Empires Empire wrote:So, things we've learned today:
1: This thread was never about a 'war with Israel and Turkey'; we know this wont happen, it's just a 'lets talk about hating Israel' thread, again.
Actually, the thread started with the usual 'Palestinians are all terrorists' tripe, actually, so you're wrong.
UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:all this because Turkey wants to defend violent criminals and terrorists.
2: Most people seem to think the 'palestinian issue' is a real issue, even though nobody ever called themselves a palestinian at all until Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian, born in Cairo to wealthy parents) said he was at the UN. Arab delegates walked out in disgust at the time, but were later convinced it was part of a greater plan to "war with the Zionist Entity through lawfare" and began to use the palestinian narrative.
Well yes, it is an issue. Palestinian or not, the fact remains that the Israelis have taken land from those who actually own it, be they national bodies or individuals, in a wholly illegal fashion, and then imposed their rule and arbitrary restrictions upon the inhabitants of said land in the interests of 'national security'. It doesn't matter if they consider themselves Palestinian or not. That said, I must question your assertion; following the Arab Congress of
1913, rather a lot of Arab nationalists from the region names themselves 'Palestinians' in their efforts to secure an independent state.
3: Most people don't realize that everyone living in the whole region formerly known as the "British Mandate of Palestine" has only been there at most since the late part of the 19th century. The area was mostly arid desert, swamp, and other uninhabitable mess that the Ottomans never cared to reclaim and use (too expensive, and they didn't care) until the Zionist movement fueled by American, German, and Russian Jewish money, set out to reclaim the area. The only people who were there since the Roman empire desolated the land, before the Zionists came to reclaim it (under purchase from the Turkish Ottoman Empire, it was bought, and then the British declared that invalid as they conquered the Ottomans, they took all that land into their 'mandate') were a sparse few Bedouin tribes who did not establish permanent settlements.
Even if this was true, it doesn't change the fact that the establishment and expansion of the Israeli state resulted in the displacement of rather a lot of previous inhabitants, to say the least; the sheer quantity of refugee camps and groups that have come out of Palestine since 1949 are a testament to this. But it's not, I'm afraid; you're suggesting that the Zionists were the first people in the area to arrive in significant numbers, which is incorrect, and that they had a fundamental right to the land (reclaim, you say), which is also incorrect.
4: Most people don't realize "palestinians" are really Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Saudi's, at the most 3 or 4 generations having lived in the land, all of which during time when it was either purchased by or mandated for the use by Jews to begin with, hence they were never autonomous there and have always known they'd have to live with Jews. Neither group was "there first", these arabs came along with the early Zionists for cheap living and to find work and to escape persecution, they were really rude and killed Jews at random and were hell bent on taking over though, not really friendly folks but meh. There you have it.
And Israelis are, in many cases, (depending on whether they're Ashkenzi or Sephardic, I guess) a collection of Europeans, Africans and possibly those of Middle Eastern origin who have come from even further away, even more recently. Your point concerning the demographics of the area is complete and absolute tripe; you're pulling those facts out of thin air.
I cite this document as evidence, as it quite clearly shows that in the 1890s, when the Zionist movement began, the Jewish population was roughly 1/10 of that of the Muslim population in the area. Even the number of Muslims in the area from 90 years before that, 1800, is far higher than the number of Jewish immigrants in 1890; it is indisputable that there was a pre-existent population in the area, and your suggestions that the Arabs only arrived with the Zionists is beyond ridiculous; it's an outright lie and fabrication.
Your suggestion about the Arabs reaction to Zionist settlement is also wrong; initially, at least, relations were quite good, since the only interaction was between farming communities. Violence and animosity only began with the introduction of nationalism.
5: Most people don't know these people are kept 'refugees' outside the legal definition, as a refugee cannot be a descendant of a person who lived somewhere. Where someone is born is where they are a citizen. Thus, these 'palestinian refugees' today are in fact native of their host country, yet are prohibited citizenship by them and persecuted (see syrian shelling of palestinians, hezbollah anti-palestinian actions against camps in lebanon, saudi and egyptian crimes against them, these go unnoticed by the major news outlets mostly.) as their host countries do not want to add a bunch of poverty stricken people raised to be terrorists into their citizenry. Also, they are used regularly as a weapon against the Jewish state, through propaganda as can be demonstrated by the existence of this thread and the "pro-palestinian movement". Which can essentially be summed up as "Replace Jews with Muslims" movement, as there are no "palestinians". Just people getting royally screwed by the international community to use against Jews.
So what you're saying is that because the children of refugees know nothing but oppression, that gives the Israeli state a right to continue oppressing them and obliging other nations to take them in because Israel won't. If there's one thing you can't take, it's the moral high ground.
In fact, you're incorrect. The UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees states that a refugee is "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." In this case, the latter applies; as a result of illegal Israeli expansion and what can only be described as persecution, there is no longer a Palestinian state under which they are able to exist. 'Former habitual residence' in this case doesn't apply, since a refugee camp does not exist legally as a permanent, stable domicile. So legally and morally speaking, you're in the wrong.
6: 'Palestinians' will only have freedom when we completely ignore this nonsense coming from the rest of the world, defeat the evil forces bent on using them as human ordinance against the Jewish state, and force their host nations to accept that they were born there, and they are citizens there, regardless of how poor they are or how much terrorism they've been trained to do on their hosts behalf. The Gaza blockade will only come down and people there will only live in peace with Hamas dead and gone, and the IDF back on the streets. This is a clearly proven solution, leftists are counter-intuitive on this point.
I'm afraid to say that from a purely rational perspective, the nonsense in this situation is your stance concerning the matter. Firstly, you describe 'evil forces' and state that 'leftists are counter-intuitive on this point'. These are both subjective statements, and unless there is objective evidence to support them, they are both nothing more than your personal opinions. Your personal opinions are wholly irrelevant in a matter of international significance, I'm afraid.
You also state that 'people there will only live in peace with Hamas dead and gone, and the IDF back on the streets'. This is an assumption, with no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, what I can say is that the First Intifada, which occurred when the militant Hamas did not exist as a major force, its place taken by the diplomatic Fatah, happened when the IDF was 'back on the streets', as you say. As such, where you are unable to provide evidence of the fact that the IDF's presence creates stability, I can provide evidence that it does much the opposite.
Thirdly, you state that 'regardless of how poor they are', Palestinians will only be given freedom when they submit to Israeli rule. Is that an admission, then, that your opinions and arguments are underlined by the belief that Palestinian welfare is irrelevant in the face of Israeli expansionary desires?
7: If a person really wanted to see them stop suffering, they wouldn't be supporting the very terrorist oligarchs and monarchs who are fueling this entire conflict with their greed and hate.
But again, you're making another assumption. If there was no popular support within the Palestinians for a movement against the Israelis, and the only people causing suffering in the region were 'terrorist oligarchs (?) and monarchs (??)', why on earth does Hamas have such extensive support amongst the Palestinians (as the 2006 elections showed) and such a large recruitment base? Hamas isn't a terrorist super-organisation, it is, fundamentally, an independence movement. Let's not try and cover that up under empty claims of global conspiracy and 'terrorist oligarchy'.
8: If all they really want is for there not to be a Jewish state, well, then they'll see reason to continue this nightmare for the 'palestinians' while pretending to be on their side. Dishonorable to say the least.
Again, an assumption. Why on earth would activists from far flung countries want Israel as a country to disappear? Many of these people would be Western Christians for whom. purely pragmatically, a powerful Israeli superstate in the Middle East would be beneficial, and yet even they choose to set sail against the odds to provide Palestinian civilians with basic needs that the Israelis are depriving them of. They're not exactly asking for caviare here; when civilians lack
building materials, there's obviously a problem.
How you've come to the conclusion that human rights activists are actually part of a global conspiracy to topple the Israeli nation is beyond me; if I was talking to you face to face, I'd call you a lunatic. What you need to do, as an Israeli, is to stop being so introspective, because while there are Palestinians out there who are hell bent on the destruction of Israel, the vast, vast majority of the Palestinian populace are simply tired and miserable of seeing their nation and land taken from them and being oppressed by the Israeli nation. The Israelis always portray themselves as the persecuted; how can they keep that pretence up as they set up wire fences around Palestinian compounds and deprive Palestinians of basic necessities like their homes and food, going on to round them up in camps and prisons? It sounds too much like the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Europe to me to be comfortable or acceptable.
And dishonourable? What's dishonourable is the fact that the IDF regularly persecute and open fire on innocent civilians in a wholly unjustifiable and illegal manner.