Israel-Hamas War 2023

[HVC]

Like or not OvB's delivery, but it is noticeable that pro-Palestinian actions be it like this ICC thing, or Labour Party rebels or just Guardian articles, seem to be dominated by Muslims.

Now, that may very well be a damning view on the rest of us not doing a thing. But overall non-Muslim indifference (at best, or a quiet pro-Israeli opinion) I think indicates two things: one is that this conflict is NOT such an existential drama for the US and UK as the pro-Palestinian side is making it out to be, and that there is a strong connection of Muslims to this conflict. The layman's assumption for the latter is the shared religion and thus cultural links, however this is far from being the only place where a Muslim population suffered brutally over the last couple of decades, just to mention Myanmar and China as the most recent examples. Yet there has not been nearly the efforts to force action from Western governments in protection of those people.

How much of that is a function of cancel culture? "Whites" can't speak out without being labeled antisemitic. Muslims have that label preapplied (see OvB) so less of a concern. Look at the celebrities that got blasted, and they're just dumb pretty people.

Plenty of whites speak out against the Israelis.  They just proclaim that anti-semitism is not equal to anti-zionism. And then go back to talking about how zionists are stealing children's organs.

See, that's my point. You just said all whites who speak out are antisemitic.

[Razgovory]

I absolutely did not.

[HVC]

" talking about how zionists are stealing children's organs" isn't antisemitic?

You said plenty of whites speak out, but and went on to claim they're all secret antisemites with anti Zionism as a fig leaf. If that wasn't your intention you worded it poorly.

[Razgovory]

I guess if we say Israel isn't a "proper" country and thus open to debate whether it should exist at all, then the same is true for places like Kosovo, or Slovakia.

I bristle because of course that's the exact argument Putin uses about Ukraine - that it's not a proper or real country...

You are not the first person to make that connection...

[Razgovory]

" talking about how zionists are stealing children's organs" isn't antisemitic?

You said plenty of whites speak out, but and went on to claim they're all secret antisemites with anti Zionism as a fig leaf. If that wasn't your intention you worded it poorly.

Obviously not.  They say they aren't antisemitic.  They don't say Jews they say Zionists.  Or Zios.  I made no claim they are antisemitic.  I just mentioned a widely held belief of antizionists. If you think that's antisemitic, well that's on you.

[HVC]

So, ok, then the whites are "anti zios" in your weird loop hole. Anti zios believe in blood libel and baby killing, so any "whitey" that speaks out is still plastered with a derogatory label. Thanks for proving my point, it was quite helpful

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So, ok, then the whites are "anti zios" in your weird loop hole. Anti zios believe in blood libel and baby killing, so any "whitey" that speaks out is still plastered with a derogatory label. Thanks for proving my point, it was quite helpful

Raz posted an article (a bit back) on the anti-semitism of most anti-zionism around. It carries a russian taint.

[HVC]

So, ok, then the whites are "anti zios" in your weird loop hole. Anti zios believe in blood libel and baby killing, so any "whitey" that speaks out is still plastered with a derogatory label. Thanks for proving my point, it was quite helpful

Raz posted an article (a bit back) on the anti-semitism of most anti-zionism around. It carries a russian taint.

I don't disagree that some (much?) of the negative views in Israel are guided by antisemitism (anti Zionist fig leaf or no), I disagree that all negatives views are due to antisemitism. Just like I don't view that all pro Israeli views are guided but Islamophobia, but some (much in the west?) is. There several examples in this thread.

[Razgovory]

So, ok, then the whites are "anti zios" in your weird loop hole. Anti zios believe in blood libel and baby killing, so any "whitey" that speaks out is still plastered with a derogatory label. Thanks for proving my point, it was quite helpful

Wait what?  I'm saying that white people who believe in the blood libel are plastered with derogatory labels?  Look, you said that white people can't speak out against Israel.  Clearly they can and do.  This is not something about white people.  Plenty of non-white people speak out against Israel and Zionism.

[Josquius]

It's a question of which side you "punish" to resolve ethnic strife. In this regard it is similar to Kosovo (I am sure at least some Serbs living there were not keen on ethnic cleansing their Albanian neighbours, yet they found themselves in another country) and the breakup of Hungary.

I will not restart the conversation about how the plight of Arabs (feeling like they) having to flee their home was one of MANY such instances at the aftermath of WW2. The other peoples have accepted their fate and (tried to have) thrived.

It is difficult not to think that the Palestinians 70+ years resistance to officially accept new borders has a religious aspect. At least, SOMETHING makes their case different to the other millions uprooted in population exchanges in the late 40s.

Sure, they have been pushed back but that followed their repeated attempts to eliminate Israel. Would Israel have conquered more territories if they weren't constantly under existential pressure? We will never know.

I'd say we should have moved beyond this idea that there must always be a nation which is punished.  We should seek compromises which are workable for both sides- and in Palestine a good starting point will be the IDF fucking off back to their own country and letting the Palestinians get a proper working state up and running.

The Palestinians and religion- I guess its the same debate as in the European wars of religion. Whether the religion came first or is just used as an excuse for pushing the worldly issues doubtless differs from person to person and is all intermixed.

Would Israel have conquered more if not for outside pressure- perhaps. But then would Israel have been wiped out if not for the same outside world aiding them?- almost certainly yes. Its a complex situation but one where Israel always gets the benefit of the doubt and is really treat with kids gloves compared to other western aligned nations misbehaving.  This is a key thing that pisses off so many about the situation.

If you're going to live with a false set of facts I don't really know what to say. Yes, a significant portion of the Jewish population that made up early Israel was based on entirely legal immigration to the region.

I see what you did there.
What is in question was not whether Jewish migration to Palestine was 'legal'.
It was whether its the same thing as a regular individual like Tamas moving to another country today.
It was clearly a very different phenomena.

It'd be wrong to even countenance it, period. A significant portion of the people in question were expelled from ancestral homes in Ottoman lands and concentrated in a Jewish homeland. It would be like trying to force the Pontic Greeks back to Turkey, or to try and force all the Balkan population moves back to their pre-WWI state. The idea it is even a legitimate idea is nonsensical and even normalizes the concept of ethnic cleansing.

Ironic as you're the one calling for ethnic cleansing in this thread.
I think you've missed the point here. Its not that forcing all the zionists to go home back in the 40s would have been fine. Its that its clearly on a very different level to in the 21st century demanding all Israelis leave Israel.
Saying the Palestinians have always wanted to remove all Israelis and only changed their mind when the balance of power became so imbalanced that this became a ridiculous fantasy neglects the fact that time has passed absent any changes in the power balance and that today most Israelis were born there. It is their home country.

It isn't about self-determination--it is about the factual, practical reality, that both after WWI and WWII, there were significant movements of ethnic populations (and in the case of India/Pakistan a few years later--religious) to borders that were seen as more stable. Some of this was deliberate policy, some of it was consequence of other policies.

Self determination was the core concept that gave rise to this.
A naiive western belief that every people deserved their own state- neglecting that multi-culturalism is the historic standard in most of the world and that getting to this neat and tidy all the x are here and all the y are there situation meant massed ethnic cleansing.

The fact this "shuffling" resulted in "tragic stories" for Arabs (and also for Jews in many cases), is simply not unique. In fact I would argue it is significantly less tragic than the story of the India / Pakistan split up, in terms of human suffering / harm done.

Exactly.
Yet why are the Palestinians so particularly undeserving of basic respect and being allowed the state they were meant to get?
Its not like its a special and unique situation. It worked elsewhere.

The core issue is we seem to only believe in the case of Israel and the Jews that the correct answer for a mid-century or earlier wrong, is to do another set of ethnic cleansing to benefit Arabs--

 Interesting you're so up in arms at the slightest hint of ethnic cleansing pointed one in one direction whilst you're all for it when it goes the other way.
Again you're the only one advocating for ethnic cleansing. I've been straight from the start that it's never a good idea no matter how noble the intent may seem on the surface.

who have already had carved out for them literally 15 or so countries in the region.

These 15 or so countries were 'carved out' against the will of the Arabs it must be remembered. They'd have preferred just the one and the situation we ended up with was very unpopular.

Is it your assertion that Arabs simply need 100% of all lands in the region? Is no other ethnic group legitimate? I assure you that Arabs have never been 100% of the ethnic composition of the region.

It is my assertion that saying 'oh but this ethnic group has a state over there, the people who've lived here for generations are thus expendable' is a ridiculous outlook.
Again your argument here is basically that Russia seizing the Donbass is completely fine, as afterall, Ukraine still has a bunch of other oblasts.

These were shared lands among many ethnicities since time immemorial.

Exactly. Multi culturalism is the human norm.
So why does one group get sole ownership of a region?

The "Arab lands" position echoes Arab supremacy that basically asserts that because at a given point in history Arab rulers had the most power in the region, 100% of all the land is "Arab" and anything else is evil or illegitimate. That isn't just nonsensical, it is immoral, and would be easily called out as such in most other contexts. It is quite literally the same argument Russians make that they "deserve" control of all the lands that were once under Russian dominion, it doesn't matter that maybe there were actually ethnic groups who weren't Russian, it matters that Russians used to dominate, so those lands must be seen as Russian in perpetuity. We reject it when Putin makes that argument, for good reason.

Arab lands are Arab lands because that's where Arabs live and have done for centuries.
If I come to your house, shoot some things, kick out your family, change the locks, then yes, that's damn pretty evil and illegitimate.
Again, you're the one echoing the Russian position here.