This is another rather odd claim. I certainly never suggested the Palestinians were like Nazis.
What I did was a parody of your idea that the Palestinians should take a hard line by suggesting that for an encore they take an even harder line.
Here’s my quote.
I don’t see how any serious person could interpret that as an attack on the Palestinians. It’s a criticism of your suggestion which most serious observers would have found quite foolish.
They are totally different.
The situation between the Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs is basically an ethnic conflict. While Jewish Israeli concerns do employ Palestinians, it is not the case that Israeli society is ultimately dependent on a supply of Palestinian labor.
This is the most fundamental possible difference.
SA society could never have existed (or would have to be fundamentally changed) if all ties with Blacks were simply eliminated; Israeli Jewish society can, very easily, exist if all ties to Palestinians were severed. It would be a huge disruption if Israelis of Arab descent were “ethnically cleansed”, but it would not fundamentally change the nature of Israeli society.
Not that I’m suggesting such a think is likely or desirable! Quite the contrary, it would be criminal - and it is worth noting that Israeli Arabs have voting rights in Israel and are citizens. Another very significant difference.
They don’t.
What they do, is not view the Palestinians in isolation, but as part of a larger Arab world.
They would point to numerous other cases in which countries were formed along ethnic lines out of pre-existing colonial empires: think of Greece and Turkey, or Indian and Pakistan - in all such cases, displacement of populations of ethnicities caught on the “wrong side” occurred … leading to mutual hostilities, in which the displaced populations viewed each country that displaced them as the “oppressor” - with good reason … but no-one these days only blames one side.
The reason Israel gets blamed one-sidedly - even though population displacement happened both ways (just as in these other cases) - is that Israel more or less incorporated the displaced Mizrai and Shephardic Jews into Israeli society (not without problems! They often bitterly complain about Ashkenazic dominance).
The Arab world did no incorporate its Palestinian displaced population. Indeed, they often found further oppression in the Arab world (perhaps more Palestinians have been killed by other Arabs, than by Israelis - see for example Black September in Jordan).
So to answer the question - it isn’t Palestinians these displaced Jews will blame, but the Arab nations that displaced them.
How do we get from “half the Jews are ME in origin” to “the Jews in Israel seem to be mostly of western ancestry”?
All right-thinking people condemn either side when individuals or groups on that side commit atrocities - Arab or Israeli.
I wasn’t referring to that, but to the one-sided condemnation of Israel for the ongoing plight of Palestinians - when it is clearly something created by both Israel and various Arab nations - and Arab nations have the added hypocrisy of allegedly being on their “side”.
To give but one example: Israel gets condemned for keeping Gaza as a “prison”. Yet a glance at a map shows that Gaza has a land border with Egypt …
As noted above, the conflict between Jewish Israelis and Arabs is an ethnic one.
The suspicion is that, unless the ethnic conflict is someday resolved, if Jewish Israelis lose the power of directing “their” nation, they would indeed face an “existential” threat - that is, that they would face extermination at the hands of a movement such as Hamas or ISIS, should these groups take power (as they have in Gaza and (arguably, depending on if the Egyptians have totally lost control) Sinai respectively).
So far, they have not; Israelis have not actually massacred them. Indeed, some are Israeli citizens.
No, I don’t see anything “fuzzy” there. The Arab plan calls for a return of East Jerusalem and an unrestricted right of return.
The only “fuzzy” part is that the right in the UN Resolution contains some words to the effect that those returning “wish for peace”. Which isn’t, I must say, a very solid safeguard.
The notion of bisecting one’s capital city and handing it over to another country is a non-starter for negotiating from weakness.
It also seems impractical. A bisected city isn’t likely to work well (and indeed didn’t when it was last tried).
Accusing you of racism?
How?
Where?
Its not totally different in the sense that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians.
So, do you think Israel treats the Palestinian better or worse than America treats blacks?
Then how is this ethnic conflict rather than oppression?
India and Pakistan was not divided by the UN with only the participation of one side.
The various factions all participated in the division plan and all sides agreed. If either side disagreed with the partition, it would not have happened.
Israel’s partition was done with only Zionists at the table because the Arabs wanted to have nothing to do with a partition and didn’t see how it was good for them. It was forced on them in a way that it was not forced on the Indians and the partition was not devised with only Pakistanis at the table.
Who was the arab negotiator when they were drawing up boundaries? Who voted for the boundaries? Which side threatened UN members if they didn’t vote for the partition?
Did that happen before or after the Zionists created Israel without the approval of the Palestinians?
Well if half the Jews have at least one ME parent and 75% of the jews have at least one European parent.
The creation of Israel was the precipitating factor.
It a problem that arose from the creation of the state of Israel.
It is now but before the creation of the state of Israel with only one side’s participation, the arabs seemed fine with the status quo.
So they can use nukes if the demographics aren’t working in their favor?
So they COULD be massacred but because Israelis have not actually done so, they are not experiencing an existential threat? I wonder if you would say the same if the situation were reversed.
I would suggest that the Arabs might be equally magnanimous if they had all the guns and tanks.
Its not unrestricted. It might be or it might not be but there is fuzzy language there
Why does Israel get it and not palestine? I think they want Jerusalem for its capital too
Fine then just give it to Palestine.
Because Israel is a modern western industrialized democracy and a strong ally of the USA. Palestine is a terrorist run shithole 4th world nation who hates our guts and wants to see all Americans and all Jews dead.
After what they did to it last time they had the run of the place? Not likely.
Oh yes, gas and exterminate the sub human wogs.
Everyone will calm the hell down or I’m closing this and tossing out warnings. Deth, Ramira. This means you.
You mean the 1500 years between when the Romans left and the Zionists took over? Or the total clattering the entire region has become since the Zionists have been in charge?
The partition didn’t end up happening, you know. So it wasnt forced on anybody. The Green Line, which was the border before the '67 war, and which a lot of people think should be the border now, is a result of the armistice agreements between Israel, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, and they obviously had Arab participation and agreement.
When Israel declared independence, what were the borders they were declaring? Wasn’t it exactly this declaration of independence along the partition borders (negotiated by only one side) the event that precipitated the war?
Yes. It is where history has brought us to where we are and 1967 is worse for Palestinians than the UN partition plan (which Zionists were thrilled to accept when it was proposed) and the Zionists still want the Palestinians to give up more.
And they have no real claim to Jerusalem over others.
It is odd in the extreme to state that the Zionists have been in charge of “the entire region”, or to imply that the its current woes are somehow caused by the Zionists.
I think people sometimes lose sight of how small a part of “the region” Israel/Palestine really is. The conflict is highly emotive, but the actual practical impact, outside of that emotive effect, is relatively slight since the major Arab/Israeli wars ended in '73.
It occupies a very significant strategic location, historically, on the crossroads between Asia, Europe and Africa … but as a country, it (and its government) hardly dominates the area. Events in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon etc. are certainly affected by Israel (Lebanon most of all - Israel has invaded the place and interfered in its civil wars), but in no sense does Israel dominate or control these nations - right now, for example, political events in Lebanon are far more affected by the tug-of-war between Saudi Arabia and Iran than Israel, even though they don’t border it.
The Arab (and Persian, and Turkish, and Kurdish, etc.) nations in the region have their own internal politics, only indirectly and tangentally affected by Israel. It is going way too far to suggest Israel has no impact, but it is a serious distortion to think that it is the dominant or controlling factor - an impression given by the absurd disproportion of the attention and news generated by outside interest in this relatively small country.
I don’t think they have been in charge of the entire region. Can you cite where I say that? but I do in fact imply that much of the clusterfucking going on is due to Zionism.
The middle east is not unique. There are a lot of places in the world that would be made worse if a group of mostly foreigners and immigrants declared a state in their midst. So yes, Zionists are the cause of much of the clusterfuck that is the middle east. Would there be conflict in the middle east even without Israel, sure. Would it be as bad as it has been over the last 70 years? I doubt it.
And then the suicide bombing and shit started. Without military options, the oppressed fall back on terrorism. It doesn’t excuse it but we can trace it to a cause.
Out of the Zionist insistence for a homeland in a place where a bunch of other people already lived, we have gotten generations of war, violence, oppression and shitty foreign policy.
Why do we focus on Israel when there is so much other shit flying around in the middle east? Well, why do we focus on police shootings of unarmed black civilians when the vast majority of blacks are murdered by other blacks? If Israel wants to keep trotting out their moral superiority as a reason to support them, they can’t just be better than Hamas. To stand on moral high ground you have to be objectively good and they are not. I think they are oppressing the Palestinians and while the Palestinians have not really done much to help their cause, the precipitating factor was Zionism.
I think you are just straight out factually wrong on this.
Most of the problems in the region relate to the following:
’
Being part of the Turkish Empire for hundreds of years, with resulting stagnation compared with its European competition.
After the fall of the Turkish Empire, the colonial powers carved the place up to suit themselves - with little thought given to the locals. This created a host of problems (of which Zionism is, arguably, only one out of many - for those who see it as a “problem”).
The diffusion of European political concepts (ethnic nationalism, ‘national socialism’ etc.) to the locals, creating European-style governments and European-style ethno-nationalism (both Zionism and the creation of a self-aware “Palestinian” people are examples of the latter). This exaggerated ethnic differences and conflicts all over the place - again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just one out of many.
Pre-existing religious conflicts, and the rise of religious fundamentalism, just made the whole situation worse: Sunni-Shia is a simplification of a complex process that has brought extremism to the front.
Again, exaggeration and distortion.
How is Syria falling apart causally connected to Israel? Or Iraq falling apart? the Iraq-Iran War (far worse by orders of magnitude than all of the Arab-Israeli wars combined?) The Kurdish bid for statehood? The disasterous conflict in Yemen? The Saudi encouragement of extremist Sunni factions? Iranian meddling throughout the region?
Nearly none of that has, or had, anything to do with Israel.
The problem here is that you want to beat the drum over the morality of Israel. That’s cool, but it is, apparently, making you incapable of understanding the basic history of the region - you see everything through the lens of either supporting or attacking Israel.
It galls them to have a successful country in the middle of their cesspool. Quoting the November 13, 1938 New York Times (link):
Granted the language in that article would be unacceptable today but the point remains.
Ah yes, if it weren’t for the Jooooos.
The point is absurd. That’s not how humans work, there or anywhere. The grievances are pretty much exactly what each party say they are – many Palestinians feel that the land of their forebears has been and continues to be taken away from them by interlopers and invaders, and many Israelis feel that the land in question rightfully belongs to them, based on their own ancestors, as well as believing that security and peace is impossible without Israeli/Jewish control of that land. And more, of course, on each side.
Reducing it to some sort of simplistic jealousy is ridiculous and childish, IMO. Many Israelis feel under siege. Many Palestinians feel that they don’t have rights even in their own homes, as well as zero economic opportunities. And much, much more, on both sides. It’s a monumentally difficult problem even to sum up, much less to solve.
Are you seriously putting up an 80+ year-old cite?
To belabor the obvious there have been other refugees in recent history who were resettled in lands of similar ethnicity rather than being returned to now unavailable homes. The expelled Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia were largely resettled in Germany. The Jews expelled from Yemen, Egypt, Libya, and Iraq where they’ve been living since the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple were famously airlifted to Israel. So were the Falashas of Ethiopia.
By contrast, the Arabs are keeping them in camps, in misery.
Why not? Apparently nothing has changed except for an intervening Holocaust.
This has nothing to do with my post. The point made in the ancient article you referenced was bigoted and absurd.
The wheels are falling off all over the middle east right now. After we invaded Iraq and threw out Saddam Hussein, it changed all sorts of stuff. But when we used to talk about peace in the middle east and the middle east, we were talking about Israel.
You keep trying to turn the Zionist oppression of the Palestinians into an ethnic issue. I think its more of a colonialist issue. Most of the Zionists did not originate in the middle east. The population in Palestine before Zionism was 3 or 4% Jewish. The conflict is largely between Middle Eastern Arabs and immigrant Jews who carved a nation out of Palestinian mandate. Most of the Jews can trace their presence in the area to immigrants that came during the rise of naziism and a flood of Jewish immigration that followed the creation of the state of Israel.
Yes these are all issues. Just like every other part of the globe, the middle east has issues.
And lots of other things do.
I can trace back many of the problems from that area that affect us back to the way the state of Israel was created.
No the “arabs” are not and stop making false assertions that have already been refuted here. To deliberately repeat falsehoods…
The vast majority of the Palestinian refugees have the Jordanian citizenship and have for decades.
but then you make continually the assertions about history that seem to be coming from some kind of the alternative fictional timeline.