Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Honestly, go and read a book or watch a video or something about the history of the region before the creation of Israel. This might be a good starting point.

How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection (Documentary) (youtube.com)

Maybe you should read a book or watch a video about the area, before world was 1. How do you think the news were moving there since 1880?

They were sold land and property by those people who were so opposed to them.

Could it be that antisemitism is alive and well in Saudi Arabia?

It is a great tradition .We can all join in ,don't you know?

Talk of 'human shields' is nonsense in terms of Gaza : it's one of the most densely populated places on earth.

Who is right and who is wrong? My poor grasp at history

Both sides have historical ties to the area. The Jews go back over 2000 years, the Arabs even longer. By the first world war, the Jews had dispersed and had only 7% of the population in Palestine. The British promised the Arabs a state in the area in return for fighting against the Ottoman Empire during WW1.

Balfour wrote to Rotschild in 1917 offering a home to the Jewish Diaspora. Why? So that Jews would put pressure on the US and Russia to continue in WW1, because of the influence of Jews in British Goverment and sympathy towards Jews having a homeland.

Jewish emigration and land purchase meant that their population had increased to a 1/3 and their land holding increased to 7%. Conflicts were ongoing between Arabs and Jews The British washed their hands of the situation and the UN got involved in 1947

There was sympathy to the Jews because of the Holocaust and genocide but the Arabs did not see why their land should be taken because of Hitler's actions thousands of miles away. Huge pressure was put on countries by Arabs and Jews. Truman was embittered by the Jewish pressure but caved saying he had never known a US election being decided by Arab money or influence. France and others had threats of reduced post war aid. Arabs tried bribery also but didn't have the same influence. Imo, the UN caved and gave the Arabs a rotten deal but I can see why Jews felt they were entitled. Even before the ink was signed, it was inevitable that Arabs would not accept the deal and would fight to regain their land. Arabs started a war. Israel, with the assistance of US and Russian arms, won more territory. Israel invaded Egypt during the Suez Crisis and started the 6 day war, Arabs started all subsequent conflicts and Israel ended up with 77% of the land.

So who is right? Neither. Israel should not have settlements in the West Bank, Hamas should not have carried out a massacre, Israel should not have killed 20,000 civilians, Hamas should release hostages, Israel should give back land, Hamas needs to be disbanded, a more moderate government is required in Israel, a UN force needs to be deployed and money provided by the US, EU and the Middle East to rebuild homes, hospitals etc.

The starting point for both sides is to admit that each is wrong

It is previously posted here somewhere, but it is easily searchable, King-Crane Commission. A specific reference is a book called Paris 1919, by Margaret McMillan about the Paris Peace Negotiations along with a few other sources. This is perhaps the pertinent bit  "it ended as an investigation conducted solely by the United States government after the other countries withdrew to avoid the risk of being "confronted by recommendations from their own appointed delegates which might conflict with their policies" Exactly what happened.

Lets leave religion aside here, lets say the Polish population in Ireland got to about 10%. Entitled to buy land here etc, does that somehow entitle them to create a separate state here in any shape? Now imagine the EU declaring that they back the creation of a New Poland in Ireland, with the Irish people having no say in the matter? Or even worse imagine the US taking control of Ireland and backing the creation of a New Poland? How do you think people in Ireland would react to that? Figure that out and you get a better understanding of how the people in Palestine felt about Zionism and the creation of Israel. Undoubtedly there was an element of antisemitism, just as anti-immigration is already fueling issues here, but there would be still underlying problems with the whole situation. People try to justify it by claiming that the Jewish people had lived there previously and were somehow entitled to return there, but that is sliding into ideology.

We kind of went through this with the British, partition etc, which is why many people here sympathise with Palestine, especially those of a Republican persuasion.

It's a tortured analogy.No point debating it.Enough problems without wondering about a greater Poland in leafy Cork.

Oh, I see there are two analogies .Pass.

The issue was settled at the UN.And then the new Israeli state was attacked to within an inch of its life by it's "new neighbours"with no pauses until the present day.

.

Some "issue".

6k kids have been killed in the last two months. I don't think the hatred of the Palestinians to the the Israeli Jews can be put down to anti semitism now. There now have a different reason to intensely dislike them.

They might have a better think about targeting their ire against those who they foolishly (and likely with some coercion) voted for and who have led them down this path without consulting them ever since.

If they are accorded the chance to reflect they may come to to realize that the attack against Israel on Oct7 was bound to lead to dreadful consequences and to serve others' purposes than their own.

Most will live to see another day .Let us hope their reason survives this period and that they draw lessons from their experience.

And that the wider community also learns.

Is there any hope that the end of the oil economy will take some of the accelerant from the Middle East situation in the medium term?

Seems more and more articles coming out regarding Israeli behaviour. Another one here on the Al Shifa hospital

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/

This "comparison" gets trotted out a lot. There were 2 major differences between the Troubles and the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

1) No Irish government ever supported terrorism against the UK. Indeed, the Republic was often the victim of the same IRA terrorists, in terms of the killing of Gardai and other forms of organised crime in the Republic carried out by so-called "Republican" terrorists.

2) The Troubles were never a fight to the death for Britain or anyone else for that matter. The IRA only sought the removal of the British from Northern Ireland. Nobody wanted the destruction of the British state and the killing of all British people.

Israel faces the exact opposite situation on both counts.

Rationally? They (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq) disagreed and wanted the land back. That's their 'rationalizing.' So, you disagree with the UN, you're o.k. with resorting to violence? Because if you think that rational, then anytime Israel has flouted a UN resolution and been violent, you're o.k. with it.

Don't forget - the aggressors in the 1948 war wanted. the land. for themselves. "Palestinians" didn't exist then as far as they were concerned. They became a cause celebre once the aggressors realized after the 6 day war they weren't going to be able to conquer Israel. And the Palestinians became the ultimate useful idiots, willing to hijack planes, massacre atheletes, suicide bombs, etc.

Interesting. Presumably these reparations could be paid with the reparations you also want the Germans, Poles, Ukrainians etc to pay to the Jews they stole from, right?

Or is that different and if so, why?

Also, would you have the Turks pay reparations to the Arrmenians, as well as the Jews, they hunted out of Turkey?