|
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 October 11 2023 04:31 ChristianS wrote:
If that stops because Israel grants them all full equal citizenship, I’m open to that. This will probably never happen for kinda obvious reasons.
Granting Gazan Palestinians full citizenship means adding more than 2 millions people - almost 1/4 of current Israel population - with many (most?) of them openly wanting Israelis dead or at least banished from the land.
Before this wound is healed - which is probably never, unfortunately, at least with current tempo - I can't imagine this happening even in a dream.
|
On October 11 2023 04:31 ChristianS wrote:
Maybe it’s useful to back up and zoom out a little. The entire concept of a “people” getting their own “nation” as some objective description of reality is based on some faulty assumptions. This is obvious, but people don’t necessarily keep it in mind, so apologies if what I’m saying seems obvious, I don’t mean to condescend.
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.
That's exactly my point. Of course it's not relevant that the Egyptians or Turks held the territory the last 1000 years and of course those countries aren't even the same civilisations today.
But that was in response to "war shouldn't decide these things". OK, but then what? Maybe wars shouldn't decide things but they certainly do. 1948 is relevant, as are all the other wars and struggles.
Maybe Israel mistreats Palestinians but there are historical reasons for that which we can't ignore either. And the last days have shown exactly why there has been a wall and Gaza has been sealed off.
Debating who's "right" is pointless. Two groups of people want the same thing. They disagreed enough that there was a war. 70 years later the problem has only grown. There are no good solutions right now.
And the best time to solve the problem was in 1948 (actually probably more like 1930). The second best time is now. Israel is going to try to solve it now. It's not going to be a good solution. It probably will be a horrible solution even. But hopefully it will be solved.
|
@ZeroByte: I realize it *won’t* happen, and I understand the rationale (to a point). I can’t help but imagine slaveholders in the American South saying “Okay, okay, I know you want these people to have rights. But listen, they’ve been beaten and abused and mistreated their entire lives! They’ve been forcibly denied the ability to form stable, long-lasting family and community relationships. For generations it’s been a crime to educate them. All of that has left them many of them with a deep, abiding resentment for us, and a willingness (eagerness, even!) to exercise that resentment through violence. How can you expect us to give these people votes and equal citizenship? In some jurisdictions they would even constitute a majority!”
Historical analogies are imperfect, and to be clear, I’m not saying Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is close to as horrible as slavery was in the US (in fact, it’s hard to find many historical examples as horrible as slavery in the Americas). But I’m still inclined to say “Yeah, man, generations of systematic violence leave a lot of long-lasting trauma that’s gonna be hard to deal with!” I’m open to ideas of how to mitigate that, but “continuing to perpetrate that systematic violence for another generation” isn’t a solution I’m gonna be sympathetic to.
@Kitten: I guess I’m curious what you think “solved” (even a “horrible solution”) looks like. We’re straying dangerously close to a well-known euphemism, and I’m certainly hoping Israel’s plans don’t look anything like that. My best guess wouldn’t be that they do, but my best guess is that they’re going to kill a bunch of people, maybe take some more land, and go home, leaving the remaining Palestinians imprisoned in an even smaller, denser area. I wouldn’t call an outcome like that “solved,” horribly or otherwise; only “prolonged” or “escalated.”
|
On October 11 2023 06:06 ChristianS wrote:
@ZeroByte: I realize it *won’t* happen, and I understand the rationale (to a point). I can’t help but imagine slaveholders in the American South saying “Okay, okay, I know you want these people to have rights. But listen, they’ve been beaten and abused and mistreated their entire lives! They’ve been forcibly denied the ability to form stable, long-lasting family and community relationships. For generations it’s been a crime to educate them. All of that has left them many of them with a deep, abiding resentment for us, and a willingness (eagerness, even!) to exercise that resentment through violence. How can you expect us to give these people votes and equal citizenship? In some jurisdictions they would even constitute a majority!” There's a bit of a difference though - slaveholders and slaves lived in the same territory, often in the same houses even. When slavery ended, slaveholders didn't have a (realistic) choice of walling off all the slaves in a piece of land, otherwise maybe they would, who knows. They ended up creating other kinds of walls, of course.
Here in Israel they already have a wall between them and Gaza, they have a system/tool that will not solve the problem at all but can contain it, and isn't it what current generation wants? I have a feeling they think in the vein of:
"Yeah, it won't solve the problem - but we don't exactly know how to solve it anyway, and we surely don't want all the (huge) risks that come with integration of Gaza into Israel... let someone else in future fix this properly if they want, but not in my lifetime and at my expense."
As there's a little chance of "I don't kill you because I don't want to" any time soon, I think they'll settle for "I don't kill you because I can't"..
|
I'd like to give a shout-out to Channel 4 News. Their coverage of the conflict has been nothing short of stellar. On the ground coverage, interviews with victims on both sides, not tolerating bullshit from the officials of either side.
|
United States42260 Posts
On October 11 2023 03:24 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 03:02 KwarK wrote:
the act of living and working the land is what made it belong to them. And it did belong to them. 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? I.e. how soon after the land was conquered it starts belonging to the conquerer?
Yes, it does at this point. Which is the problem. We can’t erase the Israelis but we still have Palestinians.
|
On October 11 2023 01:05 ChristianS wrote:The meat of that whole thing seems like it’s this bit Show nested quote + 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.
To be fair, I don't see it clearly stated in what you're quoting that the victors of war are morally absolved for their actions. Maybe you can infer from the larger context as something a rabbi defending Israel is likely to believe, but to me this simply reads as "to the victor goes the spoils" and that's indisputable. If Germany won WW2 then they would've been the ones drawing the borders and doing whatever they wanted, that doesn't necessarily say anything about who are the "good guys" or whether Nazi death camps are morally good. I think it's also generally agreed that the sands of time slowly erode any claims over the spoils of war. In other words, "I was expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return" is a much stronger argument than "my ancestors were expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return." It's an incentive for Israel to continue it's illegal settlements and land grabs because 100 years from now it will just be considered some more land conquered during conflict.
|
United States42260 Posts
On October 11 2023 03:36 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
weren't colonised they had an issue with immigration.
Extremely excessive immigration not under their control but still immigration.
This is such a weird thing to say. They weren’t colonized, they just had an issue with immigration, specifically a shitload of white European immigrants with a different language, religion, and culture showing up. And taking their land. With guns. Not within their control and against their will. An excessive amount of immigration.
What point do you think you were making there by saying that it wasn’t colonization, it was just that? The things you described are the bits of colonization that people don’t like.
It’s like saying “it wasn’t murder, it was just voluntary premeditated nonconsensual killing”. Like okay but that’s what makes it bad.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On October 11 2023 06:40 maybenexttime wrote:
I'd like to give a shout-out to Channel 4 News. Their coverage of the conflict has been nothing short of stellar. On the ground coverage, interviews with victims on both sides, not tolerating bullshit from the officials of either side.
Agreed, I mean their coverage of most things is usual at the upper end of quality in terms of mainstream TV outlets, this appears to be no exception from what I’ve seen thus far
On October 11 2023 04:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 04:12 Broetchenholer wrote: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:1159118SOZT 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. Agreed. Let's not entertain ridiculous conspiracy theories
Quite, TL is one of my few refuges from them and I’d rather like to keep it that way.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On October 11 2023 07:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 01:05 ChristianS wrote:The meat of that whole thing seems like it’s this bit 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. To be fair, I don't see it clearly stated in what you're quoting that the victors of war are morally absolved for their actions. Maybe you can infer from the larger context as something a rabbi defending Israel is likely to believe, but to me this simply reads as "to the victor goes the spoils" and that's indisputable. If Germany won WW2 then they would've been the ones drawing the borders and doing whatever they wanted, that doesn't necessarily say anything about who are the "good guys" or whether Nazi death camps are morally good. I think it's also generally agreed that the sands of time slowly erode any claims over the spoils of war. In other words, "I was expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return" is a much stronger argument than "my ancestors were expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return." It's an incentive for Israel to continue it's illegal settlements and land grabs because 100 years from now it will just be considered some more land conquered during conflict.
Yes, at some point well, you have generations and generations who have lived there, under that culture and those institutions. So you’re left between weighing up a historical grievance versus the lives of all the people living in that locale now, and as you say the longer it goes the harder it is to justify moving the latter to accommodate the former.
With the caveat that genocide is not going to happen no matter who’s in charge, which rather eases a transition, us Brits in Northern Ireland, despite the protestations of zealous Irish nationalists are not culturally Irish. Plenty of us can trace lineage back hundreds of years, went to British schools, consumed mostly British media etc. Many of us (not myself) have little knowledge, or indeed interest in Irish politics, or Irish cultural touchstones.
That the British were shitbag colonisers isn’t something I’d remotely dispute but what to do
The chief and absolutely huge difference between these scenarios is outside of hardcore unionists who’ll absolutely object vociferously, if we ever do transition to a United Irish state, it’ll be fine. There’ll be a few changes, and I’d be very confident in certain accommodations for the British folks in such a polity.
Such a scenario seems not just implausible but outright inconceivable within the Israeli/Palestinian context
|
On October 11 2023 07:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 01:05 ChristianS wrote:The meat of that whole thing seems like it’s this bit 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. To be fair, I don't see it clearly stated in what you're quoting that the victors of war are morally absolved for their actions. Maybe you can infer from the larger context as something a rabbi defending Israel is likely to believe, but to me this simply reads as "to the victor goes the spoils" and that's indisputable. If Germany won WW2 then they would've been the ones drawing the borders and doing whatever they wanted, that doesn't necessarily say anything about who are the "good guys" or whether Nazi death camps are morally good. I think it's also generally agreed that the sands of time slowly erode any claims over the spoils of war. In other words, "I was expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return" is a much stronger argument than "my ancestors were expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return." It's an incentive for Israel to continue it's illegal settlements and land grabs because 100 years from now it will just be considered some more land conquered during conflict.
I think I mostly agree? Maybe the way I’d phase it is “when you win a war there’s usually no one left who’s both willing and able to tell you no.” That said, when the victor decides to take advantage of the situation they tend to just sow the seeds of the next war.
The modern era is a little different in that there usually are a fair number of other powers around who *could* tell you no, but would really rather not get involved if they can help it. If somebody *did* beat Israel in a war and start trying to enact a second Holocaust, there’s a fair number of powerful countries that might decide to put a stop to that. I *hope* they’d do the same if Israel decided to just slaughter every Palestinian.
|
On October 11 2023 10:12 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 07:37 BlackJack wrote:On October 11 2023 01:05 ChristianS wrote:The meat of that whole thing seems like it’s this bit 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. To be fair, I don't see it clearly stated in what you're quoting that the victors of war are morally absolved for their actions. Maybe you can infer from the larger context as something a rabbi defending Israel is likely to believe, but to me this simply reads as "to the victor goes the spoils" and that's indisputable. If Germany won WW2 then they would've been the ones drawing the borders and doing whatever they wanted, that doesn't necessarily say anything about who are the "good guys" or whether Nazi death camps are morally good. I think it's also generally agreed that the sands of time slowly erode any claims over the spoils of war. In other words, "I was expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return" is a much stronger argument than "my ancestors were expelled from this land and I should be allowed to return." It's an incentive for Israel to continue it's illegal settlements and land grabs because 100 years from now it will just be considered some more land conquered during conflict. I think I mostly agree? Maybe the way I’d phase it is “when you win a war there’s usually no one left who’s both willing and able to tell you no.” That said, when the victor decides to take advantage of the situation they tend to just sow the seeds of the next war. The modern era is a little different in that there usually are a fair number of other powers around who *could* tell you no, but would really rather not get involved if they can help it. If somebody *did* beat Israel in a war and start trying to enact a second Holocaust, there’s a fair number of powerful countries that might decide to put a stop to that. I *hope* they’d do the same if Israel decided to just slaughter every Palestinian.
I mean, just continuing their announced policy of blocking food, water, medicine, etc indefinitely will kill them eventually. Particularly if they keep bombing the only semblance of an exit.
Gaza’s sole border crossing with Egypt, the only entry point not controlled by Israel, has been hit again by an Israeli air raid, reports say.
The third attack on the Rafah crossing in 24 hours consisted of “four missiles” that targeted the Palestinian side of the crossing, local Egyptian group Sinai for Human Rights said on Tuesday.
“What it seems to me is that the measures taken, including the bombing of the Rafah crossing, hints to an intention to really starve and kill the people who are innocent inside the Gaza Strip,” UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese told Al Jazeera, adding that Palestinians in Gaza are concerned that they could experience something akin to a “second Nakba” in the days ahead.
www.aljazeera.com
A quite reasonable fear given the open call for it:
Israeli member of Knesset Ariel Kallner on Sunday called for a second ‘Nakba’ to take place in Gaza amid ongoing armed conflict between Hamas and the Israeli army.
“Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join! their Nakba, because like then in 1948, the alternative is clear,” Kallner wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Nakba means “the catastrophe” in Arabic. It is marked on 15th May to commemorate the displacement of more than 760,000 Palestinians in 1948 during the establishment of the state of Israel.
english.alarabiya.net
But if they are bombing the only exit to be displaced through...
|
I have been trying to do some research on this topic and the thing that kept bugging me is why no one is willing to help settle the Palestinians somewhere else. During that research, I found what may just be disinformation or propaganda stuff. But the gist of it is that Palestinians kept trying to instigate revolutions and overthrow the governments of other countries. Is this why Egypt doesn't open their gates?
Is this situation kind complicated by the fact that there are legitimate reasons to want Palestinians to stay out of Muslim countries? Like they are worried about how the Palestinians will behave once they take them in?
I feel like a lot of this must be decently well-supported, because the fact that everything I have been told indicates Egypt would just let all the Palestinians die rather than open their border.
I want to be entirely forthright in saying I fully understand I know very little about all of this, but from what I am reading, there are some unfortunate truths that folks sympathetic to Palestinians are choosing not to discuss or recognize. To use a crude example, If Canada was about to be bombed into oblivion to eliminate their government and military, Americans would be way more willing to accept Canadian refugees than the Muslim world is willing to accept Palestinians.
It honestly feels like Muslim nations are basically saying "Please protect the Palestinians. We want them to continue living. Wait, no, of course I don't want them here, are you insane? That would be a nightmare. I want them to stay alive, and near Israel, because I want that huge mess of a situation to be inflicted upon Israel. Because I hate Israel. But I would sooner die than let the Palestinians move in with us. Holy smokes never ever."
|
United States42260 Posts
Would you accept 2 million radicalized and uneducated children raised by children into your country? The only country that would reasonably expect to get any benefit from it would be Japan due to their geriatric population crisis. Best case scenario is still not great, it’s been a failed state for longer than most residents can remember, there’s no normal for them.
The time to fix this was decades ago. Though in a few decades we’ll be saying it would have been better to fix it now.
|
On October 11 2023 10:57 Mohdoo wrote:
I have been trying to do some research on this topic and the thing that kept bugging me is why no one is willing to help settle the Palestinians somewhere else. During that research, I found what may just be disinformation or propaganda stuff. But the gist of it is that Palestinians kept trying to instigate revolutions and overthrow the governments of other countries. Is this why Egypt doesn't open their gates?
Is this situation kind complicated by the fact that there are legitimate reasons to want Palestinians to stay out of Muslim countries? Like they are worried about how the Palestinians will behave once they take them in?
I feel like a lot of this must be decently well-supported, because the fact that everything I have been told indicates Egypt would just let all the Palestinians die rather than open their border.
I want to be entirely forthright in saying I fully understand I know very little about all of this, but from what I am reading, there are some unfortunate truths that folks sympathetic to Palestinians are choosing not to discuss or recognize. To use a crude example, If Canada was about to be bombed into oblivion to eliminate their government and military, Americans would be way more willing to accept Canadian refugees than the Muslim world is willing to accept Palestinians.
It honestly feels like Muslim nations are basically saying "Please protect the Palestinians. We want them to continue living. Wait, no, of course I don't want them here, are you insane? That would be a nightmare. I want them to stay alive, and near Israel, because I want that huge mess of a situation to be inflicted upon Israel. Because I hate Israel. But I would sooner die than let the Palestinians move in with us. Holy smokes never ever."
The answer to that is the black september event of the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
Jordan received palestines and they caused internal instability, trying to overtrow the monarchy.
|
On October 11 2023 12:11 Ace Frehley wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2023 10:57 Mohdoo wrote:
I have been trying to do some research on this topic and the thing that kept bugging me is why no one is willing to help settle the Palestinians somewhere else. During that research, I found what may just be disinformation or propaganda stuff. But the gist of it is that Palestinians kept trying to instigate revolutions and overthrow the governments of other countries. Is this why Egypt doesn't open their gates?
Is this situation kind complicated by the fact that there are legitimate reasons to want Palestinians to stay out of Muslim countries? Like they are worried about how the Palestinians will behave once they take them in?
I feel like a lot of this must be decently well-supported, because the fact that everything I have been told indicates Egypt would just let all the Palestinians die rather than open their border.
I want to be entirely forthright in saying I fully understand I know very little about all of this, but from what I am reading, there are some unfortunate truths that folks sympathetic to Palestinians are choosing not to discuss or recognize. To use a crude example, If Canada was about to be bombed into oblivion to eliminate their government and military, Americans would be way more willing to accept Canadian refugees than the Muslim world is willing to accept Palestinians.
It honestly feels like Muslim nations are basically saying "Please protect the Palestinians. We want them to continue living. Wait, no, of course I don't want them here, are you insane? That would be a nightmare. I want them to stay alive, and near Israel, because I want that huge mess of a situation to be inflicted upon Israel. Because I hate Israel. But I would sooner die than let the Palestinians move in with us. Holy smokes never ever." The answer to that is the black september event of the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_SeptemberJordan received palestines and they caused internal instability, trying to overtrow the monarchy.
Is my estimation that Muslim countries would let the residents of gaza be killed rather than try to coordinate some mass refugee program where everyone takes some amount of them?
It’s not like some form of mass evacuation would require them all to go to the same place. the Muslim countries could basically coordinate with each other regarding who takes however many right?
|
On October 10 2023 13:31 [Phantom] wrote:
If anything at least put them in a country that was taken over during ww2
Oh, that would work great. I predict no antisemitic resentiments at all. Also I see no problems with milions of Jews settled down in Austria/Germany around their former opressors, or in Easten Europe with their well known love to semites. 1968 shown us, how sympathetic polish gouverment and society was towards those who survived ww2. We also pretty much seen again and again how UN were effective with securing people's rights. /s
I don't know, maybe US would be a safe heaven, at least. Or Denmark maybe. Because for some reason I don't see Argentina as a good migration point for Jews at all.
You can say every other solution would be better than settling Jews near the Arabs, but its not taking into consideration how antisemitic was Europe in XX century.
|
Buy a huge amount of land off the one of the Stans, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan , Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan, Call it New Palestine. If the world came togeather, and offered one of these countries some ungodly amount maybe'd theyd take it. Create a new country with cash. This is somewhat a joke but it seems about as viable as any other option at this point. Can only hope this whole thing doesn't lead to greater conflict or isn't used a rallying cry for a greater war against Iran or other countries.
|
On October 11 2023 11:08 KwarK wrote:
Would you accept 2 million radicalized and uneducated children raised by children into your country? The only country that would reasonably expect to get any benefit from it would be Japan due to their geriatric population crisis. Best case scenario is still not great, it’s been a failed state for longer than most residents can remember, there’s no normal for them.
The time to fix this was decades ago. Though in a few decades we’ll be saying it would have been better to fix it now.
Well a problem is that part of Israels population is as radicalized as the people of Gaza. So we have two populations radicalized to want to genocide each other. Large parts of Israel doesn't want a solution that involves the existence of Palestinians (although I image that's not most of Israelis). It's just so hard to imagine a peaceful solution... Unless Egypt carves out some land for Gazans (although I hear they don't love Hamas so that seems extremely unlikely).
|
Just why would Egypt (or really any other country) do that? If the answer is "because its the right thing to do", how come that standard doesn't apply to Israel?
Edit: these superficially reasonable plans of forced mass migration have more than a whiff of ethnic cleansing to them. Really doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
