Late 2023 Israel-Hamas Conflict, Thread 2 of ?

[Ifreann]

Palestinians have been steadily losing land through illegal settlements for years. Now in Gaza, I believe the Israeli plan is to cause so much suffering that the majority of the population is killed or flees to neighboring countries. Israel is and has been actively cleansing the land it wants. For all this talk about how from the River to the Sea is somehow, vaguely, in some sort of way, maybe, hinting at genocide, the people complaining about it seem more concerned over a catchy chant than an actual genocide happening. It's utterly bizarre

Israel WITHDREW from Gaza until Hamas decided to FAFO. Their importing of weapons from the outside made the blockade of Gaza necessary. I have stated this time and again and also that not just the West but even the Arab Muslims support the blockade.

Blockades are an act of war.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Post War America

Again, the US does NOT support Greater Israel and neither does the international community. There is a reason that Israel, with all the strength it has, is still unable to accomplish that specific task. Plus, your argument that if Israel does it then they are genocidal too doesn't help your argument that "From the river to the sea ISN'T about genocide.

The issue here is, "From the river to the sea", as how the PLO and Hamas envisioned it, is about destroying the Israeli state, which cannot happen without genocide.

Why not?

The act of destroying the state of Israel is likely going to come about with lots of death, as the PLO and Hamas has shown. Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

You mean that thing they did in response to the displacement of the Palestinians?

[Ifreann]

Why not?

The act of destroying the state of Israel is likely going to come about with lots of death, as the PLO and Hamas has shown. Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

So then destroying the Israeli state could happen without genocide, you just don't think that it would.

[Port Carverton]

Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

You mean that thing they did in response to the displacement of the Palestinians?

As if that makes it better...

Actually it proves why Israel should exist: Jewish minorities are at the mercy of their governments.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

You mean that thing they did in response to the displacement of the Palestinians?

As a result of the Palestinians declining to accept partition and going to war for "From the river to the sea".

[Big Eyed Animation]

The act of destroying the state of Israel is likely going to come about with lots of death, as the PLO and Hamas has shown. Given how the Arab Muslim countries expelled their Jews after the creation of Israel, this is the most likely outcome of any situation where the state of Israel is destroyed. It isn't just hypothetical but proven with history.

So then destroying the Israeli state could happen without genocide, you just don't think that it would.

The way the PLO and now Hamas wants to dismantle Israel, it is going to involve genocide. It's not just my opinion.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

You mean that thing they did in response to the displacement of the Palestinians?

As if that makes it better...

Actually it proves why Israel should exist: Jewish minorities are at the mercy of their governments.

Israel should exist because Israeli actions might cause Jewish minorities outside of their borders to suffer is impeccable logic.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

You mean that thing they did in response to the displacement of the Palestinians?

As a result of the Palestinians declining to accept partition and going to war for "From the river to the sea".

No, actually as a result of zionist terrorist organizations attacking Palestinians civilians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

[Ifreann]

So then destroying the Israeli state could happen without genocide, you just don't think that it would.

The way the PLO and now Hamas wants to dismantle Israel, it is going to involve genocide. It's not just my opinion.

So again, it's not that Israel can't be dismantled without genocide, it's that you think that course of action is unlikely.

[Port Carverton]

As if that makes it better...

Actually it proves why Israel should exist: Jewish minorities are at the mercy of their governments.

Israel should exist because Israeli actions might cause Jewish minorities outside of their borders to suffer is impeccable logic.

I thought you guys were against collective punishment? I guess it's fine to kick out Jews from your country because other Jews in the Levant kicked out Palestinians?

[Ohnoh]

"From the river to the sea", as espoused by Palestinians, especially Hamas, is genocidal and all about ethnic cleansing.

"Palestine should be free."
"You want to genocide jews."
Doesn't make much sense to me tbh.

If it was "from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" no one would have a problem with it. Well not the people claiming that the phrase is calling for a genocidal land grab anyway. The thing about this conflict is both sides have proven they would do awful things to the other's civilians given the opportunity, but one seems to have much greater opportunity than the other.

[Big Eyed Animation]

As a result of the Palestinians declining to accept partition and going to war for "From the river to the sea".

No, actually as a result of zionist terrorist organizations attacking Palestinians civilians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Like how the multiple massacres inflicted on the Old Yishuv by Palestinian Arabs? Do I really need to post those massacres that go as far back as 21 or maybe before?

Or are we going to play the game of population transfer and how the various caliphates and their Islamic conquests were essentially colonizers themselves.

If we want to rock history then everyone is guilty at some point.

[Big Eyed Animation]

The way the PLO and now Hamas wants to dismantle Israel, it is going to involve genocide. It's not just my opinion.

So again, it's not that Israel can't be dismantled without genocide, it's that you think that course of action is unlikely.

No my opinion and thinking has zero to do with the destruction of Israel requiring genocide. The PLO and Hamas and other groups trying to actively destroy the Israeli state says that.

[Ifreann]

So again, it's not that Israel can't be dismantled without genocide, it's that you think that course of action is unlikely.

No my opinion and thinking has zero to do with the destruction of Israel requiring genocide. The PLO and Hamas and other groups trying to actively destroy the Israeli state says that.

What the PLO and Hamas supposedly want to do does not determine the only possible course of the future.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Is a one state solution possible? I guess we could agree never say never.

The international community and most everyone here seems to think the two state solution is the most realistic and likely solution for peace.

That means the state of Israel isn't going away, barring the use of violence.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Or are we going to play the game of population transfer and how the various caliphates and their Islamic conquests were essentially colonizers themselves.

I see you've trotted out the long debunked notion that the Palestinians aren't local to the region. Got any more discredited talking points?

[Big Eyed Animation]

Discredited how?

[Post War America]

Post War America

Again, the US does NOT support Greater Israel and neither does the international community. There is a reason that Israel, with all the strength it has, is still unable to accomplish that specific task. Plus, your argument that if Israel does it then they are genocidal too doesn't help your argument that "From the river to the sea ISN'T about genocide.

The issue here is, "From the river to the sea", as how the PLO and Hamas envisioned it, is about destroying the Israeli state, which cannot happen without genocide.

Destroying a state is factually not the same as destroying a people. States and peoples are categorically different things. My point is that such a line isn't inherently genocidal, not to preclude the possibility that it could be used genocidally.

More to the point, the US is helping with a Greater Israel project by providing weapons that are being used right now to remove Palestinians from the Gaza strip. Somehow students doing solidarity protests are the ones more guilty of genocide than the army systematically destroying another nation however.

[Post War America]

Palestinians have been steadily losing land through illegal settlements for years. Now in Gaza, I believe the Israeli plan is to cause so much suffering that the majority of the population is killed or flees to neighboring countries. Israel is and has been actively cleansing the land it wants. For all this talk about how from the River to the Sea is somehow, vaguely, in some sort of way, maybe, hinting at genocide, the people complaining about it seem more concerned over a catchy chant than an actual genocide happening. It's utterly bizarre

Israel WITHDREW from Gaza until Hamas decided to FAFO. Their importing of weapons from the outside made the blockade of Gaza necessary. I have stated this time and again and also that not just the West but even the Arab Muslims support the blockade.

If you genuinely believe in a Two State Solution, you surely must see that preventing a Palestinian state from arming themselves would violate Palestinian sovereignty, their right to exist and their "right to defend themselves" if you simultaneously believe Israel's right to self-defense includes the right to engage in punitive expeditions.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Discredited how?

Discredited like genetic evidence precludes the idea of Palestinians being recent arrivals to the region.

The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

Discredited like the idea of the Palestinians as recent arrivals to the region is nothing but defamation intended to undermine their claims to the lands they've been living on for centuries.

[Ohnoh]

Discredited how?

Discredited like genetic evidence precludes the idea of Palestinians being recent arrivals to the region.

The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

Discredited like the idea of the Palestinians as recent arrivals to the region is nothing but defamation intended to undermine their claims to the lands they've been living on for centuries.

If you're going to be discivil when engaging in debate you probably shouldn't cite withdrawn/retracted articles.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Discredited like genetic evidence precludes the idea of Palestinians being recent arrivals to the region.



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

Discredited like the idea of the Palestinians as recent arrivals to the region is nothing but defamation intended to undermine their claims to the lands they've been living on for centuries.

If you're going to be discivil when engaging in debate you probably shouldn't cite withdrawn/retracted articles.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

Was it withdrawn for being inaccurate?

[Ohnoh]

If you're going to be discivil when engaging in debate you probably shouldn't cite withdrawn/retracted articles.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

Was it withdrawn for being inaccurate?

It was retracted. Find something else to cite.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Was it withdrawn for being inaccurate?

It was retracted. Find something else to cite.

You should inform yourself as to why it was retracted, it was retracted over using accurate language to refer to Jewish colonists and the living situation imposed on Palestinians. That's not a valid reason and basically amounts to coddling Israeli feelings.

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'