And you should... I mean that train (if it ever existed - we do not know) has passed long time ago.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
There are more Palestinians alive today than any other time in history.
And we're not including Jordanians or Israeli Arabs who may self-indentify as such.
Hardly 'erasure'.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/palestine-population
I would guess that the poster means terrority rather than population.
Some more detail on what was said.
How dare these virulently anti-Semitic *checks notes* ex-Israeli ambassadors to South Africa single out the world's only Jewish state for censure... No, no, no, no, no. This is simply unacceptable.
Terrible people. And they probably take the knee as well. Dreadful.
The Corinthian said:
Why would Edward Said have suffered from “European cultural guilt”? He referenced the status of minorities in the Middle East, not WW2 Europe. When Israeli Jews consider their potential fate as a minority against an Arab Muslim majority, they for sure may have WW2 in mind; however more pertinently they have the examples of the fate of numerous ethnic and religious minorities in the modern Middle East and further afield in mind, and particularly the record of regimes and movements who have embraced Arab nationalism and/or Islamism as their guiding principles. From Iran to the Sudan; from the massacre of the Iraqi Assyrians in 1933 to the attacks on Yezidis in 2014; that record is absolutely abysmal, and includes episodes where Jews themselves have been targeted. If you’re making the argument for a pluralistic shared state to Israeli Jews, the burden is on you to explain why the Palestinians will prove exceptional in this regard. Or why a state which genuinely attempts to achieve a representative balance between the two groups will prove more successful than the glowing examples of post-1990 Lebanon and post-2003 Iraq. Dismissing these concerns and harking back to a pre-modern history where Jews got by largely by keeping their heads down and acknowledging their subjugation at the hands of others just isn’t going to cut it with the people you’re trying to convince.
The Corinthian said:
Arab nationalism and Islamism are broad trends which came into existence and appealed across the Middle East and beyond independently of Israel and Zionism, and there’s no reason based on the history or current politics of the wider region to believe that the Palestinians would abandon them once Zionism is out of the picture. Hamas for example was founded as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it traces its lineage back to the founding of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1920s. In this it shares a lineage and world view with several other regional movements, though its rise was of course facilitated in part by Israeli policies. The same applies to Fatah in terms of Arab nationalism. It is these broader lineages and ideologies which go a long way to explaining why none of the Palestinian factions have as yet been able to come up with a vision for Palestine as inclusive as the ANC’s great Freedom Charter. They may evolve in that direction in the future, but right now hard evidence is lacking.
In Ireland today we are just beginning to understand the extent of the sacrifices of our political identity and concessions we are going to need to make in order to ensure that the prospect of a United Ireland has the potential to appeal to Ulster Unionists. Despite the fact that we share a language and much of our culture, and the Unionists would comprise a significantly smaller minority than Jews would in a one-state bi- or non-national Palestine, the proposed concessions appear so significant that they have many questioning how far they are willing to go. A similar but much more extensive and intractable dilemma will face Israeli Jews and the Palestinians in the event our shared goal of a pluralistic shared state ever evolves into a real possibility. In that context, the question of the extent of the Palestinians’ attachment to their Arabo-Islamic identity becomes wholly entwined with the question of the Zionism in the proposed state, whatever the rights and wrongs of the history of the conflict.
Christ, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem and Yesh Din are now "extremist factions"
You are not misunderstanding. That was his point.
I think you seem to be confusing ethnic cleansing with genocide. It's a common error. There is no doubt that large areas of Palestine have been cleansed of Arabs. Those Arabs were either expelled from Israel, or they have been concentrated into tiny ghettos/bantustans.
Israel doesn't want carefully drawn borders, it's always planned to take over the territory. Ben Gurion quotes say as much.
I think at this point you're probably right.
Well, in Abbas' particular case, he is saying they fled in fear for their lives (assuming that the approaching IDF would massacre them) and Israel of course prevented them from returning so I'm going to be controversial here and deduce that these 2 facts amount to expulsion. (But of course, one man's experience probably doesn't provide the whole picture. There is a quote by Benny Morris to the effect that, in general and in most cases throughout the war, Arabs were expelled or fled approaching soldiers)
Yeah... the solution Israel is aiming for is a one state, with no citizenship rights for the palestinians. At this moment it seems like Israel is happy to put them in their camps and to guard all movements heavily.
There will be a push to extend the settlements as far as possible - and they are probably auming for the whole of Jerusalem. Long term they might even go for al aqsa.
This is not an after thought.
How can you spend your entire time in this thread defending Israel and then write this? Do you hate Arabs as well or what's going on?
Perhaps the incredibly comprehensive and well researched information posted in this thread have changed his views?
I hope so because to me it looks like he's happy with what Israel are doing.
Yeah, it's an about-face but surely that's the point of debate. Shouldn't be criticised for it.
Ah, I thought they were free via a Twitter link. I had no issues accessing.
It must be geographically paywalled as a selling point for areas with heavy Jewish populations (like the US).
Thanks. Pretty good read. He comes off seeming more like Olmert and Barak than Shamir, Sharon, or Bibi.
Funny how 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab though. Perhaps they didn't get the Arab Legions's orders to leave.
More who did...
He won't last five minutes. He knows that come next election he's finished given his support base has abandoned him, as he did them. So this is only option left to remain in politics.
No matter what you think of Netanyahu - he got 59 seats, and Bennett ended up with 6.
I think they would have liked to take Al Aqsa, more openly because they kind of have in reality, but know it's not in their best interests to. Certainly for the foreseeable future.
The main reason is that a lot of the puppet govts in the ME won't touch Israel, but the populace would rise if certain key things occurred. Outrightly taking Al Aqsa would be akin to an attack on the Kaaba.
Also I think the "power" of Israel is over played. If people looked at the "behind the narrative" stuff, and I've read from ex IDF members and Israelis, Israel's power is not as mighty as some think or it portrays. Hezbollah for example is feared by Israel or they are certainly careful of them. An outright attack on Al Aqsa would unite certain factions and the threat to Israel would magnify. The Israeli populace has shown in the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah that it has no appetite for war where their soldiers are killed and taken hostage. Hamas and the Palestinians are easy targets and even then Israel blocks need to it's own populace. Similarly in that conflict the IDF soldiers also showed they had no appetite for war and many were arrested for disobeying commands etc. The reserves simply weren't trained appropriately for an army/guerillas that fought back
Here are the first few pages from the conclusion of Morris’ Revisited:
Thanks. Very interesting.
Few got any such orders, since when you read the actual history of the conflict, such orders did not exist on anything like the scale that you imply.
Again, according to Benny Morris, he found no evidence of blanket or widespread orders to the Arab population to leave. As early as the 1960s, Ernest Childers and another fellow (name escapes me) reviewed all radio transcripts from the time and not only found no blanket orders to leave by radio, but that there were in fact orders to stay put.
Morris also found that, overwhelmingly, the causes of abandonment were:
Military assault on settlement (215 occurrences)
Influence of nearby town’s fall (59 occurrences)
Expulsion by Jewish forces (53 occurrences)
Fear of being caught up in fighting (48 occurrences)
Whispering campaigns (15 occurrences)
Abandonment on Arab orders (6 occurrences)
Unknown (44)
Well, we can argue numbers all we like. The elephant in the room was that this was down to Arab refusal to leave Israel be.
Just imagine what Palestine would be like today had someone had the balls to say yes.
If I'm reading correctly, I believe Bennett is set for only two years as PM, after which (as per their agreement) Lapid takes over for two years.
Thats what I believe.
Interesting bit at about 1:15 about needing to rethink the military strategy against Hamas. Hard to say whether he means escalate or negotiate. My bet would be the former.
so, the place to investigate war crimes is in the courts of one of the sides allegedly committing these crimes, not in an international court which the other side repeatedly has called for.