UN apologists: respond to this.

[Mouthwash]

The same reason I consider the General Government the Nazis established in Poland to have been illegitimate? The Palestinians are the indigenous population, in situ. The Israelis are largely foreign invaders.

The early immigrants literally built their own culture (without the aid of a Jewish or Zionist government) before "Palestinian nationalism" was even a glimmer in some Arab youth's mind. And there are the millions of native-born Israelis.

Yessir, nothing racial about declaring them foreigners.

I bet you also write blogs about how black people should be grateful for slavery.

Was there ever a black member of Congress who supported slavery?

Like I said, shocking ignorance is the more charitable interpretation here. As for your Youtube videos, give me a break. Netanyahu literally won the last election by pointing out that Arab citizens were voting as though this was a bad thing.

Israeli politics has a lot of ethnic coalition-building; there's a core of the Arab-Muslim parties which are despised by both the left and the right (Arab Christians, Druze, and others don't seem to have any problems, before you point the finger at 'Zionism' for causing this). Netanyahu used scare-tactics in this context because he thought he might lose the election, and he apologized for it afterward.

Right now, India's Prime Minister is whipping up some genuinely dangerous Hindu nationalism, but apparently the second-most populated country on Earth slipping towards theocracy isn't a very exciting headline.

More to the point, he has presided over war crimes, the crime of apartheid, and has violated international law by settling Israelis in territory under Israeli military occupation.

I hope you're not expecting me to respond to this. ESPECIALLY since this entire thread has been about my views on UN-defined 'law.'

I really don't see how that is relevant. You discuss ethnic cleansing (likely, I don't know you personally and don't want to make assumptions) without ever having been deported, don't you? This kind of argument is just a logical fallacy.

Deportation, however traumatic, is transient (assuming you aren't chasing them into a wasteland or something). Civil strife isn't.

I'm sorry, I don't quite see where you are getting at, could you elaborate?

Ethnic groups which are forced to live together, not merely by being in the same state, but by being actually being physically intermingled.

Don't worry, Netanyahu would fit right in with the nazis. He is the kind of person who would have that mentality for just any ethnic group he thinks he is part of, like that former Hungarian nazi party person who quit his party when he found out he is jewish, and will now end up in Likud with likeminded folk

I assume that you're not going to respond in any capacity to my countless, fundamentally devastating objections to your theorizing. Does your continued presence on this thread serve any purpose besides aggravating me?

Considering the relative (cough) lack of power Israel state has to 1930s Germany, i would say that Israel is not very restrained at all. If they had a towering army in the world stage you would very likely see even worse from them.

Yeah, you wouldn't expect a country on the land bridge between Asia and Africa to be involved in a war. It's just strange, y'know?

 

[Kyriakos]

^There isn't any rebuttal to respond to. It is an inevitable effect of yourself not being logical in this matter. Some time ago you were posting about how much you mean to enlist in the IDF just so that you can get the free uni study in Israel coming with it. Now, that itself sends alarm bells, but at the time you were younger. But do you really want your whole life consumed by a meaningless attempt to defend the inexcusable and murderous mentality of some israeli politicians? Really, Mouthwash? Cause i think you can do a lot better.

That said, i am not going to play righteous. In the end of the day, you aren't one people speak against here either; we are just noting how terrible the israeli state behavior has been and still is.

 

[metalhead]

The early immigrants literally built their own culture (without the aid of a Jewish or Zionist government) before "Palestinian nationalism" was even a glimmer in some Arab youth's mind. And there are the millions of native-born Israelis.

They had the aid of their British overseers, though. They didn't just move there and set up their own culture, they moved to land occupied by an international authority which was encouraging their resettlement there. The migration of Jews to Palestine post-WWI was due in large part to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and subsequent persecution of Jews in both former Ottoman territory and elsewhere in Europe, but it wasn't just empty land. The only reason the Jewish state exists is because the British and U.N. decided not to intervene when the Jewish interlopers decided they were going to take the land for themselves after the British left.

I mean, I don't know what facts you're trying to use here, but there was no natural concentration of Jews in Palestine, it was entirely an artificial population, albeit one that ended up there for understandable reasons. The fact that they then violently took the land when the foreign overseers left makes it pretty understandable why the people who lost out - people with far more of a birthright to the land, no less - were and still are upset about it.

 

[Mouthwash]

^There isn't any rebuttal to respond to. It is an inevitable effect of yourself not being logical in this matter. Some time ago you were posting about how much you mean to enlist in the IDF just so that you can get the free uni study in Israel coming with it. Now, that itself sends alarm bells, but at the time you were younger.

I am joining the IDF , hopefully within a few weeks. I grew up in gentrified US suburbs, and after two years in a lower-end Sephardic development town I think that Israeli society is the most tolerant, liberal, and peaceful one I've experienced. There is no 'gun culture' here; no celebration of conquest or violence. Liberals won't stop bringing up the whole 'Jewish particularism is racist' brouhaha, but even right-wing Zionists seem utterly cosmopolitan to me. You can twist any ideological divergence from liberalism into a fascist dystopia, but living among the people tells you the real story.

But do you really want your whole life consumed by a meaningless attempt to defend the inexcusable and murderous mentality of some israeli politicians? Really, Mouthwash? Cause i think you can do a lot better.

You do not get to fit an entire people into your sick theatre. Israel isn’t a political campaign begging for your vote; it's a nation. I realize that nothing I say will ever make you respond to my logic; no one can be presented with those kind of arguments and simply shrug them off if they place any value on truth. It's the story you value. Israel has its role, truth has another role (being the property of the heroic dissident anti-Zionists), and my role is the ambitious character who is seduced by misguided notions. The only thing you don't know is whether I'm destined to become a tragic monster, or find redemption.

I think you know this, and choose to reject the cold reality. Stories are, after all, never true.

They had the aid of their British overseers, though. They didn't just move there and set up their own culture, they moved to land occupied by an international authority which was encouraging their resettlement there.

The Arab revolt was supported and financed by the British and French. Does that mean that Arab nationalism is really a British/French colonial vestige?

The only reason the Jewish state exists is because the British and U.N. decided not to intervene when the Jewish interlopers decided they were going to take the land for themselves after the British left.

See, this is what I call racism. They are fundamentally 'interlopers,' and therefore Other from the native culture.

I mean, I don't know what facts you're trying to use here, but there was no natural concentration of Jews in Palestine, it was entirely an artificial population,

It was artificial in a sense, but does that matter? The Jews built their identity on that soil. They worked the land and built cities. The Arabs weren't disenfranchised or subjugated by this.

The fact that they then violently took the land when the foreign overseers left

They behaved pretty much like any anti-colonial nationalist movement, you mean- they violently resisted the British overlords and then engaged in an ethnic struggle with their neighbors. The only difference I see here is your terminology, which has less to do with sociological or political realities than your arbitrary parameters for collective ownership.

makes it pretty understandable why the people who lost out - people with far more of a birthright to the land, no less - were and still are upset about it.

And this is different from the Nazi claims on the Polish Corridor how?

 

[Tahuti]

I mean, I don't know what facts you're trying to use here, but there was no natural concentration of Jews in Palestine, it was entirely an artificial population, albeit one that ended up there for understandable reasons.

There is no such thing as an "artificial population". Even first generation immigrants establish populations far outside their locales of birth for perfectly "natural" reasons, or human reasons, to be exact. This will always happen to the extent technology (think of air travel) and legislation - or lack (of enforcement) thereof - allows such.

 

[Mouthwash]

There is no such thing as an "artificial population". Even first generation immigrants establish populations far outside their locales of birth for perfectly "natural" reasons, or human reasons, to be exact. This will always happen to the extent technology (think of air travel) and legislation - or lack (of enforcement) thereof - allows such.

If we assume that we'll be forced to accept Roma into 'natural' European culture, which is something I'm beginning to suspect metalhead may not be supportive of. I mean, the dude is literally advocating racial homelands.

 

[Tahuti]

They don't have to be part of European culture to have a reason to live in Europe.

 

[metalhead]

"Artificial" in the sense that the vast majority majority moved there. Mouthwash said there are millions of native-born Israelis, and while that is true, prior to the 1920s the native born people in Palestine were not Jewish, certainly not Israelis as Israel did not exist.

Immigrating to a country en masse and then engaging in an "ethnic struggle" with the indigenous people to assume control of it is invasion, plain and simple. Interlopers is an apt term to describe what happened. The "birthright" I referred to is simply the fact that the indigenous people are the ones with a claim to establish governance over the land, not the migrants who then conquered the indigenous people and established control over it.

 

[Tahuti]

International law has more use in preparation of an intergalactic struggle than anything else, really.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Mouthwash: i very sincerely hope you stay safe in the IDF. As you know, i do think you should reconsider, but it is your choice. For the record, i am sure that if/when you see actual atrocities, you won't like it at all, and again hope you stay safe.

 

[JollyRoger]

Israelis aren't a sectarian group inside some Arab country. They have their own nationstate.

For their own safety though, we can move that nationstate to another landmass. What would be wrong with that?

 

[timtofly]

For their own safety though, we can move that nationstate to another landmass. What would be wrong with that?

Historically that is called slavery.

 

[Traitorfish]

They had the aid of their British overseers, though. They didn't just move there and set up their own culture, they moved to land occupied by an international authority which was encouraging their resettlement there.

That's not really true. There were certainly elements in the British establishment who supported Zionism, but it would be false to present it as a matter of official policy. The British administration in Palestine, certainly, regarded the Zionists as a headache they could do without.

 

[JollyRoger]

Historically that is called slavery.

I really can't see what's so objectionable about forcing people to move to a different location in order to prevent a massacre.

 

[Lexicus]

The early immigrants literally built their own culture (without the aid of a Jewish or Zionist government) before "Palestinian nationalism" was even a glimmer in some Arab youth's mind. And there are the millions of native-born Israelis.

Yessir, nothing racial about declaring them foreigners.

...what does any of this have to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population of Israel is of European origin and Israel is not in Europe? That is what makes them foreigners, at least with respect to the Palestinians.

Was there ever a black member of Congress who supported slavery?

There are black people who support Donald Trump, too. Doesn't make him less racist.

I hope you're not expecting me to respond to this. ESPECIALLY since this entire thread has been about my views on UN-defined 'law.'

These are moral transgressions whether they are formally defined as crimes or not. The UN is completely irrelevant to Netanyahu's status as a murdering fascist thug.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not really true. There were certainly elements in the British establishment who supported Zionism, but it would be false to present it as a matter of official policy. The British administration in Palestine, certainly, regarded the Zionists as a headache they could do without.

The Balfour Declaration wasn't a statement of official policy?

If by 'regarded the Zionists as a headache they could do without' you mean 'were sickened by the terrorist activities of the paramilitary groups that were instrumental in establishing the state of Israel,' sure. The British absolutely did provide the aegis under which Jewish settlement in Palestine greatly accelerated. I'm not sure metalhead ever said anything about 'official policy,' but his larger point that Britain helped the Zionist project come to fruition seems quite correct to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Balfour Declaration wasn't a statement of official policy?

It was a statement of what Balfour thought British policy should be- and one that fell far short of Zionist aspirations, as contemporary Zionists were quick to note- but it's by no means a statement of the opinion of British government or even the Foreign Office, and certainly not for the next quarter century.

I mean, consider, the central thrust of the Declaration was a commitment to the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine: not even a nation-state, merely a "national home", somewhere to live and a modicum of self-government, all under the auspices of the British Empire. At point did the British make any such provision, or even meaningfully hint towards it?

If by 'regarded the Zionists as a headache they could do without' you mean 'were sickened by the terrorist activities of the paramilitary groups that were instrumental in establishing the state of Israel,' sure. The British absolutely did provide the aegis under which Jewish settlement in Palestine greatly accelerated. I'm not sure metalhead ever said anything about 'official policy,' but his larger point that Britain helped the Zionist project come to fruition seems quite correct to me.

The British never, at any point, provided for the legal mass-migration of Jews to Palestine, even in the wake of the Holocaust. They also established harsh restrictions on Jewish land-purchase, both by private individuals and by organisations. Jewish settlement in Palestine before 1948 was to a very large extent a project carried out in disregard and frequently in direct contravention of British law; at best, the British administration can be said to have grudgingly accepted it as a fact of life in the region, but it's simply inaccurate to present them as joint-partners.

 

[timtofly]

I really can't see what's so objectionable about forcing people to move to a different location in order to prevent a massacre.

If that is the end goal, are you recommending Syria? That is not far, and they could even do that 40 days in the desert item for archeological purposes.

 

[classical_hero]

Even Muslims are forgetting their history.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/15th-century-islamic-work-describes.html
A 15th century book describing the history of the Jewish Temple.

 

[Ajidica]

That's not really true. There were certainly elements in the British establishment who supported Zionism, but it would be false to present it as a matter of official policy. The British administration in Palestine, certainly, regarded the Zionists as a headache they could do without.

I was under the impression the British considered the Zionists as more than a headache, what with the desecration of the bodies of British soldiers and the bombings of the King David Hotel, Palestine Railway bridges, and the assassination of Folke Bernadotte.

"Hon. Members will have learned with horror of the brutal and murderous crime committed yesterday in Jerusalem. Of all the outrages which have occurred in Palestine, and they have been many and horrible in the last few months, this is the worst. By this insane act of terrorism 93 innocent people have been killed or are missing in the ruins. The latest figures of casualties are 41 dead, 52 missing and 53 injured. I have no further information at present beyond what is contained in the following official report received from Jerusalem:"

Seeing as plenty of 'crimes against humanity' get committed yearly without repercussions, I'm not feeling particularly honored. If you want to respect the memory of the Jews who died in the Holocaust, how about not letting the same thing happen to the Tutsi?

The United Nations did try to prevent the Rwandan genocide ETHNIC CLEANSING GONE WRONG to use your preferred turn of phrase.

That UNAMIR ended up failing should in no way diminish the bravery of the UN Peacekeepers or the murder of ten Belgian paratroopers. The United Nations -especially in the realm of peacekeeping- is only as powerful as the Security Council and when France funnels arms to the genocidaires and the United States engages is rampant asshattery when UNAMIR tried to purchase armored vehicles to conduct patrols* there isn't much they could do.
*Dallaire recounts how the DPKO managed to purchase ex-US armored vehicles from our stocks in Germany. When they arrived in Entebbe (not Kigali) they were missing instruction manuals, spare parts, radios, and were barely serviceable. When Dallaire tried to get the US to transport them to Kigali the US insisted that further transport would cost additional money - money the already overstretched United Nations didn't have.

I am joining the IDF , hopefully within a few weeks.

It frankly terrifies me that the IDF would allow a person who openly says they see nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing and have spoken positively about creating Bantustans in America. Then again, this is the same country where some people see nothing wrong with setting up lawn chairs to watch artillery bombardments of cities, so I'm wondering why I should be in the least bit surprised.

The Balfour Declaration wasn't a statement of official policy?

Even if it was, all the Balfour Declaration said was a "national home" for the Jews, whatever that means. It likely meant limited autonomy with the requirement to do whatever His Majesty's Government said on any meaningful issue. It certainly wasn't an independent country or Dominion status. The United Kingdom is the king of "not letting go" and needed quite a bit of pushing before they finally said goodbye to their colonies.