Yeah sure your welcome to give them Czechia and be an expandable landless helot that could be abused and even excuted out of hand without consequence at any moment and then you are welcome to share your enlightened elucidations about who is the bad guy then, otherwise if you have not tested what does it means to be forcefully evicted from your own lands permanently and watch your people dehumanized and treated like insects then you are less than qualified to determine who is being wronged here.
Following your logic Nazis had the right to defend themselves and native American were the original terrorists
1.) Israel is doing to Palestinians what Russia is doing to Ukraine;
2.) The UN Resolution 181 did not 'establish Israel', but partitioned Palestine into two: granting 51% to the Zionists, and 49% to domestic population.
...which means that if you're insistent that the UN Resolution 'established Israel', then you've got to be insistent that it 'established Palestine', too.
3.) According to Sand, Arabs were not 'given land', they were there for 11,000-14,000 years, right next to the local Jews (and contrary to all the settlers that moved in over the last 100+ years, and were then 'given 51% of land' by the UN although holding less than 7% of it).
The problem is mostnof Jews did not want to leave their home despite all Zionist propaganda and only forced to leave after the of 67 after the pressure of regimes that turned out to be in cahoots with Israelis after all , and ironically many of their descendants wish to return and make frequent social media pleas
Thanks Tom , Austria brought Mozart and economic giants like F.A.Hayek and Mises who made the modren world , sure some people are shocked that there are bad people in Austria (like elsewhere else) and there is good people too who are the majority, seriously thank you for being an honest person as honestly is indeed exceedingly rare commodity these days , I am truely honoured for knowing you
I agree with your approach, just stating those information, corroborated by proper sources and ignoring the haters, who are unwilling and/or unable to produce structured and logical thoughts, is one of the main reasons, I appreciate your blog and automatically you as a person, without personally knowing you.
Do I always like, what you write. Most times, not always.
Do I like your sarcasm, sometime yes, sometimes no.
But who cares, as it is about plain information and not about feelings and what not. If I disagree or have a question, I either keep it for myself or write in a polite fashion, always keeping in mind, that “you are the pro” and I am not.
To conclude, I am happy for your continuous reports and wish you a happy weekend!
But do you think the Palestinians would be any different to the Jews if the roles were reversed? The painful reality is that two peoples who do not get along, plan on living in the same house and want the other gone. There is no "Win-win" in this situation, no matter which way you slice it, there is going to be a winner and loser. You only get to pick who is which. The Palestinians have a wonderful talent of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Over the years they have alienated most of the Arab governments. Hamas support for the Muslim Brotherhood has led to Egypt happily enforcing a blockade on Gaza. As for the other Arab countries, they have treated Palestinians refugees with contempt and keeping them in refugee camps to be a useful pawn and nothing else. Going back to our previous discussion, as far as I am aware, Syria was the only Arab country that offered any form of partial citizenship to Palestinians. I am sure you correct me if I missed any other Arab country that gave them full or partial citizenship.
Hamas current action has succeeded in destroying any hope of a decent future for the upcoming generation of Palestinians and will likley dispower those in Israel that wanted to find a sustainable settlement with the West Bank Palestinians. We all have our bias, clearly yours and mine differ. That does not mean I stop reading you assessments, but I will read them differently. As for your studies of "Other air forces" I will commend you on writing on lesser known subjects and the majority of serious history enthusiast will be happy with your choice of subject matter.
Hamas may have done a lot wrong but it is not Hamas who has destroyed the hope for Palenstinians. It is Israel. This follows even from your own logic since you say yourself that only one of them could have had the land, and Israel wanted it while Palestine had it. I would humbly suggest that kicking out the Palesinians was a bad solution in every way.
It should be note that Jews we well integrated within the Arab and Muslim world and were never segregated against and even climped to esteemed positions for over a 1000 years and the only problem arised after the the establishment of Israel , hell early Zionist colonies was welcomed and recieved well treatment during the days of the Ottoman empire were Jews held high positions.
So yes I dare say the treatment would've been vastly different if the roles are switched , but of course that can not be admitted or else open the door to very very uncomfortable questions
Jews were treated well where they were a small minority. The treatment tends to change as the majority starts perceiving a minority as a threat - you'll see that in Eastern Europe regarding immigrants or in the US towards Mexicans. Same caused pogroms.
I think the right way would be providing the migrants with jobs without social guarantees.
1) That boosts the economy: the migrants fill low-income positions freeing the natives for higher-income and managerial jobs.
2) That boosts the economy: goods become cheaper as there is no guaranteed minimal salary.
3) That does not burden the economy: the country does not spend any money on migrants (except for scaling medical and police services due to the increased population).
4) That keeps the migrants busy. The one who works for 12 hours a day has neither time nor energy for crimes.
5) That is going to assimilate the migrants after a generation. They are not kept in camps, they work next to the natives.
Islam is very specific as to the treatment of the "Peoples of the book", they are allowed to exist and serve. They must always be in a position of submission to their Islamic overlords. Details include where and how they worship, payment of jizya is also required. Also their word in a Sharia court is quite limited and legal options of a non-Muslim against a Muslim are limited. My wife was a Lawyer in Malaysia and was educated in both Common law and Sharia Law.
Your first question is really strange. First, we dont know. Second you are basically saying that Israel (which in my opinion is different from Jews, Israel is a state, Jews are people belonging to a religion) misbehaves, but since the other side would behave equally bad it doesnt matter? You are excusing the actual bad behaviour of one by hypothetically blaming the victim If roles were reversed? Strange Logic. The actual painful situation is that one side (Israel) in 1948 started its existence with theft and murder. Theft of the land were people were living. That created the situation where there are two people living in the same house. And one side has continued that theft afterwards. They have been assister in that by the ineptness of their opponents, true. And I agree with you that there is no easy solution. Even as I describe the process as I see it, I do not see any «rollback» or destroying Israel option. The costs are too high. Historically many nations have succeded in stealing others land (killing them in the process), the whole Americas was stolen that way. But let us at least be honest and understand what created the situation. It wasnt the Palestinians who started this, as it wasnt the native americans that sent Columbus.
It goes back to the "Ultimate Solution" of Hitler and even to the days of Roman and Babylonian empires. When one nation is banished from a land and another one is settled there, that causes troubles for future generations.
The Germans were guilty in the "Ultimate Solution", not the Palestinians. Than why the land is to be taken not from the guilty but from the innocent? Israel was created artificially, mostly because Stalin wanted to infiltrate it by Soviet Jews to strengthen Soviet influence in the East. But the Jews new better than to help Stalin.
Israelite lobby is very strong in Ukraine possibly due to the considerable number of ethnic Jews in Ukraine. Non-Jewish part of Ukrainian population is in fact indifferent to the outcome of the conflict with the Palestine. The conflict is too long to attract and hold the public interest of non-Jewish Ukrainians. Those Jews who wanted to live in Israel have already emigrated long ago.
That's how karma works. It makes straight paths curved and thorny.
You should dive much deeper into the history. That land belonged to Jews 2-3 thousand years ago, and those Roman emperors who re-settled Jews and Babylonian emperors who settled the Palestinians there are long dead now.
It is no use to refer to the events that took place 2 thousands years ago to advocate the wrong the Israel is doing to the Arabs now. Then you must settle the Hungarians and the Bulgarians back to Volga steppes, American Irishmen back to Ireland and so on. The Jews themselves according to the Bible were invaders that chased other peoples from "the promised land".
The Hungarians and Bulgarians got their states and are happy with them. Jews did not have any, and that was one of the preconditions for the Holocaust.
Indeed, if gauging by 'what was 2000 years ago'... well, both Americas, plus Europe would become quite empty continents, because the mass of their populations would have to return to different parts of Asia...
If that's still in memory, that drives real-world events. Moreover, the same notions and texts that were written 2-3 thousands of years ago were the basis for pogroms and Holocaust.
You can ignore the impact of religion on politics and wars to the same extent as you ignore the historical Crusades.
wow another "artificially created state" arguement similar to what we've heard from ruzzians about Ukraine "created by Lenin and Stalin" and Ukrainian language created by "Austrian General Staff".
How many Sovleit Jews actually repatriated to Israel from the soviet union, any stats?
Nearly 200000 according to Soviet statistics. But in 1990-ies and later the emigration from the post-Soviet countries continued. After the foundation of Israel Stalin's USSR helped a great deal, only later it changed sides.
You ignore the violence that was directed at zionist communities by acolytes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Each round of violence has strengthened the right wing of each religious community. So now Jewish fascists snarl at Muslim fascists and vis a versa. Leftists continue to work with each other in small meaningful ways. I hope for a time when their work can out shine the nighttime flares and rockets of the fascist effort.
i didnt list or balance anything. I stand with my original comment that the Israel state grabbed land in 1948 and conducted attrocities. I have not said that the Palestinians didnt do violence and committed attrocities. However, If you look at what the net end result was it was a huge success for the Israeli and a loss of land a people for the Palestine.
In 1947, the UN - the (at least in theory) uppermost instance in humanity, responsible for regulation of the mass of international relations - has decided to partition the territory of Palestine into one part (51%) controlled by Zionists, and another (49%) controlled by the native population.
Since the King-Crane Commission of 1919, nobody asked the native population about whether it's in agreement with any such designs, and the Year 1947 was not even over before over 200,000 of the people in question were ethnically cleansed.
'OK', let's ignore the latter two facts. Lets remain focused on the UN.
If the UN decided to grant 51% of the Palestine to the Zionists, then they've got 51%. No 50, and no 52%, and even less so 100%.
So, if the UN decision is widely considered 'creation of Israel', WTF is it not considered 'creation of Palestine'?
Why is then the Israeli conquest of all of Palestine 'OK' - but Palestinians are 'terrorists' if they are executing the right of self-defence, granted to them by the UN Charter?
And regarding your question on how do I 'know' Palestinians would not be different.... here you are again, Colin: this is like if you start talking about winning on the lottery, and spending a million for this, and a million for that.... You haven't won on the lottery, and even if, haven't defined what lottery, when, nor how much did you win. So, how do you want to explain how much did you spend for what?
It didn't happen, and thus it's pointless to discuss.
In that sense: what 'decent future' can the Palestinians expect to have, herded into an open-air concentration camp named the Gaza Strip and (what's left of) the West Bank - and then under a fascistoid regime run by Netanyahu?
Just another of your (apparently: usual) 'lottery questions'....
As I understood it, Jordan was to be the "Palestinian State". you are quite right that there was a 1947 partition plan, one that was rejected by the Palestinians and Arabs were stated as saying "They will drive the Jews into the sea". To Palestinians were quite honest in their intended goals. Just not that good at executing them. A interesting point on the 1948 is that pretty much the only country with no innocent blood on their hands were the Egyptians who from all accounts conducted themselves as professional soldiers. For the Jews, it was a case of smashed cooking pots and boats. It was to win there or die. Also look at the Ottoman and the US Census data and you see the population of the area swelled under the British Mandate, with both Arab and Jewish population rising proportionally at roughly the same rate. Which was surprising as Jewish immigration to the area was restricted.
Islam is about submission and they are content to allow other "Peoples of the book" to live on Dar Al-Islam as long as they are subservient. In a place steeped in history, where does one stop? Keep in mind that it was the Jews that were tossed out of this land long ago by the Romans and left Stateless. They saw how that let them be treated and I don't blame them one bit for creating the State of Israel.
You clearly have your position and I have mine. I am unlikely to change yours as you can mine. I live in a area that is considered the un-ceded traditional territory of the local First Nation. If they demanded that I give up my home I would not. So I am not about to tell the Israelis to do something I would not do myself.
Nope. Palestine was Palestine, Transjordan (then Jordan) was Transjordan.
Re. other topics you've mentioned: please, be so kind, pick yourself one of books I've listed above. Inform yourself. At least the Arabs and Israel for Beginners: I'm not trying to patronise you, it's really an 'enlightening' little book, and is going to help you understand what is going on.
Isn't the key to all reasoning about this mess the simple, uncontestable fact that the zionists started it, not the Palestinians ?
As for the damage caused by tday's attacks to the position of the moderate Israelis, well these are either powerless or simply hypocritical and have ceased to be a factor a long time ago.
This action by Hamas seems to be a desperate measure based on the perception that the any hope for some kind of "victory" for their side rests on letting it clear to the Israelis that they won't be safe until at least a small degree of justice is done to Palestinians. Not sure it can work.
I am afraid it is really difficult to find any «better». Study history and you will find assh»+@ all over the place. But we should be clear in who started what when we discuss conflicts.
The Jews found the nation they considered to be weak and stupid and robbed them of their land. Remember the story how the Jews robbed Egyptians before leaving Egypt with Moses. The Holy Bible admires such things done by the Jews.
Well, the Palestinians were weaker. And one of the strenghts Israel has found in the conflict is its ability to draw on the Bible. Strength, clear Israeli victory so far. Morale? Not so.
The Israeli speculation on the Holocaust and its conduct towards the Palestinians I find disgusting. The Bible in general is depicting a cruel, false and bloodthirsty nation.
The Old Testament is written not by "humankind" but by the Jews. It is full of the absurd stories about the superiority of the Jews like the one about pharao falling in love with Sarah the latter being 90 years old. We prefer to be the heirs of the Greek democracy not of the wildness of the zelotes.
When a regional superpower (Israel) oppresses, controls and abuses a neighbour who has no real means to defend itself, are today's events any surprise?
Israel is not great. It is xenophobic and alien to non-Jewish. It unscrupulously and constantly uses the Holocaust as a weapon and as means to achieve its goals.
I was very glad to read this piece because for years and years I try to explain to my colleagues and friends that Israel in fact is an aggressive country that was founded thanks to the most atrocious deceit of the Palestine Arabs. More than 10 years ago I have read the novel by Desmond Stuart "The people of Friday" describing the process of "foundation of Israel" at the cost of the Arabs. Not all European intellectuals of the Jewish origin supported Israel, Harold Pinter and others were strongly against it. In Ukraine the pro-Israel lobby is extremely strong. Nevertheless Israel after the beginning of the war with Russia did not accept refugees from Ukraine.
I have a question. What is the truth of the claim that Jewish agencies have been buying up land from the Arabs since 1920. And Israel is thus located on the largest partly on this redeemed land and partly on land donated, for example, by the USA.
Oh, they did - and already since earlier times. 'But'....
Firstly, most of the owners of the land bought by the Jewish Agency were living in Damascus. Because in the Ottoman Empire (which is where the Jews began buying land in Palestine), Syria and Palestine were one territory, and Damascus was - traditionally (for millennia already) the 'power broker' in the area.
Secondly, in 1916 - around the same time certain Lord Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration (thus granting land neither he nor Great Britain owned, to people he and most of those around him actually wanted to get rid of) - the British promised the Shariff of Mecca the throne of an Arab kingdom in the Middle East, if he would support them in the war against the Ottomans through launching an uprising. Said, done: in 1918, the Shariff sent his third son Faysal to Damascus and, supported by Arab nationalists, this declared the Arab Kingdom of Syria - which was including all of modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and north-western Saudi Arabia. The Jewish Agency recognised the kingdom, and entered a number of contracts with it - all granted on condition the Jews not to mess around with the local population. However, the British and French then distributed the Middle East between themselves along the Sykes-Picot Treaty, and the French crushed the Arab Kingdom of Syria in blood....
With the destruction of the Arab Kingdom of Syria and imposition of the British Mandate of Palestine and the French mandate of Syria, Palestine was cut off from Damascus.
That said, the Jews continued buying land. Even so, as of 1947, they owned less than 7% of the territory of Palestine.
Thus, nope: the Jews didn't something like 'buy all of Palestine'.
And - except through the King-Crane Commission of 1919 (the only body ever to actually go and ask the local population of the Middle East what and how do they want to live in the future, but entirely ignored the British and the French) - the USA were not involved in Israel/Palestine before 1947. If at all, Zionists in the USA were doing everything in their powers to prevent any kind of Jewish emigration from Europe of the 1930s. Thus, whoever is telling stories about some kind of land donated by the USA: that's plain nonsense.
So many thanks for day in day out pursueing being informative and cleaning this info from bullshit, politics, emotions, hatred, bias, powerplay, manipulations, lies, deeper layed interests, etc, because it is the only path to come somewhere in stead of running show in cycles for a vulnerable audience, often played by outsiders, elite. But unfortunately it never is about the pure content, it is always about the other,often hidden factors.
Nope, there is not.
Hamas was imposed upon them, and ever since it's keeping itself imposed upon them.
Just like the corrupt and - meanwhile - completely useless PLO.
They were simply not given any other options.
They definitely did. Have discussed this in the 'update' posted a few minutes ago.
Yeah sure your welcome to give them Czechia and be an expandable landless helot that could be abused and even excuted out of hand without consequence at any moment and then you are welcome to share your enlightened elucidations about who is the bad guy then, otherwise if you have not tested what does it means to be forcefully evicted from your own lands permanently and watch your people dehumanized and treated like insects then you are less than qualified to determine who is being wronged here.
Following your logic Nazis had the right to defend themselves and native American were the original terrorists
Essentially,
1.) Israel is doing to Palestinians what Russia is doing to Ukraine;
2.) The UN Resolution 181 did not 'establish Israel', but partitioned Palestine into two: granting 51% to the Zionists, and 49% to domestic population.
...which means that if you're insistent that the UN Resolution 'established Israel', then you've got to be insistent that it 'established Palestine', too.
3.) According to Sand, Arabs were not 'given land', they were there for 11,000-14,000 years, right next to the local Jews (and contrary to all the settlers that moved in over the last 100+ years, and were then 'given 51% of land' by the UN although holding less than 7% of it).
4.) Killing is mutual.
Bottom line: please, be so kind, inform yourself.
'Jews' - not.
'Zionists' - yes, and a lot of them.
The problem is mostnof Jews did not want to leave their home despite all Zionist propaganda and only forced to leave after the of 67 after the pressure of regimes that turned out to be in cahoots with Israelis after all , and ironically many of their descendants wish to return and make frequent social media pleas
I - most sincerely - hope, you're not trying to say there was something like 'spontaneous exchange of population'?
Agree
Well said! Thanks.
Thanks Tom , Austria brought Mozart and economic giants like F.A.Hayek and Mises who made the modren world , sure some people are shocked that there are bad people in Austria (like elsewhere else) and there is good people too who are the majority, seriously thank you for being an honest person as honestly is indeed exceedingly rare commodity these days , I am truely honoured for knowing you
Couldn't agree more with you
Thanks Tom.
I agree with your approach, just stating those information, corroborated by proper sources and ignoring the haters, who are unwilling and/or unable to produce structured and logical thoughts, is one of the main reasons, I appreciate your blog and automatically you as a person, without personally knowing you.
Do I always like, what you write. Most times, not always.
Do I like your sarcasm, sometime yes, sometimes no.
But who cares, as it is about plain information and not about feelings and what not. If I disagree or have a question, I either keep it for myself or write in a polite fashion, always keeping in mind, that “you are the pro” and I am not.
To conclude, I am happy for your continuous reports and wish you a happy weekend!
Be sure: most of the times I do not like what I write.
Because the more I study wars, the more I hate them - and, especially, those causing them.
But do you think the Palestinians would be any different to the Jews if the roles were reversed? The painful reality is that two peoples who do not get along, plan on living in the same house and want the other gone. There is no "Win-win" in this situation, no matter which way you slice it, there is going to be a winner and loser. You only get to pick who is which. The Palestinians have a wonderful talent of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Over the years they have alienated most of the Arab governments. Hamas support for the Muslim Brotherhood has led to Egypt happily enforcing a blockade on Gaza. As for the other Arab countries, they have treated Palestinians refugees with contempt and keeping them in refugee camps to be a useful pawn and nothing else. Going back to our previous discussion, as far as I am aware, Syria was the only Arab country that offered any form of partial citizenship to Palestinians. I am sure you correct me if I missed any other Arab country that gave them full or partial citizenship.
Hamas current action has succeeded in destroying any hope of a decent future for the upcoming generation of Palestinians and will likley dispower those in Israel that wanted to find a sustainable settlement with the West Bank Palestinians. We all have our bias, clearly yours and mine differ. That does not mean I stop reading you assessments, but I will read them differently. As for your studies of "Other air forces" I will commend you on writing on lesser known subjects and the majority of serious history enthusiast will be happy with your choice of subject matter.
Hamas may have done a lot wrong but it is not Hamas who has destroyed the hope for Palenstinians. It is Israel. This follows even from your own logic since you say yourself that only one of them could have had the land, and Israel wanted it while Palestine had it. I would humbly suggest that kicking out the Palesinians was a bad solution in every way.
It should be note that Jews we well integrated within the Arab and Muslim world and were never segregated against and even climped to esteemed positions for over a 1000 years and the only problem arised after the the establishment of Israel , hell early Zionist colonies was welcomed and recieved well treatment during the days of the Ottoman empire were Jews held high positions.
So yes I dare say the treatment would've been vastly different if the roles are switched , but of course that can not be admitted or else open the door to very very uncomfortable questions
Jews were treated well where they were a small minority. The treatment tends to change as the majority starts perceiving a minority as a threat - you'll see that in Eastern Europe regarding immigrants or in the US towards Mexicans. Same caused pogroms.
I think the right way would be providing the migrants with jobs without social guarantees.
1) That boosts the economy: the migrants fill low-income positions freeing the natives for higher-income and managerial jobs.
2) That boosts the economy: goods become cheaper as there is no guaranteed minimal salary.
3) That does not burden the economy: the country does not spend any money on migrants (except for scaling medical and police services due to the increased population).
4) That keeps the migrants busy. The one who works for 12 hours a day has neither time nor energy for crimes.
5) That is going to assimilate the migrants after a generation. They are not kept in camps, they work next to the natives.
Oh great, you just invented poorly-weiled slavery :-)
Better than concentration camps or being killed in war zones, isn't it?
Islam is very specific as to the treatment of the "Peoples of the book", they are allowed to exist and serve. They must always be in a position of submission to their Islamic overlords. Details include where and how they worship, payment of jizya is also required. Also their word in a Sharia court is quite limited and legal options of a non-Muslim against a Muslim are limited. My wife was a Lawyer in Malaysia and was educated in both Common law and Sharia Law.
Your first question is really strange. First, we dont know. Second you are basically saying that Israel (which in my opinion is different from Jews, Israel is a state, Jews are people belonging to a religion) misbehaves, but since the other side would behave equally bad it doesnt matter? You are excusing the actual bad behaviour of one by hypothetically blaming the victim If roles were reversed? Strange Logic. The actual painful situation is that one side (Israel) in 1948 started its existence with theft and murder. Theft of the land were people were living. That created the situation where there are two people living in the same house. And one side has continued that theft afterwards. They have been assister in that by the ineptness of their opponents, true. And I agree with you that there is no easy solution. Even as I describe the process as I see it, I do not see any «rollback» or destroying Israel option. The costs are too high. Historically many nations have succeded in stealing others land (killing them in the process), the whole Americas was stolen that way. But let us at least be honest and understand what created the situation. It wasnt the Palestinians who started this, as it wasnt the native americans that sent Columbus.
It goes back to the "Ultimate Solution" of Hitler and even to the days of Roman and Babylonian empires. When one nation is banished from a land and another one is settled there, that causes troubles for future generations.
The Germans were guilty in the "Ultimate Solution", not the Palestinians. Than why the land is to be taken not from the guilty but from the innocent? Israel was created artificially, mostly because Stalin wanted to infiltrate it by Soviet Jews to strengthen Soviet influence in the East. But the Jews new better than to help Stalin.
Israelite lobby is very strong in Ukraine possibly due to the considerable number of ethnic Jews in Ukraine. Non-Jewish part of Ukrainian population is in fact indifferent to the outcome of the conflict with the Palestine. The conflict is too long to attract and hold the public interest of non-Jewish Ukrainians. Those Jews who wanted to live in Israel have already emigrated long ago.
That's how karma works. It makes straight paths curved and thorny.
You should dive much deeper into the history. That land belonged to Jews 2-3 thousand years ago, and those Roman emperors who re-settled Jews and Babylonian emperors who settled the Palestinians there are long dead now.
It is no use to refer to the events that took place 2 thousands years ago to advocate the wrong the Israel is doing to the Arabs now. Then you must settle the Hungarians and the Bulgarians back to Volga steppes, American Irishmen back to Ireland and so on. The Jews themselves according to the Bible were invaders that chased other peoples from "the promised land".
The Hungarians and Bulgarians got their states and are happy with them. Jews did not have any, and that was one of the preconditions for the Holocaust.
Indeed, if gauging by 'what was 2000 years ago'... well, both Americas, plus Europe would become quite empty continents, because the mass of their populations would have to return to different parts of Asia...
Reference to 2-3 thousand years ago is irrelevant and stupid.
If that's still in memory, that drives real-world events. Moreover, the same notions and texts that were written 2-3 thousands of years ago were the basis for pogroms and Holocaust.
You can ignore the impact of religion on politics and wars to the same extent as you ignore the historical Crusades.
wow another "artificially created state" arguement similar to what we've heard from ruzzians about Ukraine "created by Lenin and Stalin" and Ukrainian language created by "Austrian General Staff".
How many Sovleit Jews actually repatriated to Israel from the soviet union, any stats?
Nearly 200000 according to Soviet statistics. But in 1990-ies and later the emigration from the post-Soviet countries continued. After the foundation of Israel Stalin's USSR helped a great deal, only later it changed sides.
Yes.
You ignore the violence that was directed at zionist communities by acolytes of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Each round of violence has strengthened the right wing of each religious community. So now Jewish fascists snarl at Muslim fascists and vis a versa. Leftists continue to work with each other in small meaningful ways. I hope for a time when their work can out shine the nighttime flares and rockets of the fascist effort.
i didnt list or balance anything. I stand with my original comment that the Israel state grabbed land in 1948 and conducted attrocities. I have not said that the Palestinians didnt do violence and committed attrocities. However, If you look at what the net end result was it was a huge success for the Israeli and a loss of land a people for the Palestine.
In 1947, the UN - the (at least in theory) uppermost instance in humanity, responsible for regulation of the mass of international relations - has decided to partition the territory of Palestine into one part (51%) controlled by Zionists, and another (49%) controlled by the native population.
Since the King-Crane Commission of 1919, nobody asked the native population about whether it's in agreement with any such designs, and the Year 1947 was not even over before over 200,000 of the people in question were ethnically cleansed.
'OK', let's ignore the latter two facts. Lets remain focused on the UN.
If the UN decided to grant 51% of the Palestine to the Zionists, then they've got 51%. No 50, and no 52%, and even less so 100%.
So, if the UN decision is widely considered 'creation of Israel', WTF is it not considered 'creation of Palestine'?
Why is then the Israeli conquest of all of Palestine 'OK' - but Palestinians are 'terrorists' if they are executing the right of self-defence, granted to them by the UN Charter?
And regarding your question on how do I 'know' Palestinians would not be different.... here you are again, Colin: this is like if you start talking about winning on the lottery, and spending a million for this, and a million for that.... You haven't won on the lottery, and even if, haven't defined what lottery, when, nor how much did you win. So, how do you want to explain how much did you spend for what?
It didn't happen, and thus it's pointless to discuss.
In that sense: what 'decent future' can the Palestinians expect to have, herded into an open-air concentration camp named the Gaza Strip and (what's left of) the West Bank - and then under a fascistoid regime run by Netanyahu?
Just another of your (apparently: usual) 'lottery questions'....
As I understood it, Jordan was to be the "Palestinian State". you are quite right that there was a 1947 partition plan, one that was rejected by the Palestinians and Arabs were stated as saying "They will drive the Jews into the sea". To Palestinians were quite honest in their intended goals. Just not that good at executing them. A interesting point on the 1948 is that pretty much the only country with no innocent blood on their hands were the Egyptians who from all accounts conducted themselves as professional soldiers. For the Jews, it was a case of smashed cooking pots and boats. It was to win there or die. Also look at the Ottoman and the US Census data and you see the population of the area swelled under the British Mandate, with both Arab and Jewish population rising proportionally at roughly the same rate. Which was surprising as Jewish immigration to the area was restricted.
Islam is about submission and they are content to allow other "Peoples of the book" to live on Dar Al-Islam as long as they are subservient. In a place steeped in history, where does one stop? Keep in mind that it was the Jews that were tossed out of this land long ago by the Romans and left Stateless. They saw how that let them be treated and I don't blame them one bit for creating the State of Israel.
You clearly have your position and I have mine. I am unlikely to change yours as you can mine. I live in a area that is considered the un-ceded traditional territory of the local First Nation. If they demanded that I give up my home I would not. So I am not about to tell the Israelis to do something I would not do myself.
Nope. Palestine was Palestine, Transjordan (then Jordan) was Transjordan.
Re. other topics you've mentioned: please, be so kind, pick yourself one of books I've listed above. Inform yourself. At least the Arabs and Israel for Beginners: I'm not trying to patronise you, it's really an 'enlightening' little book, and is going to help you understand what is going on.
Give us a break about what the Romans did. Or do want to annul the effect of every battle and every conquest in human history?
Isn't the key to all reasoning about this mess the simple, uncontestable fact that the zionists started it, not the Palestinians ?
As for the damage caused by tday's attacks to the position of the moderate Israelis, well these are either powerless or simply hypocritical and have ceased to be a factor a long time ago.
This action by Hamas seems to be a desperate measure based on the perception that the any hope for some kind of "victory" for their side rests on letting it clear to the Israelis that they won't be safe until at least a small degree of justice is done to Palestinians. Not sure it can work.
I do guess that the Hamas' strategy is designed along such lines. Kind of 'repeat of 6 October 1973'.
Well, who is better?
EU funds concentration camps to keep refugees in Libya https://www.theoutlawocean.com/investigations/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe/
China holds 1m Muslims in camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
Russia bombs hospitals and civilians for years wherever they like
US got Guantanamo and all those wars of aggression
The old poor Kurt Vonnegut's interview where he dared to say that people should never be humiliated was banned by Google
I am afraid it is really difficult to find any «better». Study history and you will find assh»+@ all over the place. But we should be clear in who started what when we discuss conflicts.
The Jews found the nation they considered to be weak and stupid and robbed them of their land. Remember the story how the Jews robbed Egyptians before leaving Egypt with Moses. The Holy Bible admires such things done by the Jews.
Well, the Palestinians were weaker. And one of the strenghts Israel has found in the conflict is its ability to draw on the Bible. Strength, clear Israeli victory so far. Morale? Not so.
The Israeli speculation on the Holocaust and its conduct towards the Palestinians I find disgusting. The Bible in general is depicting a cruel, false and bloodthirsty nation.
The Bible depicts cruel and bloodthirsty humankind, as it is.
The Old Testament is written not by "humankind" but by the Jews. It is full of the absurd stories about the superiority of the Jews like the one about pharao falling in love with Sarah the latter being 90 years old. We prefer to be the heirs of the Greek democracy not of the wildness of the zelotes.
You are a god man, Tom, and I think you'd be surprised how many people agree with what you say here.
I wish you could correct typos on this thing. Calling Tom "god" is perhaps going too far.
When a regional superpower (Israel) oppresses, controls and abuses a neighbour who has no real means to defend itself, are today's events any surprise?
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Israel is not great. It is xenophobic and alien to non-Jewish. It unscrupulously and constantly uses the Holocaust as a weapon and as means to achieve its goals.
Which strong country is great? "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Wouldn't a nuclear war be even better disruption to the world economy?
The man does not understand how much material for electronics is imported.
Thanks for the clarification of your position. Write on.
I was very glad to read this piece because for years and years I try to explain to my colleagues and friends that Israel in fact is an aggressive country that was founded thanks to the most atrocious deceit of the Palestine Arabs. More than 10 years ago I have read the novel by Desmond Stuart "The people of Friday" describing the process of "foundation of Israel" at the cost of the Arabs. Not all European intellectuals of the Jewish origin supported Israel, Harold Pinter and others were strongly against it. In Ukraine the pro-Israel lobby is extremely strong. Nevertheless Israel after the beginning of the war with Russia did not accept refugees from Ukraine.
yes, the lobby is strong here, but there are also people here who get the whole picture and oppose Israel
They are not numerous. Israel is the ally of the USA so Ukraine has to support it openly.
unfortunately
I have a question. What is the truth of the claim that Jewish agencies have been buying up land from the Arabs since 1920. And Israel is thus located on the largest partly on this redeemed land and partly on land donated, for example, by the USA.
Oh, they did - and already since earlier times. 'But'....
Firstly, most of the owners of the land bought by the Jewish Agency were living in Damascus. Because in the Ottoman Empire (which is where the Jews began buying land in Palestine), Syria and Palestine were one territory, and Damascus was - traditionally (for millennia already) the 'power broker' in the area.
Secondly, in 1916 - around the same time certain Lord Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration (thus granting land neither he nor Great Britain owned, to people he and most of those around him actually wanted to get rid of) - the British promised the Shariff of Mecca the throne of an Arab kingdom in the Middle East, if he would support them in the war against the Ottomans through launching an uprising. Said, done: in 1918, the Shariff sent his third son Faysal to Damascus and, supported by Arab nationalists, this declared the Arab Kingdom of Syria - which was including all of modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and north-western Saudi Arabia. The Jewish Agency recognised the kingdom, and entered a number of contracts with it - all granted on condition the Jews not to mess around with the local population. However, the British and French then distributed the Middle East between themselves along the Sykes-Picot Treaty, and the French crushed the Arab Kingdom of Syria in blood....
With the destruction of the Arab Kingdom of Syria and imposition of the British Mandate of Palestine and the French mandate of Syria, Palestine was cut off from Damascus.
That said, the Jews continued buying land. Even so, as of 1947, they owned less than 7% of the territory of Palestine.
Thus, nope: the Jews didn't something like 'buy all of Palestine'.
And - except through the King-Crane Commission of 1919 (the only body ever to actually go and ask the local population of the Middle East what and how do they want to live in the future, but entirely ignored the British and the French) - the USA were not involved in Israel/Palestine before 1947. If at all, Zionists in the USA were doing everything in their powers to prevent any kind of Jewish emigration from Europe of the 1930s. Thus, whoever is telling stories about some kind of land donated by the USA: that's plain nonsense.
A lot of useful information for your readers! I hope some of them will get wise.
So many thanks for day in day out pursueing being informative and cleaning this info from bullshit, politics, emotions, hatred, bias, powerplay, manipulations, lies, deeper layed interests, etc, because it is the only path to come somewhere in stead of running show in cycles for a vulnerable audience, often played by outsiders, elite. But unfortunately it never is about the pure content, it is always about the other,often hidden factors.