Israel (now broader Mid East discussion) (2 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

sure, that was actually the point the Black Panthers were trying to make - the police treated the inner cities as occupation zones

Similar in Ferguson, et al

Kinda like Seattle too. But yeah, a lot of American inner cities.

 

[Dago]

pretty good infographic

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. It is revisionist history

Jewish settlements were being attacked from the moment the British Mandate went into effect (which followed the overthrow of Ottoman control of the region by British forces) . The 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandated Palestine was started by Palestinians attacking and killing Jewish citizens and attacking legal Jewish settlements the day after the adoption of the 2 state proposal by the UN on November 29th, 1947. Look at the dates....that was before May 15th, 1948.

When the 2 state mandate went into effect at midnight on May 14th, 1948 (coinciding with the end of The British Mandate), Israel declared its independence and seized the territory they were supposed to have according to the UN's own mandate that had been under attack since November 30th, 1947. As soon as the British Mandate expired (and the British pulled out their military) Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq attacked the very next morning on May 15th, 1948 which is the Arab-Israeli War. At that time, it was the Palestinians that were attacking territory that the UN had established for the Israelis but the Palestinians and their allies would not accept the 2 state mandate from the UN.

The vast majority of the territory currently controlled by Israel beyond the borders of the 2 state mandate was taken as the result of a war where they were attacked by 4 countries and Palestine.

 

[Arathrael]

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. It is revisionist history

Jewish settlements were being attacked from the moment the British Mandate went into effect (which followed the overthrow of Ottoman control of the region by British forces) . The 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandated Palestine was started by Palestinians attacking and killing Jewish citizens and attacking legal Jewish settlements the day after the adoption of the 2 state proposal by the UN on November 29th, 1947. Look at the dates....that was before May 15th, 1948.

When the 2 state mandate went into effect at midnight on May 14th, 1948 (coinciding with the end of The British Mandate), Israel declared its independence and seized the territory they were supposed to have according to the UN's own mandate that had been under attack since November 30th, 1947. As soon as the British Mandate expired (and the British pulled out their military) Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq attacked the very next morning on May 15th, 1948 which is the Arab-Israeli War. At that time, it was the Palestinians that were attacking territory that the UN had established for the Israelis but the Palestinians and their allies would not accept the 2 state mandate from the UN.

The vast majority of the territory currently controlled by Israel beyond the borders of the 2 state mandate was taken as the result of a war where they were attacked by 4 countries and Palestine.

But that the Nakba happened is just history? What do you think is revisionist about it?

Your account above sounds pretty revisionist though. I'm not sure if it's your intent, but your account above suggests a one-sided conflict from November 29th 1947 to May 15th 1948... but that's not what happened. There were militant (and I would say essentially terrorist) groups conflicting before, during, and after that. The event that's generally regarded as starting the Civil War after the adoption of the partition plan was the Fajja bus attacks, carried out by Arab militants - but that followed on from the Shubaki family assassination ten days earlier, carried out by Lehi, a group of Zionist militants. Irgun attacked Arab workers at the Haifa Oil Refinery with hand grenades, with Jewish refinery workers then being killed in a mass lynching. Haganah attacked the Palestinian village of Balad al-Shaykh and killed dozens in response. Plan Dalet began in April - before May 15th 1948 - with areas already being occupied in advance of the establishment of the state, and the Deir Yassin massacre taking place on April 9th, 1948, with that being regarded as one of the factors resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Nearly 175,000 Palestinians had already fled by 1st May 1948.

The history of the region is essentially littered with brutal, terrorist, acts of violence carried out all too frequently against Arab and Jewish civilians. Any account that suggests this wasn't the case, or that it was only the case on one side, is inherently revisionist.

 

[Dago]

But that the Nakba happened is just history? What do you think is revisionist about it?

Your account above sounds pretty revisionist though. I'm not sure if it's your intent, but your account above suggests a one-sided conflict from November 29th 1947 to May 15th 1948... but that's not what happened. There were militant (and I would say essentially terrorist) groups conflicting before, during, and after that. The event that's generally regarded as starting the Civil War after the adoption of the partition plan was the Fajja bus attacks, carried out by Arab militants - but that followed on from the Shubaki family assassination ten days earlier, carried out by Lehi, a group of Zionist militants. Irgun attacked Arab workers at the Haifa Oil Refinery with hand grenades, with Jewish refinery workers then being killed in a mass lynching. Haganah attacked the Palestinian village of Balad al-Shaykh and killed dozens in response. Plan Dalet began in April - before May 15th 1948 - with areas already being occupied in advance of the establishment of the state, and the Deir Yassin massacre taking place on April 9th, 1948, with that being regarded as one of the factors resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Nearly 175,000 Palestinians had already fled by 1st May 1948.

The history of the region is essentially littered with brutal, terrorist, acts of violence carried out all too frequently against Arab and Jewish civilians. Any account that suggests this wasn't the case, or that it was only the case on one side, is inherently revisionist.

I understand that and my previous posts have stated that neither side is blameless in this

I was looking to counter the post that indicated a starting date for everything that has occurred and solely blaming Israel.

Britain and the UN are responsible for this mess....it was like putting 2 rabid dogs in the same yard and expecting them to be peaceful

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I understand that and my previous posts have stated that neither side is blameless in this

I was looking to counter the post that indicated a starting date for everything that has occurred and solely blaming Israel.

Britain and the UN are responsible for this mess....it was like putting 2 rabid dogs in the same yard and expecting them to be peaceful

I think the general US narrative is that the Arabs are solely to blame, so usually these things are provided to counter that narrative. That's certainly changing, and in certain areas, the blame does get placed solely at Israel's feet, but people can bring up history in any fashion they want as long as they back it up.

The history is very, very messy. Looking at Ben Gurion's letters and writings, it can be interpreted that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was intended from the start. Israel had initially disclosed a lot of their history in this regard in the 1980s but then reclassified those documents. It lines up closely with what Arabs during that time period were claiming - that Israel was publicly accepting the borders and Arabs within their borders while secretly kicking Arabs out and launching provocations in the hopes that Arabs would attack and they could expand more.

Ultimately, Israel was a result of anti-Semitism in Europe and the US and colonization by the British in the Middle East, with little regard to the desires and hopes of the native population there. They are now keeping millions of people under military occupation with no road map to that population becoming a free people (either through assimilation into Israel or their own state).

Obviously, the Arabs have had their part in the suffering of Israel and Palestine. Which is why I think the only moral solution here for the US is to with hold all aid until there are strong commitments from everyone to the basic tenets of human rights. And at this point that means Israel exists as a sovereign nation free from terrorist attacks or their threats, and the Palestinians with the right to belong to an independent sovereign state of their choosing with borders that the Israelis would accept themselves if the positions were reversed.

 

[Dago]

I think the general US narrative is that the Arabs are solely to blame, so usually these things are provided to counter that narrative. That's certainly changing, and in certain areas, the blame does get placed solely at Israel's feet, but people can bring up history in any fashion they want as long as they back it up.

The history is very, very messy. Looking at Ben Gurion's letters and writings, it can be interpreted that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was intended from the start. Israel had initially disclosed a lot of their history in this regard in the 1980s but then reclassified those documents. It lines up closely with what Arabs during that time period were claiming - that Israel was publicly accepting the borders and Arabs within their borders while secretly kicking Arabs out and launching provocations in the hopes that Arabs would attack and they could expand more.

Ultimately, Israel was a result of anti-Semitism in Europe and the US and colonization by the British in the Middle East, with little regard to the desires and hopes of the native population there. They are now keeping millions of people under military occupation with no road map to that population becoming a free people (either through assimilation into Israel or their own state).

Obviously, the Arabs have had their part in the suffering of Israel and Palestine. Which is why I think the only moral solution here for the US is to with hold all aid until there are strong commitments from everyone to the basic tenets of human rights. And at this point that means Israel exists as a sovereign nation free from terrorist attacks or their threats, and the Palestinians with the right to belong to an independent sovereign state of their choosing with borders that the Israelis would accept themselves if the positions were reversed.

I have no issue with that other than it only holds one side accountable for human rights violations and could encourage further aggression from Palestine (or the countries that support Hamas)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I have no issue with that other than it only holds one side accountable for human rights violations and could encourage further aggression from Palestine (or the countries that support Hamas)

I'm not sure that it does. Israel can retaliate to agression, and the US can with hold aid from anyone supporting such things. They just need to commit to giving the Palestinians the right to a viable state. And that means removing all settlers from Palestinian land.

Basically, if you want to be the good guy, BE the good guy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't even object to Israel annexing all the territory. It was taken through war and conquest, but that's pretty much every country... but then you need to make the conquered people citizens. That's generally the way things go... but Israel won't do that b/c then non-Jews would outnumber Jewish citizens, which would functionally mean the end of the Jewish state of Israel.

So their options are ethnic cleansing (obviously a war crime), or to withdraw to another border and give the Palestinians a viable state - one that they actually would care about so that if they attack Israel, and Israel retaliates, then they lose something of value to them.

I really do wish more people would study game theory... a lot of this makes sense in that context.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

But that the Nakba happened is just history? What do you think is revisionist about it?

Your account above sounds pretty revisionist though. I'm not sure if it's your intent, but your account above suggests a one-sided conflict from November 29th 1947 to May 15th 1948... but that's not what happened. There were militant (and I would say essentially terrorist) groups conflicting before, during, and after that. The event that's generally regarded as starting the Civil War after the adoption of the partition plan was the Fajja bus attacks, carried out by Arab militants - but that followed on from the Shubaki family assassination ten days earlier, carried out by Lehi, a group of Zionist militants. Irgun attacked Arab workers at the Haifa Oil Refinery with hand grenades, with Jewish refinery workers then being killed in a mass lynching. Haganah attacked the Palestinian village of Balad al-Shaykh and killed dozens in response. Plan Dalet began in April - before May 15th 1948 - with areas already being occupied in advance of the establishment of the state, and the Deir Yassin massacre taking place on April 9th, 1948, with that being regarded as one of the factors resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Nearly 175,000 Palestinians had already fled by 1st May 1948.

The history of the region is essentially littered with brutal, terrorist, acts of violence carried out all too frequently against Arab and Jewish civilians. Any account that suggests this wasn't the case, or that it was only the case on one side, is inherently revisionist.

Yup, definitely no clean hands historically either away.

The Brits weren't pushovers (see, well, almost countless red bits on the map over the life of their Empire ) and they left Palestine with their tails between their legs. Menachim Begin looked nice in a coat and tie years later but....

Anyone who sees this as black-and-white either has an agenda, or needs to read a lot more peer-reviewed history.

 

[Dago]

I don't even object to Israel annexing all the territory. It was taken through war and conquest, but that's pretty much every country... but then you need to make the conquered people citizens. That's generally the way things go... but Israel won't do that b/c then non-Jews would outnumber Jewish citizens, which would functionally mean the end of the Jewish state of Israel.

So their options are ethnic cleansing (obviously a war crime), or to withdraw to another border and give the Palestinians a viable state - one that they actually would care about so that if they attack Israel, and Israel retaliates, then they lose something of value to them.

I really do wish more people would study game theory... a lot of this makes sense in that context.

So the Jewish people are the ones looking to do ethnic cleansing? You would think they would start with the 20% of their population that is Muslim

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So the Jewish people are the ones looking to do ethnic cleansing? You would think they would start with the 20% of their population that is Muslim

They can accept 20% of their population being Muslim, they can't accept > 50%, which is what would happen if they just annex the disputed territories and made everyone citizens (or if they allowed the families of those who fled in the 1940's to come back). Because then they could destroy Israel through a vote. It's the reason going back to the 1940's that Ben Gurion talked about possibly needing to remove the native Arab population in his letters. It's also why the Nakba happened.

This isn't a secret or all that surprising. Israel wants to be both a liberal democracy and Jewish. The only way to have a democratic state that is also tied specifically to an ethnicity/religion is if you ensure that that ethnicity is always the majority. And the Arab population within this territory outnumbers the Jewish population.

It isn't a uniform view within Israel, and there have been many progressive politicians within Israel who have pushed back against the notion. And it's important for me to note that Ben Gurion himself also acknowledged that pushing the Arabs out would be wrong... and wasn't necessarily advocating for it. The history is a bit muddied and he did things to protect Arab citizens as well as sometimes did things to encourage them to leave.

Israel is generally a western style liberal democracy and is informed by the same values. It's why it's a preferable government when compared to the Arab governments. But they also were just fleeing a genocide and desparately desired a homeland where they could control their own destiny. And that sort of desparation allows people to make exceptions for themselves - ie, there's plenty of land elsewhere for the Arabs to go, we need this land bc we have no where else to go. I can be sympathetic to the situation and motivations, while still acknowledging the faults.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I can be sympathetic to the situation and motivations, while still acknowledging the faults.

Oh my goodness, and not even about this particular thread, how much a better place this world would be if everyone took this approach to those with whom they disagree.

 

[Dago]

They can accept 20% of their population being Muslim, they can't accept > 50%, which is what would happen if they just annex the disputed territories and made everyone citizens (or if they allowed the families of those who fled in the 1940's to come back). Because then they could destroy Israel through a vote. It's the reason going back to the 1940's that Ben Gurion talked about possibly needing to remove the native Arab population in his letters. It's also why the Nakba happened.

This isn't a secret or all that surprising. Israel wants to be both a liberal democracy and Jewish. The only way to have a democratic state that is also tied specifically to an ethnicity/religion is if you ensure that that ethnicity is always the majority. And the Arab population within this territory outnumbers the Jewish population.

It isn't a uniform view within Israel, and there have been many progressive politicians within Israel who have pushed back against the notion. And it's important for me to note that Ben Gurion himself also acknowledged that pushing the Arabs out would be wrong... and wasn't necessarily advocating for it. The history is a bit muddied and he did things to protect Arab citizens as well as sometimes did things to encourage them to leave.

Israel is generally a western style liberal democracy and is informed by the same values. It's why it's a preferable government when compared to the Arab governments. But they also were just fleeing a genocide and desparately desired a homeland where they could control their own destiny. And that sort of desparation allows people to make exceptions for themselves - ie, there's plenty of land elsewhere for the Arabs to go, we need this land bc we have no where else to go. I can be sympathetic to the situation and motivations, while still acknowledging the faults.

Why do you feel like only one side is interested in the eradication of the other?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why do you feel like only one side is interested in the eradication of the other?

Why do you think I think only one side is interested in the eradication of the other? Ie, I don't and never said that or even hinted at that.

 

[SamAndreas]

I understand that and my previous posts have stated that neither side is blameless in this

I was looking to counter the post that indicated a starting date for everything that has occurred and solely blaming Israel.

Britain and the UN are responsible for this mess....it was like putting 2 rabid dogs in the same yard and expecting them to be peaceful

Happy coining of new terms day Dago. Yours has been selected.

Your "Two Rabid Dogs" just became the new synonym for the phrase "Islam <and> Judaism."