Israel, Palestine and Iran

[VILLAMARV]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

is that the singer from ABC?

[magnkarl]

DW running with a video of 'that' hospital this morning, showing Hamas tunnel entrances right next to the parking lot.

Both sides really do not give a crap about the conventions of war.

[VILLAMARV]

9 hours ago, HolteExile said:

Sad Ken in the 3.30 at Chepstow. 

Out of likes but a Bottom quote can't go by without a tip of the hat

[magnkarl]

9 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I mean, one of their Ministers today literally said that using a nuclear weapon on Gaza is an option... Lol

" Far-right minister: Nuking Gaza is an option, population should ‘go to Ireland or deserts’ "

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/far-right-minister-nuking-gaza-is-an-option-population-should-go-to-ireland-or-deserts/

Right up Tumbler street!

Worth adding that he was suspended and removed from his position about 2 minutes later. Likely on the request of the U.S. Netanyahu will likely have to go very soon too.

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

is that the singer from ABC?

Its the psychic from phoenix Nights.

[VILLAMARV]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Its the psychic from phoenix Nights.

aaaahh, a blind spot in my cultural reference catalogue. I didnt think derrek accorah had a mullet.

[magnkarl]

Protesters chant ‘bomb Israel’ and burn flag outside synagogue in Sweden - No police protection seen at sole Jewish house of worship in city, where extremist Muslims have been harassing Jews for years

Quote

A demonstrator burned an Israeli flag outside the only synagogue in the Swedish city of Malmo, on Saturday as about a dozen other protesters chanted “bomb Israel” while waving Palestinian flags.

Videos of the incident showed no police presence at the synagogue, which has been the target of several antisemitic acts of vandalism for years. The anti-Israel rally was to protest Israel’s attacks on Hamas in Gaza.

I fear it's not only Hamas that are creating extremist Zionists. I feel a Cable Street reaction is in order around many Jewish places of worship and schools in the West, the isolation currently felt by the community is ever increasing and very few people seem to bother to react to these people, apart from the obvious backlash when these things are exposed online.

Warsaw university suspends Norwegian student over “Keep world clean” banner at Palestine march

What I really don't get is how these people think that the very small minority of Jews in Sweden, Norway and Poland are in support of Israel, if they were they'd all be in Israel long ago. It's a blemish on a nation when you've got open racism going on and no one stops it.

Edited November 6, 2023 by magnkarl

[blandy]

12 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

Didint you agree that countries dont have inherent right to exist? i think you did.

No. Quite the opposite.

Quote

But those people and that place has an absolute right to live, to exist, to have peace and to have a future. The vile behaviour of Hamas and of the Israeli government does not negate that right.

 

[Tumblerseven]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No. Quite the opposite.

 

1. Right to Exist: This means that a country is recognized and respected by the international community, and it has the legal and diplomatic standing to exist as a sovereign state. Other countries acknowledge its existence and sovereignty, and it is typically a member of the United Nations or has diplomatic relations with other nations.

2. Inherent Right to Exist: This concept goes a step further and suggests that the country's existence is seen as a fundamental and natural aspect, similar to the way we recognize the basic rights of individuals. In this context, the country's right to exist is considered an intrinsic and fundamental principle, and its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs.

So, when we say a country has the "right to exist" but doesn't have the "inherent right to exist," we mean that the country is recognized and respected by the international community, but its existence may not be viewed as an inherent and fundamental principle in the same way that, for example, the inherent rights of individuals are recognized. The distinction may imply that the country's existence relies on external recognition and acceptance rather than being seen as a fundamental and natural aspect of the international order.

So to say that countries doesnt have an inherent right to exist is not an evil statement. I dont appreciate that in this forum we are pretending that its an evil statement and demonize people.

So i dont cry and im not against the soviet union collapsing. If you think that countries have inherent right to exist that should mean that you are against the soviet union collapsing. 

And by this logic its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs. Your thinking should be that israel got its lands in 1948 illegally and if it got its land illegally what follows..

Edited November 6, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

What I really don't get is how these people think that the very small minority of Jews in Sweden, Norway and Poland are in support of Israel, if they were they'd all be in Israel long ago. It's a blemish on a nation when you've got open racism going on and no one stops it.

I'm not sure everybody in support of Israel would be there if they could - at the end of the day, as beautiful as the country must be, it's a war zone - it takes a certain type of person to want to move into a place that could explode at any moment. 

Why do you think no one stops the racism? The student you posted about has been suspended?

In the first (I understand there were at least 2 now) main Warsaw pro-Palestine protest, the first thing the organisers said over the loudspeaker, and I am paraphrasing it - ''this is a pro-palestine protest - if you are anti Israel or anti-semitic, this is not a place for you''. 

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I'm not sure everybody in support of Israel would be there if they could - at the end of the day, as beautiful as the country must be, it's a war zone - it takes a certain type of person to want to move into a place that could explode at any moment. 

Why do you think no one stops the racism? The student you posted about has been suspended?

In the first (I understand there were at least 2 now) main Warsaw pro-Palestine protest, the first thing the organisers said over the loudspeaker, and I am paraphrasing it - ''this is a pro-palestine protest - if you are anti Israel or anti-semitic, this is not a place for you''. 

As opposed to what? Meeting a bunch of radical protesters outside your synagogue in Paris, London, Stockholm, Oslo, Berlin or whichever Western capital constantly screaming abuse and heckling your children? You do get what goes through a Jewish person's head when this happens right? For many the only difference is whether you are shot up in a Synagogue in Paris or Tel-Aviv, whereas at least in Tel-Aviv you won't be dog-piled by a bunch of Chris Williamsons outside your place of worship and hunted by radical Muslims (Stockholm, Malmö, Oslo, Paris, Nice, Berlin++) because of your faith.

The thought from at least a section of the Jewish society is that it's better to be in a place where you are allowed to defend yourself from such idiocy, that especially rings true in Scandinavia where there's almost cult-like followings of certain groups in Palestinian society, where discourse has been eroded by years and years of not wanting to upset the apple cart with the largest minority (especially in Sweden).

Edited November 6, 2023 by magnkarl

[magnkarl]

19 hours ago, El Segundo said:

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

How far back do you want to go to discredit Israel's 'right to be there' though? Is it 1920, as you've said before? Or is it from before Arabs were even in the area?

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judea were countries 1600 years before Islam was invented by an illiterate warlord, and Jerusalem was founded by the Jews at about the same time (1000BCE), the Jews were expelled, sold as slaves and purged from the land by the Romans for fighting them to a man, they then ended up in Italy(where the term ghetto was invented - ghetto means foundry in Italian/Roman as Jews were essentially walled into a foundry in Venice), Spain, France and Eastern Europe, were then chased around the continent and never really got a land of their own. When the Jewish population had recovered slightly the crusaders and Islamic Jihadists came and did exactly the same thing, and when the Ottomans took over the area there was still widespread cleansing, expulsions and slavery for the Jewish people, including the outlawing of buying land for Jews. You'd struggle to find any point in history where Palestine was ever a country, meanwhile the area has close to 1500 years of solid independent Jewish kingdoms. Shouldn't that count for something before you dismiss the location of Israel?

You then need to look at all the Arab pogroms against the Jews from 1920 to the end of WW2. The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine spoke to Hitler at length about also enacting the final solution to Jews in the area, so the thoughts of Hamas isn't a new thing within the movement. There's so much generational trauma on both sides that this won't end unless both sides have their own internationally safeguarded areas with major repercussions if someone does something out of line.

The issue for much of the pro-Palestinian people seems to be that they're extremely blinkered and biased when it comes to the history of the place, the only way to solve this is a two-state solution - a solution which the Arab world has denied several times, including at several points where Israel and its allies have beaten them in defensive wars based on 'purging Jews'.

Edited November 6, 2023 by magnkarl

[Mic09]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

As opposed to what? Meeting a bunch of radical protesters outside your synagogue in Paris, London, Stockholm, Oslo, Berlin or whichever Western capital constantly screaming abuse and heckling your children? 

As opposed to living in a war zone. 

I'm not suggesting they should be facing hecklers telling them horrible things. 

I'm just not convinced living in Israel is the only alternative to being a Jew in a foreign land. I always questioned why anyone would want to move there out of choice if at any minute a bomb can kill you. 

Regardless, most Jews are just that - Jews. They are American, Swedish, German, English. They hold the values of their respective countries too. Most are not orthodox. And the ratios of Jewishness to say Swedishness are different for everyone. So to me it seems not that obvious that a person opposed to intimidation faced outside a synagogue should definitely want to move to Israel. 

[El Segundo]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

How far back do you want to go to discredit Israel's 'right to be there' though? Is it 1920, as you've said before? Or is it from before Arabs were even in the area?

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judea were countries 1600 years before Islam was invented by an illiterate warlord, and Jerusalem was founded by the Jews at about the same time, the Jews were expelled, sold as slaves and purged from the land by the Romans for fighting them to a man, ended up in Italy, Spain, France and Eastern Europe, were then chased around the continent and never really got a land of their own. When the Jewish population had recovered slightly the crusaders and Islamic Jihadists came and did exactly the same thing, and when the Ottomans took over the area there was still widespread cleansing, expulsions and slavery for the Jewish people.

The issue for much of the pro-Palestinian people seems to be that they're extremely blinkered and biased when it comes to the history of the place, the only way to solve this is a two-state solution - a solution which the Arab world has denied several times, including at several points where Israel and its allies have beaten them in defensive wars based on 'purging Jews'.

I mentioned earlier that I see the era when the World began to accept that Colonisation and denial of people's rights to self Government were unacceptable as something of a watershed or turning point.  To my mind that started to happen  post WW1 with the League of Nations Covenant being signed in 1919   Article 22 in particular seems relevant   https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185531/.  Especially point 4.  Note the final sentence. 

"4. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."       

Palestine was set up as such a Mandatory territory under British control.  Did the British proceed to help the indigenous population of Palestine - by far the majority of whom were Palestinian Arabs, with a tiny minority of Jewish heritage (as, I believe had been the case for centuries up to that point) - towards self governance?  The records indicate not, rather they endorsed and oversaw mass immigration of Jewish people in the 1920s and 1930s.  

Is the fact that the Jews were expelled from the area over 2000 years ago relevant to what's happened in modern times?  I'd say it's at least debatable, in as much as it's debatable as to whether England should be handed back to the Ancient Britons and Celts under a UN charter.  

What out of the above do you think is blinkered or biased?   

I do agree however that the only possible "solution" now that things have come this far is the two state solution.  I can't see any other way out of it, but such a solution needs to be a fair and equitable allocation of land and rights. I'm not sure previous attempts at two state solutions have satisfied those criteria.  It's also clear that there are extremists on both sides who are unlikely to accept it.      

[Stevo985]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

What did you make of the game at the weekend @Tumblerseven?

Conceding more than you score isn't inherently a bad thing

[magnkarl]

31 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I mentioned earlier that I see the era when the World began to accept that Colonisation and denial of people's rights to self Government were unacceptable as something of a watershed or turning point.  To my mind that started to happen  post WW1 with the League of Nations Covenant being signed in 1919   Article 22 in particular seems relevant   https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185531/.  Especially point 4.  Note the final sentence. 

"4. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."       

Palestine was set up as such a Mandatory territory under British control.  Did the British proceed to help the indigenous population of Palestine - by far the majority of whom were Palestinian Arabs, with a tiny minority of Jewish heritage (as, I believe had been the case for centuries up to that point) - towards self governance?  The records indicate not, rather they endorsed and oversaw mass immigration of Jewish people in the 1920s and 1930s.  

Is the fact that the Jews were expelled from the area over 2000 years ago relevant to what's happened in modern times?  I'd say it's at least debatable, in as much as it's debatable as to whether England should be handed back to the Ancient Britons and Celts under a UN charter.  

What out of the above do you think is blinkered or biased?   

I do agree however that the only possible "solution" now that things have come this far is the two state solution.  I can't see any other way out of it, but such a solution needs to be a fair and equitable allocation of land and rights. I'm not sure previous attempts at two state solutions have satisfied those criteria.  It's also clear that there are extremists on both sides who are unlikely to accept it.      

Are you just ignoring what was written?

There's been several mass exoduses of Jews in what is now Israel, starting with the Roman one, then you've got the Babylonian, Assyrian, Ottoman and in the British times several Arab pogroms against the ones that were left. It's convenient to think that the Arabs came to the area and that it was totally cleansed of Jews and their heritage. Would you argue this in the areas that were totally depopulated by the Germans too? Ah, how convenient - this land seems all free of people so I'll just take it and claim that time starts now so that no one can come and take it back.

You seem to preach the fact that the British only catered to the Jews, when they themselves walked back their Balfour declaration point by point, starting with only allowing a certain number of Jews to migrate to Israel every year (75.000 I believe), and giving in to violent riots and ethnic violence by Arabs in what you call the 'modern times'. British servicemen even commanded several of the Jordanian battalions that attacked the then 8 hour old Israel in 1948.

Should we also apply your logic to the Indians in the US? Who needs reservations, it's been several 100 years since the distant relatives of the people now claiming rights to land in the US were killed, let's put a random date as when we think it counts, so that the original people can't ever be repatriated.

I think it's blinkered and naive to deny Israel a right to exist in Israel, the people that have by far the longest history and most ties to the country are the Jews, just like it is the Indians in the U.S. No amount of Ottoman repopulation will ever make the Arab claim to the area trump that of the historical ties from 1050bce, and all the way up to now, you make it sound like there has been no Jews in Judea or Israel since the Romans committed wide scale genocide and it's absolutely not true.

It's extremely naive to put a cut off point to history to not deal with the whole picture, but even if you do you won't find a Palestinian state after 1920 either. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by magnkarl

[Mic09]

52 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Conceding more than you score isn't inherently a bad thing

Sure, but if we keep losing there needs to be a squad cleansing. 

[Tumblerseven]

18 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Sure, but if we keep losing there needs to be a squad cleansing. 

I never said i want or it needs to be ethnic cleansing first of all.

I am actually shocked by some of the people's English language comprehension in here. This is insane either this is completely bad faith and you guys running with group thinking because you want to fit in or you actually like have some mental disabilities. People in here cant even differentiate between description explanation and advocation. jesus christ.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I never said i want or it needs to be ethnic cleansing first of all.

.You've suggested it as a solution to the conflict, the least undesireable one.

That's not quite the same as personally "wanting" it, but when you post that it is, in your opinion, the only viable option it's more than enough for people to post their own response as to why it's an unacceptable solution.

On 05/11/2023 at 09:58, Tumblerseven said:

Yes actually annexing Gaza and population cleanse would put an end to the Gaza conflict. I dont believe that any country have the inherent right to exist. Maybe you do?

 

On 05/11/2023 at 11:53, Tumblerseven said:

realistically there is no other option you have to acknowledge that

[El Segundo]

20 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Are you just ignoring what was written?

Nope.  Not sure why you would think that.

33 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

There's been several mass exoduses of Jews in what is now Israel, starting with the Roman one, then you've got the Babylonian, Assyrian, Ottoman and in the British times several Arab pogroms against the ones that were left. It's convenient to think that the Arabs came to the area and that it was totally cleansed of Jews and their heritage. Would you argue this in the areas that were totally depopulated by the Germans too? Ah, how convenient - this land seems all free of people so I'll just take it and claim that time starts now so that no one can come and take it back.

I'm not entirely sure how you think citing at least two exoduses even older than the Roman one strengthens your case for relevance of what happened 2000 years ago.  Also note that, far from being depopulated after these events,  records indicate that the Jewish population  were still a majority in the area until the 4th Century AD.  After which they became and remained a minority population until the 20th Century.   Palestine wasn't depopulated in 1947 or 1948 either.  It had a majority Muslim/Arab population.  As had been the case since the 12th Century.

42 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

You seem to preach the fact that the British only catered to the Jews, when they themselves walked back their Balfour declaration point by point, starting with only allowing a certain number of Jews to migrate to Israel every year (75.000 I believe), and giving in to violent riots and ethnic violence by Arabs in what you call the 'modern times'. British servicemen even commanded several of the Jordanian battalions that attacked the then 8 hour old Israel in 1948.

I'm not preaching anything. I've stated facts about what happened re Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s under British mandatory control. My research indicates that the Jewish population of Palestine increased by 750% between 1922 and 1947.  The Muslim population grew by 200% over the same period.  Maybe my sources aren't entirely reliable, feel free to provide your own.   The British started to try and control the immigration from 1939 only, restricting it to 75,000 per year for five years, after which it was to be decided by the majority local population.   The paper also called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the region within 10 years.  Zionists clearly did not agree with the majority having any power.  They viewed the new approach as reneging on the Balfour Declaration (which the Arabs saw as Britain renegeing on the  Hussein-McMahon Correspondence which had promised the Arabs self rule from the Mediterranean to the Persian gulf).  Neither side were happy.  Zionists militias also took arms against the British and committed acts of violence against British and Arab targets. Like the Administrative HQ at the King David Hotel, bombed by Menachim Begin's mob.  It wasn't a one sided thing.

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Should we also apply your logic to the Indians in the US? Who needs reservations, it's been several 100 years since the distant relatives of the people now claiming rights to land in the US were killed, let's put a random date as when we think it counts, so that the original people can't ever be repatriated.

 I don't think it is considered appropriate any longer to refer to Native Americans as "Indians".  I'm a bit confused about what point you are trying to make here.  Are you aligning the Jewish people in this analogy with the Native Americans or the Colonials who ethnically cleansed them onto reservations? 

If the former, then are you saying they have a right to take their original land back? And are you therefore denying the right of the USA to exist in the USA?

If the latter then are you attempting to justify the Colonisation and subsequent ethnic cleansing?  Sorry but it's not clear.

As explained, the date I refer to is not random, there are valid reasons for referring to it.  No-one has to agree with it, but it's not random.  

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I think it's blinkered and naive to deny Israel a right to exist in Israel, the people that have by far the longest history and most ties to the country are the Jews, just like it is the Indians in the U.S. No amount of Ottoman repopulation will ever make the Arab claim to the area trump that of the historical ties from 1050bce, and all the way up to now, you make it sound like there has been no Jews in Judea or Israel since the Romans committed wide scale genocide and it's absolutely not true.

Ah I see now you would align situation of the Israelis with the plight of the Native Americans.  I refer you to my earlier response about the somewhat unfortunate conclusions that could lead to.  I also refer you to my earlier response about the demographics of the region.  No denial that there were Jews there at all.  

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

It's extremely naive to put a cut off point to history to not deal with the whole picture, but even if you do you won't find a Palestinian state after 1920 either. 

The naivety of my position is a matter of opinion and you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine.  Far more naive in my view to think that the native Americans would have an icicle in hell's chance of reclaiming their land.  Indeed you won't find a Palestinian state after 1920 because it was prevented first by the British and then by the UN and Israelis.  Isn't that at the crux of the whole matter?