Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

[Gethelred]

Part I:

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack.

Breaking the law. 'International humanitarian law prohibits a siege of Gaza, UN human rights commissioner says From CNN's Eve Brennan Ravina Shamdasani speaks at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, on September 7, 2018. Ravina Shamdasani speaks at the Palais des Nations in...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread Rules:

Alright.

I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have connections to either side of the conflict. What you need to understand is that this site has rules governing posting standards and the appropriate way to talk to other posters, and you will abide by them.

How this interacts with this thread is that the following will result in your post being deleted, with a recurrence of the same behaviour resulting in (depending on severity) a threadban for a week and a day off:

• direct labelling of someone as anti-semitic or a terrorist sympathiser for posting that is merely critical of Israel's response over time. I appreciate that Israel has the right to defend themselves from violence, but that does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to attack disproportionately towards people under their care.
• deliberate goading or flippant responses, designed to get people reacting to your posting emotionally.
• abuse.
• attempts to turn this into a Left vs Right shitfight.
• If I see the word 'Nazi' in here, you had better be able to justify it in the post you're making and the comparison had better be apt. Godwin's law is in full effect for the purposes of this thread; if you refer to Nazis, you've lost whatever argument you're involved in.
• Any defense of Hamas' actions on the basis of justification. There's no justification for genocide, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so.

Please recognise that this is a difficult time for all involved, and some level of sensitivity is absolutely required to permit discussion to flow. From time to time, mods will reach out to specific posters and do some welfare checks; we may even give posters who get a bit too involved some days off to give people some time to cool down. This is not a reflection on you as a poster, merely that this is an intense subject.

I get that this is a fairly intense topic about which opinion can diverge rather significantly. If you feel you cannot be respectful in your disagreement with another poster, it is frequently better to refuse to engage than it is to take up the call.

From this point, any poster who finds themselves directly insulting another poster will find themselves receiving a threadban and an infraction, with each subsequent reoccurance resulting in steadily more points added to your account.

If you accumulate enough points in a 12 month period you will lose privileges:

5 points - 1 week off.
10 points - 2 weeks off
15 points - 3 weeks off
20 points - Account banned.

It has also become apparent that this needs to be said: just because someone moderates a part of this forum that isn't on Int Pol or the SRP does not hold them to a different standard of posting than anyone else. All of us were posters first, and we are allowed to hold opinions on this and share them on this forum.

Treat each other with the respect each of you deserve.

Thanks all.

Play nicely, all.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

In hindsight perhaps.

At the time when someone else was portioning off the land they lived on out of guilt for the persecution of European Jews it's pretty easy to understand why they thought it was a s**t deal.

Oh don't get me wrong - that's why the fire safety guy in WTC2 who gave the "return to your offices" announcement has never been named - what he did makes perfect sense if you don't know a second plane is coming.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

UNGA resolutions are legally non-binding. The Allied Powers of WWII would never have agreed to set up the UN in 1945 in the first place had it been otherwise. Certainly not the Soviets.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Oh, whats going on here?

View attachment 1938796

The disconnect point that I see is
“Would this happen and the media not report”
Which reflects ignorance of the existing media bias in most western countries when reporting on Israel/Palestine (until the current invasion which has moved the dial a little)

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Unfortunately, as far as western attention is concerned, it tends to stay very firmly in the background until it produces just this sort of crisis. At best, our media notice some of the symptoms (terrorist activity, waves of refugees, economic troubles) but ignore the underlying cause: governments that have cut themselves off from genuine accountability. At worst, they simply assume that political dysfunctionality is all that Africa, and the ME deserves.

 

[sr36]

Sorry, this is such a weak response I hear far too common from people who actually believe they know the full picture and sit on the fence.

I'm not sitting on the fence. Israel's current war is appalling.

What I'm doing is akin to pointing out the oppressive context that led up to Oct 7 - something that doesn't make you on the fence or mean that you support Oct 7 or terrorism or whatever the pro-Israeli crew were running with early in this war. It just is what it is. 60 years of siege and oppression - what else was going to happen? Meanwhile, 70 years of threats and attacks on a much more powerful neighbour...

That's the context. If we were Palestinian - many of us would hate all Israelis because of the oppression. If we were Israeli and had been affected by attacks - many of us would hate all Palestinians.

Because we're people and that's how people respond.

War followed by oppresion followed by uprising followed by more brutal oppression tending towards genocide - this s**t isn't new - it's the history of Eurasia - and probably the other land masses as well.

None of that helps the current Palestinians being slaughtered - but neither will the portrayal of the two cultures being innocent or evil - if those ideas endure after the war itr will ensure this s**t continues. It's a ******* mess that will only be resolved by trying to look at the other side's perspective and then Palestine getting a state and freedom and Israel getting security. Then in this case throw in the added complication that some on both sides believe that they've got the mandate of God behind them.

Perhaps because the "birth" of their nation came at the expense of the local populations? It's not as though it was an act of self-determination of a native people, it was colonial imposition.

I don't disagree with that, but it's not 1948 and a few generations have been born since - the current Israelis are born into a world where Israel exists and owns the land they own - are you going to donate your family home and land back to Aboriginal Australia? I'm not.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Israel was not a colony to the Jewish people and it was not "imposed" by the European colonial powers. You only have to look at things like the 1939 White Paper.

I mentioned upthread the Arab leaders' after the YK war in 1973 dishonest and deliberately propagandist re-interpretation to the anglophone and francophone and lusophone world of what "Nakba" was originally coined to mean.

Israel was also not later "maintained by U.S. imperialism". Obama and Kerry tried to pressure Israel and Tel Aviv bluntly told them to piss off. At this point, Israel no longer needs the USA.

 

[QuietB]

Israel was not a colony to the Jewish people and it was not "imposed" by the European colonial powers. You only have to look at things like the 1939 White Paper.

I mentioned upthread the Arab leaders' after the YK war in 1973 dishonest and deliberately propagandist re-interpretation to the anglophone and francophone and lusophone world of what "Nakba" was originally coined to mean.

Israel was also not later "maintained by U.S. imperialism". Obama and Kerry tried to pressure Israel and Tel Aviv bluntly told them to piss off. At this point, Israel no longer needs the USA.

If the USA abandoned Israel - Israel would cease to exist within 5 years.

Israel enjoys air superiority in the region thanks to the USA (Israel might make weapons but they don't make F35's), has multiple US air craft carrier battle groups parked in the region in support of Israel, and gains a huge chunk of its financial and political power from the USA.

Israel is entirely dependent on the USA for its survival.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

Israel has nukes.

 

[Saint]

The Jews were around long before Islam and the Arabs ancestors conquered the place in the seventh century - which makes the Arabs look like the Tellmarines in Narnia, pretty much.

Wordplay and omission of fact does not help either side. It's just viler to me coming from those gangsters in Ramallah or the theocrats of Hamas because they discredit the Palestinian cause as a whole.

Jews were not the only people there in pre-7th century. Unless you think Macedonians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Syrians have claims to the area too?

And Christians aren't claiming Istanbul on these ridiculous types of historic arguments.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

And Christians aren't claiming Istanbul on these ridiculous types of historic arguments.

But the largely Muslim Arabs can?

 

[QuietB]

And there were people there long before Judaism was a religion. We should return the land to them right?

The Ethiopians walked through there first about 60,000 years ago - people didn't have the luxury of religion yet.

 

[QuietB]

Israel has nukes.

So what - are they going to start firing them into Gaza?

 

[Saint]

But the largely Muslim Arabs can?

You mean the ones who actually lived there for the past 1,500 years?

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

So what - are they going to start firing them into Gaza?

Just pointing out the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" problem.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

You mean the ones who actually lived there for the past 1,500 years?

On one hand we can and should acknowledge this as fact.

On the other hand, when Palestine itself supports the displacement and forcible relocation of other people, it becomes difficult to drum up sympathy when it backfires resulting in the same thing happening to them.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

From my understanding, an important part of the context of reactions to the 1947 partition plan (and then the 1948 war) is the pan-arabic movement and the Arab League (which would, after the civil war was over and Israel declared independence, invade as a "Plan B"), which considered the existence of a non-Arabic state in the Middle East (in particular a Jewish one, as there was a pre-existing sentiment that Jewish nationalism is a threat to all Arabs and all Muslims) as completely unacceptable.

To be blunt, I suspect that any Jewish state in that area is likely to have been considered unacceptable to the larger movement, and that a different partition plan would've faced very similar opposition... and likely have still resulted in an invasion if proto-Israel won the resulting civil war.


Over time, I've come to the viewpoint of seeing the roots of the Israel/Palestine conflict through the lens of the clashing of two ethno-nationalist movements, during an era where ethno-nationalist movements were becoming increasingly common - mostly, as I see it, as a reaction to the actions of the imperialistic powers of the time.

The Ottoman oppression of Arabs was a major contributor to the establishment of Pan-Arabism, for example, while Zionism arose out of the persecution of Jews by just about every Imperial power that existed. As the two had conflicting visions and what each might consider their "ethnic heartland" were in so close proximity, conflict was... probably inevitable.

At best, I suspect, would've been something like what was seen in another imperial territory of the era - British India, with Muslims from the territory that would become modern India moving (or being moved) to what is now Pakistan and Hindus the other way. And even in that case, the two do not get along even in the present day.

That honestly gets me wondering sometimes... if the British had put in some effort and planned such a split better, could the modern history of the region have been less actively violent? That is, was there some split or arrangement of populations that would've made proponents of both movements unhappy... but not unhappy enough to instigate wars?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don't disagree with that, but it's not 1948 and a few generations have been born since - the current Israelis are born into a world where Israel exists and owns the land they own - are you going to donate your family home and land back to Aboriginal Australia? I'm not.

I was responding to the comment that the birth of Israel was greeted with war, I wasn't commenting on the current situation. However if it came to it and a representative body of First Nations people wanted us to leave then yeah, I probably would migrate back to Europe. If not then I would be happy for the government to pay reparations to those groups instead, whatever they thought was fair and necessary.

 

[do_i_look_worried_go_ahe]

"always was, always will be" 100% comes across as needing a deadpan "Ever before humans evolved?"

 

[Saint]

To be blunt, I suspect that any Jewish state in that area is likely to have been considered unacceptable to the larger movement, and that a different partition plan would've faced very similar opposition... and likely have still resulted in an invasion if proto-Israel won the resulting civil war.

I think the difference between this ethno-state and all the others is that they were a very small minority with a very short history in the region being given an unbelievably good deal.

A deal which reneged on the deal the Arabs had struck with that same deal maker (the British) just 30 years earlier and still being fought over.

Can you imagine if the Indian partition included a small land for Portuguese in Goa

 

[Not Important]

at the weekend i heard an interview with someone who has worked for the i.c.r.c for decades in many countries. he spent time in israel recently, not in the war-prone areas such as gaza and the west bank, but mainly in jerusalem. he was amazed and concerned at the aggression among the populace, including the carrying of guns which was widespread. apparently, former i.d.f peeps are permitted, perhaps encouraged, to do it. it seems aggression and hostility have become inbred. both sad and worrying.

this immoral inhumane behaviour adds to the view of the indoctrination of aggression and hatred by the I.d.f

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Doesn't make a huge amount of sense if you look at history. What we're seeing is a fundamentalist reaction to secularism in Islamic countries.

Indonesia is a secular democracy. So are Malaysia and Bangladesh. There's recently (last 50 years) been an attempt by fundamentalists in Saudi and Iran to radicalise other parts of the Islamic world, but it has only succeeded in parts. Iran was very secular until the 70's.

There's a movement happening now from religious fundamentalists in Christian countries. If somewhere like the US succumbs, they'll spread that radical message faster than Saudi and Iran have. Orthodox Christianity is just as conservative, or more conservative than many Islamic countries.

Religion has a big part to play in the brutality of these wars. It's really the only way to justify killing civilians. But one is not worse than the other, they're all equally bad.

The countries who do better are the ones who shrug religious doctrine, regardless of which religion it is. That's why Israel wanted the Islamist Hamas in charge of Gaza as an opponent for the secular PA.

Too right. Religious fundamentalism and ethno-supremacy, in all their forms across Earth's multiculure, are the enemy here. A lot of it can be contained through a dependable and secular education system but with the hardened core of all of these groups unfortunately only military action against them is necessary.

 

[Saint]

Too right. Religious fundamentalism and ethno-supremacy, in all their forms across Earth's multiculure, are the enemy here. A lot of it can be contained through a dependable and secular education system but with the hardened core of all of these groups unfortunately only military action against them is necessary.

Military action can (should) include the withdrawal of military aid/supplies.

 

[PieLebo87]

I'm not sitting on the fence. Israel's current war is appalling.

What I'm doing is akin to pointing out the oppressive context that led up to Oct 7 - something that doesn't make you on the fence or mean that you support Oct 7 or terrorism or whatever the pro-Israeli crew were running with early in this war. It just is what it is. 60 years of siege and oppression - what else was going to happen? Meanwhile, 70 years of threats and attacks on a much more powerful neighbour...

That's the context. If we were Palestinian - many of us would hate all Israelis because of the oppression. If we were Israeli and had been affected by attacks - many of us would hate all Palestinians.

Because we're people and that's how people respond.

War followed by oppresion followed by uprising followed by more brutal oppression tending towards genocide - this s**t isn't new - it's the history of Eurasia - and probably the other land masses as well.

None of that helps the current Palestinians being slaughtered - but neither will the portrayal of the two cultures being innocent or evil - if those ideas endure after the war itr will ensure this s*t continues. It's a ****** mess that will only be resolved by trying to look at the other side's perspective and then Palestine getting a state and freedom and Israel getting security. Then in this case throw in the added complication that some on both sides believe that they've got the mandate of God behind them.



I don't disagree with that, but it's not 1948 and a few generations have been born since - the current Israelis are born into a world where Israel exists and owns the land they own - are you going to donate your family home and land back to Aboriginal Australia? I'm not.

You jump off that fence pretty quickly when you realise Israel believes their security and the oppression of Palestinians are mutually exclusive. You CAN have both, but they don’t believe that.

Oppression is due to Israel, not Palestine. Security is controlled by Israel, not by Palestinians.

Israel holds the cards. Not anyone else in the region.

I don’t understand how you don’t see that and still parade the whole fence sitting stance.

 

[Not Important]

yes! without the support of the yanks israel would be unable to commit the horrific crimes. and the fact that the corrupt, sociopathic leader thumbs his nose as the yanks shows israel has the weak-as-piss yanks by the balls. the leadership there has boasted about it.



israel owns america. a rotting, gutless, uncaring, terror-supporting country.



pleasingly, there remain caring humane american jews with a soul and heart. sadly, most of then have comparatively little power and influence. on the other hand, a.i.p.a.c is a terror-supporting, poisonous, propaganda organisation that has enormous power and influence.

 

[Not Important]