EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 185
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21698 Posts
On January 13 2024 04:42 JimmiC wrote: offers ways to fight Hamas. Says I'm saying Israel can't fight Hamas....What are you saying is that they can't fight them because of Hamas has situated themselves. Which is something I agree with and have agreed with if you bother reading my posts. But then again you are not even sure what you are saying so there is that. There is a world between doing nothing and flatting every building in Gaza. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25433 Posts
On January 13 2024 04:53 Gorsameth wrote: offers ways to fight Hamas. Says I'm saying Israel can't fight Hamas.... There is a world between doing nothing and flatting every building in Gaza. It’s almost like you don’t need to kill 30,000 people, the majority of whom are civilians or something | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12200 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21698 Posts
On January 13 2024 05:13 JimmiC wrote: And a lot of them are also critical of Israel's methods, but you conveniently leave that out.Here’s the rub though. Everyone that is not in Hamas or the “axis of resistance” agrees that Hamas are terrorists. Many many people and major governments do not agree with you on the ethnically cleansing trope. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23244 Posts
On January 13 2024 02:01 Gorsameth wrote: 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. I wouldn't bet on them having more substantive arguments. It was pretty clear to me they didn't when they leaned so hard on their argument that it can't be genocide if they don't say "Hey, our official policy is to commit genocide against Palestinians". Taken at face value, it would mean Israel could kill every Palestinian and would still argue it wasn't genocide. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12200 Posts
On January 13 2024 05:13 JimmiC wrote: Here’s the rub though. Everyone that is not in Hamas or the “axis of resistance” agrees that Hamas are terrorists. Many many people and major governments do not agree with you on the ethnically cleansing trope. I made the choice to form my opinion based on looking at the facts objectively, looking at the declarations of the people currently running the government of Israel, reasoning about these facts and these declarations and what they could mean or not mean, and finally listening to expert voices on the topic of ethnic cleansing and genocide as well as human rights organizations on the ground and finally palestinian voices. But it's true that I could also have made the choice to listen to politicians from countries that are allied with the government that is accused of doing the ethnic cleansing. I can't help but feel like one of those choices is better than the other, though. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12200 Posts
On January 13 2024 05:33 JimmiC wrote: Better to listen to the countries allied with the clear and horrible genocidal terrorists. Totally makes sense. That is most definitely a bad faith answer, as we can all see that in my post I'm not advocating that at all. So what do you want to do now? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12200 Posts
On January 13 2024 05:46 JimmiC wrote: It is not exactly what you said, but it is reality. Look at all the countries that have came out and their human rights records compared to say Germany. Most also are supporting Russia, you OK with that? You opened this can of worms. It is not "not exactly what I said", it's not what I said at all. You're lying. Why do you want to look at what countries say and who these countries are as opposed to what the facts present like, what the government of Israel says about those facts, what the palestinian victims say about those facts, what the human rights organization say about those facts, and what experts on ethnic cleansing and genocide say about those facts, as I indicated I did? Do you not feel like it would be a better way to come up with a conclusion than to have a random competition between Germany and South Africa? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21698 Posts
On January 13 2024 05:46 JimmiC wrote: Dude even the US is telling Israel to turn it down a notch.It is not exactly what you said, but it is reality. Look at all the countries that have came out and their human rights records compared to say Germany. Most also are supporting Russia, you OK with that? You opened this can of worms. Those who think Israel is being excessive support Russia. Really? Almost the entirety of the UN supports a cease fire and the only reason a resolution hasn't been pushed through is the US vetoing them but those who think Israel is using excessive force and undue suffering for the innocent Palestinian population support Russia? Really dude? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4144 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
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'. I want to be clear that my argument is not that Jews are entitled to the entire Judea empire due to the Jews occupying that region for around 900 years. My point in all of that was that Jews have been in the region for a long time, they stuck around, and there have been Jewish nations in the past. Since sometimes when I make my posts too long, people don't read it, I will not include all of the citations I included in previous posts and just write out the conclusions. If there are any points you think are inaccurate, say so, and I will go into greater detail with citations and whatnot. I will now outline the facts/assumptions of my argument, because I want to make sure we agree on the basic facts of the history associated with all this. 1: Jews have been in the Palestine/Israel/Jordan area for a really long time. They had multiple empires and the last one they had before the modern Israel was Judea. When the Romans ethnically cleansed Judea, it was the 3rd time in history Jews had been ethnically cleansed from an area. 2: After Judea was wiped out, Jews moved to nearby regions to avoid persecution and generally survive. That included the coastal region to the west and all other directions. I want to be clear that Jews were not totally absent from the region just because they didn't have a Jewish empire anymore. Jews still lived in neighboring regions and generally lived in the Middle East. 3: The most recent non-western nation in that region was the Ottoman Empire. Jews lived in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere. The Ottoman Empire was vast and had many individual parts. Each part had their own unique culture and interpretation of laws. In some regions, Jews were able to live mostly care-free. In other regions, it was essentially not safe for them because of the local culture. There were efforts to establish a Jewish region because of the dicey situation within the Ottoman empire and the long history of persecution. 4: In the 19th century, a few different efforts were made to create a Jewish community in Palestine. This included Jews from both the middle east and Europe, both escaping persecution. In the 1800s, there was tons of antisemitism in both Europe and the Middle East. This is a very important point because the 1800s were well before the british carved out Israel for Jews. It needs to be extremely clear and agreed on that Jews were persecuted in various nations within the middle east and europe in the 1800s. 5: In WW1, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and was defeated. The Sykes–Picot Agreement split up the region among the British and the French. As we all know, this eventually led to the 1947 vote by the United Nations Special Committee to partition Western Palestine into a Jewish State. Please let me know if you disagree with any of these statements. I can provide more detail, citations, and all the stuff as-requested, but I am trying not to burden this thread with my huge posts. ******************PART 2****************** Separately, here is my argument based on the facts above. Totally understand if you disagree with me from here onward, but it is important we at least agree on the assumptions described above: 1: "Colonialism" is not an appropriate way to describe Jews living in modern-day Palestine/Israel. They have lived there for a long time and remained in the region. 2: The Ottoman Empire entered into WW1 and lost. They entered into WW1 largely because they saw it as a good opportunity to hurt the british, who had been trying to spread its influence throughout the middle east before WW1. I have a very hard time saying this is some kind of profound injustice. The Ottoman Empire took their shot, lost, and the folks who won used the remains of the empire as they wanted. I don't think it is appropriate to frame the British having control of this region as some kind of injustice. 3: Since Jews have been in the area a long time, made efforts to move to specifically form a Jewish community within Palestine in the 1800s, and had been persecuted throughout both the Middle East and Europe throughout the 1800s, the idea of trying to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine is entirely reasonable 4: For the people who lived in this partition previously, and did not want this new Jewish partition to exist, they are entirely within their right to be angry and to try to retake that land. I view this as an entirely legitimate reason to go to war with someone. But that does not mean the British, Israel, and the West as a whole are not justified in defending the land. For the reasons listed above, it is very easy to see why a Jewish safe-haven is necessary, but its not like we had unexplored parts of the world left to go make a new place. Any land given to the Jews would ultimately mean land taken from someone else. But whoever those unlucky folks would be, they would be within their right to get mad and try to take it back. If they fail to do so, I don't see it as an injustice. Ultimately this entire set of events is a result of the Ottoman Empire entering WW1 and being defeated. It isn't reasonable to essentially call WW1 illegitimate and to say the British using the land as they wanted to. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
