Hamas attacking Israel

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, eeeeeeeeergh said:

 

Palestine wasn't British land. It was a League of Nations mandate. 

 

Here is the League of Nations definition of what they intended by mandate:

 

"administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"

 

So given that this was the legal status of the land - do you think that it was within Britain's legal right to allow a foreign population to come in and conquer the land by method of ethnic cleansing from villages and towns?

 

From my understanding Britain occupied Palestine and therefore controlled it.  Is this not true?  The League of Nations was put in place to make sure that there was peace, similar to the United Nations.  The actual occupiers and owners of the land were the British were they not?

 

The League of Nations provided administrative advice and assistance, however it did not make defacto decisions.  Also, the League of Nations confirmed the existence of Israel and mandated a home for the Jewish people.  So, again the Jews had every right to create a state in Palestine as much as the Palestinians.

 

The mandate allowed for a Jewish state, the deal was 62% Israel and 38% Palestine.  The Jews accepted the deal and the Palestinians did not.  The deal was then taken off the table and the Jews were then attacked by the Palestinians and war broke out.  The Jews then conquered the land through war.

 

Am I mistaken on these events?  I know this is just a quick summary, I am not going to go through all of the nuances of the period between 1947-1949.  

 

When you say ethnic cleansing, are you referring to the Jews conquering the land through war and then removing the Palestinians from their homes?  I don't know the exact details of all of that, but what I am certain of is that there was always going to be a State of Israel and it was mandated through the League of Nations...

Edited October 11, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[Ilunga]

9 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Ok, you two, get a room lol.

 

Underneath your passionate nature I believe you have a good heart as well.

 

I to have a passionate nature.

 

I might even be Jewish

 

My biological mother was forced to give me up.

[RomanPer]

Just now, Ilunga said:

 

Underneath your passionate nature I believe you have a good heart as well.

 

I to have a passionate nature.

 

I might even be Jewish

 

My biological mother was forced to give me up.

 

Well, everyone came from Adam and Eve, first people created by Jewish G-d  

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, eeeeeeeeergh said:

 

Its a fair question - but the question I'd ask you is, as a home owner in Canada, who owns your land - Canada, or you?

 

If America conquered Canada tomorrow, do we as home owners lose the right to our homes, to the extent that the American government has a right to shove us all into Point Roberts and bring in some Californians to live in our homes?

 

The UN declaration of human rights enshrines the right to private property. If the British wanted to remove and replace the local residents, they would have had to enter into negotiations with those people. I don't think that fleeing a massacre constitutes "forfeiting" of property rights. In international law, but particularly in the case of a "mandate" which Palestine was, private property rights extend beyond change in government. 

 

This is why we recognize this land we live in today as unceded territory of the indigenous peoples that lived here before we arrived. Canada "conquering" the land and depopulating regions to make way for settlers was illegitimate and illegal. 

 

The Crown ultimately owns all of the land in Canada.  If they wanted to, they could expropriate my property and pay me off.  Burt because I have an indefeasible title certificate to my property, I would be owed compensation from the government.

 

If the USA conquered Canada, which would probably take no more than a weekend, then all bets are off.  Not sure the UN could do anything about it to be totally honest with you.  I mean who would take up arms against the USA?  If the Americans wanted to come and take my house and they had some soldiers knock on my door I am not sure I could do anything about it.  My indefeasible title certificate would be used as toilet paper by the soldiers.

 

In terms of Palestine, I am no expert on property law over there so I would have no clue how it works.  That's why I ask the questions about who is actually on the title.  So, the Palestinians wouldn't be forfeiting any property rights if they didn't actually own the land.  I would need more clarification from experts on how the property rights worked and were distributed in Palestine back in the 1940's.

 

We recognize our land as unceded, but for the most part that is just ceremonial.  It may have been illegal and illegitimate to take the land from the first nations people, but they would have no case to take my property now.  Also, they have peacefully been able to get back much of their land over the years.  I can tell you as a real estate expert in Vancouver that the first nations people own some of the most valuable land in the city...

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[eeeeeeeeergh]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

From my understanding Britain occupied Palestine and therefore controlled it.  Is this not true?  The League of Nations was put in place to make sure that there was peace, similar to the United Nations.  The actual occupiers and owners of the land were the British were they not?

 

The League of Nations provided administrative advice and assistance, however it did not make defacto decisions.  Also, the League of Nations confirmed the existence of Israel and mandated a home for the Jewish people.  So, again the Jews had every right to create a state in Palestine as much as the Palestinians.

 

The mandate allowed for a Jewish state, the deal was 62% Israel and 38% Palestine.  The Jews accepted the deal and the Palestinians did not.  The deal was then taken off the table and the Jews were then attacked by the Palestinians and war broke out.  The Jews then conquered the land through war.

 

Am I mistaken on these events?  I know this is just a quick summary, I am not going to go through all of the nuances of the period between 1947-1949.  

 

When you say ethnic cleansing, are you referring to the Jews conquering the land through war and then removing the Palestinians from their homes?  I don't know the exact details of all of that, but what I am certain of is that there was always going to be a State of Israel and it was mandated through the League of Nations...

 

To point 1 - no thats not exactly correct. The territory known as "Palestine" was part of the ottoman empire. The arab residents revolted against the Ottoman Turks, supported by British Troops - The British told the arab residents that if they did, they would receive independence. Britain didn't exactly "occupy" palestine. In 1922, 4 years after the ottoman turks were overthrown, the british recieved a league of nations "mandate" for palestine. The purpose of a mandate was NOT to occupy and control. It was to "administer areas of the defunct ottoman empire until such time as they were able to stand alone".

 

Its important to note that at this point in history, a few things had happened:

 

1. The british had unequivocally promised the arabs independence

2. There was a minority population of indigenous jewish people, along with a minority of christians, and a majority muslim population

 

Between 1922 and 1948, the British government facilitated mass migration of european and north american jews to the Palestinian territories. 

 

Its also important to note that in the balfour declaration AND in the league of nations mandate, there was nothing specific about the details of a "jewish home in Israel". The 62% came in 1947 by the United Nations, not the league of nations, when partition was being proposed. 

 

The part of what you say that I dispute is that "the jews had every right to create a state in Palestine". The British inviting foreign people to cleanse the indigenous population doesn't give them the right to do so. Just like the British crown granting permission to destroy the indigenous people in canada didn't "give them the right". 

 

When I'm refering to ethnic cleansing, Im refering to the period in 1947-1948, when the european/north american jewish population that recently arrived took up arms and destroyed the homes and towns, to drive the residents out of the cities that now make up Israel (Haifa, Jaffa are two of the biggest, for example). 

 

I'll take all the facts and put them in Canadian context to outline in terms that we are all intimately familiar with and care deeply about:

 

> British government "discovers" Canada

> British government invites europeans to migrate and move to Canada. Declares a "homeland" for europeans in Canada. 

> europeans who arrive depopulate the towns going door to door massacring the locals all across the country and move into the houses of those who fled. 

> the refugees that fled a few years prior are told they can never return back to their homes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, or the Maritimes. They are instead offered BC and Alberta, but the europeans who arrived are entitled to everything else East of there (lets call it 65/35)

> the refugees that remain refuse the deal because most want to go back to their homes in Ontario and QC, the fight resumes, and now they're driven out of Alberta and most of BC, and crammed into Prince George

> The new country of canada refuses to allow the refugees back into the rest of Canada, and keeps them contained to Prince George, because letting them come back to their hometowns would destroy the "cultural homogeneity" of Canada

[CBH1926]

Likud hardliner calls for use of nuclear weapons, obviously she is not familiar with radiation.

https://www.newsweek.com/israeli-official-calls-doomsday-nuclear-missile-option-1833585

[eeeeeeeeergh]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The Crown ultimately owns all of the land in Canada.  If they wanted to, they could expropriate my property and pay me off.  Burt because I have an indefeasible title certificate to my property, I would be owed compensation from the government.

 

If the USA conquered Canada, which would probably take no more than a weekend, then all bets are off.  Not sure the UN could do anything about it to be totally honest with you.  I mean who would take up arms against the USA?  If the Americans wanted to come and take my house and they had some soldiers knock on my door I am not sure I could do anything about it.  My indefeasible title certificate would be used as toilet paper by the soldiers.

 

In terms of Palestine, I am no expert on property law over there so I would have no clue how it works.  That's why I ask the questions about who is actually on the title.  So, the Palestinians wouldn't be forfeiting any property rights if they didn't actually own the land.  I would need more clarification from experts on how the property rights worked and were distributed in Palestine back in the 1940's.

 

We recognize our land as unceded, but for the most part that is just ceremonial.  It may have been illegal and illegitimate to take the land from the first nations people, but they would have no case to take my property now.  Also, they have peacefully been able to get back much of their land over the years.  I can tell you as a real estate expert in Vancouver that the first nations people own some of the most valuable land in the city...

 

 

Okay lets go through point by point:

 

To point 1:

Theres a huge difference between expropriating land for public purpose and providing just compensation and going door to door massacring people to drive them out of their homes. One invokes a legitimate transfer of property rights, one does not. 

 

To point 2:

The point is not "what would you do". Of course we'd lose to the US. The point is- from a property rights perspective - do you lose your moral right to your home? International law says no, and morality says no. My argument here is that inviting european settlers into occupied land, and letting them massacre locals, then move into their houses does not constitute a legal or moral transfer of property rights. 

 

To Point 3: again title isn't the point. These people were farmers and peasants from the ottoman empire. Many didn't read or write. They did however have homes, farms, that they built with their own hands. From a legal and moral perspective, these homes belonged to the locals. Irgun stormed villages, kicked open doors, and threw a grenade in. They did this across hundreds of villages in 1947-1948. So the palestinians fled their homes in those villages that Irgun and others targeted. 

 

I dont care what permissions the British gave european/north american jews, the Palestinians who were evicted and forced out of their villages have the legitimate claim to that land. 

 

Heres the thing - what the Palestinians are asking for is: the right to return to those villages and towns that they provably lived in, which are now part of Israel.

 

Israel however cant/wont let them do so, because if they do, that would be too many non-jewish people living in Israel.

 

FYI this is not a Palestinian Principle - this is an idea proposed by a UN Mediator in 1948 working on the conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#:~:text=The Palestinian right of return,property they themselves or their

 

 

[RomanPer]

Just now, CBH1926 said:

Likud hardliner calls for use of nuclear weapons, obviously she is not familiar with radiation.

https://www.newsweek.com/israeli-official-calls-doomsday-nuclear-missile-option-1833585

 

Well, like i said before - there are idiots in every country and we are not an exception.

[Elias Pettersson]

5 minutes ago, eeeeeeeeergh said:

 

To point 1 - no thats not exactly correct. The territory known as "Palestine" was part of the ottoman empire. The arab residents revolted against the Ottoman Turks, supported by British Troops - The British told the arab residents that if they did, they would receive independence. Britain didn't exactly "occupy" palestine. In 1922, 4 years after the ottoman turks were overthrown, the british recieved a league of nations "mandate" for palestine. The purpose of a mandate was NOT to occupy and control. It was to "administer areas of the defunct ottoman empire until such time as they were able to stand alone".

 

Its important to note that at this point in history, a few things had happened:

 

1. The british had unequivocally promised the arabs independence

2. There was a minority population of indigenous jewish people, along with a minority of christians, and a majority muslim population

 

Between 1922 and 1948, the British government facilitated mass migration of european and north american jews to the Palestinian territories. 

 

Its also important to note that in the balfour declaration AND in the league of nations mandate, there was nothing specific about the details of a "jewish home in Israel". The 62% came in 1947 by the United Nations, not the league of nations, when partition was being proposed. 

 

The part of what you say that I dispute is that "the jews had every right to create a state in Palestine". The British inviting foreign people to cleanse the indigenous population doesn't give them the right to do so. Just like the British crown granting permission to destroy the indigenous people in canada didn't "give them the right". 

 

When I'm refering to ethnic cleansing, Im refering to the period in 1947-1948, when the european/north american jewish population that recently arrived took up arms and destroyed the homes and towns, to drive the residents out of the cities that now make up Israel (Haifa, Jaffa are two of the biggest, for example). 

 

I'll take all the facts and put them in Canadian context to outline in terms that we are all intimately familiar with and care deeply about:

 

> British government "discovers" Canada

> British government invites europeans to migrate and move to Canada. Declares a "homeland" for europeans in Canada. 

> europeans who arrive depopulate the towns going door to door massacring the locals all across the country and move into the houses of those who fled. 

> the refugees that fled a few years prior are told they can never return back to their homes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, or the Maritimes. They are instead offered BC and Alberta, but the europeans who arrived are entitled to everything else East of there (lets call it 65/35)

> the refugees that remain refuse the deal because most want to go back to their homes in Ontario and QC, the fight resumes, and now they're driven out of Alberta and most of BC, and crammed into Prince George

> The new country of canada refuses to allow the refugees back into the rest of Canada, and keeps them contained to Prince George, because letting them come back to their hometowns would destroy the "cultural homogeneity" of Canada

 

Okay, so we are getting clearer on some things, but I am going to push back on some points you raised:

 

1.  The League of Nations most definitely had a mandate to create a Jewish state.  This is directly from the mandate:  "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

 

This sounds to me like a mandate for a Jewish state.  Why do you feel this is not the case?  Is there literature that discredits this statement?  

 

The Balfour Declaration also says the same thing.  I have attached a copy here.  Is this Balfour Declaration from 1917 not a real document?

 

2.  From what I have read alot of those foreign Jewish people that were invited to live in Palestine were holocaust survivors and Jews that were kicked out of Arab countries.  Is this not accurate?  It's not like they just invited a bunch of rich dudes to come and take away homes from the Palestinians.

 

3.  Your Canadian scenario only makes sense if everything else you are saying is accurate, but the whole door to door and killing people I don't know enough about to make a judgement on that.  I would need to do more research on that specific situation to comment further...

 

[nuckin_futz]

39 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Sorry, what are you talking about? Have you heard of operation Solomon that airlifted Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 1991? Is everything ok within Israel between different waves of immigration? No. There are issues between Moroccan Jews and former Soviet Jews, for example. But these are internal issues within Israel and more importantly - these are not systematic but rather between insecure people with different backgrounds. This exists in every society. What “shabby” treatment are you talking about?

 

Like I said I am no expert on this subject. What I was referring to are stories where Ethiopian Jews say they often face discrimination by some of the population and excessive use of force by the police. They feel they are treated as lesser Jews. Or that there is an unofficial class system and they are on the wrong end of it. I'm not suggesting that this is official policy. Nothing all that unusual about that pretty much anywhere you have white people and brown people it's usually the brown people getting the shaft. There's certainly room to do better.

[Elias Pettersson]

14 minutes ago, eeeeeeeeergh said:

Okay lets go through point by point:

 

To point 1:

Theres a huge difference between expropriating land for public purpose and providing just compensation and going door to door massacring people to drive them out of their homes. One invokes a legitimate transfer of property rights, one does not. 

 

To point 2:

The point is not "what would you do". Of course we'd lose to the US. The point is- from a property rights perspective - do you lose your moral right to your home? International law says no, and morality says no. My argument here is that inviting european settlers into occupied land, and letting them massacre locals, then move into their houses does not constitute a legal or moral transfer of property rights. 

 

To Point 3: again title isn't the point. These people were farmers and peasants from the ottoman empire. Many didn't read or write. They did however have homes, farms, that they built with their own hands. From a legal and moral perspective, these homes belonged to the locals. Irgun stormed villages, kicked open doors, and threw a grenade in. They did this across hundreds of villages in 1947-1948. So the palestinians fled their homes in those villages that Irgun and others targeted. 

 

I dont care what permissions the British gave european/north american jews, the Palestinians who were evicted and forced out of their villages have the legitimate claim to that land. 

 

Heres the thing - what the Palestinians are asking for is: the right to return to those villages and towns that they provably lived in, which are now part of Israel.

 

Israel however cant/wont let them do so, because if they do, that would be too many non-jewish people living in Israel.

 

FYI this is not a Palestinian Principle - this is an idea proposed by a UN Mediator in 1948 working on the conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#:~:text=The Palestinian right of return,property they themselves or their

 

 

 

If we were taken over by the USA, morally they shouldn't be able to take my home.  However, the occupiers may have a different take on that.  Depending on if the UN were to get involved, there is really not a whole lot I could do about it if the USA really wanted my house.  So, this gets back to the point you were making about the Jews going door to door and taking the homes.  If the UN or the government or international law isn't stopping them from doing it, then there is really nothing you can do about.  The legality of it and the morality of it quite frankly don't really mean much if you are in a war. 

 

To be totally honest with you, I get what you are saying.  I have been trying to get some legal facts into this situation to try and switch my view on things.  Morally and ethically, I do not agree with simply taking property away from people.  Legally speaking I always try and follow the law as well, so of course if someone is living in their home they shouldn't just be kicked out.  But during war, none of this matters.  Which is my understanding of what took place, it was war and the Jews conquered the land through force, which is how all land is taken in war.

 

We can debate this all night long, but I respect your take on things and most likely we will never agree on everything.  But respectfully, this was a good conversation and I actually learned some things from you as well so thanks for that.

 

I will now continue to follow the war as it happens and I probably won't engage much on past history as I have done enough of that for the time being.  Cheers...

[eeeeeeeeergh]

13 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Okay, so we are getting clearer on some things, but I am going to push back on some points you raised:

 

1.  The League of Nations most definitely had a mandate to create a Jewish state.  This is directly from the mandate:  "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

 

This sounds to me like a mandate for a Jewish state.  Why do you feel this is not the case?  Is there literature that discredits this statement?  

 

The Balfour Declaration also says the same thing.  I have attached a copy here.  Is this Balfour Declaration from 1917 not a real document?

 

2.  From what I have read alot of those foreign Jewish people that were invited to live in Palestine were holocaust survivors and Jews that were kicked out of Arab countries.  Is this not accurate?  It's not like they just invited a bunch of rich dudes to come and take away homes from the Palestinians.

 

3.  Your Canadian scenario only makes sense if everything else you are saying is accurate, but the whole door to door and killing people I don't know enough about to make a judgement on that.  I would need to do more research on that specific situation to comment further...

 

 

1. This is partially correct - but theres context required. First of all - the league of nations was founded on a few key principles, one of which was "self determination". This is what Woodrow Wilson said when the principle was enshrined as part of the League of Nations core purpose:  "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action."

 

Its also worth noting that the league of nations was founded by the allied powers- so they were free to do and say as they wished, including making declarations that directly conflicted with this. So when I say that the purpose of a mandate was administrative, not to occupy, its in reference to the founding principles of the league of nations and what the mandate tool was actually designd for, not how the allies chose to implement it in this particular case. 

 

In this case - yes- the allies doublespoke. On one hand they promised arabs independence in the letters I shared, and on the other, they promised the jews a homeland in Palestine. 

 

However, again I'd compare this to the Canadian example. If the British, who recently discovered Canada, make a declaration promising me land in Canada, but that land is in fact lived on by someone else, and I take it by evicting that indigenous person, does that constitute a legitimate transfer of property rights?

 

Lets also add this - in the balfour declaration and the mandate (1917) - note there were no specifics in the areas that would constitute the jewish state. It was also explicitely stated that no civil and religious rights of non jewish communities are allowed to be violated. Yet - in order to take the areas that the state of israel chose, it chose exterminate villages. So even if you accept that the British had a right to make this offer to the Jewish people (which I do not, as it wasn't their land to give), the condition of not violating any rights of non jewish communities was clearly violated. What MAY have been permissable in the mandate was for jewish settlers to take up residence in completely unpopulated areas and build new towns. Thats clearly not what happened.

 

2. Not exactly accurate. World War 2 started in 1939, the holocaust happened obviously after that in the 1940s, but between 1918 and 1939, 400,000 north american/european jewish settlers had already moved. The "fleeing from arab countries" is also a myth. Very few Jews moved from the arab world between 1918-1930 (they had no reason to, they lived in relative harmony). The mass migration from the arab world began in the late 1940s, after the state of israel had been declared, and after palestinians had been removed from their towns/villages. You can verify my claims here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPicard20184-3

 

3. Will supply you with some reference materials to back up my claims here, this is all public record, I dont think Israelis even dispute this. 

 

Here is a list of the villages that the jewish terrorist groups destroyed and depopulated:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1947–1949_Palestine_war

 

And heres the details of one i referenced earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

 

[eeeeeeeeergh]

15 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If we were taken over by the USA, morally they shouldn't be able to take my home.  However, the occupiers may have a different take on that.  Depending on if the UN were to get involved, there is really not a whole lot I could do about it if the USA really wanted my house.  So, this gets back to the point you were making about the Jews going door to door and taking the homes.  If the UN or the government or international law isn't stopping them from doing it, then there is really nothing you can do about.  The legality of it and the morality of it quite frankly don't really mean much if you are in a war. 

 

To be totally honest with you, I get what you are saying.  I have been trying to get some legal facts into this situation to try and switch my view on things.  Morally and ethically, I do not agree with simply taking property away from people.  Legally speaking I always try and follow the law as well, so of course if someone is living in their home they shouldn't just be kicked out.  But during war, none of this matters.  Which is my understanding of what took place, it was war and the Jews conquered the land through force, which is how all land is taken in war.

 

We can debate this all night long, but I respect your take on things and most likely we will never agree on everything.  But respectfully, this was a good conversation and I actually learned some things from you as well so thanks for that.

 

I will now continue to follow the war as it happens and I probably won't engage much on past history as I have done enough of that for the time being.  Cheers...

 

I dont disagree with you that theres nothing that can be done. My point here wasnt to do that. It was to show that the Palestinian people currently in Gaza and in the West Bank had their land stolen and colonized by foreigners.

 

If you accept that to be the case, then we are in agreement.

 

I understand that we are well past the point of being able to decolonize, but I would like to see recognition from people who have objectively reviewed all the facts that Israel is in fact a settler-colonial country, and therefore has moral and legal obligations for the well being and care of the indigenous people that they depopulated, who are still very much alive and at this moment, living in extreme poverty due to a crippling blockade.

 

I hope this also sheds light on the nature of Palestinian anger - if a Canadian was in their shoes, having had their homes stolen, now having their children killed in air strikes, while foreigners settled in their homes, I think any canadian would be pretty angry. Recognition of the legitimacy of this anger is the first step to addressing their grievances and hopefully finding a peaceful way forward.

[eeeeeeeeergh]

19 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If we were taken over by the USA, morally they shouldn't be able to take my home.  However, the occupiers may have a different take on that.  Depending on if the UN were to get involved, there is really not a whole lot I could do about it if the USA really wanted my house.  So, this gets back to the point you were making about the Jews going door to door and taking the homes.  If the UN or the government or international law isn't stopping them from doing it, then there is really nothing you can do about.  The legality of it and the morality of it quite frankly don't really mean much if you are in a war. 

 

To be totally honest with you, I get what you are saying.  I have been trying to get some legal facts into this situation to try and switch my view on things.  Morally and ethically, I do not agree with simply taking property away from people.  Legally speaking I always try and follow the law as well, so of course if someone is living in their home they shouldn't just be kicked out.  But during war, none of this matters.  Which is my understanding of what took place, it was war and the Jews conquered the land through force, which is how all land is taken in war.

 

We can debate this all night long, but I respect your take on things and most likely we will never agree on everything.  But respectfully, this was a good conversation and I actually learned some things from you as well so thanks for that.

 

I will now continue to follow the war as it happens and I probably won't engage much on past history as I have done enough of that for the time being.  Cheers...

much love, i appreciate the openness and respect with which youve approached this. its a rare thing to find. 

[Ilunga]

8 minutes ago, eeeeeeeeergh said:

much love, i appreciate the openness and respect with which youve approached this. its a rare thing to find. 

Personally I am glad we have both you and Roman in this thread. 

 

[RomanPer]

50 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Like I said I am no expert on this subject. What I was referring to are stories where Ethiopian Jews say they often face discrimination by some of the population and excessive use of force by the police. They feel they are treated as lesser Jews. Or that there is an unofficial class system and they are on the wrong end of it. I'm not suggesting that this is official policy. Nothing all that unusual about that pretty much anywhere you have white people and brown people it's usually the brown people getting the shaft. There's certainly room to do better.

 

Sure, let’s find another reason to blame Israel in something…

[Ilunga]

Just now, RomanPer said:

 

Sure, let’s find another reason to blame Israel in something…

 

I don't think he is trying to find another reason to blame Israel Roman.

The matter of people being treated differently because of the colour of their skin is very personal to Nuckin.

 

I was doing a bit of research and I found there is some controversy about the term Kushim and how it is pronounced.

 

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-754341

 

https://forward.com/culture/199824/is-kushim-a-racist-israeli-term-for-blacks/

 

I would like your insight on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RomanPer]

3 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

 

I don't think he is trying to find another reason to blame Israel Roman.

The matter of people being treated differently because of the colour of their skin is very personal to Nuckin.

 

I was doing a bit of research and I found there is some controversy about the term Kushim and how it is pronounced.

 

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-754341

 

https://forward.com/culture/199824/is-kushim-a-racist-israeli-term-for-blacks/

 

I would like your insight on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That word is indeed a racist word for blacks in Hebrew, essentially the “n” word. The racist problem in Israel is no different than in majority of other countries. There’s zero reason to single out Israel in this regard. Thankfully, I don’t have people that use this word between my friends in Israel (otherwise they wouldn’t be my friends). But like I said before - most of animosity between Jews within Israeli society is tied to different waves of immigration. Historically, early immigration to Israel in the early 20th century was from Europe and people from that wave of immigration and their next generations were the base of the political establishment at a time of Israeli independence. In 50s/60s came large wave if immigrants from the Arab countries (which primarily were forced out of their homes by the Arab governments, but no one talks about that, right? ). They weren’t treated very well by the establishment and had to fight to get level of respect and have their representatives in the establishment (see The Black Panther movement in Israel). When over 1 million Jews from Soviet Union arrived between 1989-1991, some of the Jews from Arab countries (Sephardic Jews) felt threatened by the possible competition from highly educated (on average) new immigrants plus they still remembered the stories from their parents about their mistreatment by the Askenazi Jews when they just immigrated. That caused some conflicts, but mostly on the personal level. I experienced it but in an interesting way. I worked in a company with an engineer whose family was originally from Morocco. One day we were expecting an important delivery but another driver (also with Moroccan background) was blocking the entrance to our gate (driving in Israel is a separate story altogether lol). I went to tell him to move his car and he started yelling at me to go back to where i came from (meaning, back to Ukraine). I didn’t even have a chance to react when Shlomo (our Moroccan engineer) was next to me, yelling at the other person that he should be ashamed and that he’s a disgrace of Moroccan Jews. Overtime things settled down. Essentially, like any society, Israel went through variety of growing pains.

[Scottish Canuck 2.0]

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

Hamas’ actions cannot possibly be used to justify the inhumane treatment of every man, woman and child in Gaza. Cutting off power, water and the food supply isn’t fighting Hamas, it’s a war crime.

 

Where is the international condemnation of this and the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza? That’s not Israel defending itself, it’s as murderous as the behaviour of scum who attacked Israel itself on Saturday.

[Ilunga]

5 minutes ago, Scottish Canuck 2.0 said:

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

Hamas’ actions cannot possibly be used to justify the inhumane treatment of every man, woman and child in Gaza. Cutting off power, water and the food supply isn’t fighting Hamas, it’s a war crime.

 

Where is the international condemnation of this and the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza? That’s not Israel defending itself, it’s as murderous as the behaviour of scum who attacked Israel itself on Saturday.

 

The UN has condemned the siege of Gaza 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/israeli-air-strikes-hit-residences-schools-across-gaza-un-rights-chief-2023-10-10/

 

 

[Jack Gordon]

[Sharpshooter]

5 hours ago, RomanPer said:

 

Well, everyone came from Adam and Eve, first people created by Jewish G-d  

[Silent Man]

2 hours ago, Jack Gordon said:

It is a bad time to make jokes (and very stupid, indeed) about Zelensky

[WeneedLumme]

One thing I find interesting here is that some posters are unwilling or unable to distinguish between intentional murder of civilians and collateral damage to civilians due to retaliation against those who attack and then hide behind human shields. It's much like the difference between premeditated first degree murder and negligence. They are not the same thing.

[moosehead]

34 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

One thing I find interesting here is that some posters are unwilling or unable to distinguish between intentional murder of civilians and collateral damage to civilians due to retaliation against those who attack and then hide behind human shields. It's much like the difference between premeditated first degree murder and negligence. They are not the same thing.

 

Burning down homes and throwing in grenades first....   all to steal peoples land...    Burning down entire villages....   Bombing residential towers.... well that is not simply negligence.

 

Both sides in this conflict are to blame with their barbaric acts.