tadmjones Posted December 29, 2023 Report Share Posted December 29, 2023 I think you are confused about the distinctions between : Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, Jews and Israelis. I don’t have any say in the matter and not much personal concern, but I think the region would be ‘better off’ if Jordan gains control of most of the West Bank and Gaza gets incorporated into Israel ‘proper’. The current population of the strip can make individual decisions to either give up or ‘renounce any Palestinian citizenship’ and try somehow to assimilate or relocate. It seems evident the idea of establishing an actual Palestinian state in that immediate region pretty much died at last as recently as the seventies. And yeah three or four generations ago a lot of people were fucked out of their inheritance , but it is past due time for this aberration of quasi internment on a population scale to end , otherwise you are condemning future generations of Gazans. It would be ridiculous to claim Israel’s prosperity is an outcome of their treatment of Palestinian’s , it is more the case their prosperity has been hindered in the continued dealings. All said in my humble opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
human_murda Posted December 29, 2023 Report Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, tadmjones said: I don’t have any say in the matter and not much personal concern Why did you ask me if Israel practiced apartheid? I'm not from West Asia or from a Muslim family but I'm interested in the Kashmir conflict in India which has some parallels to what's happening in West Bank. 24 minutes ago, tadmjones said: ... I think the region would be ‘better off’ if Jordan gains control of most of the West Bank and Gaza gets incorporated into Israel ‘proper’. The current population of the strip can make individual decisions to either give up or ‘renounce any Palestinian citizenship’ and try somehow to assimilate or relocate. It seems evident the idea of establishing an actual Palestinian state in that immediate region pretty much died at last as recently as the seventies. Sure, but it would be easier to incorporate West Bank into Israel than Gaza. Edited December 29, 2023 by human_murda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted December 29, 2023 Report Share Posted December 29, 2023 (edited) 26 minutes ago, human_murda said: Why did you ask me if Israel practiced apartheid? I'm not from West Asia or from a Muslim family but I'm interested in the Kashmir conflict in India which has some parallels to what's happening in West Bank. Honestly I said it because it is something you hear from people that take on or speak to the ‘Palestinian cause’, so I assumed it is a position you would defend. But as far as I know it isn’t true given the official positions of the Israeli govt in relation to their Arab citizens. The main point being an apartheid can only be carried ‘in country’ . One country treating the citizens of another country , or at least non citizens of the one country differently even under the law is not apartheid, it’s just discrimination involving citizenry, and not necessarily immorally motivated. Israeli security forces assisting in any takings in the West Bank doesn’t feel real kosher to me , but technically not apartheid. Definitely ethnic cleansing , I’ll give you that , but it seems if the West Bank ceded itself to Israel and to a person the inhabitants accepted Israeli citizenship they would be better off in the long run. Even though given regional power politics it may be better if it was incorporated into Jordan’s territory, the Arabs would take it a s a win, I bet. I know even less about Kashmir , is it correctly described as a territorial dispute between Hindu and Muslim populations, as a consequence of the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan ? Edited December 29, 2023 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpookyKitty Posted December 30, 2023 Report Share Posted December 30, 2023 South Africa has filed a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/29/middleeast/south-africa-icj-israel-genocide-intl/index.html tadmjones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
human_murda Posted December 30, 2023 Report Share Posted December 30, 2023 3 hours ago, tadmjones said: I know even less about Kashmir , is it correctly described as a territorial dispute between Hindu and Muslim populations, as a consequence of the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan ? This is partly true. I tried writing a detailed answer, which turned out to be too long, so I created a separate topic. The answer is complicated because India, China, Pakistan, Pakistani tribesmen, kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, United Kingdom and even the former country of Tibet (as well as pre-CCP Xinjiang) are all involved in the creation of the Kashmir conflict. Kashmir is a Himalayan region and multiple religious groups (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists) and different ethnic groups (Kashmiri, Ladakhi, Pahari, Dogri, Balti) etc are also involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 30, 2023 Report Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) Life from the rubble, maybe. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67843832 In previous wars there, it had become unofficially and tacitly admitted by some neutral observers that a Hamas propaganda technique was to stage such dramatic 'rescues', the injured rushed into hospitals, etc,. for briefed, selected cameramen. I had confirmation from a correspondent I knew. When you tell anyone this information - and that casualties have always been exaggerated and/or fabricated by the Gazan 'ministry of health', they evince shocked disbelief. Why would they naively disbelieve? What are fibs on numbers and faked images (promoting the "genocide by Israel" narrative) in relation to what everyone now knows the atrocious extents Hamas CAN be capable of. The Hamas defensive weapons - and its propaganda tools - are its civilians, evidently. If it cared the slightest for their lives, it would surrender tomorrow, release hostages and avoid more certain casualties. [And would not have brought this war down upon its people]. I can't state for sure this specific rescue scene was staged, with a 'model', although it seems quite miraculous that the infant could survive with only scratches, but I know that SOME are. The medics/doctors have to be involved, as with MSF, UNICEF and UNRWA and others. Edited December 30, 2023 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted December 30, 2023 Report Share Posted December 30, 2023 Some sense from Jordan Peterson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) If there is only one honest and objectively knowledgeable historian to listen to, among an online slew of pretenders and haters of the good welcoming Israel's demise, (i.e. ethnic cleansing) I urge this one, it will be worth your time; 2 hours of Dr Benny Morris in this searching exchange of facts and aspirations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ Edited January 1 by whYNOT tadmjones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 (edited) On 12/30/2023 at 1:00 AM, tadmjones said: One country treating the citizens of another country , or at least non citizens of the one country differently even under the law is not apartheid, it’s just discrimination involving citizenry, and not necessarily immorally motivated. Israeli security forces assisting in any takings in the West Bank doesn’t feel real kosher to me , but technically not apartheid. Definitely ethnic cleansing , I’ll give you that , but it seems if the West Bank ceded itself to Israel and to a person the inhabitants accepted Israeli citizenship they would be better off in the long run. Even though given regional power politics it may be better if it was incorporated into Jordan’s territory, the Arabs would take it a s a win, I bet. Make no bones about it, those who accuse Israel of "apartheid" want nothing more but to see Israel overcome or subverted by Islam through a "One State solution". Pick one outcome: It may occur gradually by majoritarian 'demographics', the change to Islamic law - or by violent overthrow, murder and expulsion of the Jews there, by a militant Islamic group like Hamas. About 8 million Jewish Israelis and about 8 million Palestinians, think about it. The founding principle for a safe homeland, and a (mostly) Jewish ethno-religious identity that they had - and have - every right to sustain - could not last more than a few generations. The effect ~could~ be compared to one or two hundred million Chinese immigrating to the US and agitating for Communism. That is the dilemma Israelis have faced, and why Fatah/PLO contemptuously rejected the most favorable terms (95% sovereignty of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem, was offered to them). It knows they have Israel, by its virtues, between a rock and a hard place and must just wait patiently to grab the country's land and wealth. Anywhere else in the Arab lands, a troublesome militant group would have been "ethnically cleansed"/expelled long ago. When you hear "Israel apartheid", safely assume it is uttered by ignorant dupes or by most malign people. You will be one of the few who listens to the expertise of Benny Morris, I guess, more on this and its background by him. And no, he doesn't altogether paint the 1948 Jewish refugees into Israel in a rosy light, unlike the "perfect" standards which all Israel critics hold it to. Unseen elsewhere. (Hmm, it seems "the Holy Land" still harbors mystical connotations, even to secularists and atheists...) Edited January 1 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Lighter: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpookyKitty Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Ben-Gvir calls for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 1 Author Report Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said: Ben-Gvir calls for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but can you please show - based solely on his words - why this man's arguments mean specifically "ethnic cleansing". To save you time, here is Wiki's definition of ethnic cleansing: Quote Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction [highlighting is mine /AL] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 1 Report Share Posted January 1 Without verifying the facts , I would judge Benny Morris’ commentary and conclusions as coming from a good faith and objective perspective on the history of the roots and subsequent events of the extended conflict. I like the way he said that until certain materials are available he can not make any specific judgements concerning certain things even though he does state his impressions based on what he knows specifically now. As to the integrity of his scholarship , not being in a position to ascertain personally, I would assume a fair treatment , especially on hearing the subject matter of his latest work on the war crimes committed in the region in 48. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) Perhaps Ben Gvir is correct and given the population of Gaza is currently 50% children as has been reported , this specific time in history makes the idea of putting an end to such an aberration through removal more palatable to world sentiment given the ability of a younger generation to more easily handle a major assimilation to a novel environment. Edited January 2 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 10 minutes ago, tadmjones said: Perhaps Ben Gvir is correct and given the population of Gaza is currently 50% children as has been reported , this specific time in history makes the idea [...] You are not funny. At all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 Why should that be funny? Nothing even remotely along such lines is conceivable as an end to the ongoing tragedy, or is the situation not that catastrophic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) 31 minutes ago, tadmjones said: Why should that be funny? Nothing even remotely along such lines is conceivable as an end to the ongoing tragedy, or is the situation not that catastrophic? You mean your comment 1 hour ago, tadmjones said: Perhaps Ben Gvir is correct and given the population of Gaza is currently 50% children as has been reported , this specific time in history makes the idea of putting an end to such an aberration through removal more palatable to world sentiment given the ability of a younger generation to more easily handle a major assimilation to a novel environment. was not meant to be sarcastic? Edited January 2 by AlexL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 10 minutes ago, AlexL said: You mean your comment was not meant to be sarcastic? Not wholly, no , perhaps relocating the population could be more humane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, tadmjones said: Without verifying the facts , I would judge Benny Morris’ commentary and conclusions as coming from a good faith and objective perspective on the history of the roots and subsequent events of the extended conflict. I like the way he said that until certain materials are available he can not make any specific judgements concerning certain things even though he does state his impressions based on what he knows specifically now. As to the integrity of his scholarship , not being in a position to ascertain personally, I would assume a fair treatment , especially on hearing the subject matter of his latest work on the war crimes committed in the region in 48. Morris throws more light on the pre-48 (lesser known) internal, "civil" war between incoming or already settled, land-owning Jews within the partitioned territory - and the Arabs living there. The attacks upon each other, basically kicked off by the latter's refusal to coexist with a large influx of "Jews"; and as things spiral out of control, some atrocities were committed by both. Since it's the feelings of the Arabs/Palestinians back then which is given the bulk of the sympathetic attention, it would be fair to consider also the psychological mindset of those surviving Jews shipped in from Germany, Poland, etc, penniless and homeless, now, officially promised their own homeland. With those 700,000+ from several Arab nations who joined them, refugees like my mother and her family from Egypt. Whatever area the desperate Jews were granted they took with gratitude. They would let nothing, e.g. the coming '48 war, stop them. The attitude was something like "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" (and passively accept death, as they'd seen many others). It helps to understand how their credo "never again" drives them today. Edited January 2 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 "Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 16 minutes ago, tadmjones said: Not wholly... "Not wholly" means that it was sarcastic. OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 I’d say like 20/80. The more I think about the more rational a UN sanctioned and driven relocation program should be implemented to end the generational refugee problem in Gaza. Israel would not stand for an Islamic fundamentalist state in Gaza, so what could be a possible solution ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 8 hours ago, tadmjones said: I’d say like [...] There are ways to signal that it is not 100% straight, like an emoji ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 2 Report Share Posted January 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, AlexL said: There are ways to signal that it is not 100% straight, like an emoji ... I am not sure why identifying my sarcasm in this instance is important to you. Any sarcasm for the idea would be in deference to the loss of any productive livinghoods some Gazans may have , heroically, cobbled together in order to enjoy their own fulfillment, that would be realized in a quasi forced relocation. As to the idea the population is relatively young , I think that does contribute to a more humane view , that removed from that specific environment and its associated conditions the youth as a whole has a better chance for flourishing. Edited January 2 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 2 Author Report Share Posted January 2 19 minutes ago, tadmjones said: I am not sure why identifying my sarcasm in this instance is important to you. It is important to me to correctly understand what you were saying: if you truly meant it, if you were kidding or if you were sarcastic. And for you it should be important too - to be correctly understood. You yourself confirmed subsequently that you did not fully meant what you wrote, so that my initial suspicion was justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.