EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 500
| 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. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12337 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12337 Posts
On November 16 2025 08:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: The formation of Israel starts with immigration and ends with attempted genocide and actual ethnic cleansing (not from the same sides). The path towards it is lined with terrorism, anti semitism, zionism, bad actors on both sides whose actions get protected because of tribalism and a metric fuckton of asshole decisions from all involved actors. The process took decades (probably more like a century) and I agree that calling it "colonialism" undersells the shitshow over time that it actually was. I believe I have posted on the historical events in this thread before but that was a long time ago and I'm to lazy to check. I believe I agree with all of this, at least in the broad strokes I do. I don't think "colonialism" is a term that undersells the shitshow of anything over time, but obviously there were some bad responses on the other side of the conflict as well, historically and today, so if your point is that they are part of the picture as well, yeah clearly they are. It also doesn't contradict anything I've said to Jimmi here as far as I can see. Or do you see something that does? My impression is that he ran out of things to say so he just threw your name in there. | ||
|
Billyboy
1259 Posts
On November 16 2025 08:29 Nebuchad wrote: Every few weeks JimmiC decides he needs to have a talk with me, I wipe the floor with whatever weak thing he's pushing forward to attack me, and after a few posts he goes "Oh yeah he's evil just ignore him". Has done so for... what, ten years now? Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. | ||
|
Billyboy
1259 Posts
On November 16 2025 08:27 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: The formation of Israel starts with immigration and ends with attempted genocide and actual ethnic cleansing (not from the same sides). The path towards it is lined with terrorism, anti semitism, zionism, bad actors on both sides whose actions get protected because of tribalism and a metric fuckton of asshole decisions from all involved actors. The process took decades (probably more like a century) and I agree that calling it "colonialism" undersells the shitshow over time that it actually was. I believe I have posted on the historical events in this thread before but that was a long time ago and I'm to lazy to check. You did, it was very well done and appreciated. Edit: I’m not. Good at necroing posts, so this wasn’t what I was after, but still a good one. On October 12 2023 05:18 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Really? There was a 10 % Jewish minority since the 1800s. When more immigrants arrived buying up less desirable land it was even seen as a positive thing. It wasn't until even more people arrived (considering world events as the trigger) that the problems started. And as this thread has made it abundantly clear it was part of the population on both sides driving the violence. How is that colonisation and not a textbook example of the potential problems with immigration? It was even legal immigration until the Brits stopped it. Potentially it could have ended up being "people moving, what's the issue" if there hadn't been violence followed by a war. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel377 Posts
It seems like I replied too quickly to a post where KwarK snuck in a bunch of things that we weren't even discussing. KwarK wrote: I propose we create a new state for Palestinians. And where better to put it that in their ancestral homeland, between the river and the sea. People are currently living there but we can put them in camps. If you disagree with this then please explain why you’re so against immigration. I’m British and I give the Palestinians permission so that makes it all good, nobody else really gets a say. And my response was: The difference between your scenario and mine is THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE IN SAID BORDERS. Minor detail. But given everything KwarK included in his description, what I unwittingly responded is not actually my position. We were talking about whether it's adequate to call Zionism "colonialist", and KwarK's position was that Jews should not have been allowed to go to Palestine in the first place. So when he described his scenario, my brain read: Let's get a bunch of Arabs into Israel and have them declare a new state on top of the old one. So obviously, my response is that you can't do that once there already is a state with its own autonomy, laws, etc.; and it's a completely different story when there is actually no state there. As long as people are allowed to emigrate to the region and start living there, they are free to petition the local administration to do whatever. No one owes them anything, but they can do that. KwarK had to of course include displaced Arabs in his description, because in his mind that is an inherent part of the Zionist project (never mind all the inconsistencies with that line of thought). So my response ended up looking like I have no issue with subjecting locals to whatever harm in the process of erecting a state, and that is not my position. Also, in my recollection, Jews did not simply waltz in and declare independence with no consideration for anyone else, correct me if I'm wrong. Jewish leadership was willing to separate peacefully from the Arabs and go into their own allotted area, and when that proposal fell through, they were attacked from every direction. This resulted in the Jews capturing what was to become the state. I.e. borders through armistice, independence through recognition, you know, like most other countries in existence. So I'm not quite sure why we need to load our hypotheticals, but guess I wasn't diligent enough and missed it. I also realized KwarK either misunderstood or possibly maliciously mischaracterized my challenge to his house analogy. I asked him if he was against immigration (in general), since that would be akin to letting people into your home, where they could stay indefinitely. It essentially shows a private property is disanalogous to a state, much less a non-state region. But KwarK took "immigration" to mean "Jewish immigration into Palestine for the purpose of erecting a Jewish state and literally everything that ended up happening between them and the Arabs". And I got called bad faith for that. Curious! As a reminder, here are some of the questions KwarK neglected to answer: 1. Can you tell me what made it illegal (or as I suspect you will do, immoral) for Jews to immigrate to another place where some other people happened to live? 2. If I tell you some of the Muslims entering Europe have a 'desire' to overthrow its style of governance and create their own states, would you then block them entering the continent? I wouldn't, but would you? 3. Let's say this "desire" is intrinsic to your argument, are you totally fine with a mass of Jewish people immigrating to the region assuming they want to live there under British rule (or whatever else)? 4. Are you in favor of another Arab ethnostate? (Context: arguing Jews should not have been allowed into Mandate Palestine) 5. Would you oppose Jordanians and Egyptians moving to the same region? (same context as #4) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12337 Posts
On November 16 2025 08:45 Billyboy wrote: Steve you live in quite the fantasy world, sadly you disprove the whole ignorance is bliss thing with being so angry. I’m not sure if class and understanding were just on the top shelf when they were getting handed out so you missed them or what went wrong. But the reality is that if you wanted to understand people, when they explained to you that you were stating something they didn’t say or believe you wouldn’t go, nu-uh I’m right and you’re wrong. You would listen to them, ask questions and have a conversation. I engage with you when you are a complete asshole to people for no reason, it’s sad how often it is. You should probably be kept off all political threads and not just the USpol one. Well I’m sure it is distracting some that you are dodging direct questions by insulting people. The rest of us are waiting for you to answer two straightforward questions. My name on this forum is not Steve, it's Nebuchad (or Neb for short). You can see it in the top left of everything I post. It should be extra easy for you to follow because unlike you I don't have more than one account. I am also not "kept off" of the USpol thread, I requested a ban from it. This is a lie. For the rest this is the usual shtick about how I'm evil that you write every time you can't show that I'm wrong. Boooring. | ||
| ||
