EPTA good recap on the events so far.
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 30
| 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. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
A good recap on the events so far. | ||
KwarK
United States42260 Posts
On October 10 2023 18:54 Manit0u wrote: To be honest, a lot of problems in the middle-east stem from the creation of all those artificial countries. Typically countries have borders along natural obstacles like rivers, mountains etc. If you look at the map of the region there are a lot of straight lines for borders there. This is a big part of why there are so many conflicts there, someone decided on arbitrary borders and you now have people from tribes that have been warring for centuries stuck in the same country or some people being split across two different countries all of a sudden. Couple this with authoritarian tendencies of both the old families that want to be feudal kings and religious zealots who also want a dictatorship and you have a big problem. Slavery, genocide and other atrocities are common there. While there are issues with lots of the countries created by Britain and France drawing lines on the maps Israel isn’t one of those. Britain actively tried to stop this from happening and fought the radical Zionist terrorists behind the creation of Israel. Zionism didn’t have a state backer, it was like the QAnoners in Canada taking over a town. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States521 Posts
For reference, here is the post (to be more precise, the part of the post I shared with my friend)… On May 18 2021 11:26 KwarK wrote: The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did. The UN came up with a partition plan in 1947 and Britain decided to withdraw without any plan for implementing the partition plan. The US also changed its mind on the partition plan and felt like an expanded Arab Jordan might be able to absorb the new Palestinian state. Ultimately the question was moot because the day the British left the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The neighbouring Arab states all declared war on the new Israel because it wasn't doing the orderly transition and partition the UN had recommended but the Zionists had secured sufficient weapons and training ahead of time to defend themselves. They had a fun rationalization for why the Israel declared in their coup got to be bigger than the UN partition plan. Basically they argued that because the Palestinians thought that the Zionists should get less land than the UN agreement then it was only fair if the Zionists in turn tried to make the Palestinians get less land than the UN agreement. They made the argument that because they accepted the UN agreement (they didn't) but the Palestinians didn't (they didn't) then they didn't have to accept the UN agreement and so they wouldn't accept the UN agreement because although they did accept the UN agreement (they didn't) it wouldn't be fair if they were the only ones who accepted it and so they didn't have to be bound by it even though they accepted it (they didn't). The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. Moving forward in the post, I'll be speaking as my friend. Again, this is from two years ago. He elected to break down the post part by part, so I'll do so as well. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and Britain + France divided it into League mandates which were what they called colonies in the civilized post WW1 era where they weren't making new colonies. The mandates were to be protected and guided towards statehood by a colonial power. The Zionist movement had previously been growing for a few decades, driven in part by the rapidly growing Jewish population in the United States. In 1917, before Britain actually controlled Palestine, Lord Balfour, a British foreign secretary, famously said that he was in favour of a Jewish state provided that it did not harm the existing Palestinian peoples. While the governments changed and Palestine had not previously been Britain's to give away this was subsequently used as a justification for migration. This is pretty accurate. Balfour also wrote the "Balfour declaration" at that time as well. Documents like this were what set British policy in their colonies. In 1939 Britain tried to slam the brakes on, noting the increasingly militant and totalitarian nature of the Zionist migration to Palestine and the harm that was coming to the Palestinian population. The Zionist (btw, Zionist actually means a supporter of the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel and was a movement started by Jews around that time) movement was building momentum after the British took over and had their Balfour Declaration. Jews were flocking from Europe, buying unused land for cheap in Mandatory Palestine, and turning swamps and rocky badlands into farms and settlements. Many Arabs welcomed this. It brought money, trade, and technology to the region. Others heard about the Balfour declaration and were... less happy about it's ramifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine Arabs began attacking Jewish settlements. Some of these attacks were smaller (didn't lead to fatalities), so they aren't as well recorded. The Haganah museum records a first hand account of one such attack where Arabs rushed a settlement with machetes, but fled when a settler fired a gun in the air. (An early lesson in how having a bigger stick than the other guy is the best defense.) Linked above is Wikipedias list of the more serious early conflicts with the initiating parties of each. In any event, Jews began arming to defend themselves. They even formed an organization (the Haganah, precursor to the IDF), which provided sentries to each settlement to keep the new farmers safe. Some of the older Jewish communities were less on board with the arming themselves idea. Many had lived peacefully side by side with the local Arabs for hundreds of years and didn't think attacks would affect them. Then in 1929, the Hebron and Sefad massacres took place, where those peaceful Arabs slaughtered their unarmed neighbors in their homes. Granted, all the Jews that survived only did so because some of the Arabs actually were nice and hid them from the rioters. The British showed up after everything was over, decided they didn't want to waste manpower keeping the local Jews safe, and forcibly removed the remaining Jews from the neighborhood they had lived in for generations. The Arabs learned a valuable lesson from this: killing Jews was enough to get land. The British couldn't stomach anyone killing anyone, and would give concessions to aggressors in hopes that would make them stop. The Jews also learned something: every Jew needed armed defenders, no matter how nice the locals seemed. And as much as the British claimed to care about them, they wouldn't run to stop a Jew being killed. (You'll notice that many of the lessons from those times inform Arab and Jewish tactics and geopolitical interactions to this day). In 1936-39, the Arabs called a general strike, which degenerated into violence, which again lead to the British offering them more land (the same type of appeasement they would later use on Hitler). They now decided to split up Palestine in the White Papers based on the conclusions of the Peel Report. They also decided to restrict immigration by Jews (and no other group), so the Arabs would stop rioting. Neither Jews nor Arabs were happy with how the land was now to be divided, and fighting continued. Which comes back to your friend's statement with some added context to why the British reneged on their original Balfour Declaration. He's of course welcome to opine why, that the British did it out of concern for Jewish fascism or whatnot, but the official reports on the Peel Commission all have to do with trying to explain why the Arabs are riled up and how they can be calmed down. https://web.archive.org/web/20101231091409/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358?OpenDocument It placed a cap on Jewish migration to Palestine and called for the establishment of two states. This proposal didn't go down well with the radical Zionists in Palestine... The Jews were naturally not pleased to see they were now only being offered a small fraction of what they were originally promised, but the Grand Mufti (Muslim leader) rejected the report out of hand for offering ANY land to Jews. ...who promptly tried to make an alliance with Hitler (yes, that Hitler) and establish a totalitarian fascist Israel through a campaign of terrorism against the British authorities. They committed massacres against the Palestinian population, assassinated British colonial administrators, and collaborated with Nazis. It was during this time period when philosophical differences arose among the Jewish defenders. The Haganah that I already mentioned was the main group. Haganah translates to defence, and that summed them up. They had a strict non-aggression policy and only used their arms to defend Jews from Arab attacks (prior to the war). And even when they disagreed with the British, they were committed to diplomatic solutions. A break-off group from the Haganah at that time was the Irgun. They saw that the Arabs were rewarded for aggression and felt the Jews were effectively being punished for playing nice. Therefore they felt that the British were unfair mediators and that Jews had to take matters into their own hands. They also decided that deterrence would be more effective at preventing further attacks against Jews. If an Arab killed a Jew, they would hunt him down and kill him even after he had stopped being an immediate threat. Every Jewish death was retaliated upon with corresponding death. And not just Arab, British too. If the British executed a Jew they felt didn't deserve it (usually Irgun members), they would respond in kind and assassinate the officer. They were seen as terrorists by many, but you can at least understand their motive. In a country where authorities can't or won't enforce justice, vigilantes are the only defense against criminals. Nevertheless, the Zionist leadership and the Haganah often condemned their actions (and even worked with the British against them at points). Then there were the Lehi. Most boogie man stories told about Jewish settlers has some roots in the Lehi. They were self described terrorists. They were a small group of extremists who thought the Irgun's tactics were too soft. The Irgun avoided civilian casualties in their retaliations. The Lehi on the other hand felt that a village that sheltered murderers were also murderers. They felt the British anti-immigration policy was tantamount to murder (happens to be millions of Jews would have escaped the gas chambers if the White Papers weren't in force, so they weren't completely wrong.) They even tried (unsuccessfully) to convince Hitler to send all his Jews away to Israel if they fought the British (which is the nugget of truth in the previous post. They were effectively trying to convince the Nazi's to not be such Nazi's and expel Europe's Jews rather than gas them, but they did offer their aid if Germany did that). That said, the Lehi were disowned by the Zionist leadership and organizations, to the point were the Haganah itself even attacked them. Lehi was only ever a small group (hence them not being on that Wikipedia list very much). Israel forcibly disbanded them when it became a country. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Jewish fighters, under directive of the Zionist leadership, joined the British armed forces for World War 2, hoping to show the British that they were the good guys. Some tens of thousands of soldiers. Also meanwhile, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council, went to fascist Italy and then Germany to meet Hitler personally and got them to sign his document that supported his claim to Palestine. He also ran propagandic radio broadcasts to recruit Bosnian Muslims to the SS. He was the de-facto leader of the Arabs in Palestine in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War too. But we're discussing Zionist Nazi connections, not Arab ones, so I guess that's neither here nor there. *At this point in the discussion I say to my friend "Re: Irgun, your assertion that they tried to avoid civilian casualties doesn't seem to mesh with the list that states a lot of things like car bombs and throwing a bomb into a crowded market." His response was "Granted. The Irgun was loosely organized with a range of participants, many of which acted basically independently. Not all of them focused on military targets. Which is part of what lead the Haganah to turn in some Irgun members to the British during one period."* After WW2 there was increasing American support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine while Britain tried to maintain a semblance of control including limits on immigration etc. which were obviously unpopular in the wake of the Holocaust. The terror attacks on British forces and administration, as well as on Palestinians themselves, increased to the point that the British called in the UN to mediate and bailed. This part's pretty accurate. It's just leaving out a relevant point that everyone was getting their hands dirty at that point. Arabs were killing Jews and British, British were cracking down on Jews and Arabs. It was a mess. It's no wonder the British bailed. The Zionist terrorists promptly assassinated the UN mediator because of course they did. Lehi did do this. That act was the final straw which made the Israeli government declare them terrorists and arrest them. The UN came up with a partition plan in 1947 and Britain decided to withdraw without any plan for implementing the partition plan. Also true. The British were done. Basically the mentality of, fine, go kill each other for all we care. Not our problem anymore. The US also changed its mind on the partition plan and felt like an expanded Arab Jordan might be able to absorb the new Palestinian state. Sure, but kind of irrelevant. The British had direct control and the UN was given the final say. Ideas the US simply considered have no legal bearing. Ultimately the question was moot because the day the British left the Zionists felt themselves strong enough to simply seize power in Palestine through a coup. The neighbouring Arab states all declared war on the new Israel because it wasn't doing the orderly transition and partition the UN had recommended but the Zionists had secured sufficient weapons and training ahead of time to defend themselves. They had a fun rationalization for why the Israel declared in their coup got to be bigger than the UN partition plan. Basically they argued that because the Palestinians thought that the Zionists should get less land than the UN agreement then it was only fair if the Zionists in turn tried to make the Palestinians get less land than the UN agreement. They made the argument that because they accepted the UN agreement (they didn't) but the Palestinians didn't (they didn't) then they didn't have to accept the UN agreement and so they wouldn't accept the UN agreement because although they did accept the UN agreement (they didn't) it wouldn't be fair if they were the only ones who accepted it and so they didn't have to be bound by it even though they accepted it (they didn't). The fascist Zionists who allied with the Nazis in WW2 and specifically wanted a totalitarian Jewish state modelled on Nazi Germany all got medals and their leader subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel because that's just how Israel is. This one is kind of a ramble, so I'll just give the whole thing over with some subtle but important differences. In the aftermath of the world wars, the US wanted to divide up old colonies under the principle of self determination. Most of the Middle East and North Africa were established at that point. Those areas have a number of ethnic and religious groups, so naturally, many countries were formed. There were/are: Muslim Arabs, Coptic Christians, Jews, Afars, Berbers, Kurds, Yazidis, Druze, B'hai, etc. The Kurds got 0 countries The B'hai 0 The Druze 0 The Yazidis 0 The Berbers 0 The Afars 0 Coptic Christians 0 Muslim Arabs 20+ Jews 1 You can see why the world is so up in arms about the Jewish country... Anyways, the other minority groups didn't put up a fight, so the Brits didn't mind slighting them. But the Jews were stubborn and the British had enough dealing with conflict. The British told the UN it was up to them to divide up the land. In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was proposed and adopted in the UN. I'm not sure why the previous poster is hanging his hat so heavily on the idea that the Jews rejected the plan, because there are numerous sources that Jews around the world rejoiced when the plan was adopted and the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Leadership (which was the diplomatic body that actually represented the Jews) accepted the plan (granted, the Lehi, did not, but they were disbanded shortly thereafter, and they were a minority to begin with.) Some sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/DPIQoPPub_280220.pdf http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article134238148 https://www.nytimes.com/1947/11/30/archives/palestine-jewry-joyous-at-news-bengurion-voices-attitude-of.html?sq=november 30 1947 jewish agency&scp=7&st=p https://www.nytimes.com/1947/11/30/archives/vote-on-palestine-cheered-by-crowd-thousands-hear-dr-weizmann.html?sq=november 30 1947 jewish agency&scp=4&st=p The Arabs on the other hand, once again rejected any plan that did not involve giving them everything. They indicated that the plan would not apply to them and stormed out of the UN. (As a side note, this weakens any legal defense they have of being given any territory by the UN, because they clearly and openly rejected said gift at the time of the giving.) https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/DPIQoPPub_280220.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=ghf_OBksgykC&pg=PA76 The British began pulling out, without waiting for Jewish or Arab governments to be set up or providing opportunity for any orderly transition. They were left to fend for themselves. For the Jews, that was particularly problematic because 1) the local Arabs hadn't agreed to let them rule any territory at all and 2) multiple Arab countries had already been established in the region and said they would attack if a Jewish state was formed. The Jews rushed to consolidate what they could and set up defenses for the small state they were given. In 1948, the last of the British left and the UN resolution officially came into force. Therefore, on that day, the newly formed Israeli government declared themselves a state. 5 Arab states (with a total population of over 30 million) declared war on and invaded the tiny fledgeling Israel (population less than 1 million) with the stated noble goal of annihilating the whole of Israel. Now, war is an interesting thing. Declaring war, is basically like saying "forget all the legal documents and diplomacy, let's settle our disputes in trial by combat. Winner gets whatever he can take." When Germany lost World War 1, they had to pay reparations that took them a century to pay off. When they lost WW2, they lost a bunch of land permanently and got occupied by the Allied powers for half a century. Winner makes the rules. They can redraw the maps, affect regime change, whatever they want. Source: pretty much every war ever fought. It's a bit barbaric, but that's how humans do things. You may wonder why people go to war at all with those kinds of rules. I would suggest you need some really good reasons to risk it all like that. Like an existential threat or something. Then again, some people are into gambling. Who am I to judge? Whatever the reason, the Arabs of Palestine rejected the safe option of free land from the UN and put all their money in on the chance to win big. It was admittedly a safe bet with so many already established Arab states with existing armies joining them. However, by some act of God, they lost. (I will say that there is some reasonable argument that trial by combat shouldn't apply to countries who had war declared upon them [e.g. Tibet]. However, Arabs were the aggressors in every war with Israel, and very clearly so in 1948 with the Arab countries declaring intent before the war and official declarations of war to kick things off.) Having rejected politics for trial by combat, the Arabs submitted themselves to the territorial boundaries that the victor would grant them. Mind you, Israel wasn't the only victor. Egypt took Gaza and Jordan took Jerusalem and the West Bank. Not that either of those countries bothered to establish an independent State of Palestine when they fully had the opportunity to do so. Nor did anyone blame them for this. After all, they weren't Jews. The Jews offered full citizenship to all races and religions of people in their newly re-acquired ancestral homeland because they wanted this weird thing called democracy. They guaranteed freedom of religion to all, even going so far as to give Muslims equal or greater access than Jews to sites deemed holy to both religions. In response to the Jews defiling the Middle East with democracy, the Arabs had no choice but to demand trial by combat again, for another chance to redraw the map as they liked in 1967. Yet, lightning apparently does strike twice, and by another act of God, the tiny State of Israel prevailed and even expanded it's territory. I'm not actually sure what legal standing the Arabs have to the land of Israel at all at this point. Not only did they refuse to accept the UN partition plan, but every Israeli offer of land since (e.g. the Camp David Summit). The only land mediator they've recognized is that of trial by combat, of which they've lost every time. By all legal arguments, Israel is the one and only party with claim to sovereignty over the area. Yet despite all this history, Israel is still willing to give some of that land up for peace if it has a good faith actor willing to make such a deal... | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
In 1948, the last of the British left and the UN resolution officially came into force. Therefore, on that day, the newly formed Israeli government declared themselves a state. 5 Arab states (with a total population of over 30 million) declared war on and invaded the tiny fledgeling Israel (population less than 1 million) with the stated noble goal of annihilating the whole of Israel. Now, war is an interesting thing. Declaring war, is basically like saying "forget all the legal documents and diplomacy, let's settle our disputes in trial by combat. Winner gets whatever he can take." When Germany lost World War 1, they had to pay reparations that took them a century to pay off. When they lost WW2, they lost a bunch of land permanently and got occupied by the Allied powers for half a century. Winner makes the rules. They can redraw the maps, affect regime change, whatever they want. Source: pretty much every war ever fought. It's a bit barbaric, but that's how humans do things. You may wonder why people go to war at all with those kinds of rules. I would suggest you need some really good reasons to risk it all like that. Like an existential threat or something. Then again, some people are into gambling. Who am I to judge? “All’s fair in love and war” isn’t actually a thing anybody seriously believes. If somebody fights a war and wins, and then decides as a result they want every right-handed person in the affected territory to be executed, nobody actually thinks “but we won a war so we make the rules” absolves them of moral responsibility. “Trial by combat” isn’t a real legal (let alone moral) standard, it’s a Game of Thrones plot device. This is particularly obvious if you consider the perspective of people in the region that never participated in the war, on either side. Group A and Group B fought a war, and Group A won; why should that mean people in Group C lose their human rights? This isn’t a game of Risk, it’s children getting shot and whole neighborhoods exploding in fiery infernos. It’s thousands and thousands of deaths. The gambit is essentially “if we’re not the aggressors we’re the good guys, and if we win a war the rules are whatever we say (our good guy status was already settled btw).” But everyone bears moral responsibility for their actions, victor or not, aggressor or not. | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
Fair enough, most countries have their own troubled history and related national narrative that paints its creation as the righteous path (completely reasonable!), but that shouldn't be treated as equal to history. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
“They declared war on us and we won, so we can do whatever we want unrestrained by any notion of morality, thems the rules” is not exactly compelling or endearing stuff. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22991 Posts
On October 11 2023 01:12 Oukka wrote: I mean, it was an interesting post to read, but something that bothered me greatly was the constant "yes, that [violent attack] happened but it wasn't all Jews but this one group which was then dissolved etc." At the same time the speaker fails to extend similar consideration to the other side, where everyone is just one big homogeneous group of "the Arabs". Fair enough, most countries have their own troubled history and related national narrative that paints its creation as the righteous path (completely reasonable!), but that shouldn't be treated as equal to history. It did remind me of hearing the story of Manifest Destiny in school as a child. | ||
|
hussain6767gk
1 Post
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3734 Posts
The local population had been too lenient with them. They had lived peacefully (more or less; in historic context) side by side for centuries and suddenly the Jewish population exploded due to migration and set up camp and threatened to govern the entire area. All that thanks to the British (and other colonial powers) who had left a power vacuum, presumably so they could put more pressure on Germany during WW2. That's quite literally what happened. And the trigger to these migrant waves was the extermination of the Jews in Europe. Resulting from too much show of goodwill, Arabs had their land stolen from them. This is the reality, and it can't be called anything else. It was theft with many sprinkles of murder. The British had no right to divide the land into anything. The Jews had no right to the land at all. That's a fact. Now, of course things have changed a lot since those days. Israel today is not Israel during its foundation. A solution is not to go back in time and just undo everything that went wrong. That's not how things work. But to leave out the full context would be dishonest. Hamas has no right to do any of this, but Palestinians have a right to be pissed even after all these years. Their ancestors were robbed, and indirectly that means they were robbed today. Of what, I don't know exactly. They think it's their holy land. I don't understand that concept, but to them it means something. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States521 Posts
On October 11 2023 01:28 farvacola wrote: The oversimplification of war and what victory entails seem like a caricature, so much so that one wonders if the author was truly being serious. Ryzel, was your friend providing their personal view or was this some kind of exercise in apologetics? “They declared war on us and we won, so we can do whatever we want unrestrained by any notion of morality, thems the rules” is not exactly compelling or endearing stuff. I'll be happy to relay the rebuttals of everyone to him and see if he's still interested in rehashing this despite the gap in time (he probably would, he enjoys political/philosophical debate). | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2579 Posts
Palestine have been a designation for territory and not a country for almost all of history. It's pretty wild to say that Palestinians (which were not really a thing) intrisicly have a right to a country anymore than the jews. Neither group had any "right" to the area historically shit just went down the way it did and now it looks like it does today. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42260 Posts
The main difference between the plight of the Palestinians and Native Americans is that the nation of Israel was considerably less genocidal than the United States. If we were to deny the right of the Israelis to live in their homes while forgiving the Americans then the argument essentially comes down to “it’s better to rob and murder than just to rob because in a hundred years there’s no victim anymore”. And maybe it is, I guess, in terms of creating a peaceful end state. But blaming Israel for not finishing the job isn’t ideal. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42260 Posts
On October 11 2023 02:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: If we can agree on that winning or losing a war should not affect claims on the land the idea that Palestinians somehow have a better historical claim to the area is absurd. If anything it should be Turkish given that it was part of the Ottoman empire for 400 years, or perhaps Egyptian since the Mameluks ruled for 600 years before that. Palestine have been a designation for territory and not a country for almost all of history. It's pretty wild to say that Palestinians (which were not really a thing) intrisicly have a right to a country anymore than the jews. Neither group had any "right" to the area historically shit just went down the way it did and now it looks like it does today. If we argue that the Palestinians living in Palestine didn’t have a right to not have their homeland conquered and colonized then we’re in very shaky territory. That gets us to declaring the Americas Terra Nullius and genociding everyone, for example. These aren’t intrinsic rights that belong to peoples, the act of living and working the land is what made it belong to them. And it did belong to them. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
753 Posts
On October 11 2023 03:02 KwarK wrote: If it's about the land that is Israel now - well, the Jews were living there and working this land for the last 75 years. So it does belong to them? Or should it be more than 75 years?the act of living and working the land is what made it belong to them. And it did belong to them. I.e. how soon after the land was conquered it starts belonging to the conquerer? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On October 11 2023 02:59 KwarK wrote: Not a response to anyone in particular, just an abstract comment. The main difference between the plight of the Palestinians and Native Americans is that the nation of Israel was considerably less genocidal than the United States. If we were to deny the right of the Israelis to live in their homes while forgiving the Americans then the argument essentially comes down to “it’s better to rob and murder than just to rob because in a hundred years there’s no victim anymore”. And maybe it is, I guess, in terms of creating a peaceful end state. But blaming Israel for not finishing the job isn’t ideal. I do think the argument is true, at least it has a working logic. But I don't think it's the same as "blaming Israel for not finishing the job". The conditions for taking land and doing a genocide in the last 70 years are much different from what they were when the US did it. Unfortunately I'm not confident enough to state that you can't get away with it at all, but there's no comparison, it's way harder. So if anything you would be blaming Israel for "doing it after it was cool". | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2579 Posts
On October 11 2023 03:02 KwarK wrote: If we argue that the Palestinians living in Palestine didn’t have a right to not have their homeland conquered and colonized then we’re in very shaky territory. That gets us to declaring the Americas Terra Nullius and genociding everyone, for example. These aren’t intrinsic rights that belong to peoples, the act of living and working the land is what made it belong to them. And it did belong to them. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be able to have a right to live where they always have in peace . But the people living in the territory known as Palestine a) legally didn't have a homeland (if you don't count the British mandate) and b) weren't colonised they had an issue with immigration. Extremely excessive immigration not under their control but still immigration. And they didn't deal with it particularly well (granted the immigrants were at least as bad). I can understand that when the time comes to determine who gets a country the arabs living there felt like the minority population (30 % jews, historically since the 1800s about 10 % but pretty massive immigration for about 20 years) shouldn't get a piece of the cake. However they didn't exactly deal with it well. I don't think you would argue that racists in Sweden would be correct about wanting to kick out all arab immigrants regardless if they have a citizenship or not because they aren't "real Swedes". The unique thing about Israel/Palestine is that it was an area with no history of statehood and a current ruler who actively wanted out. And when the time came to form states the participants choose to have a war instead of trying to work it out. I have trouble seeing how the Palestinians are clearly in the right to rule the land in this situation. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + https://poleshift.ning.com/forum/topics/zetatalk-chat-for-october-31-2023?commentId=3863141:Comment:1159118 SOZT Why would Hamas attack Israel? What would they have to gain? Given the facts that Israel seemed unaware of the pending attack and their generals are being captured, it appears that this is a False Flag event at the hand of Israel. But why? Israel is the head of the Khazarian Mafia. The western Rothschild banks are collapsing at present while BRICS ascends. This means the debt slaves the Rothschild banking system created are refusing or unable to repay the principal and exorbitant interest these banks imposed for centuries. The Khazarian Mafia is broke. Add to this the worry about Nibiru awareness. This is more a subconscious awareness as the media is so tightly suppressed that the word Nibiru is forbidden, even on Internet discussion forums. Those sites that survive on ad revenue must comply. Western banking fears the moment Nibiru becomes openly admitted as then people will refuse to pay mortgages, with a certain collapse of their banking system. The elite want Martial Law called everywhere so their assets will be protected from rioters. Setting off an explosive war in the Middle East that spreads everywhere has this as its goal. Notably, protecting and expanding Israel would be the main result. As many have noted, creating a ‘greater Israel’ would be the outcome of this False Flag event. Israel is surrounded by hostile territories, a result of Israel grabbing these territories for settlements through the years. The African Roll is in process and ultimately will send the Sinai Peninsula into the Mediterranean as a type of Island. Israel is attached to Sinai on a subplate. All this geological trauma would make Israel vulnerable to attack, so expanding Israel territory now is seen as a solution. EOZT User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1883 Posts
On October 11 2023 04:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Again I don't have much to add, take it as you want or not. + Show Spoiler + https://poleshift.ning.com/forum/topics/zetatalk-chat-for-october-31-2023?commentId=3863141:Comment:1159118 SOZT Why would Hamas attack Israel? What would they have to gain? Given the facts that Israel seemed unaware of the pending attack and their generals are being captured, it appears that this is a False Flag event at the hand of Israel. But why? Israel is the head of the Khazarian Mafia. The western Rothschild banks are collapsing at present while BRICS ascends. This means the debt slaves the Rothschild banking system created are refusing or unable to repay the principal and exorbitant interest these banks imposed for centuries. The Khazarian Mafia is broke. Add to this the worry about Nibiru awareness. This is more a subconscious awareness as the media is so tightly suppressed that the word Nibiru is forbidden, even on Internet discussion forums. Those sites that survive on ad revenue must comply. Western banking fears the moment Nibiru becomes openly admitted as then people will refuse to pay mortgages, with a certain collapse of their banking system. The elite want Martial Law called everywhere so their assets will be protected from rioters. Setting off an explosive war in the Middle East that spreads everywhere has this as its goal. Notably, protecting and expanding Israel would be the main result. As many have noted, creating a ‘greater Israel’ would be the outcome of this False Flag event. Israel is surrounded by hostile territories, a result of Israel grabbing these territories for settlements through the years. The African Roll is in process and ultimately will send the Sinai Peninsula into the Mediterranean as a type of Island. Israel is attached to Sinai on a subplate. All this geological trauma would make Israel vulnerable to attack, so expanding Israel territory now is seen as a solution. EOZT That posts warrants an immediate ban. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
The “national self-determination” idea is often traced back to post-WW1 and Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” (although nationalism certainly existed before that). Essentially it imagines that the world is divided into distinct “peoples,” each with their own ancestral homeland, and says we should draw national boundaries such that everybody gets to live in their ancestral homeland and govern themselves. But the idea is trivially untrue. Suppose there are a group of ancestral Israelis and a group of ancestral Palestinians (or Germans, or Danes, or what have you); what happens when a community forms with members from both groups? What happens when two people (one from each group) have a kid together? Is that a whole new people? Is there some hierarchy determining which identity takes precedence? Wilson might say “well they just shouldn’t do that,” because he was a huge racist and miscegenation was kind of a big problem in his view. But for those of us inclined to reject scientific racism, we have to acknowledge that national identities are a constructed thing, often wrapped up in genetic and cultural and linguistic and political associations but not in any objective or inherent way. Like, “giving it back to the Egyptians” isn’t just dumb because that was a long time ago, it’s dumb because there’s no meaningful sense in which the people calling themselves “Egyptians” now are the “same people” as the people calling themselves “Egyptians” 1000 years ago. Do they have common genetics? Common language? Common culture? They might have all or none of those things, and still the only thing making them “Egyptian” is the fact that they consider themselves Egyptian. That said, the world is built on lots of convenient fictions (see also “fiat currency”). I don’t think a One World Government is a good idea, nor do I think everybody should be their own Sovereign Citizen. Aggregating people into political associations is obviously useful, and considering those associations are convenient fictions anyway, I’m happy to be pragmatic about it. I like when people build cool societies together, and don’t like when they kill each other; so if grouping a bunch of them into a political unit will help them do more of the former and less of the latter, I’m okay with it. Similarly, if partitioning them into two or more units will help do more of the format and less of the latter, I’m okay with that, too. I don’t want to incentivize people to threaten to kill each other, and I’m inclined to disfavor someone’s preferences if I think they’re gaming the system, but I also don’t think it’s going to be possible to keep everyone’s incentives aligned with the common good 100% of the time. Zooming back in: we don’t have to reinvent the whole world order from first principles to have an opinion here. The reason I support Palestine’s right to exist isn’t because I consider some UN partition plan from 1947 “legal” and everything else “illegal.” It’s because I think Palestinians are human beings with rights, and Israel is abusing them. If that stops because Israel grants them all full equal citizenship, I’m open to that. If Israelis and Palestinians don’t think they can co-exist peacefully in a single polity and they wanna have two separate states, I’m okay with that, too. I’m not okay with a permanent Israeli occupation of Palestine, with Palestinians living their entire lives under an IDF boot with no recourse, and I don’t find arguments like “well, in 1947 *they* attacked *us*” particularly relevant. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8001 Posts
On October 11 2023 04:12 Broetchenholer wrote: That posts warrants an immediate ban. Agreed. Let's not entertain ridiculous conspiracy theories | ||
| ||
