These incidents are well known for decades. By the time they happened Jewish flight from Iraq was already underway, discriminatory laws had been gradually introduced since the mid-30s, and most notoriously the Farhud had happened in 1941.
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
These incidents are well known for decades. By the time they happened Jewish flight from Iraq was already underway, discriminatory laws had been gradually introduced since the mid-30s, and most notoriously the Farhud had happened in 1941.
That was me!
Me right now:
Sorry, I’m not sure where the confusion lies.
I'm not saying that their mutually exclusive by any means, but ultimately poor Jews escaping abuse in Europe don't have ideological reasoning at their forefront no?
No, but the Zionist agencies awaiting them on arrival in Jaffa - who processed them, found them work and a place to live, and ultimately provided them with protection and arms in the face of the inevitable Arab opposition to them - certainly did. And from 1917 to 1939 they pursued that ideological agenda more or less with the support, or at least facilitation, of the ruling imperial power. That makes the situation as a whole very different to the phenomenon of today’s migration.
What a good post. And you have rightly pointed out some of the causes of the ongoing problems.
Didn't Britain begin to really curtail Jewish immigration after '36 revolt?
I have tried to be conciliatory, which seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Yet again you are just looking at everything from the Gaza/Palestinian position.
If you don't think that the problems affecting this region, to which this thread is about, not just Gaza/Palestine, are complex, then that says it all.
2cents was referring specifically to pre 48 migration because as you know after 48 the reasons for emigration became alot different.
Your post specifically mentioned Arab - Israeli - Palestine.
Yes. In 1939 the British issued a White Paper limiting Jewish immigration to 15,000 a year for five years (or 75,000 over the five years, I’m not 100% sure), after which the Arabs would decide on any further immigration. It also severely curbed further Jewish land purchases. The partition proposed in the 1937 Peel Commission findings was abandoned, and the British agreed that Palestine as a whole would become an independent state with a large Arab majority by 1948/49. The change in British policy was driven by the perceived need to win general Arab opinion to their side as the war approached. It was obviously rejected by the Jews (some of them violently so), and perhaps more surprisingly by the Palestinian leadership, although not the Palestinian community as a whole.
Last edited:
Yes I know. They have merely taken the case. Genocide is now a devalued word that's been put into the social media bullshit machine and spat out out by russian bot farms as part of the hypernormalisation program.
Precisely.
But it is guaranteed that someone in the next 5 pages will still claim that Israel was found guilty for genocide in some international court which has never happened.
What is it about libs that make them such good genocide supporters?
But the poster you quoted wasn't even saying that?
MSC Aries: India may soon meet its crew on ship seized by Iran
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68814783
Were you brushing off the Bosnian genocide all the way up to 2007? The Rohingya case is still undecided. Canada and the Netherlands have started a case against Syria, but along with it being undecided it's for torture and inhumane treatment, not the ethnic cleansing you talked about earlier.
I suggest you also open your eyes, not just your mind.
Your position makes no sense, these crimes always happen and only later are formally addressed as such.
But I guess you would also argue people could only accuse nazi germany of genocide in 1945 because that's when a court accused them. You would be telling someone in 1944 of making stuff up and waiting for an international court. Makes no sense at all.
Just because the human bot farm of tankies and islamists screams genocide on the internet a million times a day doesn't make it so. I do see ethnic cleansing being attempted (clumsily so far but it may yet work.) I certainly see a casual disregard for human life. I don't see an intention to kill an entire population or a huge chunk of it. The problem you have is that by calling it the worst thing you can think of, you will lose credibility.
Because that was a genocide and this might not be. We can see perfectly well what is happening in Gaza. We couldn't see what was happening in Dachau. It's not a genocide just because you don't like it. That's not what the word means.
Funny, when the court doesnt say is genocide. You dont want to discuss it... is not genocide
But if they rule that is genocide then kt can be discussed.not accepted but needs to be dicussed
The state of your arguments
At least my arguments are coherent and not just random words. LIke if a first generation A.I was put through google translate.
Very coherent. I don't care what I see with my eyes, until a court says it's genocide, it's not genocide. Oh and OJ was of course innocent.
Can everyone stop being so toxic?
There are some really good posters here but some are being really obtuse and aggressive for little reason and I’m relatively new here but this is off putting for a new member of the community
There are some really good posters here but some are being really obtuse and aggressive for little reason and I’m relatively new here but this is off putting for a new member of the community
Ok, but that has nothing to do with what I asked. You said you'd only be willing to talk of the possibility of a genocide happening after it has been legally judged to be one. If that's a standard you hold consistently, then you were openly denying the Bosnian genocide all the way up to 2007. After 2007, you'd be starting a discussion on the Bosnian genocide, to decide whether or not you agree with the ICJ.
What I'm saying is that you're using the fact that Israel hasn't been convicted as a way to brush off the charges, even though it would be impossible for any conviction to happen yet because even if the charges are true this takes time to deal with legally. You're doing this as a tactic.
If you do not want toxicity, you are not in the right place. Unfortunately, it rarely happens nowadays in Caf.
I'm not entirely sure how you walk into a thread about such toxic events and relationships and expect the discussion to be much different. For what it's worth, this is a far less toxic environment than you'll find in most parts of the internet discussing this topic, even if I feel this thread has been coopted by Israel apologists since the Iran retaliation.
No. I looked at the definition of genocide the ICC uses.
...the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The first problem is that Gazans are not "a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." They are a subset of Palestinians. Palestinians are not an ethnic, racial or religious group either. Whether they are a national group is arguable. Palestine is not a recognised country.
The second problem is showing intent. The Israelis clearly don't care if Gazans die as a by-product of their attack on Hamas, but they can accurately state that Hamas are using those Gazans as a human shield. No intent, no genocide.
The other definitions are so vague as to be meaningless. Causing mental harm to members of the group? You could accuse Liz Truss of genocide on that basis.
Honestly, ethnic cleansing is hardly better than genocide. If the bot farm repeated that accusation on a loop they would have credibility.
Ok, this is extremely dodgy. The Bosnian genocide is considered so in large part because of the Srebrenica massacre, and the "Srebrenicans" were a subset of Bosnians, or Bosniak Muslims.
Twice in a row now the way you argue to dismiss genocide accusations clearly lead to genocide denial in other established cases.
You keep talking about bot farms when you come across as if you're some kind of IDF AI designed to spread misinformation and provoke people.
Other than that, calling a group that's been forcibly shut off from the rest of the world for the last 20 years anything but it's own distinct group is pretty mental. Your description of genocide, as you've quoted from the ICC applies almost exactly to the situation is Gaza. Now you question whether the Palestinians (not even just Gazans) are even national or ethnic group?
Youre seeing how the red in redcafe isn't related to the colour of the football shirts. If you want to discuss politics on here you'd better pledge your allegiance to Joseph Stalin first or else.
Really. Israel apologists?
What’s a tanky anyway?
Either that or just agree with everyone.
Oh. I was trying to give some balance. And unlike some, I don't see the current situation as totally the fault of Israel.
Yes they have made unforgivable mistakes and caused totally unacceptable suffering as well as deaths.
But we should not gloss over the disgusting events of 10/7.
To expect them not to react with force would have been naive. But the level of force has been just plain excessive.
What you use to blow your nose....
10/7 was an uprising against an apartheid state.
Edit: I did expect Israel to respond, in fact I expected them to respond exactly as they have, because unlike a lot of people, I've followed this situation for the best part of a decade and I know what a disgusting and barbaric state Israel is.