|
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 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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.
You forgot to insert a reason why this isn't ethnic cleansing after the "except".
|
|
|
On January 13 2024 00:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2024 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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. You forgot to insert a reason why this isn't ethnic cleansing after the "except". He is clearly arguing that if it was a ethnic issue and not a safety security issue they would treat all the people of that ethnicity the same. Now if you disagree with it just say it and say why. Especially when you post things like this. If you want the thread to be better, be better yourself. Show nested quote +No obviously I don't know that it's not true otherwise I wouldn't have said it why do people talk like this on the internet I'll never understand.
If you have something to say you can just say it you don't have to introduce the threat that you might answer in the future.
I said what I wanted to say, which was that there was no reason that this isn't an ethnic cleansing in his post. He said that there was another type of Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, that wasn't ethnically cleansed, which doesn't demonstrate that there isn't an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians happening, and then he said that Palestinians are bad, which is an argument to say ethnic cleansing is justified, not that it's not an ethnic cleansing. It wasn't an introduction to some other point.
As a general rule I will probably never care about how you perceive my posts.
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2024 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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'. Well I think what you are saying sounds reasonable when you compare it to other big land grabs it does not hold up, unless of course you think the Crimean Tatar and Aboriginals in North American and other displaced people do not have rights. The way someone could read your suggestion (and for the record I think you are arguing the opposite) is that if they take and hold land for 3-4 generations it becomes theirs. Which in a way is what a lot of people who are pro Israeli violence are thinking. That if they had just taken that land and expelled all the people after the 6 day war when they won it, which would not have been uncommon at the time, that they wouldn't be dealing with any of the trouble now. So better off to do it now, sure they will be in trouble internationally but in just a few short generations they will have none of these problems and ended all this complication. Show nested quote +On January 12 2024 15:38 Severedevil wrote:On January 12 2024 13:16 JimmiC wrote: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. My questions were specifically for Salazarz because he comes in with all this anger and self righteousness and I'm not sure if it is on purpose or not, but it comes off very hateful towards Israel and the Jews. He is picking some date that works for his narrative as when times changed. Most of his these style posts he writes the underlying tone is that Israel shouldn't exist, I'm not sure how many times he is going to beat around the bush before he finally says what he means. I think the whole historical analysis for trying to find a people who belong is a fools errand. Like if either group "wins" are you going to just ship all the other people away? If so where? And then what this is the exception to ethnic cleansing being bad. The value in looking back is just understanding that it is very clear that both groups have been wronged over and over, both by each other and by other large powers throughout the world. It is useful to see all the times the Israeli's have been successfully ethnically cleansed, or the victim of genocide to understand why they feel that they need a nation of their own to truly be safe (not to mention the rhetoric and actions of all the nations that surround them). It is useful to look back and see how the Palestinians have been taken advantage by just about everybody who have been in power and around as well. Even currently Iran and Hamas are doing the people no favours. What would be super nice, but not going to happen because the world and humanity often (mostly?) sucks is the two groups of consistently marginalized and straight up murdered people would decide to stop doing it to each other and work together to give both groups the safety, security and peaceful homeland neither has ever had.
I mean it does suck equally Israel kind of got bequeathed its territory based on a combination of a very, very long-toothed claim of lineage and wider guilt from the Holocaust
As geneses of nations go this is very atypical indeed, indeed I can’t personally think of a singular comparable example off hand.
Although as Drone said, there comes a point where incumbency counts for something, and reversion to some historic point isn’t possible without fucking over currently living people.
With recourse to my country, the British were historically shits sure, but there are a huge amount of people here who are culturally aligned that way, and can trace familial lineage back hundreds of years, and despite ridiculous claims that we’re ’actually Irish’, it’s functionally not the case.
At some point you have to make a cut on historic grievance and deal with the today, otherwise you’d see a mass, mass expulsion most non-native North Americans to pick one example.
You’re kinda left with learning to get along, or complete expulsion of one party, and I fervently hope for the former. But nesting the problems of today in claims going back centuries isn’t particularly useful
|
On January 13 2024 00:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2024 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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. You forgot to insert a reason why this isn't ethnic cleansing after the "except". He is clearly arguing that if it was a ethnic issue and not a safety security issue they would treat all the people of that ethnicity the same. Now if you disagree with it just say it and say why. Especially when you post things like this. If you want the thread to be better, be better yourself. Show nested quote +No obviously I don't know that it's not true otherwise I wouldn't have said it why do people talk like this on the internet I'll never understand.
If you have something to say you can just say it you don't have to introduce the threat that you might answer in the future.
Wait I thought it was best to just ignore bait posts and move on.
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On January 13 2024 00:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2024 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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. You forgot to insert a reason why this isn't ethnic cleansing after the "except". He is clearly arguing that if it was a ethnic issue and not a safety security issue they would treat all the people of that ethnicity the same. Now if you disagree with it just say it and say why. Especially when you post things like this. If you want the thread to be better, be better yourself. Show nested quote +No obviously I don't know that it's not true otherwise I wouldn't have said it why do people talk like this on the internet I'll never understand.
If you have something to say you can just say it you don't have to introduce the threat that you might answer in the future.
On January 13 2024 00:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2024 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:
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. You forgot to insert a reason why this isn't ethnic cleansing after the "except". He is clearly arguing that if it was a ethnic issue and not a safety security issue they would treat all the people of that ethnicity the same. Now if you disagree with it just say it and say why. Especially when you post things like this. If you want the thread to be better, be better yourself. Show nested quote +No obviously I don't know that it's not true otherwise I wouldn't have said it why do people talk like this on the internet I'll never understand.
If you have something to say you can just say it you don't have to introduce the threat that you might answer in the future.
Ethnic cleansing isn’t, ironically enough entirely ethnic as a term. Coming to prominence in the Yugoslavian breakup and civil war, so to avoid use of the term genocide. Almost a genocide ‘lite’ bit of terminology. But in terms of ethnicity in its racial sense Serbs and Croats are basically the same people, with some divergence with Bosnians
It encompasses national identities, religious identities, cultural norms and all sorts.
There’s little argument outside of little England zealots that some of the British policies towards Ireland would 100% constitute ethnic cleansing, despite the two peoples being ethnically basically identical
As per the Israeli example, being tolerant of an Arab minority domestically does not mean that policies that would lean towards ethnic cleansing towards external Arabs aren’t a thing
|
|
|
On January 12 2024 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2024 07:13 Acrofales wrote:On January 12 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2024 06:27 Acrofales wrote: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. As I described here: https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=179#3562There 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.
1) Yes, most of the people who live there now have a legitimate claim to living there. The right of return is pretty fucked up and needs to be abolished/replaced but overall, I don't think there's much reason to hash out who does or doesn't have a right to live there.
2) Biblical. You know, you mention Romans, Babylonians and a bunch of others in between. Those are pretty biblical timeframes. The newest part of the bible, the New Testament, covers roughly Jesus Christ's life and a bit of the aftermath, so Roman times is about the end of that, but basically I'm with Drone here that the further back you go, the less meaningful "history" becomes in terms of trying to figure out who has a right to what patch of dirt on this planet.
In particular, it seems especially meaningless to go back to pre-Islam times, because before Islam spread, anybody living in Judea was either jewish, Christian or a believer of some non-Abrahamic religion. Those are the ancestors of many modern-day Jewish people, but also the ancestors of modern-day Palestinians. So the distinction between Jews have a right to live there and Palestinians don't by referring to how the Romans caused a diaspora is... particularly weird.
3) I think you're hung up on me calling post-WW2 migration to Israel colonialism. It is. That doesn't mean they weren't somehow justified to migrate there, nor that their descendants don't have some claim to be there. I don't think it's particularly weird that a lot of holocaust survivors were looking for somewhere they could feel like they belonged, and that Israel was that place. I don't think it necessarily gave them a right to migrate there, but the UN mandate did somewhat establish that legality, and I don't think there is any point in rehashing that history. That does NOT give Israel the right to do what it's doing right now in Gaza, but I am not arguing against Israel's right to exist.
|
On January 13 2024 01:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2024 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2024 07:13 Acrofales wrote:On January 12 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2024 06:27 Acrofales wrote: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. As I described here: https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=179#3562There 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. 1) Yes, most of the people who live there now have a legitimate claim to living there. The right of return is pretty fucked up and needs to be abolished/replaced but overall, I don't think there's much reason to hash out who does or doesn't have a right to live there. 2) Biblical. You know, you mention Romans, Babylonians and a bunch of others in between. Those are pretty biblical timeframes. The newest part of the bible, the New Testament, covers roughly Jesus Christ's life and a bit of the aftermath, so Roman times is about the end of that, but basically I'm with Drone here that the further back you go, the less meaningful "history" becomes in terms of trying to figure out who has a right to what patch of dirt on this planet. In particular, it seems especially meaningless to go back to pre-Islam times, because before Islam spread, anybody living in Judea was either jewish, Christian or a believer of some non-Abrahamic religion. T hose are the ancestors of many modern-day Jewish people, but also the ancestors of modern-day Palestinians. So the distinction between Jews have a right to live there and Palestinians don't by referring to how the Romans caused a diaspora is... particularly weird.3) I think you're hung up on me calling post-WW2 migration to Israel colonialism. It is. That doesn't mean they weren't somehow justified to migrate there, nor that their descendants don't have some claim to be there. I don't think it's particularly weird that a lot of holocaust survivors were looking for somewhere they could feel like they belonged, and that Israel was that place. I don't think it necessarily gave them a right to migrate there, but the UN mandate did somewhat establish that legality, and I don't think there is any point in rehashing that history. That does NOT give Israel the right to do what it's doing right now in Gaza, but I am not arguing against Israel's right to exist.
Yup! I don't disagree with the idea that Jews has historic roots to the land, but the Palestinians aren't just immigrants from modern day Saudi. They are ancient in their connection to the land.
|
|
|
On January 13 2024 01:50 JimmiC wrote:The Israelis put forward the beginnings of their case today. Here are some highlights. Show nested quote + “When the cannons roar in Gaza, the law is not silent,” Noam said. “This has been the case since 1948.”
On Thursday, South Africa’s legal team alleged that Israeli leadership had demonstrated “genocidal intent,” pointing to statements made by top officials. But Noam said Israel has no tolerance for statements calling for harm to civilians in Gaza and that the Israeli justice system could consider them to be incitement. Show nested quote + Noam said an order by the court asking Israel to halt hostilities in Gaza would lead to a “perverse situation” in which Hamas would continue to attack citizens of Israel, hold about 136 hostages in the Gaza Strip and prevent displaced Israelis from returning to their homes. It would also set a precedent, he said, in which militant groups like Hamas turn to the international court for protection. Show nested quote + “Yes, there is a heart wrenching armed conflict," Noam said. "But the attempt to classify it as genocide will turn an instrument adopted by international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or the law.” The German government has come out strongly for the Israeli. Show nested quote +Germany’s government said there is “no basis whatsoever” for an accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
“We know that different countries assess Israel’s operation in Gaza differently,” government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement Friday. “However, the Federal Government firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel at the International Court of Justice.”
Given Germany’s Nazi history, Hebestreit said the German government “sees itself as particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide.”
The convention is a “central instrument” for preventing future crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, he said. “We firmly oppose political instrumentalization,” Hebestreit said. I hope they have more because none of the points you highlighted actually do anything to deny the claims of ethic cleansing.
The notion then Hamas cannot be fought without reducing Gaza to rubble is simple bullshit.
|
|
|
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
My questions were specifically for Salazarz because he comes in with all this anger and self righteousness and I'm not sure if it is on purpose or not, but it comes off very hateful towards Israel and the Jews.
In what way exactly am I hateful against Israel and the Jews? Do expand on this, please.
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
He is picking some date that works for his narrative as when times changed.
I'm not picking shit. Nations only started paying at least a modicum of attention to the rights of populations and safety of civilians sometime around the great war era, there was obviously no specific day when ThE PeOpLe Of ThE WoRlD HaVe DeCiDeD or anything of the sort, but you're either a moron or a troll if you are going to claim that attitude towards things like forced deportations and anti-civilian violence and such didn't change significantly in the first half of 20th century. Russian are being consistently called out for their displacement of Ukrainians -- and I don't see anyone here coming up with excuses for that (rightly so), so what exactly makes Israel special?
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
Most of his these style posts he writes the underlying tone is that Israel shouldn't exist, I'm not sure how many times he is going to beat around the bush before he finally says what he means.
I have no problem saying exactly what I mean. Like so: you're obnoxious as hell with your endless strawmen.
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
I think the whole historical analysis for trying to find a people who belong is a fools errand. Like if either group "wins" are you going to just ship all the other people away? If so where? And then what this is the exception to ethnic cleansing being bad.
It doesn't matter who 'belongs' where. What matters is who already lives there. And this conflict cannot be allowed to have a winner -- precisely because having a clear 'winner' as it stands would mean the other side gets completely and utterly fucked over. Which is why Israel being allowed to get away with as much as they are is ridiculous; they are being allowed to 'win' at the expense of Palestinians, and that's not right. Both sides will have to make concessions if they are to coexist, but there is no incentive for Israel to make any because they have all the power in the conflict, and they are not being held responsible for the abuses and violence they commit by the international community. Meanwhile for Palestine, there is no sense in offering any concessions first, because Israel has consistently shown that they will simply continue to take what they want no matter what -- and the rest of the world has shown that they are okay with it.
On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
What would be super nice, but not going to happen because the world and humanity often (mostly?) sucks is the two groups of consistently marginalized and straight up murdered people would decide to stop doing it to each other and work together to give both groups the safety, security and peaceful homeland neither has ever had.
Literally all it takes for Israel to stop killing Palestinians is for the US & friends to say 'enough is enough.' That wouldn't stop Palestinian radicals overnight, but it's not as if bombing their shit and colonizing their lands has stopped them, either, so maybe it's worth at least trying? Unless of course they aren't actually interested in peace and coexistence, and what they really want is all of the land no matter how many lives (mostly Palestinian, anyway) it costs to get it. Kind of like their elected PM has said.
|
On January 13 2024 02:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2024 01:50 JimmiC wrote:The Israelis put forward the beginnings of their case today. Here are some highlights. “When the cannons roar in Gaza, the law is not silent,” Noam said. “This has been the case since 1948.”
On Thursday, South Africa’s legal team alleged that Israeli leadership had demonstrated “genocidal intent,” pointing to statements made by top officials. But Noam said Israel has no tolerance for statements calling for harm to civilians in Gaza and that the Israeli justice system could consider them to be incitement. Noam said an order by the court asking Israel to halt hostilities in Gaza would lead to a “perverse situation” in which Hamas would continue to attack citizens of Israel, hold about 136 hostages in the Gaza Strip and prevent displaced Israelis from returning to their homes. It would also set a precedent, he said, in which militant groups like Hamas turn to the international court for protection. “Yes, there is a heart wrenching armed conflict," Noam said. "But the attempt to classify it as genocide will turn an instrument adopted by international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or the law.” The German government has come out strongly for the Israeli. Germany’s government said there is “no basis whatsoever” for an accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
“We know that different countries assess Israel’s operation in Gaza differently,” government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement Friday. “However, the Federal Government firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel at the International Court of Justice.”
Given Germany’s Nazi history, Hebestreit said the German government “sees itself as particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide.”
The convention is a “central instrument” for preventing future crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, he said. “We firmly oppose political instrumentalization,” Hebestreit said. I hope they have more because none of the points you highlighted actually do anything to deny the claims of ethic cleansing. The notion then Hamas cannot be fought without reducing Gaza to rubble is simple bullshit. Of course they has more, it’s going to take months. You would really hope SA has more as well. How would you suggest? Because this is a question I’ve probably asked 10 times with the only response being that you can’t and Israel should just stay in its borders and defend.
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but is there a reason Israel can't send in insertion teams covertly?
|
|
|
|
|
On January 13 2024 02:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2024 01:50 JimmiC wrote:The Israelis put forward the beginnings of their case today. Here are some highlights. “When the cannons roar in Gaza, the law is not silent,” Noam said. “This has been the case since 1948.”
On Thursday, South Africa’s legal team alleged that Israeli leadership had demonstrated “genocidal intent,” pointing to statements made by top officials. But Noam said Israel has no tolerance for statements calling for harm to civilians in Gaza and that the Israeli justice system could consider them to be incitement. Noam said an order by the court asking Israel to halt hostilities in Gaza would lead to a “perverse situation” in which Hamas would continue to attack citizens of Israel, hold about 136 hostages in the Gaza Strip and prevent displaced Israelis from returning to their homes. It would also set a precedent, he said, in which militant groups like Hamas turn to the international court for protection. “Yes, there is a heart wrenching armed conflict," Noam said. "But the attempt to classify it as genocide will turn an instrument adopted by international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or the law.” The German government has come out strongly for the Israeli. Germany’s government said there is “no basis whatsoever” for an accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
“We know that different countries assess Israel’s operation in Gaza differently,” government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement Friday. “However, the Federal Government firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel at the International Court of Justice.”
Given Germany’s Nazi history, Hebestreit said the German government “sees itself as particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide.”
The convention is a “central instrument” for preventing future crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, he said. “We firmly oppose political instrumentalization,” Hebestreit said. I hope they have more because none of the points you highlighted actually do anything to deny the claims of ethic cleansing. The notion then Hamas cannot be fought without reducing Gaza to rubble is simple bullshit. Of course they has more, it’s going to take months. You would really hope SA has more as well. How would you suggest? Because this is a question I’ve probably asked 10 times with the only response being that you can’t and Israel should just stay in its borders and defend. Pretty sure this question has been plenty answered over the last few months. More precision operations, less flattening entire neighbourhoods.
The problem is that Israel is claiming the only possible way to fight Hamas is to flatter Gaza and displace its population into an every small corner and that anyone who fled the violence should not be allowed back in. Anything less is somehow allowed the terrorists to win.
Yes doing less bombing operations and actually moving into a city with troops to find tunnels and depots has more risk for soldiers. That is the reality of war, a country should not allowed to use excessive force and displace an entire civilian population just to reduce the risk to their soldiers.
|
On January 13 2024 02:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 02:26 Cricketer12 wrote:On January 13 2024 02:14 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2024 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2024 01:50 JimmiC wrote:The Israelis put forward the beginnings of their case today. Here are some highlights. “When the cannons roar in Gaza, the law is not silent,” Noam said. “This has been the case since 1948.”
On Thursday, South Africa’s legal team alleged that Israeli leadership had demonstrated “genocidal intent,” pointing to statements made by top officials. But Noam said Israel has no tolerance for statements calling for harm to civilians in Gaza and that the Israeli justice system could consider them to be incitement. Noam said an order by the court asking Israel to halt hostilities in Gaza would lead to a “perverse situation” in which Hamas would continue to attack citizens of Israel, hold about 136 hostages in the Gaza Strip and prevent displaced Israelis from returning to their homes. It would also set a precedent, he said, in which militant groups like Hamas turn to the international court for protection. “Yes, there is a heart wrenching armed conflict," Noam said. "But the attempt to classify it as genocide will turn an instrument adopted by international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or the law.” The German government has come out strongly for the Israeli. Germany’s government said there is “no basis whatsoever” for an accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
“We know that different countries assess Israel’s operation in Gaza differently,” government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement Friday. “However, the Federal Government firmly and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide that has now been made against Israel at the International Court of Justice.”
Given Germany’s Nazi history, Hebestreit said the German government “sees itself as particularly committed to the Convention against Genocide.”
The convention is a “central instrument” for preventing future crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, he said. “We firmly oppose political instrumentalization,” Hebestreit said. I hope they have more because none of the points you highlighted actually do anything to deny the claims of ethic cleansing. The notion then Hamas cannot be fought without reducing Gaza to rubble is simple bullshit. Of course they has more, it’s going to take months. You would really hope SA has more as well. How would you suggest? Because this is a question I’ve probably asked 10 times with the only response being that you can’t and Israel should just stay in its borders and defend. Apologies if this has already been discussed, but is there a reason Israel can't send in insertion teams covertly? It has not been brought up or discussed at all yet, literally no one has answered what Israel could do, only yelled about how evil they are and how they mean to commit genocide. I would not think it would work because of the tunnel system, first all the entrances and exits are in schools, daycares, hospitals, peoples homes and so on, so there would be no ability to have stealth and civilians would be at risk. And they would alert Hamas to have leaders exit and fighters fight. Also, even with clearing the tunnels the IDF won’t go in, they send robots, cameras whatever, or destroy them from the outside because of the booby traps. Basically it would be suicide missions without much chance of success.
What would you suggest?
|
Northern Ireland24326 Posts
On January 13 2024 03:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 02:16 Salazarz wrote:On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
My questions were specifically for Salazarz because he comes in with all this anger and self righteousness and I'm not sure if it is on purpose or not, but it comes off very hateful towards Israel and the Jews. In what way exactly am I hateful against Israel and the Jews? Do expand on this, please. On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
He is picking some date that works for his narrative as when times changed. I'm not picking shit. Nations only started paying at least a modicum of attention to the rights of populations and safety of civilians sometime around the great war era, there was obviously no specific day when ThE PeOpLe Of ThE WoRlD HaVe DeCiDeD or anything of the sort, but you're either a moron or a troll if you are going to claim that attitude towards things like forced deportations and anti-civilian violence and such didn't change significantly in the first half of 20th century. Russian are being consistently called out for their displacement of Ukrainians -- and I don't see anyone here coming up with excuses for that (rightly so), so what exactly makes Israel special? On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
Most of his these style posts he writes the underlying tone is that Israel shouldn't exist, I'm not sure how many times he is going to beat around the bush before he finally says what he means. I have no problem saying exactly what I mean. Like so: you're obnoxious as hell with your endless strawmen. On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
I think the whole historical analysis for trying to find a people who belong is a fools errand. Like if either group "wins" are you going to just ship all the other people away? If so where? And then what this is the exception to ethnic cleansing being bad. It doesn't matter who 'belongs' where. What matters is who already lives there. And this conflict cannot be allowed to have a winner -- precisely because having a clear 'winner' as it stands would mean the other side gets completely and utterly fucked over. Which is why Israel being allowed to get away with as much as they are is ridiculous; they are being allowed to 'win' at the expense of Palestinians, and that's not right. Both sides will have to make concessions if they are to coexist, but there is no incentive for Israel to make any because they have all the power in the conflict, and they are not being held responsible for the abuses and violence they commit by the international community. Meanwhile for Palestine, there is no sense in offering any concessions first, because Israel has consistently shown that they will simply continue to take what they want no matter what -- and the rest of the world has shown that they are okay with it. On January 13 2024 00:09 JimmiC wrote:
What would be super nice, but not going to happen because the world and humanity often (mostly?) sucks is the two groups of consistently marginalized and straight up murdered people would decide to stop doing it to each other and work together to give both groups the safety, security and peaceful homeland neither has ever had.
Literally all it takes for Israel to stop killing Palestinians is for the US & friends to say 'enough is enough.' That wouldn't stop Palestinian radicals overnight, but it's not as if bombing their shit and colonizing their lands has stopped them, either, so maybe it's worth at least trying? Unless of course they aren't actually interested in peace and coexistence, and what they really want is all of the land no matter how many lives (mostly Palestinian, anyway) it costs to get it. Kind of like their elected PM has said. You realize he got 23% of the vote right? And his entire block got just a sliver over 50%. As for the trying something new, this is much newer something like this has never been tried. Peace actually has multiple times. Acting like Israel is the only one who has shattered the peace is as disingenuous as most of your posts on the topic. It is what I’m talking about, it’s not a strawman and you make your extremely biased and hateful position clear with almost every post. It is too bad you can step down from yourself righteous soap box and stop pretending you know all the answers and actually try to look at the situation with some level of objectivity.
Litterally nobody in this thread has the position that Israel is entirely to blame. If somebody does hold such a position please correct me said person
You can’t post from some position as the moderate voice of reason if you’re making such broad brushing aspersions on other posters.
It’s you that’s putting out the strawmen here, not other posters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
