This is a war of propaganda. Brush up on your media literacy skills. Trace sources. Make sure what you’re spreading isn’t false. If you can’t verify it don’t post it. Please.
🇳🇱
@Miriamm I assure you as someone who can personally confirm it, most of what we heard is more or less true. Yes there is bias, media spin, and as always not the whole truth... but more or less the jist of hamas murdering civilians is entierly valid.
@freemo @Miriamm I think we can safely say that the following is true: Both sides commit atrocities.
Hamas killed soldiers, but they also deliberately targeted and murdered civilians.
Israel say they target terrorists and say the dead civilians are unfortunate collateral damage. To a dead civilian I don't think that distinction matters much.
However, if the attack came as a surprise, can we really trust the Israeli armed forces when they say they know where the military targets are?
Both sides are projecting, sure.
But only one side has a charter that says "extinction of the other side"... Their sole purpose and reason to exist are to kill everyone in Israel.
And somehow the Gaza people voted for that, sure a long time ago, but if you don't object to your leaders, then you are also partially responsible for what they do.
This Israeli is challenging everyone prove him wrong. Please, go at it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
I see what you say. Yes, the people in Gaza voted for Hamas. Last time I read up on democracy that means you are free to vote, and no matter what you vote it can't be used as justification to kill you. I see you have a different view of what democracy means.
I saw the first couple of minutes of the video and could already have pointed out that there were no Israelis either at the time he claims there were no Palestinians.
Before Israel was formed and the invasion started there were 10 times more arabs than jews in the region.
@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid Freemo my guy you gotta stop calling it an "invasion".
Calling refugee immigration an "invasion" is an dickish thing to do. Please stop. It makes you look like those xenophobes in the US who talk about central american immigrant "invasions".
There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)
None of this in the slightest has anything to do with whether Israel is justified in the way they are prosecuting this war against Hamas baby killing terrorists, of course, which is another reason to stop saying it.
Its not "refugee immigration" if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated, they did not.
By collectively, as immigrants, stealing land from someone else, then invading it with missiles and guns and military, is absolutely an invasion.
> There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)
Unfortunately illegal immigrants tend to cause a lot of anger and violence.. it isnt right. But that doesnt excuse the genocide that followed.
@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.
"illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?
There have been Jews in the area, continuously, for 1000s of years. There has been tension at least since the refugee immigration waves started 100+ years ago. Nebi Musa riots, and so on. People from both groups have committed completely unjustified violence, of course. The situation we are in today is a direct result of those issues building and building, never being resolved.
Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.
"I agree the Hamas commiting attrocities would be a reason to consider stop saying it" That would of course have nothing to do with whether Israel "invaded".
> "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.
Because your trying to make the absurd claim they arent invaders, just immigrants... immigrants dont come with bombs and guns to take away your land, thats not immigrants, thats invaders, also called an occupying force.
As with any diverse country prior to the invasion there were a great many mixed settlements, and there were some that were primarily jewish or arab.. However the arabs in the area out numbered Jews 10:1, palestine had this makeup for many generations. Despite the overwhelming arab concentration jews were generally welcomed and even allowed to buy land... until they started invading anyway.
> "illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
Depends how you view illegal. Early on they werent illegal, but at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants according to the people/governance who have the right to control that land (palestinians).
> I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?
I misinterprited what experts had said on a reading.. when challenged I reread and changed my opinion... Perhaps you should use that to recognize that I am willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views when proven wrong.. Would go a much longer way than using it as a weapon against someone simply for making a mistake, and learning from it once. Should be proof that I wont continue to assert a thing if there is evidence to the contrary.
> Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.
Ummm, who is the invading and occupying force has **everything** to do with if ISrael or anyone else has a right to continue a war... like a lot to do with it.
The fact that botht he Hamas and Isrtael are committing atrocities and war crimes left and right, and have been doing so for 80 years certainly doesnt give anyone a pass for their continuation of such war crimes.
@freemo They didn't "come with" weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on. In situ, yes? The immigrants that came were, you know, immigrants. You know this, right? Can you see that the way you're talking about it makes it sound like all the refugees that came were armed to the teeth and hit the ground shooting or something? Is this some weird definition of "invade" you're using for rhetorical reasons?
Of course, this doesn't justify anything they did with those security forces once they built them! That's an entirely separate issue, and more germane to who is justified doing what this week.
"at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants"
what are you even talking about
"willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views" – I did think that, yes. That's why I'm engaging with you here.
> So they all have to stand in an open field where the inevitable result is a few bombs to whipe them out in a matter of a seconds?
No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.
> They didn’t “come with” weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group of other nations decided to invade palestine and take the land from palestinians and give it to the Israelis. They came with weapons to take this land for themselves and the first Arab-israeli war began for the palestinians to defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land. This lasted from 1947 to 1849
> They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on.
The violence they expiernce from invading the country and taking it... please stop pretending they are the victims here... they literally were invading Palestine and taking it.. they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it.... funny how you just ignore that part and make it sound like they were just palestinian immigrants... they werent.
> what are you even talking about
I am talking about the fact that since Israel is an occupyign and invading force, and it is not and never was their land (it is palestine)... they are illegal immigrants by any measure of that at best, and an occupying force at worst.
> No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.
They are using the exact same tactics in that regard as freedom fighters dduring WWII, and really any nation being occupied and unable to have a proper army.. That is, their military and its equipment are hidden in the underground... Again nothing wrong with that, what is wrong is when they use human shields during an active attack, somethign Israel also does.
@freemo "Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group " – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
"they are illegal immigrants" Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you're saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?
"defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land." and "they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it…." No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There's plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can't fathom how it is a "literal invasion".
Then, there was a war, of course, immediately after the partition. (The UN is so useless.) I guess there were foreign fighters in this war – ex-Axis fighters, arabs from outside Palestine, etc. I wouldn't really call that an "invasion", though – the main combatants/sides were local to the area.
"please stop pretending they are the victims here" At various times certain Jews were certainly victims! And at other times and places they were the victimizers. Of course; and we both know this, so, again, I don't understand why you're saying this.
To drive my point home attached is a map of the Jewish settlements pretty much the day before the invasion was declared (left).. AS you can see they re intermixed with palestinian/arab land, and this was all one country.
On the right, however, is the borders they declared in their own and intended to Annex in the invasion of 1947 and the war that followed. As you can see not only did they steal **significant** land that had no jews on it.. but the borders change the dynamic significantly since at the time Jews made up something like 10% of the population yet were given more than 50% of the land.
So yea its very clear they invaded and stole land and your narrative of them already being on the land is over the inaccurate.
@ech And to further drive the point home... attached is the border of palestine in 1919 as recognized internationally **before** the invalid british take over. AS you can clearly see before the British not only was it 100% Palestine with no large swaths of Jewish land at all (the jews were there but largely intermixed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_claimed_by_WZO_1919.png
So basically the brits invaded, took over, told jews they could come there, displaced the muslims by about 10%, and then the brits left and said the Jews now owned more than 50% of the land.
Sorry but thats an invasion by any measure.
160k vs. 700k and "Jews made up something like 10%": Wasn't the Jewish population like 500k by 1940? Your 160k to 700k sounds more like 1930 numbers? I'm not sure where you got those from, are you talking about a specific region that is much smaller than ex-Mandatory Palestine? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945 – is this a total fabrication by the British??)
When the partition was made, Jews were about 600k, 1/3 of the population. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that number went from 160k to 600k *in 1947*. From everything I can find, this is not true? Instead, 160k->600k was gradual over a generation. (Do you have better sources than I do?
(One of the possible complaints about the partition plan that I alluded to, and possibly one of the main causes of the war, was that the Jewish state has 2/3 the land despite having 1/3 the people.)
It's true that Jewish immigration skyrocketed after 1948, but that seems neither here nor there wrt. this discussion.
"Yes, the british had no rights to allow anyone to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory" ...uh, ok... I'm not trying to justify British colonialism here, not sure what your point is. (FWIW the ottomans before the British didn't seem to be stopping this immigration either. Are you arguing someone had a moral right to stop it but was prevented from doing so? If so, who?)
"Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. " Yes, again, as I said, there's probably much about the partition plan that could have been done better. UN == (steaming bowl of elephant piss). fully agree. Something had to happen, though: there were 1/2 million Jews there and tons of violence. Do you think you could have done better?
"britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed" The UN you mean? OK, but ... what should they have done, then? Given Turkey control over everything again, since that is the "country" that existed before the British won WW1? there's no useful status-quo ante here, Freemo. I'm not sure what you are thinking on this one.
"only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, " Yeah, I agree it would have been ideal if the Jewish, Arab, (and other) leadership could have hammered this out on their own. Now, Freemo, why do you think that didn't happen? It certainly wasn't because the British cared, they were clearly just trying to escape without any more of their troops getting killed.
> 160k vs. 700k and “Jews made up something like 10%”: Wasn’t the Jewish population like 500k by 1940? Your 160k to 700k sounds more like 1930 numbers? I’m not sure where you got those from, are you talking about a specific region that is much smaller than ex-Mandatory Palestine?
Ok so you have to keep in mind, 1947 is only when the invasion was announced with official borders for the annex. The start of the invasion was the british takeover in 1920, which had started in 1917 witht he Balfour decleration where Britain proclaimed its intention to take over the region and roce the invasion of jewish people upon the population currently living there. That was the start of the invasion in one sense or another as the british used its power to **force** the palestinians to accept jewish-only immigrants on to their land while explicitly **denying** arab imigrants in an attempt to **intentionally** tip the balance in that region.
So over the course of time from 1920 when the occupation of the british began, until 1947 when the Jews carried on the invasion on their own (and officially announced borders they intended to annex) was largely when the influx began.
So here are the official numbers for those dates (Source cited at the end):
1922 before the start of the occupation/invasion by brits: 84K Jews, 589K Muslim thats over 7x more Muslim than jews.
1947 at the end of British occupation after intentionally trying to inflate the area with more jews: 630K jews, and 1.1 million Muslims. Still approximately twice the number of Muslims to jews.
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945 – is this a total fabrication by the British??)
Yes, and no. The numbers there line up with what I said above... But its important within context. The British took over and occupied the land giving the native people no say in their own democracy, and in fact were intentionally diminished. Over the course of their rain they declared **publicly** their intent was to force millions of immigrants, jews, on the Palestinians against their objections. The numbers only rose to that level due to the British invasion and intentional injection of **illegal** immigrants into Palestine. So yes the ratio when from 7:1 to 2:1 in favor of palestinians due to an occupying force intentionally manipulating the population.
> When the partition was made, Jews were about 600k, 1/3 of the population. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that number went from 160k to 600k in 1947. From everything I can find, this is not true? Instead, 160k->600k was gradual over a generation. (Do you have better sources than I do?
I cited sources for this. Population of jews went from 84K to 630K over the course of 20 years. This was intentionally done by Britain to manipulate the population in favor of Jews as they announced before their takeover that they would do exactly that.
> …uh, ok… I’m not trying to justify British colonialism here, not sure what your point is.
My point is that since the british was an invalid occupying force, and they acted contrary to the wishes of the citizens, those citizens are not valid since they were not recognized by the people who already were living on that land and were the rightful democratic body to make such a decision.
The brits cant just come in, force a bunch of white people on everyone and then leave and go "nope they have a right to be there"... like hell they do, Britain never had the right in the first place.
> fully agree. Something had to happen, though: there were 1/2 million Jews there and tons of violence. Do you think you could have done better?
I mean the brits are the ones who put those people there and started the violence... So yea something had to happen, they had to get those people out of the land they had no right to be on. If britain wanted to give refugees a home they should have given them part of britain, not someone elses home.
Citation:
Pergola, Sergio della (2001). "Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects, Policy Implications" (PDF). Semantic Scholar. S2CID 45782452. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 August 2018.
@freemo oh I see! In your earlier post you said "Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN,", so pretty clearly 1947. (there was no UN at the time of Balfour Declaration) So I thought that's what you meant by the numbers you gave.
Aside: You know, I'm having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something "illegal immigration" when you really mean "The British shouldn't have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all". I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn't have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you're saying the Ottomans weren't enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It's exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
OK so you really are all in on this "refugee immigration" == "invasion" rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
"they had to get those people out" – so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It's like the Soviet relocations – I guess you're thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
You object to this multi-generational refugee immigration under various empires, and as a result you want the solution in 1947 to be to solve it basically with ethnic cleansing. I mean, there's a lot going on there, but that is disgusting.
> h I see! In your earlier post you said “Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN,”, so pretty clearly 1947
Well im glad we clarified now that this is in refernce to 1917, the first announcement of invasion. Yes I could have been more clear, so not your fault. But now we are on the same page, so great.
> So I thought that’s what you meant by the numbers you gave.
Understandable miscommunication. Glad we resolved that.
> Aside: You know, I’m having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something “illegal immigration” when you really mean “The British shouldn’t have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all”. I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn’t have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you’re saying the Ottomans weren’t enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It’s exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
Words are important, you tried to claim they were just immigrants at the get go... thats very confusing considering they were an invading force and not "just immigrants".. they came there to kill the other side and take their land.
Luckily I am happy to explain if any words confuse you, while I will continue to use, perhaps unusual, but more factually accurate terms you can always just ask if they confuse you. There is a lot of context so I do understand the need to elaborate on any of it, so no worries.
> OK so you really are all in on this “refugee immigration” == “invasion” rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
I mean they literally showed up with weapons and killed and shot the other side to take the land... it is a **Very** accurate description. In fact to become an Israel citizen you are **required** to pick up a weapon and shoot the other side by israel law. Not just immigrants but those born there.. this has been established since the early days... Like it is **literally** an invasion, those people had weapons and killed others as part of the condition of their immigration.
Calling them simple refugee immigrants is highly unfair considering.
> so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It’s like the Soviet relocations – I guess you’re thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
Well maybe thats why you shouldnt invade another country and take their land by force that you havent had any right to in over 2000+ years... You sure as fuck dont tell them that they now annexed the land for themselves and you kick off the far more densly populated natives as if you somehow have a right.
Like even if they decided to stay, the only ethical way to stay is as a **palestinian** under their laws and following their rules.. Dont like it, well maybe you shouldnt have picked taht country to invade knowing you or your kids might have to be held accountable for your immoral acts.
"Words are important, you tried to claim they were just immigrants at the get go…"
Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I'm glad that came across clearly. ;)
"you can always just ask if they confuse you."
I did, many times. I do feel like you aren't reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I'd appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I'll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
"I mean they literally showed up with weapons and killed and shot the other side to take the land…"
Ok again I don't know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
"In fact to become an Israel citizen you are required to pick up a weapon and shoot the other side by israel law."
Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel's conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we're discussing? Or at least I think they are haha...)
The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
"Well maybe thats why you shouldnt invade another country and take their land by force that you havent had any right to in over 2000+ years…"
Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I'm wondering if, in a sense, this is all their "fault": if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
Ok I feel like we disagree about two main things:
(1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. "invasion") to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
(2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you're talking about, like "invasion-by-good-guys", reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don't think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
I suspect we agree on a lot of things (I'm sure I'm mostly ignorant of the details around these issues, though, so I'll try not to say too much):
* Israel needs to do a better job with due process kinds of things: bulldozing houses, unjustly condemning property, and so on.
* Israel needs to find less violent ways of enforcing its borders against protesters. (This is hard though!)
* Israel needs to do a better job protecting Palestinians from crimes by Jewish settlers.
* Any fight against Hamas right now needs to be done with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties.
* Israel and Egypt probably need to operate in better faith about letting non-military trade good into Gaza. (The whole open-air prison thing.)
* Israel should probably find ways to unoccupy the West Bank etc now-ish.
* US aid should probably be contingent on those things.
(I think these there are the kind of thing you're getting at with a lot of your rhetoric about Israeli abuse of Palestine in modern times, yes?)
> Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I’m glad that came across clearly. ;)
It did yes.. and calling immigrants who arive with guns and tanks shooting the other side simply "immigrants" rather than what they are, invaders is highly inaccurate.
> I did, many times. I do feel like you aren’t reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I’d appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I’ll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
As far as I know every time you asked for clarification I gave it to you. If that is not the case please feel free to let me know what I missed... Once I made it clear what I meant i continued to use the phrase, expecting you to now understand it. again if you remain unclear just ask.
> Ok again I don’t know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
In israel since its formation until the present day anyone who comes and immigrates there must serve int he IDF for several years as a condition of their citizenship (including those born into citizenship). Meaning these immigrants, when they landed, knew they would have to pick up a gun and shoot a bunch of native palestinians in order to earn their citizenship and be allowed to immigrate there.
So no they werent just immigrants they were comatants, invaders who were awarded immigration as well, but were combatants first.
The law that requires immigrants to fight was established as one of the **first** things when Israel was founded... so yes they are all combatants first, immigrants second.
> Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel’s conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we’re discussing? Or at least I think they are haha…)
Yes I am talking about that, and no it wasnt established much later. The policy was enacted when israel was first formed. Prior to the formation of Israel it was the british who were the combatants, so either way it was a consistent invading force.
> The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
We are talking about IDF mandatory conscription, which again was on the books since the very begining of the founding of israel.
> Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I’m wondering if, in a sense, this is all their “fault”: if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded knowing they would be taking land away fromt he natives and would have to pick up a weapon and terrorize them.. anyone who is a part of that is int he wrong.
> 1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. “invasion”) to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
So to be clear, no....
1920 - 1947 the invasion was carried out by the british as the occupying force, but during this time jews immigrating in were not strictly required to join the jewish terrorist groups, though many did by choice. During this time you had the Irgun and later the offshoot Lehi group which were the paramilitary arm of the jews migrating there during this time. Their goal, along side the british (and sometimes against them in the case of lehi) was to commit all sorts of horrific terrorist acts towards the palestinians. Int he case of Lehi their stated goal was to create an israli state so they can have uncontrolled immigration and take over and expel the arabs and british.
From the moment israel was formed this terrorism became mandatory and it was integrated into the IDF, and now all immigrants were required to join, rather than just joining cause they wanted to.
> (2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you’re talking about, like “invasion-by-good-guys”, reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don’t think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel like i did and see the horrible abuse the Israelis enforce on palestinian day after day... In the entire 2 years I was there they had parts of gaza strip intentionally without water or power as a punishment to the citizens (something amnesty international has called them out for before)... I have seen first hand what they do , this isnt a matter of history, its about the fact that they are STILL doing it.
@freemo "I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded" Oh my I am so confused :) You appear to be going back and forth between making it clear that we're talking about pre-1947 then making it clear that we're talking about after the state is founded.
I think at this point I pretty much have no idea what you're saying.
"Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel..." – see here you're talking about alleged problematic actions by Israel *today*, and I feel like I've made it pretty clear I'm *not* talking about that (My like whole point is what you say here: "this isnt a matter of history"). We're just talking past each other.
Well, thanks for trying 😂 All the best, and praying for peace and justice.
> “I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded” Oh my I am so confused :) You appear to be going back and forth between making it clear that we’re talking about pre-1947 then making it clear that we’re talking about after the state is founded.
Because both time periods are relevant to the discussion... 1920 - 1947 was the start of the invasion in one form (british being the primary occupying force and the jews forming their own paramilitary groups as well).. and then 1947+ was when the invasion was taken over by the jews (now isralis) and britain left.
We cant talk about either phase of the invasion independently.
> I think at this point I pretty much have no idea what you’re saying.
Sorry about that.
> “Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel…” – see here you’re talking about alleged problematic actions by Israel today, and I feel like I’ve made it pretty clear I’m not talking about that (My like whole point is what you say here: “this isnt a matter of history”). We’re just talking past each other.
No no every point in time matters... Today is just the history we are still making.
You cant have this discussion without talking about the area pre-1920, 1920-1947 and 1947 to present... The full picture needs to be discussed if you ever want to reach an udnerstanding.
@freemo "You cant have this discussion without talking about the area pre-1920, 1920-1947 and 1947 to present…" ok, but we also can't have the discussion if any statement or question about one era is interpreted to be about the other. 😂
@ech Hahah this is true... as I said im sorry if i wasnt more clear at various points... I do tend to assume others know the history well enough to know from context what I mean... a fault of my own not yours.
@freemo Nah, I don't think that's the problem, no worries.
@ech I am not saying you dont know the history... just that i expect you to know it in a level of detail that might be excessive (such as the terrorism carried out by immigrants int he 1920-1947 era by jewish terrorist groups that largely started much of the problems)
@freemo I'd mentioned that violence upthread; again not really the problem.
@ech
> “Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group “ – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here.
No, there were **very** few isralis already there. Prior to the invasion there were about 160K Palestinian Jews, some of whom chose to stay palestinian at the start of the invasion. Contrast this with the 800K arabs in the area.
Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN, declared they would invade an annex half of palestine for themselves), The resulting population, as part of right-of-return, skyrocketed.
As a result of this invasion by the end of the year in 1947 (the invasion was made official earlier that year) the invading jewish population had more trippled in that short time to over 630.
So no they werent "already there" 2/3 of the invasion were jews from around the world who migrated there to participate in the invasion either as a settler to the newly stolen land, or as military themselves. Often a bit of both.
> “they are illegal immigrants” Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you’re saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?
Yes, the british had no rights to allow **anyone** to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory and they had no right to allow anyone in or out, or to occupy the space at all.
So while people may have come thinking it was legal, since the British occupation is illegitmate (as all occupations are) and only the native people had any right to allow immigration, yes they were wholly illegal as an occupying force.
> “defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land.” and “they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it….” No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There’s plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can’t fathom how it is a “literal invasion”.
No, it was not where they were living at the time. Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. Yes there were some towns for one group or the other in some cases, but those towns were often intermixed among the landscape.
Also, britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed... their claim to palestine was as invalid as the Jews. The british didnt live there, only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, and this is NOT what happened