Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Chindie]

Its ok to eradicate the Palestinian people.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Calling a UN-mandate 'stealing' land is quite rich, isn't it?

How far back should we look? When the Romans butchered the whole Judean population and sold them as slaves, or when Salahadin forcefully converted most of the Christians and Jews in the area, or when the Crusaders butchered anyone not Christian in Jerusalem? Or when Jews were made to walk on death marches under the Ottoman Empire into the Sinai?

All I'm saying is that Israel's neighbours contribute massively to this issue by keeping at least 2 million Palestinians in continuous generational squalor themselves, leading to movements like Hamas, Black September and Hezbollah. I don't think it's much to ask that a refugee should at least get some rights when you've lived in a camp your whole life, and all your parents and grandparents did the same.

I wasn’t referring to a UN Mandate, I was referring to the perpetual theft of houses and businesses over the years. We’ve all seen the footage time after time year after year of people literally evicted with the police and army watching on to make sure it doesn’t get too awkward for the new arrivals from the U.S. or Russia or wherever. When that happens, when people are evicted from their family olive grove business I’d ask you, is 1968 still relevant, or is it to be consigned to history like something the romans did? What year is the cut off if those people are still alive and their relatives and sons and daughters are still displaced and sat in a refugee camp? Should they just give themselves a shake and get on with it?

The thread is Israel, Palestine, Iran. We could always set up a thread for Jordan and Egypt if that was equally pressing right now. There are massive issues with just about every country in the Middle East, the bloody regimes we condemn, and the bloody regimes we count as friends and partners. 

But right now it can feel like ‘whatabout’ when people are kidnapped, and people are being bombed.

[Xann]

Updated link to the same camera as before.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[El Segundo]

29 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

“Modern” can mean different things, but Israel really originates with the creation of Mandatory Palestine over a century ago (1920) and that isn’t much later than the main waves of European settlement in Australia and New Zealand.

My argument is that now you have multiple generations of born and bred Israeli Jews living in the country, something roughly resembling the current nation-state of Israel (in terms of borders and a majority Jewish population) is an essential and unavoidable part of the eventual outcome. I don’t see any realistic solution that doesn’t involve that.

Do you think there is one? And if not, what is the practical relevance of Israel being a young / badly conceived state to the current situation?

And I completely accept that democracy and conciliation hasn’t worked well on either side, but it’s still the only approach that has ever worked in a situation like this, besides the complete annihilation of one side.

I can see the argument for attacks on Israeli military, govt buildings, etc but what Hamas did to innocent civilians was unconscionable and there’s a hint of “well, they had no other option” to some of the commentary. That seems to get bolstered by this idea that ordinary non-settler Israelis are recent colonisers.

I can totally see Hamas’s frustration at being boxed in by Israeli govts who often act in bad faith and make land grabs while conceding almost nothing, but I find it pretty hard to empathise with anyone who gets joy out of murdering children?

 

The bulk of immigration to the Antipodes occurred from around the 1830s to the 1850s, in prime Colonial times. A totally different ball game as I implied in my earlier post.

Of course Israel was preceded by Mandatory Palestine, ruled by the British,  but Israel as a Jewish state came into being 14th May 1948. It's within living memory and happened in a World where Colonialism had supposedly become, or was becoming, discredited and repugnant. 

It is true, however, that both Zionist activity and immigration, and Arab hostility around Palestine had been steadily growing in the inter-war period.   The promise to Zionists within the British  mandate was for a "National Homeland for the Jews", not a Jewish state.  Even that "lesser" promise contradicted guarantees made by the British Government to the Arab World that they would be granted the right to self determination of the indigenous peoples in return for helping to fight the Ottoman Empire in WWI.  Although the British later tried to wriggle out of it, those guarantees did not exclude Palestine. 

In 1919 the vast majority of the population in Palestine were non-Jewish, mostly Arabs. So the mandate not only **** over the Arabs, it was claimed that it contravened Article 22 of the League of Nations pertaining to the equal rights for self-determination of all people.   Records show that at the time Israel was created, Jews were still not a majority in Palestine, they numbered around a third of the population, and owned around only 5-6% of the land.  And that was following significant encouraged immigration of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. 

So 1948 really is a key date in all this and was a crucial turning point - when the UN somehow sanctioned giving the Zionists 55% of the land, in contravention of its own Charter regarding equal rights to self determination, and the declaration of a Jewish state.  

I do think that Israel has become established enough to render a two state "solution" the only "viable" option.   I don't agree that that means the Arabs should accept Israel in it's current (and expanding) state.  I still don't buy your reasoning that because multiple generations of Jews have been born in Palestine since 1948 that it endows them with rights of Governance and land ownership.  Much of which has been seized by force from indigenous Palestinians.  I can only see the Arab world accepting a two state solution if Palestinians are given a fair share of the land , security from attack,   and equal rights to self governance.  Sadly I can't ever see the Zionists agreeing to that.

[magnkarl]

41 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

The bulk of immigration to the Antipodes occurred from around the 1830s to the 1850s, in prime Colonial times. A totally different ball game as I implied in my earlier post.

Of course Israel was preceded by Mandatory Palestine, ruled by the British,  but Israel as a Jewish state came into being 14th May 1948. It's within living memory and happened in a World where Colonialism had supposedly become, or was becoming, discredited and repugnant. 

It is true, however, that both Zionist activity and immigration, and Arab hostility around Palestine had been steadily growing in the inter-war period.   The promise to Zionists within the British  mandate was for a "National Homeland for the Jews", not a Jewish state.  Even that "lesser" promise contradicted guarantees made by the British Government to the Arab World that they would be granted the right to self determination of the indigenous peoples in return for helping to fight the Ottoman Empire in WWI.  Although the British later tried to wriggle out of it, those guarantees did not exclude Palestine. 

In 1919 the vast majority of the population in Palestine were non-Jewish, mostly Arabs. So the mandate not only **** over the Arabs, it was claimed that it contravened Article 22 of the League of Nations pertaining to the equal rights for self-determination of all people.   Records show that at the time Israel was created, Jews were still not a majority in Palestine, they numbered around a third of the population, and owned around only 5-6% of the land.  And that was following significant encouraged immigration of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. 

So 1948 really is a key date in all this and was a crucial turning point - when the UN somehow sanctioned giving the Zionists 55% of the land, in contravention of its own Charter regarding equal rights to self determination, and the declaration of a Jewish state.  

I do think that Israel has become established enough to render a two state "solution" the only "viable" option.   I don't agree that that means the Arabs should accept Israel in it's current (and expanding) state.  I still don't buy your reasoning that because multiple generations of Jews have been born in Palestine since 1948 that it endows them with rights of Governance and land ownership.  Much of which has been seized by force from indigenous Palestinians.  I can only see the Arab world accepting a two state solution if Palestinians are given a fair share of the land , security from attack,   and equal rights to self governance.  Sadly I can't ever see the Zionists agreeing to that.

But isn't it a fallacy to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed a state because the country they'd been pretty summarily purged from Christianity/Roman and then Islamic times? Your argument totally discounts what the Ottomans did to the Jewish population when they gave Arabs the land from roughly the 1700-British colonialist times for helping the British, it's a tit for tat issue that is never ending, I'm sure the Jews could be evicted by someone who identifies as whichever tribe was there before the Semittic tribes that inhibited the place during 3-4000 years before the current set of religions took it over. My family owned a small farm on the Polish border with Belarus when they were put into gas chambers and concentration camps by Germans, it doesn't mean that the British governemnt wants me to go back there to fight whoever took it over (Soviet state). I have no legal papers or rights to go and kick a family off that land who's now lived there for 80 years, even though morally it would likely be 'just'.

You seem to operate with a cut off point which is around 1920, what about the whole villages of Jews killed by the Ottomans for assisting the British in the 50 or so years before this?

Jews don't operate with a 'convert or die' option like Christianity and Islam does/did, so of course there wasn't a big population of Jews in Judea after these two religions started taking over as you either fled\converted\got beheaded by some knight or someone praising god while killing you.

Edited November 3, 2023 by magnkarl

[ender4]

1 hour ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

That's a lot of Afghans in Iran!

[magnkarl]

Hezbollahs top bloke saying they'll kill Jews 'again and again' really tells you what predicament the Palestinian people is stuck in. Their leaders are controlled by a country who's got killing Jews in their constitution, and they're being occupied by Jews. Meanwhile the leaders of Hamas are lounging on the beach in Turkey and Qatar.

Between a rock used in stoning women for dancing and a JDAM fired at a civilian building.

 Boycott Israel, boycott Lebanon and Iran.

Edited November 3, 2023 by magnkarl

[meregreen]

22 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Hezbollahs top bloke saying they'll kill Jews 'again and again' really tells you what predicament the Palestinian people is stuck in. Their leaders are controlled by a country who's got killing Jews in their constitution, and they're being occupied by Jews.

Between a rock used in stoning women for dancing and a JDAM fired at a civilian building.

 Boycott Israel, boycott Lebanon and Iran.

He also called the 7th October atrocities “ a glorious operation”. How on earth do you negotiate with people with that kind of mindset.

[icouldtelltheworld]

44 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Hezbollahs top bloke saying they'll kill Jews 'again and again' really tells you what predicament the Palestinian people is stuck in. Their leaders are controlled by a country who's got killing Jews in their constitution, and they're being occupied by Jews. Meanwhile the leaders of Hamas are lounging on the beach in Turkey and Qatar.

Between a rock used in stoning women for dancing and a JDAM fired at a civilian building.

 Boycott Israel, boycott Lebanon and Iran.

You have repeated the claim about the elimination of Jews featuring in Iran's constitution on several occasions, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of that whatsoever. 

Not saying that you're lying, but just wondering if you could provide evidence of this? For various reasons, I have an interest in Iranian history and it is not a claim I have ever heard anywhere else, nor have I read it anywhere when I've scanned the constitution.

Khomeini has certainly made genocidal claims regarding Jews in the ME, but that's very different to the elimination of Jews being written into the country's constitution

[El Segundo]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

But isn't it a fallacy to say that Jews shouldn't be allowed a state because the country they'd been pretty summarily purged from Christianity/Roman and then Islamic times? Your argument totally discounts what the Ottomans did to the Jewish population when they gave Arabs the land from roughly the 1700-British colonialist times for helping the British, it's a tit for tat issue that is never ending, I'm sure the Jews could be evicted by someone who identifies as whichever tribe was there before the Semittic tribes that inhibited the place during 3-4000 years before the current set of religions took it over. My family owned a small farm on the Polish border with Belarus when they were put into gas chambers and concentration camps by Germans, it doesn't mean that the British governemnt wants me to go back there to fight whoever took it over (Soviet state). I have no legal papers or rights to go and kick a family off that land who's now lived there for 80 years, even though morally it would likely be 'just'.

You seem to operate with a cut off point which is around 1920, what about the whole villages of Jews killed by the Ottomans for assisting the British in the 50 or so years before this?

Jews don't operate with a 'convert or die' option like Christianity and Islam does/did, so of course there wasn't a big population of Jews in Judea after these two religions started taking over as you either fled\converted\got beheaded by some knight or someone praising god while killing you.

I haven't said  the Jews shouldn't be allowed a state.  In any case would such a viewpoint be a fallacy?  I mean in the sense of logical fallacy?  

Around 1920 is when the Zionist movement's desire for a Jewish homeland, which had been mooted for quite a few decades before that,  began to be ratified as part of Western (initially British) Foreign Policy.  That made it more viable, accommodated significant immigration of Jews to Palestine,  and ultimately led to the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948 when the British did a runner after realising what an unholy cock up they'd made of the whole shebang.  So to me it seems a not unreasonable point from which to start the discussion of the plight of the Palestinians under Jewish occupation.   

I'm not sure how the other points you make are relevant to the current situation.  If they are attempts to expose hypocrisy,  I don't think they work.  If they are attempts to justify what Israel has done and is doing because others are just as bad then they are just "whataboutery".      

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by El Segundo

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Boycott Israel, boycott Lebanon and Iran.

We have a range of sanctions against Lebanon and Iran. 

Should we have the same for Israel?

I feel it's unlikely that's what you're accidentally suggesting.

 

[fruitvilla]

A little rhetorical for my taste ... but it is an interesting point

 

[Keyblade]

24 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

A little rhetorical for my taste ... but it is an interesting point

 

Arguing against a straw man and whataboutism, my 2 least favourite genres.

[Chindie]

I bet his bank statement makes interesting reading.

[OutByEaster?]

I guess the answer to that one is that no one would expect a protest against ISIS in the West to have any effect - your enemies aren't interested in your protests.

Israel aren't our enemy, they're "us", they're supposed to behave like "us" that's I think what fuels protest, grown ups are supposed to listen and there's a feeling that this could be stopped, could be prevented, that people might not die - that feeling wasn't there with ISIS - and there's an argument to be had as to whether it's really a possibility with Israel, but where people can try, where they feel that it might make a difference, shouldn't they?

 

 

[fruitvilla]

8 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Arguing against a straw man and whataboutism, my 2 least favourite genres.

Fair enough ... but why are you (we) not pointing out passionately these other alleged wrongs in the Middle East?

He is asking whether (perhaps implying) there is a bias. Is that not somehow relevant?

 

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

He is asking whether (perhaps implying) there is a bias. Is that not somehow relevant?

I think it's always worth remembering a key difference in that our nation opposed ISIS, our society did, our bloc as it were; conceptually, politically, militarily, in every way you'd expect - the people of the UK didn't need to protest it - the government was already doing the right thing. 

Partly the protests are that we are implicit in the slaughter, our government is, the feeling that Israel is part of the wider "us" and we're doing it - shoulder to shoulder - protest comes a little from guilt and the anger of political impotence.

 

[Keyblade]

6 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Fair enough ... but why are you (we) not pointing out passionately these other alleged wrongs in the Middle East?

He is asking whether (perhaps implying) there is a bias. Is that not somehow relevant?

 

It's a good, but separate point, at least when it comes to Saudi and Yemen as Saudi is a western ally. Leftists have been banging that drum for years to deaf ears it seems.

For ISIS, I think the majority of people including world governments at the very least implicitly opposed them. They also weren't a nation state for one, but particularly not a western ally. They were the enemy. Something was being done about them. Israel conversely has unequivocal support from the G7, and like OBE said they're ostensibly "one of us". It's quite a bit different. 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Israel conversely has unequivocal support from the G7

Not true