HomerianSymphony @ HomerianSymphony @lemmy.world

Goodbye. I"ve discovered Bluesky and it is 1000% less toxic and CIA-infeste

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

637

Joined

1 yr. ago

Just to be clear, Hamas does not want to eradicate the Jews. That is a myth propagated by Israel.

Hamas wants to eliminate Israel, by which they mean they want Israel replaced by an Arab-majority state in which both Jews and Arabs live. (Hamas want the return of 4 million Palestinian refugees to Israel/Palestine, which would make it an Arab-majority state.)

Furthermore, they have indicated they are open to negotiating a Two-State solution.

I don't think it makes any sense to portray Hamas as unreasonable for wanting Arabs to control the whole land (from the river to the sea) when Israel want the same thing for Jews.

I wasn't implying that.

Israel struck first in the Six Days War.

Over a shipping route.

If Hamas were Sunni muslims instead of Shia

Hamas are Sunni.

Hezbollah are Shia.

There's something else I want to mention.

In 1947, the UN attempted to sort out Britain's mess by creating a "partition plan" in which the land would be split between a state of Israel and a state of Palestine.

Though adopted as a UN resolution, it was never implemented, and the aforementioned civil war broke out instead.

I just mention this because I find a lot of people are under the misimpression that Israel was created by the UN in 1947 as some kind of compensation for the Holocaust, and that's not what happened.

Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians.

I never said they were civilians.

In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn't want to deal with

That's not what happened.

Firstly, the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, during World War I. By 1948, the Jews were already living there, and fighting for the land.

Secondly, Britain never partitioned the land, and never announced any intention to partition the land. (Things might have been very different if they had.) I think you're getting confused with the UN's partition plan, which was never implemented.

There are no "good guys" in a conflict between religious people.

Religion does play a role in the conflict, particularly over the question of where the border between an Israeli and Palestian state should go (so that holy sites end up on the appropriate side), but I don't think it's very useful to understand this as a religious conflict.

The Jews who moved to Israel in the early 20th century weren't pilgrims. They were refugees fleeing political persecution. The founder of Zionism wasn't even religious.

And Israel didn't happen because religious Jews enthusiastically got behind the idea of Zionism. Israel happened because Britain got behind the idea of Zionism.

Because the Crusdaes of the 11th to 13th centuries still loom large in Western culture (Richard the Lionheart and all that), I think Westerners have a tendency to think that the situation in Israel/Palestine is a continuation of those conflicts. But it's really not. It's a 20th century creation.

Up until 1967, the bad guys were Britain.

Britain seized Palestine from the Ottomans during WWI with the help of the local Palestinians, promising the Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for their help overthrowing the Ottomans.

At the same time, Britain promised to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine (in the Balfour Declaration), and Jewish refugees from Europe began settling in Palestine. Britain did this because they thought they might gain the support of Jewish financiers for their war efforts.

The Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague about whether Britain was giving all of the land to the Jews or just some of the land. It was vague because Britain wanted to appeal to Jewish Zionists (who wanted all of Palestine) while not alienating the Palestinians.

Britain never did divide the land, resulting in two different populations who felt they legally owned the land, one who had always been there, and one who mostly arrived as refugees.

When Britain left following WWII, a civil war broke out for control of the land. A border was eventually drawn at the line of control (which ran through the middle of Jerusalem), and Israelis declared the new State of Israel, while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states. That was in 1948.

So, up until then, it's a messy situation created by Britain, but one which eventually resulted in the land being split (albeit violently), with both Israelis and Palestinians having a state, and each having part of Jerusalem. The world accepted this as the new status quo and hoped it would be sustained peacefully.

That changed in 1967 when Israel annexed the Palestinian lands (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Days War. Since then, Palestinians have been living under a harsh Israeli occcupation as a stateless people (meaning no citizenship), with their rights and freedoms strictly curtailed. Palestinians have been resisting through a number of resistance movements, usually designated as terrorist groups in the Western media.

There was a political movement towards peace and repartitioning of the land that peaked in the 1990s, but since then it has been held up by a series of right-wing governments in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has been aggressively building Jewish neighbourhoods (called settlements) in the formerly Palestinian lands of the West Bank.

So since 1967, Israel has pretty clearly been the bad guy.

The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis was horrific, and we should all hope nothing like that ever happens again. But the root cause of the attack was Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The way to prevent future terror attacks is to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.

They aren't intended to win, they're intended to do exactly what they're doing - selecting particular wedge issues to split the Democrat vote and give them a lower total percentage vs Republicans

But surely that would happen even if someone else like Cornel West was the Greens leader.

All Putin achieves by (somehow) installing his plant as the Greens presidential candidate is lowering the Greens’ vote share by preventing them from getting the most charismatic and effective candidate.

If Putin really did subvert the Greens’ selection mechanism and install a less popular candidate with limited appeal, the Democrats should be thanking him.

I’m not Russian.

But these accusations don’t even make sense.

Why would Putin benefit from having a Russian plant as the presidential candidate of the Green Party? Does he mistakenly think the Green Party has some influence in American politics?

And how could he known his plant would be selected by the party as their presidential candidate? Is he psychic? Is the entire Green Party comprised of Russian plants?

If his goal was for the Greens to be a spoiler for the Dems, surely they’d be just as much of a spoiler no matter who their candidate was. In fact, without Stein, they could probably find a better candidate and be more of a spoiler.

I’m not worried about Stein being a Russian plant because it literally would make no difference to anything.

Fair point.

I wouldn’t use the term “reasonable”, because I don’t think Trump’s positions are well-reasoned, or even well-informed. I think his foreign policy is one of apathy rather than one of enlightened peacekeeping.

But I’ll take that over Harris’s instinct for military aggression, especially with the world on the brink of WW3.

I googled and found it was a kind of jacket used in the Red Army.

Oh, I’m not defending Trump. He’s terrible.

I don’t actually know what vatnik means. I was guessing from context that it meant Communist or leftist or something.

Didn't you earlier claim to not know anything about Russian culture?

I don’t know much about Russian culture.

I do, however, know a little bit about the Turkic culture of the Tatars.

до свидания!

I’ll assume that means “I love you”.

Thanks! I love you too, man. Despite our differences, we’re all just trying to do what we think is best for the world.

So you're arguing that as long as an invader/occupier can displace or genocide the entire population that lives in a territory, there should be no barriers to an invading force claiming whatever land they want.

Well, if that’s your argument, then neither Ukraine nor Russia have a claim to Crimea. It should belong to the Crimean Tatars.