|
I'm just glad Trumpocalypse didn't happen this weekend, don't know about the rest of you.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Well it was pretty apocalyptic for American foreign policy in the Middle East/the entire Muslim World. We done hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
the wars, they will be fought again the holy dove, she will be caught again bought and sold and bought again the dove is never free (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That aint the argument you're making though, you are specifically making the argument that it is right for Israel to expand by conquest and ethnic cleansing right here in the very same post! That absolutely is not my argument. It's about how do we minimize it in the future. quote:Like you understand that I can read the whole post right. Like just because you quote someone else that doesn't turn it into a DM that I can't see, you know that yes? So there is no point trying to tell me you're just calling for more scrutiny on Turkey while you defend Israel's conquests to someone else, because I can see both so I know you are lying to me about what you believe because I can see you saying the exact opposite in the very next paragraph. I wasn't defending Israel's actions, I was explaining how this inconsistent treatment gives them cover to do as they please. I am explicitly on the record, repeatedly as wanting to withdraw from the majority of settlements, wanting to cede most of East Jerusalem, so you're flatly making things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:It was always wrong from my perspective. And I morally condemn each and every conflict borne of territorial conquest. When you say "what about these people who conquered" yes, they were morally wrong, absolutely. But we can't act legally against people who break our moral standards. To act legally we have to first make the law and then enforce it going forward. If Israel did nothing morally wrong then most of the left would just ignore what they are doing because they're much more interested in morality than legality. If they did something morally wrong but not legally wrong we'd still complain but we'd have no legal standing to make demands, and our demands would have to be to the international community getting those laws enshrined. The morality defines position on the subject, the law defines what can be done from that position. VitalSigns posted:Dead Reckoning: Are you arguing that it would be morally okay to reduce Israel back to its pre-1967 borders as long as it's done the manly way through superior force of arms and not cravenly at the negotiate table because the conqueror is always right. I'm not arguing that re-drawing Israel or any other nation's borders through force is inherently right or inherently wrong, but I am saying that, if you were somehow to do so today, it would be foolish in 50 years time to argue that the border needed to be reverted as a moral imperative, irrespective of any developments in the intervening 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's absurd to claim that Israel has an obligation to return all territory it gained since 1948 without A) bothering to explain why seizures before that point shouldn't be reversed, and B) insisting that all other post-'48 seizures are equally invalid. You could easily use the same argument to defend genocide. After all, no one complained when Americans nearly wiped out the Native Americans two hundred years ago, so why insist that 20th-century genocides are wrong? After all, maybe millions died, but that's not as important as logically explaining why genocide started being wrong at a given time and not before!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Claims of "Whataboutism" are both a poor argument (as hypocrisy is a legitimate charge), and not relevant in this case. I have not only not defended the actions, but I've explained how this lack of proportionality destroys their credibility and allows them to be completely ignored. If the UN was calling out all of those cases, then their words would actually mean something instead of being dismissed as a pathetic joke. No, as I think I mentioned in another post it would only be hypocrisy if the same person expressed an opinion explicitly not condemning, say, Russia's actions in Crimea. It is patently absurd to call out people for hypocrisy when they talk about an issue on the basis of them not talking about some other issues (and that's even assuming they don't actually talk about those other issues, which you can't really know from this thread - which, in case you forgot, happens to be about Israel). As for the UN, honestly you aren't wrong about Israel receiving disproportionate focus. But that isn't in any way a defense of Israel. It's only a condemnation for not focusing as much on other similar issues, which is completely separate from the topic of whether the condemnation of Israel is warranted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You could easily use the same argument to defend genocide. After all, no one complained when Americans nearly wiped out the Native Americans two hundred years ago, so why insist that 20th-century genocides are wrong? After all, maybe millions died, but that's not as important as logically explaining why genocide started being wrong at a given time and not before! No one is trying to somehow reverse genocide years afterwards though, so it's not really a relevant comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No one is trying to somehow reverse genocide years afterwards though, so it's not really a relevant comparison. just some light ethnic cleansing just a skosh
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If conquest before a certain point is morally OK, you have to logically explain why that division exists, and then be consistent about it, two things I suspect you are not capable of. So your argument is that the only consistent morality is one that hasn't changed or advanced since Neolithic times? Are you...sure you want to make this argument? Even just from a practical perspective, do you think it would be good for Israel if larger more powerful states started treating tiny ones the way bronze age empires did? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Again, you're missing the point. Plus, people are conflating the wrong with the remedy. For example, it is pretty uncontroversial that slavery is wrong, and was always wrong, even though it was a common feature of bronze age societies and was legal in the United States until relatively recently. It would make little sense to argue that slavery wasn't wrong until December 18, 1865. However, the question of the appropriate remedy for that wrong is not settled. (I'm sure someone is furiously typing a, "but this is like if Israel was keeping slaves today" comparison, but land isn't people, and keep in mind the original proposition was that reversion of all land conquered in 1967 was morally necessary because it had been taken by force in 1967, not because of the ongoing suffering in the Palestinian territories.) Again, if you want to claim that Israel is morally obligated to vacate all the land it conquered in 1967, but not the land it seized in 1948, you need to explain that distinction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Okay let's pick the whichever remedy for past crimes results in the least amount of harm happening as a result. While the conquests in 1949 were undoubtedly illegal, morally wrong, and accompanied by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, reversing them would require another round of ethnic cleansing of millions of people, most of whom were not complicit in the original crime because they were either born after it happened or arrived as a result of being ethnically cleansed from their own birthplaces. So it would be bad to try to fix this now. On the other hand, let's take say settlements established in recent decades. Removing them would be relocating people who are mostly guilty of illegal actions, and also would enable a country of millions of people to have a country with functional borders and achieve freedom and self-determination. So this would be good to do. That's how you can apply one remedy to a crime someone committed five minutes ago, without going all the way back to 11,000 BC retroactively righting every wrong without regard for the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay let's pick the whichever remedy for past crimes results in the least amount of harm happening as a result. More to the point, your post is a full throttle embrace of practicality and preventing future harms over morality and remedying past wrongs, which is the angle I was going for with respect to the original proposal. Dead Reckoning posted:The date when a country kicked the previous sovereign off a piece of land is immaterial in determining the final status of the territory and must give way to the facts on the ground. It sounds like we agree: in terms of the territory Israel gets to keep in a final agreement, how and when Israel acquired that territory is irrelevant to its right to it, and should give way to whatever border can be reasonably implemented and is likely to result in a durable resolution that can be implemented and maintained with the least amount of bloodshed possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
I would disagree that how and why Israel acquired a piece of territory is irrelevant to its right to it. I'd say that in some circumstances that immorality of its original acquisition could be overruled by greater harms that would result from overturning it. Overturning the 1967 borders would cause much less harm than overturning the 1949 borders, so it's possible to make a morally consistent argument for one and not the other. Completely ignoring history and only considering the "facts on the ground" has obvious problems: would you support ending sanctions on Russia and unconditionally recognizing their conquest of Crimea because their soldiers happen to be there (probably not). With regard to Israel, if all you care about are "facts on the ground" well tomorrow the USA could change its mind and arm and finance a Palestenian reconquest of territory and then those would be the "facts on the ground" so you're actually unable to articulate a moral case against overturning the 1967 borders because if we did then logically you would have to support it. And only caring about "facts on the ground" has another obvious problem: if one of the parties is, say, acting in bad faith then it could disregard the peace process and continue a campaign of conquest and settlement, and every year insist that it be awarded more and more territory because now the facts on the ground are different, and next year they'll be different still. So the obvious incentive is for conquerors to conquer as much as possible, this is clearly not a recipe for reducing war and ethnic cleansing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
I find it pretty amusing that any sane and practical person understands that any possible resolution goes through demarcation and the removal of intrusive settlement blocks yet even two people who 100% agree on these notions could vehemently yell abuse at one another due to insignificant tonal differences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
The why matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The why matters.  Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's absurd to claim that Israel has an obligation to return all territory it gained since 1948 without A) bothering to explain why seizures before that point shouldn't be reversed, and B) insisting that all other post-'48 seizures are equally invalid. A) If the people on that land want the seizures to be reversed then morally they should be. B) All other seizures after 1948 are equally invalid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
What's happening guys? Are there any stories besides these: Explosives accident or drone strike: https://www.rt.com/news/412842-palestine-israel-drone-gaza/ Rockets and counter-strikes: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-strikes-2-hamas-targets-after-gaza-rocket-fire/ Guard stabbed in heart / effigies: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...p-a8102096.html 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
those loving apartheid racist savages:- https://twitter.com/theIMEU/status/940661865604177922
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Western leaders: "Israel has the right to defend itself (from little children)."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
You might make people sad.   Is better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Western leaders: "Israel has the right to defend itself (from little children)." Israel is the national equivalent of American police in full riot gear executing a man on his knees, begging for his life, on camera, and then saying "I was afraid he was going to attack me sir" to the jury and getting acquitted.* *an actual thing that happened in America, for those that don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Yes, the Palestinians are very lucky they have to deal with the idf rather than American police or Saudi security forces. Good observations ya'll. In the states Elor Azaria would have been acquited instantly and in Saudia he'd probably get to touch the magic orb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Well by Saudi standards we are really quite good -The only """democracy""" in the Middle East
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:-The only """democracy""" in the Middle East That's Lebanon. This thread is about Israel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
I think that both Israel and Palestine have very, very bad karma with roots going back 100 years since Balfour, and equally deserve whatever comes to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I think that both Israel and Palestine have very, very bad karma with roots going back 100 years since Balfour, and equally deserve whatever comes to them. Go do your homework.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
quote:While the conquests in 1949 were undoubtedly illegal, morally wrong, and accompanied by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, reversing them would require another round of ethnic cleansing of millions of people, most of whom were not complicit in the original crime because they were either born after it happened or arrived as a result of being ethnically cleansed from their own birthplaces. So it would be bad to try to fix this now. Why do you think that allowing people to return to their homeland would require ethnic cleansing? Israel has showed itself capable of absorbing large influxes of immigrants/refugees in the past, many of whom spoke hardly any Hebrew and had totally different cultural habits than the pre-existing Israelis. Moreover, over 85 percent of the land to which the refugees would be returning is currently sparsely inhabited. The opposition to the Right of Return isn't based on fear about some imaginary mass expulsion of Israeli Jews; it's based on the simple sentiment that "we(Israelis) don't want no more stinking Arabs here" and such a sentiment, because it is inherently racist, shouldn't be granted any legitimacy, and it certainly should not overshadow the very real legal and moral right to return home of those who were forced out of their homes at gunpoint for the crime of being Arabs. The real question of course is whether Israel will be willing or able to restrain its fanatical and violent elements and prevent them from attacking the Palestinian arrivals and fomenting another civil war or Nakba but that is a risk with any remotely just settlement (just look at Oslo, even though it was heavily biased against the Palestinians.) quote:On the other hand, let's take say settlements established in recent decades. Removing them would be relocating people who are mostly guilty of illegal actions, and also would enable a country of millions of people to have a country with functional borders and achieve freedom and self-determination. So this would be good to do. Except that no Israeli offer has ever included an actual Palestinian state with control over its own borders, its airspace and its foreign affairs nor is it conceivable that the current Oslo paradigm will ever produce such an offer (at least without the threat of international sanctions against Israel). Even the so-called "dove camp" is unwilling to sacrifice the Jordan Valley, much less East Jerusalem and the surrounding settlements; allowing an actual Palestinian state was never on the table. quote:That's how you can apply one remedy to a crime someone committed five minutes ago, without going all the way back to 11,000 BC retroactively righting every wrong without regard for the consequences. 1948 is not 11, 000 BC. It's still within living memory and it's after international laws were passed forbidding ethnic cleansing and recognizing human rights. Palestinians still own the keys to their old homes; they still tell their family members stories of what the homeland was like before the ethnic cleansing and they have a deep and continuing attachment to the land and their particular region(telling someone from Acre that he can only return to Ramallah is like telling a Galician that he can never go home but he can settle in Andalusia instead.) For the millions of Palestinians who languish in refugee camps, this is far from ancient history, especially since every day that Israel continues to refuse to allow them to return home in accordance with international law is another day that Israel's program of ethnic cleansing is in continuous force. I mean, come on: everyone should agree that ethnic cleansing is wrong, that no nation has the right to safeguard ethnic/religious demographics achieved through ethnic cleansing by denying rights to the victims of said ethnic cleansing, and that the rights of the victims of ethnic cleansing trump the conveniences or racist preferences of the perpetrating nation. FreshlyShaven fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Why do you think that allowing people to return to their homeland would require ethnic cleansing? Israel has showed itself capable of absorbing large influxes of immigrants/refugees in the past, many of whom spoke hardly any Hebrew and had totally different cultural habits than the pre-existing Israelis. Moreover, over 85 percent of the land to which the refugees would be returning is currently sparsely inhabited. The opposition to the Right of Return isn't based on fear about some imaginary mass expulsion of Israeli Jews; it's based on the simple sentiment that "we(Israelis) don't want no more stinking Arabs here" and such a sentiment, because it is inherently racist, shouldn't be granted any legitimacy, and it certainly should not overshadow the very real legal and moral right to return home of those who were forced out of their homes at gunpoint for the crime of being Arabs. The real question of course is whether Israel will be willing or able to restrain its fanatical and violent elements and prevent them from attacking the Palestinian arrivals and fomenting another civil war or Nakba but that is a risk with any remotely just settlement (just look at Oslo, even though it was heavily biased against the Palestinians.) Yes, and you would also have to deal with the expulsion of jews from the Arab nations about the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries After watching videos from both parties, I think the forum name is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Yes, and you would also have to deal with the expulsion of jews from the Arab nations about the same time. Why exactly would we have to do that? The Palestinians are not responsible for the cowardly and unjust actions of the Iraqi or Jordanian or Yemeni or Egyptian (etc.) governments, especially since the PLO and other Palestinian factions had always opposed those expulsions. I support pressuring the Arab governments who ethnically cleansed or otherwise grossly mistreated their Jewish populations to apologize for the expulsions/mistreatment and to offer compensation and citizenship to the expelled and their descendants. However, a) these efforts have nothing to do with ending Israeli apartheid or fighting for the Palestinian Right of Return since the Palestinians are not the perpetrators of these acts and b) the Middle Eastern Jews themselves have little interest in their Right of Return; when Israel signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, Israel never demanded that the latter governments offer citizenship to Jews of Egyptian or Jordanian descent, presumably because they felt it unimportant(they would have had no problem getting both governments to agree, given the small numbers and considering that both countries made far greater concessions, had they actually pushed it) and felt no political pressure to secure such rights from their own Mizrahi population. When Iraq granted the Right of Return to the Jews it had previously ethnically cleansed and their descendants, how many Iraqi Jews left Israel to claim their new Iraqi citizenship(hint: not many.) In other words, you're basically claiming that it's OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians because other Arab governments also did evil things. That's inane and slightly racist; blaming Palestinians for the actions of the Iraqi government (which Palestinian representatives opposed) simply because they're Arabs is a form of racial collective responsibility or predicated on a belief that Arabs are some undifferentiated mass. Moreover, it's pretty vile to use a crime against humanity by nation A as a justification for ethnically cleansing innocent civilians belonging to nation B.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
The problem is that the Arab majority in this fantasy one state solution would be just as liable to eventually turn into an antisemitic hellhole as nearly any other country in history with a significant Jewish population. Look what happened in Lebanon, where an influx of just 30,000 Palestinian refugees turned the entire country on its head and plunged it into a 15 year civil war where many, many more people died than in the entire century-plus I/P conflict-- and the Palestinians suffered for it, too. Add in the fact that Arabs have a historical pattern of oppressing the Jewish minority––I will be happy to expound on this for anyone who asks––and that the Palestinian Arabs, specifically, were very oppressive to Jews before 1948, and that the culture has become even more antisemitic in recent decades for self-righteous reasons, and you can see how this becomes a problem. The oppressed can turn into oppressors very easily-- it happened after 1948 or 1967 in Israel/Palestine, it happened after 1971 in Syria with Assad and the Alawis, it happened with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Palestinians were once oppressors, they have become oppressed, and foreign meddling could easily make them the oppressors again. Basically, if you're a One State Solution person, you're engaging in a comparable kind of wild-eyed, naive, ignorant nation building that George Bush engaged in in Iraq––except Israel isn't nearly 1/10 as evil. You're proposing a major overhaul of the most stable country in the region, and ignoring the fact that your quixotic scheme would be happening during a time of drastic instability on its borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Yes, and you would also have to deal with the expulsion of jews from the Arab nations about the same time. One could guess that most of them will not want to leave Israel to return to places such as Iraq, Libya, or Yemen. Regardless, for any of them that would actually want that, the possibility should be open, but this cannot be part of the negotiations with Palestinians since they are neither responsible for this, nor have they any power to force these various countries to comply. Unless the USA would be willing to provide sufficient military assistance to Palestine that they would become capable of expeditionary campaigns in these various countries, so as to have a way to enforce compliance through the credible threat of the use of force. I am not opposed to that plan, but Israel might not agree with it, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:The problem is that the Arab majority in this fantasy one state solution would be just as liable to eventually turn into an antisemitic hellhole as nearly any other country in history with a significant Jewish population. first off you're a loving idiotic piece of poo poo lying racist who's literally spewing nonsense, second, you're absolutely wrong in everything you're saying. I really suggest you take back everything you're saying before we start arguing and I easily loving annihilate you on the historical facts. Third, you're ultra racist because you assume Palestinians (who are identified by nelson Mandela as their partners in the struggle against apartheid) is the same type of person as the wild eyed colonial racists who decided to kill and oppress the Palestinians. Take a hint and never open your loving mouth on things you have no clue on. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
quote:The problem is that the Arab majority in this fantasy one state solution would be just as liable to eventually turn into an antisemitic hellhole as nearly any other country in history with a significant Jewish population. In other words, we should ignore Palestinians' human rights because they're antisemitic beasts. This is another version of the "tiger by the tail" justification (with a bonus serving of racist stereotypes.) In fact, "The Palestinians were once oppressors, they have become oppressed, and foreign meddling could easily make them the oppressors again." is about the best example I've heard of that argument since Jefferson used it as a justification for slavery. quote:Look what happened in Lebanon, where an influx of just 30,000 Palestinian refugees turned the entire country on its head and plunged it into a 15 year civil war where many, many more people died than in the entire century-plus I/P conflict-- and the Palestinians suffered for it, too. 1) Lebanon and Israel are not remotely comparable for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that Israel has a well-established and strong government which is not merely a battleground for different sectarian groups. There's also the fact that there would not be any Palestinian group operating a state within a state because with the end of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, Palestinian aspirations would have a democratic and peaceful outlet. 2) The history of Lebanon belies your claim that allowing Palestinians to return home would mean persecution of Jews (South Africa is a much better example); the Lebanese Jews generally enjoyed good relations with the Palestinians (you find plenty of accounts of PLO fighters guarding synagogues at the outbreak of the Civil War before the Jewish population fled carbomb city to live in a stable 1st world country.) quote:Add in the fact that Arabs have a historical pattern of oppressing the Jewish minority quote:–and that the Palestinian Arabs, specifically, were very oppressive to Jews before 1948, and that the culture has become even more antisemitic in recent decades for self-righteous reasons, and you can see how this becomes a problem. And yet Palestinians living in Israel are far less likely to hold bigoted views towards their Jewish neighbors than Jewish Israelis are to hold bigoted views towards Palestinians. Also, your claim that Palestinians have a long history of antisemitism prior to 48 is pretty simplistic at best: mass antipathy towards Jews only broke out after it became clear that the Jewish arrivals were not pilgrims but colonists intent on creating a nation from which Palestinians would be excluded on Palestinian land and it developed alongside systematic racism on the part of the Zionist settlers, who would expel Arabs from any land they purchased and maintained a policy of Jewish-only labor (ie, discriminating against Arab job-seekers). This is like justifying South African apartheid by claiming that black Africans are naturally bigoted towards whites. No self-respecting nation would allow itself to be colonized and any colonizing power which treats the natives with contempt and racism (ie, any colonizing power) is going to provoke backlash and hatred not just at the organization itself but also at the people (be they Europeans, Americans, Japanese, whites or Jews) associated with that colonial enterprise. It also leaves out the fact that in the early stages of the ethnic cleansing in 47/48, cities and villages with peaceful coexistence between Jews and Muslims and Christians (like Lydda or Haifa) were considered priority targets, precisely in order to sabotage any kind of cross-religion solidarity. quote:Basically, if you're a One State Solution person, you're engaging in a comparable kind of wild-eyed, naive, ignorant nation building that George Bush engaged in in Iraq––except Israel isn't nearly 1/10 as evil. So demanding an end to ethnic cleansing is akin to invading a foreign country on forged evidence? What? For one thing, allowing people to return to their homeland isn't an "invasion" or a military assault (and your conflation of the two certainly says a lot about you); it's an act of basic decency and is demanded by international law. The Palestinians don't want to massacre or expel or attack their Jewish neighbors; they want recognition that they were victims of a crime and they want to return home, begin farming their fields or searching for work, contribute to their neighborhood and nation and otherwise be a member of society. They are not thirsting for Jew blood; they're thirsting to see the graves of their ancestors, to see where they were born and to live peacefully as equal citizens. quote:You're proposing a major overhaul of the most stable country in the region, For one thing, the Israeli government's stability is one reason why South Africa is a much better point of comparison than is Lebanon. Secondly, stability is not an excuse for racism or for committing crimes against humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Why exactly would we have to do that? The Palestinians are not responsible for the cowardly and unjust actions of the Iraqi or Jordanian or Yemeni or Egyptian (etc.) governments, especially since the PLO and other Palestinian factions had always opposed those expulsions. Okay, let's talk about actual discrimination against Jews in Palestine. Once, Jewish culture featured exquisite and unique, vibrantly colorful fashion. Think Joseph. In the land currently called Israel/Palestine, Jews were banned by local rulers from wearing nicer clothing than Arabs, including a ban on all silk and dyes for their clothing. This effectively destroyed a fundamental part of Jewish culture, as dire circumstances in the Diaspora also were prohibitive for Jews to continue dressing in their native attire. Only the Tallit, which features uninterrupted stripes symbolizing time without beginning or end, and yarmulkes have fully survived to the modern era. Nor were Jews allowed to ride camels or horses (big deal before cars) because it would place them physically higher than an Arab. As elsewhere in the Islamic world, Jews were forced to pay extra taxes in the form of the Jizya, with rates fluctuating according to the ruler's whims, and the tax collector would almost always slap the Jew in the face when collecting these. To get around this, the Jewish communities pooled all their tax money and sent out a local leader to hand over the payment on their behalf, and he would take one for the team. Children would often throw stones at Jews for fun. As second class citizens, Jews were not allowed to retaliate or even complain about this, for fear of beheading. Conversion to Islam was financially incentivized. Someone who converted to Islam would be given a small sum of money; someone who converted to Judaism would be fined a large sum of money. Jews were often prevented from visiting their holy places, such as the Cave of Patriarchs, for decades or centuries at a time, because the Muslims decided they were rightfully theirs. Jewish women would be sold as wives to Muslim men, and forced to convert to Islam. This has a long and disturbing history. The fact that this is used as basis for claims of indigeneity specifically to Israel/Palestine is particularly disturbing (I am not native American just because my great-great-great-grandmother was Sacagewea. This isn't how indigeneity works) (Before anyone asks, Palestinians *are* indigenous to other parts of the Levant, such as ancient Phoenicia) Early Zionism featured Jews immigrating to the area and buying farmland from Syrian and Turkish absentee landlords, letting go of the Palestinian workers. The Ottoman government took weak measures to counteract this, but the ineffective bureaucracy was easily foiled. Anger that Jewish immigrants were coming to Palestine and 'taking our jobs' persisted through the British Mandate era. In 1920, the Nebi Musa Riots happened. Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseyni gave a speech demanding that Jewish immigration be banned, that Jews be banned from purchasing land, and recent immigrants be deported. A violent anti-Jewish riot followed, where Palestinians chanted such charming slogans as "Palestine is our land, Jews are our dogs!" and "Al Yahud Khaybar" and attacked and killed Jews until the violence was suppressed by the British. The Balfour Declaration is infamous, promising a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. But this was a meaningless and non-binding. Due to pressure from crucial Arab oil allies, the White Paper shortly followed, which met several of the Palestinians' demands, including severely restricting Jewish immigration (this was not lifted until well after the Holocaust) and banning Jews from buying land in certain areas, as well as retconning the Balfour Declaration to mean a non-state homeland, like the way Chicago is the home of the deep dish pizza. The White Paper's importance and actual effect on history is ignored by Palestinian advocates. This discrimination was demanded by the Palestinians and enforced by the British. No matter who was in power, the Palestinians were no magical exception to the maxim that goyim have been historically, really loving terrible to Jews. Nameless_Steve fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:camels or horses (big deal before cars) hmmmm gonna need you to expand on this
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
For the record, I'm in favor of limited right of return combined with recompensation and patriation to their host countries. I'm just saying things are not so simple as letting them take "their" land back and historical patterns of prejudice, combined with current attitudes, have to be acknowledged. You cannot haphazardly subject Jews to the kind of conditions that could possibly facilitate another genocide–– we won't survive another, and the international community has always been absolutely terrible at preventing or punishing genocides. Not all Palestinians are Hamas supporters, but what would happen if Hamas or a Hamas-like party came to power in 1SS Palestine? Crazier things have happened. Look at our current US President and the Western World's descent back into fascism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:hmmmm gonna need you to expand on this There's this wonderful book called "One People: The Story of the Eastern Jews" that chronicles the cultures of the various Mizrahim across the regions, from Morocco to Bukharia. It has dense text and gorgeous photographs. It also describes in detail the heartbreaking kind of antisemitism they faced, which was not quite so bad as the Ashkenazim got at the hands of the friggin' Europeans, but still pretty drat bad. I could go to the library and take some photographs of the pages, if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 21:28
|
|