Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack III

[sr36]

no one twisted anything, you just didn't read the entire post chain.

But in terms of the West now, i do agree with you to be fair.

I read the whole thing, I'd just forgotten that the original post included the colonial period, as frankly it shouldn't. I don't think anyone in the west views colonial invasions as anything other than being about military strength. Guns versus prior weapons. However, it's an interesting comment in terms of the US period of power and perceptions of it.

 

[sr36]

They're not just "Arabs", except that "Arab" is a broad term from the west which covers a lot of the Islamic world. But it's like saying we don't call Americans Americans, we just call them Caucasians or Westerners

Arabs are actually a pretty small percentage of the Islamic world.

 

[Markfs]

The wash-up from lebanese excursion looks pretty good for the israelis. They managed to kill over 3000 civilians, which always warms the hearts of israelis and judeo-christian supporters everywhere. They also managed to get hez to pull out of the Gaza support, which means that israel can concentrate its resources on expanding the current boundaries to finally reconstitute the promised land...as promised. All it needs now is a final push from Trump, which we'll probably see in the first months of next year.

And then we can finally go back to showing our love for the local jewish population and get our businesses back on full-throttal. The vocal student population will leave university - probably after a course or two prescribed by the new czar of anti-semitism - but like all student populations, they will forget their activism and turn to money, career and family, and become much like my generation has....

hopefully, israel will be happy with the promised land and wont re-read the torah for more promises.....but I wouldnt bet on it. We can light a candle to remember the palestinian people who once existed in parts of the middle east, but only live on in small communities around the world. RIP

 

[Scotland]

They're not just "Arabs", except that "Arab" is a broad term from the west which covers a lot of the Islamic world. But it's like saying we don't call Americans Americans, we just call them Caucasians or Westerners.

American can mean multiple things. Citizen of the US, inhabitant of the North, South or Central America.

Not sure how that is relevant to Arabs. There is an Arab world, Arab league, Arab diaspora... it's not some catch all term made up by the West to describe brown people.

The whole point is that the partition plan was to create an Arab state and a Jewish state IN Palestine. Not a Jewish state and a Palestine state. The Jews said yes, called their state Israel and declared independence. The Arabs said no and the rest is history. A lot has changed since the 1920 and 1940s. Pan Arabism went by the wayside. Right now there are conflicts between Israel (US) and both Hamas (Iran) and Hezbollah (Iran). Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc want nothing to do with it. This is very different to relatively recent history.

The word Palestine and derivatives or origin words have been used continuously since pre-Judaean times (Egyptian) and continue to be used today.

Great.

We're getting tied up in semantics. Everyone knows who the Palestinians are, they're the people who lived in Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel. The current UN-recognised Palestinian borders are the 1967 borders, and the people of Palestine include those displaced by the creation of the state of Israel and those who remain in Israel. The majority of the world recognises the state of Palestine in those borders.

The 1967 borders are a bit of a pipedream in 2024. Pre 1967, Gaza was annexed by Egypt and the West Bank was annexed by Jordan. After the 6 Day War Israel took both plus the Sinai plus the Golan Heights. You know what immediately followed the 6 Day War? The Khartoum Declaration.

It's absolutely fine to believe the 'green line' should be the border between independent Israeli and Palestinian states but there's so much cherrypicking of history going on. People are basically saying the areas controlled by Jordan and Egypt should be the borders. OK, but those borders never represented an independent state. Do people not understand why the "European settler colony" is now a military powerhouse in the region? The how is pretty obvious, the US gives them a blank cheque. But why do they have the IDF and an 'iron dome'? Why are they a bunch of pricks? It's pretty naive to think Israel would just hand over a border 10km from Tel Aviv and everyone can hold hands and be friends.

I mean according to the 2017 Hamas charter (Wiki translation) '"The position toward Occupation and Political Solutions" (paragraphs 18 to 23), the document describes the two-state solution, i.e. the creation of an independent Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, as a "formula of national consensus", but without giving up the claim to the whole of Palestine, "from the river to the sea", and "without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity."'. That's the new and improved "two state solution" Hamas.

 

[Scotland]

Arabs are actually a pretty small percentage of the Islamic world.

It was a weird response to an argument that wasn't posed.

There are a relatively small number of non Muslim Arabs and a huge number of non Arab Muslims. I don't think anyone is equating Indonesians with Moroccans.

 

[Markfs]

American can mean multiple things. Citizen of the US, inhabitant of the North, South or Central America.

Not sure how that is relevant to Arabs. There is an Arab world, Arab league, Arab diaspora... it's not some catch all term made up by the West to describe brown people.

The whole point is that the partition plan was to create an Arab state and a Jewish state IN Palestine. Not a Jewish state and a Palestine state. The Jews said yes, called their state Israel and declared independence. The Arabs said no and the rest is history. A lot has changed since the 1920 and 1940s. Pan Arabism went by the wayside. Right now there are conflicts between Israel (US) and both Hamas (Iran) and Hezbollah (Iran). Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc want nothing to do with it. This is very different to relatively recent history.



Great.



The 1967 borders are a bit of a pipedream in 2024. Pre 1967, Gaza was annexed by Egypt and the West Bank was annexed by Jordan. After the 6 Day War Israel took both plus the Sinai plus the Golan Heights. You know what immediately followed the 6 Day War? The Khartoum Declaration.

It's absolutely fine to believe the 'green line' should be the border between independent Israeli and Palestinian states but there's so much cherrypicking of history going on. People are basically saying the areas controlled by Jordan and Egypt should be the borders. OK, but those borders never represented an independent state. Do people not understand why the "European settler colony" is now a military powerhouse in the region? The how is pretty obvious, the US gives them a blank cheque. But why do they have the IDF and an 'iron dome'? Why are they a bunch of pricks? It's pretty naive to think Israel would just hand over a border 10km from Tel Aviv and everyone can hold hands and be friends.

I mean according to the 2017 Hamas charter (Wiki translation) '"The position toward Occupation and Political Solutions" (paragraphs 18 to 23), the document describes the two-state solution, i.e. the creation of an independent Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, as a "formula of national consensus", but without giving up the claim to the whole of Palestine, "from the river to the sea", and "without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity."'. That's the new and improved "two state solution" Hamas.

whatever the accuracy of your summation, you are right that there is no possible negotiated outcome. It will require force, as it has all along. It might require bombs in pagers or dirty videos of US members of congress or a thousand and other strategies....but people will need to be forced, and the palestinians will need to get their act together and find an effective way to implement it. Force will establish the homeland if it can be established and force will determine the border. I dont say that with any enjoyment. It is the obvious reality of a century of this thing. The UN is useless.

And the first thing that they have to do is to acknowledge that they are palestinians and not hamas or PLO or the other hundred organisations.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They're not just "Arabs", except that "Arab" is a broad term from the west which covers a lot of the Islamic world. But it's like saying we don't call Americans Americans, we just call them Caucasians or Westerners.

The word Palestine and derivatives or origin words have been used continuously since pre-Judaean times (Egyptian) and continue to be used today.

We're getting tied up in semantics. Everyone knows who the Palestinians are, they're the people who lived in Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel. The current UN-recognised Palestinian borders are the 1967 borders, and the people of Palestine include those displaced by the creation of the state of Israel and those who remain in Israel. The majority of the world recognises the state of Palestine in those borders.

Garbage. They called themselves Arab ( and it sounds similar to how westerners would pronounce it , or easterners who spoke other languages for that matter ). They speak Arabian.
There are historic references to the "Arabs". The Assyrians wrote that they inhabited the Levant, Mesopotamia ,and of course the Arabian peninsula.
How would you pigeonhole the 15million or so "Arab Christians " in the middle east?

Of course, even though everyone in that part of the world seems to be xenophobic, having wars over what seems to be very minor differences, there has probably been millennia of cross breeding.

So you can refer to Arab's as a stereotype of Moslem in the middle east. (but that's kind of dumb ).
Or you can refer to Arabs as one of the large ethnic groups of the area, there are lots of ethnic groups in the area.
Or you can refer to Arabs as someone who follows Arab societal norms and traditions.

They sure as hell aren't some western construct.

 

[sr36]

The whole point is that the partition plan was to create an Arab state and a Jewish state IN Palestine. Not a Jewish state and a Palestine state. The Jews said yes, called their state Israel and declared independence. The Arabs said no and the rest is history. A lot has changed since the 1920 and 1940s. Pan Arabism went by the wayside. Right now there are conflicts between Israel (US) and both Hamas (Iran) and Hezbollah (Iran). Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc want nothing to do with it. This is very different to relatively recent history.

I've always wondered if the UN looked at the bloodshed following the partition of India and thought: this plan for Palestine isn't such a good idea, maybe we should go back to the drawing board.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I've always wondered if the UN looked at the bloodshed following the partition of India and thought: this plan for Palestine isn't such a good idea, maybe we should go back to the drawing board.

I kind of wonder if a lot of the English didn't particularly like that they had the "Mandate". They sure as hell didn't gain anything from it.

 

[Scotland]

I've always wondered if the UN looked at the bloodshed following the partition of India and thought: this plan for Palestine isn't such a good idea, maybe we should go back to the drawing board.

The original plan wasn't designed to relocate millions of people. There were 500,000-1,000,000 people there and they tried to split it into Jewish and Arab areas. Obviously that didn't work out. People also seem to overlook that Jews were already migrating to the area before the British Mandate.

A generation or three later people still talk about a Palestinian right of return. But not for Indians and Pakistanis. And certainly not for Jewish people that fled the Arab world, Iran etc. They should probably all "go back to Europe".

 

[sr36]

The original plan wasn't designed to relocate millions of people. There were 500,000-1,000,000 people there and they tried to split it into Jewish and Arab areas. Obviously that didn't work out. People also seem to overlook that Jews were already migrating to the area before the British Mandate.

A generation or three later people still talk about a Palestinian right of return. But not for Indians and Pakistanis. And certainly not for Jewish people that fled the Arab world, Iran etc. They should probably all "go back to Europe".

It was always going to relocate a significant percentage of the population, like in India. The difference in terms of right to return is those who fled in 1948 became stateless, as have many of the generations that followed.

 

[Markfs]

i like simple explanations...

 

[Saint]

It was always going to relocate a significant percentage of the population, like in India. The difference in terms of right to return is those who fled in 1948 became stateless, as have many of the generations that followed.

Not many other colonial powers have been as brazen as Israel in pretending that the place they expelled the indigenous population to doesn't have a right to exist as a state unless they agree to it.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

 

[treeebeard]

I've always wondered if the UN looked at the bloodshed following the partition of India and thought: this plan for Palestine isn't such a good idea, maybe we should go back to the drawing board.

The UN nations who voted mostly did what America told them to do. Truman in turn was told by Zionists what to do.

 

[Saint]

Just what the US wanted, stability in the Middle East, support of genocide, providing weapons to a leader charged with war crimes and now Islamist groups are about to take over Syria.

Israel might not like the Assad/Hezbollah connection, but they're going to like an Islamist Syria a lot less.

 

[sr36]

The UN nations who voted mostly did what America told them to do. Truman in turn was told by Zionists what to do.

I hope this is just badly worded. The depiction of a powerful Zionist lobby group bossing around the US president in 1947 is ridiculous.

Truman met with people arguing for a cause and they persuaded him with reason - and the need for Jewish self determination after what had just occurred still seems a pretty reasonable reason.

 

[treeebeard]

I hope this is just badly worded. The depiction of a powerful Zionist lobby group bossing around the US president in 1947 is ridiculous.

Truman met with people arguing for a cause and they persuaded him with reason - and the need for Jewish self determination after what had just occurred still seems a pretty reasonable reason.

Not ridiculous at all, Truman and Israel by Michael Cohen explains the lengths the Zionist Emegency Council went to. Truman was deeply fearful of the upcoming election and the impact Zionists would have on his prospects.

 

[Saint]

Not ridiculous at all, Truman and Israel by Michael Cohen explains the lengths the Zionist Emegency Council went to. Truman was deeply fearful of the upcoming election and the impact Zionists would have on his prospects.

It wasn't in his autobiography as a strong consideration, the moral side was more his concern according to the man himself.

 

[Saint]

Netanyahu saying he'd offer a ceasefire for hostages, but not ending the war is basically him saying he wants the hostages for nothing, since there's only one side actually firing.

Nobody's going to agree to give live hostages back, who will be able to identify you. Netanyahu continues to be completely unserious about pretending to want any hostages back.

They've become his own hostages. As long as he keeps them locked up in Gaza, he can keep the war going and remain in power and avoid scrutiny over his failings.

 

[treeebeard]

It wasn't in his autobiography as a strong consideration, the moral side was more his concern according to the man himself.

Hmm, a politician glorifying himself as highly moral in his autobiography...

 

[Saint]

Hmm, a politician glorifying himself as highly moral in his autobiography...

In other parts, he very much did not. He mentioned a lot of times when he took pragmatic account of political implications. And I'm sure he made it sound different, but he didn't mention political impacts when it came to Israel.

Half the book is about the political impact of farm subsidies. (It felt like half the book because it was a particularly drawn out part, and might only be a quarter or something.....)

Bill Clinton's autobiography has a lot of regret about the Rwandan Genocide, wishing he'd done more. Which was why it was extra strange to see him selling genocide as a good thing to Muslim voters in Michigan. Seems he still thinks there's more political importance on appeasing lobby groups than stopping genocide.

 

[sr36]

Not ridiculous at all, Truman and Israel by Michael Cohen explains the lengths the Zionist Emegency Council went to. Truman was deeply fearful of the upcoming election and the impact Zionists would have on his prospects.

They were a lobby group who lobbied hard, but they just didn't have this powerful hold over US politicians - that's really getting into dodgy areas and dodgy stereotypes. They couldn't even persuade America to become liberal with asylum for holocaust survivors.

 

[Not Important]

“widespread propaganda campaigns justifying the unjustifiable and silencing and discrediting those who have attempted to expose it. the eyewitnesses that have made it out alive consistently reported crimes that in any other context would have led to sanctions, but here, after 14 months of the most grave breaches of humanitarian law, gross violations of human rights, barbaric war crimes, it is met with impotence by individuals, countries and the very institution represented by this building.

 

[Not Important]

i’d like to believe this, but, sadly, the evidence isn’t there of growing resistance as i see it. those who dare to speak out are quickly put upon by the zionist machine that is so powerful and influential.


an illustration of the power and influence of the zionist lobby.