Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Nice attempt at history, but a lot of info/context missing. By 1900 the population was about 500,000 Arab and 22,000 Jews in the area that was Palestine. The Zionist movement had already been established by 1900 with the aim of creating a Jewish state in that area and they encouraged Jew to emigrate to that area. What evidence is there that the population increase was down to Zionist money? Regardless, by the time the British mandate was introduced, Jews still made up less than 10% of the population.

During WW1 the British made promises to 3 different groups based on the fall of the Ottoman empire, 1. They promised the Arabs an independent state of their own. 2. They signed the Sykes-Picot agreement with the French to carve up the Arab lands between themselves. 3 They introduced the Balfour declaration which promised the Zionists their own state in the area. As can be seen, these promises were contradictory and not realistic.

Much of the post WW1 peace treaty was about self-determination and the rights of ethnic/national groups to form their own countries....as long as they did not interfere with British/French or Italian interests too much. So in Europe, we seen the creation of countries that never existed before like Czechslovakia/Yugoslavia and the re-emergence of countries that had not existed for over 100 years, Poland/Lithuania etc. As part of this nation building, there was a commission of enquiry into the claims for a new state with representatives sent to establish the potential of any new state, this was led by Woodrow Wilson, the US President who was kind of a referee between all the major nations, Britain, France, Italy.

During the discussions at the conference, the British were bullish about having Palestine as a mandate as Balfour had promised it to the Zionists. The following extract is take from a book Paris 1919, by Margaret MacMillan about the Paris Peace conference.

"And Zionism" said Balfour "be it right or wrong, good or bad is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs or in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the land"

Wilson nevertheless insisted that his Commission of Inquiry into the Middle-East include Palestine. The two American Commissioners, reported back at the end of the summer of 1919 that the Arabs in Palestine were "emphatically" against the entire Zionist program and recommended that the Peace conference limit Jewish immigration and give up the idea of making Palestine a Jewish homeland. Nobody paid the slightest attention.

During the Paris Peace conference, Faisal who represented the Arabs was under the impression that any independent Arab state would consist of modern day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, but due to the self-interests of the British/French and the Sykes-Picot agreement, no independent state was forthcoming with the French being given the mandate for Syria/Lebanon with Faisal as nominal king of Syria and the British convinced him to give up any claim on Palestine which they had ear-marked for the Zionists. So off the 3 agreements made during the war, the only one not kept was that to the Arabs. Britain/France put their own interests ahead of the Arabs.

Jewish emigration to Palestine continued as promised under the British mandate until the point that conflicts broke out, and then the British realising the problems they had created tried to stop Jewish arrivals in Palestine and were reluctant to see the creation of Israel at the end of the mandate as they knew it would be a mess. The UN went ahead and recognised Israel despite every other country in the region being opposed with the Palestinian Arabs again having no input and here we are still wondering how this is still a mess.

Yawn, been there, done that, plenty of times, see my much much earlier posts on this thread.

It was hard last night apparently when I was asked to go and find posts. Which I did.

But we'll leave the absence of posts here as I sign that what you are claiming was in no way common by frequent posters on the thread. I've no doubt there were occasional posters posting such for effect, but that isn't the picture being painted here today or over the last couple of weeks.

There's just "the media", not mainstream media. The rest is speculation and hearsay which, if verified or deemed credible, is reported in the media.

From the article; "According to a police source, an investigation of the incident also revealed that an IDF combat helicopter that arrived at the scene from the Ramat David base fired at the terrorists and apparently also hit some of the revelers who were there."

So when a helicopter attacks terrorists there can be collateral damage. Yes, we know that. That's what's happening in Gaza but on a larger scale.

Unless it was the Palestinians gassing the Jews in Aushwitz your point makes no sense.

The horrors inflicted upon the Jewish people by the Nazis (and all of the prior pogroms in other countries) don't give them a free pass to treat the Palestinians the way that they do.

Also a nice attempt at history but missing major context. As I said the War fostered and financed by the British in the Arabian Peninsula from the turn of the 20th Century, which resulted in mass killings, maiming's, mass displacement of people and oppression of all minorities, was to prevent the Arab state that you mentioned. The creation of Syria and Jordan as modern States predates the creation of Israel by months, and their recognition by the UN predates the recognition of Israel by those same few months. I'm sure the Hashemites would have preferred to still control most of the Persian Peninsula, just as the Egyptians always had their eye on Suez, and eventually took it. The whole enterprise was intrinsically colonial with the British in particular looking to maintain access to India through Suez and control of their Coaling Stations in the region.

Of course the Arabs in the region were against the Jews getting their land back. Why would they be in favour of it? But Partition and moving ethnic groups was the solution of the day. It was done in India, it was done in Turkey and it was done to the Jews across the Muslim world. It's the presentation of the creation of Israel as a unique event that I have a problem with, not to mention blaming the Jews alone for suffering of the Palestinian Arabs.

My issue with this debate isn't the criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza, as I think much of the criticism is warranted, rather it is the framing of the conflict as something that Israel started and then perpetuates in isolation. The only way that Israel ends this in isolation is if they decide to exterminate themselves.

The creation of Israel was a unique event. Ethnic groups were moved around, but nowhere else was there a case like Zionism who sought to move to lands outside the continent where they lived to create a a new state. Of course there was the colonial states, US, Australia, South Africa etc. Do you consider the creation of Israel to be the same story.

That is absolute nonsense. I grew up in the 80’s/90’s and there was no messaging about hating Jews… you’re reaching

Russia intends to introduce a petition to be voted on at the UNSC for a peacekeeping force to be put in place to prevent more deaths and to ensure food, energy and medical supplies to the city are delivered.

Sounds reasonable, difficult to see anyone opposed to that.

I haven't seen anyone defend Hamas. Maybe you could find the posts for us? Whatever about them having tunnels they would be mad not to as shelter against the bombing campaign waged on those innocents with no tunnels. The Command Centre has not been found in the hospital regardless of what the IDF said. It was an excuse for bombing and attacking the hospital. 6,000 innocent children murdered makes the IDF as bad as Hamas. Both murder machines without any morals.

We can see every day what they're doing - killing women and children (6,000 children).

They don't seem to have any empathy for the Palestinians either. After what the Jews suffered under the genocidal Nazis you'd expect better.

I personally didn’t see any posts supporting Hamas. If adamant they are there I would love you to quote them.

All of the above can be true. Initially there were numbers like 1400 civilians. That was changed to about 1200. Emily Hand was a victim yet she was released. People are using information that is available to them at the time. It would not surprise me that people were raped. It’s credible. I’m not disputing that. The first hostages released said “Shalom” when released from her captors which means peace. She mentioned she got the medical treatment she needed. No hostage has been treated very well. They should never have been hostages in the first place.

I firmly believe that Israel are not and should not be viewed as beacons of truth. They have proven that previously and by their ongoing actions. And to question that does not make one a Hamas supporter.

No it's not unique, there were always Jews in Palestine and in the Middle East. Lots of them. Hundreds of thousands moved to Israel from within Asia. What is unique is that an ethnic group that was dispossessed, by colonialism, for over a thousand years maintained its ethnic identity and religion and returned to its homeland.

Plenty of Muslims and Hindus moved vast distances when India was partitioned. They also moved within Asia, but the distance moved is irrelevant to the discussion.