| ▲ | FilosofumRex 6 months ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | 9dev 6 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| These positions are not mutually exclusive though. You can both be in favor of stripping Irans ability to build nukes and oppose Israel’s settlements. |
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. I can oppose IRA violence and British imperialism at the same time but if we're having a reasonable conversation we have to recognise that British colonial force in Ireland is what drove people to form the IRA. | | |
| ▲ | shusaku 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. Even Iran’s leaders would laugh in your face at such a naive statement, you should reconsider your media diet | |
| ▲ | mrkstu 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You know that isn’t true. Israel could withdraw to the 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to destroying it. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure how that contradicts what I'm saying. To continue the analogy that's like going back to 1900 and saying Britain could pull out of Ireland except for Ulster and there'd still be people calling for further decolonisation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | spiderfarmer 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran is stupid trying to covertly get to a nuclear bomb, Israel is very stupid with those illegal settlements. It’s costing them both a lot of sympathy. |
|
|
| ▲ | dismalaf 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Occupation of "Muslim lands"? Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities. Before the Ottomans and various Islamic conquests it was almost entirely Christian/Roman (as was the whole Middle East). Before that Jewish. And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there. Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN which you reference. |
| |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > and a fairly even mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims False. The population in 1800 was ~90% Muslim, ~8% Christian. > let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN The UN had no authority to partition other people's land. | | |
| ▲ | sgt 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Wrong. They were given the authority by general consensus after WW2. Maybe a poor choice, but it's not at all the responsibility of current Israelis to think about what their grandparents did. For a Gen Z Israeli, there's only one country. | | | |
| ▲ | fastball 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If they don't control it, it's not the "other people's" land either. Land belongs to whoever controls it. That's it. That is all it will ever be. If there is not some higher power (e.g. the UN, who you say does not have authority), you have no recourse. No matter what land it is or who they are: nobody currently living was there first. The only claim is always "I was the last to control it". But none of us are the first. | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The censuses were always flip-flopping back and forth, until the 1880s. You cherry picked one nice one, but I could check pick over half a dozen censuses that show Jewish majority during the 19th century - no less than the amount of censuses that promote the other competing narrative. And all the later censuses, after 1880, show Jewish majority. That was over three decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire. Source for census data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
| |
| ▲ | motorest 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | From wikipedia's article on the history of Palestine: > "Most of Palestine's population, estimated to be around 200,000 in the early years of Ottoman rule, lived in villages. The largest cities were Gaza, Safad and Jerusalem, each with a population of around 5,000–6,000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent [-] | | That's in the 16th century. Almost no Jews at that time either. | | |
| ▲ | motorest 6 months ago | parent [-] | | > That's in the 16th century. OP's point was "Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities." What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then? > Almost no Jews at that time either. What a wild claim: almost no Jews in places like Jerusalem? Please cite whatever source you have to make such an extraordinary claim. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent [-] | | > What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then Exactly the part that you left out: that the Jewish presence (before zionist immigration began) was of any relevance in the demography of the region. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've never understood the argument of Muslim Land or Arab Land. If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that? Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus... | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1] (Links a page that shows the exact opposite) > If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that? Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleanse 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent [-] | | > Links to a page that shows the exact opposite
This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources. All the censuses in the decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire show a Jewish majority. And for the century preceding that, the censuses flipped back and forth. > Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleans 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
No. The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish) and the majority of the rest Arab (not Muslim, not Palestinian, and not Egyptian or Jordanian). The Arab states rejected this, and opened a war with the newly formed Israel. Many Israeli leaders pleaded with the Arab residents not to heed the Arab states' calls to evacuate. The situation in Haifa is well documented, I know this from living with Arabs in Haifa two decades ago. They tell how the Haifa mayor pleaded with their families to remain in 1948. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent [-] | | > This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources. Exactly. The Ottoman rule of Palestine spans 400 years, and the graph at the top of the page you linked shows that Jews became a majority in Jerusalem only at the very end of it, following zionist immigration at the end of the 19th century. > The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish) The problem is that this isn't reddit and people actually read the sources. This is the text of the Partition Plan: "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence..." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp | | |
| ▲ | loandbehold 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Why do you have such a problem with Zionist immigration that made Jerusalem a Jewish-majority city? It was legal immigration allowed by Ottoman Empire. Do you see Muslims immigrating to Europe in the same light? Many previously "white" cities in Europe are now Muslim. Should Europeans call it "Muslim occupation of white land"? That sounds pretty racist. Why double standard? | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Ah no, I have no problem with it, as much as Palestinians had little problem with the tens, and then hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to their land. Of course if the UN were suddenly to declare that half of my country is now assigned to them only to build their, say, Arab state- then I would be quite pissed. Wouldn't you? | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent [-] | | "their land." It wasn't "their" land, it was Ottoman land and they let Jews migrate there because Jews paid for the land. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | From Wikipedia: > The First Aliyah, also known as the agriculture Aliyah, was a major wave of Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Ottoman Palestine between 1881 and 1903 ... An estimated 25,000 Jews immigrated.
Jerusalem was already Jewish majority before 1881. And the large waves of the movement were towards the end, not towards the beginning. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Yes, as we said, zionist immigration to Palestine began at the end of the 19th century. Nothing to do with the small historical Jewish population of Palestine or Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes indeed, if white British people were expelled from their lands and their homes confiscated by anyone, Norse, Germanic or Russian, it'd be considered ethnic cleansing and a war crime. The jews of Ottoman era were Sephardic and Mizrahi jews of N. Africa, not the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazis of Germany, France and Russia. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you for your support. After the UN divided the holy land into an Israeli and an Arab state, the Arabs began their ethnic cleaning campaign. That is why there were zero Jews left in Gaza or the West Bank after the war. The war that was started with the stated goal of eliminating the Jews. And note that despite Arab calls for the Arabs to evacuate the holy land, it remained 20% Arab. And let's not get started on the Jews in the other 20 plus Arab states. What at happened to them? | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Ashkenazis
A word which literally means "from the Levant", where Ashkenaz (Noah's descendent) had settled. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Like how the Arab countries expelled Jews after Israel was founded? The double standard about Israel and Arab colonization and ethnic cleansing is absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_... |
| |
| ▲ | dismalaf 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | I actually do know the "Muslim lands" reference. Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. It's a conquest tactic. It gets slightly reframed to be tolerable for westerners by invoking the idea that they're "indigenous", when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-sau... | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. So what area are arabs from? You know there are arab jews and christians right? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent [-] | | The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula. After they accepted Islam in the 7th century, they turned to conquest other areas. This is all well documented in Arab sources, they are very proud of this. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 6 months ago | parent [-] | | >they accepted Islam in the 7th century Oh i didn't realize we're going back more than a millennia. Well, in that case every modern nation state is the product of one form of genocide or another - the USA being the worst genocidal state, going back just 500 years. >The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula Seems silly to me to claim a land that "your people" inhabited centuries and millennia ago, as it honestly seems silly to me talk about "racial features" when talking about humans. Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 6 months ago | parent [-] | | > Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"?
Not by virtue of being the same race, but by virtue of being the offspring of parents who are proud of their heritage and teach their children.Denying the existence of Arab culture, of which the Arabs are (rightly, in my opinion) very proud of, is racism. Not everybody has the same values and customs as you do. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Can you mention one cultural trait that an arab jew, muslim, and atheist would share? That's like saying there is a european culture, it's nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | vntok 6 months ago | parent [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Europe | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 6 months ago | parent [-] | | "Whilst there are a great number of perspectives that can be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a single, all-embracing concept of European culture." Literally the second sentence in that wiki | | |
| ▲ | vntok 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Do you frequently stop reading articles two sentences in? It's amazing how much knowledge and intelligence you must be missing. Please do keep reading past. The next sentence (literally sentence #3) gives you: Nonetheless, there are core elements which are generally agreed upon as forming the cultural foundation of modern Europe. One list of these elements given by K. Bochmann includes: And then a detailed list of shared-culture-related items. - A common cultural and spiritual heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, Judaism, the Renaissance, its Humanism, the political thinking of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the developments of Modernity, including all types of socialism;[5][4] - A rich and dynamic material culture, parts of which have been extended to the other continents as the result of industrialization and colonialism during the "Great Divergence";[5] - A specific conception of the individual expressed by the existence of, and respect for, a legality that guarantees human rights and the liberty of the individual;[5] - A plurality of states with different political orders, which share new ideas with one another.[5] - Respect for peoples, states, and nations outside Europe. And then there are 15 categories from Music to Science to History, listing cultural similitudes or shared values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. What are you basing this on? Are "religious" Muslims some kind of True Scots Muslims? I'm willing to bet that if I speak to any of my Muslim neighbours none of them will agree with this. | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well if you go back enough… all english people are actually vikings who committed genocide against the britons. And all swedish people are steppe barbarians who committed genocide against the local sami people. | | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Source on Swedes being steppe barbarians? Most historians agree that Vikings originated in Scandinavia. Sami peoples originated in northern Russia and moved to the furthest north regions of Scandinavia. The Vikings were also more concerned with seafaring and raiding to the south and west and all the history I know of is that they coexisted mostly peacefully (Vikings would trade with the Sami). Conflict arose centuries after the Viking age. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So why was it called Palestine Partition Plan, and not Israeli partition plan: "Palestine Partition Plan" is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29, 1947. This resolution, officially titled "Future Government of Palestine," recommended the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem and its environs to be placed under a special international regime." | | |
| ▲ | fastball 6 months ago | parent [-] | | "Palestine" is a term which pre-dates Islam (coming from the Greek "Palaistine"), so I don't think you are making the point you are trying to make. | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Yup, Palestine is a name for the land, not the people. It is a Roman era corruption of Phoenician. | | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 6 months ago | parent [-] | | No, Philistine (and all the variants) comes from a Greek word for "uncouth" and is a word for the ancient Philistines given by their neighbours; it's unknown what the Philistines called themselves. The Philistines weren't the Phoenicians, they were more recent invaders (possibly some of the "Sea People"). For one, the Philistines were Aegean and the Phoenicians were Semitic. The Philistines also disappeared (either killed or assimilated) while the Phoenicians spawned Carthage (the ones in the Levant probably just assimilated over time as many powers controlled the area after them). It only became the name for the land after the Bar Kockba revolt, the Romans named it such specifically to spite the Jews. And then it stuck when various powers controlled the land over time (Romans/East Romans aka. Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, British). | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior? | |
| ▲ | iamacyborg 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there. Presumably during one of the frequent rounds of forceful expulsion from European states. | |
| ▲ | woodpanel 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. Ill intended actors (Soviets, competing European interests, Islamists etc.) even propped up the propaganda fiction about the "evil" Crusaders, while in fact the Crusaders fought against colonization. The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders came. |
|
|
| ▲ | dartharva 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Anyone who unironically attributes any land to be Muslim, Jewish or of any other religion must be immediately dealt with. Land is land. It should never, never be beholden to any one religion. |
|
| ▲ | ivell 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My understanding is that most countries support a two nation solution. I have not seen any Iranian statement that accepts this. On the other hand I have seen them consistently calling for outright destruction of Israel. Given their declared intend of destruction, no one in right mind would allow them the capability of destruction. |
|
| ▲ | golol 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can oppose something or you can create terorrist militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring countries. |
| |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Your "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists. Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you? https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yass... | | |
| ▲ | golol 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | If you fight in an active civil war you are not a terrorist (1948 Arab-Israeli war) If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of guerilla warfare you are not a terrorist. (Many palestinian fighters when there is an active conflict with Israel) If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of relative peace, and your reignition of violence has no goal of achieving anything for your people, you are probably not a terrorist, but probably doing something wrong and stupid and horrible that hurts your own civilians, driven by nationalism or ideology or whatever. (Palestinian fighters on October 7 that struck military bases for example). If you strike civilian targets or tage hostages, you are a terrorist. And worse if you do it at a time of relative peace to ignite violence against your own people.
Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi's have engaged in plenty of the latter since a long time. By the way, if you level a building with 8 militants and 20 civilians that is brutal urban warcare but not terrorism. If you go to a festival and kill predominantly hundreds of civilians, that's terrorism. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All of that Palestine resistance to Israel has accomplished nothing except misery for Palestinians. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | golol 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | The west bank seems to not be doing so bad compared to Gaza. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should stop lying about a non-existent genocide. Israel just wants to live in peace. This is why 20% of the Israel population is Arab and 0% of Gaza and the West Bank are Jewish. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Just living in peace while stealing the homes and land of the locals. | | |
| ▲ | Gibbon1 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Israel cleared out of Gaza 17 years ago. Gaza immediately became a mafia state run by the Muslim brotherhood and subsisting off handouts and extortion. Consider it a failed experiment in self rule. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | A state with no borders that anything can cross without Israels approval, a state made up largely of refugees fleeing the Nakba, a state without much arable land, a state that had most of its infrastructure including its airport destroyed when Israel left it. Its like they were set up for success. | | |
| ▲ | Gibbon1 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Both Israel and Egypt attempt to limit the weapons that the terrorists that run Gaza can get access to. |
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Just living in peace while stealing the homes and land of the locals." No. Jews migrated to Ottoman controlled land legally and paid for it. Palestinians were offered their own country but rejected that offer in favor of trying to expel the Jews and taking their land. Then they spend the next 70 years trying and failing to destroy Israel and rejecting every offer of their own country. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | The Nakba was a big nothingburger and nothing is going in in the west bank right? This is getting old, do you have any fresh hasbara for me? | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent [-] | | The Nakba happened when Palestinians foolishly rejected the offer from the UN for their own country and decided to destroy Israel instead. They failed miserably just like they have been failing ever since. Palestinians need to take responsibility for reacting to the formation of Israel in the most self-destructive way possible. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I asked for fresh hasbara. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Labeling arguments as 'hasbara' is just a way to avoid addressing the historical facts I've presented. Do you dispute that Jews legally purchased land during the Ottoman period? Do you dispute that the 1947 UN partition was rejected by Arab leadership? Do you dispute that five Arab armies invaded in 1948? Which specific historical claim do you think is incorrect? Using "hasbara" as a dismissal tactic is essentially admitting you can't refute my factual claims on their merits. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I don't. But I don't find them particularly relevant to the situation in Gaza and the continued colonization/land stealing in the west bank. For example, you recognize the fledgling UN's decision to partition the land but don't recognize any decision they've taken since, not like you're following those borders anyway. I can all it Israeli state propaganda talking points if you want, hasbara is less of a mouthful though. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent [-] | | "I don't find them particularly relevant to the situation in Gaza" Do you find the Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 people relevant? "you recognize the fledgling UN's decision to partition the land but don't recognize any decision they've taken since" I know that the Palestinians have rejected at least two excellent offers from Israel for their own country. If they had accepted them they would be VASTLY better off then they are now. You cannot absolve the Palestinians of their responsibility for their shitty lives due to their terrible decisions. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 6 months ago | parent [-] | | >Do you find the Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 people relevant? Relevant as far as its the latest and greatest excuse Israel can use to take more land and genocide the locals. US had a long history of doing the same when it came to Indians. I wouldn't fault jews and other minorities in the holocaust for fighting back against their oppressors either. | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Calling the brutal murder of 1,200 people an "excuse" is pretty despicable. That would be like if a Mexican cartel invaded the US and killed 40,000 people. " US had a long history of doing the same when it came to Indians." Yes, and you don't see Native Americans trying to take back their land using military force and mass murder because they aren't evil and aren't stupid. "I wouldn't fault Jews and other minorities in the holocaust for fighting back against their oppressors either." The only people oppressing Palestinians in Gaza are Hamas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you name a single Palestinian who has actually moved the needle on a functioning democratic Palestinian state? Every single current and former Palestinian leader has been heavily theocratic, has pledged to kill Jews wherever they are and has never considered sharing any of whatever power he’s gotten with anyone else. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you stop to ask what creates the environment where the most extreme views flourish and gain traction? | | |
| ▲ | Ray20 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Islamist majority? | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Nope, Islamism is an extreme position so that gets you no further in the answering the question. What set the stage for an Islamist majority? Again I assert that extreme politics don't develop in vacuums. | | |
| ▲ | golol 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing is it doesn't help. Yes of course the horrible situation of the palestinians promotes extremism, but you still have to face that there is a lot of extremism. What was Israel to do before October 7 (besides making sure Oct 7 could not happen)? Of course there are ppints where history could have gone in a better direction but I really don't see an easy way for Israel to achieve a better situation. Say they had withdraw from the west bank in 2018 for some reason. Who says that Oct 7 would still not have happened on a much greater scale? In fact I find it quite likely that it would. And then you might be looking at 3000 dead Israelis instead. The only rational reason for the Oct 7 attacks I can see is that Hamas wants to incite as much violence as possible to put as much political pressure as possible on Israel due to the inevitable retaliation. So Oct 7 would have made even more sense, as the deoccupation of the west bank is far from the total of their political goals. | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | And here you are continuing to dehumanize and remove all agency for an entire religion now. Truly the bigotry required to hold these beliefs is breathtaking. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I'm not doing that in any way. Islamism != Islam, and I'm not suggesting that the entire population of following Islamist beliefs, only that there's an environment where it can gain traction. Please explain your reading if you're going to make such personal attacks. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | You’re missing the point because you’re so unaware of your own enormous bigotry. All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make. You do not believe the above. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I'm honestly not sure if this is satire or why you feel the need to tell me what I believe. > All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make. And I'm not sure why you feel I don't recognise the agency of Muslims? As I said previously please make an argument or explain your position and I'll respond to it, but it feels absurd to entertain these seemingly baseless ad hominems. I grew up in a conflict zone and feel that I have some understanding of the group dynamics. That's totally reasonable and I encourage you to ask yourself if your apparent anger and incredulity here is misplaced. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | You’re speaking in innuendo so I’m responding in kind. Plainly state your argument, which you haven’t done yet, instead opting for an odd vaguely veiled bigotry about Muslims’ ability to make their own choices. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I'm saying that Western colonial practices and violent Zionism created a situation where many people in Palestine, and beyond, felt no other choice but to support a violent counter campaign. Your turn. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Oh lol. So you’re just ignorant. There was no serious attempt at western colonialism in Judea and Samaria or any part of the ME. As soon as the Ottoman Empire fell the LoN immediately created a plan for self rule in that area that ended up having a shorter timeline than the occupation of Germany following WWII. Look up when Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc all became independent nations. Even Israel’s timeline from the end of WWI to its establishment was less than 30 years. “Violent Zionism” was inconsequential in comparison to the violence the Muslim population visited upon their Jewish (Zionist) neighbors/subjects/citizens from 700CE when Islam was formed through 1947 when the partition plan was proposed, and all the way to the present day. So again, I say, you’re dehumanizing Muslims by refusing to acknowledge that they are responsible for their own actions. Because even if everything you claim was true (it isn’t), you are still claiming they are not capable of bearing responsibility for their own actions and instead any violence they commit is the responsibility of nebulous “western colonialism” and inchoate “violent zionism”. The bigotry requires to totally remove an entire religion’s agency is, as I said before: breathtaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| |
| ▲ | tdeck 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is like complaining that Nat Turner didn't move the needle on moving the US toward universal suffrage. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Right because slaves in the American south were offered freedom tens of times but refused it always bec it might have involved some compromise they didn’t like. These childish comparisons don’t even pass the sniff test. | | |
| ▲ | tdeck 6 months ago | parent [-] | | When were the Palestinians able to exercise their legally affirmed right of return? I must have missed that. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | In 1947 when they chose to leave. In 1948-1967 when the Arab states controlled 95% of the land that these Arabs want to return to. Wars have consequences, if you initiate a war and lose, you’re not gonna get everything back. That’s the risk of war. I have no idea what “legally affirmed” means in the context of sovereign states. The UN, or even the UNSC passing something doesn’t actually mean anything as it applies to sovereign nations. Paraphrasing Andrew Jackson: a law is only as good as the ability to enforce it. A bunch of random people agreeing to something even if they call themselves “The United Nations” doesn’t mean anything if that group of friends doesn’t have the will or ability to enforce whatever they’ve agreed to. They’re akin to you and your drinking buddies passing out edicts after one to many dry martinis. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | orwin 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | No? The issue US had with the PLF is that it was controlled by Marxist. the theocratic pro-palestine movements didn't start until the 90s. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Totally false. Every single palestinian org has been founded by and for Muslims. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 5 months ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, PLFP was not at all Marxist-Leninist, used islamic arguments and not ethnomarxist ones, opposed women taking a role in politics and forced them to wear the hijab, didnt allow Coptic Christians or Jews in the movement, and talked about god and not oppression of workers /s You just have no idea of what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dlahoda 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| just exactly predating goverment was friendly with israel: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-t... so what exact goverment your arr referring? |
|
| ▲ | edanm 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran. And yet, the previous government of Iran had friendly relations with Israel, as do some other Arab and Muslim countries. The US also has friendly relations with countries with whom it disagrees vehemently, and that do (IMO) far worse things than Israel does. |
|
| ▲ | alex1138 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | fortran77 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Israel occupies lands belonging to the Biblical patriarch Jacob. That was something like 1800 BCE, two and a half millennia before Mohammed. Islam refers to Jacob, as does the Torah/Old Testament as "Israel". I find the repeated suggestion that those are Muslim lands because Israel is a new territory to be strange -- it can't be a Quranic position. It doesn't appear consistent with history either. |
| |
| ▲ | bambax 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a ridiculous position. We can't organize today's world based on who was where 4 millennia ago. (If we did, most if not all countries would immediately cease to exist, starting of course with the US but not limited to them.) | | |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Well that's not my position. Islam, ie the Koran, recognises the banu Israel (forgive my spelling/transliteration) from c.2500 years ago. Apparent muslims say "Israel has only existed for 50 years" (or words to that effect). The inference made is that they then have no rights to the land. It seems the basis for the 'lack of rights of Israel to exist' is fundamentally opposed to the origin story of Islam itself. Personally I find the concept of nationhood a bit ridiculous; but I'm not sure how practical it would be to organise a World without statehood. |
| |
| ▲ | samaltmanfried 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Assuming this claim were true, which it isn't, the modern Israelis have genetically nothing in common with the Jews of the old testament. They don't have the same culture, religion, language or genetics. | | |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Revived Hebrew seems to be a child of Ancient Hebrew? Judaism seems to have a continuation? I can't say I know the genetic situation of a while country, but it seems unlikely. Maybe you've more to add, some sources to convince me? |
| |
| ▲ | ivell 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find historical claims like this not very convincing. 1800 BCE looked very different from today and if people from old civilizations start claiming their land, we would not see any end of wars. Should Italy claim most of Europe because Romans had it under their control? | | |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 6 months ago | parent [-] | | My point would be analogised to Italy thus: that despite it only having existed since 1946, suggesting that meant Italians have _no_ rights to occupation of that land is rather ludicrous. If it were a Roman Catholic claiming this that would be even closer of an analogue to my view. |
| |
| ▲ | quietbritishjim 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You make it sound like the dispute is about who has some ancient religious right to the land. It's true that both sides claim that but it's totally disingenuous to pretend that is the reason for so much Arab anger. People still have a living memory of specific properties in specific locations that they were forced out of and are now occupied by other families, often with some of their relatives killed in the process That applies both to places in Israel proper (displaced in 1940s to 1960s) and to Gaza and the West Bank (in the time since then). Even before the most recent war in Gaza, any Palestinian could be forced out of their home at any moment by an Israeli settler with no recourse. | | |
| ▲ | tguvot 6 months ago | parent [-] | | about memories of specific properties in specific locations.
this is lovely the atlantic article from 1961 that touches this specific topic
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132... | | |
| ▲ | quietbritishjim 6 months ago | parent [-] | | It would be helpful if you could say what your point is rather that just point me at a 22 page PDF. I didn't even realise you were disagreeing with me until I looked at it. Is your point that no such people exist? Or that they had displaced other people before them in just the same way? Or something else? | | |
| ▲ | tguvot 6 months ago | parent [-] | | i will suggest you to read pdf anyway, it's a wonderful peace showing how things were in 1961 and how things are same today. back to the point. Journalist traveled to refugee camps in lebanon/gaza and then to israel to see how arabs that decided to remain are doing. (following are more or less exact quotes from memory) He describes how somebody were telling him in great details about giant house that he had had, with veranda surrounding it. how he will sit there in shadow of the orchard and the fertile soil that he had. when journalists was visiting israel he decided to stop by this location. all what he found is shack barely suitable for cattle, 2 fruit trees and rocky soil that will be really hard to work. also, while been in refugee camp in lebanon he had a meeting with somebody who managed camp. this person told him that most of those who tell him that they had untold riches actually had nothing: they were workforce for hire and were renting from landlords both housing and in some cases soil to work. he adds that most of them in a heart beat will give up on "right of return" in exchange to $10k and place to settle "anywhere". additional nice touch in article it's description of UNRWA school (it's 1961) where they teach children that one day as soldiers they will come back kill jews/liberate their country | | |
| ▲ | quietbritishjim 6 months ago | parent [-] | | For the record, I was really just looking for a couple of sentences so I understood your point. But I do appreciate the extra effort you went to for an internet stranger, thank you. I have to say though, it's pretty unconvincing. It reads very similarly to saying: their right to stay where they are, or even not be killed by someone else that wants their land, is less because they're poor and renters (yuck!). I know that's an ungenerous characterisation of what you've said but it's really the core of the objection. It does seem a bit low for some refugees to exaggerate their past wealth or to accept (essentially) a bribe to forget about atrocities committed against them and their families. But it's a totally incomparable to what was done to them in the first place, and certainly doesn't justify it. I've never been in anything like that situation, and I imagine you haven't either. If I was totally destitute, forced to live in some camp (and still not safe), could I honestly say I do something similar (lie or take cash to run away)? It's hard to say but I don't think I could rule it out. But I like to think that I can rule out ever forcing people out of their homes, from land that I have no living ancestral claim to, and murdering the ones that don't run quickly enough, on religious (i.e., invented) grounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kikimora 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Last time I checked history books said Britain donated land to Jews. At the time Britain took house land there were no state and no nation called Palestinians, just tribes. Since then Palestinians formed as a nation. So what do you want Israel to do, disappear? Or negotiate, but with whom? The only power there is hamas which is non-negotiable. I really interested in seeing any realistic solution to the problem, however far fetched it is. |
| |
| ▲ | bambax 6 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > Britain donated land to Jews Land it didn't own. Most people can be very generous with what they don't have. | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 6 months ago | parent [-] | | Agree, but my point is in the question how to untangle the mess we have today. |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 6 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you start from made up premises, the conclusion is also made up. Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book… | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 6 months ago | parent [-] | | There is no conclusion on my part. There is an ask for reasonable ideas how to untangle the mess between jews and palestinians. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 6 months ago | parent [-] | | If you start from made up premises, you will not be able to judge "reasonable ideas". | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 6 months ago | parent [-] | | So I’m not good enough for you to share your ideas, did I get it right? You realize this is not how people reach consensus? If you cannot give me a compelling argument what makes you think jews and arabs would be happy with your ideas? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | chgs 6 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are arguing in favour of the land allocations in 1948? | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 6 months ago | parent [-] | | I’m asking for realistic ideas how to deal jews and palestinians occupying same land, hating each other and having no where to go from that land. |
|
|
