The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Original post by ShotsFired-9941

The question should be who is the Aggressor/Oppressor not who attacked who.

I would say that given the genocide the Jewish people suffered, given the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close personal friend of Hitler's, given the Secretary-General of the Arab League called for genocide of Jewish people in 1947/48 and the five well-armed, professional armies of the Arab states ganged up on Israel (a tiny state taking up 2% of the Middle East, with a population of 500,000), given the Arab world repeatedly tried to wipe Israel out during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, and given they repeatedly refused reasonable peace offers, given Hamas' charter incites genocide by calling for the murder of all Jews everywhere.... we know who the aggressor is.

The aggressor is an ideology that cannot abide Jews living in the Middle East unless they live as dhimmis. It is an ideology that counts ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Hamas as its greatest champions. It is an ideology that saw an innocent French man beheaded yesterday and 15 innocent British tourists gunned down in front of their families. The aggressor is an ideology that throws gay men off tall buildings and performs "honour" killings against "wanton" women, and commits genocide against the Yezidi and the Kurds (the latter of which have close relations with Israel). It is a death cult ideology.

Tell us, which side do you support?

Reply 7362

Original post by anarchism101

Generally the "nationality" of towns is determined by their current or at least recent demography and status, not that of thousands of years ago.

So you believe the Australian aborigines have no rights to their land?

Reply 7363

Original post by missfats

I sense a butthurt zionist who is angry at the fact that the international community is reigning on this terrorist gangster state called Israel.

I sense a flippant, uneducated woman who cannot argue her point without resorting to linguistic crutches and buzzwords

Reply 7364

Original post by LockheedSpoocky_

Perhaps a history lesson about Hebron is in order. Otherwise you may end up looking rather foolish.

This. Hebron is perhaps the "most Jewish" of the west bank towns. Its strong connection to Jewish history and culture is undeniable.

Reply 7365

Original post by ExcitedPup

So you believe the Australian aborigines have no rights to their land?

Apart from the ridiculous (and frankly ironic) nature of such an analogy, I wasn't talking about 'rights', but de facto situations. Istanbul, once Constantinople, has huge significance to Greeks (and to a lesser extent Orthodox Christians generally), but it would still be obviously incorrect to refer to a current event there as happening in the Greek city of Constantinople rather than the Turkish city of Istanbul.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7366

Original post by ExcitedPup

This. Hebron is perhaps the "most Jewish" of the west bank towns. Its strong connection to Jewish history and culture is undeniable.

Undeniable only in the sense that it's subjective to start with.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7367

Original post by ExcitedPup

I would say that given the genocide the Jewish people suffered

At the hands of someone else. Besides which the colonising of Palestine began quite a bit before the Holocaust anyway.

given the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close personal friend of Hitler's

"Close personal friend"? While Amin al-Husseini (who was not Grand Mufti any more by this point) did spend most of WW2 in Germany and other Axis countries, he only met Hitler once, in late 1941.

Also, plenty of people aligned themselves with the Axis in WW2 who we'd hardly consider responsible for the Holocaust - Finland, for instance.

given the Secretary-General of the Arab League called for genocide of Jewish people in 1947/48

"We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. 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."
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, May 1948.

Funny way of calling for genocide, that.

and the five well-armed, professional armies of the Arab states ganged up on Israel (a tiny state taking up 2% of the Middle East, with a population of 500,000)

The Arab armies had various different goals, so to describe them as 'ganging up' is somewhat inaccurate. In fact, the King of Jordan had gone as far as negotiating with the Jewish Agency for months, usually through Golda Meir, about him leaving Israel alone if he could take over the West Bank (and despite it seeming that this plan might fall apart, was tacitly what happened in the end).

Also, with the possible exception of a few weeks just after 15 May 1948, the Zionist paramilitaries and then the IDF had the military advantage for virtually the entire war from 1947-49.

given the Arab world repeatedly tried to wipe Israel out during the 1960s, 70s and 80s

Nope.

and given they repeatedly refused reasonable peace offers

The Arabs were willing to talk peace plenty of times and Israel threw it in their faces. There were plenty of Arab peace feelers after the 1948 War. President al-Za'im of Syria even declared his intention to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. Ben-Gurion turned down all peace offers, and was only willing to accept one based on the military status quo, so took just a ceasefire instead. Sadat was willing to talk peace when he first came to power in Egypt in 1970. It took the Yom Kippur War and US pressure to get Israel to come to the table.

given Hamas' charter

Written in 1988, which Hamas don't refer to any more (it doesn't even appear on their website), and have all but renounced (they've said there are internal reasons why it can't be officially amended or rewritten). And:

incites genocide by calling for the murder of all Jews everywhere

"Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other."
- Article 31 of the Hamas Charter.

Again, funny way of calling for genocide.

Hamas remain undoubtedly virulently anti-Semitic, but genocidal? No.

The aggressor is an ideology that....(etc - to summarise, you mean Islamism)

So no ideology other than Islamism has ever been anti-Zionist? Secular nationalism (both Palestinian and pan-Arab) doesn't exist? Indeed, Nasser was pretty ruthlessly anti-Islamist during his rule in Egypt....

Reply 7368

Shqiptare

7

Original post by anarchism101

The Arabs were willing to talk peace plenty of times and Israel threw it in their faces. There were plenty of Arab peace feelers after the 1948 War. President al-Za'im of Syria even declared his intention to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. Ben-Gurion turned down all peace offers, and was only willing to accept one based on the military status quo, so took just a ceasefire instead. Sadat was willing to talk peace when he first came to power in Egypt in 1970. It took the Yom Kippur War and US pressure to get Israel to come to the table.

To be fair, Za'im was demanding half of the Sea of Galilee (Israel's only water resource to which Syria had no legal claim). The only other serious negotiation was with Jordan, who were demanding an outlet to the sea. Eventually they and Israel agreed to a 5 year non-beligerancy pact but King Hussein was unable to get his cabinet to agree to it.

Reply 7369

Original post by Shqiptare

To be fair, Za'im was demanding half of the Sea of Galilee (Israel's only water resource to which Syria had no legal claim).

True, but the legal situation in the region at the time was confused, and in some places effectively a vacuum anyway. And often peace negotiations, particularly at the time we're talking about, aren't that much about legal claims. The USSR/Russia had no real legal claim to East Prussia, but still took it after WW2.

The only other serious negotiation was with Jordan, who were demanding an outlet to the sea. Eventually they and Israel agreed to a 5 year non-beligerancy pact but King Hussein was unable to get his cabinet to agree to it.

King Farouk of Egypt had also been willing to negotiate, on the basis of annexing Gaza and a chunk of the Negev.

Also, while both the Bernadotte proposals were rejected by both sides, Bernadotte believed the Arabs to be tired of fighting and more open to peace talks. He was assassinated by Lehi, and the Israeli government reacted by unilaterally annexing all territory it controlled through the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance.

Reply 7370

Shqiptare

7

Original post by anarchism101

True, but the legal situation in the region at the time was confused, and in some places effectively a vacuum anyway. And often peace negotiations, particularly at the time we're talking about, aren't that much about legal claims. The USSR/Russia had no real legal claim to East Prussia, but still took it after WW2.

True, but it doesn't change the fact that Syria was demanding half of the Sea of Galilee in exchange for a vague peace committment. Would any state, especially one as small and vulnerable as Israel was at the time, have been willing to give up half its water resources to another state that had just taken part in an effort to destroy it? Germany in 1945 had been completely crushed and occupied and wasn't really in a position to do anything about it (also, this was one of the last such 'transfers' of territory, before the UN Charter came into existence), Israel was not in that position in 1949 and had no real reason to make these sort of concessions.

Original post by anarchism101

King Farouk of Egypt had also been willing to negotiate, on the basis of annexing Gaza and a chunk of the Negev.

The negotiations between Israel and Egypt only occured at a low level and were never a serious negotiation, that's why I didn't include them. Egypt demanded half (or sometimes all) of the Negev Desert and Ghaza, along with substantial refugee repatriation, in exchange for a vague non-beligerancy guarantee (not nescessarily full peace). Again, as the Egyptians were fully aware, this was never something to which Israel would agree.

Original post by anarchism101

Also, while both the Bernadotte proposals were rejected by both sides, Bernadotte believed the Arabs to be tired of fighting and more open to peace talks. He was assassinated by Lehi, and the Israeli government reacted by unilaterally annexing all territory it controlled through the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordnance.

We're talking about a slightly different period of time here. Bernadotte also said he viewed the Arab state's refusal recognize Israel as the main obsticle to peace. The Arab states' 'peace offers' in this period included Israel going back to the 1947 partition lines as a basis for negotiation, and full refugee repatriation. Again not something that Israel was ever likely to agree to.

Reply 7371

Original post by anarchism101

"Close personal friend"? While Amin al-Husseini (who was not Grand Mufti any more by this point) did spend most of WW2 in Germany and other Axis countries, he only met Hitler once, in late 1941.

Also, plenty of people aligned themselves with the Axis in WW2 who we'd hardly consider responsible for the Holocaust - Finland, for instance.

Please confirm that you are defending the actions of Al-Husseini. Dis gon be gud

"We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. 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."
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, May 1948.

Funny way of calling for genocide, that.

He called for "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

It's astonishing you find that "funny". Have you been examined for mental illness?

The Arab armies had various different goals, so to describe them as 'ganging up' is somewhat inaccurate.

Pretty desperate, on your part.

The Arab armies jointly invaded Israel.

Written in 1988, which Hamas don't refer to any more

I guess Hitler would only have needed to have lived and waited until 1972 and you would have forgiven all.

Again, funny way of calling for genocide.

The Hamas Charter quotes the following; "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Again, you find that funny? Have you been examined for mental illness?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7372

khalidrk

There is no escaping the fact that israel are the aggressors, remind me again how many civilians they killed in last years' conflict. Israel are not interested in peace, they want to completely get rid of all of the palestinians. To sum it up, the israeli government is one of the biggest organisations of thugs and terrorists on this planet.

Reply 7373

Original post by Shqiptare

True, but it doesn't change the fact that Syria was demanding half of the Sea of Galilee in exchange for a vague peace committment. Would any state, especially one as small and vulnerable as Israel was at the time, have been willing to give up half its water resources to another state that had just taken part in an effort to destroy it? Germany in 1945 had been completely crushed and occupied and wasn't really in a position to do anything about it (also, this was one of the last such 'transfers' of territory, before the UN Charter came into existence), Israel was not in that position in 1949 and had no real reason to make these sort of concessions.

The negotiations between Israel and Egypt only occured at a low level and were never a serious negotiation, that's why I didn't include them. Egypt demanded half (or sometimes all) of the Negev Desert and Ghaza, along with substantial refugee repatriation, in exchange for a vague non-beligerancy guarantee (not nescessarily full peace). Again, as the Egyptians were fully aware, this was never something to which Israel would agree.

We're talking about a slightly different period of time here. Bernadotte also said he viewed the Arab state's refusal recognize Israel as the main obsticle to peace. The Arab states' 'peace offers' in this period included Israel going back to the 1947 partition lines as a basis for negotiation, and full refugee repatriation. Again not something that Israel was ever likely to agree to.

States who win wars generally don't consider it in their interests to make concessions, that doesn't make them peace seekers.

A generous way of putting what you're saying here would simply be a Realist point of view that Israel, like any other state (including the Arab states) rejected peace offers that it saw as not in its interest, and proposed and was willing to accept those that it did, with normative judgements removed from the context. That's rather different from the traditional Israeli mythistory of Israel always seeking peace and Arabs always rejecting it.

A less generous interpretation would be that Israel was not so much seeking 'peace', but legitimisation of colonial conquest.

Reply 7374

Shqiptare

7

Original post by anarchism101

States who win wars generally don't consider it in their interests to make concessions, that doesn't make them peace seekers.

A generous way of putting what you're saying here would simply be a Realist point of view that Israel, like any other state (including the Arab states) rejected peace offers that it saw as not in its interest, and proposed and was willing to accept those that it did, with normative judgements removed from the context. That's rather different from the traditional Israeli mythistory of Israel always seeking peace and Arabs always rejecting it.

A less generous interpretation would be that Israel was not so much seeking 'peace', but legitimisation of colonial conquest.

It's not just about realism, and you don't be a colonialist conqueror to see Israel's position in this.

A serious question arises about the reasonableness, justice, and logic of the concessions Israel was being asked to make. After all, let's not forget that the Arab states had just attacked Israel, collectively aiming at Israel's destruction or, at the least, truncation. In the process, they had caused grievous losses and destruction to the new state. And many Arab leaders continued during the aftermath to speak quite openly of a necessary "second round" and of destruction the "Zionist entity." Was it reasonable to expect Israel to make major concessions in such circumstances to its would-be destroyers? Also, the Arab 'street' was firmly against any peace with Israel at the time, it was seen as outright treason and it highly unlikely that any Arab leader would have been willing to 'take the plunge'. Not even Hussein was willing to do that.

I find it strange that you make out that it was somehow legitimate for the Syrians and the Egyptians to demand from Israel half of the Sea of Galilee and portions of the Negev as the price for peace; but deem Israel's refusal to agree to massive territorial concessions so that the Arab states could save face, as sufficient reason to put the blame on Israel for bungling the opportunities for peace.

Of course Israeli historiography, like all nationalist historiographies, is self-serving and one-sided.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7375

Original post by ExcitedPup

Please confirm that you are defending the actions of Al-Husseini.

Nope, unless you view any correction of exaggeration as 'defence'.

He called for "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades."

I could just say you haven't provided any reasons why your quote trumps mine, but I'll save some time and do it the other way round now.

For a start, you haven't given the full quote, which is "Personally, I hope the Jews do not force us into this war, because it would be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." It's a prediction (and a gloomily reluctant one) rather than an instruction.

Furthermore, it's very much a stretch to say such a quote is predicting a genocide of Jews rather simply a very bloody war, or even, given his chosen analogies and particularly their role in Arab and Islamic historical memory, a massacre against Arabs and Muslims. Also, the quote I gave is a relatively clear contradiction of it, further diminishing such a 'genocidal' interpretation.

Finally, admittedly the least significant factor, the quote I gave is the later of the two, and dates to the midst of war in late May 1948, so being more 'up to date' with the situation at the time, as it were.

It's astonishing you find that "funny". Have you been examined for mental illness?

The straw is strong with this one....

Pretty desperate, on your part.

The Arab armies jointly invaded Israel.

Simply repeating it doesn't make it less inaccurate.

The Arab states largely went to war each for individual interests, heavily distrusting each other (indeed, this distrust was a major motivation for each taking the decision to join the war) and had little if any co-ordination and communication.

Also, to say they invaded Israel is anachronistic. They invaded the area that had until the previous day been Mandatory Palestine. Israel had been declared a state by Ben-Gurion a matter of hours before (in a move that actually took the Arabs by surprise)

I guess Hitler would only have needed to have lived and waited until 1972 and you would have forgiven all.

And I call Godwin's Law.

The Hamas Charter quotes the following; "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

As with the other quote, it's quite a stretch to say this is calling for, in your words, "the murder of all Jews everywhere" (though it is clearly anti-Semitic, especially as, as evidenced by the quote I gave in the past post, other parts of the Charter explicitly contradict such an interpretation.

Reply 7376

Original post by Shqiptare

It's not just about realism, and you don't be a colonialist conqueror to see Israel's position in this.

A serious question arises about the reasonableness, justice, and logic of the concessions Israel was being asked to make. After all, let's not forget that the Arab states had just attacked Israel

I don't accept this interpretation of events, it's simplistic at best. It implies that Israel was a clearly established state at peace and then suddenly the Arab states invaded. The Arab states invaded the area that had until the previous day been Mandatory Palestine, which was already involved in a civil war. Indeed, as Yigal Allon said, had the Arab states not invaded, the Zionist paramilitaries (which would eventually form the IDF) would have taken control of the whole mandatory territory. Israel had been declared a matter of hours before the Arab states' invasion, and at the time was obviously unrecognised, and more crucially had no defined borders or territory. Indeed, the Arab states' initial invasion (with the possible exception of the Syrians) was into the areas proposed for the Arab state under the Partition Plan. The decision to go to war had been made weeks earlier, when they did not know the Jewish Agency planned to declare a state so soon; if anything the Israeli Declaration of Independence was a reaction to the anticipated invasion, rather than the other way round.

I find it strange that you make out that it was somehow legitimate for the Syrians and the Egyptians to demand from Israel half of the Sea of Galilee and portions of the Negev as the price for peace; but deem Israel's refusal to agree to massive territorial concessions so that the Arab states could save face, as sufficient reason to put the blame on Israel for bungling the opportunities for peace.

You seem to be treating the de facto territorial borders which became established as a result of this process as already established borders. With the possible exception of Jordan (who would gain legitimisation of their control of the West Bank), what did the Arab states have to gain from a full peace if not territory (and to a lesser extent, repatriation of the refugees)? To them the Israeli-held area was merely conquered territory, which they wanted something in exchange for giving legitimacy to.

Reply 7377

Original post by anarchism101

And I call Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law is a crutch for lazy apologists who appear not to realise that Godwin does not preclude valid comparisons

Reply 7378

Original post by anarchism101

I don't accept this interpretation of events, it's simplistic at best. It implies that Israel was a clearly established state at peace and then suddenly the Arab states invaded. The Arab states invaded the area that had until the previous day been Mandatory Palestine

Transjordan was part of Mandatory Palestine.

The Israeli State was declared covering 16% of the total area of Mandatory Palestine

Reply 7379