GENOCIDE : more children killed in 3 weeks in Gaza than annual world total

[DawnC]

2 hours ago, Loveeee said:

(According to ChatGPT)

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued when Israel declared independence despite the Arab rejection of the partition plan, which was mainly due to : 

▪︎ Opposition to the Establishment of Israel : The Arab states, along with the Palestinian Arab leadership, opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in what they considered to be Arab-majority territory. They viewed the partition plan as unfair and illegitimate.

▪︎ Concerns About Displacement : The plan would have led to the displacement of Arab Palestinians from areas designated for a Jewish state. Arab leaders were concerned about the fate of Palestinian Arabs who would become refugees in the process.

If you are truly interested, you can put a little more effort into this research.

Clearly, the Palestinian Arab leadership, opposed the establishment of a Jewish state and they viewed the partition plan as unfair and illegitimate. And clearly, they were concerned about displacement. Does that imply they were responsible people? Does that mean their intentions were not hostile? Does that make them a victim?

The thing is, during the time of the partition plan, there were two distinct national aspirations for the same piece of land (we can delve even further back if you're interested, this issue is more nuanced). The jews had some agenda about their historical connection to the land and the Palestinians had their own. You can empathize with whichever side you choose. However, would you support a violent solution for one side? Would you recommend the side you sympathize with to initiate a war in order to suppress the aspirations of the other side? What was the Palestinian leadership's decision at that time? A mature, responsible, and peace-oriented approach from the Palestinian side, even if they found it unfair, would have been to renegotiate the terms or even present a militant threat to do so, in order to maximize their share. This didn't happen, and it wasn't by chance. It was a result of the Palestinians' choice of leaders. I suggest you read about Amin el-Husseini and the Arab Higher Committee. They were interested in eradicating Jewish aspirations altogether.

Even if you consider war to be a legitimate measure in those circumstances, you have to consider the fact that wars can be lost. And the Palestinians lost. Even the support of four surrounding countries and a numerical advantage over Israelis didn't help them. Initiating war and losing bears consequences. This is why responsibility is important. Should someone be allowed to dictate terms when instead of negotiating things without violence they initiate a war and lose? Is that the way consequences and justice work? Does victimizing someone because of the consequences of a war they started constitute a wise approach to eradicating violent means?

Even from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians were under Jordanian control in the West Bank and Egyptian control in Gaza. Their aspirations for a Palestinian state were barely acknowledged under Jordan and Egypt. This was not a coincidence. It reflects their focus that is not on nation building, but on an unattainable historical justice. This type of thinking is irresponsible and immature. The Palestinian leadership not only opposed the specific partition plan, but also struggles with the ability to engage in any form of compromise and to accept the reality of a Jewish entity to this day.

Edited November 3, 2023 by DawnC

[Loveeee]

6 hours ago, DawnC said:

The thing is, during the time of the partition plan, there were two distinct national aspirations for the same piece of land (we can delve even further back if you're interested, this issue is more nuanced). The jews had some agenda about their historical connection to the land and the Palestinians had their own. You can empathize with whichever side you choose. 

One side was immigrant and a minority (30%, too much too fast) 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Loveeee

[DawnC]

33 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

One side was immigrant and a minority (30%, too much too fast) 

Yes, this is one of the arguments that people who empathize more with the Palestinian aspiration in the early days are making. On the other hand, those weren't immigrants who chose that piece of land out of the blue, and when they initiated their national aspiration, there was no actual Palestinian nationality but scattered tribes. That was a point made by people who sympathize more with the Israelis. Please read what I have written again, Does any of that make my point any less relevant?

[Loveeee]

@DawnC You could argue to the end of time which I'm not gonna do, yet another distraction presented by my Self  

[DawnC]

46 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

@DawnC You could argue to the end of time which I'm not gonna do, yet another distraction presented by my Self  

We did stray from the original discussion. But you did decide to start a thread stating that a genocide is being perpetrated. And you had your own perception in mind regarding what was going on that led to that. Don't you think that realizing you were wrong, if you were, is important? Is a discussion about genocide just another distraction like spending too much time on social media?

Edited November 3, 2023 by DawnC

[Loveeee]

43 minutes ago, DawnC said:

Don't you think that realizing you were wrong, if you were, is important? 

I'm interested in understanding all povs but endless debate won't cut it, I shoulder rather research stuff, like this which I have yet to watch

On 10/28/2023 at 11:05 AM, Lila9 said:

Intresting video debunking the Pro-Palestinian nerrative with facts.

https://youtu.be/XNf40sBcvKk?si=jf4C0gpQb7zwL5ir

If you have more feel free to share 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Loveeee

[Loveeee]

9 hours ago, DawnC said:

when they initiated their national aspiration, there was no actual Palestinian nationality but scattered tribes

Actually that's a key point that was blurry to me so I investigated then asked ChatGPT 

▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎

Me : 

Arabs wanted independence from the Turcs so they rebelled against the Ottoman empire with the help of the West with the promise of said independence, same promise was made to Jews. Some states were created, like Palestine, to which more jews came because of WW2. Then the West gave Jews a portion of Palestine which became Israel, with a shared Jerusalem. Is that correct ?

ChatGPT

Your summary captures some key aspects of the historical events, but it's a bit simplified. Here's a more detailed overview:

Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire: During World War I, Arab leaders in the Middle East, with the support of the British and French (part of the Allied Powers), rebelled against the Ottoman Empire with the hope of achieving greater autonomy and, in some cases, full independence.

Promises to Arabs and Jews: The Arabs were given promises of independence and self-determination in the region through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. At the same time, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 expressed British support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.

Creation of Mandates: After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain and France mandates over various territories in the Middle East, including Palestine. These mandates were meant to prepare the territories for self-government.

Immigration of Jews to Palestine: Jewish immigration to Palestine increased, particularly during and after World War II, due to the Holocaust and the plight of Jewish refugees.

Establishment of Israel: In 1947, the United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with an international administration for Jerusalem. The State of Israel was declared in 1948, leading to conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The situation is more complex than can be fully covered in a brief summary, but your description captures some of the main elements of this historical context.

▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎

So I mean yeah it's not like Jews stole from Arabs, rather each was given land/independence 

Arabs called it unfair but considering they got multiple states the 1948 war was uncalled for 

I wonder what could be an counter-argument to that, maybe still oversimplied ? I'll dig deeper 

[Loveeee]

@DawnC

Settlements are still messed up though 

[lina]

1 hour ago, Loveeee said:

So I mean yeah it's not like Jews stole from Arabs, rather each was given land/independence 

Palestinians did get their lands and properties stolen with the help of UK. Listen to actual Palestinian people stories, a lot of them literally still have their house key in the hope of returning! The forcible transfer happened by all different tactics, some were literally kicked out, some ran off for their lives after receiving threats and witnessing massacres in the villages, some left temporarily escaping war but thought after war they can return, others were forced to sell their lands after the british mandate increased the taxing. 

Check out the Nakba https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/   "the permanent displacement of more than half of the Palestinian population." what happened to these people? some became stateless & scattered in refugee camps, others are exiled as refugees worldwide, and the rest are  in Gaza, the open air prison where the war is happening right now. 

Also some of the good documentaries :1948 creation and catastrophe 

Edited November 4, 2023 by lina

[Lila9]

7 hours ago, Loveeee said:

If you have more feel free to share 

 

[Loveeee]

3 hours ago, lina said:

Palestinians did get their lands and properties stolen with the help of UK. Listen to actual Palestinian people stories, a lot of them literally still have their house key in the hope of returning! The forcible transfer happened by all different tactics, some were literally kicked out, some ran off for their lives after receiving threats and witnessing massacres in the villages, some left temporarily escaping war but thought after war they can return, others were forced to sell their lands after the british mandate increased the taxing. 

Check out the Nakba https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/   "the permanent displacement of more than half of the Palestinian population." what happened to these people? some became stateless & scattered in refugee camps, others are exiled as refugees worldwide, and the rest are  in Gaza, the open air prison where the war is happening right now. 

Also some of the good documentaries :1948 creation and catastrophe 

Wasn't the Nakba the backfire of the war Arabs themselves started against Israel ? 

Thanks for the documentary 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Loveeee

[Loveeee]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

 

Am I a zionist now ? What have I become ! 

Israel is wrong for the settlements now so I assumed it was wrong from the beginning 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Loveeee

[lina]

1 hour ago, Loveeee said:

Wasn't the Nakba the backfire of the war Arabs themselves started against Israel ? 

The Arabs opposed the creation of Israel and started the war because the partition plan was unfair as Palestinians would get displaced and lose their homes. That's what happens when you create an ethno-nationalist state, you have to displace people to create the Jewish majority. Not to mention that that lands assigned were the most fertile ones with Arab majority, and the it violated the UN Charter. Creating an ethno-nationalist state on a land that had people is settler colonialism. Imagine Syrian refugees in Europe try to establish an Islamic state in Europe that includes mostly Muslims to create the majority, how would that sound? 

Look up information on actual human rights organizations. Pro-zionist propaganda is not a balanced way to search the conflict. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by lina

[DawnC]

2 hours ago, Loveeee said:

Actually that's a key point that was blurry to me so I investigated then asked ChatGPT 

▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎

Me : 

Arabs wanted independence from the Turcs so they rebelled against the Ottoman empire with the help of the West with the promise of said independence, same promise was made to Jews. Some states were created, like Palestine, to which more jews came because of WW2. Then the West gave Jews a portion of Palestine which became Israel, with a shared Jerusalem. Is that correct ?

ChatGPT

Your summary captures some key aspects of the historical events, but it's a bit simplified. Here's a more detailed overview:

Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire: During World War I, Arab leaders in the Middle East, with the support of the British and French (part of the Allied Powers), rebelled against the Ottoman Empire with the hope of achieving greater autonomy and, in some cases, full independence.

Promises to Arabs and Jews: The Arabs were given promises of independence and self-determination in the region through the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. At the same time, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 expressed British support for a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.

Creation of Mandates: After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain and France mandates over various territories in the Middle East, including Palestine. These mandates were meant to prepare the territories for self-government.

Immigration of Jews to Palestine: Jewish immigration to Palestine increased, particularly during and after World War II, due to the Holocaust and the plight of Jewish refugees.

Establishment of Israel: In 1947, the United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with an international administration for Jerusalem. The State of Israel was declared in 1948, leading to conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The situation is more complex than can be fully covered in a brief summary, but your description captures some of the main elements of this historical context.

▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎

So I mean yeah it's not like Jews stole from Arabs, rather each was given land/independence 

Arabs called it unfair but considering they got multiple states the 1948 war was uncalled for 

I wonder what could be an counter-argument to that, maybe still oversimplied ? I'll dig deeper 

Keep in mind that the terms need to be handled carefully. For example, when this text discusses the Arabs, it refers to a larger group that also includes Syria, Lebanon, and I believe even Egypt and Iraq. The Arab national movement encompassed those areas as well. Anyway, it all took place around 1916 (while Zionism had formed a bit earlier). Another thing to consider is the term "Palestinian". Keep in mind that it was just a name given to that piece of land in the same manner that Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan were separated. It's not as if there was an actual concept of a 'Lebanese nationality' in the same way that there wasn't a Palestinian one.

1 hour ago, Loveeee said:

@DawnC

Settlements are still messed up though 

I never said they weren't. But it's important to consider the historical context. The lands (West Bank and Gaza) were occupied by Israel in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt, not directly from the Palestinians. Additionally, neither Jordan nor Egypt sought to reclaim these territories when they signed peace agreements. This action was taken in response to the mobilization of Arab countries under the leadership of Nasser, who were preparing for an attack against Israel. Since then, Israel has made three peace initiatives. The first attempt was disrupted when the Palestinians initiated an intifada and deaths of hundreds of Israelis, many of them in suicide bombings. The second and third initiatives (led by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert) were rejected.

Anyway, my point was this: Hamas is not solely the responsibility of Israel.I never said that the Israelis were angels. But they did express a desire for peace and historically showed a greater willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs among the Palestinians suggests that they are incapable of establishing a stable, non-violent regime.

What can be done? I'm not sure. I do believe that some of the settlements exacerbate the situation, particularly those that disrupt predominantly Palestinian populated areas. But I'm not convinced that the Palestinians are currently capable of reaching a historical compromise. I used to think that the Israeli policy of withdrawing from Gaza without an agreement with the Palestinians (2005) was a smart move, but now I am not sure. Perhaps a similar approach could be taken, but without allowing militarization in the West Bank, as has occurred in Gaza.

41 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

Wasn't the Nakba the backfire of the war Arabs themselves started against Israel ? 

The way I see it, it was. It was a tragedy nonetheless. But if you attempt to resolve things through force and you end up losing, you can't claim victimhood. This doesn't diminish the tragic nature of what happened to you. Btw it's worth noting that most Palestinians who lost their homes did not necessarily get forcibly expelled, but rather chose to flee. It's important to recognize that this conflict wasn't just an army-vs-army war, there were also instances of civil conflict in areas where both Arabs and Jews resided. It's also worth mentioning that many Jews from Arab countries also lost their homes (hundreds of thousands) in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and more. Keep in mind that this conflict occurred in 1948, in close proximity to WW2 and prior to the establishment of the Geneva Conventions. In comparison to other conflicts of that era, the Israelis' moral standards were satisfactory.

Edited November 4, 2023 by DawnC

[Lila9]

45 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

Am I a zionist now ? What have I become ! 

Israel is wrong for the settlements now so I assumed it was wrong from the beginning 

Are you talking seriously or it's a sarcastic remark? 

And yes the history is more complex and nuanced than it might appear.

 

[Loveeee]

1 hour ago, lina said:

The Arabs opposed the creation of Israel and started the war because the partition plan was unfair as Palestinians would get displaced and lose their homes. That's what happens when you create an ethno-nationalist state, you have to displace people to create the Jewish majority.

Can't we only assume since the war started immediately ?

1 hour ago, lina said:

Not to mention that that lands assigned were the most fertile ones with Arab majority, and the it violated the UN Charter.

Do you have sources on that ?

1 hour ago, lina said:

Creating an ethno-nationalist state on a land that had people is settler colonialism. 

Imagine Syrian refugees in Europe try to establish an Islamic state in Europe that includes mostly Muslims to create the majority, how would that sound? 

Neither Arabs nor Jews owned the lands at first, then if you create several states for the Arabs why not 1 for the Jews ? 

Syrian refugees don't have historical connections to Europe, represent nowhere near 30 or even 10% of the population, Jews had nowhere else to go at the time, and the context allowed for the creation of new states which it doesn't now in Europe, so is it actually comparable ?

Edited November 4, 2023 by Loveeee

[DawnC]

9 hours ago, Loveeee said:

I'm interested in understanding all povs but endless debate won't cut it, I shoulder rather research stuff, like this which I have yet to watch

If you have more feel free to share 

This is not an Israeli perspective, but rather a historical and scientific viewpoint. This individual is one of the experts on this issue. If you are genuinely interested, I believe this provides a solid historical background on the Palestinian refugees. It's not the complete story, but it offers enough to grasp the complexity of the situation and the harsh realities of war that manifest in this conflict.

If I see more I will share it.

[Loveeee]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

Are you talking seriously or it's a sarcastic remark? 

I mean zionist is almost an insult where I live in France but when you think of it 

@DawnC  Very complex situation indeed, thanks for the link  

Edited November 4, 2023 by Loveeee

[Loveeee]

3 hours ago, lina said:

you have to displace people to create the Jewish majority

Good point actually

Can't have a Jewish state with a Jewish minority

The partition plan was basically a displacement plan so of course the Arabs refused 

"250,000 of them would have to be removed by force to make the Jewish state viable" (6:40)

Biased source and hard to verify but still, point taken 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Loveeee

[lina]

4 hours ago, Loveeee said:

Can't we only assume since the war started immediately ?

Zionism = creation of Jewish nationalist homeland. This is not possible without displacing the Arab majority. If the displacement happened only because of the war, why couldn't Palestinians return to their houses after the war ended? why isn't Israel allowing the return of Palestinian refugees now? Why Israel is not advocating for the one-state solution that would allow the return of Palestinian refugees and live with Jews all together in the same country? There a lot of Palestinians who couldn't care less and unresponsible for the decisions of the Arab leaders, they just want to live in their own home and farm their own lands, why can't they go back? 

4 hours ago, Loveeee said:

Do you have sources on that ?

https://www.nature.com/articles/147413b0#:~:text=The Jews now represent 31.2,British occupation%2C it was 11.1. 

In 1922 Jewish population was only 11.1%, in 1931 was 16.9%, in 1940 31.2%. They were still a minority in the country and the UN proposed over half of the land with the best areas that include the sea port and some of the most fertile areas Jezreel valley. Even if they became the majority, from the Palestinians eyes they were all European refugee settlers coming to take their land, that's their perception and that's why rejected. 

4 hours ago, Loveeee said:

Syrian refugees don't have historical connections to Europe, represent nowhere near 30 or even 10% of the population, Jews had nowhere else to go at the time, and the context allowed for the creation of new states which it doesn't now in Europe, so is it actually comparable ?

There was a native population residing in the region that is identified as Palestine/Israel for centuries. These people are 100% the owners and indigenous to the area, and they self identify as Palestinians. This makes them entitled to their sovereignty, not Britain and not European Jewish refugees. 

Also, we are talking about a time when colonialism was no longer an acceptable thing. All surrounding countries were seeking their liberation. why shouldn't Palestinians do the same? 

 You have to distinguish between settler colonialism and colonialism. The Ottoman, Arab and British rule were all a form of colonialism, they ruled over the region but they didn't import settlers and displaced the natives. There might have been some form of natural immigration, but that is still very different from the deliberate displacement of an entire nation. 

The historical connection European Jews has to their region is irrelevant. Having historical connection does not equate to having actual rights of ownership and sovereignty. Can African Americans go back to African countries nowadays and establish an African-American state over the cost of the current natives? Can Moorish people in Morocco go back to Spain and re-establish their lost empire? 

Well, you might say Syrians have nowhere to go either. The answer it's just not the Palestinians' responsibility. It was the duty of countries that persecuted the Jewish people to create a safe haven for them in their OWN lands, not on someone else's land. Palestinians had no issue in receiving some Jewish refugees, the conflict started when the refugees numbers skyrocketed and Zionism took advantage of that situation to establish their ethno-nationalist dream state. 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by lina