There are no Jews to blame, so naturally the anti-Semites who are going bonkers over Gaza have no opinions on the matter.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Israel/Hamas conflict
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
More likely it just doesn’t fit into their world view of dividing up the world into oppressor / colonizer and oppressed / natives. The latter world view is really just another religion, another myth, that groups tell themselves to give themselves an identity and to help them process and simplify complex history and moral and political issues. It most commonly starts in the second year of college and most people grow out of it with additional education. For some it takes a long time and some never do grow out of it.
The World is a big place. Surely some country would be willing to adopt all those wonderful, but suffering Palestinians. If not, perhaps someone who supports them, would explain why not.
Bret Stephens makes a well reasoned argument for why the best and most workable path forward might be an "Arab Mandate for Palestine":
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
It's worse that that as far as the British actions. First they severely curtailed Jewish immigration TO LAND OWNED BY JEWs in the ME. Jewish people had been purchasing land from Arabs (at inflated prices) for decades. They did so knowing that those turned away would likely return to occupied Europe and death at the hands of the Nazis. Next, they trained and armed the Islamic nations that encircled Israel. They provided them with the latest British armor and warplanes. When the armies of 5 different Islamic nations invaded Israel and waged war to exterminate all Israel Jews, the British and the US enforced an arms embargo preventing the people of Israel from getting the weapons necessary to prevent their genocide. The fact that Israel survived is little less than a miracle.
In the early 1900s the numbers were far higher (Jews in Islamic nations). By the mid 1940s, Islamic nations had been heavily influenced by their coordination and cooperation with the Nazis. Nazis fleeing Germany after the war populated a number of Islamic nations as well. Nearly all started pogroms against Jewish people, driving them from their homes, forcing them to abandon their properties and flee those nations. A great many Jewish refugees from Islamic nations immigrated to Israel.
The BBC is as anti Israel as you can get before you descend in the murkier world of gutter journalism. The other idea the BBC is promoting is a bright Palestinian future if only Israel would release a mass murderer to lead them
So nice of you to show us the ultra-right wing Israeli perspective.
Now let's take the ultra-right wing Palestinian perspective - eliminate all the Jews from Israel.
Gee whiz really useful huh?
You can cherry pick for whatever narrative you seek. And you are clearly seeking data for your narrative.
By the way, if Israel wanted Gaza beaches, they would have kept their settlements there in 2005.
I keep saying, the worst thing for Palestinians is useful Western liberals inexplicably siding with Russia and Iran. Constantly validating Palestinians "we are oppressed refugees" mantra means keeping them unwilling to accept a peace deal that doesn't give them access to Israel.
This is very bad for Palestinians because they will just keep suffering as Israel is not going away, no matter how much pressure Westerners put on their governments.
If you really cared about Palestinians, you would tell them to stop bombing Israel and accept a peace deal.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Gaza is not as tamed as the former PLO terrorists in the West Bank, so the settlements have been focused on the nice folks in the West Bank instead of the mean Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Now that Israel can show how tough a 2,000-pound bomb can be in the populated Gaza Strip, "Gaza City will be Jewish" according to the Times of Israel report:
Thousands of right-wing activists are getting ready to resettle Gaza after war
Last edited:
They already had settlements in Gaza, which were withdrewn in 2005.
If Israel wanted to Gaza to be Israeli land, they could have done it anytime in the past 60 years.
Tam
Well-Known Member
True. That withdrawal points out that the focus was then concentrated on the group that no longer took arms against Israel: the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
As pointed out in message 93, reported by Israel Journalist Meron Rapaport:
The end of the Netanyahu doctrine
“the Palestinian Authority is a burden and Hamas is an asset.”
No question about it. If the US wanted to take over North Korea, Việt Nam, Afghanistan..., that could be done also.
Similarly, Israel could have taken over the West Bank and Gaza in 1948 when it created its state too.
Instead, it chose the incremental approach, as pointed out in message 93 above.
However, the world today is not like it was before the creation of the UN. There are international laws even when a more powerful state overcomes weaker people.
In the Vietnam War, I still remember the US showed a clip of the US military helicopter lifting and evacuating a Vietnamese farmer's water buffalo (most villagers were displaced on foot and vehicles).
The clip showed that the mighty US military would evacuate the civilians in the war zone before attacking the village.
During the occupation of Afghanistan, the US did not starve the population while attacking the Taliban.
Israel has announced that the #3 Hamas terrorist was killed in an airstrike a couple of weeks ago. Apparently Sinwar has gone completely incommunicado, and Hamas is desperately looking for new terrorist leadership.
Hamas boss Yahya Sinwar's henchman Marwan Issa killed in Gaza airstrike
Hamas boss Yahya Sinwar's henchman Marwan Issa killed in Gaza airstrike
Militarily Israel could have, but diplomatically they couldn't. They can only deal with so much international ire and the displaced Gazans would have to go somewhere. And nobody wants more Palestinian refugees so it would create a humanitarian crisis and everyone would blame Israel.
During the cold war the US would have stood by Israel through this, but today they probably wouldn't. The pressure from the American people on the government to cut Israel loose would be very loud. It's already pretty loud.
Jigglypuff
Member
Israel didn't choose an incremental approach in 1948. There was an invasion by surround Arab nations that ended with with armistice lines. The same happened several times in the following years, with a peace treaty here and there. You portray Israel as an aggressor, which is ahistorical. Israel could not take the West Bank and Gaza in 1948. It was fighting for survival.
In the Vietnam War, there was a tremendous amount of indiscriminate violence. It was a civil war, and those are always the bloodiest. Not an example I'd hold up as "this is how Israel should operate".
Israel is not starving Gazans. That is another Hamas lie. Ever day, aid trucks go in. I see plenty of staged photos of children holding out their hands for foo, and ironically, they are often getting food in the photos. How is that starvation? In many of them, I can see an overweight person too. Shrug. If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe anything.
I don't like Netanyahu and definitely prefer a stop to settlements, but I don't see a big problem with his doctrine.
1. “peace with the Arab world while completely ignoring the Palestinians.”
2. Israel propers without the need for peace with the Palestinians:
Um... those make sense to me? Palestinians have repeatedly refused reasonable peace deals. It totally make sense to setup your country to run and be secure and NOT dependent on making peace with the Palestinian territories.
3. Solution: Blockade that creates the largest prison in the world.
LOL. I mean believe what you want I guess, but most people who've looked at this understand that Hamas is constantly shooting rockets at Israel made from pipes and cement. That's with the blockade. It's quite clear that if there wasn't a blockade, Hamas would try to import more potent weapons.
After all, Hamas' stated doctrine was the elimination of Israel.
Again, Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, has the stated objective to eliminate Israel. And many westerners don't even blink an eye at that mindset. As if that's normal? Then act incredulous that Israel would have a blockade?
Who wouldn't?
I'll tell you. Not Egypt. They also have a blockade on Gaza.
Offer for land? It's more like a practice of "Israeli settlements" and the Palestinians will be wiped off the map pretty soon.
It's doubtful that even when the Palestinians are wiped off the map, the cycle of revenge killings will ever stop if there's no negotiation for peace.
Now for this. This is extremely disingenous. I hope these aren't the sort of sources you are getting your information. No wonder people are biased.
This chart does not show Palestinian land. Palestine was never a country. It just shows all the land that wasn't Jewish owned. It all wasn't owned by Arabs.
Here's a real map. Are you ready? The blue is Jewish owned, land, the green is Arab owned. In 1945.
The white was not owned by anyone. The Ottomans controlled the land until 1917, then the British. The whole south was barren, it is the Negev Desert. To act like that was Arab land that Israel "stole" is a total joke and propaganda.
Notice most of the Arab owned land is in the West Bank and Gaza. That's where they settled for many years prior. Jews bought land along the coast, allegedly not as desirable as it was swamp and not easy to farm on.
The proposed partition made a reasonable compromise in the sense of how the ownership was split up.
There was no reason that Arabs living in this area deserved to control all the land in 1947.
There is definitely no reason to think they deserve to now.
UNHRC needs to replace UNRWA in the territories to stop the extremely biased teaching of history that even westerners promote. Refugee status needs to be revoked for all descendants of the original refugess.
A 2 state solution needs to be agreed on as previously offered. West Bank and Gaza need to be demilitarized.
Attachments
Jigglypuff
Member
There is no way there will be a two state solution anytime soon. There may never be a two state solution. Hamas put a nail in the heart of the two-state vampire on October 7th. It'll take two generations of Israelis passing to have a chance to forget what just happened. Terror must not be rewarded. It must be punished to discourage future evil.
Tam
Well-Known Member
I agree that Palestinians never had a country or state. The UN does not recognize it.
No state, no country doesn't mean there are no people there.
The Indigenous in today's USA never had a country either.
The issue is what to do with the people who don't have a country but are still in front of you?
The US settled with the Ingenious so they can now be a citizen of all 3 below:
1) Tribe (can open up a Tesla business even in a US state--such as New Mexico, Connecticut and New York--that forbids non-tribal to do it).
2) US state
3) USA nation
Again, it's true that there's no nation of the Palestine but it's a gruesome way to continue the Israeli "settler" practice.
Below is the picture of the 23-year-old American Peace Activist Rachel Corrie protesting the planned demolishment of a Palestinian home in 3/16/2003 when an Israeli soldier drove the bulldozer over her and crushed her to death in Jenin, West Bank.
Last edited:
