The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by felamaslen

Well for quite a long time now Israel has had a policy of harsh retaliation for crimes such as the one you mentioned. It can't afford to let things like that get out of hand, so (and I'm playing devil's advocate here - I wouldn't personally have ordered those demolitions) from its point of view it needs to show an example to anyone else considering doing the same. Do you agree that if Israel is perceived as "soft" by its enemies, it won't last long? Yes, it's sad for innocent people caught up, but ultimate moral responsibility in my view is with the ones carrying out the aggression, and in the example you gave, the aggression was clearly in the animals who murdered worshipers in the synagogue.

The problem is that Hamas governs the Palestinians in Gaza. Any action that Israel takes against Hamas is therefore going to harm innocent Palestinians. I don't think Palestinians were ever very sympathetic to the existence of Israel, and Israel has just come to accept that it is no point trying to make peace so it does all it can to make sure its own citizens remain safe.

of course they aren't sympathetic of Israels existence considering they forcefully took their land and keep taking until there's nothing left for the Palestinians.

Reply 7022

Original post by ExcitedPup

It is a legitimate point of view, and also I think the most important information I got from it was Natan Sharansky's framework for assessing whether criticism of Israel comes from an anti-semitic origin (that is, if it involves delegitimisation, demonisation or double-standards)

Which doesn't really work, at least as the video presents it. At best, they are potential symptoms, but even this is rather different to them being anti-semitic in and of themselves. And the only one that really makes any sense is double standards. Delegitimisation and demonisation of various states goes on all the time. Irish nationalist and Republican arguments have always focused on demonising and delegitimising the UK, but no-one (possibly besides extreme loyalists) has ever seriously suggested that this constitutes or is indicative of a deeply held, ethnically-based hatred for British people as a population group.

Reply 7023

Original post by ExcitedPup

In 1948, the UN partitioned it into two-states; one state was made up of the areas which were majority Jewish.

Not just the Jewish-majority areas, but also most areas which were Arab-majority but had a notable Jewish minority, such as Safed. Only areas which were almost exclusively Arab were assigned to the Arab state in the 1947 Plan; and the Negev was assigned to the Jewish state despite being almost exclusively Arab.

Reply 7024

Original post by ExcitedPup

Indigenous? Where do you think the word Jerusalem comes from? Is it an Arabic word?

The word 'China' is originally Persian. What's your point?

Also, archaeology isn't entirely clear on the etymology of Jerusalem anyway, though what appear to be the earliest known roots of the term predate Ancient Israel and Judah, and indeed the existence of Hebrew.

Reply 7025

Original post by ExcitedPup

I think there are a few issues with that narrative.

First, there was no existing country. There had never been a state called "Palestine",

That isn't quite the same thing. 'Country' is a broader, more vague term than 'state'. There has never been a state called 'Wales', but try telling a Welshman it's not a country. The vast bulk of states in the Americas and Africa had never existed prior to their decolonisation either, but that didn't justify their colonisation in the first place.

Second, when Palestine was partitioned in 1948, the UN (who took responsibility from the British mandate that came out of the League of Nations and their defeat of the Ottoman Empire who previously controlled Palestine). At that point in 1948, there were about 500,000 Jews and 1.1 million Muslims. The UN sensibly decided that it was not plausible they could live together, and so partitioned the state into a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian majority state, with Jerusalem as an international zone.

Ethnically-based partitions aren't sensible, they're overly simplistic and generally lead to tragedy. Cases in point: Ireland, Bosnia, India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey (admittedly not a partition in the same sense, but a redrawing of borders based on similar principles), the several messes in the Caucasus since the fall of the USSR, etc.

The Palestinians, as they had more people, were given more land.

No, they were given less land. The 1947 Plan was about 55-45 in favour of the Jewish side.

Instead of accepting this, the Arab world (with an explicitly genocidal policy) rejected the partition and tried to seize 100% of the land by force.

Firstly, 'The Arab World' was not and is not some monolithic blob. Its various leaders had various aims. And by and large, what the leaders of the neighbouring Arab states (all of which were largely at odds with the aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs) were actually hoping for was to take a chunk of Palestine for themselves (as the King of Jordan took the West Bank in the end).

Secondly, the claim of 'genocidal policy'. This claim is made largely on the basis of pretty selective, vague quotes. For example, an oft-quoted figure here is Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, but he also said in a far more specific quote:

"Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy."

Reply 7026

Original post by QueenSI

of course they aren't sympathetic of Israels existence considering they forcefully took their land and keep taking until there's nothing left for the Palestinians.

Well then there isn't going to be peace, is there.

Reply 7027

Original post by felamaslen

Well then there isn't going to be peace, is there.

Sadly not. Not until they get their rights and their land back. When the apartheid has ended then there will be peace. But there cannot be peace if Israel continues taking land illegally and forcing the Palestinians to live in poor conditions with no freedom and no where to go. These people cannot even flee to another country for refuge. Israel is holding them captive in the world's largest open air prison.

Reply 7028

Original post by QueenSI

Sadly not. Not until they get their rights and their land back. When the apartheid has ended then there will be peace. But there cannot be peace if Israel continues taking land illegally and forcing the Palestinians to live in poor conditions with no freedom and no where to go. These people cannot even flee to another country for refuge. Israel is holding them captive in the world's largest open air prison.

Actually it was the Palestinian leadership that always rejected a state for the Palestinians, not Israel. When the Palestinians finally gained control of Gaza, they let Hamas turn it into a theocratic hell hole, so one can hardly blame Israel now for not wanting to do the same with the West Bank.

Reply 7029

Original post by felamaslen

Actually it was the Palestinian leadership that always rejected a state for the Palestinians, not Israel. When the Palestinians finally gained control of Gaza, they let Hamas turn it into a theocratic hell hole, so one can hardly blame Israel now for not wanting to do the same with the West Bank.

And why should the Palestinians agree to a state of Palestine when Israel is the one that came and took their home. They want their whole country back not bits and for Israel to stop settling illegally. Basically the Zionists of Israel should leave and go back to Europe where they originally immigrated from. Judaism Isn't the issue, white supremacist Zionists are.

Reply 7030

Original post by QueenSI

And why should the Palestinians agree to a state of Palestine when Israel is the one that came and took their home. They want their whole country back not bits and for Israel to stop settling illegally. Basically the Zionists of Israel should leave and go back to Europe where they originally immigrated from. Judaism Isn't the issue, white supremacist Zionists are.

What about American, Asian and African Zionists? Are you anti-European? You seem to only have a problem with European Zionists, who number less than half of the Israeli Jewish population.

Not to mention that much of the Jewish population in Israel was born there and nowhere else.

Anyway what you are advocating is an ethnic cleansing of millions of people, so you are in effect, a hypocrite, and a driver of hate.

Reply 7031

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by QueenSI

apartheid

It's an odd sort of apartheid where all 1.1 million Arab Israelis have the vote, and where in surveys the majority of them prefer to remain living under an Israeli government than the Palestinian Authority.

And it's an odd sort of apartheid where Nelson Mandela would have said, "I feel at home here". I think Nelson would have known apartheid when he sees it.

Repeating the word apartheid over and over again is simply an attempt by Islamist extremists, the kind of people who throw gay people off buildings, to smear a state which has no logical parrallel with apartheid

Reply 7032

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by felamaslen

Actually it was the Palestinian leadership that always rejected a state for the Palestinians, not Israel. When the Palestinians finally gained control of Gaza, they let Hamas turn it into a theocratic hell hole, so one can hardly blame Israel now for not wanting to do the same with the West Bank.

Indeed, and it's funny that the Palestinians are constantly talking about Israel within the 1967 borders; in 1968, Israel offered a grand bargain, peace for land, and to withdraw within the 1967 borders. I can't think of another instance where the militarily victorious power is immediately offering to make concessions, and the people who lost are refusing to accept concessions from the victor power

The PLO refused because they said they would not do any deal that accepted Israel had a right to exist at all. Reminds me of 1948

Reply 7033

Original post by ExcitedPup

Indeed, and it's funny that the Palestinians are constantly talking about Israel within the 1967 borders; in 1968, Israel offered a grand bargain, peace for land, and to withdraw within the 1967 borders. I can't think of another instance where the militarily victorious power is immediately offering to make concessions, and the people who lost are refusing to accept concessions from the victor power

The PLO refused because they said they would not do any deal that accepted Israel had a right to exist at all. Reminds me of 1948

Yes and where was Yasser Arafat during Jordan's occupation of the West Bank and Egypt's occupation of Gaza?

Reply 7034

ExcitedPup

1

Original post by felamaslen

Yes and where was Yasser Arafat during Jordan's occupation of the West Bank and Egypt's occupation of Gaza?

Indeed. And where is the PLO and Hamas viz. Jordan? Jordan is the other half of the Mandate of Palestine, and yet the Palestinians do nothing to bring down the Hashemite dynasty.

That's because this is about Arab chauvinism, and an overdeveloped sense of group loyalty and victimhood.

Reply 7035

Original post by felamaslen

What about American, Asian and African Zionists? Are you anti-European? You seem to only have a problem with European Zionists, who number less than half of the Israeli Jewish population.

Not to mention that much of the Jewish population in Israel was born there and nowhere else.

Anyway what you are advocating is an ethnic cleansing of millions of people, so you are in effect, a hypocrite, and a driver of hate.

I'm talking about Zionists in general. Nothing against Europeans,.I'm the one hat is advocating for the ethnic cleansing of millions? Really? I didn't say I'm against Judaism. I have an issue with anyone who comes onto someone else's land claims it for their own and keep taking illegally. Tthe killing of thousands of Palestinians is not considered to be ethnic cleansing? no? and you said I advocate for the ethnic cleansing of millions. You're ignoring the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians which makes you the ignorant hypocrite who advocates the death of thousands.

Reply 7036

Original post by QueenSI

I'm talking about Zionists in general. Nothing against Europeans,.I'm the one hat is advocating for the ethnic cleansing of millions? Really? I didn't say I'm against Judaism. I have an issue with anyone who comes onto someone else's land claims it for their own and keep taking illegally. Tthe killing of thousands of Palestinians is not considered to be ethnic cleansing? no? and you said I advocate for the ethnic cleansing of millions. You're ignoring the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians which makes you the ignorant hypocrite who advocates the death of thousands.

You're talking about something which happened decades ago, primarily as a result of the 1948 war. Yes, the Palestinians faced injustice. But what you are advocating is for millions of Jewish descendants to go "back", as you put it, to where their ancestors came from - that would be an ethnic cleansing, yes. So you are advocating an ethnic cleansing now in response to a (far smaller) ethnic cleansing decades ago.

You have not convinced me that you are not anti-European. Why highlight European zionists and not African, Asian and American ones?

Reply 7037

username878267

Original post by MatureStudent36

Don't get me wrong. Given a choice of a westernise Israel or animal interfering Palestinian way of life, I'd promote Israel. Israel hasn't promoted suicide bombings or hijackings in the last forty years....they've also won fair fights .

Invading a defenseless country and slaughtering thousands of civilians can hardly be described as a 'fair fight'.

Reply 7038

Original post by felamaslen

You're talking about something which happened decades ago, primarily as a result of the 1948 war. Yes, the Palestinians faced injustice. But what you are advocating is for millions of Jewish descendants to go "back", as you put it, to where their ancestors came from - that would be an ethnic cleansing, yes. So you are advocating an ethnic cleansing now in response to a (far smaller) ethnic cleansing decades ago.

You have not convinced me that you are not anti-European. Why highlight European zionists and not African, Asian and American ones?

Just because it happened decades ago it does not change the fact it is wrong. Innocent jews have lived in Palestine, but they aren't zionists am talking about the people who are for taking more land and settling on their land illegally. I'm talking about those who support the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and support the atrocities committed by the Israeli government including the atrocities committed against JEWS!. Go search up what the Isreali government do to Black Jews in Israel proving that the government are white supremacists. I'm not Anti-European am European, but am talking about the jews that predominantly immigrated from Europe

Reply 7039