnecessary restrictions are placed on their lifestyle. Drawing lines on a map and then installing a monarch has been the British way of doing foreign policy since at least the Napoleonic war, and it didn't even work then, in Europe, so I'm surprised people point to the colonies and say "you see, if you reject British authority, you need to reject those borders" as if that isn't exactly what has been happening by locals since those lines were drawn on a map.
As an off-topic aside are there any similarities between the Bedouins and European-based more nomadic peoples? Be that the Roma or Irish travellers?
Not a people I know very much about at all, but based on your post it sounds that there may be some pretty direct parallels. In the friction that not really considering oneself first and foremost a citizen of a nation, having a different lifestyle causes with folks of a more static, nation state kind of identity. And the quite hostile views from the latter group to the former.
|
On December 04 2023 16:43 Ryzel wrote:
I'm really confused by you guys. He's said multiple times he's not arguing about whether the borders upheld by current international law are morally justifiable, he's simply stating what they are and where they came from. He's about as cut and dry about this as you can possibly be, I don't understand. Is there a separate set of borders that the international community acknowledges in terms of legal territory that are not based on the Brits that we don't know about?
If you want to say fuck it to the Brit-drawn borders that everyone operates with that's fine, but then you're not discussing the same thing anymore.
The point seemed to be that the surrounding countries had accepted the British lines on a map as their borders, so the Palestinians should suck it up and do the same. That point is contested: surrounding countries aren't necessarily very accepting of the lines the Brits drew on a map.
Moreover, the international community isn't an authority on borders. Nor are borders unmoving lines. If Jordan and Iraq decided tomorrow, mutually, to merge into a single nation, the international community would shrug and move on. Similarly, they shrugged and moved on when South Sudan gained independence from Sudan. Or Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia.
Sudanese people didn't have to accept British lines on a map in perpetuity. I don't know why you'd argue that Palestinians, who rejected those lines on a map when they were drawn, should be forced to accept those lines on a map, when other peoples have been shown to get those lines redrawn (generally after decades of bloody civil war: a testament to how well those British lines on a map work).
E: and just to be clear, Israel doesn't accept the British lines on a map either. They don't even accept the 1967 border, let alone the 1948 one.
|
On December 04 2023 17:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2023 16:43 Ryzel wrote:
I'm really confused by you guys. He's said multiple times he's not arguing about whether the borders upheld by current international law are morally justifiable, he's simply stating what they are and where they came from. He's about as cut and dry about this as you can possibly be, I don't understand. Is there a separate set of borders that the international community acknowledges in terms of legal territory that are not based on the Brits that we don't know about?
If you want to say fuck it to the Brit-drawn borders that everyone operates with that's fine, but then you're not discussing the same thing anymore. The point seemed to be that the surrounding countries had accepted the British lines on a map as their borders, so the Palestinians should suck it up and do the same. That point is contested: surrounding countries aren't necessarily very accepting of the lines the Brits drew on a map. Moreover, the international community isn't an authority on borders. Nor are borders unmoving lines. If Jordan and Iraq decided tomorrow, mutually, to merge into a single nation, the international community would shrug and move on. Similarly, they shrugged and moved on when South Sudan gained independence from Sudan. Or Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia. Sudanese people didn't have to accept British lines on a map in perpetuity. I don't know why you'd argue that Palestinians, who rejected those lines on a map when they were drawn, should be forced to accept those lines on a map, when other peoples have been shown to get those lines redrawn (generally after decades of bloody civil war: a testament to how well those British lines on a map work)
Even if the countries themselves are, the populations disagree, proof being daesh, the population from the two shores of the jourdain are the same and revolted against their respective nation.
|
On December 04 2023 17:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2023 16:33 Acrofales wrote:Hm. I wasn't expecting you to be siding with the "actually the British authority to draw lines on a map is questionable" side of the argument. So kudos for that. But indeed, none of those countries are particularly happy with the borders that the English and French drew on a map. It's a bit of a difficult situation, because for instance when I was in Jordan and spoke to Jordanian bedouins, they said that their ancestors made far larger migration routes than they can today. They don't really understand why the concept of borders are even necessary in the first place, when they share kinship with bedouin tribes in Palestina, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen. The borders were drawn up, and suddenly wherever they happened to be at the time, *that* was the country they were given statehood. Many bedouins don't recognize the state's authority, and the state (in Jordan at least) has ongoing issues with figuring out how to make a modern nation-state work with migratory lifestyle of bedouin tribes. Long story short: their solution seems to be to pay them a lot of money if they build a house and decide to live there instead of moving around in a tent. There's plenty of discrimination as well, with people in the city resenting the amount of money and effort spent on the Bedouins, and the Bedouins resenting how more and more unnecessary restrictions are placed on their lifestyle. Drawing lines on a map and then installing a monarch has been the British way of doing foreign policy since at least the Napoleonic war, and it didn't even work then, in Europe, so I'm surprised people point to the colonies and say "you see, if you reject British authority, you need to reject those borders" as if that isn't exactly what has been happening by locals since those lines were drawn on a map. As an off-topic aside are there any similarities between the Bedouins and European-based more nomadic peoples? Be that the Roma or Irish travellers? Not a people I know very much about at all, but based on your post it sounds that there may be some pretty direct parallels. In the friction that not really considering oneself first and foremost a citizen of a nation, having a different lifestyle causes with folks of a more static, nation state kind of identity. And the quite hostile views from the latter group to the former.
We can DM about this if you like. I don't think I know enough about Bedouins, Roma or Irish Travellers to be of much help. The Bedouins are definitely different from Roma in the sense that they are the same ethnicity as the people in the city: they are all Arabs. So there's no racial component to the divide. Just cultural. Insofar as I know, there is nobody arguing that Bedouins should be rounded up and forcibly settled into housing (or thrown out of the country). It's just that there's a mutual resentment from how the country's resources get spent. I think everyone acknowledges Bedouins right to be there as well as their ancestral claims to the land. Some just wish they'd give up their "archaic" lifestyle and modernize. Whereas people living that "archaic" lifestyle wish for less hurdles to jump through when doing so.
|
This will be my longest comment so far. I must apologize for taking up this much space, it won't happen again. If Cerebrate and I can't reach any kind of consensus, I'll leave it at that.
@Cerebrate
Quote:
“@Magic Powers, I'm a bit bothered that your whole working thesis right now is Cerebrate = bad and it's probably better for me just to not engage, but some of your sub-points actually do address the content of my posts, so I'll bite for the good of the community.”
My “working thesis” as you call it is that you misrepresent history to paint a false pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian/anti-Arab narrative. I don’t believe you’re evil for doing so, but I do very strongly believe your bias drives you to invent history and twist it, and to put information into a false/irrelevant context, and in doing so you paint a pro-Israel narrative that has little to do with reality.
I don’t know why people claim that you’re doing so much fact-checking here. And I also don’t know why we’re supposedly “being emotional”.
There’s a big difference between saying something that is factual as opposed to saying something that is truthful. Truth relies not only on facts, but also on meaningful and complete context. Without the right context, facts can distort reality better than some lies could.
You’re engaged in fact-checking insofar as you’re presenting facts. When it comes to context, you fail very often. Some of the things you said are akin to saying “years ago you were making good money with a good job” in response to someone saying “I’ve been unemployed for years and living off of my spouse’s income” and expecting that this would somehow change anything. You state factually correct things that lack necessary context, and you end up misrepresenting reality this way. It pisses me off, and then you ask why I’m pissed off.
And then you simplify handwave it away as me seeing you as the bad guy. No, I don’t see you as the bad guy. I see you as the guy who constantly puts things into a bad context and in this way misrepresents historic events.
Quote:
“Your larger point here is basically "who started it." This is a bit hard to pin down in this conflict because each side did things that the other reacted to. You're basically just coming from the Palestinian perspective, and me from the Israeli. Neither is strictly wrong, it's just a matter of perspective.
My point here though was that the security fence and checkpoints reduce deaths (really from both sides cus the terrorists don't get the chance to suicide bomb), which has been shown statistically to be effective.”
I don’t know why the fact that Apartheid has reduced deaths is relevant to the larger point. It is still Apartheid, and it was born out of illegal settlements. The aggressor in this case is the State of Israel and its illegal settlers. Palestinians are the victims. This is the conclusion when the complete context is considered. So whatever it is that you’re trying to say, it’s entirely irrelevant to the larger debate.
Quote:
“Your quote that I was responding to was "that Israel has never attempted to not oppress Palestinians." This is an example of my fact checking a specific point rather than trying to make some sweeping statement. You can't accurately say that Israel NEVER tried not oppressing the Palestinians, when the first 2 decades of their existence, they pretty clearly didn't do that. If you want to say "recently" we could have a different discussion, but you can't use words like "never" and then just ignore sizable chunks of history.”
That is another example of you stating something that may be more factual than what I said, but not truthful. You’re only disputing that the State of Israel was consistently evil. You made no mention of this being irrelevant to the conflict at large. And it is irrelevant, because by and large Israel has been evil. And this is only if I accept your claim as correct to begin with.
I could also look into the things that were done against Palestinians during that “peaceful” period to dismantle your point completely, as I have done with several other claims of yours.
So let me do a fact-check on your fact-check:
“If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nablus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated. The centre of Palestinian life shifted to the Arab towns of the hilly eastern portion of the region—which was immediately west of the Jordan River and came to be called the West Bank.“
“Approximately 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel when the Israeli state was founded. This group represented about one-eighth of all Palestinians and by 1952 roughly the same proportion of the Israeli population. The majority of them lived in villages in western Galilee. Because much of their land was confiscated, Arabs were forced to abandon agriculture and become unskilled wage labourers, working in Jewish industries and construction companies. As citizens of the State of Israel, in theory they were guaranteed equal religious and civil rights with Jews. In reality, however, until 1966 they lived under a military jurisdiction that imposed severe restrictions on their political options and freedom of movement. Most of them remained politically quiescent, and many acquiesced to the reality of an Israel governed according to the ideology of Zionism. Many also sought to ameliorate their circumstances through electoral participation, education, and economic integration.
Israel sought to impede the development of a cohesive national consciousness among the Palestinians by dealing with various minority groups, such as Druze, Circassians, and Bedouin; by hindering the work of the Muslim religious organizations; by arresting and harassing individuals suspected of harbouring nationalist sentiments; and by focusing on education as a means of creating a new Israeli Arab identity. By the late 1960s, as agriculture declined and social customs related to such events as bride selection and marriage broke down, the old patriarchal clan system had all but collapsed. For almost 20 years after Israel was established, Palestinian citizens of Israel were isolated from other Arabs.”
There’s far too much to quote, a lot more damning evidence. Feel free to read the whole article.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine/Palestine-and-the-Palestinians-1948-67
Quote:
“This is another example of me fact checking your specific wording. I basically dealt with all of your points here already in my earlier lengthy post, but in short: your thesis was that "only oppressed people fight Israel," but you attempt to prove that by saying that "proper nation states haven't officially gone to war with Israel" which is a far cry from "no one fights Israel" in a region where half the armed groups aren't armies of internationally recognized countries.”
No, I didn’t say “only oppressed people fight Israel”. I argued that the reason why Palestinians specifically have a reason to attack Israel is because they’re oppressed by Israel. That is their cause. I didn’t say that other groups or countries never showed aggression or gone to war for other reasons. I contested the idea that Palestinians aren’t resisting against oppression, that Hamas is born out of nothing but extremism (they are extremists, but I would argue that most Hamas members see themselves as resistance fighters against an oppressive enemy, and I'd argue their perception of Israel is fairly accurate). I wanted to demonstrate the strong correlation between oppression and the resulting terrorism. Because people have been arguing that a group such as Hamas would exist regardless of any oppression of Palestinians. I wanted to show that this claim is baseless.
Quote:
“I think "never underestimate your enemy (especially if he makes it clear that he very much wants to kill you)" is a pretty fair line here, especially given Oct 7 literally just happened because Israel underestimated Hamas. Could Israel win another regional war? I agree that their odds aren't terrible. Do they want to create a situation that is ripe for that though? Hopefully we can all agree that war is generally bad for just about everyone and avoiding it in the first place is a good idea. Besides for which, I'm not sure "you promise not to go to war with us 5 minutes after your founding" is an unreasonable prerequisite for a two state solution.“
Yes, we can agree that war is generally bad for just about everyone and it should be avoided. That is why I’m arguing that the IDF should withdraw and stop bombarding Gaza. They’re engaging in warfare, and they should not be doing that.
Quote:
“I said "Unless you count pre-emptive strikes as the Arabs muster for war, Israel is not the one that starts those up." (Nothing to do with the comparative strength of those forces in my quote btw, not sure where you got that.) I understand that you believe that non-military action is equivalent to starting a war, but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to hold that they aren't. That said, every war that I can think of backs up my quote:
1948: 5+ Arab states invaded Israel
1967: Israel pre-emptive strike as Arab forces were mobilizing for war
1973: Arab states surprise invasion of Israel
1982: PLO attacks Israel from Lebanon
2006: Hezbollah takes Israeli soldiers hostage
2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023: Hamas variously fires rockets, takes hostages, makes incursions into Israel and kills people, etc
You might be able to argue one or two of these, but the general pattern that the non-Israel side is the one who starts the military engagements is pretty clear.”
Again you’re leaving out relevant context. The 1948 war was a direct result of the tensions. There were no “good guys”. Israel was no better than the Arab nations that attacked Israel.
1967 was a pre-emptive strike, but in the aftermath Israel somehow failed to prove that they were actually the good guys, by occupying the West bank and stealing Palestinian land. If Israel hadn’t done that, you could argue that they were strictly defending. But with this additional piece of information we know that Israel engaged in war crimes by stealing occupied land. So yet again relevant context being left out. It doesn't really matter that the State of Israel was only in hindsight so clearly proven to still be evil, what matters is that they were, and therefore it's fairly hard to argue that Israel was just playing nice the whole time and being attacked by aggressive nations.
Israel is not the good guy in any of this. Never was. Many - but of course not all - of the tensions and conflicts that followed can be explained by that. Israel is not any more innocent than the Arab states.
You fail to see that. In your mind the State of Israel has had a meaningful period of innocence. I strongly disagree. I believe that is pro-Israel propaganda.
Quote:
“Your rationalization of why Palestinians haven't taken peaceful routes is not contradictory to my statement that they haven't taken peaceful routes. I've acknowledged before that they may have reason to be violent.”
May? Not “may”, but “do”. If you think Palestinians only “may” have reason to be violent, but Israel “does” have reason to be violent, then you’re letting your pro-Israel bias cloud your judgement.
Quote:
“Your claim that "there have been a number of Palestinian leaders who were willing to come to the table on peaceful terms" is more interesting to me though. Perhaps you have more information on this point than I do. If you can legitimately provide sources about these peaceful leaders, I would revise my stance.”
It's not possible for me to name any names, because records of these people aren't available to me. But these leaders were present during the entirety of the tensions. As I explained they were overshadowed by the radical and violent factions that made damn sure that no peaceful resolution could be found. That makes it hard find names, as they had very little political sway.
The violent factions eventually called for Jihad and the annihilation of the Jews in the Palestine region. The violence escalated on both sides and it was further fueled by the deals the Zionists made with Britain. It has been argued by some that the Zionists had greater plans of later expanding their territory.
What is known is that the UN partition plan was inherently unfair. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
“The Arab state was to have a territory of 11,100 square kilometres (42%), the Jewish state (territory — 14,100 square kilometres, or 56%), the towns of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and the adjourning area — 2%”
“The proposed plan was considered to have been pro-Zionist by its detractors, with 56% of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish population. The plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine and reluctantly accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings. Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands. They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.”
This is very important information as is explains why the violence against Jews overshadowed the negotiations. And the Zionists with their deals also had a hand in the escalation.
|
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
|
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
I very much doubt so. As long as Israel has the US support there is no reason for them to stop what they're doing, they're not threatened in any way. You would need Bibi out of power before anything can happen, and as I've read in the NYT that Israel had known about Hamas' plan for a whole year that might just happen, but there's no reason to believe that Bibi is some sort of special evil dude and not part of a system that produces consistent results; I wouldn't bet on the notion that the next guy will be substantially different. And of course there'll always be a palestinian reaction to Israel's actions so Hamas or another terrorist organisation with a different name will continue.
|
United States42250 Posts
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
No, they’re fucked.
|
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
Yes, I think something can be done. The first step that is required, I believe, is for the US to threaten a complete withdrawal of all military aid. This would put Israel under very serious pressure, as they rely on US aid and military presence for the defense of their borders and far beyond. Under that pressure Israel would be forced to cave to demands made by allied nations. The US has a history of condemning the settlements, and, if Israel's hand is forced in that regard, that could move the pieces into a direction of liberation of Palestinian people. If liberation becomes plausible, Palestinian leaders would feel more incentivized to drop their radical rhetoric and negotiate on equal terms with Israel's leaders.
I don't think this is very realistically going to happen, but it's one of the least unrealistic scenarios. The reason is that I think Israel will only listen to external pressure. Their rhetoric has been that the existence of Israel is threatened. If the US were to completely withdraw military support, that threat would become serious and not just a fantasy rhetoric that justifies atrocities by the IDF. In other words, Israelis need to feel what it means to be militarily stranded. Then they'd be much more likely to put heavy pressure on their own leaders, and something could be done to put an end to decades of extremist Zionist policies.
From the Palestinians' point of view I think nothing at all can realistically be done. They have no good means to impact any policies from anyone that would move the needle towards liberation. They're stuck in a vicious cycle that can only be stopped externally.
Why do I believe this? Because funding for Hamas and other extremist groups into Gaza or elsewhere isn't going to stop. As much as I blame Israel, so do I also blame Arab nations funding extremism.
Pressure from the US differs insofar as they have their own history of liberation. From ending slavery and racial segregation to withdrawing from war zones, it's been a relatively consistent record. There's a slim possibility that this trend could extend to US-Israel affairs.
|
On December 04 2023 21:09 gobbledydook wrote:
Putting aside history, which we cannot change, is there anything that can be done, that will ensure a lasting peace from now on, where extremists from both sides cannot sabotage it?
Mass foreign occupation in a south Korea Japan Germany style where a foreign power sits on it for half a century and puts down any dissent by force as the foundations of the region are root and branch removed in favor of the best practices of the day.
It will not happen modern times has no more solutions for the worlds problems as no one cares enough to solve them.
|
On December 04 2023 06:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +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. @Ryzel I think the term "Apartheid" fits in method and outcome. I'm not so interested in proving intent to be honest. Is there a major issue with the term that would require us to use a different one?Regarding the distinction between "resistance" and "terror", that is a very important point. Thanks for mentioning. I think a distinction is often not being made and both are just being lumped together. Pro-Palestinian voices would call it all "resistance", while pro-Israel voices would call it all "terror". I think that's too simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups. But not every form of violent resistance can be equated to terrorism.
Uhh I guess not. The meaningful thing is that there is institutionalized segregation based on ethnicity, which does seem to be happening in the West Bank.
Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this mound of information that seems pretty relevant. Don’t have time to parse it all but it looks like it has a lot of facts.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/west-bank-and-gaza/
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to ask the people who oppose the term "Apartheid" to propose a more fitting term, one that encompasses the whole of the West bank situation keeping the settlers apart from the Palestinian population. All of the rules and checkpoints, roads, walls, barb wire, security cameras, etc. I'm not going to use a different term until we've found a more accurate one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
