Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack III

[schneebly111]

Here you go furball, here’s the oppressed you’re referring to….clown

Iranian women - before and after the Islamic Revolution

Images show Iranian women pictured before and after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

www.bbc.com

Funnily enough, the best quick analysis of the Shah’s time in Iran and how all the pictures of scantily clad women were just the rich 1% flaunting their wealth while the majority starved actually comes from Argo:

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Ok we’re all in agreement then.
Iran is a much better society now.

 

[Rotayjay]

Objective truths? This idea that objective truths can only be attained by people that choose no side is seriously flawed. So are you saying that it's wrong to "reduce" Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Western Colonialism etc to an oppressor/oppressed relationship? Are you saying that objective truths could have only been achieved by people who didn't take either side? It is in fact objective truths that makes me speak up for the Palestinians. Complicating clear oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide is an awful perspective to have and a tactic used by the oppressor.

Also, this is not a multi-century feud. Jews escaped Christian persecution to live under Muslim rulership for centuries due to Islamic Laws that secured their safety. If you genuinely believe propaganda used to justify Palestinian oppression, then you fell into the very same thing you accuse others of doing.

The objective truth is that over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed (including tens of thousands of children), over 100,000 injured, many with permanent disabilities. That is objectively wrong.

The objective truth is that Iran's proxies started as a resistance group to Israeli occupation and oppression. The latter came first and gave rise to them.

The objective truth is that the Israeli state is a settler colonial state that aimed to establish a Jewish majority in a region with a majority Arab Muslim and Christian demographic.
It was never started with the goal of co-existing with the population that lived there because how can a Jewish Ethno-State be established with a majority Arab Muslim and Christian population? Palestine is a nationality not an ethnicity and there is nothing that would have prevented Jewish migrants from being Palestinian like the Jews, Christians and Muslims that already lived there.

The objective truth is that the only way this has a chance of stopping is the dismantling of the Zionist regime so that Palestinians can be given their rights. You can never get around this by keeping the status quo. You will never have peace in a system that continues to dehumanise a powerless group. South Africa and western countries with colonial origins, though they still have a long way to go, only reached the point they did today for minority groups because the oppressive systems in place in the past (apartheid, Jim Crow laws etc) were dismantled.

There is no reason why Arab Muslims and Christians can't co-exist with their Jewish oppressors post-Zionism just like black South Africans, African Americans, Jewish Holocaust survivors, Indigenous Australians and Native Americans can co-exist with their former oppressors once the oppressive regime was dismantled and their humanity was recognised.

I would pay to see Netanyahu hanged like Saddam Hussein.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

That’s a short YouTube clip. Hardly scientific analysis.

I can post equally as many clips of Palestinians and muslims wanting annihilation of Israel.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

I would pay to see Netanyahu hanged like Saddam Hussein.

It’s hung not hanged.

Let’s widen the scope and hang all hezbollah, hamas, and Iranian terror supporters with him!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It’s hung not hanged.

Let’s widen the scope and hang all hezbollah, hamas, and Iranian terror supporters with him!

Not when you're talking about execution

"Hanged" vs. "Hung": What's The Difference?

In this article, we’ll explain when and how to use "hanged" vs. "hung" and provide some example sentences that show how they are typically used.

www.thesaurus.com

Hung and hanged are standard past tense and past participle forms of the verb hang. Hanged is only used in the context of the act of killing known as hanging...

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

i think you're wrong. If he was replaced, the new leader would continue with the current strategy. The country is swinging more to the right. It's an acccepted fact. Many of the so-called "settlers" are from the US, and we all know how americans address conflict. Net has been doing illegal corrupt things. The people want to get rid of him but not his policies.

I think the opposition leader is more moderate.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Well its sad that those 10,000 dead children are Brainwashed with hate. Not my fault they have been brainwashed to hate other people.

What a ****ing ridiculous thing to say. How have the mods let you spout your racist bullshit in here?

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

So the CIA coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 was a success?

In the long run, doesn’t appear to have been.
Not relevant to my initial post.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

In the long run, doesn’t appear to have been.
Not relevant to my initial post.

For the Yanks, Iran under the Shah maybe MORE favoured than Israel. They never gave the F-14 Tomcat to anyone other than Iran after all.

EDIT Nah, I was wrong. Israel picked the F15 Eagle over the F-14 Tomcat.

IAF Fighter Pilots Explain why Israel Picked the F-15 Eagle over the F-14 Tomcat - The Aviation Geek Club

IAF Fighter Pilots Explains why Israel Picked the F-15 Eagle over the F-14 Tomcat. From an Israeli point of view, the Tomcat could not match the Eagle

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

What a ****ing ridiculous thing to say. How have the mods let you spout your racist bullshit in here?

Very poorly worded by him, but there is some truth to it.

 

[Saint]

That’s a short YouTube clip. Hardly scientific analysis.

I can post equally as many clips of Palestinians and muslims wanting annihilation of Israel.

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/the-iranian-regime-has-to-go/video/933e6a18a0dc9b237e826ec058683d93

You can't find people in the international community (outside already pariah orgs like Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas) who are promoting or calling for more weapons for Hamas and less humanitarian aid for Israel.

Find one person in the western world talking about killing Israelis like these people talk about killing Palestinians.

 

[Saint]

This from an Australian Charity.

What do you think Dutton would say if an Islamic person said this about Israel?

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

This from an Australian Charity.

What do you think Dutton would say if an Islamic person said this about Israel?

View attachment 2135549

Well here you go.
FFS can we just all agree that BOTH sides are perpetuating this violence….FMD

Top Australian Palestinian slammed for radio comments on destruction of Israel

The Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network president has advocated for the destruction of the Israeli state in comments criticised by a prominent extremism expert.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Saint]

 

[Saint]

Well here you go.
FFS can we just all agree that BOTH sides are perpetuating this violence….FMD

Top Australian Palestinian slammed for radio comments on destruction of Israel

The Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network president has advocated for the destruction of the Israeli state in comments criticised by a prominent extremism expert.

www.smh.com.au

Did you read it? Didn't call for the death of peoples, called for dismantling the state of Israel. So, no, deaths of Israeli citizens is not being celebrated or promoted, but the death of Palestinians is and has been.

This person has succumbed to hate, but has not called for the deaths of people.

“Do you think that we hate Jews just because they’re Jews?” he said. “I wouldn’t care if they were Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims. If you take my house, I’m going to hate you.”

“How you celebrate God is removed from the fact that you denied me my home, killed my father, r*ped my mother, stole my orchards and business.”

 

[Markfs]

I think the opposition leader is more moderate.

well he hasnt got a criminal matter hanging over him...so i'll concede that

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

I think the opposition leader is more moderate.

He (Bibi) is in a no win situation
Trying to placate the far right lunatics, whilst being seen to be a defender of his people.
If he gets overthrown, things could get much worse.
Some are openly calling for the use of nukes.

 

[Markfs]

Well here you go.
FFS can we just all agree that BOTH sides are perpetuating this violence….FMD

Top Australian Palestinian slammed for radio comments on destruction of Israel

The Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network president has advocated for the destruction of the Israeli state in comments criticised by a prominent extremism expert.

www.smh.com.au

Interesting article. He certainly advocates the destruction of zionism. I'm not a great critical reader but i cant see where he advocates for the destruction of israel.....not that the SMH isn't being accurate....rupert is notoriously "balanced" on this matter.

 

[Markfs]

He (Bibi) is in a no win situation
Trying to placate the far right lunatics, whilst being seen to be a defender of his people.
If he gets overthrown, things could get much worse.
Some are openly calling for the use of nukes.

it's kind of a shame that judaism doesnt proclaim sainthood...

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Did you read it? Didn't call for the death of peoples, called for dismantling the state of Israel. So, no, deaths of Israeli citizens is not being celebrated or promoted, but the death of Palestinians is and has been.

This person has succumbed to hate, but has not called for the deaths of people.

“Do you think that we hate Jews just because they’re Jews?” he said. “I wouldn’t care if they were Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims. If you take my house, I’m going to hate you.”

“How you celebrate God is removed from the fact that you denied me my home, killed my father, r*ped my mother, stole my orchards and business.”

OMG….semantics
People at his rally’s chanting “gas the Jews” but he refused to confirm it…of course he would.

As I said, why can’t we agree there’s fault on both sides?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Their intention was to take back control of Palestine (all of Palestine) which implies abolishing the Israeli sovereign state.

They lost because they were a disunited front with their own aims and and ambitions not because 'we weren't really trying'.

You just said their intention was to control all of Palestine? You acknowledge they didnt' actually have domination or destruction as their aims.

Abdullah of Jordan was in favour of partition, and got pressured into joining.

Egypt's King Faroukh just didn't want to be outshone by Abdullah, and just wanted to punish Zionist gangs.

7 countries sent 13,000 troops. It was a ragtag band of chumps.

In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the dhimmi system implemented in Muslim countries, they, like all other Christians and also Jews, were accorded certain freedoms. The dhimmi system in the Ottoman Empire was largely based upon the Pact of Umar. The client status established the rights of the non-Muslims to property, livelihood and freedom of worship but they were in essence treated as second-class citizens in the empire and referred to in Turkish as gavours, a pejorative word meaning "infidel" or "unbeliever". The clause of the Pact of Umar which prohibited non-Muslims from building new places of worship was historically imposed on some communities of the Ottoman Empire and ignored in other cases, at discretion of the local authorities. Although there were no laws mandating religious ghettos, this led to non-Muslim communities being clustered around existing houses of worship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi


They were treated even worse elsewhere - hence the desire to resettle in their ancestral homeland.

The dhimmi system was abolished by the Ottomans in the 1850s.

It must have been so horrible if everywhere else was worse and Jews just kept coming. Treated better than the many Christians who lived there.

I'm talking about WW1 not WW2 - most Palestinian Arabs fought for the Ottoman army during WW1.


Right of conquest was still very much in vogue in 1920s - when the allies actually won control of Palestine. No idea why you are referring to international laws from decades after the fact. You can read the Treaty of Lausanne yourself - Turkey ceded all claims to those lands to the Allies.

I'm talking about when things actually happened. When Israel was actually wished into existence. I have no idea why you're talking about the 1920s.

Palestinian leaders at the time (such as Amin al-Husseini) opposed the creation of any Israeli sovereign state and refused any compromise on the matter - much to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people.

Yes, Amin recognised early on the threat the Zionists posed to Palestine. And he has been proven correct many times over.

I'm not referring to the Arab opposition to the 1948 partition - I'm referring to interwar Arab opposition to an Israeli state.

Why would there be any difference? Of course they were opposed to an Israeli state.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

He (Bibi) is in a no win situation
Trying to placate the far right lunatics, whilst being seen to be a defender of his people.
If he gets overthrown, things could get much worse.
Some are openly calling for the use of nukes.

He is a far right lunitic. Nuclear will never be used because they will nuke their own country with radiation poisoning.
The only solution is a two state solution and Israel to improve their pitifull defences which they spent billions on. The need to give back stolen land and pay restiturions as well imo.
All they are doing at the noment is putting their population in danger.

 

[Suspense]

Against the wishes of the inhabitants? Most people recognise colonialism like this as having been a mistake, all across the Middle East and Africa.

Yes against the wishes of the inhabitants.

Self determination (particularly as it applied to the inhabitants of colonised lands) was a rather nascent political concept at the time which was largely promulgated by the Marxists throughout the 1910s. It begun to have a significant influence in the sphere of western politics with Woodrow Wilson's January 1918 Fourteen Points, McMahon's Declaration to the Seven in June 1918, the November 1918 Anglo-French Declaration, and the June 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations - all of which came after the Balfour Declaration in November 1917.

The 1917 declaration makes no references to the self determination for inhabitants and it's only reference to the majority inhabitants is that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'.

Of course, this contradiction in principles became obvious in later years - with Balfour stating in 1919:

“The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.

“The four Great Powers are committed to zionism. And zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

“In my opinion that is right. What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the (Anglo-French) declaration of November 1918, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry.

“I do not think that zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine, it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the view of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate."

Now of course, we can look back with our 2024 worldview and quite clearly see that this perspective is ethically wrong and in violation of international law - but such laws did not exist at the time. The victorious Allies had every right to carve up the spoils of WW1 however they saw fit - such was the way of the world at that time.

Also, the British had made commitments to the Arabs who helped them that they would have sovreignty if they helped defeat the Ottomans. This was just the first time a colonial power reneged on a deal with local leaders, and when the British finished reneging on deals, the Israeli's took over reneging on deals.

They made a commitment to the Hashemite Arabs (the Arabs of Hajez) not the Palestinian Arabs. Any agreement with the Hashemite Arabs regarding the future of Palestine is considered as vague and unclear by most scholars.

The history of arab revolts against Jewish settlers is matched by the history of Jewish terrorist attacks. Israel has museums to terrorists which you can go and visit today. Want to visit the museum dedicated to the King David Hotel bombing, you can do that. Want to visit the museum dedicated to the bombings of the Arab markets with truck bombs? They have a museum for that, too.

So let's not pretend violence and celebration of violence is one-sided.

I never said it was one-sided - I said that the violence begun with Palestinian Arabs in opposition to Jewish Settlement. This is not to comment on whether said violence was justifiable or not - just stating the fact.

 

[JayJ20]

Their intention was to take back control of Palestine (all of Palestine) which implies abolishing the Israeli sovereign state.

They lost because they were a disunited front with their own aims and and ambitions not because 'we weren't really trying'.


In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the dhimmi system implemented in Muslim countries, they, like all other Christians and also Jews, were accorded certain freedoms. The dhimmi system in the Ottoman Empire was largely based upon the Pact of Umar. The client status established the rights of the non-Muslims to property, livelihood and freedom of worship but they were in essence treated as second-class citizens in the empire and referred to in Turkish as gavours, a pejorative word meaning "infidel" or "unbeliever". The clause of the Pact of Umar which prohibited non-Muslims from building new places of worship was historically imposed on some communities of the Ottoman Empire and ignored in other cases, at discretion of the local authorities. Although there were no laws mandating religious ghettos, this led to non-Muslim communities being clustered around existing houses of worship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi


They were treated even worse elsewhere - hence the desire to resettle in their ancestral homeland.


I'm talking about WW1 not WW2 - most Palestinian Arabs fought for the Ottoman army during WW1 (at least until the Arab revolt).


Right of conquest was still very much in vogue in 1920s - when the allies actually won control of Palestine. No idea why you are referring to international laws from decades after the fact. You can read the Treaty of Lausanne yourself - Turkey ceded all claims to those lands to the Allies.


Palestinian leaders at the time (such as Amin al-Husseini) opposed the creation of any Israeli sovereign state and refused any compromise on the matter - much to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people.


I'm not referring to the Arab opposition to the 1948 partition - I'm referring to interwar Arab opposition to an Israeli state.

Lmao no they were not. I'm a practicing Muslim and have studied the protective Laws.

During war times, Christians and Jews weren't forced to participate in war and could live under protection. Their rights and freedom under Islamic Law were protected too. There will always be differences between a Muslim living under an Islamic Caliphate and a Christian living under an Islamic Caliphate but that's no different to me living under Christian or secular rulership. It's like me saying I'm a second class citizen because I don't get to implement Islamic Laws to its full extent in Australia. For example I can't opt out of paying interest and certain taxes because it's not permitted in my Religion. But the government gives me no choice.

Don't project how Israeli society treat Arabs onto others. I recognise that not every Muslim ruler is just and I recognise that some Muslim rulers in the past have been awful (even to Muslims), but this narrative that you push to make it seem like a Jewish Ethno-State in Palestine was acquired justly and is necessary is pathetic.

We still say a non-Muslim is a non-believer because believing in Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is a requirement to be a believer. That does not mean their rights weren't protected or that we can betray or mistreat them. This narrative that you're trying to push isn't working how you think it is.