Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Barrister]

So, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time.  First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII.  You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries.  Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world.  And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.

[crazy canuck]

So, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time.  First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII.  You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries.  Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world.  And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.

In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless.  That is the core of the problem of the Nakba

[Barrister]

So, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time.  First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII.  You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries.  Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world.  And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.

In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless.  That is the core of the problem of the Nakba

I'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.

Again you have to remember the year - 1948.  The idea of a separate "palestinian state" was a foreign one.  This was an era of pan-arabism - that all arabs should live in one country, and eventually led to the short-lived United Arab Republic which was a union of Egypt and Syria.  Similarly the King of Jordan wanted to form a wider arab nation including Jordan, Syria and Palestine.  Almost all of the arab states in the area were recent creations, formed in the aftermath of WWI (one exception being Egypt).

Now that being said I hate this kind of historical determinism - the arab residents of palestine may not have thought of themselves as part of a "palestinian nation" in 1948, but they certainly do in 2023, and that still counts.

But again in 1948 there was no existing State of Palestine.  It's not like the Jews just came in and invading an existing nation and took it over.  No, you had a former province of the Ottoman empire (that had long been ruled by the Ottomans), that had pre-existing arab-muslim, jewish and arab-Christian populations (and while Christians were in the minority it was a meaningful minority as well).  It was being run by the British under a League of Nations mandate that which at first I'm sure the Brits were hoping to incorporate into the empire, but not long after they were just trying to figure out who to turn the place over to.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As Benny Morris noted in his book, there was certainly a lot of talk of "population transfer" (but little evidence the early Israeli state or protostate implemented it as policy), and that was specifically based on the very common practice of the time in using population transfers as a settlement approach to ethnic land conflicts.

To say all 150,000 just innocently decided to move and the threat of azerbaijani rule had nothing to do with it is a far more simplistic interpretation.
Azerbaijans word is clearly not worth much given the events that got us here. And as said. They were already starting the cleansing.
Really can't blame the Armenians for wanting to keep breathing.

They moved because they lost the war that just got done being fought, and they didn't want to be part of Azerbaijan. The evidence they were facing mass ethnic cleansing is actually fairly specious. There is evidence of ethnic violence--which, by the way, people of both ethnic groups have faced ethnic violence for 30 years.

It is somewhat interesting that you, a typical "pawn" of whatever stupid shit leftists are crying about at any given moment, seem to have only become aware of the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict in the past 12 months; when it became a (strangely--given the reality that Azerbaijan has received U.S. military funding for 20 years) a cause celebre among low-IQ leftists who paint the Azeri actions as being "caused by Israel" (because Israel has done some relatively small arms deals with Azerbaijan.)

Out here in the real world this is 100+ year old ethnic conflict, and you're being fairly stupid to randomly pick one side as the "good" guys. The Armenians had the upper hand in this conflict after the breakup of the Soviet Union, because Russia strongly patronized them, throughout the 2010s, Azerbaijan steadily built up its military as it became a wealthier country due to fossil fuel resources it started exploiting with the help of more advanced nations. Finally it used those resources to turn the tide on Armenia when their patron up in Moscow got distracted, and Armenia lost.

There is no evidence Azerbaijan was, or planned to, perpetrate any kind of mass genocide against the Armenians. In fact there is meaningful evidence they planned to integrate their region into the norms of the Azerbaijan state.

Now, none of this is to say the Azeris have been balls of European light like we find in progressive countries with 0 racism like the United Kingdom, but there is a big difference between the reality: a long ethnic conflict in which both sides committed humanitarian crimes, but one side eventually won--and did not pursue massacres or etc and even offered the defeated side normal citizenship, and what you are suggesting was going on--which is a mindless claim of "ethnic cleansing."

Ethnic cleansing doesn't many "anytime an ethnic group is mad."

[Josquius]

They moved because they lost the war that just got done being fought, and they didn't want to be part of Azerbaijan. The evidence they were facing mass ethnic cleansing is actually fairly specious. There is evidence of ethnic violence--which, by the way, people of both ethnic groups have faced ethnic violence for 30 years.
 

An incredibly naiive pro azerbaijani view point.
No they didn't just storm off in a strop because they lost.
Azerbaijan did a very effective job of locking down reporting from NK nonetheless what happened does not seem kosher.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nagorno-karabakh-exodus-amounts-war-crime-legal-experts-say-2023-09-29/

It is somewhat interesting that you, a typical "pawn" of whatever stupid shit leftists are crying about at any given moment, 

LOL. What a stupid ad hom.

seem to have only become aware of the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict in the past 12 months; when it became a (strangely--given the reality that Azerbaijan has received U.S. military funding for 20 years) a cause celebre among low-IQ leftists who paint the Azeri actions as being "caused by Israel" (because Israel has done some relatively small arms deals with Azerbaijan.)

Amazing. Yes. It's all red ropes back to the elders of zion in the pentagon isn't it. That's the only possible reason somebody might not approve of ethnic cleansing. Jews. 
This is so off base as to be insane.

Out here in the real world this is 100+ year old ethnic conflict, and you're being fairly stupid to randomly pick one side as the "good" guys.

Amazing projection. You're the one who seems ignorant as fuck about the reality there.
The Armenians were the  "good" guys as you want to call them because they're the ones stalin fucked and who were fighting for self determination in this. They were the ones for whom victory meant nobody else dying.

There is no evidence Azerbaijan was, or planned to, perpetrate any kind of mass genocide against the Armenians. In fact there is meaningful evidence they planned to integrate their region into the norms of the Azerbaijan state.

Where is this meaningful evidence then?
Their super special pinky promise that they wouldn't hurt anyone, honest, just ignore their attempts to wipe all memory of Armenians from their land.

As to Armenians Russian links - yes. I've seen this argument before from people who oppose Russia in ukriane just because they're THEM and not out of any support for democracy.

I am well aware that white colonial states had treaty dealings in Africa.  I also know some of these protectorate relationships were established at the point of a gun and others through less violent means.  I also know in some cases land was expropriated from the natives, either administratively as in Kenya's case or by conquest, in the case of the Boers.

What I'm objecting to is your attempt to draw some moral equivalence between Jewish purchases of land during the Ottoman control of Palestine to colonial land grabs in Africa

You seem to be changing your position here. You certainly did seem to be unaware.

I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.

Yes it can. Azerbaijan has absolutely ethnically cleansed it's Armenian population (as did the Armenians the azerbaijanis in NK).

So just make sure you get to the ethnic cleansing first so you get to keep the land?

Or just not do ethnic cleansing? That's always an option.

[Admiral Yi]

You seem to be changing your position here. You certainly did seem to be unaware.

I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.

That's a boneheaded inference.  I mentioned two out of 54 African countries where there were land grabs and 2 more where there appeared to have been land grabs.  You have to be pretty dim to assume based on that I was unaware of any other treaty relationships.

I see.  Jewish land acquisition is not necessarily not colonialism but this is not a moral equivalent.

[Admiral Yi]

I withdraw boneheaded and dim.  Substitute something like unwarranted.

[Barrister]

I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.

I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.

With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.

This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way.  We signed agreements with the local inhabitants.  We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly.  Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm).  We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.

You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.

I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Applying any terms of "indigenous" to Palestinians goes against how that word has always been used.

The typical definition of indigenous people is "the earliest known group" in a region, often used in reference to a group that has been colonized by a colonizing nation.

Arabs are not the earliest known group in the region. Because we are talking about the Levant here--an area that geographically is right around where civilization and writing started at their earliest points, which means the known history of the area is among the oldest of any region on earth.

Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel.  The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.

[Barrister]

Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel.  The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.

You have to be careful though - even if you believe the Palestinians are not "indigenous" doesn't mean they have no rights either.

I wonder if genertic studies have been done - to what extent to modern day residents of palestine share genes with more historic inhabitants of the area - either greeks, jews, or pheonicians.

[crazy canuck]

I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.

I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.

With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.

This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way.  We signed agreements with the local inhabitants.  We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly.  Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm).  We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.

You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.

I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.

That is a terribly misconceived, had an accurate characterization of colonization by Britain within what became known as Canada.

Treaties are almost entirely nonexistent within the province of British Columbia, as just one example. Indigenous communities were certainly forcibly removed from the areas in which they normally lived, hunted and fished. Furthermore, even in circumstances where agreements were made, or more properly representations were made as to what the government would do, those promises were also breached as evidenced by the billions of dollars in settlements modern Canadian governments have had to pay out to compensate for the breaches of those agreements.

Also, the Canadian government pursued an active policy of assimilation in order to destroy all indigenous culture within this country.

I'm shocked that somebody who knows anything about the topic would suggest that Britain and then Canada approached colonization in a way that deserved meritorious comment.

[crazy canuck]

So, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time.  First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII.  You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries.  Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world.  And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.

In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless.  That is the core of the problem of the Nakba

I'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.

Again you have to remember the year - 1948.  The idea of a separate "palestinian state" was a foreign one.  This was an era of pan-arabism - that all arabs should live in one country, and eventually led to the short-lived United Arab Republic which was a union of Egypt and Syria.  Similarly the King of Jordan wanted to form a wider arab nation including Jordan, Syria and Palestine.  Almost all of the arab states in the area were recent creations, formed in the aftermath of WWI (one exception being Egypt).

Now that being said I hate this kind of historical determinism - the arab residents of palestine may not have thought of themselves as part of a "palestinian nation" in 1948, but they certainly do in 2023, and that still counts.

But again in 1948 there was no existing State of Palestine.  It's not like the Jews just came in and invading an existing nation and took it over.  No, you had a former province of the Ottoman empire (that had long been ruled by the Ottomans), that had pre-existing arab-muslim, jewish and arab-Christian populations (and while Christians were in the minority it was a meaningful minority as well).  It was being run by the British under a League of Nations mandate that which at first I'm sure the Brits were hoping to incorporate into the empire, but not long after they were just trying to figure out who to turn the place over to.

I think you are ignoring both of the UN resolution and the promises that the British government had me to the Palestinian people about creating the state of Palestine after the withdrawal.

I don't think there is much historical support for the notion that the Palestinian people did not think of themselves as a nation state of Palestine. Those were promises that were made to them. Well, it is true that other Arab leaders also had designs on the area that doesn't say anything about with a Palestinians themselves thought.

The Brits were not hoping to incorporate the territory into their empire. They were trying their best to offload the burden on to somebody else and get the hell out. The Zionist terrorist attacks help convince them of that.

Lastly, you haven't grappled with the real issue, which is that none of the other peoples you mentioned ended up stateless. And that is the issue that is the core of the dispute between the Palestinians in the Israelis.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel.  The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.

You have to be careful though - even if you believe the Palestinians are not "indigenous" doesn't mean they have no rights either.

I wonder if genertic studies have been done - to what extent to modern day residents of palestine share genes with more historic inhabitants of the area - either greeks, jews, or pheonicians.

Not an expert on the genetic studies but my understanding is a large % of the people living in the region are a fairly closely related genetic soup, even if their cultural identifiers may not be one and the same. Anyone who has much experience visiting Israel will frankly note that the "typical" Israeli Jew looks a lot like the typical Israeli Arab.  There are certainly people that don't fit that mold, though, in both groups.

[Razgovory]

Jews got labeled white just into to be demonized for it.

[Barrister]

I'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.

And I regretted it.