That account was only created last month. I guess every nation, religion and culture has their fair share of hard right nut jobs.
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.
But that's not what's happening isn't it? It's labelling this particular and IMO similar atrocity with the word. And what's happening in Palestine is pretty unique and not just "every atrocity". It's happening in the 21st century, with the backing of almost every major nation in the world, with the most powerful of them all continuously giving them money to do so. It's unprecedented in many ways. Even the Nazi didn't have this kind of backing.
In my opinion, labelling it anything less would lessen the suffering of the Palestinian under the Israeli occupation. And another point is that, Israel right to exist, and to defend herself, is directly linked to what happened with the holocaust. By denying what happened in Palestine is another one, it also denying their right to exist and to defend themselves, which is exactly what's been happening until now
Just bollox.
The entire Palestinian cause was founded to commit another Jewish holocaust, where the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians had failed through conventional war. Thats why the first Jewish massacre happened in 1922...by the Palestinian Arabs.
Hamas are far more honest about this then you'll ever be.
So its not exactly the same because I guess the Irish never really had a policy that they wanted Britain to cease to exist but the parallels are there none the less. Now I look at the atrocities carried out by the IRA as being awful, especially their targeting of civilians. However during the Troubles it is very easy to understand why the IRA existed. You might not agree with what they did but their reason for being is very clear and simple. Many nationalists (Republicans) I'm sure didn't want to support them but they viewed them as their 'protectors'. The one group that would stand up to the oppression that they faced. In many ways they were left with no option but to support them in the worst of times. Hamas, like the IRA, are a terrorist organisation but the reason for them existing is because of the horrors the Palestinians face. For them, I would wager, they are a necessary evil. They don't like them but ultimately they are the only effective thing they see that can protect them and fight back against their oppressors.
After the GFA the IRA ceased to exist in its historical form because ultimately the people didn't like them and when offered peace that was the only thing that mattered to them. I'd wager that its similar to Hamas right now. Give the Palestinians peace and an opportunity to live and progress and Hamas, like the IRA, would simply become a fringe criminal organisation. To use Hamas as representative of the general Palestinians is stupid. Just like if the British viewed every nationalist as being a part of the IRA. They exist in their current form because as long as Israel encroach on the Palestinians then the Palestinians will feel the need to have a group that stands up for them (even if they actually don't).
Now the Islam vs Judaism is of course an extra layer but ultimately I think most Palestinians just want to be able to live their life without the threat of losing their homes or being bombed. Thats ultimately how it turned out to be in the North of Ireland.
It's great to see dangerously racist narcissists giving 'support' to other dangerously racist narcissists.That's a movie we want to see.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah but anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism. Yeah but yeah but yeah but.
Ah shit, those stupid racist idiots will cause another 20+ kids to get blown to pieces now. It's only fair.
Hamas was elected legimately almost immediately after Israel ceded Gaza and soon as possible started firing rockets into Israel. I doubt this is fact doesn't play into the Israeli psyche when it comes to giving concessions.
I can understand why people genuinely write the above type posts and in first glance you'd say fair enough.
However I think the narrative we, outside Palestine and Israel have been fed is found wanting at best and false at worst.
Starting with Hamas they only existed since 1989. The displacement and killing of Palestinians has been going on much much longer. That's before you consider Israeli papers in them creating Hamas in the first place and look at historically when Hamas emplulued current tactics.
The far more important issue is in Israel's paperwork, laws and policies. Which in a nutshell have always been about taking land by force, see Ben Gurion quotes and the Laws I spoke about earlier which you cannot deny are out of Germany in WW2, Jim crow and Indian laws and apartheid S. Africa.
There simply is no place for Palestinians in Israel's framework.
Egypt sold it's soul to American dollars years ago and is the reason why gets money only second to Israel in that region. It was an open secret that Mubarak was there to protect Israel under USA orders.
This is bollocks if anything. The cause was founded for another Jewish holocaust? What absolute nonsense. Your views are embarrassing.
It's certainly put a hold on ceding anything else.
I will submit to your superior knowledge on the subject but may I ask how long ago is the incident you speak of?
I'd respond like that if i had zero counter evidence.
I mean anyone can make baseless claims up and posit them as fact.
Hamas was elected in 2006 in Gaza. There was supposed to general elections in the west bank 2 weeks ago which were called off and cited as a cause of the unrest atm, they were called off by Abbas because Hamas looked to win.
Just typical twitter morons talking shit.
Ah I see. I was wrong so to draw such close parallels. I still believe the general Palestinians just want peace but then I believe the general Israeli does too.
What's your source for this ?
This is why I have said that the first step to progress is eliminating Hamas from the equation. Because people (not me) often equate the legitimate causes of the Palestinians, with the actions of Hamas.
But also looking at whether it is understandable why Hamas acts the way it does, I would have to ask if you see any parallels in why Israel acts the way it does?
A nation emerging from one of the worst atrocities in modern history, finds itself surrounded and constantly attacked by its neighbors. It is worth remembering that the very first attacks in this century-long conflict came from Palestinians, and even the occupation of Jerusalem and other disputed areas like the Golan heights came from Israel successfully defending itself when it was attacked first.
The evolution of Israel as the aggressor is a phenomenon that stems from having established a dominant position and having to maintain this position as a deterrent to further attacks. I would argue that this is a rational position.
This is not to justify making people homeless and some of the other things Israel does but if you're going to rationalize Hamas's conduct, I need to point out the parallels in Israel's conduct.
Two things that are not justifiable for me are:
1. Unbridled Israeli expansionism
2. Hamas's military strategy
Objectively, to end this conflict these are the issues to tackle.
Yes. Had Abbas not cancelled, this conflict would never have flared up IMO.
There is none. It’s why his, @Fearless , timeline is so muddled. He jumps from decade to decade in making his claims up.
You've been exposed time and time again in this thread only to dissappear when challenged, so you're one to talk.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's also the failure of Abu Mazin. Anyone who can be a threat to Abu Mazin is in Israeli jail. He is not interested in pushing forward anything for the Palestinians. He is only interested in himself. The moment the Palestinians elect someone better, Hamas will lose any credibility among the Palestinians. Even now I don't think Hamas is going to win in West Bank. Well after this bombardment who knows. But generally Hamas has no popular support in the West Bank. Abu Mazin just doesn't want to have an election.
When Hamas was elected everyone decided not to accept the results of the election. Maybe if they have accepted the results Hamas may have changed their approach?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That was my first thought if the situation wasn't so fecked up.
Agreed!
This rewriting of history is really annoying.
There's a lot of history that took place before this point. Do you think it's right for land to be stolen from Palestinians? Do they have a right to defend their own land and homes?
The immigration of Jews to the region was happening in the decades prior to WW2. So the starting point isn't the 'worst atrocity in modern history' either.
I have been careful to separate two issues. One is Israeli treatment of ordinary Palestinians, and the second is the conduct of hostilities with Hamas.
Clearly, there are areas where the international community needs to step in and reign Israel in, particularly with respect to the expansion of settlements. I was clear on this.
The second issue has to do with the current hostilities and the outcry on that basis. Hamas is primarily responsible for the deaths of innocent ones by the manner in which it chooses to fight. Its tactics are a complete violation of International humanitarian law both in respect of its own people and the Jewish civilian population that it targets.
Conflating these two issues and finding sympathy for Hamas because of Israel's maltreatment of Palestinians makes the issues impossible to solve.
Even if you argue that Egypt is there to protect Israel's interests, the facts are that this blockade started when, and in response to, Hamas's take over of power in Gaza. Hamas is clearly a big problem here.
I don't know, I tried to look some opinon polls(not always accurate).
According to this opinon poll the majority of Palestinians believe that a 2 state solution is no longer viable.
About waging an armed struggle against Israel there is a majority in Gaza for while in the west bank there is an higher appetite for peace negotiations.
Sources
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-attitudes-about-peace-with-israel
http://pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll 77 English full text September2020.pdf
Israeli's opinion polls
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-polls-regarding-peace-with-the-palestinians
Yes and that's only modern history.
I am old enough (just) to remember the 'Palestine Police', whose members were mainly recruited from the UK and charged with rooting out Jewish Terrorists, prior to the British handover. One of these Policemen, a mate of my uncle (so he claims) in the late seventies caused a sensation when tried to arrest Menachem Begin (then Prime Minster of Israel) who was in the UK on an official visit. The man claimed to have an outstanding warrant for Begins arrest as a terrorist and leader of Irgun( a breakaway group from Haganah) the warrant had apparently never been rescinded.
My uncle never told me what happened to his mate, but Prime Minister Begin did return to Israel, without arrest!
Whatever immigration that was happening prior is not significant in the grand scheme of things as people migrate all the time and this was not a cause for conflict. The real starting point of the Israel-Palestine conflict is the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine.
At the bolded, no, I don't think it was right. But where is the rewriting of history here? I was giving a history of the violence between the two. When Britain settled the Jews in Palestine, the area was sparsely populated and the two sides could have coexisted. You could argue that this was morally wrong to do without adopting a consultative approach, but where does that lead us? What possible solution do you have to this? Are you suggesting that Israel should relocate somewhere else today? Blame Britain for this, but it cannot be undone any more than White South Africans can be or should be expelled from South Africa, white Americans from America, White Australians from Australia, etc.
Do the Palestinians have a right to fight back? Yes! Do the Israelis have a right to fight back? Yes! On both sides, there are justifications for war. But this line of questioning ignores the context in which I introduced this fact. The question I was answering, was one of understanding Israel's belligerent posture. Against an enemy that is fighting back, Israel has adopted a belligerent posture. That's all.
Is there any literature I can get a hold of to better understand the conflict between Israel and Palestine? Feel wholly inadequate, so I'm just reading what others are saying and taking it as gospel at the minute.
Any videos or audiobooks or books would be very helpful.
Thank you.
Any videos or audiobooks or books would be very helpful.
Thank you.