Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
This is another failing of conservative comedy: mistaking intentional wrongness for wit.
Do you now have to agree with every single stupid claim from the far left not to be "conservative"?
This is your 3rd attempt at the same punchline in a thread about people being displaced and blown up by a hostile government. I think you've made my point for me. Good day.
Still confused how that would make me a conservative? And coming from "punchline"-guy I find this highly Ironic.
The problem is that the annexations have gone too deep. And realistically any workable two-state solution would require a lot of concessions from Israel. Which it is never going to accept. Especially not with someone like Netanyahu ruling Israel. The only possible solution would be a federalised one state solution with full citizenship rights being given to the Palestinians. But that's probably also not an option for demographic reasons and how this could impact Israel's political landscape. In essence the twenty years during which the situation just kept on rotting while no one tried to actually reach a peaceful two state solution has lead to a point of no return.At this point it's pretty much impossible for Israel to make a trade-off for occupied land in Gaza, Westbank, the status of Jerusalem and the refugee problem that would be acceptable to Palestinians. What 'should be' and what is actual reality lies so far apart that the window of opportunity for a two state solution has closed. I see it only deteriorating further from here with increasingly violent incursions, terrorist attacks, Jewish/Arab unrest in Israel itself and the Palestinian government corrupted as it becomes even more the donor state of Arab regimes that want to destroy Israel and have an active interest in perpetuating the conflict.
I think the last opportunity for any kind of peaceful co-existence went out the window when the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan fell through. It's a shame too though, as I think ultimately the dealbreaker was Jerusalem. People with orthodox religions just can't make concessions and without concessions you can't have peace.
The Ayalon-Nusseibeh Plan - The “People's Choice”
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
The countries you mention are Iranian proxies so they aren't exactly bombed for the lols. Hezbollah in particular is constantly firing missiles into civilian areas. Israel can hardly let such aggression be ignored. The Persians/shia muslims most likely hate the jews even more than the Arabs. That hardliners such as Netanyahu have now taken control also hasn't come out of thin air or as some sort of desire to 'crush Palestinians'. Rather it's also the result that more moderate leaders like Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have tried to find a workable two state solution that the Palestinians also continuously tried to sabotage with non-stop suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, children included.
The Israel/Palestine conflict have arrived at the point of no return but this definitely wasn't the case two, three decades ago. And the blame for that can definitely not be put all on Israel.
I have a question. Can any one tell me what the GOP is so offended about by Biden's full throated support of Israel. They keep saying he's not doing enough, but aren't clear on what they want. He's already praising Israelis killing Palestinians
Are they pushing for Biden to invade Gaza etc? Completely tear up any peace process? Say that a Palestinian state will never be a thing? (Or is it just an SocDem thing because they have an opinion?)
Like, I can't even imagine Trump saying those things
Are they pushing for Biden to invade Gaza etc? Completely tear up any peace process? Say that a Palestinian state will never be a thing? (Or is it just an SocDem thing because they have an opinion?)
Like, I can't even imagine Trump saying those things
More the latter.
Israel aren't saints, but here's the facts as they stand:
-The Iron Dome can intercept about 80% of Hamas's rockets. The other 20% have to land somewhere, and that somewhere covers the entirety of Israel.
-Hamas uses civilians as human shields. As in, it specifically sets up rocket batteries near or on civilian structures, and prevents those civilians from leaving.
Hypothetically, yes, Israel could simply not carry out retaliatory air strikes, but the alternative is to live under a constant missile barrage (or, specifically, in underground bunkers).
Hamas isn't interested in sovereignty. Its goal is to create an Islamic state over the region.
Hamas is to Israel what ISIS was to Iraq. Fatah is another story.
That isn't an argument in favour of Hamas.
Hamas not only uses civilians as human shields, it outright murders them.
I've seen the Russia thing thrown around, it's a misreading of history. There's an idea that Israel was specifically created as recompense for the Holocaust, but there was already conflict in the region beforehand.
Basically, the situation is this:
-Jews are scattered by the Romans.
-Arabs move in/conquer the region.
-Ottoman Empire forms, along the way, the idea of a Palestinian identity forms (note: this isnt' the same as there being a country or nation of Palestine, simply a group of people considering them as Palestinian - basically like the Kurds having a distinct identity, but not having a nation-state, but rather living in them).
-19th century comes, Zionism begins to form, where Jews in Europe begin moving to their historic homeland. At the same time, Arabs move into the region. Tensions begin to spring up between the Jews and the Arabs/Palestinians.
-WWI occurs, Ottoman Empire collapses. Area becomes British Mandated Palestine.
-Violence gets worse between Jews and Palestinians, as both want the land.
-UN partition plan occurs, dividing Mandated Palestine into two states - Israel, and Palestine. Israel accepts the terms of the agreement, Palestine doesn't.
-Surrounding Arab countries launch a war against Israel (note: this is literally a war of extermination). 1947 war occurs, namely what Palestine calls the "Nakba." In the process, Palestinians are either expelled from Israeli territory, others voluntarily leave. At the same time, Jews in Palestinian territory are similarly expelled or flee. 1947 war ends with Israel the victor, and having expaned beyond its boundaries.
-Dual refugee crisis. Palestinians who fled Israel are denied the right of return, while Arab countries refuse to give Palestinians citizenship. Similarly, Arab countries carry out ethnic cleansing of their Jewish populations. Some Jews voluntarily leave, others are forced out. The result is that the no. of Palestinians expelled in the Nakba, and the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries, is roughly the same. More Jews immigrate to Israel. Its population swells, while Judaism is erradicated from the Middle East.
-Violence continues in and around Israel, as surrounding Arab countries refuse to recognise it.
I could go on, but point is, creating a Jewish state somewhere else wouldn't have solved the problem. Or, rather, it might have, if we assume that the Jews would have been driven out of their homeland (again). By all means, condemn Jewish settlements, but the violence didn't start in 1947, nor did it end.
The surrounding Arab countries have refused to give Palestinians citizenship, so how would they thrive?
No, the UN created Palestine alongside Israel. Prior to that, there was British Mandate Palestine, and before that, a region of the Ottoman Empire whose people considered themselves Palestinians. But Israel didn't "create" Palestine. Both were created at the same time, only what resulted was the Arabs launching a war of extermination, and Israel expanding beyond the UN borders.
That was the original plan. Then the 1947 war happened, followed by the war in 1967, the latter of which resulted in Israel getting control over the city.
Jersualem's kind of a crazy city in that places of worship are literally built on top of each other. So, for instance, the Al Asqua Mosque is built over a Jewish holy site. Jews are allowed to walk around the mosque, but aren't allow to pray outside the mosque, and doing so can get you arrested.
The Trail of Tears is arguably a genocidal act, but it's not the best analogy to what happened, as Palestinians were expelled from Israel, Jews from Palestine, and Jews expelled from the Middle East. The Jews are made Israeli citizens, while Palestinians are simultaniously denied right of return, while the ME countries refuse to make them citizens of their own countries.
It's a fact of life that makes me consider things from the Israeli perspective. Until fairly recently, pretty much every country in the region wants them wiped off the face of the map. Assuming that happens, and Hamas's goals are realized, what then? Well, the ME would refuse to take them, so the options are pretty much to be persecuted (again), or flee (again).
Paradoxically, there's always Europe (again).
If Israel actually targetted Hezbollah effectively, I'd agree. Unfortunately, back in 2006 Israel also amused itself demolishing substantial quantities of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and various residental areas, including large amounts of territory Hezbollah does not control.
Maybe they'd be less inclined to bomb people if Israel wasn't squatting on large parts of their land.
I mean, this is the joke: a people whose land is occupied by a foreign power are condemned for fighting for it. So I guess the French / Dutch / Czech resistances and Soviet partisans in the 1940s were the bad guys, too, and deserved the Nazis burning down their villages and shooting the inhabitants. If only they learnt to do what they were told, maybe they could have been allowed their countries back. The Americans make movies like Red Dawn praising their civilians for fighting off enemy invasion. Yet they get incredibly pissy about the concept when the civilians fighting off foreign invaders say "Allahu Akbar".
The other factor of course is that the Palestinians are a people without a strong central government infested by many paramilitary / terrorist organisations. The convenient argument here is that if the Palestinian central government representing millions of people negotiates a peace, it gets invalidated because a few thousand guys in Islamic Jihad don't want peace.
Palestinians are able to emigrate, gain residency and eventually citizenship by the normal systems of naturalisation of whichever country they move to.
What the surrounding Arab nations are wary of is taking a massive load of Palestinians in bulk and just handing them citizenship. Jordan tried that, and it caused problems.
It's not meant to be an analogy. I'm trying to find Generals line for genocide so I can understand their position
Also, committing genocide because your worried they might do a genocide is faulty logic that got them in this position in the first place. Trying to pretend all Palestinians are Hamas is also faulty logic. If they cared about going after those genocidal Hamas, they would ONLY go for them.
Lastly, I'm always going to be anti-genocide. I dont care if its Boris, Motubu, Biden, Jinping, ScoMo, JFK, Erdogan, Netenyahu, Pinochet, Ghandi, Mandela or the fucking pope. if you're genociding, I'm against you. I know, I'm weird like that
Ok, but wasn’t that because Jordan was a monarchy at the time and the ones fastest to take up that offer were various radical leftists groups who proceeded to try and overthrow the monarchy? I don’t really blame the idea if that’s the case, moreso the outdated model of government.
That's highly debatable.
Some countries are more forgiving than others (e.g. Jordan is more forgiving than Lebanon), but many Palestinians in the region are effectively stateless. In part because of:
a) There isn't a Palestinian state, so there's the argument of "how can you be a refugee from X, if X doesn't exist?"
b) Israel occupies Palestine, so it's Israel's problem.
c) As long as there's a Palestinian refugee crisis, we can use it as a bargaining chip.
Genocide's already occurred in the region, at least if we equate genocide with forced removal. It happened in 1947 with the Palestinians (and to a lesser extent, Israeleis), and happened afterwards with the Jews. Hamas stated goal is the same goal as the surrounding Arab states in the 1947 war.
You're right, Hamas isn't the same as the PLO or Fatah. It doesn't have any direct influence over Palestinians in the West Bank, whose lives are getting progressively worse. So on one hand, you have Israel, who's steadily encroaching into occupied Palestine, with some dreaming of a Jewish state that covers all of former Judaea. On the other, you have Hamas and various supporters, who dream of a Muslim state that covers all of Palestine, and with the Jews gone.
It's part of why the Ughyr analogy doesn't hold up either, as the Ughyrs don't have the goal of wiping China off the map, nor is China surrounded by countries who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth. Similarly why the SA analogy doesn't hold up, because if Mandela expelled all Afrikaans from the country, they at least had a homeland they could fall back on. In contrast, if Israel was erradicated and the Jews forced to leave, they don't have the same luxury.
I haven't personally seen any Republican particularly critical of Biden's public response to the last few days. The criticisms I have seen of the Biden administration from the right over this matter are things in the period leading up to this: a) there are empty diplomatic positions in the region that haven't been filled yet (which seems like an unfair criticism, there are always unfilled positions early in a term) and b) they chose to release $235 million in aid to Palestine that had been blocked a few years ago, and 1 month later war is breaking out. Drawing a direct line between the money and the rockets is a bit of a stretch, but the Gaza Strip at least is governed by Hamas, and Biden wants to "restore credible engagement" with them, and their engagement tends to be rockets, so there is definitely a perspective where it looks like changes in US policy helped push this.
Oh, fun fact, here's a little nugget of information on the Sheikh Jarrah situation. The buildings from which Palestinians are being evicted were originally Jewish buildings in the 19th century, but after Jordan annexed East Jerusalem, the Jews living there were expelled and filled with Arab tenents. Now, after Israel controls East Jerusalem post-1967, Arab tenents are being expelled and Jewish tenents are moving in.
So, who has legitimate residency?
Microcosm, thy name is Jerusalem.
So, who has legitimate residency?
Microcosm, thy name is Jerusalem.
Well, the Isreali Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the Jewish ownership was legitimate, but also that the Arab tenants were protected residents that couldn't be evicted if they paid their rent, and they chose not to. Not that it's really all that important in the larger picture, the protests turned riots against Isreali police started like a month ago about completely different things, and there's little reason to believe the escalation to conflict on the Temple Mount wouldn't have happened if a few tenants weren't evicted. Sheikh Jarrah only became a rallying point because the protests leading up to the clash at al-Aqsa were actually largely about covid-restrictions on Ramadan celebrations, and the internet at large is more sympathetic to evicted tenants than people protesting against covid restrictions.Oh, fun fact, here's a little nugget of information on the Sheikh Jarrah situation. The buildings from which Palestinians are being evicted were originally Jewish buildings in the 19th century, but after Jordan annexed East Jerusalem, the Jews living there were expelled and filled with Arab tenents. Now, after Israel controls East Jerusalem post-1967, Arab tenents are being expelled and Jewish tenents are moving in.
So, who has legitimate residency?
Microcosm, thy name is Jerusalem.
they're doing ethnic cleansing in east jerusalem, Gaza is an open-air prison, and lynch mobs are targeting Arabs in multiple cities with the apparent blessing of the Israeli state.
Yeah... no. There are DEFINITELY Uyghur who want that. The Uyghur done LOTS of bombing against China. (Also, a bunch of these Uygurs took part in the Syrian Civil War, just like some Australian Muslims went over there to fight. There's like a over a million of them, of course there are going to be some terrorists) BUT, as with the IDF and Hamas, this group is a small part of the population. Not pointing this out is criminal if you're going to try to justify murder. Using train bombing as a way to round up a whole demographic is, over a million people, is just criminal
Like, I try my best to dissociate Netanyahu from most of Israel, because this isn't removal of Palestinians is that popular. Blaming this on all Israelis is just as stupid. And I point out that Netanyahu isnt even the craziest politician, as there are plenty of Ultra Conservatives in Israel who want this conflict to be definitive. Netanyahu is placating those guys to make sure they dont murder everyone. Because this is all fucked up.
Lastly, I didnt mean all those people i listed WERE committing genocide (eg. Mandala.) I was trying to state that I don't care which country or leader you are, I'm against any genocidal tendencies (eg. IF Mandala pulled a Zimbabwe, Id be against him.)