Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Twentyfirst]

America’s obsession with Middle East | EXPLAINED | Dr.Roy Casagranda | Bidon Waraq Podcast

[gettoefl]

1 hour ago, _Archangel_ said:

Well, that's a big L for Netanuahu and his gov. And a big L for Hamas too, since i'm reading that they are accepting a disarmament.
Really hard to predict if they're both gonna be sticking to the peace plan.

It's either Nobel Peace Prize or all hell breaks loose. Either one is good in terms of poll numbers for me as president.

Edited October 7 by gettoefl

[Nivsch]

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

So the Palestinians could legitimately fight for the return of the exiles or for a state, but their fight is for Israel's disappearance. It has always been this way since 1948. The moment they accept Israel's existence, and so do other Muslim countries, the door to negotiation will be open.

For example the president of Indonesia 

 

AI:

''In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993).

Since then, the Palestinian Authority has officially recognized Israel and sought a two-state solution.

Hamas, yes, originally rejected Israel’s legitimacy—but even Hamas has, in later statements, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as a “long-term truce,” implicitly recognizing Israel’s existence within those limits.''

All members of the Arab League and later the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)  which includes 57 Muslim majority countries have adopted the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which includes recognition of Israel in exchange for Palestine statehood just as the Indonesian president says in his speech. They've maintained this position till today. No one at a serious level is calling for the disappearance of Israel or that it doesn't have the right to exist.

But I get what you mean in terms of there being a lot of hate and rage against Israel among every day people - this is true. And now this rage isn't only in the Middle East or among Muslims but now in much of the world. The difference is that states behave differently to people - so the rhetoric we hear on the streets shouldn't be extrapolated out to the level of the state. I actually wrote about this before here:

On 6/5/2025 at 9:37 AM, zazen said:

I think there's a lesson here in clarifying the discrepancy between societal talk vs state actions. On one level we can have maximalist aspirations and rejectionist emotional rhetoric expressed on the street, whilst having more balanced pragmatic actions taken at the state - politics level. We see this in how Gulf nations take steps towards Israel (such as the Abraham accords) even though locals are unhappy with it  - because at a state level your operating via diplomacy, pragmatism, and state interests that are bound and checked by global norms, alliances, economic pressure, and military risk.

In Israels case however, societal aspirations do translate a lot more to state actions - because the usual realpolitik and structural incentives that are supposed to be there to constrain them, are instead pushed to their limits and exceeded thanks to being enabled by the worlds superpower the US. Israel gets to act on its darkest societal instincts a lot more than other states would otherwise.

A lot of the fear around a Palestinian state can rightly be pointed to the anger and maximalist positions they may hold at a societal level, despite at a organisational one being more pragmatic (such as expressed by the PLA or today by Hamas). But that fear misses how states function differently than stateless societies. Once Palestinians have a state with defined borders, international recognition, economic incentives, and responsibilities, their behavior will shift - not because their pain disappears, but because statehood tames maximalism. That emotion will be channeled into diplomacy, law, and survival strategy - just like it has for other national or liberation movements ie IRA in Ireland.

It's the absence of a state that keeps that maximalism alive. Statelessness breeds desperation while statehood breeds accountability - to allies, trade partners and global norms. Once Palestine is on the map, its government would be forced to prioritize stability, legitimacy, and international support, not slogans. Meanwhile, Israel which is already a state - has no excuse for its behavior. Its atrocities and massacres aren’t theoretical or projection, but fact.

Just see how at a societal level many Palestinians in the following videos hold maximalist positions, whilst at a higher level of state or political organisation they are tamed into diplomatic pragmatism in order to further the interest of their own people, even against their peoples own maximalism:

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7 by zazen

[Nivsch]

[Raze]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

People always say this about colonialism, when it's obvious that's not the case. Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.

 

Quote

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonisation, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure".[10][11][12]Theodore Herzl, in a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes, described the Zionist project as "something colonial". Previously in 1896 he had spoken of "important experiments in colonization" happening in Palestine.[13][14][15] In 1905 Max Nordau said, "Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of 'sneaking' into Palestine", and that instead it advocates "that the existing and promising beginnings of a Jewish colonization shall be looked after and maintained till the movement will be possible on a large scale".[16] Major Zionist organizations central to Israel's foundation held colonial identity in their names or departments, such as Jewish Colonisation Association, the Jewish Colonial Trust, and The Jewish Agency's colonization department.[17][18]

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze

 

🔹 What is colonialism?

Colonialism means that a foreign power (for example, Britain, France, or Spain) conquers, exploits, and governs another territory, usually for economic or strategic benefit to the colonizing country.

Clear examples:

The British Empire in India.

The French Empire in Algeria.

The Spanish Empire in the Americas.

Common features:

A metropolis (a center of power outside the territory).

Economic exploitation of local resources.

Political subordination of the local population.

🔹 The case of the Jews in Palestine

The Jews who immigrated to Palestine between the late 19th century and 1948 did not represent any foreign empire.

They were not conquering on behalf of a colonial power.

They had no metropolis supporting or profiting from them.

They came as a dispersed people (the Jewish diaspora) seeking to rebuild a national home after centuries of persecution.

Moreover:

They legally purchased large tracts of land from Arab and Ottoman landowners.

They were farmers, artisans, and intellectuals who founded agricultural communities (kibbutzim), not extractive colonies.

There was no external Jewish empire benefiting economically.

🔹 Why the term “colonialism” is used today

The phrase “settler colonialism” is used today mainly as a political slogan, not as a historical description.
Activists, especially from postcolonial or anti-imperialist movements, use it to equate the creation of Israel with European colonialism in Africa or the Americas.
But the analogy breaks down because:

There was no metropolis,

no imperial conquest,

and the Jewish people are native to that land, with an unbroken presence in Jerusalem, Safed, and Hebron for over 3,000 years.

🔹 Summary

CriterionClassical colonialismJewish return to Israel

Foreign metropolisYesNo

Economic exploitationYesNo

Displacement of native populationOftenPartly, only after modern wars

Historical link to the landNoYes, millennia-old

MotivationImperial expansionNational self-determination

💬 Conclusion:
The process of populating Israel with Jews is not colonialism in any historical or political sense.
It was a national movement of return, not an imperial conquest —a movement rooted in historical, cultural, and spiritual ties to the land.

 

Edited October 7 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993).

 

 

🔹 1. What the Oslo Accords established

Signed between Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) and Yasser Arafat (PLO) under U.S. mediation (Bill Clinton), the Oslo Accords (1993–1995) aimed to create a gradual path toward peace and a Palestinian state.

They had three main pillars:

Mutual recognition:

The PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist.

Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Progressive Palestinian autonomy:

Israel would gradually withdraw from parts of Gaza and the West Bank.

The territories would be divided into three zones:

Area A: full Palestinian civil and security control.

Area B: Palestinian civil control, joint Israeli security control.

Area C: full Israeli control.

Final-status negotiations within five years (by 1999):

To decide issues such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security.

🔹 2. Why Israel did not fully comply

Ongoing terrorism (1994–2001):

After Oslo, suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad increased sharply.

More Israelis were killed in terror attacks in the five years after Oslo than in the five years before.

This made much of Israeli society lose trust in the Palestinian leadership’s intentions.

Domestic political change:

In 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist.

In 1996, Netanyahu (Likud) came to power, opposed to Oslo’s approach.

From then on, right-wing governments slowed or froze further withdrawals.

Unresolved issues:

Israel demanded full security guarantees before further concessions.

The PLO failed to dismantle its armed factions.

Key topics like Jerusalem and settlements were postponed indefinitely.

🔹 3. Why the Palestinians also failed to comply

The PLO never formally recognized Israel as a Jewish state.

Terrorist groups continued to operate —often tolerated or supported by the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority did not build democratic institutions; corruption and internal power struggles weakened it.

🔹 4. The outcome

Between 1993 and 2000, there were economic improvements and some cooperation,
but no political progress.

In 2000, Arafat rejected the Camp David offer, which included a Palestinian state on about 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.
Soon after, the Second Intifada broke out (2000–2005), killing more than 4,000 people.

🔹 5. Summary

ActorWhat they failed to doReason

IsraelComplete withdrawals, freeze settlementsTerrorism, political shifts, loss of trust

Palestinian Authority (PLO)Stop terrorism, accept final peaceInternal divisions, Islamist pressure

ResultCollapse of trust and of the peace process

💬 Conclusion:
Israel partially complied (withdrawals from Gaza and Jericho, creation of the Palestinian Authority)
but halted the process after waves of terrorism and political change.
The PLO did not stop violence or build credible governance.
Both sides broke the mutual trust that Oslo required —and the peace process collapsed.

 

Edited October 7 by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall

I also don’t know what prompt you were using, because I got this
Result:

The question of whether Zionism was or is a colonial movement is a complex and deeply contested issue, depending on how one defines colonialism, as well as the political, historical, and moral lens one applies. Here's a breakdown of the main perspectives:

✅ Arguments That Zionism Was a Colonial Movement

Settler Colonial Framework:

Some scholars and critics describe Zionism as a form of settler colonialism, similar to European colonial projects in the Americas, Australia, or South Africa.

This argument holds that European Jews settled in Palestine, displaced indigenous Palestinians, and sought to build a new state, often with the backing of imperial powers (e.g., Britain via the Balfour Declaration of 1917).

Support from Colonial Powers:

Zionist goals were facilitated by British imperial support during the Mandate period.

Critics argue that Zionism benefited from colonial systems and worked within them to establish a Jewish homeland.

Displacement of Indigenous Population:

The Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic), in which around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, is often cited as evidence of a colonial logic of replacement, where a new settler population displaces a native one.

 

❌ Arguments That Zionism Was Not a Colonial Movement

Jews as Indigenous or Returning People:

Supporters of Zionism argue that Jews are not foreign colonizers, but a people with ancient historical and religious ties to the land of Israel/Palestine.

From this view, Zionism is a national liberation movement of a historically exiled and persecuted people, not a colonial enterprise.

Lack of Metropole:

Classic colonialism typically involves a metropole (e.g., Britain, France) extracting resources and exercising control over a colony.

Zionists were not acting on behalf of a mother country, and Jewish immigrants were escaping persecution rather than expanding a state’s power.

Persecution in Europe:

Jews in Europe were marginalized, discriminated against, and later subjected to the Holocaust.

Zionism, from this angle, was a survival response to anti-Semitism, not an effort to dominate foreign lands.

🔄 Hybrid or Nuanced Views

Some scholars argue that Zionism had colonial elements (such as land acquisition and settler logic) while also being a national liberation movement.

Others use terms like “post-colonial settler nationalism” or refer to Zionism as a “unique case” that doesn’t fit neatly into colonial or anti-colonial categories.

Edited October 7 by Raze

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall

Here I asked it

If person A says (your post), and Person B says (my post), who is right? 

and got this:

To determine who is "right" between Person A and Person B, we need to break this down carefully and honestly. This isn’t just a matter of historical facts — it’s also a matter of how definitions are applied and interpreted, especially around charged terms like colonialism and Zionism.

✅ Person A’s Claim:

“Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.”

This is a narrow, classical definition of colonialism — the kind often used to describe European imperialism from the 15th to 20th centuries. It emphasizes:

A foreign state power,

Invasion and settlement of foreign land,

Extraction or dominance, with the "polis" (home nation or metropole) as the center of power.

This model fits cases like:

British India, where Britain controlled India from London.

Algeria under France, where Algeria was governed as part of France.

However, this definition doesn’t account for settler colonialism or non-state actors initiating colonial movements — concepts widely accepted in modern academic discourse.

✅ Person B’s Claim:

Quotes early Zionist leaders describing Zionism as a form of colonization, uses names of historical Zionist institutions with terms like “colonial” or “colonization.”

This argument relies on:

Historical self-description: Key Zionist figures used the terms "colonization" or "colonial" to describe their efforts.

Documented language: The existence of institutions like the Jewish Colonisation Association.

Evidence from Zionist archives and writings.

This supports the idea that early Zionists themselves saw their project in colonial terms — at least tactically or structurally. These were not just opponents calling it colonial; these were Zionists themselves.

It aligns with modern scholarly interpretations of Zionism — especially settler colonial theory, which sees Zionism as:

A movement of settlers from abroad (mostly Europe),

Aiming to establish a new homeland in an already-inhabited territory (Palestine),

Leading to the displacement and domination of the native population (Palestinians).

📌 So, who is “right”?

Historically and academically, Person B's description aligns with how many scholars today define and analyze Zionism — especially using settler colonialism as a framework. It also aligns with how early Zionists themselves described their activities.

Person A is using a limited and outdated definition of colonialism that doesn’t accommodate modern understandings like settler colonialism, which is academically distinct from imperial colonialism but still considered a form of colonialism.

So in historical, academic, and even primary-source terms, Person B is more accurate.

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall @Raze  Adding to your conversation from AI (battle of the AI’s lol)

1. Colonialism evolved beyond the outdated 19th-century definition

Classical colonialism (Britain–India, France–Algeria) involved imperial control from a metropolis.

But by the 20th century, scholars recognized a distinct form: settler colonialism, where the settlers themselves are the colonizing force, often backed by imperial sponsorship rather than direct rule.

Key examples:

United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa.

None of these were “metropolis-based” empires by the end — they were settler projects that displaced indigenous populations to build new sovereign homelands.

Israel’s case parallels those, not the British Raj.

2. Zionism had imperial sponsorship — the “no metropolis” claim is false

While Zionists weren’t acting “for” an empire, their success was enabled by one:

The British Empire’s Balfour Declaration (1917) explicitly endorsed “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

Britain administered Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which institutionalized Zionist immigration and land acquisition while restricting Arab political autonomy.

That is a colonial relationship: a foreign empire facilitating settlement by a non-indigenous group against the will of the local population.

3. “They legally purchased land” — factually partial

Yes, some land was purchased, but most of it was:

Bought from absentee Ottoman landlords, not from the peasants living on it.

Later acquired through force after 1948, when 700,000+ Palestinians were expelled or fled (Nakba).

By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest.

4. The indigenous presence argument

Continuous Jewish presence in small numbers does not make 20th-century European migration a “return” in the political sense.

Using ancient ancestry as justification for modern displacement is like:

Italians claiming Tunisia because Rome once ruled it,

or Hindus claiming Afghanistan because of ancient Gandhara.

Historical connection ≠ political entitlement.

5. The correct academic classification

Modern historians and political theorists (Patrick Wolfe, Lorenzo Veracini, Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, among others) classify Zionism as settler colonialism because it meets the structural criteria:

- External migration backed by imperial power.

- Establishment of exclusive sovereignty.

- Displacement and replacement of the native population.

- Creation of separate legal and political systems privileging settlers.

Whether motivated by religion, nationalism, or survival doesn’t change the structure.

_____

 

[Breakingthewall]

39 minutes ago, Raze said:

Displacement of Indigenous Population:

The Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic), in which around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, is often cited as evidence of a colonial logic of replacement, where a new settler population displaces a native one.

Seems that your AI forgot that the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them. 

You can use the word colonialism if you want. We can also say we want to colonize Mars even though no one is there, but when we talk about colonialism, we're usually referring to the colonialism of great powers to dominate another country, not the colonialism of people who arrive to settle in a land.

[Yimpa]

3 hours ago, gettoefl said:

It's either Nobel Peace Prize or all hell breaks loose. Either one is good in terms of poll numbers for me as president.

Lol.

(Law of Losers)

Edited October 7 by Yimpa

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, zazen said:

By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest.

You know that this was after a was declared by the Arabs, right? When you declare a war and you loose , then you shouldn't complain of the military conquest, that was precisely your goal

[Raze]

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Seems that your AI forgot that the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them. 

I already answered this multiple times to you, once again you refuse to process information.

Let’s try it again:

Result:

🔍 Analyzing the Claim:

“The Nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.”

This statement implies that:

Arab states (or Palestinians) started a war with the specific goal of expelling Jews, and

The Nakba (Palestinian displacement) was a natural result of that aggression.

🟢 What is true:

Several Arab states did invade Israel after its declaration of independence, with the stated goal of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state.

Some Arab rhetoric and propaganda at the time were hostile and inflammatory.

In the chaos of the war, mass displacement occurred, affecting both Arabs and Jews (though far more Arabs).

🔴 What is misleading or false:

The Nakba began before the Arab states invaded, during civil conflict between Jewish and Arab communities. Many Palestinian villages were depopulated by Jewish paramilitary actions (e.g., Plan Dalet) before May 1948.

The intent behind the Arab invasion was not necessarily a genocidal expulsion of Jews, but the prevention of partition and the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state or a united Arab Palestine.

Israeli forces expelled or caused the flight of many Palestinians, sometimes deliberately. In other cases, people fled out of fear or were encouraged by Arab leaders, but there's strong historical evidence of forced expulsions.

Prompt: If someone says “the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.” After claiming to study the relevant topics, what can we conclude about their intellectual integrity, how informed they are on the subject, and if they should be considered a trustworthy opinion?

Result: 

🔍 1. Intellectual Integrity

❌ Red Flags:

Over-simplification of a deeply complex and heavily documented historical event.

Use of loaded language (e.g. “to expulse them”) without historical nuance.

Ignoring a broad scholarly consensus that recognizes multiple causes of the Nakba, including deliberate expulsions by Zionist forces, chaotic war conditions, and broader geopolitical forces.

🟡 What It Suggests:

If they’ve truly studied the topic and still present it this way, they may be:

Distorting facts to fit an ideological narrative.

Cherry-picking sources that reinforce preexisting biases.

Demonstrating a lack of academic honesty or openness to complexity.

In short, it likely reflects a lack of intellectual integrity, at least in how they engage with this topic.

📚 2. How Informed Are They?

Possible explanations:

They may have only studied one-sided or ideological sources (e.g., nationalist accounts or politically motivated literature).

They might lack exposure to key historians (like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, Rashid Khalidi, etc.) who provide more rigorous, nuanced, and well-documented views.

They may confuse political rhetoric (e.g. from Arab leaders in 1948) with the full historical record.

🔎 Assessment:

If they genuinely believe that the Nakba was purely the result of Arab aggression, and have dismissed or ignored the evidence of expulsion, village destruction, and Israeli military planning, it suggests:

Partial or poor understanding.

Lack of engagement with primary sources or critical historiography.

A possible reliance on ideological rather than academic frameworks.

🤝 3. Trustworthiness of Their Opinion

Given the above, their opinion should be approached with caution or skepticism:

They may be politically motivated rather than historically grounded.

They likely lack the balance and critical thinking expected from someone who claims to have studied the subject.

Their judgment may not be dependable in historically or morally complex matters, especially those involving competing narratives and significant human suffering.

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

You can use the word colonialism if you want. We can also say we want to colonize Mars even though no one is there, but when we talk about colonialism, we're usually referring to the colonialism of great powers to dominate another country, not the colonialism of people who arrive to settle in a land.

That would be settler colonialism. I didn’t use the word, I quoted the pioneering zionists themselves saying it.

Edited October 7 by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze what can I do if Chatgpt say this to me? Seems clear 

The Outbreak of Violence (December 1947 – May 1948) Immediately after the UN vote, Palestinian Arab militias began attacks against isolated Jewish communities, roads, markets, and mixed neighborhoods. Jewish forces (Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) responded militarily. It was an intercommunal civil war, as the British withdrew. 👉 During those months, the Arab-Palestinian exodus began: Many fled the battlefront, others were expelled from strategic areas (such as Lydda or Ramle), and some Arab leaders called on the civilian population to temporarily evacuate to facilitate the entry of Arab armies. Therefore, the Nakba began before the war between the states. --- 🔹 3. The War between the States (May 1948–1949) On May 14, 1948, Israel was proclaimed. The following day, five Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded the new state. During that war, the exodus expanded: a total of about 700,000 Palestinians left or were expelled.

A question: why Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the new state? Would them invade also a Muslim new state, a Kurd one for example? Maybe the cause was religious?

Edited Wednesday at 06:00 AM by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

15 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

They could leave and return to Europe. It's not just war against poor innocent people versus them dying. They can leave

If I was born in a place and they told me "your parents stole this land, now you have to shoot this kid in the face and you may die yourself" then I would just leave altogether. I'm not a monster or a dumbass

People don't often break the core patterns of their life. Because they are them.

At the moment, you and I have the luxury of looking into something from the outside. Looking at the pieces of it, which are flawed, and saying hey, that's dumb. What you are calling dumb is what that person is at their core, beliefs, values and society itself is entirely structured around it, from religion and community to governance. 

What someone is rarely changes drastically in life. It often evolves for better or worse, but the underlying pattern is usually reinforced by a hundred other patterns running in their psyche, all of which bring the situation in question around again at some point in a cycle. Especially when their peer group is reinforcing this further.

*Though I would like to say leaving is an underrated and often vilified answer to a lot of issues. It doesn't fix you, as who you are follows you anywhere, but it does provide another perspective to see the obvious irrational choices you are making.

Edited Wednesday at 06:37 AM by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

54 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

People don't often break the core patterns of their life. Because they are them.

At the moment, you and I have the luxury of looking into something from the outside. Looking at the pieces of it, which are flawed, and saying hey, that's dumb. What you are calling dumb is what that person is at their core, beliefs, values and society itself is entirely structured around it, from religion and community to governance. 

What someone is rarely changes drastically in life. It often evolves for better or worse, but the underlying pattern is usually reinforced by a hundred other patterns running in their psyche, all of which bring the situation in question around again at some point in a cycle. Especially when their peer group is reinforcing this further.

*Though I would like to say leaving is an underrated and often vilified answer to a lot of issues. It doesn't fix you, as who you are follows you anywhere, but it does provide another perspective to see the obvious irrational choices you are making.

Well some people do leave and speak against the whole charade. Regardless this is the problem with Zionism is it destroy everything Jewish (and Arab) at the guise of protecting Jews

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze what can I do if Chatgpt say this to me? Seems clear 

The Outbreak of Violence (December 1947 – May 1948) Immediately after the UN vote, Palestinian Arab militias began attacks against isolated Jewish communities, roads, markets, and mixed neighborhoods. Jewish forces (Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) responded militarily. It was an intercommunal civil war, as the British withdrew. 👉 During those months, the Arab-Palestinian exodus began: Many fled the battlefront, others were expelled from strategic areas (such as Lydda or Ramle), and some Arab leaders called on the civilian population to temporarily evacuate to facilitate the entry of Arab armies. Therefore, the Nakba began before the war between the states. --- 🔹 3. The War between the States (May 1948–1949) On May 14, 1948, Israel was proclaimed. The following day, five Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded the new state. During that war, the exodus expanded: a total of about 700,000 Palestinians left or were expelled.

A question: why Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the new state? Would them invade also a Muslim new state, a Kurd one for example? Maybe the cause was religious?

As it says in the beginning of your paragraph - the violence mainly broke out after the UN vote. No one obviously condones all the violence that follows - but the question has to be asked why? And then another question is why is one UN vote acknowledged as unjust while another isn't? For example - those for the Palestinian cause and most of the world have consensus around the 1967 UN resolution rather than the 1947 one 20 years earlier, but why?

The reason is that the 1947 resolution partitioned Palestine without the consent of its inhabitants. Arabs and Palestinians rejected it outright as a foreign imposed plan that violated self-determination. It was passed by a colonial era UN where most of the Global South had no vote. It created Israel through external legitimacy, not negotiated legitimacy and it basically carried a stain of a colonial imposition.

The reason it was seen as unjust was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence.

Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given  55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports.

The 1967 resolution on the other hand is accepted as the basis for peace by consensus. Because 20 years later the UN also changed to reflect more of the world after decolonization and new members getting absorbed into it. 1947 UN was a institute that belonged to the age of empire, 1967 UN was more balanced and reflective for a new age of diplomacy. But even then and still till today - it is structurally biased and is trying to be reformed. ''The UN Security Council is built on the power structure of 1945, not the reality of the 21st century. It enshrines who won World War II, not who represents humanity today.''

For example - the the 5 permanent members are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. They can veto decisions made by all the rest. No representation of the Global South or even the Middle East or Muslim world which makes up a quarter of the population. The rotating 10 seats of the non-permanent members is just a charade if their votes can be vetoed by the permanent 5 anyway. But even among that 10 there's no dedicated category for the Middle East: 

Chat GPT

''Non-Permanent Members (10 seats, elected for 2-year terms):

They rotate among regional blocs:

3 for Africa

2 for Asia-Pacific

2 for Latin America & the Caribbean

2 for Western Europe & Others

1 for Eastern Europe''

@BlueOak This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists.

Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD,  UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol

You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns.

I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc.

Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ).  And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

Edited Wednesday at 09:30 AM by zazen

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists.

Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD,  UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol

Smaller nations don't war as much, because large nations and militaries keep them in check. Force checks force. In our current dynamic, smaller nations also don't go to war if a large nation is going to give their opponents weapons.

• As Russian power slips you see war breaking out in Central Asia. Azerbaijan vs Armenia
• As America pulls back from NATO and BRICS rises you see it in Southeast Asia. Cambodia vs Thailand.
• As China grew strong enough we saw it in Tibet and East Turkestan. China's done plenty of war over its history in recent memory, its strong enough it just rolls through without much resistance.
• Russia thought they were strong enough, So did Israel. So did India to pressure Pakistan over Kashmir. 

Its not fatalistic to show you what happens the world over and to really get you to understand at their base level humans are the same the world over. As soon as you can accept that we can dismantle bias and actually rationally look at systemic problems, but without that understanding, you are unduly biased in your assessment.

*The Cold war didn't move into a full war as nukes were more feared and the military strength of both sides was more balanced. Plus WW2 was still in those generations minds. I always feared what would happen when the last of the veterans died off, their respected voices no longer speaking out by experience against war. Then this was reinforced when fascism became a more accepted ideology, and racism more accepted, without socialist controls stopping, balancing or framing it differnetly.

1 hour ago, zazen said:

You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns.

Putin has refused all negotiation with Ukraine repeatedly. He won't even recognize Zelensky as legitimate to negotiate with. The only way Russia is stopped is on the battlefield, almost everyone has finally come around to that understanding, which Eastern Europe have known for centuries. Or more specifically, its economy wrecked enough that it cannot support these increasingly wasteful attacks.

Personally I advocate for the Russian country being broken up in into its native populations; they'd be far better off than draining all their food, oil, lifeforce and wealth into Moscow and St Petersburg anyway. I understand this is unlikely, and Russia will bankrupt itself long before that.

As for negotiations with fanatics like many of those in Hamas, that isn't easy either when many of them just want you dead, your culture and religion erased. After Israel's brutal campaign, I doubt its got much easier.
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc.

Nobody is trusting Russia with their energy anymore. I would laugh at this suggestion if it came from a politician. Maybe 10% from Russia is sensible but still a risk, the rest from multiple sources so we never again risk being held hostage by it or threatened over our energy and fuel. Putin is a declared war criminal and Russia a state that uses terror to achieve its aims, both over Europe and Ukraine, meaning it's a terrorist state.

TBH there isn't as much oil left in Russia as you think either, not at the currently tapped deposits. With the obvious exception of places like Siberia, which should be the richest province by far. And if I can see that on a map, you can be damned sure China can. Russia is a declining power, if China gets heavy influence on a province like Siberia, it doesn't need Russia anymore as anything more than a proxy or buffer.
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ).  And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

I do feel your pain, I assume everyone has these types of moments. But unlike the rest of the world. I won't support selling out subsequent generations so I can live a better quality of life. Even if I am the last man alive holding that position. I would rather over-regulate than anything. Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to be.

Population controls are necessary, as are AI workers if we mean to sustain the biosphere. Regulating housing development is useful in this regard, as without a home large enough, it discourages people from having kids. Call it a soft form of population control, and incidently this is why migration at 500,000 net in the UK is destructive longterm, beyond people's cultural or racial concerns or preferences (I have none).

Africa is definitely a possibility, certain parts of it anyway. South Africa for example early on aligned with BRICS, but in this two-pole world we have now, there are some more neutral powers like Nigeria and others we can work with, I agree there. Africa could well decide which of these two powers comes out on top, or mediate between them, as its rise will be quite drastic in the decades ahead. Or at least those parts of it BRICS isn't actively fighting NATO over internally.

Dismantling Western Influence would be a bad move, however, as we've seen it just invites Chinese and Russian influence in its place. Whether you or anyone think that is 'better' or 'worse' doesn't change that's what happens when we pull back.

We have become soft however. We can agree on that. You are missing one key problem in your analysis: that without NATO the EU is somewhat divided on the course of action. People labelling us all 'The West' often don't understand it or even see it.

Edited Wednesday at 10:17 AM by BlueOak