|
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 January 13 2024 07:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2024 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Honestly I think the most reasonable take is that 'history is increasingly more irrelevant the further back in time you go'. It's not a binary question of 'at this point it is significant' and 'at this point it's irrelevant', but a scale. A displacement that happened 5 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 20 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 60 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 200 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 2000 years ago.
At some point - and I'd argue that point is somewhere along the line of 'you no longer have knowledge of your ancestors that lived there', it becomes 'fairly unimportant'. Like I know where my grandparents lived, but I've never met a single of my great grandparents and basically know nothing about them. So to me, somewhere between 'my grandparents' and 'my great grandparents' there's a significant decrease in 'historical relevancy' or whatever. If some type of injustice happened to my great grandparents, I don't picture this would be something that would invoke any type of emotions in me, while an injustice served upon my grandparents would make me feel 'something', and an injustice invoked upon my parents would make me feel a lot. For some, I'm sure you can move this line one more generation back, but if I were to find out that my ancestor from 400 years back in time was burned for witchcraft I'd consider that funny and interesting much more so than upsetting.
Consequently I don't really think this is a factor for the question of 'should Israel be allowed to exist where it exists'. Obviously it should. It's entirely fair to argue that the 47-48 partition was unjust to the Palestinian people, but it's not relevant to whether the Jewish population inhabiting Israel today has the right to live there. If you're born somewhere, then whatever happened before you were born there is not your fault, and I'm guessing the 'was an adult in 1947 and moved to Israel back then'-segment of the Israeli population is at this point very small.
But the notion that 'well, the Jews lived there 2900 years ago, so they do have a historical claim' to me has virtually no validity. Meanwhile, the 'my parents were unlawfully evicted from this house' is sufficiently recent for it to be cause for
'reparations'. I want to be clear that my argument is not that Jews are entitled to the entire Judea empire due to the Jews occupying that region for around 900 years. My point in all of that was that Jews have been in the region for a long time, they stuck around, and there have been Jewish nations in the past. Since sometimes when I make my posts too long, people don't read it, I will not include all of the citations I included in previous posts and just write out the conclusions. If there are any points you think are inaccurate, say so, and I will go into greater detail with citations and whatnot. I will now outline the facts/assumptions of my argument, because I want to make sure we agree on the basic facts of the history associated with all this. 1: Jews have been in the Palestine/Israel/Jordan area for a really long time. They had multiple empires and the last one they had before the modern Israel was Judea. When the Romans ethnically cleansed Judea, it was the 3rd time in history Jews had been ethnically cleansed from an area. 2: After Judea was wiped out, Jews moved to nearby regions to avoid persecution and generally survive. That included the coastal region to the west and all other directions. I want to be clear that Jews were not totally absent from the region just because they didn't have a Jewish empire anymore. Jews still lived in neighboring regions and generally lived in the Middle East. 3: The most recent non-western nation in that region was the Ottoman Empire. Jews lived in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere. The Ottoman Empire was vast and had many individual parts. Each part had their own unique culture and interpretation of laws. In some regions, Jews were able to live mostly care-free. In other regions, it was essentially not safe for them because of the local culture. There were efforts to establish a Jewish region because of the dicey situation within the Ottoman empire and the long history of persecution. 4: In the 19th century, a few different efforts were made to create a Jewish community in Palestine. This included Jews from both the middle east and Europe, both escaping persecution. In the 1800s, there was tons of antisemitism in both Europe and the Middle East. This is a very important point because the 1800s were well before the british carved out Israel for Jews. It needs to be extremely clear and agreed on that Jews were persecuted in various nations within the middle east and europe in the 1800s.5: In WW1, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and was defeated. The Sykes–Picot Agreement split up the region among the British and the French. As we all know, this eventually led to the 1947 vote by the United Nations Special Committee to partition Western Palestine into a Jewish State. Please let me know if you disagree with any of these statements. I can provide more detail, citations, and all the stuff as-requested, but I am trying not to burden this thread with my huge posts. ******************PART 2****************** Separately, here is my argument based on the facts above. Totally understand if you disagree with me from here onward, but it is important we at least agree on the assumptions described above: 1: "Colonialism" is not an appropriate way to describe Jews living in modern-day Palestine/Israel. They have lived there for a long time and remained in the region. 2: The Ottoman Empire entered into WW1 and lost. They entered into WW1 largely because they saw it as a good opportunity to hurt the british, who had been trying to spread its influence throughout the middle east before WW1. I have a very hard time saying this is some kind of profound injustice. The Ottoman Empire took their shot, lost, and the folks who won used the remains of the empire as they wanted. I don't think it is appropriate to frame the British having control of this region as some kind of injustice. 3: Since Jews have been in the area a long time, made efforts to move to specifically form a Jewish community within Palestine in the 1800s, and had been persecuted throughout both the Middle East and Europe throughout the 1800s, the idea of trying to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine is entirely reasonable 4: For the people who lived in this partition previously, and did not want this new Jewish partition to exist, they are entirely within their right to be angry and to try to retake that land. I view this as an entirely legitimate reason to go to war with someone. But that does not mean the British, Israel, and the West as a whole are not justified in defending the land. For the reasons listed above, it is very easy to see why a Jewish safe-haven is necessary, but its not like we had unexplored parts of the world left to go make a new place. Any land given to the Jews would ultimately mean land taken from someone else. But whoever those unlucky folks would be, they would be within their right to get mad and try to take it back. If they fail to do so, I don't see it as an injustice. Ultimately this entire set of events is a result of the Ottoman Empire entering WW1 and being defeated. It isn't reasonable to essentially call WW1 illegitimate and to say the British using the land as they wanted to.
You're still spending a lot of words just to assert that modern-day Israel has a right to exist. Something I don't think anybody here contests. Meanwhile you dismiss the Palestinians right to be there as "they lost a war in 1947", as if that clears the whole thing up. They had a war, Palestinians lost, and that means they have to vacate the premises. Anything else makes them sore losers and Israel has the moral authority to eradicate/evict them.
|
|
|
On January 13 2024 08:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 07:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2024 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Honestly I think the most reasonable take is that 'history is increasingly more irrelevant the further back in time you go'. It's not a binary question of 'at this point it is significant' and 'at this point it's irrelevant', but a scale. A displacement that happened 5 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 20 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 60 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 200 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 2000 years ago.
At some point - and I'd argue that point is somewhere along the line of 'you no longer have knowledge of your ancestors that lived there', it becomes 'fairly unimportant'. Like I know where my grandparents lived, but I've never met a single of my great grandparents and basically know nothing about them. So to me, somewhere between 'my grandparents' and 'my great grandparents' there's a significant decrease in 'historical relevancy' or whatever. If some type of injustice happened to my great grandparents, I don't picture this would be something that would invoke any type of emotions in me, while an injustice served upon my grandparents would make me feel 'something', and an injustice invoked upon my parents would make me feel a lot. For some, I'm sure you can move this line one more generation back, but if I were to find out that my ancestor from 400 years back in time was burned for witchcraft I'd consider that funny and interesting much more so than upsetting.
Consequently I don't really think this is a factor for the question of 'should Israel be allowed to exist where it exists'. Obviously it should. It's entirely fair to argue that the 47-48 partition was unjust to the Palestinian people, but it's not relevant to whether the Jewish population inhabiting Israel today has the right to live there. If you're born somewhere, then whatever happened before you were born there is not your fault, and I'm guessing the 'was an adult in 1947 and moved to Israel back then'-segment of the Israeli population is at this point very small.
But the notion that 'well, the Jews lived there 2900 years ago, so they do have a historical claim' to me has virtually no validity. Meanwhile, the 'my parents were unlawfully evicted from this house' is sufficiently recent for it to be cause for
'reparations'. I want to be clear that my argument is not that Jews are entitled to the entire Judea empire due to the Jews occupying that region for around 900 years. My point in all of that was that Jews have been in the region for a long time, they stuck around, and there have been Jewish nations in the past. Since sometimes when I make my posts too long, people don't read it, I will not include all of the citations I included in previous posts and just write out the conclusions. If there are any points you think are inaccurate, say so, and I will go into greater detail with citations and whatnot. I will now outline the facts/assumptions of my argument, because I want to make sure we agree on the basic facts of the history associated with all this. 1: Jews have been in the Palestine/Israel/Jordan area for a really long time. They had multiple empires and the last one they had before the modern Israel was Judea. When the Romans ethnically cleansed Judea, it was the 3rd time in history Jews had been ethnically cleansed from an area. 2: After Judea was wiped out, Jews moved to nearby regions to avoid persecution and generally survive. That included the coastal region to the west and all other directions. I want to be clear that Jews were not totally absent from the region just because they didn't have a Jewish empire anymore. Jews still lived in neighboring regions and generally lived in the Middle East. 3: The most recent non-western nation in that region was the Ottoman Empire. Jews lived in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere. The Ottoman Empire was vast and had many individual parts. Each part had their own unique culture and interpretation of laws. In some regions, Jews were able to live mostly care-free. In other regions, it was essentially not safe for them because of the local culture. There were efforts to establish a Jewish region because of the dicey situation within the Ottoman empire and the long history of persecution. 4: In the 19th century, a few different efforts were made to create a Jewish community in Palestine. This included Jews from both the middle east and Europe, both escaping persecution. In the 1800s, there was tons of antisemitism in both Europe and the Middle East. This is a very important point because the 1800s were well before the british carved out Israel for Jews. It needs to be extremely clear and agreed on that Jews were persecuted in various nations within the middle east and europe in the 1800s.5: In WW1, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and was defeated. The Sykes–Picot Agreement split up the region among the British and the French. As we all know, this eventually led to the 1947 vote by the United Nations Special Committee to partition Western Palestine into a Jewish State. Please let me know if you disagree with any of these statements. I can provide more detail, citations, and all the stuff as-requested, but I am trying not to burden this thread with my huge posts. ******************PART 2****************** Separately, here is my argument based on the facts above. Totally understand if you disagree with me from here onward, but it is important we at least agree on the assumptions described above: 1: "Colonialism" is not an appropriate way to describe Jews living in modern-day Palestine/Israel. They have lived there for a long time and remained in the region. 2: The Ottoman Empire entered into WW1 and lost. They entered into WW1 largely because they saw it as a good opportunity to hurt the british, who had been trying to spread its influence throughout the middle east before WW1. I have a very hard time saying this is some kind of profound injustice. The Ottoman Empire took their shot, lost, and the folks who won used the remains of the empire as they wanted. I don't think it is appropriate to frame the British having control of this region as some kind of injustice. 3: Since Jews have been in the area a long time, made efforts to move to specifically form a Jewish community within Palestine in the 1800s, and had been persecuted throughout both the Middle East and Europe throughout the 1800s, the idea of trying to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine is entirely reasonable 4: For the people who lived in this partition previously, and did not want this new Jewish partition to exist, they are entirely within their right to be angry and to try to retake that land. I view this as an entirely legitimate reason to go to war with someone. But that does not mean the British, Israel, and the West as a whole are not justified in defending the land. For the reasons listed above, it is very easy to see why a Jewish safe-haven is necessary, but its not like we had unexplored parts of the world left to go make a new place. Any land given to the Jews would ultimately mean land taken from someone else. But whoever those unlucky folks would be, they would be within their right to get mad and try to take it back. If they fail to do so, I don't see it as an injustice. Ultimately this entire set of events is a result of the Ottoman Empire entering WW1 and being defeated. It isn't reasonable to essentially call WW1 illegitimate and to say the British using the land as they wanted to. You're still spending a lot of words just to assert that modern-day Israel has a right to exist. Something I don't think anybody here contests. Meanwhile you dismiss the Palestinians right to be there as "they lost a war in 1947", as if that clears the whole thing up. They had a war, Palestinians lost, and that means they have to vacate the premises. Anything else makes them sore losers and Israel has the moral authority to eradicate/evict them.
It feels like you are misrepresenting my post, so I will clarify just in case it is a misunderstanding.
There are 2 major points of disagreement I have had with people regarding this topic:
1: The history of antisemitism in Middle Eastern nations prior to 1947. More than 1 person in this thread has said Jews had no issues living in Muslim nations prior to 1948 and that all of the collective punishment towards Jews after the formation of Israel occurred without any history of antisemitism in those countries. This point is relevant because many people have said Jews did not need some kind of safe haven and that the land being given to them was purely greed and thirst for power. My post specifies Jews were victims of antisemitism in both the Middle East and Europe in the 1800s and that efforts to form a Jewish community and/or state around the general Palestine area occurred in the 1800s.
2: I have been told Jews had an insignificant presence in the region prior to being artificially inserted in the 1900s. I have been told it is true that Jews had a significant presence in the Palestine area many centuries ago but that the Jewish populations in the region in recent years made it inappropriate to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine. And that because of this, it must be labeled as some form of colonial imperialism and that the very formation of Israel is itself illegitimate. My post specifies there was a significant Jewish population as recently as the Ottoman Empire and that Jews suffered varying levels of antisemitism within the Ottoman Empire and other Middle Eastern nations.
So I want to be clear that I am not saying the Palestinian objective is illegitimate. I am saying it is legitimate and that similarly, Israel’s objective is also legitimate. As an extension of this, I am saying people are not being reasonable when they say the war between them must be conducted in a deeply asymmetric way because the Israeli side is fundamentally illegitimate due to being colonialism and related terms.
I see no problem with Palestine working as hard as they can to retake Israel. I also see no problem with Israel doing everything they can to ensure Palestinians and anyone else never succeed. The 2 factions are fundamentally at war and efforts to further reduce risk and increase safety are justified.
|
Northern Ireland22959 Posts
On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant.
For Israel’s structure as a liberal democracy to be meaningful they have to embody certain values as a state, or else it’s not really something to put in the plus column.
And ‘that they have these views is understandable, if regrettable’ by virtue of not having a state, particularly rosy life prospects and being bombed back to the Stone Age re the Palestinians is not giving them a pass either.
I don’t hold Trump to the same standards on his blatant criminality as it’s driven by a flawed character, as I would someone from the most impoverished background imaginable in the States
Or just as I watch Mad Max and don’t go ‘I can’t relate to any of these characters, why haven’t they established a liberal democracy?’
Netanyahu’s declining popularity also is just that, his particular personal popularity. I don’t think there’s much appetite to completely reverse course on wider policy here, just to get rid of that particular bloke
As someone who as a kid went to those anti-Iraq war marches I wasn’t bemoaning double standards, or thinking Saddam Hussein was a great bloke, but that my country would be killing a lot of people in a futile cause, and that my country should aspire to better.
And because Israel is a democracy, with relatively ‘Western’ values, a certain degree of social pressure (sadly without much state pressure) would actually accomplish something.
Israeli policy could absolutely be mediated through this measure, Hamas’? I mean no, in the same way I’m never going to hold any ability to sway a member of ISIS, but a liberally minded Israeli is close enough to me culturally that some changing of minds on certain topics is eminently achievable.
I mean I could go on but I’d be rambling. If, as you’ve said in the past you view a liberal democracy in the Middle East as preferable to the alternatives, and I agree, well with that comes the moral lens that we judge our own nations through.
Israel could stop settlements and at a stroke I’d criticise them far less, the security issues are legitimate concerns and, even poorly addressed I can still 100% see them as such.
But as they don’t, and they’re the arm of gradual colonialism and ethnic cleansing I’ll call that as I see it
|
On January 13 2024 10:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 08:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 13 2024 07:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2024 16:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Honestly I think the most reasonable take is that 'history is increasingly more irrelevant the further back in time you go'. It's not a binary question of 'at this point it is significant' and 'at this point it's irrelevant', but a scale. A displacement that happened 5 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 20 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 60 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 200 years ago is more relevant than one that happened 2000 years ago.
At some point - and I'd argue that point is somewhere along the line of 'you no longer have knowledge of your ancestors that lived there', it becomes 'fairly unimportant'. Like I know where my grandparents lived, but I've never met a single of my great grandparents and basically know nothing about them. So to me, somewhere between 'my grandparents' and 'my great grandparents' there's a significant decrease in 'historical relevancy' or whatever. If some type of injustice happened to my great grandparents, I don't picture this would be something that would invoke any type of emotions in me, while an injustice served upon my grandparents would make me feel 'something', and an injustice invoked upon my parents would make me feel a lot. For some, I'm sure you can move this line one more generation back, but if I were to find out that my ancestor from 400 years back in time was burned for witchcraft I'd consider that funny and interesting much more so than upsetting.
Consequently I don't really think this is a factor for the question of 'should Israel be allowed to exist where it exists'. Obviously it should. It's entirely fair to argue that the 47-48 partition was unjust to the Palestinian people, but it's not relevant to whether the Jewish population inhabiting Israel today has the right to live there. If you're born somewhere, then whatever happened before you were born there is not your fault, and I'm guessing the 'was an adult in 1947 and moved to Israel back then'-segment of the Israeli population is at this point very small.
But the notion that 'well, the Jews lived there 2900 years ago, so they do have a historical claim' to me has virtually no validity. Meanwhile, the 'my parents were unlawfully evicted from this house' is sufficiently recent for it to be cause for
'reparations'. I want to be clear that my argument is not that Jews are entitled to the entire Judea empire due to the Jews occupying that region for around 900 years. My point in all of that was that Jews have been in the region for a long time, they stuck around, and there have been Jewish nations in the past. Since sometimes when I make my posts too long, people don't read it, I will not include all of the citations I included in previous posts and just write out the conclusions. If there are any points you think are inaccurate, say so, and I will go into greater detail with citations and whatnot. I will now outline the facts/assumptions of my argument, because I want to make sure we agree on the basic facts of the history associated with all this. 1: Jews have been in the Palestine/Israel/Jordan area for a really long time. They had multiple empires and the last one they had before the modern Israel was Judea. When the Romans ethnically cleansed Judea, it was the 3rd time in history Jews had been ethnically cleansed from an area. 2: After Judea was wiped out, Jews moved to nearby regions to avoid persecution and generally survive. That included the coastal region to the west and all other directions. I want to be clear that Jews were not totally absent from the region just because they didn't have a Jewish empire anymore. Jews still lived in neighboring regions and generally lived in the Middle East. 3: The most recent non-western nation in that region was the Ottoman Empire. Jews lived in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere. The Ottoman Empire was vast and had many individual parts. Each part had their own unique culture and interpretation of laws. In some regions, Jews were able to live mostly care-free. In other regions, it was essentially not safe for them because of the local culture. There were efforts to establish a Jewish region because of the dicey situation within the Ottoman empire and the long history of persecution. 4: In the 19th century, a few different efforts were made to create a Jewish community in Palestine. This included Jews from both the middle east and Europe, both escaping persecution. In the 1800s, there was tons of antisemitism in both Europe and the Middle East. This is a very important point because the 1800s were well before the british carved out Israel for Jews. It needs to be extremely clear and agreed on that Jews were persecuted in various nations within the middle east and europe in the 1800s.5: In WW1, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and was defeated. The Sykes–Picot Agreement split up the region among the British and the French. As we all know, this eventually led to the 1947 vote by the United Nations Special Committee to partition Western Palestine into a Jewish State. Please let me know if you disagree with any of these statements. I can provide more detail, citations, and all the stuff as-requested, but I am trying not to burden this thread with my huge posts. ******************PART 2****************** Separately, here is my argument based on the facts above. Totally understand if you disagree with me from here onward, but it is important we at least agree on the assumptions described above: 1: "Colonialism" is not an appropriate way to describe Jews living in modern-day Palestine/Israel. They have lived there for a long time and remained in the region. 2: The Ottoman Empire entered into WW1 and lost. They entered into WW1 largely because they saw it as a good opportunity to hurt the british, who had been trying to spread its influence throughout the middle east before WW1. I have a very hard time saying this is some kind of profound injustice. The Ottoman Empire took their shot, lost, and the folks who won used the remains of the empire as they wanted. I don't think it is appropriate to frame the British having control of this region as some kind of injustice. 3: Since Jews have been in the area a long time, made efforts to move to specifically form a Jewish community within Palestine in the 1800s, and had been persecuted throughout both the Middle East and Europe throughout the 1800s, the idea of trying to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine is entirely reasonable 4: For the people who lived in this partition previously, and did not want this new Jewish partition to exist, they are entirely within their right to be angry and to try to retake that land. I view this as an entirely legitimate reason to go to war with someone. But that does not mean the British, Israel, and the West as a whole are not justified in defending the land. For the reasons listed above, it is very easy to see why a Jewish safe-haven is necessary, but its not like we had unexplored parts of the world left to go make a new place. Any land given to the Jews would ultimately mean land taken from someone else. But whoever those unlucky folks would be, they would be within their right to get mad and try to take it back. If they fail to do so, I don't see it as an injustice. Ultimately this entire set of events is a result of the Ottoman Empire entering WW1 and being defeated. It isn't reasonable to essentially call WW1 illegitimate and to say the British using the land as they wanted to. You're still spending a lot of words just to assert that modern-day Israel has a right to exist. Something I don't think anybody here contests. Meanwhile you dismiss the Palestinians right to be there as "they lost a war in 1947", as if that clears the whole thing up. They had a war, Palestinians lost, and that means they have to vacate the premises. Anything else makes them sore losers and Israel has the moral authority to eradicate/evict them. It feels like you are misrepresenting my post, so I will clarify just in case it is a misunderstanding. There are 2 major points of disagreement I have had with people regarding this topic: 1: The history of antisemitism in Middle Eastern nations prior to 1947. More than 1 person in this thread has said Jews had no issues living in Muslim nations prior to 1948 and that all of the collective punishment towards Jews after the formation of Israel occurred without any history of antisemitism in those countries. This point is relevant because many people have said Jews did not need some kind of safe haven and that the land being given to them was purely greed and thirst for power. My post specifies Jews were victims of antisemitism in both the Middle East and Europe in the 1800s and that efforts to form a Jewish community and/or state around the general Palestine area occurred in the 1800s. 2: I have been told Jews had an insignificant presence in the region prior to being artificially inserted in the 1900s. I have been told it is true that Jews had a significant presence in the Palestine area many centuries ago but that the Jewish populations in the region in recent years made it inappropriate to create a Jewish state by partitioning Palestine. And that because of this, it must be labeled as some form of colonial imperialism and that the very formation of Israel is itself illegitimate. My post specifies there was a significant Jewish population as recently as the Ottoman Empire and that Jews suffered varying levels of antisemitism within the Ottoman Empire and other Middle Eastern nations. So I want to be clear that I am not saying the Palestinian objective is illegitimate. I am saying it is legitimate and that similarly, Israel’s objective is also legitimate. As an extension of this, I am saying people are not being reasonable when they say the war between them must be conducted in a deeply asymmetric way because the Israeli side is fundamentally illegitimate due to being colonialism and related terms. I see no problem with Palestine working as hard as they can to retake Israel. I also see no problem with Israel doing everything they can to ensure Palestinians and anyone else never succeed. The 2 factions are fundamentally at war and efforts to further reduce risk and increase safety are justified.
I'm not entirely sure who you're referring to, so I'd like to ask you to name someone who does hold these views so there can be an honest and open debate about it.
I certainly do not hold these views. Not 1, not 2.
To me, how many Jews were present at which time is largely irrelevant to the matter of the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Its conception was illegitimate mainly because it was born entirely out of blood and with active disregard and displacement of the remaining population of Palestinians. That alone makes its conception as illegitimate as it can get, but there are also additional factors like unfair negotiations, backdoor deals and the nationalist and ethnic component that further delegitimize its conception.
I also don't believe that there were no prior tensions and no antisemitism against Jews by Arabs or by Muslims. What I'm saying is that Jews don't have clean hands either. Many of them contributed to the tensions, and pro-Israel voices love to completely omit facts like that. They paint things as if it was entirely the fault of Arabs/Muslims, and never the fault of any Jewish people. They don't even mention the Zionist takeover, which is one of the most relevant matters in the entire affair prior to 1948 and until today. It has caused so many problems, and personally I'm convinced that, without the Zionists, there would've likely not been such a huge and sudden surge in tensions before 1948. It would've been far more manageable, and negotiations could've had a reasonable chance to continue peacefully. Zionists were completely uncompromising in their plan to establish a solely Jewish State in the one place of the world where a long-term conflict with the surrounding nations was absolutely guaranteed. This fact has long been one of the biggest driving factors and it's very important that pro-Israel voices can't get away with omitting it from history.
|
On January 13 2024 08:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 05:52 Nebuchad wrote:On January 13 2024 05:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2024 05:36 Nebuchad wrote:On January 13 2024 05:33 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2024 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:On January 13 2024 05:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2024 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:
You also don't need to have an elaborate answer to this question. If someone asks "What would you do if you were Hamas???", you don't need to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict, you can just say "not do terrorism", it's fine. Similarly, what else is Israel supposed to do? can be answered in a very simple way, they're supposed to not do ethnic cleansing. Most countries manage to do that. Here’s the rub though. Everyone that is not in Hamas or the “axis of resistance” agrees that Hamas are terrorists. Many many people and major governments do not agree with you on the ethnically cleansing trope. I made the choice to form my opinion based on looking at the facts objectively, looking at the declarations of the people currently running the government of Israel, reasoning about these facts and these declarations and what they could mean or not mean, and finally listening to expert voices on the topic of ethnic cleansing and genocide as well as human rights organizations on the ground and finally palestinian voices. But it's true that I could also have made the choice to listen to politicians from countries that are allied with the government that is accused of doing the ethnic cleansing. I can't help but feel like one of those choices is better than the other, though. Better to listen to the countries allied with the clear and horrible genocidal terrorists. Totally makes sense. That is most definitely a bad faith answer, as we can all see that in my post I'm not advocating that at all. So what do you want to do now? It is not exactly what you said, but it is reality. Look at all the countries that have came out and their human rights records compared to say Germany. Most also are supporting Russia, you OK with that? You opened this can of worms. It is not "not exactly what I said", it's not what I said at all. You're lying. Why do you want to look at what countries say and who these countries are as opposed to what the facts present like, what the government of Israel says about those facts, what the palestinian victims say about those facts, what the human rights organization say about those facts, and what experts on ethnic cleansing and genocide say about those facts, as I indicated I did? Do you not feel like it would be a better way to come up with a conclusion than to have a random competition between Germany and South Africa? It is obviously not random, it is countries that actually uphold human rights and those that do not. Their actions matter on whether you should trust their words. The human rights organizations are of course compelling, but they are (rightfully) motivated by stopping the violence.
The argument wouldn't be that it's random because you chose two random countries, the argument would be that it's random because that's not how you would usually decide whether something is happening or not. If a German kills a Russian and you want to make a ruling on this case, you don't go "Okay let's consider the respective history of Russia and Germany on murdering people".
|
On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant.
Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ?
Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank.
Even the "left-wing opposition" does.
But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them.
|
Northern Ireland22959 Posts
On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them.
Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent.
To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world.
|
On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world.
Have they vocalized this since updating their charter?
|
On January 14 2024 04:18 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world. Have they vocalized this since updating their charter?
I don't think they have. Their stated goal as of right now is the liberation of Palestinians and the establishment of a state for Palestinians, either as a single state with Israel gone or as a two-state solution. It can be expected that they would affirm themselves as the de facto leadership, but some analysts allege that they're open to taking the backseat in case their plan is successful.
They have various smaller goals they want to accomplish regardless of their grander plans, and the October 7 attack specifically was triggered by some of those smaller goals.
Does this mean Hamas would be ok living side by side with Israel? I think that depends on which of their members you're asking. They're certainly not a hivemind, so I doubt every single one of them wants to kill every Jew. But of the soldiers who were involved in October 7, many were killing Jewish citizens in cold blood. More specifically they claimed that the festival they landed in was not part of their agenda as they didn't know about it. We can't confirm if that's true or false. Captive Hamas members (afaik all of them) have denied that they've murdered anyone. I think it's fairly obvious that's a blatant lie, which tells us that, if they're willing to lie on a smaller scale, then they're certainly willing to also lie about their grander plans.
|
On January 14 2024 04:18 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world. Have they vocalized this since updating their charter?
When was this updated? With a date of this change and a description of this change, it would be easier to answer this question.
if you are saying they no longer claim their goal is to kill all Jews, are you saying you believe them? It feels like people commonly point out there is only so much trust we can place in both what IDF and Hamas says, so I am curious what the relevance of a change to their charter would be to you.
|
On January 14 2024 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 04:18 Cricketer12 wrote:On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world. Have they vocalized this since updating their charter? When was this updated? With a date of this change and a description of this change, it would be easier to answer this question. if you are saying they no longer claim their goal is to kill all Jews, are you saying you believe them? It feels like people commonly point out there is only so much trust we can place in both what IDF and Hamas says, so I am curious what the relevance of a change to their charter would be to you.
2017
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter)
|
They changed their charter, but they didn't change their M.O. nor what leaders say when asked in interviews (or members chant). And since changing their charter, October 7 happened. I'm not sure you should put much stock in their changed charter...
|
On January 14 2024 05:44 Acrofales wrote:
They changed their charter, but they didn't change their M.O. nor what leaders say when asked in interviews (or members chant). And since changing their charter, October 7 happened. I'm not sure you should put much stock in their changed charter...
It also doesn't matter, as terrorism to get to 1967 borders is not more acceptable than terrorism to get rid of Israel.
But of course I have to say I find it disgusting that we're going to have this conversation with people about whether Hamas is lying when they say their intent is not to destroy Israel anymore and that's somehow super important, and those people will be the same people who will dismiss all of the generals and ministers in the government of Israel saying they plan to kill and/or displace every Palestinian and pretend that Israel is acting in self-defense.
|
On January 14 2024 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2024 04:18 Cricketer12 wrote:On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world. Have they vocalized this since updating their charter? When was this updated? With a date of this change and a description of this change, it would be easier to answer this question. if you are saying they no longer claim their goal is to kill all Jews, are you saying you believe them? It feels like people commonly point out there is only so much trust we can place in both what IDF and Hamas says, so I am curious what the relevance of a change to their charter would be to you. 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter)
Mahmoud al-Zahar participated in a televised interview in 2022. Here is a brief description from Wikipedia:
Mahmoud al-Zahar (Arabic: محمود الزهار Maḥmūd az-Zahhār; born 6 May 1945) is a Palestinian politician. He is a co-founder of Hamas and a member of the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip. Al-Zahar served as foreign minister in the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority Government of March 2006 (also known as the First Haniyeh Government) that was sworn in on 20 March 2006.
"The entire planet will be under our law; there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors.".
“We believe in what our Prophet Muhammad said: “Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake, and I have seen its eastern and western ends. The dominion of my nation would reach those ends that have been drawn near me,"
“The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries,"
https://zeenews.india.com/world/there-will-be-no-more-jews-or-christian-traitors-video-of-hamas-commander-mahmoud-al-zahar-s-warning-to-the-world-goes-viral-watch-2674244.html
I am not sure what specific changes people are referring to. But I am sure many people agree the quotes above are a little bit more than a little bit problematic.
|
I just provided the information you asked for that's all.
|
On January 14 2024 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
I just provided the information you asked for that's all.
Sorry if it came across as me disagreeing with you. I was just replying to your post because I was more so replying to the charter itself. I am pointing out that charter sure does seem to match poorly with a wide range of interviews. That one was so specific and so clear that I think it does the job without linking all the others.
|
On January 14 2024 06:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
I just provided the information you asked for that's all. Sorry if it came across as me disagreeing with you. I was just replying to your post because I was more so replying to the charter itself. I am pointing out that charter sure does seem to match poorly with a wide range of interviews. That one was so specific and so clear that I think it does the job without linking all the others.
He sounds like a bad person, you're right.
|
On January 14 2024 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2024 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On January 14 2024 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2024 04:18 Cricketer12 wrote:On January 14 2024 04:09 WombaT wrote:On January 14 2024 03:15 stilt wrote:On January 13 2024 08:55 JimmiC wrote:
And for those of you that keep bringing up how Israelis must support the bad blah blah. How come you are giving all the Palestinians a pass on what Hamas does? Should we just start talking about the genocidal actions and talk as what the Palestinians want since Hamas is way more popular in Gaza than Bibi is Israel?
The double standards are so blatant. Since when did Hamas commit a genocide ? And what are you talking about ? The rightful wish of palestinian people to have the fascist colonial state which is mass murdering them expelled ? Israeli society as a while supports this slaughter and the colonization of west bank. Even the "left-wing opposition" does. But you can talk about the so called babies in the oven and other israelis bs as much as you want but that's boring like every medias are parroting them. Hamas themselves happily and openly admit that their aims, if they could practically achieve them go far beyond liberation and right into genocidal intent. To deny this goes far beyond any skepticism of media narratives and straight into the ‘choose your own adventure’ school of unpicking the realities of the world. Have they vocalized this since updating their charter? When was this updated? With a date of this change and a description of this change, it would be easier to answer this question. if you are saying they no longer claim their goal is to kill all Jews, are you saying you believe them? It feels like people commonly point out there is only so much trust we can place in both what IDF and Hamas says, so I am curious what the relevance of a change to their charter would be to you. 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter) Mahmoud al-Zahar participated in a televised interview in 2022. Here is a brief description from Wikipedia: Show nested quote +Mahmoud al-Zahar (Arabic: محمود الزهار Maḥmūd az-Zahhār; born 6 May 1945) is a Palestinian politician. He is a co-founder of Hamas and a member of the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip. Al-Zahar served as foreign minister in the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority Government of March 2006 (also known as the First Haniyeh Government) that was sworn in on 20 March 2006. "The entire planet will be under our law; there will be no more Jews or Christian traitors.". “We believe in what our Prophet Muhammad said: “Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake, and I have seen its eastern and western ends. The dominion of my nation would reach those ends that have been drawn near me," “The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries," https://zeenews.india.com/world/there-will-be-no-more-jews-or-christian-traitors-video-of-hamas-commander-mahmoud-al-zahar-s-warning-to-the-world-goes-viral-watch-2674244.htmlI am not sure what specific changes people are referring to. But I am sure many people agree the quotes above are a little bit more than a little bit problematic.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting support for Hamas, someone mentioned to me their charter had been updated to remove more extremist statements, I was wondering if their speeches were consistent with this or if it was just a PR move. The quote you provide indicates the latter.
|
I mean it does indicate a strong sense of grandiosity when someone starts with "the entire planet will be under our law". Coming from someone whose people can't even overcome a neighboring country's military. Big bark no bite. It sounds like a declaration of supremacy but probably as much like the wild imagination of a man who's so filled with hate, passion and narcissism that he can't see straight.
"No more Jews or Christian traitors" is equally ludicrous as that would require his global rule.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a number of Hamas members who consider that man more of a useful tool for their war efforts than a visionary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
