Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

There is no validity to Palestinian nationalism because ethno terrorism is intrinsically illegitimate. We of the West must always stand against it, especially when it is also associated with Islam—the eternal enemy of the West and the chief anti-Western ideology.

[Razgovory]

Are some nationalism's better than others?  Lettow's southern nationalism seemed different than Swiss nationalism.

[DGuller]

I wonder whether the Israeli attack was actually a blunder. Wouldn't it have made sense to save it for when disrupting Hezbollah C&C mattered most? 

I read in some article (summary) somewhere thst maybe the Israelis were worried their scheme would be discovered.

Then again maybe they had intel that hezbollah was preparing something big and wanted to prevent or delay it.

I imagine this isn't something Israel could sit on indefinitely.  It only takes one guy to drop the pager and see C4 fall out of it to raise the alarm.  A zero-day hack, on the other hand, is something you can sit on for a long time, and I do wonder what hacks Russia and China have in their arsenals that they'll deploy if there is ever an active conflict with the West.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are some nationalism's better than others?  Lettow's southern nationalism seemed different than Swiss nationalism.

Some nationalisms definitely manifest in more ugly, violent and dysfunctional ways than others.

[Josquius]

Palestine has always existed.
Even if it was a part of Syria at the start of the 20th century it was a place that existed and had native inhabitants.
To argue that Palestinians didn't exist because most identified as Syrian is akin to saying Texans don't exist because they're American.
Identities can go down to a really low level of individual villages and neighbourhoods. It's just silly to deny the Palestinians had any attachment to their ancestral home because they also saw themselves as part of a bigger whole.

No one said they are monolithic, that is an inference you drew, and was never implied or typed by me.

Palestinians don't exist and anyone claiming to be one unless they're part of Hamas is just an Arab.
Yeah...pretty clear what your implication was.

[Razgovory]

Just like how the Gilead and Airstrip One have always existed.

[Josquius]

Just like how the Gilead and Airstrip One have always existed.

You're not even trying to make sense here.

[Razgovory]

Just like how the Gilead and Airstrip One have always existed.

You're not even trying to make sense here.

"Palestine" has not always existed anymore than Airstrip One always existed.  Syrians aren't Palestinians because one day in the future some of their decedents will claim a new identity based on new political borders.

[Josquius]

Just like how the Gilead and Airstrip One have always existed.

You're not even trying to make sense here.

"Palestine" has not always existed anymore than Airstrip One always existed.  Syrians aren't Palestinians because one day in the future some of their decedents will claim a new identity based on new political borders.

Airstrip one is a fictional renaming of Britain in 1984. One novel. Not based on anything

The origins of the name Palestine stretch back to  before 1000BC- originally referring specifically to the area around Gaza curiously enough.
Under the Romans it was the standard name for the region. This continued up to the crusades and crops up often as the name of the region thereafter, Shakespeare for instance mentions it.

Blindly support Israel if you want. But trying to rewrite history to make the enemy's very identity a unword... Fitting you'd mention 1984.
It's a shit thing to base an argument for anything that matters on so I won't do that, but it's ironic it's the zealots who do this as the region being called Palestine has much more of a history than Israel.
Israel was established in Palestine. Not the reverse.

[Valmy]

It's a shit thing to base an argument for anything that matters on so I won't do that, but it's ironic it's the zealots who do this as the region being called Palestine has much more of a history than Israel.
Israel was established in Palestine. Not the reverse.

Ok so you make sense and then go off and do the exact same thing you accuse Raz of doing but in reverse. What a hypocrite.

[Josquius]

It's a shit thing to base an argument for anything that matters on so I won't do that, but it's ironic it's the zealots who do this as the region being called Palestine has much more of a history than Israel.
Israel was established in Palestine. Not the reverse.

Ok so you make sense and then go off and do the exact same thing you accuse Raz of doing but in reverse. What a hypocrite.

It's hypocrisy to point out even in a weird world where this is something that matters it's wrong?
Yeah.... I don't think you're up on your comprehension here.

[Razgovory]

Just like how the Gilead and Airstrip One have always existed.

You're not even trying to make sense here.

"Palestine" has not always existed anymore than Airstrip One always existed.  Syrians aren't Palestinians because one day in the future some of their decedents will claim a new identity based on new political borders.

Airstrip one is a fictional renaming of Britain in 1984. One novel. Not based on anything

The origins of the name Palestine stretch back to  before 1000BC- originally referring specifically to the area around Gaza curiously enough.
Under the Romans it was the standard name for the region. This continued up to the crusades and crops up often as the name of the region thereafter, Shakespeare for instance mentions it.

Blindly support Israel if you want. But trying to rewrite history to make the enemy's very identity a unword... Fitting you'd mention 1984.
It's a shit thing to base an argument for anything that matters on so I won't do that, but it's ironic it's the zealots who do this as the region being called Palestine has much more of a history than Israel.
Israel was established in Palestine. Not the reverse.

Yeah, you are not getting it.  Air Strip One was a fictional future country.  If we establish airstrip one in 50 years now, you can't say that Air Strip One has always existed.  Yet you do that with Palestine.

As it happens Israel is older than Palestine, It is first mentioned in Egyptian sources in 1209-1203 BC.  Palestine comes from Pelest a people (probably from Europe, maybe Greece), who invaded the region around 1150 BC.  The Egyptians let them settle in the area that is the Gaza strip.  These colonists did fight the Israelites but were eventually crushed by the Persians.  After the Jewish revolts in Judea the Romans genocided and ethnically cleansed the Jews and renamed the province  "Syria Palestine".  Eventually The Arabs then the Turks took over and it was just Syria.  When the British took it over they renamed it Palestine. 

Palestine is and has always been the colonial name of the area.

[Razgovory]

Also how long are you going to accuse me of "Blindly supporting Israel".  We've gone over this a dozen times.  I don't support the colonization of the West Bank.

[viper37]

I don't support the colonization of the West Bank.

You just turn a blind eye to it and approve everything Israel does.  But you don't support it.  Strange take to have.

[Josquius]

Yeah, you are not getting it.  Air Strip One was a fictional future country.  If we establish airstrip one in 50 years now, you can't say that Air Strip One has always existed.  Yet you do that with Palestine.

This makes your argument even worse.
Leaving aside the fiction vs. reality angle (I had to look up that Father Ted bit though....). Airstrip One is a (warning we don't want of a) future nation. That it has no past and is artificially created by an illegitimate regime as a means of stomping down a people's freedom is its entire point.

Palestine is a very real place in the present with a long history. If the desires of the zionists come true it won't have a future. It is what is being actively eliminated.

One could argue they're literally opposite ends of the equation.

As it happens Israel is older than Palestine, It is first mentioned in Egyptian sources in 1209-1203 BC.  Palestine comes from Pelest a people (probably from Europe, maybe Greece), who invaded the region around 1150 BC.  The Egyptians let them settle in the area that is the Gaza strip.  These colonists did fight the Israelites but were eventually crushed by the Persians.  After the Jewish revolts in Judea the Romans genocided and ethnically cleansed the Jews and renamed the province  "Syria Palestine".  Eventually The Arabs then the Turks took over and it was just Syria.  When the British took it over they renamed it Palestine.

Palestine is and has always been the colonial name of the area.

As I've already said this is a shit argument for problems in the current day.
Its basically akin to saying if some group comes along and conquers a chunk of France but calls themselves "Gaul" then they're instantly far more legitimate than any groups calling themselves France.

Yet despite choosing this invalid point, it doesn't even back you up. So purely academically...

The earliest sources for Palestine and Israel come from around the same point in time. However Israel quite solidly refers to a kingdom in the north of the current country. Gaza and its surroundings were Palestine.

I've seen far right folk throwing that "Palestinians are Philistines from Greece!" one out weirdly often. As if it means anything. We're talking about the second millenium BC here.
1500 years before the English showed up in England.
Back when southern Korea was probably still Japonic.
More than long enough ago to be counted as native as can be- besides which these are the ancestors of Palestinians and Israelis both....
Every name is a "colonial" name. History was pretty messy, pre-history even more-so.

The Romans killed a shit-tonne of Jews. But they didn't wipe them out. A lot of them stayed behind and with time many of their descendants became Christian and then the bulk of those Muslim (and various other groups).

Palestine remained Palestine under the Arabs and Turks. Britain didn't rename it. Weird and easily disproven myth that still gets echoed.
But if your argument is that a gap in the use of a name somehow delegitimises all associated with it (again- daft. Why do you think this is a remotely relevant argument for human rights in the 21st century?) ....you might want to think about Israel and how long that went unused.