Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
So a wikipedia link of Al-Husseini is proof(???) that shamans wants a free pass to Islamic Jihad and Hamas?
Make it make sense.
This is an insane religious war. Stop pretending it isn't.
If a majority feels this way, there's really nothing to discuss is there.
It's like native americans or ukrainians telling the US or Russia they have no right to be some place. If your starting point in a negotiation (which seems to be for many palestinians) is "You have no right to be here" working up to "if you give us everything you want, we acknowledge your right to exist" - there's not going to be productive negotiations.
Not saying its right or just, but I feel thats just how it is and a major reason for it not being solvable currently. Israel are never going to back down and say "oh ok then, you control the region, we'll be your subjects."
Why did Jews in the US and other parts of the world have a ‘right’ to be in that land back then?
And then, why does that right supersede the people already physically there?
do you think a Jewish person born and raised in the US (who has never stepped foot there) in present day has a right to be there?
Do you think Palestinian refugees who fled during the Nakba and are now considered stateless have a right to be there (again present day)?
Yeah classic response to pointing out civilian brutality from IDF. It's an old tactic but effective, so I'll give you that.
3rd time I'm posting this perceptive essay in this thread:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/ironwall.html
The Native Americans fought their colonisers for about 300 years before ending their resistance and acquiescing to their situation. Over time, the iron wall worked. The Zionist settlement is relatively young.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Exactly correct. It takes a lot to push Hamas to the point where it fires rockets. The rest of the time it's just years of land grabs, human rights violations, and apartheid.
Indeed. Israel pretty much waits for Hamas to attack and use it as an excuse. Conveniently forgetting what the IDF does day in day out to innocent civilians and kids in the settlement areas. How they treat them worse than animals. Put up metal bars and barbed wires outside their home. Deny every single human right possible. And even that is not enough, even if families eccapt those horrible living conditions they are still forced out of their houses
It's excellent, but people have far more access to history and context now than they did in 1923. The Israelis *know* that The Iron Wall is the only way for them. But the Palestinians must also realise that. Either they completely wipe out Israel, or they negotiate a peace based on the reality of the situation. They tried the former a few times; it doesn't work out for them. They must know how this story ends.
It's not about what happened, it's about the situation as it is now, regardless of the ethics. Had the British/Americans offered say, California , rather than some uplands in Uganda to the Jews back in 1903 or 1904 or whenever it was as their state, it likely would have been accepted and this situation wouldn't exist. But we can't deal in what if's. It is what it is.
He answers your question in that very paragraph, with that line about the last spark of hope. He explains that answer earlier in his essay:
Last edited:
That damn linear progression of time.
When did the League of Nations dissolve? When did the UN create the Partition Plan?
What you're referencing was discussed and resolved by the UN when they created the Partition Plan. It is moot.
Irrelevant. They are still applicable today by dint of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
Some of the responses by @owlo and others over the past 48 hours in here are legitimately terrifying.
This scenario assumes the Palestinians decided to kick off, when in fact they were being attacked and dragged out of thier homes by armed settlers supported by the IDF. They protested in Jerusalem and were attacked by Israeli security forces, including people who were praying. This led to more protests and more attacks by the IDF.
Eventually Hamas joined in after Israel refused to withdraw from the Holy compound. Since then Israel has been bombing and open air refugee camp called Gaza.
You think the land west of the Jordan River should be for Jews and the land east for Arabs right?
So what's fearless' plan to get those pesky Arabs out?
It's not what I think, it's what the powers that be decided back in the day.
And I have no plan to evict anyone. That's Hamas's game.
He was so prescient and clear-sighted. The majority trend in Zionism didn’t understand the truth of his words properly until the Arab Revolt which broke out in 1936. Before then, the “Peace-Mongers” as he calls them genuinely seemed to believe, or to have convinced themselves out of necessity, that the Arabs would ultimately be persuaded to accept colonization and minority status due to the material benefits Zionism would (in their view) inevitably bring.
Jabotinsky of course lived in a world with many more Jews in existence than did by 1948 (he died in 1940). Had even a quarter of the six million made their way to Palestine before being annihilated the Arabs would have been so overwhelmed demographically that they may well have been convinced that further resistance was futile.
Even so, relatively few made their way to Palestine even when they could. Of the various ideological trends Jews developed or adapted to in order to make sense of their place in the world of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Zionism appealed only to a minority until the tragedy of history appeared to vindicate its central claims entirely. Many chose emigration to the New World, while the rest put their faith in assimilation in a liberal Europe, or less often in the emancipatory and fraternal promises of socialism. The former was largely closed to them in the mid-20s, the others depended on the receptiveness of the broader European societies they lived in, which ultimately led to disaster.
Zionism was a hard sell. Life was tough in the Middle East, and it took a certain hardy type to thrive. The Zionist leadership was constantly disappointed with the relatively small numbers arriving. Before the 30s many who arrived became disillusioned and moved on. I can’t remember the source I read it in, but I think in at least one year in the late 20s, Jewish emigrants from Palestine outnumbered Jewish immigrants. It’s impossible to know for sure the general ideological inclinations of the Jews who began pouring into the country en masse in the 30s, but it seems likely that Zionism had not interested most them very much prior to their arrival. It was only then, facing an inevitably hostile population, that the appeal of Zionism became very apparent to them in the immediate, practical sense.
Crazy that the Jews wanting a State of Israel were so happy to see the UN Partition go through then.
Well after Britain had sliced off 80% of Palestine to gift to the Hashemite dynasty, anything was better than nothing. Even if that 'anything' also incorporated a new Palestinian State.
A three state solution if you like.
The audacity.
@2cents @berbatrick How can that be applied now though? In a modern world, is Jabotinsky still correct that there can be no peace and no acceleration of a state of affairs that could entail it? Open ended questions...
My thought was, that with all the modern information available and the knowledge that they won't go away, the Palestians could be brought to the table. But the last paragraph [which I missed in my first skimread sorry is particularly potent.
My thought was, that with all the modern information available and the knowledge that they won't go away, the Palestians could be brought to the table. But the last paragraph [which I missed in my first skimread sorry is particularly potent.
In 2021, do they want their fatherland, or peace and dignity. Is it still about 'selling' to them.
Please stop obsfucating and embrace your support for ethnic cleaning!
i'm guessing that one is linked to the other.
That guess would be correct.
Israel is a racist apartheid state, no whitewashing by the Israeli fans on here will change that.
They actually had the cheek to call IDF "the most humane army in the world". In a thread full of absolute gems that takes the cake.
https://www.juancole.com/2010/03/lord-curzon-on-palestine-as-class.html
Lord Curzon: "It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred."
Ouch. Hey Fearless, the bold part is you
Regarding your continued clinging to Article 80...
1) The UN Conference stated that the UN has the authority to conclude trustee agreements and alter existing mandate agreements. That statement went against what the Jewish Agency was attempting to have happen (what you are incorrectly arguing did happen).
2) Article 1 of General Assembly Resolution 24(I) states that the UN has the right to decide not to assume specific functions or powers of the League of Nations. This was reiterated in the March 19th, 1948 meeting of the UN Security Council, where it was explicitly stated that the UN "does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate".
3) Ben Gurion himself stated to the United Nations that the Mandate was dead and that he wanted the UN to decide what to do about Palestine.
Nah. I could live with dignity wherever I was, U.K. or otherwise. As long as I had a peaceful life and the normal western freedoms.
Seems they cant see having two different laws in country is the literal definition of Apartheid. Theres really no racism in Israel or the world unless its against Israelis it would seem.
Who is "they" in your question. I'm not sure if you are talking about the arabs or the arabophiles?
March them out Armenian style.
that takes us to the realm of joke solutions like relocating israel to the midwest US
To go along with that...https://www.juancole.com/2010/03/lord-curzon-on-palestine-as-class.html
Lord Curzon: "It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred."
Ouch. Hey Fearless, the bold part is you
"Hubert Young, an important figure of the Foreign Office, wrote in November 1920 that the commitment made by London “in respect of Palestine is the Balfour Declaration constituting it a National Home for the Jewish People”. Lord Curzon corrected him: “No. ‘Establishing a National Home in Palestine for the Jewish people’ – a very different proposition”.
The British White Paper of June 1922 – the first document that officially clarified the interpretation of the Mandate’s text – clarified that the Balfour Declaration does “not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine’”. Furthermore, it stressed – and this is perhaps the most relevant aspect – that the “Zionist congress” that took place in Carlsbad in September 1921 had officially accepted that “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development”.
It is only in light on these clarifications that the preamble as well as Article 2 of the Mandate text can and should be understood. It is noteworthy that Zionist consent to such interpretation was requested, and received, before the Mandate was confirmed in July 1922. In Weizmann’s words: “It was made clear to us that confirmation of the Mandate would be conditional on our acceptance of the policy as interpreted in the White Paper [of 1922], and my colleagues and I therefore had to accept it, which we did, though not without some qualms”.
Israel’s right to defend itself against terror and discrimination is something that any person interested in peace cannot but support. Equally true is that the attempt to exploit and colonize the Palestinian territories through a misleading use of history, international law, and international consensus is a dangerous threat that requires better public understanding."
https://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/14/th...nd-the-selflegitimizazion-of-the-settlements/
Sorry that's horseshit and you've just avoided answering the questions. Q3 and 4 weren't even about the past, they're about the present day situation.
What's happened is a travesty of justice, and if you were on the receiving end of it, you would, as expected, resist the notion of your land that you've lived on being taken away and being given to a foreigner just because they're Jewish. Similar to the BLM protests last year, in the fall out there was some accountability by the slave trade nations. This acceptance of accountability goes some way. Until the Israeli or British accept some accountability for what they've done, this cycle of violence will just carry on. If IDF apologists like yourself are too blinkered to accept that as well, then you're just part of the problem.
The creation of Israel was done on false premises, bribery, and threats and it's a joke that people think saying "well, it's done now just deal with it" is an acceptable excuse. Why should anyone have to accept it? Does anyone else accept their land being stolen?
Do you think the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah for illegal settlers should just be accepted?