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 January 12 2024 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: While continuing my journey to understand this dynamic, I was discussing it with a friend and made a hilarious connection.
People who follow this conflict through tweets and headlines love to frame it as "colonialism" or some sort of unnatural disruption. The general accusation is that Palestine is some sort of eternal cornerstone of indigenous identity and that Jews relied on their evil imperialist allies to mirror the events of Europeans wiping out native Americans.
There is an easy reference to be made to Palestine's creation.
Version 1.0 of the Israel/Judah/etc was around 900 BC
Eventually Jews got back what was then called Judea. Same'ish area with trims here and there.
Later on, after Jews tried to rebel against Romans, 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled, and sold into slavery, and Judea was renamed as "Syria Palaestina". But even after that happened, Jews did not become a minority in Palestine until around 400 CE.
The idea that an extensive erasure campaign against Jews, including renaming Judea to further erase the identity, was what came before Palestine makes it feel remarkably dishonest when people try to frame Palestine as some sort of historic cornerstone. Not only were Jews and the identity of Judah/Israel/Judea established as large nations in exactly that region way before Palestine, but they continued to live there ever since. Its not like Jews were spending most of their time in Japan and then suddenly they decided the middle east might have nice weather.
In the post I linked above, I describe how this region was conquered numerous times and lots of different folks came came and went. Giving Jews the least possible credit, it could be described as "actively contested" territory since 900 BC. But the idea that Jews are in any way some sort of foreign, unnatural, or artificial presence in the region is hilarious.
Jews have been fighting for this land for a super, super long time. To the point where I still say its best to wrap things up and just move to North Dakota. But it needs to be abundantly clear that if there is any sort of "historic claim" to this land, there is no world where it is "Palestinian" rather than "Jewish". Its not like Jews just had a single kingdom and that was it. By my count, there have been 3 separate, major Jewish kingdoms in the region since 900 BC.
You do realise that a lot of those people who were Jews in Roman times and before converted to Islam and are now called Palestinians, right? It's not as if anything distinguishses the modern-day Palestinians and modern-day Mizrahi jews other than what God they believe in.
The reason people call it colonialism is because the large population influx after 1947 is from "settlers" who have no ties to the middle-east at all beyond some vague idea about the promised land. Would you be as willing to agree with a few million Irish Americans showing up in Kerry to caim they have a right to half the land there because a few centuries ago their ancestors were from there?
Now I'm not saying the modern-day Israelis don't have a right to live there. Most were born there and have as much right to live there as modern-day Palestinians. Not less, but not more either. They need to share. Neither side wants to do that...
Yes, whether it was Babylonians, Persians, Romans, or whoever, there was always someone else who also wanted to move there and control the land and whatnot. My whole point is that the history of this specific chunk of land is complicated, diverse, and has shifted significantly many times. But the one thing that many people seem to either be unaware of or choose to ignore is that it absolutely had a huge Jewish population and Jewish identity many times. The idea that Jewish identity was artificially inserted and did not have history in the region is entirely wrong.
The distinction of where they came from and when they got there is supremely dumb. The point is that they have come and gone at various points in history and enormous kingdoms have existed there with a distinct Jewish identity many times. Jews wanting a state is reasonable. They have done it before an they want it again. And also, other people also want it.
Can you help me better understand which Jews you are saying can rightfully live in Israel and which can't? Since we have established many Jews have lived there for over 1000 years, I am having a hard time understanding the distinction you are making between which are morally acceptable and which are not.
I'd also like you to elaborate on your views on when it is reasonable to move somewhere relative to existing risks where someone is currently living. Let me copy paste a bit of my previous post here pertaining to reasons someone might want to move to Israel and live in a firmly Jewish state:
Part 3: The modern'ish history of Jewish states and the lead up to what we currently understand as Zionism:
In the 16th century, Jews were formally considered less than Muslims, but the extent to which this was enforced varied significantly by region. During certain times, and in certain areas, many Jews were entirely expelled from their homes and forced to relocate. This eventually led to an attempt to just establish a safe haven where they could just do their own thing and have their own land. They tried to have that place be what was then known as Palestine, since that was where they tended to live historically.
In the 17th century, the next major movement to establish a safe haven for Jews was tried again because there was a ton of violence against Jews in central Europe. After a large scale attempt to eradicate all Jews, ~33% of all Jews in the region were killed and there was a fresh interest in establishing a safe haven that they could defend and feel safe.
In the 19th century, antisemitism and hostility toward Jews was growing in Europe. Prior to this large rise in antisemitism, interest in establishing a new Jewish state was very unpopular among “high ranking” Jews due to the history of being wiped out so many times in the past. But with Europe becoming more and more unsafe for Jews, popularity grew, eventually leading to it being brought to a vote among a conference of rabbis within Europe. Individual efforts supported the emigration of groups of Jews to Palestine, but it only gained an official endorsement among Jewish groups in 1897, where a vote was approved to more formally begin an effort to emigrate to Palestine and re-establish a Jewish state.
Does this history provide reasonable context for a Jew in 1947 to feel an incentive to move to Israel? I want to better understand when it is and when it is not appropriate for someone to move to Israel in your eyes and how history plays into it.
On January 12 2024 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: While continuing my journey to understand this dynamic, I was discussing it with a friend and made a hilarious connection.
People who follow this conflict through tweets and headlines love to frame it as "colonialism" or some sort of unnatural disruption. The general accusation is that Palestine is some sort of eternal cornerstone of indigenous identity and that Jews relied on their evil imperialist allies to mirror the events of Europeans wiping out native Americans.
There is an easy reference to be made to Palestine's creation.
Version 1.0 of the Israel/Judah/etc was around 900 BC
Eventually Jews got back what was then called Judea. Same'ish area with trims here and there.
Later on, after Jews tried to rebel against Romans, 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled, and sold into slavery, and Judea was renamed as "Syria Palaestina". But even after that happened, Jews did not become a minority in Palestine until around 400 CE.
The idea that an extensive erasure campaign against Jews, including renaming Judea to further erase the identity, was what came before Palestine makes it feel remarkably dishonest when people try to frame Palestine as some sort of historic cornerstone. Not only were Jews and the identity of Judah/Israel/Judea established as large nations in exactly that region way before Palestine, but they continued to live there ever since. Its not like Jews were spending most of their time in Japan and then suddenly they decided the middle east might have nice weather.
In the post I linked above, I describe how this region was conquered numerous times and lots of different folks came came and went. Giving Jews the least possible credit, it could be described as "actively contested" territory since 900 BC. But the idea that Jews are in any way some sort of foreign, unnatural, or artificial presence in the region is hilarious.
Jews have been fighting for this land for a super, super long time. To the point where I still say its best to wrap things up and just move to North Dakota. But it needs to be abundantly clear that if there is any sort of "historic claim" to this land, there is no world where it is "Palestinian" rather than "Jewish". Its not like Jews just had a single kingdom and that was it. By my count, there have been 3 separate, major Jewish kingdoms in the region since 900 BC.
You do realise that a lot of those people who were Jews in Roman times and before converted to Islam and are now called Palestinians, right? It's not as if anything distinguishses the modern-day Palestinians and modern-day Mizrahi jews other than what God they believe in.
The reason people call it colonialism is because the large population influx after 1947 is from "settlers" who have no ties to the middle-east at all beyond some vague idea about the promised land. Would you be as willing to agree with a few million Irish Americans showing up in Kerry to caim they have a right to half the land there because a few centuries ago their ancestors were from there?
Now I'm not saying the modern-day Israelis don't have a right to live there. Most were born there and have as much right to live there as modern-day Palestinians. Not less, but not more either. They need to share. Neither side wants to do that...
Yes, whether it was Babylonians, Persians, Romans, or whoever, there was always someone else who also wanted to move there and control the land and whatnot. My whole point is that the history of this specific chunk of land is complicated, diverse, and has shifted significantly many times. But the one thing that many people seem to either be unaware of or choose to ignore is that it absolutely had a huge Jewish population and Jewish identity many times. The idea that Jewish identity was artificially inserted and did not have history in the region is entirely wrong.
The distinction of where they came from and when they got there is supremely dumb. The point is that they have come and gone at various points in history and enormous kingdoms have existed there with a distinct Jewish identity many times. Jews wanting a state is reasonable. They have done it before an they want it again. And also, other people also want it.
Can you help me better understand which Jews you are saying can rightfully live in Israel and which can't? Since we have established many Jews have lived there for over 1000 years, I am having a hard time understanding the distinction you are making between which are morally acceptable and which are not.
I'd also like you to elaborate on your views on when it is reasonable to move somewhere relative to existing risks where someone is currently living. Let me copy paste a bit of my previous post here pertaining to reasons someone might want to move to Israel and live in a firmly Jewish state:
Part 3: The modern'ish history of Jewish states and the lead up to what we currently understand as Zionism:
In the 16th century, Jews were formally considered less than Muslims, but the extent to which this was enforced varied significantly by region. During certain times, and in certain areas, many Jews were entirely expelled from their homes and forced to relocate. This eventually led to an attempt to just establish a safe haven where they could just do their own thing and have their own land. They tried to have that place be what was then known as Palestine, since that was where they tended to live historically.
In the 17th century, the next major movement to establish a safe haven for Jews was tried again because there was a ton of violence against Jews in central Europe. After a large scale attempt to eradicate all Jews, ~33% of all Jews in the region were killed and there was a fresh interest in establishing a safe haven that they could defend and feel safe.
In the 19th century, antisemitism and hostility toward Jews was growing in Europe. Prior to this large rise in antisemitism, interest in establishing a new Jewish state was very unpopular among “high ranking” Jews due to the history of being wiped out so many times in the past. But with Europe becoming more and more unsafe for Jews, popularity grew, eventually leading to it being brought to a vote among a conference of rabbis within Europe. Individual efforts supported the emigration of groups of Jews to Palestine, but it only gained an official endorsement among Jewish groups in 1897, where a vote was approved to more formally begin an effort to emigrate to Palestine and re-establish a Jewish state.
Does this history provide reasonable context for a Jew in 1947 to feel an incentive to move to Israel? I want to better understand when it is and when it is not appropriate for someone to move to Israel in your eyes and how history plays into it.
I'm not trying to assert anything about what Jews do or don't have a right to live there. I'm mainly asserting that any historical reasoning why Jews can live there applies equally or more to Palestinians.
I also don't think it's particularly useful to refer to Biblical timespans to justify why they have a right to be there. A Sephardic jew who is the grandson of someone who moved there post-WW2 has no more or less right to make a life there than a Palestinian whose greatgrandparents herded goats there.
On January 12 2024 06:08 Mohdoo wrote: While continuing my journey to understand this dynamic, I was discussing it with a friend and made a hilarious connection.
People who follow this conflict through tweets and headlines love to frame it as "colonialism" or some sort of unnatural disruption. The general accusation is that Palestine is some sort of eternal cornerstone of indigenous identity and that Jews relied on their evil imperialist allies to mirror the events of Europeans wiping out native Americans.
There is an easy reference to be made to Palestine's creation.
Version 1.0 of the Israel/Judah/etc was around 900 BC
Eventually Jews got back what was then called Judea. Same'ish area with trims here and there.
Later on, after Jews tried to rebel against Romans, 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled, and sold into slavery, and Judea was renamed as "Syria Palaestina". But even after that happened, Jews did not become a minority in Palestine until around 400 CE.
The idea that an extensive erasure campaign against Jews, including renaming Judea to further erase the identity, was what came before Palestine makes it feel remarkably dishonest when people try to frame Palestine as some sort of historic cornerstone. Not only were Jews and the identity of Judah/Israel/Judea established as large nations in exactly that region way before Palestine, but they continued to live there ever since. Its not like Jews were spending most of their time in Japan and then suddenly they decided the middle east might have nice weather.
In the post I linked above, I describe how this region was conquered numerous times and lots of different folks came came and went. Giving Jews the least possible credit, it could be described as "actively contested" territory since 900 BC. But the idea that Jews are in any way some sort of foreign, unnatural, or artificial presence in the region is hilarious.
Jews have been fighting for this land for a super, super long time. To the point where I still say its best to wrap things up and just move to North Dakota. But it needs to be abundantly clear that if there is any sort of "historic claim" to this land, there is no world where it is "Palestinian" rather than "Jewish". Its not like Jews just had a single kingdom and that was it. By my count, there have been 3 separate, major Jewish kingdoms in the region since 900 BC.
You do realise that a lot of those people who were Jews in Roman times and before converted to Islam and are now called Palestinians, right? It's not as if anything distinguishses the modern-day Palestinians and modern-day Mizrahi jews other than what God they believe in.
The reason people call it colonialism is because the large population influx after 1947 is from "settlers" who have no ties to the middle-east at all beyond some vague idea about the promised land. Would you be as willing to agree with a few million Irish Americans showing up in Kerry to caim they have a right to half the land there because a few centuries ago their ancestors were from there?
Now I'm not saying the modern-day Israelis don't have a right to live there. Most were born there and have as much right to live there as modern-day Palestinians. Not less, but not more either. They need to share. Neither side wants to do that...
Yes, whether it was Babylonians, Persians, Romans, or whoever, there was always someone else who also wanted to move there and control the land and whatnot. My whole point is that the history of this specific chunk of land is complicated, diverse, and has shifted significantly many times. But the one thing that many people seem to either be unaware of or choose to ignore is that it absolutely had a huge Jewish population and Jewish identity many times. The idea that Jewish identity was artificially inserted and did not have history in the region is entirely wrong.
The distinction of where they came from and when they got there is supremely dumb. The point is that they have come and gone at various points in history and enormous kingdoms have existed there with a distinct Jewish identity many times. Jews wanting a state is reasonable. They have done it before an they want it again. And also, other people also want it.
Can you help me better understand which Jews you are saying can rightfully live in Israel and which can't? Since we have established many Jews have lived there for over 1000 years, I am having a hard time understanding the distinction you are making between which are morally acceptable and which are not.
I'd also like you to elaborate on your views on when it is reasonable to move somewhere relative to existing risks where someone is currently living. Let me copy paste a bit of my previous post here pertaining to reasons someone might want to move to Israel and live in a firmly Jewish state:
Part 3: The modern'ish history of Jewish states and the lead up to what we currently understand as Zionism:
In the 16th century, Jews were formally considered less than Muslims, but the extent to which this was enforced varied significantly by region. During certain times, and in certain areas, many Jews were entirely expelled from their homes and forced to relocate. This eventually led to an attempt to just establish a safe haven where they could just do their own thing and have their own land. They tried to have that place be what was then known as Palestine, since that was where they tended to live historically.
In the 17th century, the next major movement to establish a safe haven for Jews was tried again because there was a ton of violence against Jews in central Europe. After a large scale attempt to eradicate all Jews, ~33% of all Jews in the region were killed and there was a fresh interest in establishing a safe haven that they could defend and feel safe.
In the 19th century, antisemitism and hostility toward Jews was growing in Europe. Prior to this large rise in antisemitism, interest in establishing a new Jewish state was very unpopular among “high ranking” Jews due to the history of being wiped out so many times in the past. But with Europe becoming more and more unsafe for Jews, popularity grew, eventually leading to it being brought to a vote among a conference of rabbis within Europe. Individual efforts supported the emigration of groups of Jews to Palestine, but it only gained an official endorsement among Jewish groups in 1897, where a vote was approved to more formally begin an effort to emigrate to Palestine and re-establish a Jewish state.
Does this history provide reasonable context for a Jew in 1947 to feel an incentive to move to Israel? I want to better understand when it is and when it is not appropriate for someone to move to Israel in your eyes and how history plays into it.
I'm not trying to assert anything about what Jews do or don't have a right to live there. I'm mainly asserting that any historical reasoning why Jews can live there applies equally or more to Palestinians.
I also don't think it's particularly useful to refer to Biblical timespans to justify why they have a right to be there. A Sephardic jew who is the grandson of someone who moved there post-WW2 has no more or less right to make a life there than a Palestinian whose greatgrandparents herded goats there.
I’m not understanding the specifics of what you’re saying.
So you are saying both Jews and Arabs have a right to live there, correct?
What specific timeframe are you referring to as biblical? It is not clear to me how that relates to the grandson dynamic. Are you saying all Jews and all Arabs have a right to live there? Or are you saying people who come from families that fled previously have less right to live there?
For example, after the 2 rebellions against the Romans, some Jews stuck around the area and some of them fled to further away. Are you saying the people who come from families who stuck around are allowable for 1947 purposes, whereas the people who come from families that fled to further away do not?
If I put your posts together, you are saying the Jews who moved there from within the Middle East were valid, but the ones who moved from further away are some form of colonialism? And just to be clear, the excerpt I posted describing violence against Jews in other regions does not make immigration to Israel more valid and it is still unethical in some way?
Just to be clear: I am asking for the specifics as to how you define which Jews moving to Israel did so ethically and which Jews loving to Israel did so unethically.
On January 10 2024 04:55 Cricketer12 wrote: [quote] Who tf is Nettles? I think I have said anything regarding him once and it was calling him out.
I do like that I call you out saying "hey, words have meaning, you say things that insinuate a poor review of the average Palestinian" and you hit me back not with "hey good point I'll do better" or "can you point to some examples" or "can you clarify what you mean", but with "um actually I never said ALL". This is not the first time I've called you out on trying to say shit about the average citizen, last time you ignored me, which is fine, it's a big thread and stuff is easily missed, hard to give you the same benefit of doubt here.
Nettles is the guy who made the race post. He’s a far right poster who has made his world view clear on the USpol thread, Covid thread and likely others. Those who post there know his world view and many of them have called him out on them there. But here it’s crickets. Pun intended.
I can’t make every post a perfect dissertation that people can’t find something to be mad about if they want too. I’m not particularly worried about it as I know where my morales and values stand. I’m happy to clarify and debate, but if people are going to hold their negative assumptions of me as fact that is their problem and not mine.
I don't think you have to be perfect to address the point I raised. I don't think it's a particularly political point of discussion (unless you're an alt-right racist) which I don't think you are. I'm happy you know where your morals and values stand but if the wording in your posts varies from that and people point that out, I'm not sure how you can be annoyed by that, unless I am wrong in my assumptions and you really do believe the Palestinians are a problematic people in general, or that the IDF's crimes are far fewer than is the reality.
Yeah, from the sounds of it, Nettles post here was really insidious and should be called out. You were correct in your reply to him that the primary problem and the first thing to be called out isn't race, it's the very concept of forced mass exodus.
I have said lots that I think the IDF is very callous in their war with Hamas. They show no regard for the Palestinian people. I'm not sure why I have to reiterate it over and over. I also do not believe the Palestinians are a problematic people in general. I do believe that Hamas is evil. I do believe that religious extremism is a huge problem in the world. And that is true in most nations.
A story that didn't get any mention on this thread, which is not a big deal since it is not directly related, is that ISIS sent suicide bombers to kill a bunch of people at a funeral for a Iran commander who was killed by Israel. I think Iran and is a huge problem in funding terror and participating and yet I didn't cheer. The people at funeral do not deserve to die by suicide bomb regardless of me disagreeing that they should attend. And how could I cheer for anything ISIS does they are just the different side of the same coin with Hamas. ISIS "winning" does not help anyone, even if they destroy a group I despise.
This is very round about and maybe not that well thought out, but what I'm trying to get at is talking like its Israel or Israeli's causing the major problems is not accurate. It is the far right within Israel that is, and is powered by religious extremists and that group is growing not shrinking. Yelling hate towards Israel is not going to change that, it might even accelerate it. Palestine has basically been over run by religious hate groups, Syria is having a civil war between multiple hate factions, Iran is run by them, Lebanon is either run by one of these groups or to scared to do anything about it, the Taliban won and they are spreading in there part of the world.
The way Israel is going about dealing with it is wrong, partly because they are not dealing with the problem internally and largely because their callous actions are feeding the problem not lessoning it. But what is the solution? The US tried their own ham fisted attempt in Iraq on false pretenses, their attempt to create a democracy was an abject failure and somehow in ousting one of the worlds most evil dictators they made it worse. They had more support in Afghanistan and failed just as hard.
Are we as a world returning to where powerful people use religion to justify evil acts that make themselves more rich and powerful (not that it ever really went away), and empires rise and fall with human rights completely ignored? Can the world even survive this kind of thing with how far technology has gotten? What kind of environmental damage is being done in Ukraine, Syria and now Gaza? I'm sure it dwarfs what is still happening in China, India, the US and basically everywhere. We have big collective, possibly world ending, problems that we can't even talk and debate about, because it seems like just about everyone feels the need to "pick a side" then they apologize away all the evil their own side does. And how Hamas became part of the left absolutely boggles my mind, they have zero shared values. Shared values matter nothing to people anymore, its not a left problem (hello the Donald and hard core Christians) its a world wide everyone problem.
Thanks for taking the time to put that together.
I have said lots that I think the IDF is very callous in their war with Hamas. They show no regard for the Palestinian people. I'm not sure why I have to reiterate it over and over. I also do not believe the Palestinians are a problematic people in general. I do believe that Hamas is evil. I do believe that religious extremism is a huge problem in the world. And that is true in most nations.
So I will say, I do believe you and believe this, I think I've done a poor job of explaining why I harp on this matter. I will, moving forward, bear this in mind, with that said, my criticism is one I would like to see improvement on and here is why. In the event you say something that can be misconstrued in a malicious manner and others digest that interpretation, while I would not hold you at fault, I would be saddened by that outcome. It's easy to avoid. I see this a lot in America, where words are used in Media headlines to describe two events that playout similarly but paint them in completely different ways. With a few exceptions whose posts are rare, I do not find this thread guilty of the level of racism I find in the general public in the West, and while I acknowledge that this thread is rather innocent of that crime, it remains a sore spot and a hot button issue for me personally. I am not asking you to prove your morals, I'm asking you to phrase your points in a way that demonstrate that, and if I see an unintentional slip up, I'm gonna call it out (you aren't the first I've called out in this thread, though others have been far more overt by intentionally saying disgusting things) because i find you to be a noteworthy voice here, and one with impact and sway. That's probably unfair to you, and I should be better about holding everyone to the same standard, some posts just happen to pop out more, and I miss things.
Regarding religious extremism, I don't know if I view it as problematic as you do. My view is that religious extremism in the modern day is a direct reaction and symptom to what I view as greater issues, and addressing those would largely solve the extremism. I don't know exactly what you feel about that so I won't assume. Not sure if this thread is the place to ask about that in particular (though in my mind it does eventually connect).
A story that didn't get any mention on this thread, which is not a big deal since it is not directly related, is that ISIS sent suicide bombers to kill a bunch of people at a funeral for a Iran commander who was killed by Israel. I think Iran and is a huge problem in funding terror and participating and yet I didn't cheer. The people at funeral do not deserve to die by suicide bomb regardless of me disagreeing that they should attend. And how could I cheer for anything ISIS does they are just the different side of the same coin with Hamas. ISIS "winning" does not help anyone, even if they destroy a group I despise.
I am glad to hear this, my view is similar.
This is very round about and maybe not that well thought out, but what I'm trying to get at is talking like its Israel or Israeli's causing the major problems is not accurate. It is the far right within Israel that is, and is powered by religious extremists and that group is growing not shrinking. Yelling hate towards Israel is not going to change that, it might even accelerate it. Palestine has basically been over run by religious hate groups, Syria is having a civil war between multiple hate factions, Iran is run by them, Lebanon is either run by one of these groups or to scared to do anything about it, the Taliban won and they are spreading in there part of the world.
The way Israel is going about dealing with it is wrong, partly because they are not dealing with the problem internally and largely because their callous actions are feeding the problem not lessoning it. But what is the solution? The US tried their own ham fisted attempt in Iraq on false pretenses, their attempt to create a democracy was an abject failure and somehow in ousting one of the worlds most evil dictators they made it worse. They had more support in Afghanistan and failed just as hard.
I will agree that the average Israeli citizen hasn't done anything wrong. I don't have pure numbers and polls from Israel, so perhaps my assumptions are incorrect. I've only read articles and seen videos displaying pure hate (from politicians and layman alike) but I don't mind admitting that the sample size is biased and there's likely more to the story. From what I have seen, depending on what you are referring to as alt-right in this regard, I don't know that I agree the issue, from those in political power is as contained as you describe, that said the last time I had looked into the matter, Benny Gantz was with Blue and White and was described as the liberal candidate compared to Bibi, and so far as Palestine is concerned, he didn't seem much better. Perhaps there are new candidates and politicians who can bring in a brighter future, I hope so, I'm not aware of them, but if they exist, please educate me.
To answer your question, to me the solution relates to what I alluded to earlier. I think the problem is a lot of what we see is a reaction to foreign intervention in the region. Take America for example, with Biden's now infamous moment in Congress essentially admitting that America's alliance and support for Israel has been determined by Israel's ability to destablize the region. I think there needs to be less intervention and more of a handsoff approach. I don't think that will immediately make everything perfect, but it's an important step.
Are we as a world returning to where powerful people use religion to justify evil acts that make themselves more rich and powerful (not that it ever really went away), and empires rise and fall with human rights completely ignored? Can the world even survive this kind of thing with how far technology has gotten? What kind of environmental damage is being done in Ukraine, Syria and now Gaza? I'm sure it dwarfs what is still happening in China, India, the US and basically everywhere. We have big collective, possibly world ending, problems that we can't even talk and debate about, because it seems like just about everyone feels the need to "pick a side" then they apologize away all the evil their own side does. And how Hamas became part of the left absolutely boggles my mind, they have zero shared values. Shared values matter nothing to people anymore, its not a left problem (hello the Donald and hard core Christians) its a world wide everyone problem.
I mean, the powerful have always blinded the masses any way they can use deception and distractions, scapegoating the innocent to their own benefit. I agree that justice is justice, and evil should be called out regardless of where it is coming from. I think people defending Hamas are falling into a trap. I think Hamas is evil, and we may disagree here, but I think the IDF is evil as well. There are civilians across the board in the region being ideologically driven to the margins and damned physically, emotionally and mentally.
Thank you for taking the time, and there is no doubt that I do get defensive and frustrated then lash out at times unfairly. Sometimes I even feel bad about, but other times not so much. However, I do appreciate the kind words.
I'm not sure what greater issue you are speaking of, but if it is income disparity than I would largely agree. With the caveat that I do not think religious extremism is that easy to unwind. If it is something else, I would have to hear the rational. My guess on whether it is appropriate for this thread or not, it likely it would be fine as long as it is well thought out, well reasoned, follows threads rules then it would OK. Many times threads go on strange tangents (and that is often them at their best) with moderators not having any issues while the posts are quality.
I would have to dig up some polls that I've posted in the past and I have not really read much of them post Oct 7th. But I also think that people need to have at least some empathy to the great tragedy that Israel endured. It was worse than 9/11 in many ways, way more personal (and by that I mean murdering in close quarters, people looking others in the eyes while they torture, raped and murdered) and look at the collective rage and grief that America went through. Look at the sympathy and support they received basically globally. Compare that to Israel, where in this thread (which I agree with you is better than the general public in many ways) people were already basically fantasizing about what awful things Israel was going to do in great detail with a mere hand wave about what had been done to them.
Even now, I'm not sure if you read Desantis's comments, but he suggests that if Barbados was firing rockets at Florida he would wipe them off the face of the earth. People are acting as if Israel's actions are uniquely evil and I don't see that as the case. From the people I interact with where I live, the people I read on the internet, politicians and so on, I see it as sadly "normal".
As for good politicians to follow and support you would need someone with a much more detailed view. Cerebrate1 would likely be able to comment. I only really look at things from a 10,000 ft view and then read about the major events. Everything else I'm just playing catch up on. I would be scared to suggest someone I have no fully researched only to have some awful comment they made be unearthed and then go through that mess. The only politician I know well enough to talk about is Bibi and I despise him.
I do not think the IDF is evil, though their are likely people in the IDF leadership that I would consider that. The same way I do not think the Vietnam vets were evil. Lots of people under the duress of combat, the psychological pressure that militaries place on their soldiers to comply and disregard their regular morals is well tested and works on most people. I keep using the word Callous because I think it is very apt. They have decided enough is enough and they are going to do whatever it takes from a force perspective to destroy them. I disagree with that approach in multiple ways, firstly the cost is way to high, innocents are dying in huge numbers including babies. Next, I don't think they will succeed in destroying them, short term they could cripple but I believe there is a greater chance of them being stronger. others too but those are the big ones.
What does frustrate me though is no one here is putting any blame for the massive casualties on Hamas. Ukraine is moving civilians away from the fighting, they are not asking them to stay and putting their bases in hospitals, schools and daycares. This should not be an effective way to gain support from the world. The human shield strategy is awful. When the war crimes were written I do not believe that the writers envisioned a group that would purposefully sacrifice their most vulnerable citizens so they basically made those targets off limits as long as they were not used militarily. Now you have a case where the IDF can attack these places under the strict reading of the laws and Hamas is purposefully trying to get as many dead innocents as possible.
I also agree with you that destabilizing is not a good plan, I'm not sure it has ever worked out well for humanity. I do however think (extremely unpopularly) that Israel's values, Israeli's values more closely match mine than any other country or group in the area. I believe that with the right leadership they could truly be a beacon of good in the area (not that they are one to be clear). I wish another country and populous would step up, but in the people defense almost every other country is some form of awful dictatorship where they are just trying to survive. I've also read how for these reasons other people hold them to a higher standard, which I believe is fair. But it is not fair to hate them for not reaching it. I'm not sure how many of the posters here would have the same feelings if a close family member was raped, tortured, murdered and then the people guilty of that were massively celebrated.
And I think your final sentence is bang on, and I have no idea how to fix it but it will take time. Quite a long time ago I watched a documentary that took children from Israel and Palestine and put them together to see what would happen. They sure hated each other at first, as they were taught to. But it really did not take that long until they realized that they were all just kids, no one was evil and they became friends had fun and all that. That sort of thing gives me hope, what doesn't is that the adults in power are hell bent on hate.
Apologies for run-ons and mistakes.
edit: my bad Desantis was talking about blowing up Bahamas and not Barbados.
Sorry if I hadn't made clear, income disparity is certainly part of it, but so is Foreign/US intervention, which in tandem with corrupt leaders, does create income disparity and poverty in the region. Certainly here in the states I'd point to income disparity as the chief contributor to crime.
I think regarding the reaction to 10/7 that's a good point to bring up, and this is a heinous mistake I personally am seriously guilty of (and I know plenty of Muslims in the West feel the same), where whenever some demon succeeds in creating harm and misery one of the first thoughts that creeps up is "oh fuck was it a Muslim" or "oh fuck the blowback on this is gonna suck". Which is fucked. Those problems have their place, but they should not take precedent over the crime that has actually already occurred. Israeli civilians never deserved Oct 7 and never should have had to endure what they did. That said, not to minimize that atrocity, if that is the reaction you have, which is a good reaction to have, I hope you then empathize with Palestinians who have dealt with similar atrocities for decades. In this recent conflict alone i think over 80 families have been completely wiped out, every single person in the immediate family. Over 30,000 dead, 10000 of which are children. That's just in the last three months, I can never stress enough that pre October 7, life wasn't great for Palestinians. People were still being killed, people were still being raped, people we still being imprisoned without cause or trial. That does not excuse retaliation towards civilians, but if we can (and should) have empathy for Israel, the Palestinians deserve the same tenfold.
Regarding DeSantis, you have no reason to know this because I don't post in USPMT, but I am very outspoken here in the states. I try to do my part to be politically active and illicit positive change. Frankly foreign policy-wise there are few role models in the American establishment, and every Republican gives me chills. I despise that thinking everywhere. From DeSantis, Haley, Bibi, Geert, Le Pen, Hamas, Bin Laden, Baghdadi, etc.
The reason I call the IDF evil is the same that neither of us call Hamas morally justified, as Magic Powers would put it "They think they are morally sound, and have convinced their soldiers to do the same". I'm not convinced the IDF is truly positioned as a defense of civilians but rather an arm of brutal occupation and militaristic expansion.
I agree that Hamas has done nothing to help the people it claims to represent. I have no clue where, as your Ukraine example states, they would move Gazans to, but they certainly aren't helping and are instead actively hurting. In an ideal world the current PA, with their purely diplomatic peaceful mission statement would have full sway and authority and they would be successful in their pursuit for liberty and self-actualization. Alternatively if we had a true rebel force resisting occupation we may have a more nuanced discussion, but Hamas doesn't fit that trope.
To your point that it's not fair to hate them for not reaching a higher standard for the atrocities they have suffered, sure, but by that logic it is truly a goddamn miracle all of Gaza does not actively militarily assist Hamas with how much they suffer and how often they suffer it.
To your final point, I wholeheartedly approve and agree. People hate what they do not know, experience or understand, but are only told to fear. I can personally attest to dozens of people I've encountered who had Islamaphobic notions who then learned after interacting with a real person. Dehumanization is real. It happened in Nazi Germany. I've seen it plenty in Israeli rhetoric post Oct 7 and I have no doubt it happens daily in Gaza as well. People just need to meet others first hand, but it's beautiful what doing so can do.
I’m no fan of US foreign policy always doing evil for the “greater good”. But the greater good never seems to happen. I would argue that income disparity is a bigger factor but I think we would mostly agree and it would end up in some sort of chicken or egg style discussion.
I of course have tons of sympathy for the Palestinians, more than the Israelis they have it and have it worse for a long time. They have been mistreated for longer than Israel has existed. The “lucky” ones are in Israel’s borders and they still deal with racism, mistreatment and so on. That being said I have no sympathy for Hamas, when you are talking about rape, murder, extrajudicial executions and so on pre Oct 7th they likely committed more than the IDF. (In fact I don’t know of any IDF rape, and if it happened I’m fairly certain it would not be sanctioned and the perpetrator would face consequences).
My tone on this thread would be very different if we had a large percentage actively cheering for wiping the Palestinians off the map, for what Hamas has done. Even though most of Hamas is Palestinians I understand that not all Palestinians are Hamas and try to make that clear by writing Hamas. I do even have the tiniest sympathy for Hamas members because they have had horrific lives, the same way I do when I hear about a serial killers awful childhood. None for those members who are pulling the strings and living in mansions riding in yachts mind you. But the rank and file I do, some are probably salvageable, but those that rape and torture or celebrate those acts have probably crossed lines you can’t come back from.
I also agree that if Hamas was a liberation army attacking the IDF and trying to protect the Palestinians we would have a different discussion. I’m not sure where they would send them, but certainly they could not build there bases in day cares, shoot people trying to flee, tell civilians specifically not to move to safe areas and so on.
Yeah pretty much this, and what makes this conflict so intractable it’s seemingly irresolvable.
The very tenor of Hamas’ violence on October 7th rather encapsulates the problems with that particular organisation. Violence is never pain free for the recipient of course, but there were such visceral acts of absolute barbarism that no amount of historic repression can hope to justify them remotely.
Although I chime in more frequently with criticisms of Israeli policy, Hamas are maniac zealots and they live next door.
The core issue is somehow threading the needle to untether Hamas from influence and control and allow some reasonable folks to take the reins. Which would likely necessitate Israeli concessions, but the time they are least likely to occur is understandably in the aftermath of such a heinous event.
Argh, the world sucks sometimes, or well, frequently.
Do you really think the repression is historic ? Considering how how palestinian kids were being killed ny israelis prior to the 10/07, considering how many minors got imprisonned without any judgment for an indefinite time, considering how palestinian cimeteries old of many centuries are destroyed to make public park, I'd say the repression is pretty contemporary.
The war Israel launched against the people of Palestine didn't begin now, that's a given but it never stopped either.
Perhaps some wires being crossed, or a language flub on my part which is on me as a native speaker.
Historic as in inclusive historic, i.e. with roots that go back a considerable amount of time, up to and including today. Rather than events from a period back a considerable amount of time that ceased,
@Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
On January 12 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
So you're saying the whole place should be given to the Turks? Because that's the group that had uncontested sovereignty over the local Arabs, Jews, and others who lived there for hundreds of years.
On January 12 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
I think I am misunderstanding you, so if you don’t mind clarifying, I have a couple of questions before I formulate a response:
1: You are saying after the Romans completely wiped out the state of Judea, where 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled and sold into slavery, the Jews did not contest the formation of Palestine for a very long time. Are you saying by not immediately attempting to retake the region, they essentially lost any historic justification in living there?
2: It sounds like you are saying Palestine existing for a long time after the Jewish rebellions gives some level of historic claim. Am I understanding correctly? In your eyes, the history of Palestine as a nation has more relevance in modern discussions than the history of Judah/Israel/Judea?
One thing I want to make sure we both understand is that although Jews were forced out of Palestine, many Jews moved nearby, such as closer to the coast. They migrated in basically every direction, and as you can imagine, transportation during that time was limited. So once you set aside the Jews enslaved and killed, many of who remained did not travel far. While it was of course a big mix of migration patterns, the Romans did not succeed in entirely eliminating Jews from the region as a whole. Judea and the eventual Palestine is actually a bit to the east and more like half Jordan and half Israel on modern maps. In that regard, you could say what we currently call Palestine maintained Jewish population continuity.
I just want to make sure you are not saying “well after the Romans tried to wipe them out, they didn’t rebuild their empire, so they lost the right to form a nation there later”.
3: It feels like you are framing Jewish migration to Israel as immoral, but also framing the formation of Palestine as organic or moral in some way. I am sure you can understand why the history of Palestine’s formation makes it hard to understand why you’d hold this view. And that’s why I want to first better understand your perspective rather than accidentally putting words in your mouth. Can you help me understand how you view Palestine’s formation relative to Israel’s modern formation?
Jewish migration to Israel and formation of Palestine aren't comparable because the whole 'historic claims' thing is bollocks. Nearly every modern nation has at some point in time migrated somewhere and displaced someone. It's only rather recently that we have collectively agreed that displacing an existing population to establish or expand your own nation isn't acceptable. Palestinians were already living on that land while Jewish people, for the most part, were not. Thousand year old history of Palestinian or Jewish people or the legitimacy of their claims back in the day of Jesus or whatever has nothing to do with it.
On January 12 2024 13:09 Salazarz wrote: Jewish migration to Israel and formation of Palestine aren't comparable because the whole 'historic claims' thing is bollocks. Nearly every modern nation has at some point in time migrated somewhere and displaced someone. It's only rather recently that we have collectively agreed that displacing an existing population to establish or expand your own nation isn't acceptable. Palestinians were already living on that land while Jewish people, for the most part, were not. Thousand year old history of Palestinian or Jewish people or the legitimacy of their claims back in the day of Jesus or whatever has nothing to do with it.
When did the rules change? When did displacement stop being acceptable?
The rules didn't change. We know that because Israel has displaced and continues to displace the native population and faces minimal punishment for doing so. If the rules had actually changed, then the international community would've stopped Israel or punished them harshly.
That said, colonialism and displacement became much less popular (even for the colonizers and the displacers) in the 20th century. I could speculate on why (the horror of world wars, the steady increase in education and morals, the greater interconnectivity of the world due to technology, etc.) but I'm pretty sure that's the when.
On January 12 2024 13:09 Salazarz wrote: Jewish migration to Israel and formation of Palestine aren't comparable because the whole 'historic claims' thing is bollocks. Nearly every modern nation has at some point in time migrated somewhere and displaced someone. It's only rather recently that we have collectively agreed that displacing an existing population to establish or expand your own nation isn't acceptable. Palestinians were already living on that land while Jewish people, for the most part, were not. Thousand year old history of Palestinian or Jewish people or the legitimacy of their claims back in the day of Jesus or whatever has nothing to do with it.
If you had just knocked off history as a whole, I would respect that take. There are people who take that stance, which is: history is irrelevant. Let's just figure out the best solution for all the people who are alive today. There are a bunch of Israeli's living over here and they obviously deserve to live safely and securely in their land. There are a bunch of Palestinians over here and they need self governance and to live in peace as well. There may be logistical challenges getting to that goal, but the moral stance is logically consistent.
There is also a moral stance people could take of "who was here first?" I can hear the moral claim of Native Americans to America even though it's been hundreds of years since they were the dominant people there. They were the historic people of the area and we can see that even with thousand year old artifacts of theirs. Palestinians also apparently see value of this argument as well or they wouldn't destroy ancient Jewish artifacts found under the Dome of the Rock (to deny Jewish historical claims as being there long before them) or try to claim that Jesus was Palestinian (to manufacture their own historical claims).
What is weird to me is when people say that "history doesn't matter" for certain eras of history, but then stamp their foot and say that history is the most important thing ever for other eras. Like, why should population distribution not be relevant 2,000 years ago, 5 years ago, or in 1949 (when the chance for countries to be formed actually happened), but it's really important what it was 200 years ago? Arbitrarily picking certain dates to focus on while ignoring everything before and since is just cherry picking history to support your point.
On January 12 2024 13:09 Salazarz wrote: Jewish migration to Israel and formation of Palestine aren't comparable because the whole 'historic claims' thing is bollocks. Nearly every modern nation has at some point in time migrated somewhere and displaced someone. It's only rather recently that we have collectively agreed that displacing an existing population to establish or expand your own nation isn't acceptable. Palestinians were already living on that land while Jewish people, for the most part, were not. Thousand year old history of Palestinian or Jewish people or the legitimacy of their claims back in the day of Jesus or whatever has nothing to do with it.
If you had just knocked off history as a whole, I would respect that take. There are people who take that stance, which is: history is irrelevant. Let's just figure out the best solution for all the people who are alive today. There are a bunch of Israeli's living over here and they obviously deserve to live safely and securely in their land. There are a bunch of Palestinians over here and they need self governance and to live in peace as well. There may be logistical challenges getting to that goal, but the moral stance is logically consistent.
There is also a moral stance people could take of "who was here first?" I can hear the moral claim of Native Americans to America even though it's been hundreds of years since they were the dominant people there. They were the historic people of the area and we can see that even with thousand year old artifacts of theirs. Palestinians also apparently see value of this argument as well or they wouldn't destroy ancient Jewish artifacts found under the Dome of the Rock (to deny Jewish historical claims as being there long before them) or try to claim that Jesus was Palestinian (to manufacture their own historical claims).
What is weird to me is when people say that "history doesn't matter" for certain eras of history, but then stamp their foot and say that history is the most important thing ever for other eras. Like, why should population distribution not be relevant 2,000 years ago, 5 years ago, or in 1949 (when the chance for countries to be formed actually happened), but it's really important what it was 200 years ago? Arbitrarily picking certain dates to focus on while ignoring everything before and since is just cherry picking history to support your point.
One useful filter is to consider only the people who exist today. Long-dead victims can't be helped, and long-dead villains can't be punished, and their descendants don't inherit their ancestors' victimhood or villainy. But living victims can be helped, and living villains can be punished. People who were personally robbed are owed their shit back, even if that's not the best solution for the thieves.
Honestly I think the most reasonable take is that 'history is increasingly more irrelevant the further back in time you go'. It's not a binary question of 'at this point it is significant' and 'at this point it's irrelevant', but a scale. A displacement that happened 5 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 20 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 60 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 200 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 2000 years ago.
At some point - and I'd argue that point is somewhere along the line of 'you no longer have knowledge of your ancestors that lived there', it becomes 'fairly unimportant'. Like I know where my grandparents lived, but I've never met a single of my great grandparents and basically know nothing about them. So to me, somewhere between 'my grandparents' and 'my great grandparents' there's a significant decrease in 'historical relevancy' or whatever. If some type of injustice happened to my great grandparents, I don't picture this would be something that would invoke any type of emotions in me, while an injustice served upon my grandparents would make me feel 'something', and an injustice invoked upon my parents would make me feel a lot. For some, I'm sure you can move this line one more generation back, but if I were to find out that my ancestor from 400 years back in time was burned for witchcraft I'd consider that funny and interesting much more so than upsetting.
Consequently I don't really think this is a factor for the question of 'should Israel be allowed to exist where it exists'. Obviously it should. It's entirely fair to argue that the 47-48 partition was unjust to the Palestinian people, but it's not relevant to whether the Jewish population inhabiting Israel today has the right to live there. If you're born somewhere, then whatever happened before you were born there is not your fault, and I'm guessing the 'was an adult in 1947 and moved to Israel back then'-segment of the Israeli population is at this point very small.
But the notion that 'well, the Jews lived there 2900 years ago, so they do have a historical claim' to me has virtually no validity. Meanwhile, the 'my parents were unlawfully evicted from this house' is sufficiently recent for it to be cause for 'reparations'.
On January 12 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
I think I am misunderstanding you, so if you don’t mind clarifying, I have a couple of questions before I formulate a response:
1: You are saying after the Romans completely wiped out the state of Judea, where 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled and sold into slavery, the Jews did not contest the formation of Palestine for a very long time. Are you saying by not immediately attempting to retake the region, they essentially lost any historic justification in living there?
2: It sounds like you are saying Palestine existing for a long time after the Jewish rebellions gives some level of historic claim. Am I understanding correctly? In your eyes, the history of Palestine as a nation has more relevance in modern discussions than the history of Judah/Israel/Judea?
One thing I want to make sure we both understand is that although Jews were forced out of Palestine, many Jews moved nearby, such as closer to the coast. They migrated in basically every direction, and as you can imagine, transportation during that time was limited. So once you set aside the Jews enslaved and killed, many of who remained did not travel far. While it was of course a big mix of migration patterns, the Romans did not succeed in entirely eliminating Jews from the region as a whole. Judea and the eventual Palestine is actually a bit to the east and more like half Jordan and half Israel on modern maps. In that regard, you could say what we currently call Palestine maintained Jewish population continuity.
I just want to make sure you are not saying “well after the Romans tried to wipe them out, they didn’t rebuild their empire, so they lost the right to form a nation there later”.
3: It feels like you are framing Jewish migration to Israel as immoral, but also framing the formation of Palestine as organic or moral in some way. I am sure you can understand why the history of Palestine’s formation makes it hard to understand why you’d hold this view. And that’s why I want to first better understand your perspective rather than accidentally putting words in your mouth. Can you help me understand how you view Palestine’s formation relative to Israel’s modern formation?
1.6 million jews ? Lol nice bs with totally forgered numbers, it's absolutly impossible to put numbers on this period, at this point you would be more credible by just stating like most israelis that god gave them the land and that's it. But I guess you believe ancient historian accounts of battle with 1 millions of persian soldiers, ceasar defeating 2 millions of celts and so on or that's just the revisionnism of the sole western state of middle east ?
Most of them stayed in palestine, the intellectual elite flew outside of it and managed to convert people around, as judaism perceived itself as a ethnic religion and is pretty much anti universalist it didn't manage or intent to convert as many people. This is not different to their babylonian exil. The difference is this elite was actually allowed to come back rapidly and actually renounced polytheism.
So no, that's a bunch of westerners (because that's the vast majority in 1948 and still is the core of the nation) who have as much as rights on the lands as the french colons did in Algeria. The argument that a bunch of white people (and even black actually, after all there are black jews as well) having more rights that the natives of a land because they worship a god is pretty weird.
On January 12 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
I think I am misunderstanding you, so if you don’t mind clarifying, I have a couple of questions before I formulate a response:
1: You are saying after the Romans completely wiped out the state of Judea, where 1.6 million Jews were killed, exiled and sold into slavery, the Jews did not contest the formation of Palestine for a very long time. Are you saying by not immediately attempting to retake the region, they essentially lost any historic justification in living there?
2: It sounds like you are saying Palestine existing for a long time after the Jewish rebellions gives some level of historic claim. Am I understanding correctly? In your eyes, the history of Palestine as a nation has more relevance in modern discussions than the history of Judah/Israel/Judea?
One thing I want to make sure we both understand is that although Jews were forced out of Palestine, many Jews moved nearby, such as closer to the coast. They migrated in basically every direction, and as you can imagine, transportation during that time was limited. So once you set aside the Jews enslaved and killed, many of who remained did not travel far. While it was of course a big mix of migration patterns, the Romans did not succeed in entirely eliminating Jews from the region as a whole. Judea and the eventual Palestine is actually a bit to the east and more like half Jordan and half Israel on modern maps. In that regard, you could say what we currently call Palestine maintained Jewish population continuity.
I just want to make sure you are not saying “well after the Romans tried to wipe them out, they didn’t rebuild their empire, so they lost the right to form a nation there later”.
3: It feels like you are framing Jewish migration to Israel as immoral, but also framing the formation of Palestine as organic or moral in some way. I am sure you can understand why the history of Palestine’s formation makes it hard to understand why you’d hold this view. And that’s why I want to first better understand your perspective rather than accidentally putting words in your mouth. Can you help me understand how you view Palestine’s formation relative to Israel’s modern formation?
1) I'm saying that, for the sake of a state/people claiming territory/land, absolutely all "historic claims" reaching back several hundred years are unsubstantial. If neither I nor my parents, grandparents or other ancestors were alive during a certain time period, then I have no claim to any of my ancestors' land of that time period. My ancestors do, but if they're no longer alive then it's too late for them and therefore also for me.
There's of course a gray area. As we approach the present day, claims to land increasingly gain relevancy, because there may be a direct connection to the present day. For example if my parents would have a claim to land, but they're deceased, this may well affect my right to ownership of that land. It depends on a few factors. The "historic" in "historic claim" is an insufficient qualifier. A claim to land has to be far more substantial. This same reasoning counts for any time period. Between 2000 and 1800 or between 1800 and 1600, it's always the same conclusion. 200 years is far too much time to have a meaningful bearing on claims made today.
Whenever we have to go back hundreds of years to make an ownership claim pertaining to today, we're talking about fantasy land. It exists only in people's minds.
Therefore, addressing your last sentence: "I just want to make sure you are not saying “well after the Romans tried to wipe them out, they didn’t rebuild their empire, so they lost the right to form a nation there later”." I'm saying that present day people in general have no claim to land from around the Jesus era. It's absolute nonsense. Either they established themselves somewhere more recently than that or they didn't. If they didn't, the debate is over. Hence why the origin of the State of Israel was illegitimate. It has full legitimacy today, but it had absolutely no legitimacy during its birth.
2) I'm saying neither Palestinians nor Jews used to have a claim to the land in the time period before, during and immediately after 1948. Zionists, with the help of many Jewish people and a number of British occupants, used force to claim the land for themselves, which was an illegitimate method. At the time, the State of Israel was illegitimate. But a State of Palestine would've been just as illegitimate if it had been established in that same way. The method of establishment is important.
75 years have passed since, which is roughly the equivalent of 3-5 generations. That means some Palestinians still have a claim to the stolen land, but a large number of their descendants don't. But the conflict is still recent enough to fall into the gray area where a debate can be had about claims dating back such a long time, so an argument can be made that Palestinians born today deserve some kind of justice in the form of reparations. What that should look like is a complicated matter.
However, all Palestinians - including babies born today - do have the right to autonomy, which means they have a right not to live under Israel's thumb (as they currently do). They have a right not to be oppressed and attacked and they deserve an equal seat at the negotiation table.
3) "It feels like you are framing Jewish migration to Israel as immoral, but also framing the formation of Palestine as organic or moral in some way. I am sure you can understand why the history of Palestine’s formation makes it hard to understand why you’d hold this view." This is certainly not my view. Jewish migration to Israel is a complicated matter. Radical anti-Israel people would consider it a large scale preparation for an invasion, moderate people would say it was an unfortunate set of circumstances (due to the persecution of Jewish people in Nazi Germany) leading to an escalation of violence and the establishment of the State of Israel. I don't know exactly what my view is, but I side much more with the latter than with the former. I will say that, as things unfolded, Palestinians were treated very unjustly. Their land was stolen. That doesn't mean they had any more of a right to a state than the Jewish people, but they were certainly robbed in the aftermath of the ensuing war between Jews and Palestinians. I wouldn't say that the mass migration of Jews was inherently wrong. I think it was handled poorly in large part by the British, and I think the Zionists at the time are among the main culprits for the resulting escalation leading to the illegitimate birth of the State of Israel. It's a difficult point to understand for people because I'm not putting any blame on larger groups such as "the Palestinians" or "the Jews". I point fingers squarely at the extremists, which includes a number of both Palestinian and Jewish people, and the main culprits were their leaders on each side.
On January 12 2024 08:34 Magic Powers wrote: @Mohdoo I disagree with your framing of the argument as "Jews having or not having a right to live there". The point of contention isn't about the right to home ownership on land shared with other people. The point of contention is the history of the establishment of the State of Israel being justified by a supposed "historic claim" of Jewish people to the land. The present day situation is vastly different from A) the events leading up to the establishment of the state and also from B) the general situation prior to the "beginning" of the larger conflict. In reality Palestine was not a contested place for centuries until it became contested by and large due to the mass migration of Jewish people. Centuries are a very long time and that has a significant bearing on the idea of a historic claim. When we're talking about such a long timeframe, a historic claim becomes absurd. And that's what we've been discussing. Not just the right to set up camp, but the right to establish a state (and a nationalist one at that).
So you're saying the whole place should be given to the Turks? Because that's the group that had uncontested sovereignty over the local Arabs, Jews, and others who lived there for hundreds of years.
The Palestine region until 1948 was under British occupancy, not Turkish rule. The Ottoman Empire was defeated. I'm not sure how the Turks would've been able to return to rule in the Palestine region when they weren't able to firmly establish themselves to begin with.
The negotiations among the people of Palestine should've continued. The escalation of the tensions made that impossible. Ideally the current ruler, which was the British Empire, would've kept the lid on. But WW2 complicated matters in a number of ways.
In the chaos of these complications, the Zionists took the opportunity and forcefully claimed rule. I don't know what other scenario would've been ideal, but I do know that the Zionists should've never succeeded in their plan. It was a disastrous unfolding of the events.
@Mohdoo One more thing, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly on that point.
"It feels like you are framing Jewish migration to Israel as immoral, but also framing the formation of Palestine as organic or moral in some way. I am sure you can understand why the history of Palestine’s formation makes it hard to understand why you’d hold this view."
Did you mean Jewish migration to the State of Israel or did you mean Jewish migration to the region of Palestine before the State of Israel was established? If it's the latter, then I think my response is suited to your question, just with an error in terminology. If it's the former, then I misunderstood what you meant and I would ask you to clarify.
Palestinians don't have the right to shit until they change their society to stop indoctrinating from birth that the mass murder and expulsion of Jews "from the river to the sea" is the highest calling that can be aspired to. The pogrom of October 7th is precisely what they would do to the entirety of the Jewish population if they had the power. Their media, religious and civil authorities all expound and glorify two maxims. 1. Palestine is the entirety of the area from the river to the sea and 2. Palestine should be judenrein by any means necessary.
Genocide claims against Israel are incredibly ludicrous. The Palestinian population has increased about four times from what it was in 1967 (~1.3 million to ~5.4 million). You could make a claim for ethnic cleansing in the West Bank re: Jewish settlements, except that Israeli Arabs are not separated from Jews in Israel because Israeli Arabs don't try to slaughter Jews the way Palestinians would if they were not physically separated from Jews in the West Bank. It all comes down to Palestinians wish to genocide Jews and Jews don't have to put up with that sorry not sorry.
If Arabs didn't want Israel to conquer the West Bank, King Hussein should not have given control of his military to Egyptian general Riad on June 1. Egyptian Field Marshal Amer lied to King Hussein when he said that Egyptian forces had been gloriously victorious on June 5 and ordered General Riad to attack. Israel sent a message to King Hussein that it would not attack if Jordan ceased firing on Israeli positions across the border. King Hussein responded that it was too late to stop. The Jordanians then got their butts whooped. Notice that in 1973 King Hussein had smartened up and there were only token hostilities between IDF and Jordanian forces in Syria (sent there because King Hussein felt obligated as an Arab to make a symbolic move of support), as both tried to avoid attacking the other.
Excuses and special pleadings for special treatment are a specialty of Arabs. They're never supposed to pay for the dumb things they do. They're always the poor victim of insidious foes, not of their own decisions and behavior. The West Bank would be either ruled by Jordan or be an independent state today if King Hussein hadn't been so foolish in 1967. It would be an independent state today if Palestinians weren't so foolish in 2000 and 2008.