Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Tigranes, Feb 11, 2018.
He also said that there was never a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Palestinians believe lots of things.
Looks like some Arabs want Israel to have more land than most right wing Israelis
Oh, I don't think that form of Greater Israel is anything like a mainstream tendency. But you used the phrase "harboring militants" so I thought that with a bit of stretching the metaphor applied. Anyway, the usual position of the Revisionist Zionists (which as I understand things, certainly is a mainstream tendency and is the animating ideology of the Likud party) is that the trans-Jordan territory should be incorporated into Israel, which doesn't include Damascus obviously. And given the expansion of "Israeli" territory by violent means over the past however many decades, I don't think worries about expansionism can be brushed off so easily.
Fwiw wiki has this line:
I actually found an article on Global Research claiming that Israel plans to conquer all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates
Memri is known to intentionally mistranslate things to mislead people. Watch out for those guys.
I did better than you. I found map of Greater Poland:
Greater Israel in Israeli politics is used to refer to the annexation of the Jewish parts of the West Bank (and previously Gaza). No Israeli political figure I know of has endorsed the idea of annexing land outside of pre-1967 Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the Golan. Support for claiming the Transjordan was fairly common among Zionists in the pre-state years, but that was before anyone saw how things would turn out (in Europe as well - needing all that land makes a lot more sense if you have millions of Jewish refugees to settle). The idea was abandoned in the fifties as it became clear that the era of peaceful settlement was over.
Revisionist Zionism is a completely anachronistic term, btw. It has nothing to do with Likud's current politics, any more than Democrats and Republicans take their ideas from the Federalist party's old platform.
You mean construction of homes in territory controlled by Israel for half a century? Moral or not, I hardly think they bespeak of a desire to gain new territory through conquest. Now Syria has, at various times, asserted its right to control the land on which Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinians and Israel exist.
Interestingly, I have a paper open in my browser waiting for when I have time to read it about how anti-federalist ideology survived into US politics and still underlies the logic of some political arguments made today.
The British Conservative party has at one point opposed the independence of India. Perhaps that means they're still eyeing it...
The first one uses a fairly common ethnographic trick: it shows huge areas of empty land as green, as though the very soil was Palestinian Arab. So in reality the second was a reasonable partition for the Jewish/Palestinian populations of the time (but note that nearly all the high ground is held by the latter, and how spread out and looping the Jewish area is). The last one is a complete sleight-of-hand, showing areas of jurisdiction rather than settlement. It doesn't even do it honestly, since it only shows areas of total Palestinian jurisdiction - which merely extends to the major Palestinian cities and towns - as green, while areas of joint Israeli/Palestinian jurisdiction are white. And of course it stops at 2000, it wouldn't want to show the Gaza withdrawal.
The only possible claim of expansionist population transfer would be between two and three.
I mean, virtually everything I've read, including sources that are decidedly not anti-Zionist, refers to Revisionist Zionism as the origin of the Likud Party's ideology. I agree that political changes since the 1948 settlement have made that term obsolete to some extent, or at least changed what it means.
To be clear I certainly don't think the Likud Party is any danger to invade and annex any state bordering Israel.
Yeah, I guess you're right, the idea that Israel has been encroaching on lands that are rightfully Palestinian since 1948 is a total lie. Palestinian-controlled land totally hasn't shrunk to a series of rump bantustans which are under the de facto control of the Israeli military.
Of course the map simplifies matters. But to claim that it is somehow dishonest or even substantially inaccurate in its portrayal of the situation is risible. And your article admits that central point in the text you quote from it (the full article is behind a paywall):
You misunderstood it, then. It's also odd to hear Likud being described as having an 'ideology,' since they're essentially just a collection of politicians from across the right-wing spectrum who want to play it safe or don't want to join other parties. None of them would claim that Jordanian land ought to be part of Israel, in whatever sense.
If we're talking about recent decades, it absolutely is.
The only land that Palestinians have ever controlled (aside from some territory in Lebanon and Jordan, back when the PLO was in everyone's business) are the areas granted to them under the Oslo accords.
I claim it, and since you've not availed yourself to respond...
Well, since you won't even admit that Israel has been encroaching on Palestinian lands since 1948 (seriously, I consider you seriously advancing the garbage in that link to be an insult to my intelligence) I think we can pretty safely discount your input on these questions. At least use the "we need to do this for security reasons" argument. Even the Kahanists admitted that the settlements were a thing, though they did their best to spin them as a good thing. I can't really even imagine the level of radical ideology required to deny that basic political and historical background of the conflict.
Ah, the old "Palestine never existed," love it. By this logic the Jews don't deserve a state either since they weren't strong enough to stop the Romans from throwing them out, but why bother with principle when you're the stronger party?
The area has many terribly bad countries and entities (The general Levant area), yet Israel should know better than ethnically cleanse and effectively treat others as captives. When you yourselves suffered a terrible genocide, it is very bizarre to do the same to others a couple decades later, and keep doing so for half a century now.
One has to assume that a good part of the jewish population is against this as well, but this doesn't seem to be the prevailing view.
Well if it's a chart on the internet, it must be true.
Two genocides, is the thing, the latter at the hands of Arab nationalists and Islamists, and while certainly less destructive, still very deeply affecting for those who lived through it.
There's a reason that the Zionist right is so heavily-backed by Mizrahim, who, culturally and historically, have more in common with the Palestinians than the Ashkenazi left does. (Arguably more in common with the Palestinians than they do with the Ashkenazi.) That doesn't make it okay, but it goes some way to explaining it.
The title says, clearly, since 1990.
*You* were the one talking about control. If you're talking about the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, than there's a substantial population that's around three times larger than it was in 1967. The vast majority of whom have not been displaced.
Do you have anything relevant to say? I've never seen you do anything but pop into Israel discussions and make blanket assertions about how bad it is.
Well it's also used in campus protests, so there!
I just am not seeing this end in any other way that the complete destruction of any palestinian state. This is where things are headed. You may not mind, but millions of people in your state are reduced to a life of misery, for entire generations. Sort of is nasty, no?
And the usual response is: "Yeah well, they shouldn't try to kill us, then". Which also has a response, though: "Israelis do fear for their life, but palestinians are simply dieing".
If we're talking about music, customs, family structure, yeah, but those things pale in comparison to religion and identity. There's also been a substantial blending over the years, so it's less true than it used to be. Nobody would bat an eyelash at an Ashkenazi/Sephardi marriage (speaking as a product of one such marriage). So don't buy any claims of Sephardim or Mizrahim being an 'oppressed underclass.'
You seriously deny that map is an essentially accurate portrayal of the evolution of the political situation?
That's ethnic cleansing, not genocide. And I'm not sure it would have happened without the Nakba, although naturally - as in the case of Mizrahi support for the most bloodthirsty right-wing politicians - that doesn't make it right.
So? It's either a dishonest or totally idiotic portrayal of the situation since 1990 as well. One of the fun things about the settlements is that plenty are illegal even under Israeli law, but the Israeli government winks at that and defends the illegal settlements for the most part as if they're legal, which lets them fool credulous people like the author(s) of that article into thinking there hasn't been any meaningful settlement expansion since the 1990s.
There is no marked flattening out of the process since 1990, except arguably in East Jerusalem and judging from the total population line that hasn't mattered much. Additionally the lived reality for Palestinians has inarguably gotten worse since the 1990s.
There is already no Palestinian state. The PA is more like a colonial police force drawn from the natives than a Palestinian state.
You want a source for Israel being busy helping the islamic fanatics in Syria? That's precious in a thread about an Israeli jet shot down withing Syria while in a bombing run against government forces! Who do you think those bombings runs, proudly acknowledged by Israel, benefit? The rebel syrian leprechaun alliance?
Israel said it shot down an Iranian unmanned aircraft that penetrated its airspace and then destroyed the Iranian site in central Syria that it said launched it. Upon their return, Israel's jets came under heavy Syrian anti-aircraft fire and the pilots of one of the F-16s had to eject and the plane crashed in northern Israel. One pilot was seriously wounded and the other one lightly.
In subsequent attacks, the Israeli military said it struck four additional Iranian positions and eight Syrian sites, causing significant damage. The Israeli jets again faced a heavy barrage of anti-aircraft missiles but returned home safely, as large explosions were reported in Syria and warning sirens blared in northern Israel.
Israel says the strikes destroyed the main command and control bunker of the Syrian military and marked its most devastating assault against Syria in decades.
So original targets were Iranian ones, which was done in self defense. After the humiliating loss of F-16 from Syrian fire -- Israelis attacked Syrian government forces to send a message. No other attacks happened after that. I assume if F-16 had been destroyed by rebels -- retaliation would catch up with them as well.
They always come up with an excuse. Imagine if the syrians carried out bombing runs to attack the sites in Israel from which surveillance vehicles might have been launched to enter Syria? Legitimate?
And what about the many other bombing runs carried out by Israel, both against syrian troops and syrian weapons depots? All will be presented with some excuse. Always "self-defense", you see... hell even Hitler claimed that he invaded Poland because the poles attacked Germany.
Separate names with a comma.