Israel Under Attack

[WLJ]

There isn't enough popcorn in the world for this

    The whole thing is so stressful and sad, like Satan dreamed up the best possible way to make people who hate Trump hate each other... "I know! A massive Palestinian terrorist attack in Israel!!"
    — Rick Perlstein (@rickperlstein) May 11, 2024

    I'll say it once. Vote for who you like, or don't vote. But Trump in the White House during a Mideast war may mean World War III, and species extinction. Which is worse than genocide. The inability of some on the Left to grasp this is a self-regarding failure of the imagination. https://t.co/YsfHxsO05P
    — Rick Perlstein (@rickperlstein) May 11, 2024

It's So 'Stressful and Sad' That Hamas Terror Attack Turned Trump Haters Against Each Other
https://twitchy.com/brettt/2024/05/13/its-so-stressful-and-sad-that-hamas-terror-attack-turned-trump-haters-against-each-other-n2396197

[Pb]

The war in Gaza is a war against impoverished natives to exterminate them and steal their land, not a war between great powers.

What happened on Oct 7th De Selby?

[cordex]

What happened on Oct 7th De Selby?

Some people did something.

[MechAg94]

It's almost disappointing that it appears Civil War 2 will be won by our side without us even breaking a sweat. Jiminy Christmas - I look worse than this pretty much every day that I work on the farm, and don't even notice until evening when I look down at my arm or something and think, "How did that bruise get there?" What a bunch of Marys.

https://twitchy.com/laura-w/2024/05/14/peaceful-protest-injuries-n2396194

This is just funny.   


..and this...

Did somebody try to fish out a quarter between the driver's seat and the console!? 🤣🤣🤡🤣🤣

[De Selby]

What happened on Oct 7th De Selby?

A rag tag band of impoverished Palestinians with AKs overran some Israeli military positions and then killed civilians amounting to roughly 1200 dead, half military half civilian.

I think the civilian deaths were crimes. But everyone on this thread seems to think it’s okay to kill civilians if they support their side’s military.

Why is it okay to kill Palestinians for supporting Hamas, but then a different rule for Israelis who support the IDF?

[Pb]

A rag tag band of impoverished Palestinians with AKs overran some Israeli military positions and then killed civilians amounting to roughly 1200 dead, half military half civilian.

So De Selby... is it possible the above is the reason Israel is attacking Hamas and it is not, in fact, "a war against impoverished natives to exterminate them and steal their land"?

[De Selby]

So De Selby... is it possible the above is the reason Israel is attacking Hamas and it is not, in fact, "a war against impoverished natives to exterminate them and steal their land"?

So the war started October 7? There was no violence between the parties before then?

If you pick arbitrary starts you can make anyone out to be the bad guy - I’m sure there are people in Afghanistan right now saying that all their attacks on US troops were retaliation for the US bombing and invasion, conveniently leaving out that whole September 11th bit.

The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force. That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land.

[Pb]

 deleted

[Pb]

So the war started October 7? There was no violence between the parties before then?

If you pick arbitrary starts you can make anyone out to be the bad guy

Is October 7th an arbitrary date, or is that the date Hamas decided to rape and kill as many Jews as possible?

Tell us De Selby.

[zxcvbob]

The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force. That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land.

I never learned history in high school (my HS sucked) so I'm a little light on the details, but I think England won the "holy land" fair and square from Egypt and maybe Turkey during WW1 and they could do with it whatever they pleased.  They decided to give it to the Jews after WW2.  Between WW1 and '2, the land was governed by Egypt but was still part of the British Empire.

Then there's the matter of the 1967 "Six Day War" where the borders got pushed back.  The Arabs invaded Israel and have never forgiven Israel for beating them. They use the so-called Palestinians as a constant source of troubles for Israel -- that's why Egypt and Jordan (and AFAIK all the other Arab countries as well) will not take Palestinian refugees.

[Northwoods]

The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force. That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land.

The jews have the longest continuous claim to the land of modern day Isreal, as well as parts of modern day Syria,  Jordan and Egypt that anyone in recorded history.  The Caananites have an older claim but anyone with Caananite ancestry likely doesn't know it because they disappeared/were wiped out thousands of years ago.

The jews were "given" Isreal because of the Nazi holocaust and the realization that without a proper homeland they'd never be free from genocide/ethnic cleansing/pogroms/etc. Though, that's not really held true anyway.

When deciding who is evil, and who is righteous, a simple test will settle the question. If one side were to unilaterally disarm and seek to live peaceably, how would the other side react?  The side that would choose peaceable coexistence is the righteous side.  The side that would kill everyone on the other side is the evil side.

And if you would conclude the Palestinians would be the righteous side you are so incredibly delusional that polite conversation on the topic is simply impossible.

[dogmush]

I never learned history in high school (my HS sucked) so I'm a little light on the details, but I think England won the "holy land" fair and square from Egypt and maybe Turkey during WW1 and they could do with it whatever they pleased.  They decided to give it to the Jews after WW2.  Between WW1 and '2, the land was governed by Egypt but was still part of the British Empire.
.

Ottoman Empire actually. Before that some Egyptians,  some Mongols, a Chaliphate,  Crusaders for a bit.
There has never been a "Palestine " ruled by folks of Arab descent that were native to that patch of land.  That's a fiction.

The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force. That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land.

Hamas doesn't want to hear it, bur Israel was made out of British land. It was British by right of conquest over the Ottomans. What Palestinian Arabs were there (before the huge Arab immigration between the wars) were at most tenants. It wasn't there land,  it was the Brits.

[K Frame]

"The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force. That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land."

Do you have ANY *expletive deleted*ing clue at all as to how Muslims came to be in control of what is now Israel and the rest of that region?

Violent, forceful conquest based on THEIR HOLY BOOK.

That's right... Followers of Islam forcefully conquered Jewish lands, believing that they had the right to take someone else's country by force.

That's the reality of how the "Palestinians" came to claim "Palestine" as their own. They were invaders.

So, you don't think "Palestinians" should be kicked out of their ancestral homes, but you're just peachy keen with Jews being forced out of their ancestral homes? Ancestral homes that they had inhabited for literally thousands of years before Islamic Jihad invaded the holy land starting in the early 7th century?

What kind of *expletive deleted*ed up logic is that?

Obviously once based on Islamic holy book perfectly fine!

Christian holy book evil and violent!

And one based on an apparently complete and total lack of understanding of the actual history of the region.

Try harder to understand next time. And try to do so without swallowing Hamas-based propaganda hook, line, and bomb vest.

[cordex]

If you pick arbitrary starts you can make anyone out to be the bad guy

This applies equally to picking 1948 over another date.

The war here began because some people in Europe, based on their holy book, decided they had the right to move to someone else’s country and take it by force.

The war there began well before recorded history.  Also, I'm curious which bits of land have never been taken by force by one group or another.

That’s the reality of how Israel was founded - it’s completely unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept that they should be kicked out of their ancestral homes because some people in Europe claim god gave them superior rights to that land.

When you personally return all your holdings back to the respective indigenous peoples and move to Europe then I might consider whether you actually believe this, but we both know you don't.  You hold Israel to a standard you wouldn't dream of living up to yourself.

[De Selby]

Do you have ANY *expletive deleted*ing clue at all as to how Muslims came to be in control of what is now Israel and the rest of that region?

Violent, forceful conquest based on THEIR HOLY BOOK.

That's right... Followers of Islam forcefully conquered Jewish lands, believing that they had the right to take someone else's country by force.

That's the reality of how the "Palestinians" came to claim "Palestine" as their own. They were invaders.

Funny enough, none of the ancient Muslim conquerors expelled all the residents. The Palestinians are not invaders - they’re the descendants of the people who were conquered by those Muslims and before them other empires.

The hardest fail in this rant is that the Jewish groups had long been expelled from that land lbefore the Muslims showed up - it was Muslims who allowed them to live in the region again due to a policy of religious tolerance that reversed the Roman Christian policies on religion.

If you actually tried to articulate the point rationally instead of just ranting it would be obvious how ridiculous what I think you’re trying to say is.

No, a whole race of people that include Christian’s (Palestinians) does not deserve to be exterminated or ethnically cleansed today because some ancient empire conquered another. Yet that seems to be your point.

[De Selby]

This applies equally to picking 1948 over another date.

Absolutely true. But this next bit:

The war there began well before recorded history.  Also, I'm curious which bits of land have never been taken by force by one group or another.

Is not a rational basis for concluding that people today have no rights.

The comparisons are legion to illustrate what’s wrong with your argument here. Mexicans have a high degree of American indigenous DNA. If in the future they take up better arms and come to your house, are you morally obliged to let them take it away and put you on a boat back to Europe? Because of some vague historical connection to the land? They even have Aztec legends that connect them to North America. Does that mean you have no rights today?

When you personally return all your holdings back to the respective indigenous peoples and move to Europe then I might consider whether you actually believe this, but we both know you don't.  You hold Israel to a standard you wouldn't dream of living up to yourself.

The crux of what is wrong with this is that you’re asking the Palestinians to give up their land today to immigrants from Europe because those immigrants claim that land based on their ancient holy book. It’s not like the Israelis were there and just asserted a new politics - they are literally all immigrants from Europe, mostly without even a trace of parentage documented in the Middle East.

Why don’t you apply this same rule to Palestinian land rights? Why is it ridiculous for you and me to keep our land in the face of ancient indigenous claims but not ridiculous for them to do the same?

[De Selby]

Hamas doesn't want to hear it, bur Israel was made out of British land. It was British by right of conquest over the Ottomans. What Palestinian Arabs were there (before the huge Arab immigration between the wars) were at most tenants. It wasn't there land,  it was the Brits.

That’s just straight up incorrect. The British didn’t claim the land, and indeed abolishing the practice of conquering land and exterminating the natives was one of the things the allies explicitly sought to achieve in defeating the axis powers.

The Nazis believed it was legitimate to invade other countries and exterminate or expel their occupants. The United States and Britain explicitly (and on moral grounds) rejected that, and at least unless you’re talking about Israel it is generally recognised as a tyrannical and evil practice.

[WLJ]

Meanwhile back at home

After hundreds of anti-Israel protesters swarmed campus buildings and set up barricades at the University of California, Irvine, local law enforcement agencies responded and students were ordered to "shelter in place" on Wednesday.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a UC Irvine spokesperson said that the campus erupted into chaos after several hundreds of protesters entered the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the California campus and began to barricade the building at 2:30 p.m. PST.

The university said that they put out a call to local law enforcement and received immediate assistance from the Irvine Police Department and Organge County Sheriff's department.

Footage from the campus showed law enforcement, dressed in protest gear and holding semi-automatic rifles, clashing with anti-Israel agitators.

Police on UC Irvine campus after anti-Israel agitators swarm buildings; students told to 'shelter in place'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/police-uc-irvine-campus-after-anti-israel-agitators-swarm-buildings-students-told-shelter-place

[dogmush]

That’s just straight up incorrect. The British didn’t claim the land, and indeed abolishing the practice of conquering land and exterminating the natives was one of the things the allies explicitly sought to achieve in defeating the axis powers.

The Nazis believed it was legitimate to invade other countries and exterminate or expel their occupants. The United States and Britain explicitly (and on moral grounds) rejected that, and at least unless you’re talking about Israel it is generally recognised as a tyrannical and evil practice.

Wrong war.

It was British land after they defeated the Ottoman forces. After the partitioning of Ottoman, the British 100% had the Mandate for what is now Israel. The League of Nations codified that Mandate after the war, saying that Britain would run it "until it could stand alone" which did not happen in the inter-war years, and after WWII the land was still under the Mandate (British Rule) until the UN formed Israel from British territories.

The Arabs claiming a nation never had one. That's historical fact. Some of their ancestors lived there, sure (some. There was a LOT of Arab immigration into that land when it became obvious what the UN was planning vis a vis a Jewish State) but it wasn't "theirs".  Just like what is now Alaska was sold by Russia to the US with little concern over the feelings of the Athabaskans.

[cordex]

The comparisons are legion to illustrate what’s wrong with your argument here. Mexicans have a high degree of American indigenous DNA. If in the future they take up better arms and come to your house, are you morally obliged to let them take it away and put you on a boat back to Europe? Because of some vague historical connection to the land? They even have Aztec legends that connect them to North America. Does that mean you have no rights today?

I don’t think I made the argument you think you are addressing. I don’t feel strongly about Jewish history in Israel defining modern Jewish ownership.

You chose an arbitrary start time intended to make the Israelis out to be the aggressors and tried to claim that because the land was taken by force it should be returned. If your standard is that all land taken by force should be returned to its original owners then I’m not sure why you are solely concerned with Israel or who you would consider the original owner.

However, to address your hypothetical, if some group with legends connecting them to my home conquered the US and took it away from me by force, then no, I would have no practical rights except what they gave me. That would suck.  In such a scenario I would hope that I would be able to rebuild in some other place and not just teach my children to detonate a suicide vest in a crowded market, but I guess different brave and beautiful cultures have different priorities.

The crux of what is wrong with this is that you’re asking the Palestinians to give up their land today to immigrants from Europe because those immigrants claim that land based on their ancient holy book. It’s not like the Israelis were there and just asserted a new politics - they are literally all immigrants from Europe, mostly without even a trace of parentage documented in the Middle East.

That is simply wrong and I’m fairly certain you are aware of it. In addition to the Jews who fled Europe, a significant fraction were ethnically cleansed from essentially all other Middle Eastern countries or fled persecution from same.

I assume you will likewise champion the Jews who were kicked out of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. returning to blow up busses in those countries that mistreated them?

Why don’t you apply this same rule to Palestinian land rights? Why is it ridiculous for you and me to keep our land in the face of ancient indigenous claims but not ridiculous for them to do the same?

It is not ridiculous for us to keep our land, any more than it is ridiculous for Israelis to keep their land despite Palestinian claims. :)

[dogmush]

The United States and Britain explicitly (and on moral grounds) rejected that, and at least unless you’re talking about Israel it is generally recognised as a tyrannical and evil practice.

[Crimia has entered the chat]

[De Selby]

Wrong war.

It was British land after they defeated the Ottoman forces. After the partitioning of Ottoman, the British 100% had the Mandate for what is now Israel. The League of Nations codified that Mandate after the war, saying that Britain would run it "until it could stand alone" which did not happen in the inter-war years, and after WWII the land was still under the Mandate (British Rule) until the UN formed Israel from British territories.

Yeah, that’s inconsistent with your previous claim. Administering a territory for the benefit of its inhabitants (which is legally what the British claimed to be doing) is not making the natives tenants rather than owners, nor does it grant ownership by conquest.

The Arabs claiming a nation never had one. That's historical fact. Some of their ancestors lived there, sure (some. There was a LOT of Arab immigration into that land when it became obvious what the UN was planning vis a vis a Jewish State) but it wasn't "theirs".  Just like what is now Alaska was sold by Russia to the US with little concern over the feelings of the Athabaskans.

You are conflating the issue of how a government is established with the rights of native inhabitants. The selling of Alaska didn’t give the United States the right to expel or exterminate the Alaskan tribes.

Expelling or exterminating to make room for your own people was what the Nazis were fighting for, and that was rejected by civilised countries after the war.

[De Selby]

I don’t think I made the argument you think you are addressing. I don’t feel strongly about Jewish history in Israel defining modern Jewish ownership.

You chose an arbitrary start time intended to make the Israelis out to be the aggressors and tried to claim that because the land was taken by force it should be returned. If your standard is that all land taken by force should be returned to its original owners then I’m not sure why you are solely concerned with Israel or who you would consider the original owner.

The assumption you’re making is that there was some continuous presence there that somehow became Israel. Unless you accept the bible as authority, there is absolutely no such presence.

Israel was founded in the 40’s by immigrants from Europe who arrived beginning in the 30’s, and those immigrants dispossessed the native people there. That is what makes Israel the aggressor.

However, to address your hypothetical, if some group with legends connecting them to my home conquered the US and took it away from me by force, then no, I would have no practical rights except what they gave me. That would suck.  In such a scenario I would hope that I would be able to rebuild in some other place and not just teach my children to detonate a suicide vest in a crowded market, but I guess different brave and beautiful cultures have different priorities.

So you accept the Palestinians right to keep their home, you just don’t accept their tactics? If your neighbours used terrorism to resist a Mexican takeover, I suppose you’d be out there condemning them and offering up your home out of shame?

That is simply wrong and I’m fairly certain you are aware of it. In addition to the Jews who fled Europe, a significant fraction were ethnically cleansed from essentially all other Middle Eastern countries or fled persecution from same.

I assume you will likewise champion the Jews who were kicked out of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. returning to blow up busses in those countries that mistreated them?
It is not ridiculous for us to keep our land, any more than it is ridiculous for Israelis to keep their land despite Palestinian claims. :)

Jews who were forced out of the US allied gulf states definitely should have the right to return to their homelands. They are not and never have been a significant fraction of the Israeli population, which is almost entirely European immigrants within a single generation (including Russia).

You’ve made a conclusion about Israeli land claims which is directly contradictory to your own views about your rights.

[De Selby]

[Crimia has entered the chat]

Excellent point. Do you support the right of Russia to hold that land and expel or exterminate Ukrainians on the basis of Russian historical claims to it?

[dogmush]

Excellent point. Do you support the right of Russia to hold that land and expel or exterminate Ukrainians on the basis of Russian historical claims to it?

The entire world let it happen with nary a peep.  Some strongly worded letters to the UN. Hardly "generally recognised as tyrannical and evil"