Israel and Palestine Again: Are we all hopeless and have given up?

13567

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Thank you for your post, Curiosity Killed.
  • @betjemaniac - yes, I ignored the Crusades as the periods of occupation were so short lived relatively, and according to the different sources either any Jewish diaspora had already happened already, and/or the Jews who remained were either maintaining a small Jewish presence or converting to Christianity or Islam throughout that period. And from what I know of the Crusades the aim was to return Jerusalem to Christianity by removing the Muslim presence.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Maybe this is a tangent and maybe not. I have been wondering whether we can name a country run by a non-indigenous majority which has a history of treating its indigenous minority well.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    Maybe this is a tangent and maybe not. I have been wondering whether we can name a country run by a non-indigenous majority which has a history of treating its indigenous minority well.

    I rather expect that the circumstances that lead you to being a non-indigenous majority almost preclude treating the indigenous population well. One can reasonably assume that any indigenous population would already be using all the land, for example (whether that be in a sense the incoming population understand or not) and any dispossession is likely to be disagreeable.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.

    See below
    Penny S wrote: »
    Telford, have you read abut Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach - in what way were they not terrorists?

    They were terrorists who are no longer about. My father told me about them murdering our troops. The Jews have been the underdogs for nearly 2,000 years. They are very defensive about their homeland. They need to be persuadfed that they are no longer in danger from their neighbours
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    For "neighbours" read "people camping on the verge outside because you nicked their house"
  • Telford wrote: »
    This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.

    See below
    Penny S wrote: »
    Telford, have you read abut Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach - in what way were they not terrorists?

    They were terrorists who are no longer about. My father told me about them murdering our troops. The Jews have been the underdogs for nearly 2,000 years. They are very defensive about their homeland. They need to be persuadfed that they are no longer in danger from their neighbours

    The terrorists founded Israel and were among its first politicians. And it's not "defensive" when you migrate somewhere and expel the native population. It's "offensive" in both senses of the word.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    This is partly for me, but trying to put the whole Israel-Palestine situation into historical context.

    According to this timeline from AlJazeera (link)† this situation originated in 1799 with Napoleon's Siege of Acre, when Napoleon decided to re-establish the Jews in Jerusalem. Shame about the people already living there. Jews started moving into the area. That group was augmented over the years. Skipping on just over a century, historic lands of Palestine were granted to Jews by France and Britain with their carving up on the Middle East with the Sykes Picot line in 1916, followed by the establishment of Israel by Western states over the next three decades.

    In 1922 the League of Nations agreed the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the Jewish homelands in the area. The area remained under British military rule, with continuing Jewish immigration, and Arab dissent. The British put down the Three Years Arab Revolt between 1936 and 1939. This was alongside, what were called Zionist group attacks on the Arabs in Palestine - bombing Arab sites, ethnic cleansing of areas. In 1947 the UN had adopted the Palestinian Partition plan, the Palestinians voted against it. 1948 the State of Israel was established and is immediately recognised by the US and Russia. In 1949 the UN signs an agreement allowing the return of Palestinian refugees - over 80% of the Palestinians were expelled from Palestine in the years from 1947-1949 and around 80% of Palestinian land was seized by Zionists. A refugee organisation was founded to support the Palestinian refugees in 1949.

    In 1950 there were 150,000 Palestinians in Israel granted citizenship. The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) was established in 1950 in response to the continuing massacre of Arab villages and take over of the land. By 1967, Israel had occupied all the traditional Palestinian lands including the West Bank and Gaza strip. Those borders, the ones Israel had taken by 1967 are the borders that the UN and other countries would like to see Israel return to Palestine but are still being encroached upon.

    In 1974 the PLO were recognised as the sole legitimate official representative of Palestine, For the next twenty years they negotiated, with various bodies brokering those negotiations to agree statehood and various peace settlements culminating with the Oslo* peace agreement signed by Palestine and Israel.

    Various other treaties continued through to 2000, but in 2002, Israel reoccupied the West Bank and started building their wall around Palestine. Yasser Arafat died in 2004, and war broke out again in the region. In 2008, Israel attacks the Gaza strip and again in 2014.

    Remind us, @Telford who are the aggressors in this area?

    † This wasn't the only source I used to put this together, when I didn't know something I looked further
    * One of the things that got me interested in this area was seeing the play Oslo about the first and second negotiations. One of my other sources for information is the play programme which gave a lot of historical background to the talks.

    See below
    Penny S wrote: »
    Telford, have you read abut Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach - in what way were they not terrorists?

    They were terrorists who are no longer about. My father told me about them murdering our troops. The Jews have been the underdogs for nearly 2,000 years. They are very defensive about their homeland. They need to be persuadfed that they are no longer in danger from their neighbours

    The terrorists founded Israel and were among its first politicians. And it's not "defensive" when you migrate somewhere and expel the native population. It's "offensive" in both senses of the word.

    The Jews were granted land in Palestine. In the late 40s the Arabs tried to drive them off this land. The Jews fought back and it was the Arabs who lost land. The Arabs have been wanting to push the Jews into the sea for at least 70 years.
  • Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.

    The thing is that after nearly 2,000 years of persecution and the holocaust, I have always supported Israel.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.

    The thing is that after nearly 2,000 years of persecution and the holocaust, I have always supported Israel.

    Israel wasn't subject to 2000 years of anything. Jewish people were. Mixing up Jewish people with Israel is popular with both zionists and anti-semites (and of course the intersection of the two).
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I supported Israel until I found out I had been misled about the noble enterprise.
    One example - a settlement (illegal) extracts water from an aquifer, not only for needs, but to keep their lawns green. In doing so they lower the level of the aquifer, so that the wells of the Palestinian village at the foot of the hill can no longer access the water. Israel passes a law making it illegal for the villagers to deepen their wells.
    Then there's the cutting down of ancient olive trees, which, so I have been told, are regarded by the owners as a sort of natural land title - "these are the trees which were planted by my ancestors".
    And putting up walls to make it impossible for Palestinians to access their olive orchards.
    It may not be terrorism, but it's mean minded, vicious, dishonest and not in keeping with the teaching of the prophets.
    The people who have lived in the Holy Land so long are not the people who have mistreated the Jews over the millenia, not the people of York and Lincoln and Norwich, not the people of Spain and Germany, Russia and Poland.
    Why should they suffer?
    (And, of course, the current occupants of those places are not the people responsible for the pogroms, either.)
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.

    The thing is that after nearly 2,000 years of persecution and the holocaust, I have always supported Israel.

    Israel wasn't subject to 2000 years of anything. Jewish people were. Mixing up Jewish people with Israel is popular with both zionists and anti-semites (and of course the intersection of the two).

    Where did I say what you have just claimed ?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    By now the Israelis and Hamas have started their cease fire. It was supposed to start at 2300 hours GMT,

    Note to Telford. The 1948 conflict started when the Zionists tried to force 750,000 Palestinians of their land. The Palestinians fought back and were joined by the Arab nations.

    You might find this interactive story enlightening. Yes, it is told from an Arab perspective. But who says Israel has a right to write the history of what happened. As my mother says, there is always two sides (at least) to the same story:

    https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/al-nakba.html#/17
  • In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.

    The thing is that after nearly 2,000 years of persecution and the holocaust, I have always supported Israel.

    Israel wasn't subject to 2000 years of anything. Jewish people were. Mixing up Jewish people with Israel is popular with both zionists and anti-semites (and of course the intersection of the two).

    Where did I say what you have just claimed ?

    You used the persecution of Jewish people to justify supporting Israel.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Did the local population grant the Jews land in Palestine? No, they didn't. The British "granted land" they were governing under the British Rule of Palestine. And the Arabs who lived there objected repeatedly, by rebellion, by voting, by every means at their disposal. I would suggest that the Jews were imposed upon the Palestinians by the British, and French before them, which is an entirely different thing.

    And according to the AlJazeera link, the Jewish settlement of Palestine under British Rule was instigated by Herbert Samuel, the leader of the Liberal party at the time (link to Wikipedia). He also became the first High Commissioner for Palestine and was nominally a Jew.

    The thing is that after nearly 2,000 years of persecution and the holocaust, I have always supported Israel.

    Israel wasn't subject to 2000 years of anything. Jewish people were. Mixing up Jewish people with Israel is popular with both zionists and anti-semites (and of course the intersection of the two).

    Where did I say what you have just claimed ?

    You used the persecution of Jewish people to justify supporting Israel.

    Yes I did and I am happy to do so.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    The point is often made that there are some in Palestine who want Israel to cease to exist, glossing over the Israeli right-wing who want a Greater Israel from the Jordan to the Sea. I have a contact learning Hebrew. He tells me he has now learnt enough to understand that what some Israeli mobs are shouting is "Death to Arabs". The idea that if the Palestinians just dropped their weapons all would be peaceful and hunky-dory is utter hogwash.
  • In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group? If yes, where? If no, what then?

    If one of the articles I linked to is correct and the Jewish diaspora is a myth and those Jews in Jerusalem and that area were all that still remained there as a small community, because many had converted to Christianity and Islam. If too the Jews scattered across the world are mainly those groups formed from Jewish conversion in the countries where converting Jews had arrived over the centuries (Berber communities, Armenian, as two groups named), then I would question under what rights these groups have to claim a country they only have links to because the Biblical stories are being read to suggest they belong there, when they are only linked by conversion. There is a consensus in the literature that Judaism converted new adherents until the 12th Century, whether they do now or not, so a "diaspora" created by conversion is not unlikely.

    I would be happier to state unequivocally that there had been no rewriting of history if I wasn't watching the Holocaust being rewritten as the Shoah in my lifetime. Yes, there were 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, some 2/3 of the European population, but the ethnic cleansing did not stop at the Jews. There were 1.5 million of the 2 million Roma, so 3/4 of those living in Europe killed, according to Ian Hancock¹, and the 250,000 disabled people² or the 10-15,000 homosexual men³. On Twitter last Holocaust memorial day, those remembering the Roma losses in the Holocaust were being trolled as antisemitic.

    ¹ link to Wikipedia on the Romani genocide;
    ² link to site discussing disabled people killed in the Holocaust
    ³ Holocaust page on gay people
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    Not many - 80% of the Palestinians who had been living the area had been displaced by 1949 through British sponsored Jewish settlements and a string of Zionist attacks. Although the UN has insisted they have a right to return in one or other of the declarations in the 1950s, I am not sure what there is left for them to return to when at the same time around 80% of their lands had been seized and the UN is only trying to get Israel to cede the lands seized in 1967.
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    Russ wrote: »
    But that's not as evil as deliberately targeting civilians.

    ...There's also an element of hitting what you can reach. If Hamas could reach Israeli air bases and blow up the planes doing the bombing I suspect they would. Equally I'm sure if someone gave them more accurate weapons they'd gladly pick more precise targets.

    I suspect the world would be a better place if nobody gave them any weapons at all.

    But the main point here is surely this notion of "underdog".

    Your argument here seems to be an example of the doctrine that rules are there for the strong and the rich to be held to, and the poor and the weak to be excused from.

    And the point of CK's admirable precis of history is to cast the Palestinians as underdogs and undermine the widely-held notion of Jews as underdogs.

    IMHO more constructive would be to propose a better set of rules for everyone - the losers of history as well as the winners - to follow day by day. And save up our desire to condemn to apply to breaches of that universal code. But I know I'm in a minority here.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    Actually, the point of CK's precis as I see it is to point out that the Palestinians have a valid grievance. It's important to separate out whether a cause is just from the means by which that cause is being advanced.

    The simplistic narrative quite often seems to be "Hamas do bad things therefore the Palestinians are the baddies and the Israelis are the goodies and we should support the Goodies" - and to hell with the actual underlying problem which would still be there if everyone in the occupied territories lay down their arm tomorrow.

    Part of the problem is that the pro-Israeli lobby tends to try to justify Israeli actions by setting forth the Israeli cause. Those of us with sympathies more on the Palestinian side do not attempt to justify Hamas' actions; we are merely point out that the Palestinians have a valid grievance and the terrible suffering Israel's actions are causing. Again,it's important to separate these two things out. No-one here is saying "Shame more rockets don't get through".
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I also doubt whether the world would be a better place if the Palestinians had no weapons at all. Not for them, at any rate. I suspect they'd eventually find themselves being pushed out of a Greater Israel stretching from the Jordan to the Sea.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    I suspect if Israel was disarmed it would be a lot easier to disarm Hamas.

    Actually, having been reading around this to argue this case, there is a certain irony in the immigrant Jews trying to force out the Arabs who live in the area, when it seems more than likely that those Arabs, if they trace their lines back, have Jewish roots and at some time in their histories, converted to Islam (or Christianity). Whereas the immigrant Jews may well have Orthodox Christian roots and converted to Judaism. Which makes the whole situation a whole lot more complicated.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group?
    If you replace the word "Jewish" in that sense with "any" the answer is clearly, Fuck, no. Saying the Anglo-saxons, for example, should control their country as the majority group leads nowhere good.

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited May 2021
    Russ wrote: »
    Your argument here seems to be an example of the doctrine that rules are there for the strong and the rich to be held to, and the poor and the weak to be excused from.

    The asymmetry that exists currently is that Gaza is current occupied by Israel, who control its borders (both land and sea) as well as its airspace.

    Ignoring the loss of life for a second, the buildings blown up in Gaza are unlikely to be replaced unless Israel alters the conditions of the current blockade of Gaza, and so those people who didn't die will remain homeless (another form of collective punishment).
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I think Israel would say it is not occupying Gaza, having withdrawn troops and Israelis who had settled there.
    It is, as said above, surrounding it, and controlling what may and may not be imported or exported. I remember last time they had damaged a lot of buildings reading that they would not allow the import of cement for rebuilding, I think on the grounds that it could be used for military purposes - bunkers and tunnels.
    I'm not sure what grounds they have for not allowing there to be proper sewage disposal, so that the stuff flows around over the land surface. I think that gets pretty near chemical/biological warfare.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I am now feeling very sad, having gone to the twitter feed of someone I have thought of as a friend. She has retweeted a lot of stuff from supporters of Israel, for example, posters which suggest that Hamas is using children as human shields, which is why so many are killed, while the IDS put the children behind them to protect them. The IDS is, according to one poster, the most moral army in the world.
    She has, in the past, said she is thinking of moving to Israel as she doesn't feel safe here. Mind warp.
    Apparently, some pro-Palestinian protestors are chanting, in Arabic, "Death to Jews." I think I could have worked out what "Yehud" means. Mirroring what is said in reverse, reported above.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    In your opinion should Jewish people have their own country which they control as the majority group?
    If you replace the word "Jewish" in that sense with "any" the answer is clearly, Fuck, no. Saying the Anglo-saxons, for example, should control their country as the majority group leads nowhere good.

    The problem is that Christian nations and groups (or other religious groups) didn't have a very long history of persecution like Jews. Were there anti anyone else pograms for millennia? Did any other countries create ghettos for any other people. Or Pales? Anti Semitism is unique in its longevity and persistence.

    I've never heard the discounting of other groups in the holocaust being called anti Semitic. It probably happened. So what in the context of the history?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    The problem is that attempting to put right that historical wrong has created another, with people expelled from their own country, and still being expelled, evicted and deprived. Let's not forget what started this current round of violence - evictions.


  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    Not many - 80% of the Palestinians who had been living the area had been displaced by 1949 through British sponsored Jewish settlements and a string of Zionist attacks. Although the UN has insisted they have a right to return in one or other of the declarations in the 1950s, I am not sure what there is left for them to return to when at the same time around 80% of their lands had been seized and the UN is only trying to get Israel to cede the lands seized in 1967.
    "a string of Zionist attacks"? It seems odd that your sources appear to skip over the whole war episode. You'd think an invasion by armies from five other countries would be worth mentioning, but maybe Al Jazeera just has a different perspective.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Deleted
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    I knew about the Zionist terror gangs and the expulsion of the Palestinians long before the technology enabling al Jazeera could even be dreamed of. They came before the attacks by the countries around, so referring to them is not eliding that war. They were first. The war you refer to was a reaction to them.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    It certainly is a mess, so entangled in history that it can’t be unravelled, and I think God alone can do anything about it now.

    I pray for all of the people, Israelis and Palestinians.

    I made some observations when I visited the holy land, and listened to some of the refugee’s descendants in Bethlehem who still hold the keys to their grandparent’s homesteads, long since demolished. They hand down the stories of their families being driven out: anyone who resisted being shot, the others driven further and further away from fertile land until at last they were able to stop, with nothing but what they were wearing. The UN gave them small tents which kept being blown away in the wind, so they eventually made concrete rooms with the same dimensions as the tents. The families still live there, building rooms on top of rooms, doing their best to collect rainwater on the roofs as they are reliant on whatever water the Israelis allow them, or don’t allow them. Health care is scant, provided by the UN. They are not allowed to cross the border into Israel, or to see Jerusalem. There is more, including the wall, and stories of people disappearing overnight, but it would make this too long to go there.

    It struck me how much the people respected the Jewish religion while disrespecting the Israelis. When talking about Jews, they said they have lived side by side with both Christians and Jews for centuries, each ready to help the others. When talking about Israelis their demeanour changed, they were speaking of the people who they considered had and were still treating them badly.

    On the other hand, it is understandable that Jews who have been treated so badly in the past wherever they lived, and who suffered so much in WW2, have a desire not only to have a place to call home, which they are able to run according to their own needs, and that there will remain a fear of persecution in its psyche to the extent where fortification is built up both physically and in terms of arms and military training.

    Other countries including Britain have our fingerprints all over this, but then our grubby fingers have left their mark all over the world. To get it all in perspective, we often left good things behind too, but human nature seems to magnify the memory of harm against that of good.





  • Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    Not many - 80% of the Palestinians who had been living the area had been displaced by 1949 through British sponsored Jewish settlements and a string of Zionist attacks. Although the UN has insisted they have a right to return in one or other of the declarations in the 1950s, I am not sure what there is left for them to return to when at the same time around 80% of their lands had been seized and the UN is only trying to get Israel to cede the lands seized in 1967.
    "a string of Zionist attacks"? It seems odd that your sources appear to skip over the whole war episode. You'd think an invasion by armies from five other countries would be worth mentioning, but maybe Al Jazeera just has a different perspective.
    I skipped over a lot in those summaries. The Zionist attacks on the Palestinians started in 1938, with attacks by Irgun and the 1946 Irgun bombing of the King David hotel through to 1950.

    While I'm here, I'll correct something above, the UN Declaration 194, which asserts the right to return of Palestinian refugees, was made in December 1948, and has been reiterated many times since.

    I presume you are referring to the Six Day War in 1967 (link to Wikipedia) because I did comment in passing on the lands taken by Israel at that time, without mentioning that there was involvement from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Wikipedia describes Israel as the aggressor there too:
    Israel had crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian militaries, having killed over 20,000 troops while losing fewer than 1,000 of its own. The Israeli success was the result of a well-prepared and enacted strategy, the poor leadership of the Arab states, and their poor military leadership and strategy. Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.
  • Wikipedia.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    Not many - 80% of the Palestinians who had been living the area had been displaced by 1949 through British sponsored Jewish settlements and a string of Zionist attacks. Although the UN has insisted they have a right to return in one or other of the declarations in the 1950s, I am not sure what there is left for them to return to when at the same time around 80% of their lands had been seized and the UN is only trying to get Israel to cede the lands seized in 1967.
    "a string of Zionist attacks"? It seems odd that your sources appear to skip over the whole war episode. You'd think an invasion by armies from five other countries would be worth mentioning, but maybe Al Jazeera just has a different perspective.
    I skipped over a lot in those summaries.
    I’m not talking about what you did or did not skip, I’m talking about what isn’t in the links themselves.
    I presume you are referring to the Six Day War in 1967 (link to Wikipedia)
    No, I’m not.
    because I did comment in passing on the lands taken by Israel at that time, without mentioning that there was involvement from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Wikipedia describes Israel as the aggressor there too:
    Israel had crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian militaries, having killed over 20,000 troops while losing fewer than 1,000 of its own. The Israeli success was the result of a well-prepared and enacted strategy, the poor leadership of the Arab states, and their poor military leadership and strategy. Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.
    That doesn’t say Israel was the aggressor; it says Israel was the victor.
  • If you read the whole article about the Six Day War it does say that Israel was the aggressor.

    The 1947-49 War of Independence was the whole area being taken back out of British hands, but because the way the land was carved up by the Sykes-Picot Line, again in 1947-49 and then recarved up in 1967, I didn't add to the complications of those other issues. Because that was more about the boundaries of Jordan, Syria and Palestine being drawn, where Palestine was envisaged to be shared lands between settling Jews and the indigenous Arabs. If you read the Guardian long read linked earlier by Arethosemyfeet, you'll see how that went - Jewish author for that article.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What is never addressed by the Israel apologists on here is that the land now Israel did not arise empty out of the bowels of the Earth in 1948. It already had people in it. Many of them are now living in Gaza, their movements controlled by Israel, or the West Bank, their communications severed by Israeli settlements. What of their self-determination? Their right for a secure self-governing home?

    Not many - 80% of the Palestinians who had been living the area had been displaced by 1949 through British sponsored Jewish settlements and a string of Zionist attacks. Although the UN has insisted they have a right to return in one or other of the declarations in the 1950s, I am not sure what there is left for them to return to when at the same time around 80% of their lands had been seized and the UN is only trying to get Israel to cede the lands seized in 1967.
    "a string of Zionist attacks"? It seems odd that your sources appear to skip over the whole war episode. You'd think an invasion by armies from five other countries would be worth mentioning, but maybe Al Jazeera just has a different perspective.
    I skipped over a lot in those summaries.
    I’m not talking about what you did or did not skip, I’m talking about what isn’t in the links themselves.
    I presume you are referring to the Six Day War in 1967 (link to Wikipedia)
    No, I’m not.
    because I did comment in passing on the lands taken by Israel at that time, without mentioning that there was involvement from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Wikipedia describes Israel as the aggressor there too:
    Israel had crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian militaries, having killed over 20,000 troops while losing fewer than 1,000 of its own. The Israeli success was the result of a well-prepared and enacted strategy, the poor leadership of the Arab states, and their poor military leadership and strategy. Israel seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.
    That doesn’t say Israel was the aggressor; it says Israel was the victor.

    It was not Israel's idea to attack 3 neighbouring countries, who were supported by 2 other countries, at the same time.

    I am pleased about this ceasefire but I suspect that Iran wont be
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    If you read the whole article about the Six Day War it does say that Israel was the aggressor.
    It says “The question of which side caused the war is one of a number of controversies relating to the conflict.”
    The 1947-49 War of Independence was the whole area being taken back out of British hands, but because the way the land was carved up by the Sykes-Picot Line, again in 1947-49 and then recarved up in 1967, I didn't add to the complications of those other issues. Because that was more about the boundaries of Jordan, Syria and Palestine being drawn, where Palestine was envisaged to be shared lands between settling Jews and the indigenous Arabs. If you read the Guardian long read linked earlier by Arethosemyfeet, you'll see how that went - Jewish author for that article.
    There’s nothing about the five Arab countries invading in your Al Jazeera links, which is why you didn’t know what I was talking about when I pointed out it was missing.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 2021
    1. The quotation you have taken from the Six Day War article only refers to the conflict between Egypt and Israel, and does not include Israel's aggressive attacks on Syria and Jordan. The last two sentences of that paragraph read:
    On 5 June, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Egyptian airfields, initially claiming that it had been attacked by Egypt, but later stating that the airstrikes were preemptive. The question of which side caused the war is one of a number of controversies relating to the conflict.
    And for full openness the earlier section of that paragraph is discussing the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt

    2. The Al-Jezeera timeline aims to cover the Palestine-Israel conflict, which I though this thread was discussing, not the further conflicts in the Middle East, which is why I had concentrated on that area. The timeline does mention involvement of other countries in the region, noting that armistice agreements were signed between Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt between February and July 1949.

    I find it interesting that you are choosing to widen the discussion, when all I was trying to do was point out that the Palestinians do have a grievance. I have nowhere said that I agree with Hamas, because I don't, although I can understand the frustrations that are leading them to their current actions. Historically, when the PLO were gaining some traction in negotiated settlements, such as the 1993 First Oslo agreement, the actions of Hamas were beyond counterproductive.
  • Wikipedia! For God's sake. Try this: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

    To say Israel was the aggressor isn't even wrong in the gnu sense. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    1. The quotation you have taken from the Six Day War article only refers to the conflict between Egypt and Israel, and does not include Israel's aggressive attacks on Syria and Jordan
    Oh nonsense. In an article about the Six Day War, the sentence refers to "the war" - there's no reason to think it only refers to the parts you think it should.
    2. The Al-Jezeera timeline aims to cover the Palestine-Israel conflict, which I though this thread was discussing, not the further conflicts in the Middle East, which is why I had concentrated on that area.
    It's disingenuous to blame the displacement of Palestinians on "a string of Zionist attacks" without mentioning that there was a whole Arab-Israeli war going on at the time. That's hardly just some "further conflict" going on somewhere else in the Middle East.
    I find it interesting that you are choosing to widen the discussion
    I'm just pointing out that you seem to be drawing preferentially from some extremely one-sided sources.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The Rev Munther Isaac, pastor of the Lutheran Church in Bethlehem wrote an excellent letter in Sojouners (link here). I quote it in part:
    For years, Western Christian theology has been part of the matrix that empowers the Israeli occupation. It’s a theology that describes God’s unique faithfulness to Israel, the fulfilment of prophecy, and the “return” of Jews to “their” land. Adherents embrace the myth that the land was devoid of people when the state of Israel was created, or worse, that it was occupied by the enemies of God.

    It is time for Christians in some communions to confess and repent from their total disregard for the existence of Palestinians. It is time to change the theological narrative that renders the state of Israel invincible to errors and beyond any judgment.

    Theology matters. And if any theology trumps the ethical-biblical teachings of Jesus on love, equality, and justice, then we must rethink that theology. If any theology produces apathy to injustice, it must be re-examined.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Wikipedia! For God's sake. Try this: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

    To say Israel was the aggressor isn't even wrong in the gnu sense. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

    Sorry, but Israel's existence is an act of aggression.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Sorry, but Israel's existence is an act of aggression.

    Oh dear!
    Will we have to leave home?


  • Is there a way to avoid both Christian supersessionism and Christian Zionism?

    I was struck by a church that in its order of service stated:
    "In Christian liturgy, the term "Israel" does not refer to the modern state of Israel."

    Okay, that is fine but then it says

    "Israel refers either to the ancient Hebrews or to all people who place their faith in Jesus Christ."

    Uh...the latter half of the second is Christian supersessionism.

    How about "We affirm God's continual covenant with the Jewish people, but we do not equate the Jewish people with the modern State of Israel."
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Galilit wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Sorry, but Israel's existence is an act of aggression.

    Oh dear!
    Will we have to leave home?


    The way it was created Galilit. By the UN regardless of the land being far from empty. By America and Russia. For their own imperial reasons. And no, you should not leave home, but you, in your innocence, are a victim of history. The UN did violence to the Palestinian people, did they not? And did the Jewish people, who had just suffered one of ghastliest violences of history, no favours. There need to be two Mandelas.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Is there a way to avoid both Christian supersessionism and Christian Zionism?

    I was struck by a church that in its order of service stated:
    "In Christian liturgy, the term "Israel" does not refer to the modern state of Israel."

    Okay, that is fine but then it says

    "Israel refers either to the ancient Hebrews or to all people who place their faith in Jesus Christ."

    Uh...the latter half of the second is Christian supersessionism.

    How about "We affirm God's continual covenant with the Jewish people, but we do not equate the Jewish people with the modern State of Israel."

    Israel was Abraham's son.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Telford wrote: »
    Is there a way to avoid both Christian supersessionism and Christian Zionism?

    I was struck by a church that in its order of service stated:
    "In Christian liturgy, the term "Israel" does not refer to the modern state of Israel."

    Okay, that is fine but then it says

    "Israel refers either to the ancient Hebrews or to all people who place their faith in Jesus Christ."

    Uh...the latter half of the second is Christian supersessionism.

    How about "We affirm God's continual covenant with the Jewish people, but we do not equate the Jewish people with the modern State of Israel."

    Israel was Abraham's son.

    Er, no he wasn't.
Sign In or Register to comment.