Israel, Palestine and Iran

[VILLAMARV]

I think we're totally wasted on this crowd @magnkarl.

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

No, I'm saying that Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are treated like eternal refugees, sitting in camps and squalor for generations, just like in Gaza and the West Bank. There is no less apartheid for Palestinians in these countries, they're walled in to camps and have little to no rights to anything.

Here, in example about how Egypt treats its Palestinian refugees:

 

In the UK they would be living on a barge and kept as asylum seekers for years without their claim being processed, thus paying full international student fees which I think is around £30,000 per year?

This isn’t really the time for whataboutism, we have two racist regimes murdering each other’s people on an industrial scale.

When the Egyptians are kicking heads down the road or demolishing apartments with families in them, then perhaps its time to drag them in to the competition to see who is the sickest mediaeval ****.

When I suggest they are both sick racist mediaeval ****, obviously one is the one we trade with and sell arms to, so they’re ok.

 

[El Segundo]

44 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

No, I'm saying that Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are treated like eternal refugees, sitting in camps and squalor for generations, just like in Gaza and the West Bank. There is no less apartheid for Palestinians in these countries, they're walled in to camps and have little to no rights to anything.

Here, in example about how Egypt treats its Palestinian refugees:

 

Ok, but they are refugees in a foreign country there, not nationals in their own country.  Is it possible Egypt and other Arab countries  don't want to fully accept them because that would be tantamount to accepting what Israel had done to force them out of their own country?

[magnkarl]

11 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Ok, but they are refugees in a foreign country there, not nationals in their own country.  Is it possible Egypt and other Arab countries  don't want to fully accept them because that would be tantamount to accepting what Israel had done to force them out of their own country?

Do you understand what a generational refugee is?

Palestinians and their descendants who lost their homes to Egyptian\Syrian\Jordanian\Lebanese\Israeli bombing in the countless wars since 1946, even if they were in then Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian territory is still kept in massive refugee camps and not given citizenship in the country where they've lived their whole lives, be that Israel or any of the above.

As stated before, Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Egyptian and Jordanian outrage is nothing short of hypocrisy. There's apartheid in pretty much all of the states surrounding Israel for Palestinians, as much as there is in Israel. The silence from the Pro-Palestinian cause on said issue is deafening, likely because it would mean that they'd need to call out countries who are 'oppressed' in their mindset. For many of that movement they're struggling with the nuance of their moral outrage, it's Israel/Jews/NATO/The West = baddies, if it's the Arab world = good folks. (while completely neglecting that the Arab world is likely as culpable for many of the issues we're currently seeing as Israel, certainly when it comes to starting wars with Israel of which the Arab league has started many).

Edited November 2, 2023 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

I’m sure there will be some, the sort of Chris Williams’ of this world that would think NATO = bad, Arab World = good.

But I think for the vast majority that can see the Palestinians are being persecuted they would be able to think with a bit more nuance than that. That they see video all year of Israeli settlers literally openly stealing homes and making native Palestinians homeless with the Israeli police and army looking on to make sure there is no trouble. Disgusting daily ethnic cleansing of great swathes of land.

Then they can also see that places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are backward countries when it comes to treating foreign workers with dignity or allowing women to drive cars or accepting some people are gay.

It’s a horrible world out there and we really don’t have to pick one side and stick with it blindly and I would suggest the majority, including the majority on those hate marches, can see that far more clearly than our political leaders and our media can.

[magnkarl]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m sure there will be some, the sort of Chris Williams’ of this world that would think NATO = bad, Arab World = good.

But I think for the vast majority that can see the Palestinians are being persecuted they would be able to think with a bit more nuance than that. That they see video all year of Israeli settlers literally openly stealing homes and making native Palestinians homeless with the Israeli police and army looking on to make sure there is no trouble. Disgusting daily ethnic cleansing of great swathes of land.

Then they can also see that places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are backward countries when it comes to treating foreign workers with dignity or allowing women to drive cars or accepting some people are gay.

It’s a horrible world out there and we really don’t have to pick one side and stick with it blindly and I would suggest the majority, including the majority on those hate marches, can see that far more clearly than our political leaders and our media can.

I'm sure you're right, and I'm quite likely meeting a lot of the Chris Williams' of the world due to having to walk past said people when I pick my granddaughter up from school. I just don't see a lot of the discourse about what the plan is apart from blaming Israel for everything on a larger scale for the Palestinian people, calling people scum, and acting like this conflict started when their good friends in Hamas went out to do some freedom fighting at a festival. It takes all sort of paradoxical thinking to wave an Egyptian, Jordanian or Lebanese flag at said march, mainly because all three countries treat Palestinians as second rate citizens in their own countries, and have all at some stage been in active wars with Palestinian groups. 

As I said, the way both sets of supporters are here I don't see much nuance, that's not to say that I don't see the nuance here on VT because I do.

Edited November 2, 2023 by magnkarl

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s a horrible world out there and we really don’t have to pick one side

You should discuss this with that nice chrisp65, because yesterday he explained the opposite. It’d be a good debate.

On 01/11/2023 at 13:28, chrisp65 said:

I do know that I’m asking an awful lot in the real world for a politician to have a moral compass.

To paraphrase President Biden, pick a team. It’s all a lot simpler once you’ve picked a team.

[chrisp65]

Just now, blandy said:

You should discuss this with that nice chrisp65, because yesterday he explained the opposite. It’d be a good debate.

Either you missed the cynicism yesterday, or I’m missing a joke today.

I was bemoaning Biden thinking like a toddler.

[blandy]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Either you missed the cynicism yesterday, or I’m missing a joke today.

I was bemoaning Biden thinking like a toddler.

I missed the cynicism. I’d thought you were bemoaning Kier Starmer’s dithering yesterday and suggesting that he should pick a side.

[El Segundo]

42 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Do you understand what a generational refugee is?

Palestinians and their descendants who lost their homes to Egyptian\Syrian\Jordanian\Lebanese\Israeli bombing in the countless wars since 1946, even if they were in then Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian territory is still kept in massive refugee camps and not given citizenship in the country where they've lived their whole lives, be that Israel or any of the above.

As stated before, Lebanese, Syrian, Iranian, Egyptian and Jordanian outrage is nothing short of hypocrisy. There's apartheid in pretty much all of the states surrounding Israel for Palestinians, as much as there is in Israel. The silence from the Pro-Palestinian cause on said issue is deafening, likely because it would mean that they'd need to call out countries who are 'oppressed' in their mindset. For many of that movement they're struggling with the nuance of their moral outrage, it's Israel/Jews/NATO/The West = baddies, if it's the Arab world = good folks. (while completely neglecting that the Arab world is likely as culpable for many of the issues we're currently seeing as Israel, certainly when it comes to starting wars with Israel of which the Arab league has started many).

Doesn't really answer my questions.  Generational or not they are still refugees in another country, not partitioned off in their own country.  Plus full acceptance could still be seen as acceptance that the Israelis are justified in what they are doing, and an admission that those Palestinians have no chance of ever returning to their homeland.  You don't think that makes a difference? 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I missed the cynicism. I’d thought you were bemoaning Kier Starmer’s dithering yesterday and suggesting that he should pick a side.

I’d like to think I’ve been suggesting for the last few weeks we shouldn’t simply be picking a team. I’ve literally suggested they are as bad as each other and people have tried to pick me up on it.

For Starmer, Leaders shouldn’t really just follow. The clue’s in the title.

[magnkarl]

11 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Doesn't really answer my questions.  Generational or not they are still refugees in another country, not partitioned off in their own country.  Plus full acceptance could still be seen as acceptance that the Israelis are justified in what they are doing, and an admission that those Palestinians have no chance of ever returning to their homeland.  You don't think that makes a difference? 

I don't think it makes a difference when these Palestinians were part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan when these three countries put them in a camp and decided to not give their kids citizenship, no. That is the reality. In many cases these Palestinians' homeland was Jordan/Egypt/Lebanon.

There's a weird logic applied by much of the pro-Palestinian cause to people who were once part of Egypt or Jordan who should now 'stay in Gaza' (to quote Egypt) or in one of the massive refugee camps created by Lebanon and Egypt close to their borders with Israel. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by magnkarl

[El Segundo]

9 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't think it makes a difference when these Palestinians were part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan when these three countries put them in a camp and decided to not give their kids citizenship, no. That is the reality. In many cases these Palestinians' homeland was Jordan/Egypt/Lebanon.

There's a weird logic applied by much of the pro-Palestinian cause to people who were once part of Egypt or Jordan who should now 'stay in Gaza' (to quote Egypt) or in one of the massive refugee camps created by Lebanon and Egypt close to their borders with Israel. 

From what I've read the a significant number (perhaps the majority) of Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon are people who fled (or were expelled) from Palestine in it's various forms, and Palestine was their homeland.  The original refugees being those fleeing what was defined by the British as Mandatory Palestine during the 1947-48 war, followed by those escaping further conflicts.  It seems a significant number of them hoped to move back, but were not allowed to. Thus their descendants may have been born in those countries, but, it seems, not by choice.  Is it those people you are referring to as being part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan and having those countries as their homelands?  If not which people are you referring to?        

[Chindie]

Strikes on UN schools turned shelters.

At this point the in might as well come out and do what Israel accuses it of being, and go anti-Israel full stop. They keep attacking their facilities and killing their staff anyway.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, El Segundo said:

From what I've read the a significant number (perhaps the majority) of Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon are people who fled (or were expelled) from Palestine in it's various forms, and Palestine was their homeland.  The original refugees being those fleeing what was defined by the British as Mandatory Palestine during the 1947-48 war, followed by those escaping further conflicts.  It seems a significant number of them hoped to move back, but were not allowed to. Thus their descendants may have been born in those countries, but, it seems, not by choice.  Is it those people you are referring to as being part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan and having those countries as their homelands?  If not which people are you referring to?        

In part some of those people are who I'm talking about. They're now on their 4th or 5th generation Palestinian family living in squalor in a camp in Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, and they're still not given even basic rights by the people who call them brothers. To call someone who's family have lived in their country since 1947-9 a refugee, is entirely morally bankrupt.

I wish all the states in this area would do some introspection. The Palestinians are just being thrown around like they're garbage.

Egypt and Jordan in particular pushed the Palestinians to not accept a two state solution in 1948, and have essentially furthered this situation by presumably hating (at least in action) both Palestinians and Israelis.

[Xann]

[El Segundo]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

In part some of those people are who I'm talking about. They're now on their 4th or 5th generation Palestinian family living in squalor in a camp in Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, and they're still not given even basic rights by the people who call them brothers. To call someone who's family have lived in their country since 1947-9 a refugee, is entirely morally bankrupt.

I wish all the states in this area would do some introspection. The Palestinians are just being thrown around like they're garbage.

Egypt and Jordan in particular pushed the Palestinians to not accept a two state solution in 1948, and have essentially furthered this situation by presumably hating (at least in action) both Palestinians and Israelis.

They are still not there by choice but from 75 years of continuous Israeli expansion and persecution. 

You seem to be saying that their “brothers” should have taken them in as Citizens to solve the problem after Israel had forced them out, and if they don’t, they are just as bad as Israel. How convenient for the Israelis - “yeah sure we can just kick them out and take their land cos Egypt/Lebanon/Jordan will just take them in, and if they refuse then they are just as bad as us”.  

What motivation would Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon have for doing that?  What obligation is there for them to do so? 

The entire Arab world rejected the 1948 so called two state solution and why wouldn’t they?  The “UN” decided to hand over something like 55% of the land to Israelis who at the time occupied something like 6% of the land and constituted around only a third of the population even after mass immigration following World War 2.  It didn’t sound like much of a “solution” for the Palestinians who would have to hand over their land to the Israelis, nor did it sound like much of a solution to those countries that decided to oppose it.  What would you have done in their shoes?

[KentVillan]

10 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

The entire Arab world rejected the 1948 so called two state solution and why wouldn’t they?  The “UN” decided to hand over something like 55% of the land to Israelis who at the time occupied something like 6% of the land and constituted around only a third of the population even after mass immigration following World War 2.  It didn’t sound like much of a “solution” for the Palestinians who would have to hand over their land to the Israelis, nor did it sound like much of a solution to those countries that decided to oppose it.  What would you have done in their shoes?

I don't think these arguments based on historical injustices get you anywhere (apart from understanding the context).

We can all see that the creation of the state of Israel was deeply flawed, but we're now in a situation 75 years later where you have this enormous population of Israeli Jews who were born in Israel and have as much right to the land they grew up in as anyone else in the region. Just like today's Northern Irish Protestants are as legitimately Northern Irish as the Catholic community.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many of the states in the region were a product of colonialism or colonial sponsorship... Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. So singling Israel out as unique in this regard because it happens to be the only Jewish state, misses the point that most nation states are artificial in some way or another.

I think Netanyahu is a complete piece of shit and that Israeli settlers are indefensible, and that Israel routinely commits war crimes against the Palestinians. But I also think there is an unnatural obsession with Israel's actions that isn't matched by similar interest in the ethnic cleansing and oppression of minority communities across the region and in many other parts of the world - e.g. Saudi treatment of Shias in Eastern Provinces, Iraqi/Turkish treatment of Kurds, and so on.

We shouldn't demonise or glorify sides in these territorial disputes. They're all as bad as each other, and the only sustainable solution is for the decent people on each side to have more power, and the warmongers to have less power. But it's never a case of one ethnic group or nationality being better or worse, or more guilty or innocent, than the other. It's whether the good guys or the bad guys have managed to wield power within the community.

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I don't think these arguments based on historical injustices get you anywhere (apart from understanding the context).

We can all see that the creation of the state of Israel was deeply flawed, but we're now in a situation 75 years later where you have this enormous population of Israeli Jews who were born in Israel and have as much right to the land they grew up in as anyone else in the region. Just like today's Northern Irish Protestants are as legitimately Northern Irish as the Catholic community.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many of the states in the region were a product of colonialism or colonial sponsorship... Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. So singling Israel out as unique in this regard because it happens to be the only Jewish state, misses the point that most nation states are artificial in some way or another.

I think Netanyahu is a complete piece of shit and that Israeli settlers are indefensible, and that Israel routinely commits war crimes against the Palestinians. But I also think there is an unnatural obsession with Israel's actions that isn't matched by similar interest in the ethnic cleansing and oppression of minority communities across the region and in many other parts of the world - e.g. Saudi treatment of Shias in Eastern Provinces, Iraqi/Turkish treatment of Kurds, and so on.

We shouldn't demonise or glorify sides in these territorial disputes. They're all as bad as each other, and the only sustainable solution is for the decent people on each side to have more power, and the warmongers to have less power. But it's never a case of one ethnic group or nationality being better or worse, or more guilty or innocent, than the other. It's whether the good guys or the bad guys have managed to wield power within the community.

My reference to the 1948 two state "solution" was in response to the other poster bringing up the subject of its rejection as a criticism of Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as other Arab nations.  To my mind they most likely saw it as a deeply unjust and unfair proposal that strongly favoured the Jewish minority and considered the Palestinian people as disposable and dispensable.   I find it hard to disagree. 

I'm not sure you can label  injustices that have been ongoing for at least 75 years and continue now as "historical".  The events of 1947-48 may have been something of a starting point (although not completely) but it has been a more or less continuous process of enlargement, oppression and displacement ever since.  And context is crucial to understanding any situation.  Why would you want to suppress it or ignore it?  The UN resolution of 1947 remains a root cause of what's going on today and is therefore still extremely relevant.  Can you just say "oh it happened so long ago it's not relevant"?  That could lead to a whole can of worms as to what can be dismissed as "historical".   

You seriously don't think Israel is a unique case? I'm not singling them out because they are a Jewish state (although that in itself makes them unique) but because, while other countries may have been shaped and influenced by the Colonialism of Britain and France in particular, and other countries persecute minorities, can you name any other examples in modern times where a minority ethno/religious population were artificially supplanted into the midst of a majority, supplemented and supported by the established Colonial Powers, and then proceeded to act like a colonial power themselves?  Taking over and expanding with extreme prejudice?  

Finally I'm not convinced that being born there as the child of a member of an occupying colonial power endows you with any rights to that land.  On what basis would those rights exist?   And do those rights extend to continuing  to expel Palestinians , take their land, and put them in open prisons?     

Edited November 3, 2023 by El Segundo

[a-k]

5 hours ago, KentVillan said:

I don't think these arguments based on historical injustices get you anywhere (apart from understanding the context).

We can all see that the creation of the state of Israel was deeply flawed, but we're now in a situation 75 years later where you have this enormous population of Israeli Jews who were born in Israel and have as much right to the land they grew up in as anyone else in the region. Just like today's Northern Irish Protestants are as legitimately Northern Irish as the Catholic community.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many of the states in the region were a product of colonialism or colonial sponsorship... Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. So singling Israel out as unique in this regard because it happens to be the only Jewish state, misses the point that most nation states are artificial in some way or another.

I think Netanyahu is a complete piece of shit and that Israeli settlers are indefensible, and that Israel routinely commits war crimes against the Palestinians. But I also think there is an unnatural obsession with Israel's actions that isn't matched by similar interest in the ethnic cleansing and oppression of minority communities across the region and in many other parts of the world - e.g. Saudi treatment of Shias in Eastern Provinces, Iraqi/Turkish treatment of Kurds, and so on.

We shouldn't demonise or glorify sides in these territorial disputes. They're all as bad as each other, and the only sustainable solution is for the decent people on each side to have more power, and the warmongers to have less power. But it's never a case of one ethnic group or nationality being better or worse, or more guilty or innocent, than the other. It's whether the good guys or the bad guys have managed to wield power within the community.

You, sir, speak too much sense for this thread and this topic