Israeli - Palestinian Conflict *Threadbans in OP*

markodaly

wes wrote: »

Amazing you would state something blatantly false and absurd.

What is false and absurd about the fact that Ireland was an ethnostate when it was created?
I guess when the proclamation was read out at the GPO, it also meant that the British also have ownership of Ireland.

Israel is an ethno state, as per the nation state law, which is far different than what we have here.

No, not it's not. That is your opinion and you can find some scholar that may agree with you, but you will find many scholars that will disagree.

ISIS and Hamas are different. Hamas hatred of Israel is due to Zionists actually driving Palestinians into the sea?

More lies. Remember when Israel was attacked in 1948? The Arabs lost the war.

Hamas hates Israel due to Zionists ethnic cleaning Palestinians. It is always amusing when people talk about how Hamas wants to drive Israelis into the sea, when exactly that happened to Palestinians, but I guess it ok when Israel does it.

Why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1948?
You do know that Israel was a UN creation, but was rejected by the Arabs going against the UN itself, so they unilaterally attacked the new Jewish state.
Why did they reject this UN-backed and recognised UN treaty?

Hamas hates Israel because its populated mostly by Jews.


As for the Hamas charter, they changed it in 2017:
Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders


So, they explicitly state they don't want to kill all Jews, they just want to hide their true intentions more?

It should be noted Israel does not accept the 1967 borders, as they were just in the process of ethnic cleansing in Skeikh Jarrah. So at this point Hamas are more open to compromise than Israel.

More lies.

You seem rather good and pretending it seems and getting angry over things that aren't actually happening and supportive of ethnic cleansing and murder by Israel due to some hypothetical scenarios you invent to justify such a unjustifiable position.

Im not angry at all, I am not the one pontificating about Isreal committing Genocide morning, noon and night.

Yes, let not do that at all. You talk about what ifs, and I talk about reality. Israel kills far more civilians than Hamas ever has, and is armed to the teeth and is engage in ethnic cleansing. The 2 sides are not equal at all, one is well armed and well backed aggressor engaged in actual ethnic cleansing and the other side is the victim.

The victim is the one who is shooting hundreds of rockets into civilian areas with no care in the world who they kill, like a 6-year-old boy.

You do know that targeting civilians areas is a war crime.

Do you condemn war crimes committed by Hamas, a yes or no answer, please?

wes

myfreespirit wrote: »

Wikipedia is a somewhat trustworthy source, not always reliable and given to contributor biases.

The definition originally posted is from the Chambers English Dictionary, a standard agreed on by language experts.

FFS, its on the UN website as well:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

It is a well know legal definition of genocide. The dictionary meaning isn't a legal one.

markodaly

Lmkrnr wrote: »

The Yanks have ok'd the attacks so BiBi will plough on with the missiles.

When some jews get massacred in another country just remember whats causing individuals to attack synagogues in the first place. Even if the Jewish people wipe out all the palistinians and claim all the land it won't be forgotten.

Anti-Semitic nonsense.

I guess when ISIS burns someone alive and posts it on Twitter is justificiation for people attacking a mosque in Ireland?

Baggly

Mod

This can be an emotive issue folks, but can we keep the hyperbole out and try to remain civil in our posting please. One and only warning from me on this.

@wes

@markodaly

Im talking to ye.

SafeSurfer

bubblypop wrote: »

Jewish is both religion and race.

Jewish is not a race.

SafeSurfer

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Jewish is not a race.

Yep.
Jews are a separate people, ethnically.
Judaism is their religion.

markodaly

Just want to post this.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

If people are openly saying that Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish state and is a racist endeavour, then it is classed by the IHRA as anti-Semitic

namloc1980

markodaly wrote: »

Why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1948?

Because the newly created Israel forcibly removed over 700,000 Palestinians and forced them into ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza. Entire Palestinian towns and villages were wiped off the map by Israeli forces and placenames were Hebrewised. Mosques were destroyed and a variety of land laws were brought in by Israel to legalise the displacement of Palestinians in favour of Jews. It's known as the Nakba. And the Western world stood by and allowed it to happen - and we're still dealing with the consequences today. It was (and continues to be) ethnic cleansing on a vast scale.

namloc1980

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep.
Jews are a separate people, ethnically.
Judaism is their religion.

If I became a Jew in the morning my DNA wouldn't magically change. Large numbers of Israelis are of Eastern European decent who moved to Israel after WW2.

RoyalCelt

Odhinn wrote: »

All the Israeli partys are committed to maintaining "the majority" which means they want land but wont take the Palestinians on it.





Palestinians and sephardic jews share common ancestry going back millenia.

So they're basically the same people who split over religion? I always thought the Palestinians came from invaders from the middle East. I should really read up on all this again.

SafeSurfer

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep.
Jews are a separate people, ethnically.
Judaism is their religion.

No. Jews are not a separate race. Read a book.

myfreespirit

wes wrote: »

FFS, its on the UN website as well:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml



It is a well know legal definition of genocide. The dictionary meaning isn't a legal one.

Off topic, I know, but your post claimed that Israeli actions are genocide. You have offered no evidence, none, that the Israeli actions constitute genocide, either as defined by the UN, or the commonly understood meaning of the word.

Israeli actions are all too frequently murderous and completely unjustified, but this does not make them genocide. It is, in my opinion, exaggeration to call it genocide. It can be called criminal, inhuman, disgraceful, unacceptable, but genocide? No.

wes

RoyalCelt wrote: »

So they're basically the same people who split over religion? I always thought the Palestinians came from invaders from the middle East. I should really read up on all this again.

The area has been invaded by several groups over the centuries. People intermarry, culture, language, and Religion etc changed over time. The people who live there have done so for centuries, and this includes both Palestinians and Middle Eastern Jews.

wes

myfreespirit wrote: »

Off topic, I know, but your post claimed that Israeli actions are genocide. You have offered no evidence, none, that the Israeli actions constitute genocide, either as defined by the UN, or the commonly understood meaning of the word.

I have done so several times (provided proof), as Israel is engaged settler colonialism, which is well established fact, and provided a legal definition to genocide different from you dictionary one. Saying I provide no proof is imo unfair, you disagree with my reasoning, but what Israel is doing is well established. You don't think that constitutes genocide, well I disagree.

myfreespirit wrote: »

Israeli actions are all too frequently murderous and completely unjustified, but this does not make them genocide. It is, in my opinion, exaggeration to call it genocide. It can be called criminal, inhuman, disgraceful, unacceptable, but genocide? No.

I disagree, it is genocide, based on intent and by the fact of the well established settler colonial project. What Israel is doing is no different that what Europeans done to native Americans.

Housefree

markodaly wrote: »

Just want to post this.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

If people are openly saying that Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish state and is a racist endeavour, then it is classed by the IHRA as anti-Semitic

Israels Human Rights organization declared it Apartheid

'A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid'

https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid

And Human Rights Watch
'Abusive Israeli Policies Constitute Crimes of Apartheid, Persecution,Crimes Against Humanity
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/27/abusive-israeli-policies-constitute-crimes-apartheid-persecution

davydoc

Exactly this - There is NO EXCUSE for Israel behaving the way it does, going in to areas that it has no jurisdiction over, forcing families out, to be replaced with Zionist / Jewish settler families. One of the worst things about it is, that the USA bank roll's it, it can't stand on its own feet without them , and constantly has the begging bowl out to the states for war planes, ships, tanks and other war mongering equipment - all at free or knock down prices of course, God forbid it should have to foot the bill itself. It is a country with an army, a navy and an air force inflicting it's will against a country and a people with none of that, and no way of defending themselves except the odd act of defiance perpetrated by Hamas - Israel is worse now than South Africa ever was, it is an apartheid state which openly discriminates against Palestinians, on who's land they have forced themselves in to.......But dare you not call them out on it, because then you are anti semitic - it's like a 'get out of jail free' card for them when they cannot defend their actions.... Hateful country and people

namloc1980 wrote: »

Because the newly created Israel forcibly removed over 700,000 Palestinians and forced them into ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza. Entire Palestinian towns and villages were wiped off the map by Israeli forces and placenames were Hebrewised. Mosques were destroyed and a variety of land laws were brought in by Israel to legalise the displacement of Palestinians in favour of Jews. It's known as the Nakba. And the Western world stood by and allowed it to happen - and we're still dealing with the consequences today. It was (and continues to be) ethnic cleansing on a vast scale.

KeepItLight

markodaly wrote: »

Just want to post this.

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

If people are openly saying that Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish state and is a racist endeavour, then it is classed by the IHRA as anti-Semitic

Who gives a toss? They don't get to dictate reality for the rest of us, as much as they might want to try.

RoyalCelt

ypres5 wrote: »

It's amazing how some people hate Jews so much they're willing to side with a bunch of suicidal jihadists out of pure spite

This conflict makes me feel uneasy. I really dislike the Israeli government for their policies but at the same time I've no great gra for the Palestinians. As others have said go set up a pride parade down their main street and see how you get on. They'd also nuke Israel off the map if Hamas had the means. It's a sorry situation.

From what I've read obviously before 2000 years ago when "jesus" arrived the area was Jewish and probably was for a long time before. Then until the 4th century the majority remained when Christians took over. Was this Jews converting or Christians moving in?

The Christian majority lasted until the 12th century.

"Very few Arabs were productive settlers of the land, an activity they despised; a few were great landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates; but generally they were nomadic tribesmen, soldiers and officials all of whom lived off the jizya (or poll tax) and the kharaj (or land tax) paid by the occupied peoples in return for the protection of their lives and property and for the right to practice their own religion."

That sounds awfully like Ireland to me. Where the arabs were the Brits and the Jews/Christians were the Irish.

The Arab rule was disturbed by the frankish invasion and then conquered again for centuries more of ottoman rule. This time the Arab population took over until the Jews were resettled there.

It's going to take some convincing for me to believe the Palestinians have some devine right to the land. It was the jews, then Jews with Christians before Arab invasions took over. We didn't take too kindly to British invasions in Ireland and elsewhere, why do we make an exception for the arabs here? Is it because we hate Jews so much?

wes

RoyalCelt wrote: »

"Very few Arabs were productive settlers of the land, an activity they despised; a few were great landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates; but generally they were nomadic tribesmen, soldiers and officials all of whom lived off the jizya (or poll tax) and the kharaj (or land tax) paid by the occupied peoples in return for the protection of their lives and property and for the right to practice their own religion."

If you are going to quote something, generally you should say where is from, surely. The above quote is rather inaccurate, and it ignore Arab Christians to boot, and seems to be written to justify the crusader state.

BTW, the quote seems to be from this "Tragedy of the templars":
https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-tragedy-of-the-templars/5.php

Yeah, not going to trust that one.....

*EDIT*
Also, I guess you missed this link from earlier:
DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews


Palestinians and middle eastern Jews have been there the whole time. The bizarre pro-templar historical claims, are disproven by modern genetic evidence.

davydoc

As someone who has lived and worked in both Israel, and South Africa, I felt that I was qualified to make the statement I did above, however, I have been giving a warning for this - so I will state CLEARLY what I mean, a country is not necessarily ALL of it's people, but is ( to me anyway ) it's policies and ways of working - hopefully this satisfies the forum police....

RoyalCelt

wes wrote: »

If you are going to quote something, generally you should say where is from, surely. The above quote is rather inaccurate, and it ignore Arab Christians to boot, and seems to be written to justify the crusader state.

BTW, the quote seems to be from this "Tragedy of the templars":
https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-tragedy-of-the-templars/5.php

Yeah, not going to trust that one.....

Maybe. How were the Christians and Jews treated when the Arabs invaded and moved in?

wes

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Maybe. How were the Christians and Jews treated when the Arabs invaded and moved in?

Back then it would depend on the ruler. Some were awful bastards, and some were pretty good.

Saladin for example was pretty decent, while others less so.

Odhinn

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Maybe. How were the Christians and Jews treated when the Arabs invaded and moved in?

You're confusing religion and ethnicity.

Fandymo

RoyalCelt wrote: »

This conflict makes me feel uneasy. I really dislike the Israeli government for their policies but at the same time I've no great gra for the Palestinians. As others have said go set up a pride parade down their main street and see how you get on. They'd also nuke Israel off the map if Hamas had the means. It's a sorry situation.

From what I've read obviously before 2000 years ago when "jesus" arrived the area was Jewish and probably was for a long time before. Then until the 4th century the majority remained when Christians took over. Was this Jews converting or Christians moving in?

The Christian majority lasted until the 12th century.

"Very few Arabs were productive settlers of the land, an activity they despised; a few were great landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates; but generally they were nomadic tribesmen, soldiers and officials all of whom lived off the jizya (or poll tax) and the kharaj (or land tax) paid by the occupied peoples in return for the protection of their lives and property and for the right to practice their own religion."

That sounds awfully like Ireland to me. Where the arabs were the Brits and the Jews/Christians were the Irish.

The Arab rule was disturbed by the frankish invasion and then conquered again for centuries more of ottoman rule. This time the Arab population took over until the Jews were resettled there.

It's going to take some convincing for me to believe the Palestinians have some devine right to the land. It was the jews, then Jews with Christians before Arab invasions took over. We didn't take too kindly to British invasions in Ireland and elsewhere, why do we make an exception for the arabs here? Is it because we hate Jews so much?

I presume that the US, Israel's backers, and specifically the 7.6m Jews living there, will be leading by example and giving their land back to the Native Americans? Since it was their land less than 300 years ago. I mean, they wouldn't want to be seen as hypocrites??

ypres5

wes wrote: »

If you are going to quote something, generally you should say where is from, surely. The above quote is rather inaccurate, and it ignore Arab Christians to boot, and seems to be written to justify the crusader state.

BTW, the quote seems to be from this "Tragedy of the templars":
https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-tragedy-of-the-templars/5.php

Yeah, not going to trust that one.....

*EDIT*
Also, I guess you missed this link from earlier:
DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews


Palestinians and middle eastern Jews have been there the whole time. The bizarre pro-templar historical claims, are disproven by modern genetic evidence.

But it's true, initially the Arab conquerors didn't want too many of the native population to convert because they'd lose the revenue brought on by the jizyat. It's believed that Egypt, which is now 85% Muslim was still majority Coptic christian as recently as the 13th century even though it was conquered by the Arabs 600 years prior

RoyalCelt

Fandymo wrote: »

I presume that the US, Israel's backers, and specifically the 7.6m Jews living there, will be leading by example and giving their land back to the Native Americans? Since it was their land less than 300 years ago. I mean, they wouldn't want to be seen as hypocrites??

I'd be all for that. You see it's hard for me to take sides because at the end of the day they're all *****. Europeans as you say invaded and absolutely ruined the natives and the same in Canada and South America.

The Jews in Israel have more in common with the native Americans who unlike the Jews were unsuccessful in taking control back of most of their area.

markodaly

namloc1980 wrote: »

Because the newly created Israel forcibly removed over 700,000 Palestinians and forced them into ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza.

No, you are getting your dates and timelines all mixed up.

The UN General Assembly voted to accept resolution 181, which created the state of Israel in 1947.
The Arabs rejected this binding and agreed upon an International agreement and treaty and launched an invasion of Israel. They were the first to break international law.

So again, why did the Arabs reject this UN resolution?

igCorcaigh

RoyalCelt wrote: »

This conflict makes me feel uneasy. I really dislike the Israeli government for their policies but at the same time I've no great gra for the Palestinians. As others have said go set up a pride parade down their main street and see how you get on. They'd also nuke Israel off the map if Hamas had the means. It's a sorry situation.

From what I've read obviously before 2000 years ago when "jesus" arrived the area was Jewish and probably was for a long time before. Then until the 4th century the majority remained when Christians took over. Was this Jews converting or Christians moving in?

The Christian majority lasted until the 12th century.

"Very few Arabs were productive settlers of the land, an activity they despised; a few were great landlords who used native tenants to cultivate their estates; but generally they were nomadic tribesmen, soldiers and officials all of whom lived off the jizya (or poll tax) and the kharaj (or land tax) paid by the occupied peoples in return for the protection of their lives and property and for the right to practice their own religion."

That sounds awfully like Ireland to me. Where the arabs were the Brits and the Jews/Christians were the Irish.

The Arab rule was disturbed by the frankish invasion and then conquered again for centuries more of ottoman rule. This time the Arab population took over until the Jews were resettled there.

It's going to take some convincing for me to believe the Palestinians have some devine right to the land. It was the jews, then Jews with Christians before Arab invasions took over. We didn't take too kindly to British invasions in Ireland and elsewhere, why do we make an exception for the arabs here? Is it because we hate Jews so much?

If you're going to take that approach, of trying to untangle centuries of history, then no clear understanding will come.

In the end of the day, the peoples of that region have to share the land and live with each other.
Look at the pictures of Gaza and Israel. See how different they look, how different the living conditions for people are.
Notice also how Israel keep on expanding settlements onto Palestinian land, in defiance of international law.

The conflict has gone through cycles of violence, for decades.
There needs to be an agreed peace settlement between both sides.
But as the injustice and violence continues, each side gets more entrenched.

That's the tragedy.

wes

ypres5 wrote: »

But it's true, initially the Arab conquerors didn't want too many of the native population to convert because they'd lose the revenue brought on by the jizyat. It's believed that Egypt, which is now 85% Muslim was still majority Coptic christian as recently as the 13th century even though it was conquered by the Arabs 600 years prior

Again, you assume Arab = Muslim. Arab Christians do exist.

Also, genetic evidence of the current day, shows Palestinians, who again can be Christian and Muslims and yes other Religions are descended from people who have always lived there.

An 18th century diatribe written by an apologist for templars is not really proof of anything, and as I said the fact it equates Arab to Muslim is a pretty big red flag and the fact that people seem to be repeating this is utterly bizarre. Its not the 18th century, surely people know Religion and ethnicity are not the same thing.

ypres5

wes wrote: »

Back then it would depend on the ruler. Some were awful bastards, and some were pretty good.

Saladin for example was pretty decent, while others less so.

One of the less so decent destroyed the original Church of the Holy Sepulchre, arguably the most sacred site in the Christian world. This whole idea that the Israelis are monsters is a bit unfair when you look at how religious and ethnic minorities across the rest of the middle east have been decimated to the point their community's barely exist anymore such as the Assyrians, Copts, Yazidis, Armenians, Greeks etc are all barely hanging on for dear life when their presence in places like Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt predates Islamic and Arab presence.