Israel - Palestine History

karma_ · 17-07-2014 7:22pm

iMrApex wrote: »

Have you read all this thread? That situation is completely different. The UN resolution for partition was not accepted in 1947 resulting in civil was until 1948 when the Arab states invaded.

You can't just come out with a statement like that and then expect to move goalposts around to suit it in hindsight. It really was a crazy thing to say.

iMrApex · 17-07-2014 7:26pm

karma_ wrote: »

You can't just come out with a statement like that and then expect to move goalposts around to suit it in hindsight. It really was a crazy thing to say.

It was not a crazy thing to say. The circumstances of WW2 show no resemblance to that of Israel. It's ridiculous to compare the two.

karma_ · 17-07-2014 7:31pm

iMrApex wrote: »

It was not a crazy thing to say. The circumstances of WW2 show no resemblance to that of Israel. It's ridiculous to compare the two.

"If Palestine Germany came out on top, I would support Palestine Germany as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions."

Maybe I'm just missing something?

iMrApex · 17-07-2014 7:35pm

karma_ wrote: »

"If Palestine Germany came out on top, I would support Palestine Germany as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions."

Maybe I'm just missing something?

Have you read my original post at the start of this thread?

The Partition Plan was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

The Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition. Zionists also refused to accept the partition plan. All of this created a recipe for disaster.

How does this resemble WW2 in any way?

karma_ · 17-07-2014 7:44pm

iMrApex wrote: »

Have you read my original post at the start of this thread?

The Partition Plan was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

The Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition. Zionists also refused to accept the partition plan. All of this created a recipe for disaster.

How does this resemble WW2 in any way?

That clears it up, looks like I wasn't actually missing anything.

RiteofPassage · 17-07-2014 10:16pm

It would have been impossible to establish Israel without WW1 and WW2.

Israel is a bi-product of these conflicts.

That is an objective fact.

feargale · 17-07-2014 11:24pm

iMrApex wrote: »

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine.

What does it matter whether they are Arabs or Palestinians or Lilliputians? They were bullied individually out of their homes and collectively out of their homeland. People as a rule are defined and named by themselves and it is a further arrogance for Zionists to attempt to abrogate this role to themselves.
You keep harping on with this mantra and all the other old Zionist shibboleths. You should report back to your handler that this gauche propaganda has backfired, has simply exposed the Zionist position for the threadbare case that it is.

cerastes · 17-07-2014 11:50pm

iMrApex wrote: »

Is it civilized for Palestinians to launch missiles against Israeli civilians? None of this is civilized. Rather than negotiating both sides had war after after. Granted, Israel do use much more sophisticated weaponry resulting in what they do to be deadlier.

The comparison between what whoever are launching unguided rockets into Israel and what Israel are using to obliterate children is actually the difference between fireworks and heavy military hardware, fireworks are dangerous, they can seriously injure and kill, but its nothing near the level of dropping high explosive ordinance, cluster bombs and white phosphorus on people. How many Israelis have been killed or injured by this? what kind of infrastructure or long term damage in human, economic or other terms has occured in Israel? how many Palestinians have been killed or maimed? can you honestly tell anyone this is right or that anything justifies whats happening.
If this is the face of Israel, its time that country is left outside the civilised world and not dealt or traded with until it changes.

Im not defending anyone firing these unguided rockets, but given the history of violence against the Palestinians, I'm not suprised.

iMrApex wrote: »

The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the UN Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

Let us say that there was never any wars between the two sides, I would support having two states. You have to understand I can't support having two states after both sides went to war with each other with intentions of completely destroying one another. Israel shouldn't put to blame because they came out on top.

If Palestine came out on top, I would support Palestine as the two sides both went to war fully knowing the consequences of their actions.

So,you agree that the Palestinians were subject to aggression and you believe because they defended themselves and lost this conflict, they lost all right to the territory they occupied? so they should have not defended themselves against attacks by their guests? because there were more than a few instances of people being rounded up and shot, how could they not defend themselves against this.

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 12:20am

cerastes wrote: »

So,you agree that the Palestinians were subject to aggression and you believe because they defended themselves and lost this conflict, they lost all right to the territory they occupied? so they should have not defended themselves against attacks by their guests? because there were more than a few instances of people being rounded up and shot, how could they not defend themselves against this.

Both sides were subject to aggression, both went on the offensive which started the civil war. Every party is to blame, including the UN, for the civil war.

The Partition Plan was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

The Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition. Zionists also refused to accept the partition plan. Ben-Gurion stated:

“There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%”

You have to understand no one cared about the partition plan in 1947, both Arabs and Jews would have used it as kindling for fire. My stance on this situation would be much different if the Arabs accepted the partition plans while the Jewish people did not. They can't go back to that partition plan due to them losing, likewise Jewish people wouldn't be able to go back to that partition plan due to losing. It would be like Ireland refusing to accept partition from the British believing they could drive them from Ireland. The British military then secure Ireland and we go back to ask the British can we have partition now because we lost.

cerastes · 18-07-2014 12:46am

iMrApex wrote: »

Both sides were subject to aggression, both went on the offensive which started the civil war. Every party is to blame, including the UN, for the civil war.

The Partition Plan was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February 1947, they declared:

"The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force"

The Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition. Zionists also refused to accept the partition plan. Ben-Gurion stated:

“There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%”

To be honest what the Palestinians declared seems very reasonable, it seems likely anyone would view that the same way.

However, the Zionists as you say refused the plan, so a seperate state was not good enough for them ever anyway, so they went on a course for war, with the intent of that all along as it considers by your quote that they didnt believe they had enough people to sustain such a state, so they took it over by force, and also what you havent mentioned is they even took (thats stole) the majority of the land the Palestinians were supposed to be left with in the partition plan, which you say the zionists didnt accept anyway, so they never had any intent of sharing the land, which they never had any right to anyway.

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 12:48am

cerastes wrote: »

To be honest what the Palestinians declared seems very reasonable, it seems likely anyone would view that the same way.

However, the Zionists as you say refused the plan, so a seperate state was not good enough for them ever anyway, so they went on a course for war, with the intent of that all along as it considers by your quote that they didnt believe they had enough people to sustain such a state, so they took it over by force, and also what you havent mentioned is they even took (thats stole) the majority of the land the Palestinians were supposed to be left with in the partition plan, which you say the zionists didnt accept anyway, so they never had any intent of sharing the land, which they never had any right to anyway.

Explain to me why they had no right to it? It had been part of the British Empire, before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire, before that the Mamluks controlled it.

You have to understand no one cared about the partition plan in 1947, both Arabs and Jews would have used it as kindling for fire. My stance on this situation would be much different if the Arabs accepted the partition plans while the Jewish people did not. They can't go back to that partition plan due to them losing, likewise Jewish people wouldn't be able to go back to that partition plan due to losing. It would be like Ireland refusing to accept partition from the British believing they could drive them from Ireland. The British military then secure Ireland and we go back to ask the British can we have partition now because we lost.

cerastes · 18-07-2014 1:12am

iMrApex wrote: »

Explain to me why they had no right to it? It had been part of the British Empire, before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

You have to understand no one cared about the partition plan in 1947, both Arabs and Jews would have used it as kindling for fire. My stance on this situation would be much different if the Arabs accepted the partition plans while the Jewish people did not. They can't go back to that partition plan due to them losing, likewise Jewish people wouldn't be able to go back to that partition plan due to losing. It would be like Ireland refusing to accept partition from the British believing they could drive them from Ireland. The British military then secure Ireland and we go back to ask the British can we have partition now because we lost.

you are not reading what I have written, so you are clearly not listening, and I doubt you do.
I never said the Palestinians lost and then decided to go back to the partition plan, I said the Zionists all along had every intention of taking as much land as they could be force. They colonised that land as it was clearly occupied by another people, in the most part their numbers were guests only from recent history.

All that is irrelevant, I am sure there are some decent people in Israel, even at one point Officers of the IAF refused or voiced concern over the bombing of civilians and it seems they were sidelined, sent to jail and silenced. Israel exists whether I think its right or wrong in 1947.

The mistreatement and denial of even basic rights, its way beyond that, shows that whats going on needs to stop, people thats civilians, children, men and women should not be targeted and bombed into submission in this day, its a collective punishment for people that have done no wrong, the Israelis responsible for responding to this are happy to play into the hands of those few that have fired these toy rockets and vica versa. The Zionists just want the Gaza strip vacated, the people cant leave so they are being snubbed out of existence.
Its inhumane and if that is the stance of a so called civilised democracy then its time they are sidelined in the world.

No one cared?? the people who were there at the time cared, Mamalukes ffs

cerastes · 18-07-2014 1:18am

By your rationale
I can decide I want my neighbours house/wife/car.
I get someone to make a law to say we share the disputed assets.
Neither of us want this, I know this will never happen so I just invade his home and if he defends himself and loses, I have automatic rights to his property/wife/car.
If he tries to take it back in the future I claim Im the victim and he's trying to rob me and Im legitimate in any response.

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 2:32am

cerastes wrote: »

you are not reading what I have written, so you are clearly not listening, and I doubt you do.
I never said the Palestinians lost and then decided to go back to the partition plan, I said the Zionists all along had every intention of taking as much land as they could be force. They colonised that land as it was clearly occupied by another people, in the most part their numbers were guests only from recent history.

All that is irrelevant, I am sure there are some decent people in Israel, even at one point Officers of the IAF refused or voiced concern over the bombing of civilians and it seems they were sidelined, sent to jail and silenced. Israel exists whether I think its right or wrong in 1947.

The mistreatement and denial of even basic rights, its way beyond that, shows that whats going on needs to stop, people thats civilians, children, men and women should not be targeted and bombed into submission in this day, its a collective punishment for people that have done no wrong, the Israelis responsible for responding to this are happy to play into the hands of those few that have fired these toy rockets and vica versa. The Zionists just want the Gaza strip vacated, the people cant leave so they are being snubbed out of existence.
Its inhumane and if that is the stance of a so called civilised democracy then its time they are sidelined in the world.

No one cared?? the people who were there at the time cared, Mamalukes ffs

You seem to want to solely blame Israel, I blame both sides. Do you not understand that neither Arabs or Zionists were going to let either state be created? I get the impression that you want to solely blame the Jewish people.

As I've already mentioned: "You have to understand no one cared about the partition plan in 1947, both Arabs and Jews would have used it as kindling for fire"

Also, that example you provided does not apply to this situation at all. Think about it. Britain owned the land, it was called British Mandate and they decided to divide it between the two groups. How does that example apply?

Nodin · 18-07-2014 6:23am

iMrApex wrote: »

You seem to want to solely blame Israel, I blame both sides.

Britain did not "own the land" in the simplistic sense you imply. Had they done so in the colonial manner, you (according to an earlier statement) would consider that wrong.

It's very hard to see what point you're making, other than attempt to justify the colonisation of the West Bank and Occupied Territories through fairly incoherent c&p's of 20th century history.

cerastes · 18-07-2014 10:31am

iMrApex wrote: »

You seem to want to solely blame Israel, I blame both sides. Do you not understand that neither Arabs or Zionists were going to let either state be created? I get the impression that you want to solely blame the Jewish people.

As I've already mentioned: "You have to understand no one cared about the partition plan in 1947, both Arabs and Jews would have used it as kindling for fire"

Also, that example you provided does not apply to this situation at all. Think about it. Britain owned the land, it was called British Mandate and they decided to divide it between the two groups. How does that example apply?

It seems that neither side wanted the other to create a state, even a shared occupation isn't right as its taking ownership of the land off people that were already present.

YOU have just twisted it and brought in the Jewish faith, Ive nothing against Jewish people or anyones right to follow their chosen religion or said anything referring to it, have I?
I dislike when its used as a tool by any group for their own ends and I think people see through it now.
I believe zionists are responsible for the ongoing problem from its creation, when a state was carved out of the land when another group were already present. The zionists also attacked the British and carried out terrorist acts against them, possibly even while WW2 was ongoing, acts they now oppose when carried out by the Palestinians against them.

No one cared you think? But they did care, they cared enough to oppose it, they fought each other over it, I think the people present at the time did care. I just think the Palestinian side didnt have access to the influence and money as did the side that opposed them.

British mandate only existed after WW1, not even immediately, you make it sound like it existed for millenia.

wes · 18-07-2014 10:56am

iMrApex wrote: »

That answer doesn't satisfy me, I would prefer a yes or no regarding Portugal. Again, you have not told me what I have refused to answer.

**YAWN**, answered you twice already. Its clear that my answer doesn't matter.

walshb · 18-07-2014 11:10am

karma_ wrote: »

I'm honestly at a loss about what to say to this. That's just insane.

Like if Germany won WW2 you'd be a Nazi?

Germany started a war. Little different than two countries at war with each other.

Scofflaw · 18-07-2014 12:51pm

iMrApex wrote:

That answer doesn't satisfy me, I would prefer a yes or no regarding Portugal. Again, you have not told me what I have refused to answer.

**YAWN**, answered you twice already. Its clear that my answer doesn't matter.

iMrApex, I have already warned you regarding your style of "discussion". This is a second warning - your questions were answered, and your dissatisfaction with the answers does not entitle you to clog up the thread with demand for better answers.

If you continue in this vein, a ban is quite definite, and will be for a minimum of two weeks.

moderately,
Scofflaw

RiteofPassage · 18-07-2014 1:28pm

Nodin wrote: »

Britain did not "own the land" in the simplistic sense you imply. Had they done so in the colonial manner, you (according to an earlier statement) would consider that wrong.

It's very hard to see what point you're making, other than attempt to justify the colonisation of the West Bank and Occupied Territories through fairly incoherent c&p's of 20th century history.

Britain owned land due to defeat of Ottoman empire after WW1.
Britain were goosed in WW! in 1916, were going to sue for peace.

Civilian liner sank and in steps USA to conflict.

As a reward Britain signed Palestinian mandate.

Nodin · 18-07-2014 3:04pm

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Britain owned land due to defeat of Ottoman empire after WW1.
Britain were goosed in WW! in 1916, were going to sue for peace.

Civilian liner sank and in steps USA to conflict.

As a reward Britain signed Palestinian mandate.

What the hell is that about? What has the Lusitania to do with signing the mandate?

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 3:55pm

cerastes wrote: »

No one cared you think? But they did care, they cared enough to oppose it, they fought each other over it, I think the people present at the time did care. I just think the Palestinian side didnt have access to the influence and money as did the side that opposed them.

British mandate only existed after WW1, not even immediately, you make it sound like it existed for millenia.

No one cared about it, they completely disregarded what the treaty stated and both went to war refusing to accept the creation of the two states.

How do I make it sound like it existed for millennia? "It had been part of the British Empire, before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire, before that the Mamluks controlled it"

RiteofPassage · 18-07-2014 3:57pm

Pedantically when Britain acquired Palestine they no longer had an empire. The Brits allowed Israel to be created so as to thank the Jewish people for their help in WW1

feargale · 18-07-2014 5:04pm

iMrApex wrote: »

You're going off on a tangent, I'll provide another example. Let's say Portugal was partitioned between North and South Portugal. Let's then say North Portugal decided to invade South Portugal. South Portugal repelled the attack and pushed into North Portugal and annexed it.

Would the people of North Portugal have a right to a state?

Yes.

Nodin · 18-07-2014 5:11pm

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Pedantically when Britain acquired Palestine they no longer had an empire. The Brits allowed Israel to be created so as to thank the Jewish people for their help in WW1

Do please explain.

feargale · 18-07-2014 5:22pm

iMrApex wrote: »

“There can be no stable and strong Jewish [Northern Ireland]state so long as it has a Jewish [Unionist/Protestant] majority of only 60%.

There were people on this island who held views similar to yours as per in bold here. That ended in tears, and ultimately was a non-runner because, unlike Israel, the imperialist bully boy couldn't persuade his mentor to shamelessly support that position forever. Of course the question of stability or security for the Palestinians doesn't arise. Admit it, Apex, the Palestinians are perceived by your friends as little better than dogs, and peace can be achieved by throwing a bone to the dog.

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 6:36pm

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain.

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

iMrApex · 18-07-2014 6:40pm

feargale wrote: »

There were people on this island who held views similar to yours as per in bold here. That ended in tears, and ultimately was a non-runner because, unlike Israel, the imperialist bully boy couldn't persuade his mentor to shamelessly support that position forever. Of course the question of stability or security for the Palestinians doesn't arise. Admit it, Apex, the Palestinians are perceived by your friends as little better than dogs, and peace can be achieved by throwing a bone to the dog.

I don't have a problem with having a two state solution though Israel is not keen on that due to the history of the situation. If it does happen I can imagine Palestine being much much smaller than it was in the original partition plan.

RiteofPassage · 18-07-2014 7:15pm

iMrApex wrote: »

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Primarily it was signed to thank Jewish lobbyists and bankers for putting pressure on USA to enter war.- objective fact.

cerastes · 18-07-2014 8:10pm

RiteofPassage wrote: »

Pedantically when Britain acquired Palestine they no longer had an empire. The Brits allowed Israel to be created so as to thank the Jewish people for their help in WW1

The "Jewish people" as you put it collectively, didn't aid the British cause collectively?

iMrApex wrote: »

The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I started to look up the Balfour Act as until a certain point (The Lusitania being mentioned?) that declaration hadn't been mentioned, it looks like a quote from wiki though.

RiteofPassage · 18-07-2014 9:30pm

No they didn't collectively help Britain. But Israel was created as a home for the "Jewish People" collectively, thanks to the influence of certain Jewish lobbyists and bankers.

Lets stick to the facts here.

One of the key principle of the Jewish religion is to help other members of the community in whatever way possible.

Zionists put their religion before any state nationality, and Zionists established Israel.

masculinist · 26-04-2018 3:24pm

RiteofPassage wrote: »

One of the key principle of the Jewish Muslim religion is to help other members of the community in whatever way possible.

That works too considering Mosques containing their own coffee shops , community centres, hair salons etc enable parallel societies to spring up

About the only suckers living in a post modern nihilistic hell are ordinary Irish. I think it gives us some objectivity.

*I'd like to continue the discussion but am not sure how old a thread has to be to be closed. I dont think its that old and its perennial topic.

James Brown · 26-04-2018 3:54pm

iMrApex wrote: »

Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

Mandatory Palestine was an entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of Mandatory Palestine and formed Transjordan. Both were under British rule.
............

The same could be said about Ireland.
So unless a western recognised 'authority' deems a peoples land a state or country, the indigenous population have no human rights?
The people of that region where mostly nomadic, just because that doesn't fit into the take/own nature of the west doesn't mean they are landless or should be butchered.

iMrApex wrote: »

I'm trying to get across the point that Palestine was basically "created", it was never there. For example, France had West Francia, Germany had East Francia, Turkey had the Byzantine Empire, etc.
....

As regards Israel; it's a plantation 'state'. The only justification for it existing seems to be there use to be an Israel.
So if I say, take over parts of Iraq/Kuwait and Syria claiming I'm descended from Mesopotamians and I set up a Mesopotamian state, that would be cool?

All the western created 'legality' and red tape aside, stealing occupied land and constantly encroaching on the occupied land of others, with very questionable force, cannot be justified one bit. Israel is the aggressor in this scenario.

Gobble deGook · 06-05-2018 8:55pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The same could be said about Ireland.
So unless a western recognised 'authority' deems a peoples land a state or country, the indigenous population have no human rights?
The people of that region where mostly nomadic, just because that doesn't fit into the take/own nature of the west doesn't mean they are landless or should be butchered.

As regards Israel; it's a plantation 'state'. The only justification for it existing seems to be there use to be an Israel.
So if I say, take over parts of Iraq/Kuwait and Syria claiming I'm descended from Mesopotamians and I set up a Mesopotamian state, that would be cool?

All the western created 'legality' and red tape aside, stealing occupied land and constantly encroaching on the occupied land of others, with very questionable force, cannot be justified one bit. Israel is the aggressor in this scenario.

But in fairness there were Jews living in that land for millennia - and Arabs too of course
But as Jews were migrated from lands in Europe and the ME that they were dispossessed of, Arabs came to what is now Israel to take up jobs there.
So both populations increased as Jews migrated to what is now Israel.

feargale · 06-05-2018 9:03pm

Gobble deGook wrote: »

But in fairness there were Jews living in that land for millennia - and Arabs too of course
But as Jews were migrated from lands in Europe and the ME that they were dispossessed of, Arabs came to what is now Israel to take up jobs there.
So both populations increased as Jews migrated to what is now Israel.

Could you give us a historical timeline on this? Also some DNA evidence might be helpful. Because I have yet to see any evidence to show that a great many of the Muslims in Israel/Palestine are not descended from Jews who converted

Gobble deGook · 06-05-2018 9:16pm

feargale wrote: »

Could you give us a historical timeline on this? Also some DNA evidence might be helpful. Because I have yet to see any evidence to show that a great many of the Muslims in Israel/Palestine are descended from Jews who converted

I wouldn't have time to write a book about it but there is a fair amount of evidence to show that Arabs migrated to Israel as job opportunities arose from Jewish enterprise.
A lot of the issues come up here
jpost.com/Blogs/Why-World-Opinion-Matters/Are-Arabs-the-indigenous-people-of-Palestine-402785

James Brown · 07-05-2018 4:59pm

Gobble deGook wrote: »

But in fairness there were Jews living in that land for millennia - and Arabs too of course
But as Jews were migrated from lands in Europe and the ME that they were dispossessed of, Arabs came to what is now Israel to take up jobs there.
So both populations increased as Jews migrated to what is now Israel.

So that justifies a mainly European influx of foreign nationals, to set up a state and steal land from the people living there? The narrative you describe is a fairytale. Must be tough to speak of Israel as a finite entity, as it continues to illegally expand leaving bodies in its wake.

feargale · 07-05-2018 6:46pm

Gobble deGook wrote: »

I wouldn't have time to write a book about it but there is a fair amount of evidence to show that Arabs migrated to Israel as job opportunities arose from Jewish enterprise.
A lot of the issues come up here
jpost.com/Blogs/Why-World-Opinion-Matters/Are-Arabs-the-indigenous-people-of-Palestine-402785

You mean just like Australian aborigines, Zulus and indigenous North Americans came into town to work on land that was stolen from their kind?

Since this is supposed to have happened in Israel/Palestine almost within living memory, surely figures and historical corroboration exists?

ShowMeTheCash · 11-05-2018 11:29am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So that justifies a mainly European influx of foreign nationals, to set up a state and steal land from the people living there? The narrative you describe is a fairytale. Must be tough to speak of Israel as a finite entity, as it continues to illegally expand leaving bodies in its wake.

Just to second this.
The idea that American Jews, UK Jews, Jews living in Europe who have lived there for generations many and most have never even been to the middle-east have some right to go back to the "promise" land because they seem to think they have a direct link to people who where displaced 1700 years ago is crazy!

I was watching the UK question time a few weeks back.
And I have to agree with something that was said and this goes to the heart of this anti-Semite scandal in the labor party in the UK.

Any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government becomes a conversation about antisemitism... Why?

It seems that conversation about Israel cannot be had

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 11-05-2018 11:22pm

Great conference over the next two days in Dublin with knowledgeable speakers. Worth checking out
https://palestinianfreedom.wordpress.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC6dWSmpqQs

masculinist · 12-05-2018 3:31pm

I've seen figures which indicate more Jews were expelled from neighbouring Arab countries who fled into Israel than there are Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Those Jews and their descendants now live in Israel . They are legitimately from that region. So this notion that the Jews should somehow ''return'' to Europe is ridiculous. Muslims are giving troubles all over Europe yet none of the 'death to Israel' crowd are suggesting Arabs return to Arabia.
Now on the other hand , I've seen many clips of Palestinians wanting to murder every man , woman and child in Israel if they drop their weapons and tear down their walls. And Hamas attacks are aimed at civilians and Israeli kindergardens, either blowing up all the Israeli kids or knifing all the Israeli kids. If that doesnt turn your stomach I dont know what would ...
From a purely Humanitarian position, all these Irish BDS idiots need to stop enabling stupidity and attacks against Israeli civilians and -the Palestinians need to get rid of Hamas, recognize Israel and get on with their lives. Instead they're deliberately using their children as human shields to launch attacks from behind them. If someone launches a rocket from a location they can fully expect a rocket being returned to them because thats how wars work. War is disgusting and horrible and should be avoided however ... it is what it is . Is Paddy dopey or what in supporting children being used as a human shields ? Ive yet to see any form of solution from the BDS crowd apart from death to Israel. Like thats going to be the basis for any sort of peace. If Irish people held onto their grudges over the North , thered still be unending war up there. And even for the likes of me who had no connection with the North , I still felt annoyed at giving up articles 2 and 3 but took it on the chin for the greater good. The BDS crowd need to learn a lesson from the Irish peace process. There needs to be a set of ''mitchell principles'' . The Palestinians had a deal offered in the 90s and rejected it in favor of hate. They choose war. Thats what I see. And when you choose war you dont expect your enemy to lie down.

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 12-05-2018 6:25pm

The BDS movement is modeled on the other well know apartheid regime of South Africa where it was very successful. BDS has been endorsed by the majority of trade unions in Ireland. The apartheid state of Israel spends millions trying to combat BDS so it must be doing something right

Day two of conference on tomorrow, some great speakers lined up
https://palestinianfreedom.wordpress.com

masculinist · 12-05-2018 8:19pm

Genesis Ancient Stipend wrote: »

The BDS movement is modeled on the other well know apartheid regime of South Africa where it was very successful.

South Africa today as a case study is interesting with uncountable rapes and murders of white South Africans. Their black government politicians openly singing songs about genocide of the whites and their land being stolen from them, land which they cleared , tilled and settled where no black people had ever been since the dawn of time. So much for truth and reconciliation.

BDS is nothing else but a cover for genocide of Jewish people. Meanwhile ....

1) Palestinians are being used as pawns by Hamas,
2)Palestinians are being used as pawns by the Arab states who declared war on Israel on their behalf yet lay all the consequences onto Palestinians themselves through Apartheid systems against Palestinians
3) Palestinians are being used as pawns by Western Marxists who support Hamas the same way they have supported the failed dictatorship of Venezuela where Venezuelans cant buy toilet paper and resort to cannibalism for survive.

Irish Unions are morons. None of the above care for the Palestinian people or their children who are used as human shields and human bombs when a peaceful alternative which they reject is available. And while this nonsense continues, the way wars work is the aggressor gets thrown out. So the settlements will continue . Why wouldnt they continue ? Thats how Arabs intended to behave when all the Arab countries tried to invade Israel and destroy it. The only way settlements can be stopped or reversed is to sit down at the negotiating table and this has to be done before its too late.

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 12-05-2018 9:05pm

Ireland is one of the leading European countries when it comes to solidarity with the Palestinian cause, hopefully they can get some basic human rights and build from there. No doubt the Irish people see the parallels with our own history of the plantation and subjugation etc

masculinist · 12-05-2018 10:48pm

Genesis Ancient Stipend wrote: »

Ireland is one of the leading European countries when it comes to solidarity with the Palestinian cause, hopefully they can get some basic human rights and build from there. No doubt the Irish people see the parallels with our own history of the plantation and subjugation etc

The Palestinians led by Hamas are attacking civilians and kindergardens with rockets and knifing children in Israel. They want a second holocaust. A real genocide. How is there any parallel with Irish people there ? The IRA made many huge mistakes but its focus was on military targets.
The Palestinians are using their children as shields for rocket attacks on Israeli kindergardens and civilians . Since when was that an Irish trait ?
The Irish have been duped, As an Irishman I am willing to lend my support to a strategy which introduces the ballot box and the negotiating table but as a citizen of a neutral country I am horrified by paddys ignorance in taking sides in a horrific war. If Paddy takes sides he should at least take the side of negotiations. Hamas refuses to negotiate anything. Not a thing. So Paddy is supporting a war mongering fascist organization. And I believe that when I take sides against Hamas I am taking sides with the Palestinian people because they are losing their war badly. No amount of force will ever dislodge Israel. Israel has nukes. They wont introduce them first but they wont leave an Israel behind for anyone who genocides them from it .

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 12-05-2018 11:39pm

Amnesty International has some great reports on the situation in the apartheid state, well worth reading.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

since Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the start of the 11th year of its illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, subjecting approximately 2 million inhabitants to collective punishment and a growing humanitarian crisis. The Israeli authorities intensified expansion of settlements and related infrastructure across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and severely restricted the freedom of movement of Palestinians. Israeli forces unlawfully killed Palestinian civilians, including children, and unlawfully detained within Israel thousands of Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, remained pervasive and was committed with impunity. Israel continued to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and in Palestinian villages inside Israel, forcibly evicting residents. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned. Thousands of African asylum-seekers were threatened with deportation.

masculinist · 13-05-2018 12:12am

Genesis Ancient Stipend wrote: »

Amnesty International has some great reports on the situation in the apartheid state, well worth reading.

Blockade my arse. Anyone would put up a huge wall if their kids were being stabbed and their kindergardens blown up with rockets. Thats why Israel has a border. Because not to have a border would be suicide. But theres no blockade. A blockade would imply that Israel controlled the Egyptian border. Israel offered to give Gaza to Egypt along with the Sinai peninsula and Egypt wouldn't take them despite having started a war for them. You do realise that Gaza had a border with Egypt right ????

I'm ashamed to say this about my fellow Irishman but BDS virtue signalling Paddy apparently knows nothing about geography. How in the name of all thats holy could Israel blockade a border which it doesnt even touch with its own territory ?
Why do the Egyptians blockade Gaza ? Why do Egyptians blockade their fellow Arabs in Gaza ? Egypt has a huge border with Gaza.
Why did Egyptians not even give citizenship to Palestinians who had a Egyptian mother ? Why is the whole Arab world practicing apartheid against Palestinians ?

Amnesty international is a ridiculous organization with nothing to say about the biggest human rights abusers in the world , all of whom are Israels neighbours.

And shamefully nobody is arguing for the best interests of the Palestinians which is to stop using their children as human shields and raise them properly with the help of the massive international aid which has flown into those territories and been siphoned off for terrorism.

vicwatson · 13-05-2018 12:18am

masculinist wrote: »

Blockade my arse. Anyone would put up a huge wall if their kids were being stabbed and their kindergardens blown up with rockets. Thats why Israel has a border. Because not to have a border would be suicide. But theres no blockade. A blockade would imply that Israel controlled the Egyptian border. Israel offered to give Gaza to Egypt along with the Sinai peninsula and Egypt wouldn't take them despite having started a war for them. You do realise that Gaza had a border with Egypt right ????

I'm ashamed to say this about my fellow Irishman but BDS virtue signalling Paddy apparently knows nothing about geography. How in the name of all thats holy could Israel blockade a border which it doesnt even touch with its own territory ?
Why do the Egyptians blockade Gaza ? Why do Egyptians blockade their fellow Arabs in Gaza ? Egypt has a huge border with Gaza.
Why did Egyptians not even give citizenship to Palestinians who had a Egyptian mother ? Why is the whole Arab world practicing apartheid against Palestinians ?

Amnesty international is a ridiculous organization with nothing to say about the biggest human rights abusers in the world , all of whom are Israels neighbours.

And shamefully nobody is arguing for the best interests of the Palestinians which is to stop using their children as human shields and raise them properly with the help of the massive international aid which has flown into those territories and been siphoned off for terrorism.

Have a beer and chill out, yis won the Eurovision, chill

vicwatson · 13-05-2018 12:19am

Ooh you edited before I replied

masculinist · 13-05-2018 12:23am

vicwatson wrote: »

Have a beer and chill out, yis won the Eurovision, chill

whos yis ?

I started researching this situation and thats what I concluded. Now Im out and about to see if anyone can change my mind about this topic.

Israel - Palestine History

Comments