Conservatives in this forum don't understand the Israel-Palestine conflict

[CivilDiscourse]

I agree that Hamas leaders should be extradited and face trial.

However, those guilty of sexual abuse and/or paedophilia who are currently hiding out in Israel should also be extradited.

Ok, so what does that have to do with the war in hamas? Is Israel's protections an outlier in this sort of thing?

As I said, his feels like you made a concession about Hamas, but had to bring up some random counter just to balance it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ok, so what does that have to do with the war in hamas? Is Israel's protections an outlier in this sort of thing?

As I said, his feels like you made a concession about Hamas, but had to bring up some random counter just to balance it.

It would be a gesture by Israel that it also does not intend to give refuge to foreign criminals.

[CivilDiscourse]

It would be a gesture by Israel that it also does not intend to give refuge to foreign criminals.

So....I am right, you are throwing out a random complaint.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So....I am right, you are throwing out a random complaint.

It would illustrate that Israel will not permit foreign criminals to hide from justice within its country.

[Cow Poke]

So....I am right, you are throwing out a random complaint.

You're shocked, yes? And stunned?

[CivilDiscourse]

It would illustrate that Israel will not permit foreign criminals to hide from justice within its country.

That's a nice random flowery path you have tried to lay out, but as it is just a tit-for-tat you threw out because you conceded something about Hamas, I am disinclined to engage with it further.

[CivilDiscourse]

You're shocked, yes? And stunned?

Shocked...and stunned.

[Sparko]

In the 20th century, millions of Jews immigrated to the area who previously didn't live there. The Palestinians didn't immigrate there in the 20th century, they were already there.

So were Jews.

The Jews were expelled by the Romans almost 2000 years ago. It's perfectly understandable that their descendants might have a desire to immigrate back to a land they feel an ancestral connection with. However, they legally and morally have to deal seriously with the fact that there are other people living there now. They don't get to rock up, as immigrants in the present, and turf out people currently living there, and murder those people.

So you are saying if the Romans kicked them out then the land no longer belonged to the Jews? Gorsh, then that means when the UN gave the land to the Jews, it no longer belonged to the Palestinians (which it never actually did since there was no country named Palestine, just part of the Ottoman empire that was defeated and conquered in WW1.

If that were at all true, the area wouldn't have half the problems it does. Unfortunately, Israel's expansionist tendencies and desire to steal more land for Jews have lead to major unjustified attacks by Israel on Arab neighbours. The 1967 attack on numerous neighbours, and the 1982 attack on Lebanon, stand out as unjustified Israeli wars of aggression against neighbours.

It is true. As long as the Arabs don't attack them. That's the problem. They tend to keep attacking Israel and Israel fights back.

It's token representation. It doesn't stop them being nasty to the minority. Try reading some quotes from those Arab Knesset members at some point. They sure aren't happy.

LOL. Sure, just handwave away any inconvenient facts, Star.

There have been Palestinian factions over the decades that have followed your advice about peaceful living and cooperation with Israel. Fatah / the PLO was the group that has done its best to follow that line. Generally speaking the result was that Israel screwed them over. They got basically nothing for their subservience. Israel time and again denied them any diplomatic wins or any meaningful improvement in the lives of their people.

The path to peace over the decades, had Israel being willing to take it, was to deal in good faith with Fatah / the PLO, and give them a steady stream of small diplomatic wins to improve the lives of their people and reward their cooperation. That would had kept Fatah popular among the Palestinian populace, because the populace would have seen their leaders delivering wins for them.

But over the decades, Israel was so determined to keep taking land and keep being nasty to the Palestinians that they couldn't give Fatah those wins. They consistently made failures of Fatah's attempts to negotiate with them. Overall, all of Fatah's every attempt to cooperate with Israel over decades came to largely naught, because there was just too little that Israel was ever prepared to give them. This damaged the credibility of Fatah in the minds of the Palestinian populace.

By so consistently thwarting Palestinian attempts at peaceful cooperation, Israel keeps forcing the Palestinian people to resort to violence when they see diplomacy and peaceful cooperation failing them time and again. Trying to get Israel to negotiate in good faith, consistently drives people up the wall:

"Every President I worked for, at some point in his presidency, would get so pissed off at the Israelis that he couldn’t speak. It didn’t matter whether it was Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Ronald Reagan or George Bush [Sr]. Something would happen and they would just absolutely go screw themselves right into the ceiling they were so angry and they’d sort of rant and rave around the Oval Office."

-Robert Gates, CIA Director, US Defence Secretary

There are various quotes from all the more recent US presidents too about how much they disliked trying to do negotiations with Israeli leaders, because those leaders consistently don't negotiate in good faith. To pick one:

Reuters:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy told Obama...

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied

You've been guzzling the kool-aid propaganda. I doubt any of that is true. You should use a tad of scepticism toward believing propaganda.

The inconvenient facts are that Hamas are terrorists, as are Hezbollah and other groups that keep attacking Israel and using terrorist tactics to kill civilians (Rape, murder, suicide bombers, etc). And once they become terrorists, they can no longer claim the high ground. They not only kill Israeli civilians but their own people too. They need to be wiped out. Even if they hide behind their own people. You know, the ones who put them in power in the first place.

[Starlight]

The Palestinians didn't immigrate there in the 20th century, they were already there.

So were Jews.

There were a small number of Jews there, and a small number of Christians there, yes. In 1890 there were an estimated 432k Muslims, 57k Christians, and 43k Jews in there region.

During the 20th century, there wasn't substantial Arab immigration into the region, i.e. the Palestinians in the region now are just the descendants of those who were living there at the start of the 20th century.

The Jews, by contrast, are nearly all new immigrants. More that 3 million Jews have immigrated there. That is about 70x the number of Jews who were living there at the start of the 20th century.

So, generally speaking, overall I would rate your claim that the Jews were already there as false: When the number of immigrant Jews is 70x the number of Jews who were already there, almost all the Jews were not already there and are recent immigrants.

So you are saying if the Romans kicked them out then the land no longer belonged to the Jews?

Yes, in an obviously true way - I'm not trying to make a moral statement, just a factual observation that a forcibly expelled people no longer has control of the land they've been expelled from.

Gorsh, then that means when the UN gave the land to the Jews, it no longer belonged to the Palestinians

The UN didn't give all the land to the Jews, it gave some to the Palestinians. The Palestinians would love to be able to reclaim the land that the UN allocated to them... do you support them doing that?

UN declarations of who owns what are legal declarations rather than forceful ones (as the UN lacks an army). So when you compare what the Romans did to what the UN did, one is by force ('de facto') and one is legal ('de jure'). They are a bit different in that sense. There was no point in history where the UN plan was actually followed - when Israel was created in 1948 it immediately seized some of the land the UN had allocated to the palestinians. At no point has Israel agreed to accept that UN declaration.

It is true. As long as the Arabs don't attack them. That's the problem. They tend to keep attacking Israel and Israel fights back.

I would describe it as Israel keeps taking more of Palestinian land, and so the Palestinians keep fighting back.

The inconvenient facts are that Hamas are terrorists

That doesn't strike me as a useful claim. I can call the Israeli and American government terrorists too. Where does that get us?

And once they become terrorists, they can no longer claim the high ground.

Freedom fighters can resort to terrorist tactics. I don't necessarily agree that loses them the moral high ground - it counts against their cause sure but it's then a measure of whether their cause is sufficiently righteous as to offset the extremity of their tactics.

I would say Israel is an apartheid state, as Amnesty International, and the UN have both found. I would say Israel is currently doing a genocide, as the ICJ is currently investigating. I would say Israel commits major war crimes, as the ICC is currently investigating. I would say Israel uses torture, uses human shields, and has a terrorist government. I would say, given all of that, that Israel is at the bottom of the moral abyss and has the moral low ground against any possible opponent.

They not only kill Israeli civilians but their own people too. They need to be wiped out. Even if they hide behind their own people. You know, the ones who put them in power in the first place.

The Israeli government kills its own civilians. Have you already forgotten the Israeli hostages they shot? I'll totally grant that particular instance was a mistake. Their troops were just busy butchering every Palestinian civilian they found, and in the course of shooting anyone and everyone, they shot the Israeli hostages when they found them. An understandable mistake in the course of doing a genocide.

However, it's worth noting that Israel has a rather infamous history of deliberately killing its own civilians when it comes to hostages.

[Sparko]

There were a small number of Jews there, and a small number of Christians there, yes. In 1890 there were an estimated 432k Muslims, 57k Christians, and 43k Jews in there region.

During the 20th century, there wasn't substantial Arab immigration into the region, i.e. the Palestinians in the region now are just the descendants of those who were living there at the start of the 20th century.

The Jews, by contrast, are nearly all new immigrants. More that 3 million Jews have immigrated there. That is about 70x the number of Jews who were living there at the start of the 20th century.

So, generally speaking, overall I would rate your claim that the Jews were already there as false: When the number of immigrant Jews is 70x the number of Jews who were already there, almost all the Jews were not already there and are recent immigrants.

Yes, in an obviously true way - I'm not trying to make a moral statement, just a factual observation that a forcibly expelled people no longer has control of the land they've been expelled from.

The fact still remains that there was no "country" there during the Ottoman empire, more like a territory. And the people living there were both Arabs and Jews. Nobody had a claim to the land as theirs during the Ottoman empire. And after ww1, the land was converted into a country for Israel.

The UN didn't give all the land to the Jews, it gave some to the Palestinians. The Palestinians would love to be able to reclaim the land that the UN allocated to them... do you support them doing that?

I think Israel would have been fine with that, but the Arabs never wanted a two state solution. They still don't. They attacked Israel and Israel won and conquered their land. Ooops. Maybe they shouldn't have attacked Israel if they wanted to just have their own land and live in peace?

I would describe it as Israel keeps taking more of Palestinian land, and so the Palestinians keep fighting back.

Because the Palestinians keep attacking Israel and LOSING. They are the instigators.

That doesn't strike me as a useful claim. I can call the Israeli and American government terrorists too. Where does that get us?

You must have a really odd definition of terrorism.

Freedom fighters can resort to terrorist tactics. I don't necessarily agree that loses them the moral high ground - it counts against their cause sure but it's then a measure of whether their cause is sufficiently righteous as to offset the extremity of their tactics.

They are not freedom fighters. Freedom fighters who go around raping and killing women and children, strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up busses killing civilians are not "freedom fighters" they are terrorists. They are only interested in killing civilians. They are evil. They don't want peace.

I would say Israel is an apartheid state, as Amnesty International, and the UN have both found. I would say Israel is currently doing a genocide, as the ICJ is currently investigating. I would say Israel commits major war crimes, as the ICC is currently investigating. I would say Israel uses torture, uses human shields, and has a terrorist government. I would say, given all of that, that Israel is at the bottom of the moral abyss and has the moral low ground against any possible opponent.

Israel is defending itself. October 7 was the last straw.

The Israeli government kills its own civilians. Have you already forgotten the Israeli hostages they shot? I'll totally grant that particular instance was a mistake. Their troops were just busy butchering every Palestinian civilian they found, and in the course of shooting anyone and everyone, they shot the Israeli hostages when they found them. An understandable mistake in the course of doing a genocide.

Collateral civilian deaths during a military attack is not the same thing as targeting civilians as the primary target in order to cause terror. Which is what Hamas does.

However, it's worth noting that Israel has a rather infamous history of deliberately killing its own civilians when it comes to hostages.

Yeah you mentioned that before. That wasn't about killing civilians, it was about killing IDF troops that were about to be captured to actually save them from being tortured and used as pawns.

The Hannibal Directive (Hebrew: נוהל חניבעל; also Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol) is the name of a controversial procedure that was used by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) until 2016 to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces. According to one version, it says that "the kidnapping must be stopped by all means, even at the price of striking and harming our own forces

[Starlight]

I think Israel would have been fine with that

They have never been fine with it. Not once in 75 years of negotiations with them have they ever agreed to those borders.

but the Arabs never wanted a two state solution

The Israelis have never wanted a two state solution either. Not once in the 75 of negotiations with them have they ever agreed to recognize a Palestinian state. They have always demanded Palestinians recognize the state of Israel but never agreed to reciprocate.

They are not freedom fighters.

They are. You can dislike their methods, but they're still freedom fighters.

Collateral civilian deaths during a military attack is not the same thing as targeting civilians as the primary target in order to cause terror. Which is what Hamas does.

Did you miss that the primary target of the Hamas attack was 3 Israeli military bases?

[Sparko]

They have never been fine with it. Not once in 75 years of negotiations with them have they ever agreed to those borders.

The Israelis have never wanted a two state solution either. Not once in the 75 of negotiations with them have they ever agreed to recognize a Palestinian state. They have always demanded Palestinians recognize the state of Israel but never agreed to reciprocate.

They are. You can dislike their methods, but they're still freedom fighters.

No they are not. They don't want "freedom" they want "control" - Hamas is authoritarian with their own people, how do you think they would act if they did win? And I don't care how "right" their cause is. If they resort to terrorism and murdering and raping women and children, they have lost all moral high ground. They are evil.

Did you miss that the primary target of the Hamas attack was 3 Israeli military bases?

Yes, I guess I missed that because of all of the rampant murdering and raping and hostage taking of civilians in suburban neighborhoods. Did they have a military base inside the music festival? Hamas are cowards. They attack women and children, then run away and hide behind their own women and children when hit back. Then they call for "cease fire" and cry about their own civilians being killed when the IDF hits them while they hide behind them. Your "freedom fighters" are cowardly terrorists, Star. They need to be wiped out or imprisoned.

[Starlight]

No they are not. They don't want "freedom" they want "control" - Hamas is authoritarian with their own people, how do you think they would act if they did win? And I don't care how "right" their cause is. If they resort to terrorism and murdering and raping women and children, they have lost all moral high ground. They are evil.

Yes, I guess I missed that because of all of the rampant murdering and raping and hostage taking of civilians in suburban neighborhoods. Did they have a military base inside the music festival? Hamas are cowards. They attack women and children, then run away and hide behind their own women and children when hit back. Then they call for "cease fire" and cry about their own civilians being killed when the IDF hits them while they hide behind them. Your "freedom fighters" are cowardly terrorists, Star. They need to be wiped out or imprisoned.

Most of this is factually wrong.

Stop fantasizing about how bad you can imagine Hamas being. I don't think it's mentally healthy.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact still remains that there was no "country" there during the Ottoman empire, more like a territory. And the people living there were both Arabs and Jews. Nobody had a claim to the land as theirs during the Ottoman empire. And after ww1, the land was converted into a country for Israel.

No it was not.

Read up on the the region during and after WW1 as well as the British Mandate. Britannica online has a brief overview here https://www.britannica.com/place/Pal...ar-I-and-after.

World War I and after

During World War I the great powers made a number of decisions concerning the future of Palestine without much regard to the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants. Palestinian Arabs, however, believed that Great Britain had promised them independence in the Ḥusayn-McMahon correspondence, an exchange of letters from July 1915 to March 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British high commissioner in Egypt, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, then emir of Mecca, in which the British made certain commitments to the Arabs in return for their support against the Ottomans during the war. Yet by May 1916 Great Britain, France, and Russia had reached an agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) according to which, inter alia, the bulk of Palestine was to be internationalized.

[...]


The British mandate

In July 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the mandate instrument for Palestine, including its preamble incorporating the Balfour Declaration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine. Article 2 made the mandatory power responsible for placing the country under such “political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home…and the development of self-governing institutions.” Article 4 allowed for the establishment of a Jewish Agency to advise and cooperate with the Palestine administration in matters affecting the Jewish national home. Article 6 required that the Palestine administration, “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,” under suitable conditions should facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement of Jews on the land. Although Transjordan—i.e., the lands east of the Jordan River—constituted three-fourths of the British mandate of Palestine, it was, despite protests from the Zionists, excluded from the clauses covering the establishment of a Jewish national home. On September 29, 1923, the mandate officially came into force.

Palestine was a distinct political entity for the first time in centuries. This created problems and challenges for Palestinian Arabs and Zionists alike. Both communities realized that by the end of the mandate period the region’s future would be determined by size of population and ownership of land. Thus the central issues throughout the mandate period were Jewish immigration and land purchases, with the Jews attempting to increase both and the Arabs seeking to slow down or halt both. Conflict over these issues often escalated into violence, and the British were forced to take action—a lesson not lost on either side.

The rest of that article will give you some basic information. Anything more you can seek out for yourself.

[Sparko]

No it was not.

Read up on the the region during and after WW1 as well as the British Mandate. Britannica online has a brief overview here https://www.britannica.com/place/Pal...ar-I-and-after.

World War I and after

During World War I the great powers made a number of decisions concerning the future of Palestine without much regard to the wishes of the indigenous inhabitants. Palestinian Arabs, however, believed that Great Britain had promised them independence in the Ḥusayn-McMahon correspondence, an exchange of letters from July 1915 to March 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British high commissioner in Egypt, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, then emir of Mecca, in which the British made certain commitments to the Arabs in return for their support against the Ottomans during the war. Yet by May 1916 Great Britain, France, and Russia had reached an agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) according to which, inter alia, the bulk of Palestine was to be internationalized.

[...]


The British mandate

In July 1922 the Council of the League of Nations approved the mandate instrument for Palestine, including its preamble incorporating the Balfour Declaration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine. Article 2 made the mandatory power responsible for placing the country under such “political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home…and the development of self-governing institutions.” Article 4 allowed for the establishment of a Jewish Agency to advise and cooperate with the Palestine administration in matters affecting the Jewish national home. Article 6 required that the Palestine administration, “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,” under suitable conditions should facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement of Jews on the land. Although Transjordan—i.e., the lands east of the Jordan River—constituted three-fourths of the British mandate of Palestine, it was, despite protests from the Zionists, excluded from the clauses covering the establishment of a Jewish national home. On September 29, 1923, the mandate officially came into force.

Palestine was a distinct political entity for the first time in centuries. This created problems and challenges for Palestinian Arabs and Zionists alike. Both communities realized that by the end of the mandate period the region’s future would be determined by size of population and ownership of land. Thus the central issues throughout the mandate period were Jewish immigration and land purchases, with the Jews attempting to increase both and the Arabs seeking to slow down or halt both. Conflict over these issues often escalated into violence, and the British were forced to take action—a lesson not lost on either side.

The rest of that article will give you some basic information. Anything more you can seek out for yourself.

What do you see in your quote that contradicts what I said?