Injustice in Palestine
- Thread starter k0rps
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Well, OK then. I'll dip my toe in these poisoned waters.
www.bbc.com
Palestinian killed as Israeli settlers attack town after deadly shooting
A Palestinian man has been shot dead and several wounded after Israeli settlers went on a violent rampage in the occupied West Bank.
Residents told the BBC they feared for their lives as hundreds of armed settlers torched homes and cars in the town of Turmusaya.
One accused the Israeli army of leaving them helpless for 45 minutes during the attack.
"They gave the settlers the chance to do this," he said.
It was an apparent reprisal attack, hours after the funeral in a nearby settlement of a 17-year-old who was among four Israeli settlers shot dead by Palestinian gunmen at a petrol station on Tuesday.
The Israeli military condemned the settler attacks, but did not respond to questions about the speed or nature of its response.
A hallmark of fascism is the belief that the rule of law applies to others. The settlers who attacked that town did so in a vigilante reprisal for the killing of their own at a gas station. The raid on that village wasn't an act of justice, it was a terrorist attack cloaked by a grievance. That the military looked the other way is most troubling. At least it is to those who do not support Israel's colonial policies of allowing settlers to occupy land outside of Israel's recognized boundaries under special protection by the Israeli government. .
Palestinian killed as Israeli settlers attack town after deadly shooting
The rampage in the occupied West Bank comes a day after Palestinian gunmen shot dead four Israelis.
www.bbc.com
Palestinian killed as Israeli settlers attack town after deadly shooting
A Palestinian man has been shot dead and several wounded after Israeli settlers went on a violent rampage in the occupied West Bank.
Residents told the BBC they feared for their lives as hundreds of armed settlers torched homes and cars in the town of Turmusaya.
One accused the Israeli army of leaving them helpless for 45 minutes during the attack.
"They gave the settlers the chance to do this," he said.
It was an apparent reprisal attack, hours after the funeral in a nearby settlement of a 17-year-old who was among four Israeli settlers shot dead by Palestinian gunmen at a petrol station on Tuesday.
The Israeli military condemned the settler attacks, but did not respond to questions about the speed or nature of its response.
A hallmark of fascism is the belief that the rule of law applies to others. The settlers who attacked that town did so in a vigilante reprisal for the killing of their own at a gas station. The raid on that village wasn't an act of justice, it was a terrorist attack cloaked by a grievance. That the military looked the other way is most troubling. At least it is to those who do not support Israel's colonial policies of allowing settlers to occupy land outside of Israel's recognized boundaries under special protection by the Israeli government. .
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Personally, I would expand the number by characterizing it as
all this BS cause of zealots, Jewish and otherwise.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
it is, all of it is BS.....once people learned how it started
United Nation Resolution 181 <-----other wise know a the beginning of the end imo......the formation of the state of Isreal
and those 2 asshats are the ones that started it all
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Israel is a sovereign nation and its territory is to be respected. No argument about what is fact at the present.
What I don't understand is, looking back to the time before UN resolution 81, what justification could have been given to the people living there at that time that their right to form a sovereign nation could be overlooked.
Afterward, during the early days of Israel Zionists conducted terrorist attacks on Palestinian villages that motivated Palestinians to flee en masse. I understand and accept the facts on the ground today but I don't accept that it was just to enact UN resolution 81. Given the terrorist actions perpetrated by Zionists with the support of the nascent Israeli government, I don't think that it is so simple as to point at a Muslim and a Nazi leader as the cause of the turmoil.
I'm replying for discussion, not argument.
Last edited:
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Can I be moderator and do like fact-check, point out historical inaccuracies and convenient or unintentional gaps in history, fallacies, cherry picking and unfair biases?
HGCC
Well-Known Member
YesCan I be moderator and do like fact-check, point out historical inaccuracies and convenient or unintentional gaps in history, fallacies, cherry picking and unfair biases?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Ok this I can work with.
It wasn’t overlooked (?) The idea by then was a jewish and an arab state, with economic ties and safe place on both sides regardless of religion. The jews, including most zionists, were happy with that (after all they got over 60% of the land), best day ever stuff, party time. But the Arab side boycotted the plan, started killing jews the next day, and with the help of 6 neighboring Arab nations tried to destroy Israel. Brits decided to stay out of it, Arab league failed. Instead Israel pushed them all back and in that process took another chunk of land, displacing 700k Palestinians while Egypt took gaza (where Hamas rules, offshoot of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood…) and Jordan the west bank. That 700k is rarely mentioned together with the quarter of a million jews who had to flee from those same Arab aggressors nations, cause they were no longer safe there.
It didn’t all start with UN resolution 181. Like Truman, unlike suggested in the Waters thread, not being they key deciding factor, it was already set in motion by the League of Nations, of which US in contrary to much of the world was not a part (though Calvin Coolidge agreed). After the Brits beat the Turks, who owned the area for hundreds of years, they were put in charge by the rest of the world to control the region they now called Mandatory Palestine. The idea was to take control until they (jewish and arab palestinians) were able to form a nation. But Brits also promised Jews, not deemed too backward, their own state. Which Jews wanted not specifically because of their religion but because of anti-semitism in Russia and Europe (which started long before ww2). Zionism isn’t as much about religion as some want to make it. Sure it’s used as an excuse by some, but it’s really about self-preservation.
Ending illegal settlements doesn’t mean giving land to uhm.. not sure actually. ”The Palestians” isn’t really a thing as in a nation of organized people. If Israel would have to give occupied territories to the nations that are the previous owners, it would mean Golan Heights back to Syria, Gaza to Egypt and West Bank to Jordan. Aside from the latter that would be messed up. Areas from which those countries attacked Israel in an attempt to annihilate it, again.
“The people living there at that time”, arabs from all over the region and semi-nomadic tribes roaming the desert some now pretend was always “Palestinian land” or even more absurd, “Palestine”. The maps floating around on social media, incl in Waters thread, are extremely misleading. Hamas propaganda material.
Ironically, never in history did the “Palestians“ get so many opportunities to create their own state since Israel declared independence. If only they had their priorities straight, that is, dial down that urge to kill jews and themselves with it and then pretend to be the victim of it all.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I saw a piece on our local left-bias pbs on the latest drama. 15 min about how horrible Israelis are when they respond to an attack that flashed by in maybe 120 frames. Typical. It seems almost every suggestion what Israelis should or shouldn’t do suggests showing more tolerance against extreme intolerance. Something none of us would even consider, we’d go apeshit on anyone trying to wipe out our country. But when it’s Jews, people get this tunnelvision focus on how Israel deals with the hostilities, rather than demanding arabs from Palestine and neighboring countries permanently stop all hostilities and not start shit again and again. If Israel wouldn’t be able to defend itself I’d vote for sending in an international peace force to protect their civilized advanced democratic (for now 
) society against the attacks you don’t hear nearly as much about as Israel’s responses. But then I’m one of those people who thinks we should have never left Afghanistan.
) society against the attacks you don’t hear nearly as much about as Israel’s responses. But then I’m one of those people who thinks we should have never left Afghanistan.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I saw a piece on our local left-bias pbs on the latest drama. 15 min about how horrible Israelis are when they respond to an attack that flashed by in maybe 120 frames. Typical. It seems almost every suggestion what Israelis should or shouldn’t do suggests showing more tolerance against extreme intolerance. Something none of us would even consider, we’d go apeshit on anyone trying to wipe out our country. But when it’s Jews, people get this tunnelvision focus on how Israel deals with the hostilities, rather than demanding arabs from Palestine and neighboring countries permanently stop all hostilities and not start shit again and again. If Israel wouldn’t be able to defend itself I’d vote for sending in an international peace force to protect their civilized advanced democratic (for now
So, let's reel it back a bit.
Using a map that is a screen shot from from this link
History of the Question of Palestine - Question of Palestine
Timeline of Events (click here for list of dates) 1917 - 1947: British mandate Palestine was among former Ottoman territories placed under UK administration by the League of Nations in 1922. All of these territories eventually became fully independent States, except Palestine, where in...
www.un.org
Prior to 1947, the area encompassed in that map was controlled by the British. Their rule was contested by people living inside that region in what is called "the Arab Revolt" that took place between 1936 and 1939. So, people were shedding blood for something. I don't think it was for the right to travel across deserts with their camels. It's described in Wikipedia as a popular nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs. There is that word. Palestinian Arabs. So the did exist, didn't they?
In 1948, the Palestinian Arabs (I'll just call them Palestinians going forward) were completely overrun. Israel took most of the Palistinian land, Egypt took Palestinian land to the south and Jordan took Palestinian land to the east, completely disenfranchising Palestinians. They were left without an adequate defense. The UN partitioned the country in a bizarre way without regard to people who lived there for generations, then washed their hands of the matter. British pretty much turned over their armory to the Jewish state.
I bring this up because your version seems to say there were no Palestinians, just landless camel jockies (I paraphrase unfairly). There was a population in the area who were objecting to the British policies of allowing free movement of Jewish refugees into the area with a Zionist agenda. They were objecting but couldn't stop it. They lost it all in 1948.
This is all old history. It has little to do with the people living there now except to explain how they got there. But I think we should acknowledge that Israel wasn't simply defending itself. There were major land grabs from people who had a valid claim to that land too.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Not simply maybe, yes. They were attacked by Arabs from all over the region and grabbed 60% of what was supposed to become part of the Arab part/state. Sounds excessive but is directly a result of defending themselves, which includes making it harder for the enemy to attack again, a near certain prospect.
I was referring among others to an earlier simple map where settlements were encircled as Jewish land and the rest as Palestinian land. It was ALL Palestinian land and not Arab Palestinian's land specifically. But yes, old history. International treaties being the supreme law of the land according to US constitution, there should be no discussion about whether Israel is a legitimate state. Palestine however... isn't quite there yet, at least not according to for example US, UK, Australia, NL and similar.
Palestine was and is above all a geographic region, which includes Israel. Arab Palestinians are Arabs from that region. I used the term in my post, just as I did Jewish Palestinians purposely to make a point.
“Opposition to Jewish immigration spurred the consolidation of a unified national identity [Palestians], though Palestinian society was still fragmented by regional, class, religious, and family differences. The history of the Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars; the term "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by Palestinian Arabs from the late 19th century and in the pre-World War I period The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent creation of an individual British Mandate for the region replaced Ottoman citizenship with Palestinian citizenship, solidifying a national identity. After the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the 1948 Palestinian expulsion, and more so after the 1967 Palestinian exodus, the term "Palestinian" evolved into a sense of a shared future in the form of aspirations for a Palestinian state. Today, the Palestinian identity encompasses the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period.” - wiki
I have no objections to the term, nor the state of Palestine, use it as you see fit, point is the meaning is very flexible. E.g. Palestinians = Arab nationalists united by antisemitism. True, but lacks a lot of nuance and a timestamp on the term, which doesn't dictate any ownership.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Split over two posts so it looks less lengthy 
You did indeed paraphrased unfairly, as it paints a different picture than what I was trying to portray with arabs ‘and’ semi-nomadic tribes and Palestinians at the time not representing a single group or a nation of organized people. They are still not able to form a nation, as the world agreed on almost a century ago. That's not on the Jews. Blame Russia, Europe, UK, US, UN, Arab League instead. It still is fragmented, not just physically. Who should rule the Palestine Israel should return land to or de-occupy? Hamas (rules Gaza with populistic hate) who received 56% of the votes in last election 17 years ago? Or Fatah (rules West Bank by buying loyalty), who refuses to work with Hamas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict Who should deal with human-right issues and lack of rights and law and order in said Palestine, or should we just let them be like Afghanistan. While they're at it, should Israel give the Golan back to Syria, to Assad?
My point remains that Israel has every right to defend themselves, including retaliate by taking out murderers and terrorists targeting civilians, as long the hostilities directed to them continue. I'm pro-worldpeace, which in my book doesn't include creating an islamic sharia state that had plenty of fair chances to create their own peaceful state if they weren't so pre-occupied with their anti-semitic urge to kill jews.
You did indeed paraphrased unfairly, as it paints a different picture than what I was trying to portray with arabs ‘and’ semi-nomadic tribes and Palestinians at the time not representing a single group or a nation of organized people. They are still not able to form a nation, as the world agreed on almost a century ago. That's not on the Jews. Blame Russia, Europe, UK, US, UN, Arab League instead. It still is fragmented, not just physically. Who should rule the Palestine Israel should return land to or de-occupy? Hamas (rules Gaza with populistic hate) who received 56% of the votes in last election 17 years ago? Or Fatah (rules West Bank by buying loyalty), who refuses to work with Hamas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict Who should deal with human-right issues and lack of rights and law and order in said Palestine, or should we just let them be like Afghanistan. While they're at it, should Israel give the Golan back to Syria, to Assad?
My point remains that Israel has every right to defend themselves, including retaliate by taking out murderers and terrorists targeting civilians, as long the hostilities directed to them continue. I'm pro-worldpeace, which in my book doesn't include creating an islamic sharia state that had plenty of fair chances to create their own peaceful state if they weren't so pre-occupied with their anti-semitic urge to kill jews.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
Totally agree and i welcome the conversation
now we all know Hitler.....
allow me to introduce you to other guy, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948, he was also Pan Arab Nationalist, a Facist, and a member of the Nazi Party. He was also President of the Supreme Muslin Council during that the time and as well as the President of All-Palestine as well. Now it was know at the time Hitler sent emissaries throughout the Middle East, one contact was the Mufti himself. He is also know to have made Muslim SS squads throughout the Slav states and as well into the Black Sea states. There are pictures of him in the Wiki article i posted that shows him inspecting and as well as doing the Nazi Salute to his commandos. He was also the instigator of the 1948 Palestinian war too....
Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Actually it is, considering the Grand Mufti and his connections
Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
and now we have this:
that's hezbollah, insteresting salute don't you think
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He fled Palestine in 1937 and wasn't a pollical leader there ever since. He did lead the revolt against British rule in 1936. He lived in fascist Italy for most of the war and was a figure head leader in the Middle East ever since.Totally agree and i welcome the conversation
View attachment 5301997
now we all know Hitler.....
allow me to introduce you to other guy, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948, he was also Pan Arab Nationalist, a Facist, and a member of the Nazi Party. He was also President of the Supreme Muslin Council during that the time and as well as the President of All-Palestine as well. Now it was know at the time Hitler sent emissaries throughout the Middle East, one contact was the Mufti himself. He is also know to have made Muslim SS squads throughout the Slav states and as well into the Black Sea states. There are pictures of him in the Wiki article i posted that shows him inspecting and as well as doing the Nazi Salute to his commandos. He was also the instigator of the 1948 Palestinian war too....
Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia
Actually it is, considering the Grand Mufti and his connections
Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia
and now we have this:
View attachment 5301998
that's hezbollah, insteresting salute don't you think
Considering what happened to Palestinians, he was not wrong when he opposed the UN partition plan AND the the King of Jordan's plan to annex that territory. Was his anti-Semitism due to his nationalism or was it the other way around? He did seem to be trying to establish a Palestinian-controlled territory after the British left. But he was an anti-Semite. It would have gone hard on the Jewish people who were also there at the time so I am not defending him. Just pointing out that the Zionist movement at that time and the behavior of the west toward Palestinians was pretty racist toward the Palestinian Arabs. Jewish militias did fire on Palestinian Arabs and joined with the British military during the 1936 revolt. They were militant and defending a vision of a Jewish state in a region that they had no valid claim upon at that time.
Call it what you like. There were fanatics on both sides that were destined to create a tragedy. This time, the tragedy was visited upon the Palestinian Arabs. What I'm objecting to is how they are being written out of history by Israel and the Zionist movement world wide. I'm pointing out that this is what radical authoritarians do when they are covering up their misdeeds and justifying whatever happens next.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The thing that I don’t understand is how a plan drawn up by adults could have internal borders thousands of miles long. The Arab portions were surrounded by other culturally similar states. The Israeli portion was not. The Israelis were driven by a need to consolidate defensible borders, which required seizure of Arab land, which precipitated a response from the Arabs requiring greater Israeli border consolidation for state survival, which …
and here we are.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Today's situation is a snake pit. The current hierarchy and division will not hold. With the advancing amount of land held by "settlers" in the West Bank against international laws, I think the only answer is a one state solution. But the time for that is not now. Israel of today will never accept a solution that has a majority of Arabs holding the same voting rights as Jews. Then again, they keep supporting the formation of settlements and protecting them with their military.Split over two posts so it looks less lengthy
You did indeed paraphrased unfairly, as it paints a different picture than what I was trying to portray with arabs ‘and’ semi-nomadic tribes and Palestinians at the time not representing a single group or a nation of organized people. They are still not able to form a nation, as the world agreed on almost a century ago. That's not on the Jews. Blame Russia, Europe, UK, US, UN, Arab League instead. It still is fragmented, not just physically. Who should rule the Palestine Israel should return land to or de-occupy? Hamas (rules Gaza with populistic hate) who received 56% of the votes in last election 17 years ago? Or Fatah (rules West Bank by buying loyalty), who refuses to work with Hamas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict Who should deal with human-right issues and lack of rights and law and order in said Palestine, or should we just let them be like Afghanistan. While they're at it, should Israel give the Golan back to Syria, to Assad?
My point remains that Israel has every right to defend themselves, including retaliate by taking out murderers and terrorists targeting civilians, as long the hostilities directed to them continue. I'm pro-worldpeace, which in my book doesn't include creating an islamic sharia state that had plenty of fair chances to create their own peaceful state if they weren't so pre-occupied with their anti-semitic urge to kill jews.
Now then, what do you say about what Bibi is doing to re-shape their justice system?
A Rush of Far-Right Initiatives by Israel’s New Government Raises Concerns (Published 2022)
Benjamin Netanyahu needed the support of far-right factions to return to the prime minister’s office. Now they want to curb the powers of the judiciary, giving rise to fears about an erosion of democracy.
The proposed legislation subordinates the police to the minister’s authority, leading legal officials and experts to fear a politicization of the force. And it grants the minister the right to set priorities and time frames for investigations in a departure from past practices.
“The Israel Police will be run under a threatening and belligerent man who lacks responsibility and experience, who wishes to turn it into a political agency,” and to turn the police commissioner into a “puppet,” the outgoing minister of public security, Omer Bar-Lev, told Parliament this week.
Mr. Ben-Gvir argues that the police should be subordinate to a minister’s policy in the same way that the military carries out the government’s policy. But critics say that unlike the military, which fights Israel’s enemies, the mission of the police is to deal with Israeli citizens — including corrupt politicians.
Also of concern are the proposals to change the way the judiciary operates.
If implemented, they will dramatically curb the powers of the Supreme Court, which has long been seen by liberal Israelis and analysts as one of the country’s most important institutions safeguarding against the erosion of liberal democratic values. Because Israel has only one house of Parliament and no formal constitution, the judiciary plays a critical role in protecting minority rights and offsetting rule by the parliamentary majority.
The coalition partners are keen to see these judicial changes, not least to ensure that the Supreme Court cannot overturn the hasty legislation now making its way through Parliament.
“In the coming weeks we will have to face the most significant threats Israeli democracy has seen in recent decades,” Mr. Plesner said at a recent conference at his institute on the implications of the judicial changes proposed by members of the incoming coalition.
This is what I mean when I point out that Israel is heading toward fascism. A hallmark of a fascist state is to use a group that is relatively powerless as a scapegoat to excuse the institution of illiberal policies. Mussolini did it, Hitler did it, Trump did it and Netanyahu is doing it.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It was designed to fail. Any adult can see that.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
And both sides have a legitimate historical claim to the same lands. It’s a mess, and as you observe it is driving a move toward authoritarian government on all sides. It’s a heartbreak without any equitable solution I can see.
CANON_Grow
Well-Known Member
Eeek, that loaded language that makes it appear that you believe Israeli Jews can do no wrong against Palestinian Muslims, just retaliation against murderers and terrorists. So is any action that Israel does just retaliation?
Israel: UN expert condemns brutal attacks on Palestinians at Al-Aqsa Mosque
GENEVA (6 April 2023) – A UN expert today condemned the violent incursions by Israeli forces into the Haram Al-Sharif compound and the attacks on Palestinian worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque on Wednesday. “As Palestinian Muslims gathered for Ramadan prayers exercising their right to worship in...
I'm sure we would agree that if the roles were reversed in the above scenario, that it would be easy to say it was wrong. Is Israel justified in those actions because of the threats they continue to face, and the larger goal of security in mind? In a conflict this difficult, how does anyone determine when it's a response to a previous incident or something new and unprovoked?