Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 499

On November 16 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote:

I've always been pro Israel's right to exist and defend itself today while also thinking that the creation of Israel was immoral and generally a bad idea. The arguments in favour of creating Israel such as:
- Okay but the people who wanted to do it wanted to
and
- Well they were oppressed where they were so that makes it okay
and
- Their ancestors lived there
and
- If going somewhere people already live and making your own country is so wrong then why didn't the British colonial office say it was wrong
and
- Okay, so even the British colonial office said it was wrong and actively worked to prevent it but did you know that years earlier a British guy said he wasn't opposed to it
and
- I don't recognize that the people there had a state and so it's fine to displace them
and the ever fruitful
- If the positions were reversed then it'd be wrong because that's different

just don't seem that strong to me.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the people who do think that these are strong arguments is the incontrovertible fact that the arguments completely failed. That's not in dispute. The Palestinians did not simply embrace their displacement and peacefully move into camps. They got rather angry about the whole displacement thing and felt like the land should still be theirs. If no crime was committed against the Palestinians, if nothing was taken from them, why did they fight so hard to keep it and why have they subsequently fought so hard to take it back. It's weird that a people who weren't in any way wronged by their relocation to camps would act this way.

Suppose we ask that they take turns. In 2048 we declare the creation of a Palestinian state, forcibly displace the Israelis, and put all the Israelis in camps in the desert. It ticks all the boxes, Palestinians want to live there, they're oppressed where they are, their ancestors lived there, a Brit says it's okay, and they don't recognize that the Israelis have a state. Then in 2148 the Israelis get another turn living there and we switch every hundred years forever. Unlike the Palestinians the Israelis will surely recognize the overwhelming moral strength of the arguments against them, after all, the arguments were the ones they made. They'll step aside and accept their turn in the camps with grace and dignity.

On November 16 2025 03:55 Billyboy wrote:

The one part you are missing is that Jews were hated basically everywhere, and still being killed in some places (USSR for example).

It doesn't make it right or good, but it was not colonial and there were not easy or good options elsewhere.

On November 16 2025 04:01 KwarK wrote:

I think you’re using a different definition of colonial to me (and everyone else). Colonies do not exist only for resource extraction serving the mother nation under the political control of the mother. Surplus populations migrating, displacing the locals, and creating a new state for themselves have always been called colonies. For example Marseille in France.

But in any case we’re not disagreeing. As you say, it doesn’t make it right or good.

Colonialism is the practice of a nation extending and maintaining its political, social, and economic control over another territory and its people. It involves a dominant power imposing its culture, laws, and values on the subjugated population, often for the exploitation of resources and labor. Historical examples include the European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and its modern impacts are still felt globally.

So I think it is a case where there may not be a better word

it also doesn't do a great job of explaining what happened and gives the wrong impression to people without the historical knowledge of what went on.

On November 16 2025 07:13 Nebuchad wrote:
The exchange that you had with KwarK in the last page is all that was needed. You just think it's perfectly moral that zionists took that land and chased the people that were there historically, and the justification that you use is that there wasn't a state there so that makes it fine. By extension we are probably safe to assume that you think it's perfectly fine for settlers to take people's land in Gaza and/or the West Bank today, because there is still not a state there. The problem isn't that we're using the wrong words to describe things and it gives us the wrong impression of Israel, the problem is that this is a set of actions that Kwark and I (and, I would assume, the average person) find immoral, and you don't.

On November 16 2025 07:20 Billyboy wrote:

It’s absolutely not safe to assume that based on mindjames posting. He has said being critical of settler violence is justified and not antisemitic. He has said the check points are fucking awful.

This is just your bias talking my and wanting all Israelis to be awful to justify your hate. And you need to stop.

On November 16 2025 07:27 mindjames wrote:
Nebuchad, before I engage with you again, grow a spine and answer the questions that I last asked you on the thread and that you weaseled out of answering. If you need a reminder of what that was I'll dig it up.

Otherwise, I'm not really interested in amending your poor understanding of my arguments or giving attention to your cowardly heckles from the balcony seat.

On November 16 2025 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:


As a non-biased person, how do you reconcile that with what mindjames just said about zionism historically? "Just because people are already living in a house doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to live there". He described it as immigration but surely you don't think he's dumb enough to think that what happened with historical zionism was immigration, and when KwarK pressed him on that he said that the difference is that there was no state there. There is still no state in the West Bank and in Gaza, as you know. I do not believe that it is very difficult to understand where I'm going with this.



I was engaging with you in PM, you stopped. This is a lie.

On November 16 2025 07:28 Nebuchad wrote:


As a non-biased person, how do you reconcile that with what mindjames just said about zionism historically? "Just because people are already living in a house doesn't mean other people suddenly don't get to live there". He described it as immigration but surely you don't think he's dumb enough to think that what happened with historical zionism was immigration, and when KwarK pressed him on that he said that the difference is that there was no state there. There is still no state in the West Bank and in Gaza, as you know. I do not believe that it is very difficult to understand where I'm going with this.



I was engaging with you in PM, you stopped. This is a lie.

Explain how I've misinterpreted the original post. Or at the very least, say which of Stilt's points you agree and disagree with, you don't have to take my supposedly biased recap.

On November 16 2025 07:38 Billyboy wrote:


Super easily, all you need to do is read all the words he wrote in the context he wrote them instead of cherry picking out sentences that you think support the conclusion you have already made about him because his location is Israel.

So in his house example, the settlers are looking to live in the house with the people, they are looking to kick them all out and take over with violence. Which is not something that mindjames has written he supports. He has written the opposite.

It must be very confusing for you that mindjames doesn’t agree with Kwark or myself or the settlers and yet we are all “ pro-Israel” and evil supporters of genocide, in your mind, regardless of the worlds we write.

On November 16 2025 07:43 Nebuchad wrote:


But Jimmi, that is an incredibly silly thing to say (also you got angry and wrote too quickly, so you forgot a negative in one of the sentences). When Israel was established, the settlers also used violence to kick out the people who lived there and take over. Mindjames understands that, KwarK understands that, I understand that. Do you understand that?

And no, none of this was confusing to me at all, I knew KwarK's position very well already, it was all stuff that he's already written about in the past.

On November 16 2025 07:55 Billyboy wrote:

Another bad assumption Steve. I have typos and missed words pretty damn often and they are completely unrelated to my mood, I’m proudly very much not lien you. See I actually understand people’s actual position because I read their words for understanding not to try to hate them or get others too. Cuddly summed up what actually happened during the formation of Israel and it is not what you are insinuating. Might want to actually read all the in depth posts about the history people have taken the time to write. Or go read about it somewhere else. The ignorance at this point is willful, which makes it much worse.

On November 16 2025 08:11 mindjames wrote:
Hey Nebuchad, remember how I corrected you on your assessment of what the ICJ has said about Israel, and then continued to engage with you charitably and patiently?

Remember how I showed that the online influencer whose story you found so illuminating, is actually a bigoted propagandist, and then continued to engage charitably and patiently?

How much of that charity and patience did you afford me? What were you thinking when you took a jab at me and then refused to explain yourself because you felt you were "being a distraction"?

You know what, water under the bridge. So what in Stilt's post did you find compelling? I promise to answer your questions as fully as you answer mine.

On November 16 2025 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:


There is no content in this post, you're just gesturing at the possibility that something that explains how my logic is wrong exists somewhere else. I'm not somewhere else, I'm here. Bring it here.

On November 16 2025 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:


As already explained, just about everything in his post I thought was pretty good, he has a good grasp on the facts he's talking about in my opinion. But I want to let him continue this conversation with you in the thread (it's annoying that he has a life). This isn't the same as me not answering though, you can get my answers any time you want them by having more PMs with me.

On November 16 2025 08:16 Billyboy wrote:
There was less content (and logic) in the first post you made that I responded to than the one you just made the claim on.

I’ll wait for you to respond to mindjames questions, as you said you’re here so go for it, I mean unless you’re scared. Which would be odd, but I do not really understand you tiny angry people so who knows!

On November 16 2025 08:19 mindjames wrote:

Oh, okay.

So, with regards to your criticism of my conversation with KwarK, nah, you're wrong, and you don't really understand my arguments or my positions on anything. The end.

On November 16 2025 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:


There is no content in this post, you're just gesturing at the possibility that something that explains how my logic is wrong exists somewhere else. I'm not somewhere else, I'm here. Bring it here.