50 years to the day

[TBS]

How do they address the fact that Jews have been living in the area for millennia? I mean, they do know the First Temple was a synagogue, right?

Jews have not been living in Palestine in large numbers for millennia. They largely split the scene around 70AD due to Roman oppression. At the end of WW1 Jews in Palestine numbered 70-80,000, about 10% of the population, and about equal to the number of Christians there.

[gravitylover]

Bringing it back around the circle after a buncha shit talking. Yup, both sides have been there for a few millennia in varying concentrations and both should be able to stake their claim. Unfortunately one side refuses a two state solution. They are focused on one thing and one thing only and that focus is incompatible with the modern world.

[mcski]

Both sides have sabotaged the idea of a two state solution ever since it was first proposed.

[Toadman]

With all respect to Montucky and his service this doesn’t mean he is then an authority.

Maybe he is - but serving over there doesn’t automatically make someone’s opinion on history and foreign affairs that of an expert.

Shit some guy (not Montucky) who spent a tour changing Humvee tires in Afghanistan now gets to opine on Israel and Gaza and we have to respect that “expert” opinion?

Jesus fuck give your head a shake. Explains why you think you having a distant uncle in every country in the world makes you a foreign affairs expert.

Well, ironically, once upon a time I hired a Marine who had served in Afghanistan and he actually worked in the motor pool as a mechanic changing tires and doing ride alongs during missions to fix vehicles on the fly when they were hit by enemy fire. I wouldn't say he was an expert on foreign affairs, but definitely and expert in working in a high stress environment and understanding the enemies tactics.

[mcphee]

Bringing it back around the circle after a buncha shit talking. Yup, both sides have been there for a few millennia in varying concentrations and both should be able to stake their claim. Unfortunately one side refuses a two state solution. They are focused on one thing and one thing only and that focus is incompatible with the modern world.

what if I told you that Israel also opposes the 2 state solution and only gives it lip service to appease the US state department?

[MultiVerse]

FWIW, prior to WWI Palestine was a place not an ethnicity. After 1948 many different ways to view the conflict emerged:

The colonizer view is not so much based on history as it is a modern view of a struggle between oppressor and oppressed. It's based on modern identity politics. It's a radical realignment from liberal views in the past when Jews were seen as oppressed throughout history. These supporters of Palestinians want Jews in Israel to return to their "homelands" in Europe. They view terrorism as justifiable violence because they want an end to the Jewish state.

The more traditionalist view is Israel as the standard bearer of democracy against the barbarism of its neighbors. This binary viewpoint is challenged by Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Many supporters of Israel empathize with Palestinians. The country itself was deeply divided over the issue. Many supporters of the Palestinians understood the region is controlled mostly by brutal authoritarian regimes.

The 10/7 Hamas attack caused a lot of people who thought both sides should live in peace side-by-side either in one state or two, to conclude there really needs to be a Jewish state as a baseline. Before 10/7 Democrats supported the Palestinian cause slightly more than Israel, while Republicans mostly supported Israel. After 10/7 a majority of Democrats and Republicans are united against Hamas and the destruction of Israel. Views will shift shift once again depending on how the war plays out.

Tellingly, the Hamas is fighting against colonialism crowd still see Israel only as an oppressor. There are no rallies for freeing the hostages, for freeing Palestinians from Hamas, or for calling on Hamas to surrender.

[dan_pdx]

The colonizer view is not so much based on history as it is a modern view of a struggle between oppressor and oppressed. It's based on modern identity politics. It's a radical realignment from liberal views in the past when Jews were seen as oppressed throughout history. These supporters of Palestinians want Jews in Israel to return to their "homelands" in Europe.

OK, that's what I thought. Seems crazy to me. Especially if you're a white American who wants all the Israelis to go back to Europe and you're not moving back to Europe yourself.

[bennymac]

Well, ironically, once upon a time I hired a Marine who had served in Afghanistan and he actually worked in the motor pool as a mechanic changing tires and doing ride alongs during missions to fix vehicles on the fly when they were hit by enemy fire. I wouldn't say he was an expert on foreign affairs, but definitely and expert in working in a high stress environment and understanding the enemies tactics.

Understanding enemy tactics ≠ foreign affairs or history or religious expert. Someone could be all those things. Montucky could be all those things. But it’s not a given.

Edit: oops I just reread what you posted and see you said the same thing

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

FWIW, prior to WWI Palestine was a place not an ethnicity. After 1948 many different ways to view the conflict emerged:

The colonizer view is not so much based on history as it is a modern view of a struggle between oppressor and oppressed. It's based on modern identity politics. It's a radical realignment from liberal views in the past when Jews were seen as oppressed throughout history. These supporters of Palestinians want Jews in Israel to return to their "homelands" in Europe. They view terrorism as justifiable violence because they want an end to the Jewish state.

That's an interesting take. How do you square that with the fact that many in the Zionist movement prior to '48 knew they would be seen as colonizers by Arab world, and even some in the wider Western world? It was Jabotinsky who said, in talks of the inevitable Arab resistance to a Jewish state, "I don't know of a single example in history where a country was colonised with the courteous consent of the population".

And the realization that they would be seen as colonizers didn't stop Ben-Gurion and his "Jewish right to work the land" justification, which sounds an awful lot like Manifest Destiny to me.

- "We do not recognize the right of Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is undeveloped and still awaits its builders."
- "We came not as immigrants but as settlers, not to ancient Palestine, but to a new land we made ourselves."

I'm not sure how you can claim that the idea of Israelis-as-colonizers is some exclusively modern idea that just sprang up after '48. I'm not saying they should be viewed as colonizers but even the leaders of the Zionist movement understood the logic behind, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck". And they weren't above using the justification of colonizers to further their cause.

[MultiVerse]

It's because the word 'settlers' has taken on a different meaning in modern political discourse. At the time Jews were always seen as settlers who should not be allowed to live where they lived, including Europe. That's what the quotes are about. It's not about colonizing an indigenous population in the sense it's understood today.

The Jewish minority and subsequent immigrants thought the vast territories outside of a small area Jews claimed for themselves was for the Arabs, not all of the Middle East à la manifest destiny. The area Jews were claiming for themselves at the time was tiny by comparison with modern Israel.

[mcski]

Worth mentioning as an aside, a majority Israelis including a majority of Jewish-Israelis are of modern era Middle East descent.

Wiki says that 45% are mizrahi (So not a majority) 30% ashkenazi, 12% Soviet.

[ex-powderbroker]

even using those numbers, 45% mizrahi + 20% arab who don’t want to live under Hamas and who have nowhere to go.

[summit]

Once again, for everyone:

Worth mentioning as an aside, a majority Israelis including a majority of Jewish-Israelis are of modern era Middle East descent.

You may only live where your ancestors came from!

Followed by true adherents should be moving back to wherever their ancestors are from, no colonizing!

I suppose you should look all the way back as long as you can figure:

Maybe every human on the planet can move back to Africa and we can leave the rest of the world to nature so that nobody commits the mortal sin of colonizing?

[MultiVerse]

Wiki says that 45% are mizrahi (So not a majority) 30% ashkenazi, 12% Soviet.

Sephardic Jews also settled in the Middle East in addition to parts of Europe after they were expelled from Spain. Wiki says the two groups make up 50.2% of Israel's population. And Beta or Haymanot Jews in Israel are African descent.

[mcski]

Once again, for everyone:


You may only live where your ancestors came from!

Followed by true adherents should be moving back to wherever their ancestors are from, no colonizing!

I suppose you should look all the way back as long as you can figure:

Maybe every human on the planet can move back to Africa and we can leave the rest of the world to nature so that nobody commits the mortal sin of colonizing?

You’re sarcasm leads me to believe you should be supporting right of return for those displaced by the Nakba

[summit]

You’re sarcasm leads me to believe you should be supporting right of return for those displaced by the Nakba

Should the Mizrahi Jews should move back to Iran, Iraq, Egypt, etc?

Or do they move back to Africa with everyone else on the planet?

[mcski]

I don’t think there are many, if any, that would be interested. The Arabs that lost their property, etc and became war refugees during the Nakba on the other hand do - but that has been a non starter. I cant think of many instances in which war refugees were not allowed to return.

[summit]

I don’t think there are many, if any, that would be interested.

Really? Why is that now?

The Arabs that lost their property, etc and became war refugees during the Nakba on the other hand do - but that has been a non starter.

You mean the few thousand people who were alive and old enough to remember and own property in 1948 should be made Israeli citizens?

Or do you mean several millions of descendants who weren't alive or don't remember 75 years ago should be able to come into Israel and displace the Israelis who are currently living there creating a double refugee problem?

This version of the "The Right of Return" is tantamount to the destruction of the state of Israel and is used as an unreasonable demand by the anti-peace faction of the Palestinians when they are trying to appear reasonable to bleeding heart Westerners.

I cant think of many instances in which war refugees were not allowed to return.

I can't think of many instances where war refugees were forced to remain refugees in their new sanctuary lands after 5 fucking generations when they share the same culture, language, and religion! Might have some words with the Muslim host countries about keeping them in such a state to be used as pawns.

[Rideski]

I'd be interested to hear a fact checking on this. In the comments it's noted that they are probably using a computer voice over signaled by some odd gramtical errors. But other than that

[rod9301]

Jews have not been living in Palestine in large numbers for millennia. They largely split the scene around 70AD due to Roman oppression. At the end of WW1 Jews in Palestine numbered 70-80,000, about 10% of the population, and about equal to the number of Christians there.

And Jews came from Europe in large numbers after ww2, and terrorized the British until they gave the Palestine land to form Israel. So in a way they did colonize.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You mean the few thousand people who were alive and old enough to remember and own property in 1948 should be made Israeli citizens?

Or do you mean several millions of descendants who weren't alive or don't remember 75 years ago should be able to come into Israel and displace the Israelis who are currently living there creating a double refugee problem?

This version of the "The Right of Return" is tantamount to the destruction of the state of Israel and is used as an unreasonable demand by the anti-peace faction of the Palestinians when they are trying to appear reasonable to bleeding heart Westerners.

This is a circular argument. You argue that Jews have a right to that land because of history but argue against Muslim claims to the land because of history. Why do we support any secular state, Jewish, Muslim etc?

This is an argument/issue that’s not winnable.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[rod9301]

Worth mentioning as an aside, a majority Israelis including a majority of Jewish-Israelis are of modern era Middle East descent.

I think the most Israelis are of European descent.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

[summit]

This is a circular argument. ...This is an argument/issue that’s not winnable.

I think we agree on this... pointing out the futility of going back 5 or 225 generations to establish rights, then trying to establish whether the older or more recent right is more right when nobody or almost nobody is left alive from the time of the claim is fraught and fixating there can put people into mindsets of untenable solutions.

Asking Israel to choose national suicide is a ridiculous ask, but that is what Hamas wants (and more).

Asking Palestinians to accept the status quo is also ridiculous but that was the policy of Netanyahu's gov.

It will be necessary to look at the now and the forward if there is to be a sustainable peace. But it will be hard for the Israelis pull back from settlements and hand land over to the Palestinians after what happened in Gaza over the last 18 years. It is hard to make a lasting peace with a group of people that either mostly wants to kill you or tolerates and elevates major groups that want to kill you.

Sadat was killed by Egyptians for making peace.
Rabin was killed by a radical Israeli for making peace.

I felt like it was a turning point when normalization with the Saudis and then more governments was on the horizon. Marginalizing Hamas was going to allow for a de-escalation that would allow more moderate voices to work in genuine favor of Palestineans. And then Netanyahu would have lost his power base.

But Hamas and Iran couldn't tolerate that... (and Russia saw opportunity)

Netanyahu will probably go away after this crisis, but his faction was heavily strengthened by Oct 7. It's all so tragic and depressing. The cycle of violence has to stop for a good 50 years.

[ex-powderbroker]

she seems nice

[MultiVerse]

I think the most Israelis are of European descent.

Israel is an ethnically diverse country made up mostly of people with Middle Eastern roots.

Only about 30% of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi, or the descendants of European Jews. The rest are Mizrahi or Sephardic or Beta descended from Jews in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia; who lived for many generations under Muslim rule then Muslim Ottoman rule. Another 21% of Israel's population are Arab Muslim or Arab Christian descendants of what was the region of Palestine who remained in Israel. 3% are Bedouin-Israelis.

Most modern day Palestinians are descendants of about 700,000 Arabs who were displaced in the 1947 civil war and the 1948 Arab invasion. Somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 Middle Eastern Jews were displaced by Arabs around the same time.