unclebobmartin @unclebobmartin - 1y
I've been encouraged that even some of the most dedicated leftists have stood with Israel. Even the ladies of "The View" exhibited an unusual amount of sanity. I've also been horrified by the attitudes of our students in universities. They seem to be driven by an almost inconceivable ignorance and bitterness. I was not very surprised, however, to see that BLM has thrown their support to the terrorists. Honestly I think the only way this gets resolved is with the eventual deaths (natural or otherwise) of the current leadership -- and perhaps of their children and grandchildern in the decades to come. I hope it is not a matter of centuries. From: pam<-DerekRoss at 10/12 08:22 > i just popped into twitter a while back. whoa! people are so agitated and so quick to pick sides - so quick to demonise. whatever happened to finding resolution. Don't you think its weird that the 2 people who came close - JFK and Clinton - both were no longer presidents. Camp David was the closest to a resolution I would think. CC: #[4]
From: pam<-DerekRoss at 10/12 11:37 > when you refer to terrorist, are you referring to the Hamas, both the Hamas and the Fatah, or in general the people of Palestine? Hamas. And to the north Hezbollah. > 2 popular groups in Palestine - Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Giza). Fatah has been the moderate one, pushed for the Oslo accord - but as with a lot of leaders, has its large of share of corruption that people are stressed with. They want to draw the borders and have come to an agreement with Israel - but Hamas has always intervened. Fatah has been less violent lately; but they still pay the families of terrorists and name streets after them, so I'm not so sure about how "moderate" they are. > Groups like Hamas and others alike - Hezbullah, RUF, Charles Taylor, jihads, talibans - also some in syria, egypt, turkey - were formed in that late 80's / 90's period. The groups aren't what matter so much as the ideology -- which goes back to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his alliance with Hitler. The enmity itself is biblical, going back 3,000 years or more. > > I do not know enough about these groups and I do want to read a bit more on this when i have the time. I also want to read a bit more on Nakba in 1948 , the Arab-Israel war and the creation of Israel. I also need to do a cross reference on the history of Israel, as biblically it has existed over a thousand years before Jesus died - it was there from Abraham's time I think. (Very brief biblical history) The _land_ of Israel was given to the _people_ of Israel as "the promised land" about 3,200 years ago. Abraham lived ~800 years before that. Abraham's grandson was Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel. The people of Israel are his descendants. Jacob took his family to Egypt where they stayed for several centuries and multiplied. The Egyptians enslaved them and Moses rescued them and led them to Canaan, the promised land, what we now call Israel. Incidentally, Jacob's uncle was Ishmael, who also founded a nation. God told Abraham that there would always be enmity between his sons. It is a common belief that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael. Shortly after the death of Jesus, the Romans decided they'd had enough of the unruly jews, and dispersed them all over Europe, destroying Jerusalem, the temple and the whole place. The jews did not start to return in earnest until the late 1800s, when they started to build settlements. At the time the area was pretty deserted. Mark Twain said it was desolate and devoid of inhabitants. That began to change as the Jews started to move in. Arabs joined them. And the two populations grew together throughout the mid 20th century. They didn't much care for each other. In the end, after WWII, the brand new UN declared a two state solution. Israel accepted and formed a state. The five surrounding Arab states immediately declared war and invaded. Israel drove them back and would not let the Arabs who had left in fear return to their homes. Their descendants are the Palestinians. Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, but that's the rough picture. > When it comes to university students though, even from the beatnik/hippies era, they have been a strong force of anti war - do they have a different stance ? Apparently they don't like war unless it is war against Israel. It's hard for me to understand their rationale. I don't think it is a rationale. I think it's just brainwashed nonsense. CC: #[4]
Русский бот @mikedilger - 1y
Until 3 days ago I was pretty settled in my view that Hamas is a terrorist organisation using barbaric tactics. Only in the last 3 days has that view changed based on lack of evidence (among much evidence). I am now uncertain, and seeking more evidence. Fatah was the party that championed a diplomatic solution. They rule the West Bank, which Israel cuts into smaller and smaller pieces (diplomacy didn't work). Hamas was the party that championed violent resistance. They rule Gaza and promise to get revenge on Israel. They have super-majority support in Gaza. You might think that is stupid, since any attack of Hamas will cause a much worse retaliation by Israel, but this is what the people of Gaza want. Perhaps more than their own lives, they seem to want revenge. People were on the land before the people of Israel conquered it (they were not "given" the land, they killed people to get it, Caananites and many others as I recall, with some Ark of the Covenant supernatural device, right? ;-). And many people were on it since. The levant wasn't "pretty deserted". People had been inhabiting it for thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier in your post. From 1881-1903, about 25000 jews immigrated there. From 1904-1914 another 35000 arrived. By 1922, the population was up to 11% Jews and 89% Arabs. That means there were still far more Arabs there even after those waves of immigration. Data from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine I could try to explain their rationale for wanting revenge on Israel, but I couldn't do it justice not being one of them. And it's so cultural that I doubt many of them remember all the stories and reasons themselves, at this point they just do.
7ca66 - 1y
nostr:note1lgptl80r8reratvx8m96xwlsypdx6f8c49pruwcg49ln25475dhqwdqshf
From: mikedilger at 10/12 21:30 > Until 3 days ago I was pretty settled in my view that Hamas is a terrorist organisation using barbaric tactics. Only in the last 3 days has that view changed based on lack of evidence (among much evidence). I am now uncertain, and seeking more evidence. You are uncertain whether the attack last week was barbaric? > Fatah was the party that championed a diplomatic solution. They rule the West Bank, which Israel cuts into smaller and smaller pieces (diplomacy didn't work). Well...sort of. I mean, there were a lot of weddings, busses, and lunch bistros that were blown up by suicide terrorists coming from the West Bank. And Fatah seems willing to celebrate the attack by Hamas and encourage more such attacks. > Hamas was the party that championed violent resistance. They rule Gaza and promise to get revenge on Israel. They have super-majority support in Gaza. You might think that is stupid, since any attack of Hamas will cause a much worse retaliation by Israel, but this is what the people of Gaza want. Perhaps more than their own lives, they seem to want revenge. All true. To quote them: "We love death more than you love life." > People were on the land before the people of Israel conquered it (they were not "given" the land, they killed people to get it, Caananites and many others as I recall, with some Ark of the Covenant supernatural device, right? ;-). And many people were on it since. Certainly true. That's why I said that was a biblical story. Biblically speaking, God gave that land to the children of Israel. Of course that meant they had to take it by force. (For what it's worth, I'm neither Jew nor Christian. My opinions are not based on the Bible.) > The levant wasn't "pretty deserted". People had been inhabiting it for thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier in your post. Those were Mark Twain's words, and his perception as he toured the area in the 1860s. At that time the region of Palestine was governed and owned by the Ottomans. In the late 1800s funds were raised by Zionists to purchase tracts of lands from the Turkish land barons who owned it. The Zionists set up one settlement after another. Some failed, some flourished. The more that flourished the more attractive the land became to other Jews and Arabs. There was a significant increase in both populations. >From 1881-1903, about 25000 jews immigrated there. From 1904-1914 another 35000 arrived. By 1922, the population was up to 11% Jews and 89% Arabs. That means there were still far more Arabs there even after those waves of immigration. Data from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine Correct. In the late 1800s Jerusalem held 4,000 Jews, 3,500 Christians, and 13,000 Arabs -- a rather small town of 20,000. That may be one reason why Twain chose the words he did. The population of the area increased rapidly after that. And the demographic ratios shifted. Jews were 11% in '22, 17% in '31, and 30% by '47. By then the population was close to two million. 630,000 Jews, 143,000 Christians, and 1.2 million Arabs. This shift was not due solely to natural population growth. Much of it came from different rates of immigration. The Arab population grew from half a million in 1890 to 1.2 million 57 years later. The Jews grew from 43,000 to 630,000 during the same period. There was unrest between the two groups pretty much from the start, but it was exacerbated by Nazi propaganda during the '40s. European Jews, fearing Nazi advances, fled their homes. One of their destinations was Palestine. The British, already stretched thin, would not tolerate the anticipated increase immigration, and so barred the area to immigrating Jews, but not to Arabs. Some Jews came anyway and snuck in one way or another. Those who were caught were imprisoned, by the British, in Mauritius. The Brits, who had taken the area from the Ottomans after WWI, turned the area over to the UN after WWII. The UN plan was to divide Palestine into six areas; three for the Jews and three for the Arabs. Jerusalem was to be kept neutral and governed by the UN. The six areas were not contiguous; there were "pinch points" where the touched. The UN General Assembly voted for this plan. The Jews accepted the plan and declared the state of Israel. The Arabs were horrified and a civil war broke out between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arab League nations who bordered Palestine: Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, attacked simultaneously. The Israelis rallied and pushed all five of the attackers back beyond their initial borders and gained a cease fire. In short, it's a fascinating history, with lots of twists and turns. It is nowhere near as simple as either side would like it to be. The Jews are right about one thing. If the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace. If Israel laid down their weapons there would be no more Israel. CC: #[4] CC: #[5]
From: (DissidentSound) at 10/12 21:45 > Meanwhile if you were to call Jews simply "The Jews" you would already have your life destroyed merely for daring to name them. THE JEWS! THE JEWS! THE JEWS! Oh, look! I'm still here. My life has not been destroyed. Nor will it be. CC: #[4] CC: #[5] CC: #[6]
From: mikedilger at 10/13 14:56 Thank you for that explanation. We're in the weeds now but I understand your point of view. The weeds don't get simpler as you try to peer through them. Sigh. CC: #[4] CC: #[5]
No anger. I'm a firm believer in informed debate so long as it remains civil. I just think we reached the fractal part of that debate and it could have continued to subdivide without end. I think you understood my position, and I think I've got a grasp of yours. You gave me some things to think about, so thank you. One day we might find a way to have a beer together. Or maybe a whiskey. ;-) From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:22 > I love you man. 🫂 > > I think the discussion becoming somewhat adversarial helps ensure we don't miss anything. I hope I didn't anger you. CC: #[4] CC: #[5]
I'm in favor of Story #3. Primary effect: Jews and Arabs immigrate at different rates. Secondary effect: Enmity arises between the two groups, helped by the politics of the day. Tertiary effect: One side eventually outweighs the other leading to resentment, desperation, and violence. It's a story that's played out many different times in many different places. From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:31 > Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives: > > Story #1: > Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs > Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation > Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety > > Story #2 > Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can > Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety > Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs > > The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story. > > But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now. > > Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit. CC: #[7] CC: #[8]
