Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe
Comments
-
While I agree with your point about Settlements this above I disagree with.
Let us not forget what actually happened in 1948. The UN General Assembly voted to agree to create the state of Israel and an Independent Arab state after British withdrawal.
The Zionists at the time accepted the plan while Palestinian nationalists didn't. The reasons for this was at its core anti-Semitic. (Jews at the time were refugees and they didn't want them seeking asylum in Israel to being a modern analogy to it)
When the plan was accepted by the UN General Assembly, a civil war broke out.
The first of these attacks were in Jaffa, carried out by Palestinian Nationals who boarded buses and shot down unarmed civilians, thus proceeding to an escalation of violence.
Regardless, the Jewish militias (Haganah) that were formed ad hoc at first to defend themselves and wage a fight in this civil war morphed into the Israeli army.
Militarily they won this civil war and declared the state of Israel in May 1948 by Ben-Gurion.
That was the 1st phase. When the British Mandate officially ended (they just wanted out), a coalition of Arab neighbors joined up and attacked the newly formed state.
Again, the Arabs lost, and lost badly...
Which brings me to my point. The two-state solution was on the table in 1948. It was Palestinian nationalists who choose not to accept this UN-mandated solution. It was their Arab neighbors who took up the fight on their behalf and lost, not only in 1948 but also in 1967. Most of those lands conquered were also handed back.
As I said, they were terribly led. They backed the wrong horse and lost (many times). No point crying to the bookies about the bets you made when your horse continues to lose. History is littered with losers who backed the wrong horse.
You say all this as if the Palestinians had no legitimate grievance against the partition of their land and the awarding of a huge chunk of it to a bunch of foreigners, though - which is the part I disagree with. I only believe in Israel's right to exist in the current day and age because so many generations of people have now been born there who want it to remain an independent state, in the same way as there is currently (or at least there was until extremely recently) a majority of people in NI who want to remain separate from the Republic.
At the time that it happened, I most likely would have been politically opposed to the partition of the land, and while I never condone attacks on civilians, I don't think the Arabs were wrong to go to war, just as I will always condemn attacks specifically against civilians in Northern Ireland and the UK, but I do think the IRA were right to mount an armed campaign and would be in 100% support of it had it only targeted the RUC, the British Army and loyalist militants in the cause of seeking the end to oppression of the Catholic population.
Essentially, you're coming from the standpoint that the UN-backed British partition of the region to create an Israeli state was morally justified. I do not believe that it was, just as I don't regard British partition of former dominions as morally justified anywhere it occurred. It was always an absolute disaster, and inevitably so.
We can condemn the atrocities committed by both sides in the Irish civil war and some of us (myself included) believe that Collins' treaty was the right way to go simply because there was no way we were going to win a continued war against the Brits at the time, but that doesn't mean partition was acceptable, or that those who took up arms to oppose it were in the moral wrong to do so.
The state of Israel was only created because Britain gave away something that wasn't theirs to give away. The 1948 war was waged to oppose this, and in my view was 100% morally justified. The actual actions undertaken during that war, and the methods used to wage it, are a totally different story - but acting as if "the plan was fair and the Arabs threw a hissy fit by starting the war" as many do, is in my view totally ridiculous. From their point of view, the Brits came in, took their land, and said "we're giving this bit of it away to a bunch of foreigners, ye can only have half of it back". I would 100% support any faction who decided to go to war on the basis of opposing something like that. I may oppose the war because it's obvious that it'll cost more than it could ever achieve (which is why I'd consider myself historically pro-treaty in the Irish context and I find it utterly depressing that we had a civil war here about it) but I still wouldn't say that those who go to war on that basis are in the moral wrong. Just the pragmatic wrong, if you like.0 -
The Zionist movement as a majority accepted the partition plan, which included the then borders.
Not true.
They accepted the principle of a partitioned Palestine (namely the territory that Britain had ruled under a League of Nations mandate since the end of the First World War) but they absolutely did NOT accept its boundaries. Nor did they accept the intended status of Jerusalem as an international city to be administered by the UN. They made huge efforts to annex it but came up against the Arab Legion who pushed them out of the Eastern (Arab) sector and the old city.
And they expelled Arabs from many strategic towns and villages throughout the parts of Palestine allocated to the Arabs.
So you can get all po-faced and say "The Israelis accepted the UN plan" but the obvious fact, revealed by their actions, is that they did not. Their right to much of the territory they hold today is merely right of conquest. Which can always be overturned by right of reconquest.
Those are THEIR ground rules.0 -
While I agree with your point about Settlements this above I disagree with.
Let us not forget what actually happened in 1948. The UN General Assembly voted to agree to create the state of Israel and an Independent Arab state after British withdrawal.
The Zionists at the time accepted the plan while Palestinian nationalists didn't. The reasons for this was at its core anti-Semitic. (Jews at the time were refugees and they didn't want them seeking asylum in Israel to being a modern analogy to it)
When the plan was accepted by the UN General Assembly, a civil war broke out.
The first of these attacks were in Jaffa, carried out by Palestinian Nationals who boarded buses and shot down unarmed civilians, thus proceeding to an escalation of violence.
Regardless, the Jewish militias (Haganah) that were formed ad hoc at first to defend themselves and wage a fight in this civil war morphed into the Israeli army.
Militarily they won this civil war and declared the state of Israel in May 1948 by Ben-Gurion.
That was the 1st phase. When the British Mandate officially ended (they just wanted out), a coalition of Arab neighbors joined up and attacked the newly formed state.
Again, the Arabs lost, and lost badly...
Which brings me to my point. The two-state solution was on the table in 1948. It was Palestinian nationalists who choose not to accept this UN-mandated solution. It was their Arab neighbors who took up the fight on their behalf and lost, not only in 1948 but also in 1967. Most of those lands conquered were also handed back.
As I said, they were terribly led. They backed the wrong horse and lost (many times). No point crying to the bookies about the bets you made when your horse continues to lose. History is littered with losers who backed the wrong horse.
A Civil War?? I'm no authority on this matter but surely one of the parties to this conflict was uninvited... an invader or a settler involved in a land grab and population displacement...and a policy/practise that you shamelessly underpins policy today0 -
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »You say all this as if the Palestinians had no legitimate grievance against the partition of their land and the awarding of a huge chunk of it to a bunch of foreigners, though - which is the part I disagree with.
Perhaps. From an individual point of view, of course, the Palestinian who lived in modern-day Israel in 1945 would be angered by the flood of refugees entering its lands post-WWII. The British bared and arrested thousands of Jewish refugees in the hope of stemming the flow in order to appease the Arabs. However, there was an international UN-backed treaty on this, which proclaimed in effect that the state of Israel had a right to exist. One side decided to go to war over it, and lost. The lost bit being the more pertinent bit. Losers lose, winners generally get to stay and write the rules. Dev lost our civil war and had to suck it up and swear an oath to the King in the Dail.
Germany lost two world wars. Millions of Germans who lived for centuries in modern-day Poland, Slovakia and the Cech Republic were summarily expelled from these countries. A tragedy for the individual. Why should they have to leave their homes because of some repressed Austrian Corporal? Yet, nobody today talks about the right of return of German Poles or German Chezhs to these lands.
So, what is the actual difference here?
Also note, that the scale of the expulsion of Germans is vastly more than those of Palestinians. 12 Million (more than 500,000 died) compared to 700,000.
My point, if the Arabs tried to make peace after 1948, they would be in a much much better off position now. Instead, they gambled again and again with the crown jewels at some attempt at a definitive victory that would have turned the tide for a generation. At least the Germans stopped after two attempts and found out to their price what resentment (treaty of Versailles) can lead to.At the time that it happened, I most likely would have been politically opposed to the partition of the land,
What would have done to the Jewish refugees so? Send them back to a program in Eastern Europe. Its a serious question by the way.I don't think the Arabs were wrong to go to war,
Understandable of course but again, they rejected a UN mandate. They would be the aggressors if the same happened today.Essentially, you're coming from the standpoint that the UN-backed British partition of the region to create an Israeli state was morally justified.
That is a tricky one to answer. Yes, I do think that the 1948 UN plan was morally justified. Otherwise, what were one supposed to do with millions of Jewish refugees? Send them back to Poland or Stalin's Russia?
Would you also be against the partition of Yugoslavia, South Sudan, East Timor just to name a few?We can condemn the atrocities committed by both sides in the Irish civil war and some of us (myself included) believe that Collins' treaty was the right way to go simply because there was no way we were going to win a continued war against the Brits at the time, but that doesn't mean partition was acceptable, or that those who took up arms to oppose it were in the moral wrong to do so.
Yes, I kind of agree with that, but the kicker. Dev lost the civil war, Collins won it. Hence partition stayed. It doesn't mean that Collins liked partition, its just that he was more pragmatic and less zealous than Dev. Palestinian leaders could have learned some things from Collin's pragmatism.The state of Israel was only created because Britain gave away something that wasn't theirs to give away.
The British wanted out ASAP. Remember, they only administered the region from 1923 as before then for a few hundred years the Ottoman Empire held sway. Another case and outcome of a nation backing the wrong horse.The 1948 war was waged to oppose this, and in my view was 100% morally justified.
A slippery slope, as it was backed by the UN general assembly and was in part an internationally signed treaty. Many people make a big song and dance about nations legal obligations when it comes to the UN and international treaties unless of course, when it doesn't suit them.The actual actions undertaken during that war, and the methods used to wage it, are a totally different story - but acting as if "the plan was fair and the Arabs threw a hissy fit by starting the war" as many do, is in my view totally ridiculous.
Perhaps, but again I can agree from the emotional point of view that many Palestinians who were angry about the outcome, decided to take up arms. I can understand that from a human point of view. I cannot understand the revisionism though as if its someone else fault they lost that war. They lost the war. There is no rematch in real life. Its not xBox or Playstation. And then to make it worse, they wage 2 more wars where they ended up in a worse situation each time.From their point of view, the Brits came in, took their land, and said "we're giving this bit of it away to a bunch of foreigners, ye can only have half of it back". I would 100% support any faction who decided to go to war on the basis of opposing something like that.
As opposed to the Turks who owned their land for the guts of 400 years? At least keep the facts straight here.I may oppose the war because it's obvious that it'll cost more than it could ever achieve (which is why I'd consider myself historically pro-treaty in the Irish context and I find it utterly depressing that we had a civil war here about it) but I still wouldn't say that those who go to war on that basis are in the moral wrong. Just the pragmatic wrong, if you like.
I can understand that 100%. Hindsight is great of course. Dev and Co. were great to talk about the will of the Irish people, until of course he lost the vote on the treaty and decided it was not really about the will of the people, but more about what he and his fellows wanted. It took a war and beating to bring them back into line. The Palestinians, on the other hand, had no nuance or had any capacity for pragmatism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »
They accepted the principle of a partitioned Palestine
So, they accepted the UN mandate. At least we agree on that.They made huge efforts to annex it but came up against the Arab Legion who pushed them out of the Eastern (Arab) sector and the old city.
When the war was already kicking off?
Look, you cannot bend history to suit your rose-tinted view of things. Once the civil war had kicked off and the Arab nations invaded it was a fight for survival. The UN plan was dead by then, BECAUSE of these actions.And they expelled Arabs from many strategic towns and villages throughout the parts of Palestine allocated to the Arabs.
During the war... not before it.So you can get all po-faced and say "The Israelis accepted the UN plan"
Because they did. It was a fact.
Those facts eh?Those are THEIR ground rules.
The Arabs and Palestinians started the 1948 war. They were following their ground rules.0 -
A Civil War?? I'm no authority on this matter but surely one of the parties to this conflict was uninvited... an invader or a settler involved in a land grab and population displacement...and a policy/practise that you shamelessly underpins policy today
Yes, because no Jews lived in Palestine before 1948....0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »@1641, would you suggest that there was "fault on both sides" in The Troubles? Because I think many would argue that while the IRA did absolutely appalling and unforgivable things, just as the Palestinian side has, the fault lay entirely with the British side for their intentional policies of systemic oppression of and discrimination against Catholics and Irish people in Northern Ireland.
Similarly, both sides in the Israel / Palestine conflict have done atrocious things, but nobody forced Israel to expel Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, or to steal what didn't belong to it in 1967 - and justify both actions using ancient religious bullsh!t. That was a political choice which they made, and it has laid the foundation for the entire modern conflict as it exists today. Therefore, while both sides have done bad things, the fault lies with Israel, because Israel chose to behave like an imperialistic state when it made those choices.
.
As I pointed out before, your attempt to shoehorn the middle East into the Northern Ireland situation doesn’t hold up (but no doubt helps you to simplify it into your good/bad narrative).
Yes, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled Israeli territory during or around the conflict period (both civil war and the Arab invasion) of 1948. Note that many fled on instruction of Arab leaders – to clear the way for Arab victory when they could return. Others fled because of the dangers of war all around them. But many also were forced to flee and some fled following atrocities (which were committed by both sides). All terrible, but hardly unusual for a war situation. Witness the mass migrations in Europe a few years earlier (most of whom never returned home either incidentally).
What isn’t generally mentioned, though, is that a similar number of Jews fled the Arab lands in the middle east in the years 1948- 1951 because of pograms and violence associated with the war. These were absorbed into Israel. Would they ever have been able to return in safety ? Would they have received their property, etc back? Were they compensated? It was the Arab armies of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt who attacked and invaded Israel. What did they do for the Palestinian refugees in the aftermath? Perhaps, give them properties and businesses that had been vacated by the fleeing Jews? Help re-settle them in their own territories? (rhetorical questions).
The invading Arab armies seemed overwhelmingly stronger. Few gave the Jewish state any chance at the time. What would have been the consequences if they had not succeeded in repelling the invaders (rhetorical question)? Another lesson learned by Israel for the future (after the recent lessons in Europe).
The invading Arab armies largely failed because they were poorly coordinated, poorly led and over-confifdent of victory. Ironically one of the things they were squabbling about during the invasion was how they would carve out the territory among themselves. They were not talking about setting up a Palestinian state.
The new borders after the war left the Left Bank and Gaza in Arab lands. These were much of the territories that had already been designated for the Palestinian State by the UN. But was a Palestinian State established then? No, and Israel wasn’t preventing it. What happened instead, then? Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Why no outcry about this? Should this not have been when a Palestinian state was established? Instead this cry only went up after the further war of 1967 when the combined Arab armies lost again.
And, of course, in the new leftie narrative it was all the fault of Israel or “the Zionists”. Note use of Zionist so they could insist they were not anti-semitic. No, not ever. How could a virtuous egalitarian ever swallow and regurgitate a one-sided, prejudiced anti-semitic narrative?0 -
Earlier on, there was a question as to whether the UK's Labour party was 'anti-Israel' or anti-semitic. Members of it are both. Ken Livingstone is a well-known example, ex-London mayor and inept Holocaust denier. But, a few minutes of googling finds plenty. Here's a twitter thread summarizing 20 examples (from 2018)
https://twitter.com/Mendelpol/status/9780098554778091530 -
I somewhat agree. I explicitly stated my opposition to building further settlements in the West Bank, in an earlier post.
I was just giving my opinion on why Israel does not care what we think. They have bigger fish to fry.
No, they don't care because they don't have to. They face no sanction for their actions, thanks to the US.0 -
Advertisement
-
...
Germany lost two world wars. Millions of Germans who lived for centuries in modern-day Poland, Slovakia and the Cech Republic were summarily expelled from these countries. A tragedy for the individual. Why should they have to leave their homes because of some repressed Austrian Corporal? Yet, nobody today talks about the right of return of German Poles or German Chezhs to these lands.
So, what is the actual difference here?
Also note, that the scale of the expulsion of Germans is vastly more than those of Palestinians. 12 Million (more than 500,000 died) compared to 700,000.
Actually a lot of people have no fecking idea of this.
The numbers almost make the Palestinians pale into insignificance.
I guess the big difference is those Germanic people were accepted into Germany and not left in a couple of strips of land to fend for themselves.
The laugh is the Arab and muslim world crib and drag up the Palestinian cause at any opportunity, but they are not all that accepting of them.
Jordan and Lebanon would be the exceptions.
Although what transpired in Lebanon might be a reason.
Maybe it is just like what is playing out today how the same muslim and Arab states are not very forthcoming in taking in refugees from neighbouring countries.My point, if the Arabs tried to make peace after 1948, they would be in a much much better off position now. Instead, they gambled again and again with the crown jewels at some attempt at a definitive victory that would have turned the tide for a generation. At least the Germans stopped after two attempts and found out to their price what resentment (treaty of Versailles) can lead to.
The Arabs and indeed most of the muslim world has been ruled by tin pot dictators and/or despotic families and it can suit them to get the Arab street looking and getting excercised about Israel instead of their own rulers.As opposed to the Turks who owned their land for the guts of 400 years? At least keep the facts straight here.
To some that was ok since it isn't those evil Europeans and what would be classed as white people.I can understand that 100%. Hindsight is great of course. Dev and Co. were great to talk about the will of the Irish people, until of course he lost the vote on the treaty and decided it was not really about the will of the people, but more about what he and his fellows wanted. It took a war and beating to bring them back into line. The Palestinians, on the other hand, had no nuance or had any capacity for pragmatism.
Yes the Palestinians were screwed over by new Israeli state and still are being screwed over, particularly in West Bank land grab.
But they have also been royally screwed over by their neighbours who conveniently use them as excuse from time to time.
At this stage I will quite openly admit I do not want another muslim majority state that will most likely be ruled by nutjobs with a distinct hatred for anything western and using religious tied mania to achieve their own goals.
We already have enough of those without adding another one.
And we have to put the genie back in the bottle in Syria and Libya, like was achieved in Egpyt, before we move onto another clusterfook.
Now of course I will be lambasted, but as sure as fook the minute after a new Palestinian state was created it would be trying to attack Israel and then where would that lead.
If somehow they could all be one big happy family all living in a Palestine it would be great, but that is a fairytale.0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59000
Jordan and Turkey have. How many have the Saudis taken in, Bahrain, Kuwait(they're expelling them) Oman, Lebanon(who have been widely criticised in their treatment of Syrian refugees and are now pushing to send them back), Qatar, UAE? Of course it has been pointed out to you before - and with links from actual sources on the ground - the rest of the Middle Eastern countries have been more than a little behind in welcoming "fellow Muslim" refugees, preferring to leave it to Jordan and Turkey to act as way stations into the EU.They've taken in millions.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
What isn’t generally mentioned, though, is that a similar number of Jews fled the Arab lands in the middle east in the years 1948- 1951 because of pograms and violence associated with the war. These were absorbed into Israel. Would they ever have been able to return in safety ? Would they have received their property, etc back? Were they compensated? It was the Arab armies of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt who attacked and invaded Israel. What did they do for the Palestinian refugees in the aftermath? Perhaps, give them properties and businesses that had been vacated by the fleeing Jews? Help re-settle them in their own territories? (rhetorical questions).
The invading Arab armies seemed overwhelmingly stronger. Few gave the Jewish state any chance at the time. What would have been the consequences if they had not succeeded in repelling the invaders (rhetorical question)? Another lesson learned by Israel for the future (after the recent lessons in Europe).
The invading Arab armies largely failed because they were poorly coordinated, poorly led and over-confifdent of victory. Ironically one of the things they were squabbling about during the invasion was how they would carve out the territory among themselves. They were not talking about setting up a Palestinian state.
The new borders after the war left the Left Bank and Gaza in Arab lands. These were much of the territories that had already been designated for the Palestinian State by the UN. But was a Palestinian State established then? No, and Israel wasn’t preventing it. What happened instead, then? Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Why no outcry about this? Should this not have been when a Palestinian state was established? Instead this cry only went up after the further war of 1967 when the combined Arab armies lost again.
And, of course, in the new leftie narrative it was all the fault of Israel or “the Zionists”. Note use of Zionist so they could insist they were not anti-semitic. No, not ever. How could a virtuous egalitarian ever swallow and regurgitate a one-sided, prejudiced anti-semitic narrative?
Good points there. Many a blindspot mentioned.
Dare I say that if the Arab League won the war in 1948 what would have resulted would have been a lot worse than what actually happened to the Palestinians. An actual Genocide would have manifested itself.
Irish people generally pluck for the underdog, it was the Israelis in 1948 that was the underdog.
Also, all your points about Jews being expelled or fleeing from Arab lands is also true.
Some data on this.
In 1948 there were about 140,000 Jews in Iraq, 250,000 in Morocco, 140,000 in Algeria and about 80,000 Jews in Egypt.
Today there are about 7 (yes 7!) in Iraq, 2,000 in Morocco, 50 in Algeria and 40 in Egypt.
Close to 1 million Jews left the Muslim world since 1948.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries0 -
No, they don't care because they don't have to. They face no sanction for their actions, thanks to the US.
Countries all around the world get away with $hit because they can. China can pretty much do what it wants in Uyghur and Tibet. Russia can annex parts of Ukraine without much of a fight. The Suadi's can chop the head of a journalist on foreign soil. Iran can fund Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria gases its own people...0 -
The Arabs and indeed most of the muslim world has been ruled by tin pot dictators and/or despotic families and it can suit them to get the Arab street looking and getting excercised about Israel instead of their own rulers.
100%
Anytime I see a protest in Gaza, by poor beleaguered people throwing rocks at the IDF, it makes me sad. Not for the fact that the big bad IDF is being mean to them, as goes the narrative by woke millennials, it's just the fact that these people are being played and used as pawns in a bigger game, that they are either too stupid to realise or too blind, brainwashed and manipulated to see.
Stop throwing rocks at the IDF and start kicking out those Hamas facist Islamic thugs instead. I guarantee you, your quality of life will improve.To some that was ok since it isn't those evil Europeans and what would be classed as white people.
Yea, but let's not mention non-European empires in history, that would be racist.
Yes the Palestinians were screwed over by new Israeli state and still are being screwed over, particularly in West Bank land grab.
But they have also been royally screwed over by their neighbours who conveniently use them as excuse from time to time.
If somehow they could all be one big happy family all living in a Palestine it would be great, but that is a fairytale.
Much of the world has embraced modern enlighted systems of government and liberal western values. Even in Africa, there are positive signs in some countries, bumps and all that they are trending in the right direction. The Muslim world is probably at the bottom of the list in regards progressing towards this, and in fact, are regressing if you look at Turkey.
As I mentioned, Israel knows this and is thinking in centuries. There is no way in hell they will agree to a Palestinian state today, wherein 10/20/50 years time it will resemble an ISIS-led state, led by fanatics and crackpots with access to modern military machinery any nation-state would have access to. That ship has sailed long ago.0 -
Hey Fuaranach, next time you create a thread about antisemitism in Europe it might be an idea to explicitly state at the beginning that it's not going to be a rehash of the israeli palestinian conflict.0
-
100%
Anytime I see a protest in Gaza, by poor beleaguered people throwing rocks at the IDF, it makes me sad. Not for the fact that the big bad IDF is being mean to them, as goes the narrative by woke millennials, it's just the fact that these people are being played and used as pawns in a bigger game, that they are either too stupid to realise or too blind, brainwashed and manipulated to see.
Stop throwing rocks at the IDF and start kicking out those Hamas facist Islamic thugs instead. I guarantee you, your quality of life will improve.
Utter bollocks. You might do well to reads up on what Gaza was like before Hamas and before the withdrawal.0 -
You are just being an obtuse troll. I have been very clear as to why I think it is untrue to say the Zionists (later Israelis) did NOT accept all the terms of the UN Partition Plan. And I have already demonstrated that some of the worst examples (in fact THE worst example) of Zionist ethnic cleansing began BEFORE the declaration of the state of Israel.So, they accepted the UN mandate. At least we agree on that.
The Haganah, Irgun and Stern gang had been active in anti British and anti Arab activities for years before 1948. IT's just infantile to say "The Arabs started the war, they lost. Suck it up. Neener Neener"
As I said before: if right of conquest is all you got, the other side can just store that argument up for the day when THEY win.You are essentially legitimising every violent Arab anti-Israeli act with that infantile, simplistic line of argument.
Sorry. I don't have the match program. What time and when did it kick off? Or was it a throw in? Or a bounce up? You seem to think war is a game of cricket.When the war was already kicking off?Look, you cannot bend history to suit your rose-tinted view of things.
How do you mean?
Oh I see. Like that.Once the civil war had kicked off and the Arab nations invaded it was a fight for survival. The UN plan was dead by then, BECAUSE of these actions.The Arabs and Palestinians started the 1948 war. They were following their ground rules.
..and that.
Look. It's perfectly simple. The Israelis' have been fighting their war against the Arabs since the early 20th century. That's all they've got by way of argument: we've more guns and bigger friends.
That and a very dodgy reference to a pre-historic real-estate deal in an ancient text which says that God had a conversation with a guy called Abram and basically said to him "If you change your name to Abraham and promise to circumcise all males in your household, including your slaves, and thereafter do the same to every male baby when they're eight days old, you can have this land here (then called Canaan) in perpetuity."
Sounds great, huh?
In the 21st century, can you believe this nonsense? But that's it. That's the "historic justification" for israel's right to exist in that spot on earth.
Don't believe me? Check out Genesis chapter 17. It's right there0 -
The tide seems to be turning against the apartheid Israeli regime. 82% of DCU students vote to affiliate with BDS movement 1,400 students voted in favour of boycotting Israeli goods.
http://trinitynews.ie/2019/04/82-of-dcu-students-vote-to-affiliate-with-bds-movement/
Get involved with the BDS movement
https://bdsmovement.net0 -
Advertisement
-
Shelby Abundant Rank wrote: »The tide seems to be turning against the apartheid Israeli regime. 82% of DCU students vote to affiliate with BDS movement 1,400 students voted in favour of boycotting Israeli goods.
http://trinitynews.ie/2019/04/82-of-dcu-students-vote-to-affiliate-with-bds-movement/
BDS is quietly gathering pace, even in the states.0 -
Shelby Abundant Rank wrote: »The tide seems to be turning against the apartheid Israeli regime. 82% of DCU students vote to affiliate with BDS movement 1,400 students voted in favour of boycotting Israeli goods.
http://trinitynews.ie/2019/04/82-of-dcu-students-vote-to-affiliate-with-bds-movement/
Get involved with the BDS movement
https://bdsmovement.net
Ah, and we go full circle, in a thread about anti-Semitism. BDS may have individuals whos intent are honorable, however, anti-Semitism runs deep in that movement.
John Spritzler, author, BDS. leader and activist:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150612130205/http:/newdemocracyworld.org/palestine/bds.htmlI think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist…
As’ad AbuKhalil, California State University Professor of Political Science, BDS leader and activist:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160427221237/http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4289The real aim of BDS is to bring down the State of Israel…this should be stated as an unambiguous goal.
Regardless, students voting for 'fight da power' mantra shock.0 -
-
Snickers Man wrote: »You are just being an obtuse troll. I have been very clear as to why I think it is untrue to say the Zionists (later Israelis) did NOT accept all the terms of the UN Partition Plan. And I have already demonstrated that some of the worst examples (in fact THE worst example) of Zionist ethnic cleansing began BEFORE the declaration of the state of Israel.
Here is the timeline:
The UN General Assembly adopted the plan to partition Palestine on the 29th of November 1947, as resolution 181 II
This international treaty was accepted by the majority of Zionists and Jews, it was rejected outright by Arabs.
Hostilities between Jews and Arabs kicked off on 30th of November 1947 initiated by Palestinians targetting Jews. (Today, in modern vernacular, these would be hate crimes.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Beginning_of_the_Civil_War_(30_November_1947_%E2%80%93_1_April_1948)The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. Arab snipers attacked Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa.
Thus a civil war ensued, with both sides fighting a dirty sectarian war. We in Ireland know all about tit for tat killings.
However, the death toll does not indicate a heavier burden was suffered by either side. with about 1000 dead on both sides.
Regards, the Zionists won the civil war.
The state of Israel was declared on the 14th May 1948, when the British Mandate in Palestine expired as the Zionists won the war and no one was there to stop them.
Or so they thought. Within hours of this declaration, armies from Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt invaded. It was condemned by the international community, including the Soviet Union.
The Arab League also lost this war, the first of 3 wars they would lose.
All the above are facts.
When you lose a war, you can't just ask for a rematch and start over and accept the terms of a treaty, before you instigate a war and wage a conflict. There is no do-over, or reset button
The Zionists accepted the 1948 plan, the Arabs didn't. That's the hard truth of it.if right of conquest is all you got
UN Resolution 181 (II) is more than a right of conquest. It is an International treaty.The Israelis' have been fighting their war against the Arabs since the early 20th century. That's all they've got by way of argument: we've more guns and bigger friends.
They have been fighting with the Arabs because they were invaded 3 times.
There were essentially fighting to protect their right to exist as granted to them in Resolution 181 (II)
Here is the actual text of the resolution.
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
All three invasions were condemned by the UN and the wider international community.That and a very dodgy reference to a pre-historic real-estate deal in an ancient text which says that God had a conversation with a guy called Abram and basically said to him "If you change your name to Abraham and promise to circumcise all males in your household, including your slaves, and thereafter do the same to every male baby when they're eight days old, you can have this land here (then called Canaan) in perpetuity."
Sounds great, huh?
In the 21st century, can you believe this nonsense? But that's it. That's the "historic justification" for israel's right to exist in that spot on earth.
Don't believe me? Check out Genesis chapter 17. It's right there
In fairness, there is no religious basis mentioned in Resolution 181 (II) and what you are doing is sliding very close to anti-Semitism. Not all Jews are religious or care about the bible.
You are doing a Tommy Robinson on it.0 -
Here is the timeline:
The UN General Assembly adopted the plan to partition Palestine on the 29th of November 1947, as resolution 181 II
This international treaty was accepted by the majority of Zionists and Jews, it was rejected outright by Arabs
Hostilities between Jews and Arabs kicked off on 30th of November 1947 initiated by Palestinians targetting Jews. (Today, in modern vernacular, these would be hate crimes.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Beginning_of_the_Civil_War_(30_November_1947_%E2%80%93_1_April_1948)
Thus a civil war ensued, with both sides fighting a dirty sectarian war. We in Ireland know all about tit for tat killings.
However, the death toll does not indicate a heavier burden was suffered by either side. with about 1000 dead on both sides.
Regards, the Zionists won the civil war.
The state of Israel was declared on the 14th May 1948, when the British Mandate in Palestine expired as the Zionists won the war and no one was there to stop them.
Or so they thought. Within hours of this declaration, armies from Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt invaded. It was condemned by the international community, including the Soviet Union.
The Arab League also lost this war, the first of 3 wars they would lose.
All the above are facts.
When you lose a war, you can't just ask for a rematch and start over and accept the terms of a treaty, before you instigate a war and wage a conflict. There is no do-over, or reset button
The Zionists accepted the 1948 plan, the Arabs didn't. That's the hard truth of it.
UN Resolution 181 (II) is more than a right of conquest. It is an International treaty.
They have been fighting with the Arabs because they were invaded 3 times.
There were essentially fighting to protect their right to exist as granted to them in Resolution 181 (II)
Here is the actual text of the resolution.
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253
All three invasions were condemned by the UN and the wider international community.
In fairness, there is no religious basis mentioned in Resolution 181 (II) and what you are doing is sliding very close to anti-Semitism. Not all Jews are religious or care about the bible.
You are doing a Tommy Robinson on it.
I don't believe he made or lmplied a religious claim that underpinned Resolution 181...he simply said that many Jews who support the status quo derive their rationale from biblical authority.... that does not make him a Tommy Robinson.
Your points are interesting but come across as a little disingenuous.. A civil war....?? when you are effectively being invaded against your will....next we can call the Invasion of the Poland/annexation of the Sudetenland a civil war. Isn't that Putins tack in Crimes.?Absurd.
Look Israel is now a fully established nation state and clearly has every right to defend itself. In many respects its a beacon of sanity in the region.. however its perceived arrogance and entitlement will never be mistaken for moral authority.0 -
Il Fascista wrote: »You're very disingenuous person. There's far more antisemitism from followers of Islam than there is from native Europeans.
Really?
My daughter was in Berlin a few years back, She speakes good German, and was in a bar with friends. At a table near them, she heard German boys laughing and joking about exterminaiting Jews.
She told them her grandmother was a German Jew, (My mother) and they laughed in her face, and said, "We are very sorry, we missed one".
Its still there in Europe.0 -
When you lose a war, you can't just ask for a rematch and start over and accept the terms of a treaty, before you instigate a war and wage a conflict. There is no do-over, or reset button
Yes. Because all wars are fought to the rules of Dungeons and Dragons. What the Dungeon Master says, goes. :rolleyes:
Well that's a coffee through the nose moment!!UN Resolution 181 (II) is more than a right of conquest. It is an International treaty.
Since when has Israel paid the slightest notice of any UN resolution with which it disagrees?They have been fighting with the Arabs because they were invaded 3 times.
There were essentially fighting to protect their right to exist as granted to them in Resolution 181 (II)
But Resolution 242 which requires them to retreat behind the boundaries of the 1948 cease fire line, in effect to evacuate the West Bank, doesn't count, does it? how come 181 is an "international treaty" and all the other ones that Israel blithely ignores aren't?In fairness, there is no religious basis mentioned in Resolution 181 (II) and what you are doing is sliding very close to anti-Semitism. Not all Jews are religious or care about the bible.
You don't seem to know what anti semitism is. For a start, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. It's entirely racist.
It is a term coined in the 19th century when Darwinism was all the rage and some trendy "progressive" pseudo scientists thought that you could perfect the human race by selective breeding and weeding out imperfect specimens. People of low intelligence could and should be sterilised; so could and should habitual criminals. Of course it doesn't require too big a step to identify "races" that you may not like as undesirable elements and to isolate your own particular group from them.
Anti miscegenation laws, prohibiting intermarriage or sexual relations between people of different races were enthusiastically enacted in many racist societies, especially in the United States in the 19th century. Blacks, Native Americans and occasionally Asians were prohibited from marrying whites in the majority of US states. This state of affairs pertained until the end of WWII.
Hitler's Nuremberg Laws were a variant of these Anti Miscegenation laws except they targeted Jews as the undesirable race with whom Germans could not legally mate.
But the Nazi definition of a Jew had NOTHING to do with religious practice; it was entirely to do with your ancestry. Several Catholic nuns were sent to Auschwitz for having Jewish parentage. Their crucifixes didn't save them.
The slogan of the Anti Semites in Austria in the 19th century was:
"Was der Jude glaubt ist einerlei; in der rasse liegt die schweinerei" (run it through Google translate)
That's anti Semitism.
You are doing a Tommy Robinson on it.
You really are flailing around in your propaganda-induced ignorance, aren't you? Tommy Robinson is a ****. Nothing I have said has any relevance to that twisted little xenophobic twat.0 -
Anti-semitism (or anti-jewish prejudice/hatred if you prefer) can take many forms and always has.
It is very see to see it historically in the pogroms or currently in the swastica painting, nazi chanting, synagogue daubing etc. People who do this are condemned by polite society as thugs, etc. But there actions have always arisen and being legitimised by a culture in which polite society has no difficuty sharing and perpetuating anti-semitic narratives. In the past it was narratives like "Christ-killer" or "blood-sucking money-lenders", or even filthy wasters. Many people who shared and perpetuated these narratives wouldn't dream of seeing themselves associated with the "thugs" who went out and murdered Jews and burned villages. But, in fact, they enabled it culturally. We know where this European anti-semitism led.
Nowadays, polite society perpetuates the anti-semitic narrative in different ways, "international capatalists", "faceless financiers" and highly biased and selective narratives that specifically demonise Israel, "the Jewish state". No more than in the past, most of these people see no link between this culture of demonisation and the actions of what they might call "right-wing thugs".0 -
You mean its better now when Fatah ruled it rather than Hamas?
Please do tell.
I'm referring to the brutality, which was bad even by Israeli standards. You seem to have some facile notion that without Hamas Israel would somehow "go easy" on the palestinian population, despite all the evidence to the contrary.markodaly wrote:
Ah, and we go full circle, in a thread about anti-Semitism. BDS may have individuals whos intent are honorable, however, anti-Semitism runs deep in that movement.
..if we accept your definition of what constitutes anti-semitism.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anti-semitism (or anti-jewish prejudice/hatred if you prefer) can take many forms and always has.
This is probably taking the thread full circle back to what the true meaning of anti-semitism is.
I would argue that anti-semitism is NOT the same as anti-Jewish prejudice. It is far more evil than that. Jew haters were not called anti-semites before the 19th century. The term did not exist before then, but hatred of Jews sure did.
Christians have by and large been at Jewish throats for 2,000 years now, and before there were Christians, if there is any historical basis to the Old Testament at all, there were plenty of enemies of the Jews. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Philistines to name but three.
The medieval Crusaders who rampaged through Eastern Europe on their way to the Holy Land ans massacred several Jewish communities crying "Deus Vult!" (It's what God wants) were not Anti Semites; they were just Christians.
Anti-semitism is a subset of Anti Jewish prejudice, not a synonym for it.
You might argue this is splitting hairs. After all, does it really matter whether the person who is trying to kick your head in is more concerned with the fact that you don't recognise HIS Messiah as your own or with his belief that you are biologically an inferior subspecies of the human race than he is?
I do think, however, that we should retain some precision about language. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) whose definition is considered as the benchmark to which all decent organisations and people should measure themselves has a very broad definition of the term.
Their own Website gives examples of what they call "manifestations of Anti semitism"
These include: "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
The trouble with a broad definition of AntiSemitism is it tars people who have legitimate grievances of Israel with the same brush as those maniacs who want to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth.
this "manifestation" seems to concede that reasonable criticism of Israel is legitimate, but only if you criticise Israel in the same way as you would criticise another state for doing similar things. So here's how that plays out.
Woke Irish Palestinian sympathiser:"I think Israel's treatment of Palestinian protestors is unjustifiable and abhorrent. We should boycott the Eurovision to be held in Jerusalem this year"
Unrepentant Bellicose Israeli Supporter:"How would you treat rioters who want to drive you out of your home and into the sea?"
WIPS: "We don't have that problem in Ireland"
UBIS: "Well don't criticise us for something you know nothing about then. And while you're at it, why aren't you protesting about the human rights situation in......say..Burkina Faso?"
WIPS: "I don't know anything about the human rights situation in Burkina Faso"
UBIS: "Aha!! Double standards. You're an antisemite!!!"0
Advertisement