The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by ExcitedPup

What on earth are you talking about? Mizrahi Jews are Middle Eastern Jews; they are from Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Egypt and they moved to Israel in huge numbers to escape discrimination

I know. I was talking in the context of European Jews which the Europeans needed to find a solution for.

You tried to conflate the issue by implying that it's not a European issue because the majority of the Israeli population are Middle Eastern Jews and therefore, it is an Arab problem.

Hyperbole is comparing the Allies Jewish/Israel policy postwar to the gassing of 6 million Jews. You clearly have profound issues when it comes to using your brain in a logical way

Both sought answers to an issue. Hitler called it the "Jewish problem" whilst the allies called it "Jewish Question". Question and problem are synonyms to some degree and regardless of the substance of how they chose to address their issues, the fact is that both parties regarded the Jews as an issue that needed solving.

Reply 7182

Original post by ExcitedPup

And? You're not going to address it, and instead just dodge the question? Ditto re the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron

What do you want me to say?

I suppose it might not seem so shocking for you; after all, you referred to the Jews as "a problem" and don't see killing 6 million Jews as being that much worse than the various immigration / border / state recognition policies of the Allies

I can refer to it as a "question" like the allies did. Would that be more suitable to you?

That doesn't change the fact that problem and question are interchangeable terms.

Reply 7183

anarchism101

17

Original post by ExcitedPup

The United Nations General Assembly is the primary legislative body of the UN, therefore its endorsement of the committee's plan represents a de jure legitimisation of Israeli statehood.

No, it doesn't. GA resolutions are non-binding. Also you can't pick which aspects of resolutions you like and don't like,

No serious international lawyer has questioned the legality of the State of Israel ab initio

Yes, Israel is a legal state. Because it passed what essentially boils down to the decisive test of a state's legality - having the capacity of a state and receiving international recognition, including crucially from the Security Council P5. But getting that doesn't mean that prior legal entitlement to an independent state existed. For instance, Bangladesh's independence was recognised and considered legal.

Do you deny that the Jewish state encompassed a Jewish majority, and the Arab area encompassed an Arab majority?

That wasn't your claim.

Also, before we get too far down this argument, are you arguing that the UNSCOP-proposed borders and areas were the basis for self-determination for the two ethno-national groups, or an attempt to enact an already-existing principle of self-determination? Because it can't be both.

Does Jewishness disturb you?

How do you manage to get this from this part of my comment, which is about anarchronisms?

The areas that were assigned to the Arabs were all of what currently is the West Bank territory and more besides, all of what currently constitutes the Gaza territory and more besides, and a large chunk of the Galilee.

And not including several Arab-majority areas such as the Negev, Jerusalem, Beisan, and Safed. So not all the Arab majority areas, as you initially implied.

Envisage we are back in 1948 and you are dictator of the world; you order that the Jews be deported from Palestine?

No. I recommend the establishment of an independent Palestine in the borders of the Palestine Mandate. Preferably a federal one, possibly with some sort of consociational constitution.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7184

Original post by footstool1924

You tried to conflate the issue by implying that it's not a European issue because the majority of the Israeli population are Middle Eastern Jews and therefore, it is an Arab problem.

How are Middle Eastern Jews, who have never lived in Europe and whose forefathers never lived in Europe, a European problem?

Both sought answers to an issue. Hitler called it the "Jewish problem" whilst the allies called it "Jewish Question".

And you have astonishingly equated their solutions to the "problem" as equally culpable in a moral sense. That suggests very little empathy for the 6 million innocent victims of the Final Solution

Reply 7185

Original post by anarchism101

No, it doesn't. GA resolutions are non-binding.

Nonsense; it depends entirely on the type of resolution as to whether it would be considered binding.

That wasn't your claim.

Actually it was the crux of my claim.

Also, before we get too far down this argument, are you arguing that the UNSCOP-proposed borders and areas were the basis for self-determination for the two ethno-national groups, or an attempt to enact an already-existing principle of self-determination? Because it can't be both.

That makes absolutely no sense, and suggests you are struggling a little bit with the principles involved. How could the UNSCOP borders be the "basis" for self-determination? Self-determination is an inherent right arising from the sovereignty of the ethnic/national group in question.

The UNSCOP borders were a means to give effect to that right of self-determination

How do you manage to get this from this part of my comment, which is about anarchronisms?

And not including several Arab-majority areas such as the Negev, Jerusalem, Beisan, and Safed. So not all the Arab majority areas, as you initially implied.

I implied no such thing. What I said was that the State of Israel encompassed a Jewish majority over its territory, and the Palestinian state encompassed an Arab majority over its territory. That is an indisputable fact.

No. I recommend the establishment of an independent Palestine in the borders of the Palestine Mandate. Preferably a federal one, possibly with some sort of consociational constitution.

Okay, it's 1948. The Israelis do not believe their rights will be protected in such a state and they declare independence; the Arabs reject your solution and any solution and attack Israel. They fight it out, Israel wins. What do you do now?

Reply 7186

Original post by ExcitedPup

How are Middle Eastern Jews, who have never lived in Europe and whose forefathers never lived in Europe, a European problem?

Yeah, I don't think it was those particular Jews which were a European problem. I don't think they (the Mizhari Jews) were even a problem for the Arabs given the fact that they had co-existed relatively peacefully for centuries.

No, I am talking about the immigrants (illegal or otherwise) who were the main problem because they demanded their own state.

Live alongside me and all shall be fine. Seek to rule over me and you can **** right off. - Or words to that effect.

QUOTE]And you have astonishingly equated their solutions to the "problem" as equally culpable in a moral sense. That suggests very little empathy for the 6 million innocent victims of the Final Solution

All I said was that both decided to do something about the "Jewish problem".

Hitler tried and failed to get enough support for other countries to take the undesirables and he really wanted to get rid of them so he killed.

The Allies also didn't wholly want to solve the issue so they just foisted them onto someone else (i.e: the Arabs and Palestine. It's unreal to think that if they didn't have that option (like Hitler), what the consequences might have been for the Jewish people of Europe.

Reply 7187

Original post by footstool1924

Yeah, I don't think it was those particular Jews which were a European problem. I don't think they (the Mizhari Jews) were even a problem for the Arabs given the fact that they had co-existed relatively peacefully for centuries.

Does that include all the massacres of Jews by Arabs in the preceding decades? Does peaceful co-existence encompass the Grand Mufti's relationship with Hitler? Even during the periods of "peaceful co-existence", what you actually mean is the Jews living as second-class citizens or dhimmis.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out, descendents of Middle Eastern Jews are a majority of the Israeli population, so the narrative of evil European colonial settlers is somewhat thrown off course.

It's interesting that you still refer to it as the Jewish "problem"; people use that terminology when they are referring to the historical terms and discussions at the time, you seem to use it as an actual term to describe what you see as a "problem" that had to be solved

Live alongside me and all shall be fine. Seek to rule over me and you can **** right off. - Or words to that effect.

Of course the Jews did not seek to rule over anyone but themselves. They had no desire to rule over the Arabs, they wanted their own state. Why should they not have their own state? What impulse, except for a kind of Arab Muslim chauvinism, makes it unacceptable for any Arab to live under a Jewish but democratic government, but makes the reverse totally acceptable?

If the Arabs had accepted the 1948 partition, Israel would have been a small state, with a small number of Palestinians living in it but with full democratic rights, none of whom would have left their homes, and there would be a Palestinian state today much larger than just Gaza and the West Bank.

Instead, the Arab world rejected the partition and attempted to seize 100% of the land by force, and they did so under an explicitly genocidal framework outlined by the Secretary General of the Arab League who called for a war of "extermination" against the Jews. The opposition to a Jewish state, given no Palestinians had actually been made refugees pre-48, was based purely on animus towards the Jewish people

All I said was that both decided to do something about the "Jewish problem".

What you said was that you didn't see any difference between what Hitler did and what the Allies did. The death of 6 million seems to have gone unnoticed by you. Even now, you have a remarkably blase attitude to it which whispers a darker and more sinister attitude under the surface

The Allies also didn't wholly want to solve the issue so they just foisted them onto someone else

Actually, that's a very poor recounting of history. The British actually opposed the creation of the State of Israel, and did everything they could to try to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine. They voted against the partition in the UN.

The Allies didn't "create" the State of Israel, the Israelis created a de facto state and then obtained recognition for it. They didn't really have any support from the Allies at the start, and in fact British officers fought in the Jordanian Legion against the Israelis, British Spitfires based in Egypt shot down Israelis fighters, provided weapons to Egypt and Jordan. The Israelis got no British support whatsoever, they didn't get American support until the late 1960s, and their primary Western supporter, France, did not really start supporting them until after the War of Independence.

The narrative of evil British imperialists foisting the State of Israel onto the Palestinians is just another strand of the neverending victimhood narrative

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7188

Original post by footstool1924

X

I would just add, whatever the numbers of European Jews who moved to Palestine, and in light of the fact that there was continuous Jewish inhabitation in Palestine (they never left entirely, their numbers dwindled but there were always Jews living there) and the fact a majority of modern day Israelis are Mizrahi-descended, the clear conclusion is that in light of the genocidal intentions of the Arabs against the Jews, it is entirely understandable and valid that the Jews felt they would only be completely safe within a state of their own, and that however many Jews had to come from other lands to make it a viable state was justifiable to protect the core of Mizrahi Jews who had always lived in the Middle East and for whom the protection of a state was an absolutely justifiable means to secure their survival.

Initially, the Israeli state assignment was small; a tiny fraction of the Middle East and Arab world as a whole. But even that tiny statelet, where the Jews were hanging on by their fingernails, was too much in the mind of the chauvinism of the time

There are few or no Jews in Iraq today (some believe there may be 5 or 6 still living in Baghdad, very secretly); there used to be hundreds of thousands. There are no Jews in Yemen, and none or almost none in Egypt. There used to be thriving Jewish communities in those areas.

The Middle East has seen a population transfer similar to what Pakistan had when it was born as a state, just as Germany did in the aftermath of World War 2. Would you demand a right of return for Indian Hindus who had to leave Pakistan?

Reply 7189

Original post by footstool1924

You are trying your best making it seem like the Jews got the raw end of a deal when in fact, they probably got the best deal out of any of the groups that Hitler went after.

Reply 7190

Original post by ExcitedPup

I would just add, whatever the numbers of European Jews who moved to Palestine, and in light of the fact that there was continuous Jewish inhabitation in Palestine (they never left entirely, their numbers dwindled but there were always Jews living there) and the fact a majority of modern day Israelis are Mizrahi-descended, the clear conclusion is that in light of the genocidal intentions of the Arabs against the Jews, it is entirely understandable and valid that the Jews felt they would only be completely safe within a state of their own, and that however many Jews had to come from other lands to make it a viable state was justifiable to protect the core of Mizrahi Jews who had always lived in the Middle East and for whom the protection of a state was an absolutely justifiable means to secure their survival.

Initially, the Israeli state assignment was small; a tiny fraction of the Middle East and Arab world as a whole. But even that tiny statelet, where the Jews were hanging on by their fingernails, was too much in the mind of the chauvinism of the time

There are few or no Jews in Iraq today (some believe there may be 5 or 6 still living in Baghdad, very secretly); there used to be hundreds of thousands. There are no Jews in Yemen, and none or almost none in Egypt. There used to be thriving Jewish communities in those areas.

The Middle East has seen a population transfer similar to what Pakistan had when it was born as a state, just as Germany did in the aftermath of World War 2. Would you demand a right of return for Indian Hindus who had to leave Pakistan?

Hmm, the Mizhari Jews had lived relatively peacefully alongside the Arabs for centuries and then suddenly, I mean just out of the ****ing blue, they thought "I'm not safe here but I will be safe if I created my own State right in the middle of ****ing Arabia!"

The problem were not the Mizhari's but the "White" Jew...

Reply 7191

LockheedSpooky

Original post by ExcitedPup

Indeed. Did you know the Druze, when surveyed (and according to their community leaders) favour Israel remaining, by way of identity, a Jewish state? It's because they have enjoyed more freedom from oppression in Israel than ever they did under the yoke of the Arabs or the Ottomans

For the Druze, or the Christians, or even the Arab Israelis, living in Israel means freedom; it means having the vote, being protected by an independent judiciary, having freedom of sexuality, not having to fear honour killings etc

Despite all their snide criticisms, the vast majority of people on TSR would prefer to live in Israel than another Arab country if they were forced to one or the oher

The only country in the M.E where the Christian population is growing, is in Israel.

They're being decimated in the so-called 'palestinian' areas by the Muslims.

Of course the useful idiot left wingers in Europe tacitly support this ethnic cleansing by never speaking out against it. Their 'war' on Israel and the Jewish people is too important for them to worry about the rights of Christians.

Reply 7192

Original post by footstool1924

You are trying your best making it seem like the Jews got the raw end of a deal when in fact, they probably got the best deal out of any of the groups that Hitler went after.

..........

Reply 7193

Original post by LockheedSpooky

The only country in the M.E where the Christian population is growing, is in Israel.

They're being decimated in the so-called 'palestinian' areas by the Muslims.

Of course the useful idiot left wingers in Europe tacitly support this ethnic cleansing by never speaking out against it. Their 'war' on Israel and the Jewish people is too important for them to worry about the rights of Christians.

Indeed. And those like Footstool not only despise modern day Israel and subscribe to the most tribal form of Arab Muslim chauvinism, but he also seems to think the Jews got a "good deal" from Hitler, keeps referring to it as the "Jewish problem" and thinks that Jews being second-class citizens by law (dhimmi~) is perfectly fine (after all, they're just Jews; only Muslims should have rights, right?)

Reply 7194

Original post by footstool1924

The problem were not the Mizhari's but the "White" Jew...

So first the Jews got a "good deal" from Hitler, and now you're ranting about "White Jews"?

You are revoltingly racist, and my first instincts about you were correct. It's quite clear that you are deeply anti-semitic, that you are an Islam supremacist and that your position on this subject is purely a function of your having been brainwashed by your community with a mix of supremacist, racist, chauvinistic and irredentist views that you now take as a given.

Reply 7195

Original post by anarchism101

x

Do you agree with FootStool, your pro-Palestine comrade, that the Jews got a "good deal" from Hitler?

Reply 7196

Original post by ExcitedPup

So first the Jews got a "good deal" from Hitler, and now you're ranting about "White Jews"?

You are revoltingly racist, and my first instincts about you were correct. It's quite clear that you are deeply anti-semitic, that you are an Islam supremacist and that your position on this subject is purely a function of your having been brainwashed by your community with a mix of supremacist, racist, chauvinistic and irredentist views that you now take as a given.

I'm guessing you couldn't address the point about the White Jewish refugees, most of whom turned to Zionism, were the ones begging for their own state.

Either that, or you couldn't accept the fact that the Europeans had the opportunity to "save" the Jews from being gassed and didn't take it up and when the dust finally settled, these Europeans still wanted to foist those poor surviving victims far far away from them.

I think that's summed it up. As usual, I've ignored your strawmen, attempts to deviate the discussion as well as any diatribe that you have directed at me.

Reply 7197

Original post by footstool1924

the Jews from being gassed and didn't take it up and when the dust finally settled, these Europeans still wanted to foist those poor surviving victims far far away from them.

Your crocodile tears for those refugees are hilarious; these are the same victims you claimed got a "good deal" from Hitler, and for whom in the next breath you would condemn as dirty Zionist settlers for daring to flee to Palestine.

Anyway, we are done. I won't respond to any more comments from you; you are clearly a deeply bigoted individual, utterly brainwashed and beyond reasoned discussion

Reply 7198

LockheedSpooky