Politics

[Rayvin 5176]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I think it's accepted by most reasonable people that Jews deserved a homeland after the whole Holocaust carry on.

 

Yeah I agree with that too. And I can see the historical reasons for it being Israel. What I'm not really ok with is that a bunch of relatively powerless people were shafted and now appear to be openly persecuted, had no say in any of the process, and were basically told to accept it by a bunch of rich, white fucks. By which I mean, for the lamentable requirement for clarity, the US and Western European nations, not the Jews.

 

Why couldn't they have been given a homeland in a Western European country?

 

EDIT - I mean... we've killed roughly 6 million Jewish people but we'll make it up to you by giving you the land these brown people have been living in for about a thousand years, that we latterly came to own through colonialism.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Rayvin

[Gemmill 44392]

Check out @KateEMcCann’s Tweet:

 

 

[Meenzer 15405]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Why couldn't they have been given a homeland in a Western European country?

 

Let's have a suggestion then. Marseilles? Munich? Middlesbrough?

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, Gemmill said:

Check out @KateEMcCann’s Tweet:

 

 

 

Yeah this shit is only going to get worse. Sargon has a fairly big following these days and definitely has political ambitions. And is running as an MEP candidate.

[Gemmill 44392]

Check out @SkyTNewton’s Tweet:

 

 

[Rayvin 5176]

9 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

 

Let's have a suggestion then. Marseilles? Munich? Middlesbrough?

 

Are you saying under the circumstances that, had it been your decision, you would have chosen to bring about this chaos Palestine and the many deaths that have resulted from it? Irrespective of the fact that it wasn't yours to give?

[Rayvin 5176]

I wouldn't even rape you. Would be hilarious if that tweet killed Sargon's political career.

 

Not convinced it will though..

 

[Meenzer 15405]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Are you saying under the circumstances that, had it been your decision, you would have chosen to bring about this chaos Palestine and the many deaths that have resulted from it? Irrespective of the fact that it wasn't yours to give?

 

Are you saying that it's preferable to parachute people - actual human beings with actual human lives - into a place in which they have literally no connection, than one in which they at least form part of the shared history in some shape or form?

 

[acrossthepond 867]

What's really impossible to tolerate is that a modern left-wing party in a developed country is still having anti-semitism problems in the 21st century. The only logical explanation is that there is actual institutional anti-semitism in Labour and they have failed to stamp it out. That lands at the doorstep of leadership.

Take the Democrats, for example. One of their representatives made a comment that wasn't even anti-semitic, but touched upon some tropes that are associated with anti-semitism (it was a comment about pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.) Immediately, party leadership stomped on her and forced an apology before it could get out of hand. The Republicans are trying to fan the flames but really aren't getting anywhere (largely because the vast majority of actual anti-semites in America vote Republican, while Jewish voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat.) 

Of course, Judaism and especially Israel hold a different place in US politics than they do in UK or European politics. Israel is the sacred cow that can never be directly criticized, here. All the same, Labour have done a wretched job of managing the situation and that is squarely down to Corbyn. He still thinks he is a 70's revolucionista, fighting for Tibet and Palestine and all the other oppressed people of the world while his own country is getting fucked over before his eyes, with his party complicit in such. What a joke. 

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, Meenzer said:

 

Are you saying that it's preferable to parachute people - actual human beings with actual human lives - into a place in which they have literally no connection, than one in which they at least form part of the shared history in some shape or form?

 

 

If fewer people die because of the consent of the surrounding people, then yes, yes I am saying that.

 

How many human lives are worth "part of the shared history in some shape or form"? We're at over 8000 at the moment.

[acrossthepond 867]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

If fewer people die because of the consent of the surrounding people, then yes, yes I am saying that.

 

How many human lives are worth "part of the shared history in some shape or form"? We're at over 8000 at the moment.

Well, hang on. The Palestinians did consent to the UN partition plan of 1948. It was the other Arab states that refused "on their behalf", which was really one of the great tragedies of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

Can I just add that the Jewish people were never completely removed from what is currently Israel and previously Palestine. I feel some on here think Palestine was previous to 1948 completely Islamic with no Jewish population at all.

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, acrossthepond said:

Well, hang on. The Palestinians did consent to the UN partition plan of 1948. It was the other Arab states that refused "on their behalf", which was really one of the great tragedies of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

 

Ah nice, I learned something. Well, that changes things then. Why did the other Arab states refusing it 'on their behalf' turn into a lasting Palestinian resistance? Was the body that accepted it on behalf of Palestine made up of actual Palestinians? (i.e. it wasn't the British or the Jews?)

 

Still don't think this course of action was worth all the death, but at least if this is true it was closer to an accident rather than willful stupidity and racism.

[Rayvin 5176]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Can I just add that the Jewish people were never completely removed from what is currently Israel and previously Palestine. I feel some on here think Palestine was previous to 1948 completely Islamic with no Jewish population at all.

 

I don't think that, don't worry.

 

Actually I can see how it comes across that way. When I say Palestinians I'm thinking more of how we now come to call them that, but I suppose that pre-Israel, both Jewish people and Muslims would have been Palestinians. My bad.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Rayvin

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

Also fo you accept that Palestinian nationalism refutes all notions of Jewish historical occupation.

[Meenzer 15405]

When you keep saying you learn new things with practically every post, maybe, just maybe, it's possible you knew nothing in the first place?

[Rayvin 5176]

5 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

When you keep saying you learn new things with practically every post, maybe, just maybe, it's possible you knew nothing in the first place?

 

Yes, that's quite possible. I started all of this with a genuine question as I set out quite clearly. At some point, there is going to have to be acceptance of the fact that unlike most people on here, I debate things to better inform myself  

 

Would have been interesting to see what your response would have been had acrossthepond not bailed you out there though

 

BTW - feel free to answer the questions I asked acrossthepond on his behalf.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Rayvin

[Meenzer 15405]

If you genuinely feel I was in any way "bailed out" by acrossthepond, I think that only highlights your own inconsistency

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, Meenzer said:

If you genuinely feel I was in any way "bailed out" by acrossthepond, I think that only highlights your own inconsistency

 

So you were about to tell me that the Palestinians consented to the creation of Israel? Curious you didn't opt to do that in your previous contributions, since my position was unchanged over a few posts

 

It's almost like you didn't know either.

[NJS 4371]

I think zionism as a desire for a homeland is no different to the same desire of quite a few displaced peoples. 

 

Netanyahu's version which shits on Palestinians is quite objectionable though imo. 

[ewerk 30266]

1 hour ago, NJS said:

Netanyahu's version which shits on Palestinians is quite objectionable though imo. 

And that is a perfectly reasonable and non-antisemitic view to have. Some people can't just leave it at that though.

[acrossthepond 867]

Well, I want to clarify what I stated earlier. The official Palestinian position was to reject partition, which they did, but that was a political stance. Privately they were willing to accept the UN partition and live alongside a Jewish state in Palestine, if changes to the partition deal could be made. However, the decision was made for them by the Arab states' decision to invade following the Israeli declaration of independence, Jordan in particular, since some Palestinians envisioned a union with Jordan. The history of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict since then has been tainted by interference from the other Arab states, all of whom thought they were somehow going to destroy a state that had already trounced them in 1948 when they were barely even a country. 

The reason for the extended resistance now is failure to adhere to 1948 borders. After the Israeli War of Independence, they seized more land that had not been part of the original partition, and following the 1967 war they added even more land that had historically been Arab. For example, the city of Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv) was supposed to belong to Palestine in the original partition because it had such a large Arab majority - that was ignored when it was seized in 1948. So the Palestinian position is kind of "you were happy to adhere to international agreements that created a country for you, but then once you had a country, you stopped holding to anything that would limit its expansion or let us have a country, including the original agreement." 

[Rayvin 5176]

7 minutes ago, acrossthepond said:

Well, I want to clarify what I stated earlier. The official Palestinian position was to reject partition, which they did, but that was a political stance. Privately they were willing to accept the UN partition and live alongside a Jewish state in Palestine, if changes to the partition deal could be made. However, the decision was made for them by the Arab states' decision to invade following the Israeli declaration of independence, Jordan in particular, since some Palestinians envisioned a union with Jordan. The history of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict since then has been tainted by interference from the other Arab states, all of whom thought they were somehow going to destroy a state that had already trounced them in 1948 when they were barely even a country. 

The reason for the extended resistance now is failure to adhere to 1948 borders. After the Israeli War of Independence, they seized more land that had not been part of the original partition, and following the 1967 war they added even more land that had historically been Arab. For example, the city of Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv) was supposed to belong to Palestine in the original partition because it had such a large Arab majority - that was ignored when it was seized in 1948. So the Palestinian position is kind of "you were happy to adhere to international agreements that created a country for you, but then once you had a country, you stopped holding to anything that would limit its expansion or let us have a country, including the original agreement." 

 

Not disputing what you're saying, but where is the evidence that they were privately happy with it. I've only gone so far as Wikipedia but it notes that Arab and Muslim leaders rejected it...?

 

Not disagreeing with the points about external forces accelerating us to the position we find ourselves in.

[acrossthepond 867]

To be quite honest, I'm struggling to find much supporting evidence either. This is all remembered from a paper I wrote on the topic in high school, before internet research really existed. I got it out of some books and monographs written about the conflict, but I may be misremembering the level of Palestinian support for the UN plan. It's plausible that I had it wrong - this is an area I've studied a lot, but it's not the area of my professional expertise. 

This book, which is partially available online, does include some evidence supporting a Palestinian acceptance of partition. Some wanted to maintain good relations with Jews for economic reasons and others, as I said earlier, wanted partition in order to facilitate union with Jordan. King Abdallah of Jordan had always been pro-partition, probably because he had ambitions of regional dominance. 

[Rayvin 5176]

Thanks man, really informative contribution. Appreciated.