We’re bombing Syria

[Machiavelli]

However there are parallels with Yemen in that it is a civil war with external countries getting involved. This cannot be said about Israel.

I agree, I was just pointing out that @robbieh was just as scathing towards the Saudi’s as well as the Israeli’s in his post. Therefore it wasn’t just aimed at Jews. He wasn’t just knocking Jews.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree, I was just pointing out that @robbieh was just as scathing towards the Saudi’s as well as the Israeli’s in his post. Therefore it wasn’t just aimed at Jews. He wasn’t just knocking Jews.

So, reading between the lines, you think he’s a bit of a Jew hater?

 

[Homar]

I don't dispute any of that, just the reasoning and the hypocritical nature of it.

Why wouldn't you support the Yemeni president removal by democratic means? You are legitimizing the removal of the Yemeni president just because you do not agree with his way or who he was friends with... So its fine then and the Houthi cause is legitimate and despite the threats made the Saudi's should just put up?

In this spirit why have you got a problem with the removal of Assad by military means via his own people? Especially when you consider that Assad responded not with an election but with chemical bombs.

And also rather predictably Israel comes into it, it just gets better.

I would certainly have supported whatever Yemen decided through democratic means, even if that were to keep Hadi in power.

Yes, Saudi Arabia should shut up and stop its genocide. Yemen, and the Shia population in particular, has many reasons to be aggrieved at Saudi Arabia's current and past actions in the country. I have already explained that the Houthis do not nearly have the military means or the will to invade and occupy Saudi Arabia. Their army consists almost entirely of foot soldiers armed with AK-47s. Very few tanks or artillery. One or two rusting Soviet-era scuds with a CEP of over 1km. No body armour. Most don't even possess shoes.

Finally, on the parallels drawn between the wars in Yemen and Syria, I will point out some fundamental differences:

1. Syria is a war fought between the Syrian government (with the support of the Russians, Iranians and some militia) and various terrorist groups, extremist groups, proxy forces and nation states. This cannot just be described as a civil war, as the west so desperately attempts to do. Most or at least a hugely significant number of the terrorists, extremists and rebels are not Syrian. They are Saudi, Turkish, Iraqi, Afghan, Chechen, Sudanese (and other Africans), European, etc. There is no question that there are Syrians amongst these groups, but the vast majority of them are imported hardened extremists. This is in stark contrast to the Houthis, which are all from Yemen, and are not savages.
2. The war in Yemen is not a proxy war. Iranian influence is very limited. Even the Saudis do not have a proxy force fighting in Yemen. The UAE is on the ground in limited numbers, but they are based in the South of the country and their aim seems to be the partition of the state into the old North and South Yemen. As I already pointed out, the Saudis are making no effort to change the situation on the ground. They just bomb indiscriminately across the entire country and often target historical sites, which they view to be incompatible with their Wahhabi ideology. Whist the Syrians are fighting for the future of their state, the Saudis are fighting to kill and maim as many Shia as possible without having well-defined strategic goals.
3. Assad's future should be determined through democratic elections. I have no problem with his removal, so long as it is the will of the Syrian people. Not the Saudi people. Not the Turkish people. Not the American people. Not the British people. This is Russia's public position. It is also now the west's public position, although their actions suggest otherwise. This is a very delicate situation. Syria now contains hundreds of thousands of people with horrendously extreme views. The forcible "overthrow" of Assad would likely result in a sweeping genocide of the Shia and other religious minorities.
4. There exist many sides in the Syrian war, each seeking different and often mutually exclusive outcomes. The Syrian government wants to regain control and security of the whole country. The Kurds want the formation of their own state across the north of the country. The Turks want to prevent the formation of a Kurish state by establishing their own pseudo-state on the same lands, which it intends to populate with the extremist but Turkish-friendly FSA fighters under its control. The Russians want to retain the current Russian-friendly Syrian state institutions and maintain their naval base. The Iranians want much the same as the Russians, whilst ensuring that the country doesn't fall into the hands of the Americans and the Saudis. The Americans want to curb Iran's influence in the country. The various extremist groups also each have their own goals. Some want the formation of a Wahhabi Islamic Caliphate. Others want to religiously cleanse the population. Others are more moderate and just want to live in a state that represents and respects them as citizens. This latter group is a small minority. They generally agree to lay down their arms and make security agreements when the SAA advances into their territory.

So yes, I do have a problem with the forcible removal of Assad, because what follows would make the current situation look like Disney Land.

 

[Homar]

The same question could be asked nearly half of the population of Israel who's grandparents were forced to give up their land and property in even greater numbers than the Palestinians in the middle eastern and north African countries that attacked or supported the attack on Israel during the war of independence. That's without mentioning another huge section of the population of Israel who had no choice but to leave their homes in Eastern Europe due to waves of persecution by Russians then Germans etc. Meanwhile there are still 2 million Arabs of Palestinian origin still living in Israel (twice as many as were living there before 1948) and there are only a handful of Jews left living in Arab lands. I'm not saying the Palestinians who left haven't been treated badly but in the context of the overall situation there are others who were treated a lot worse and made the best of it.
There's been plenty of threads on this subject that always end in acrimony and often get pulled.

The flight of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa is a shameful fact that cannot be ignored or excused.
However, I should point out that the Palestinians were not responsible for that, yet it is them that are punished. I should also point out that the flight of the Jews from the Middle East happened *after* the creation of the State of Israel (though it still doesn't excuse what happened). The British gave the lands of one people to another people when it was not theirs to give. The state of Israel was created on the lands of British Mandate Palestine, but no state of Palestine was created. The British share an enormous responsibility for the suffering stateless Palestinians that occupy the Gaza ghetto and the various refugee camps across the Middle East living in squalor.

 

[SWP's back]

The British gave the lands of one people to another people when it was not theirs to give.

Do you have the same issue with Pakistan, India and Bangladesh?

 

[SWP's back]

The state of Israel was created on the lands of British Mandate Palestine, but no state of Palestine was created.

But most of Jordan was British Manade Palestine as well. Where’s your issue with Jordan?

Also British Mandate Palestine existed as a thing for less than a generation and was arbitrary anyway.

It’s also worth noting that until Israel was attacked by its neighbours, it was just over half its current size and the West Bank was Jordanian and Gaza was Egyptian. There was more than enough ‘Arab’ land when Israel was formed.

 

[Homar]

Do you have the same issue with Pakistan, India and Bangladesh?

It's not quite the same in that India exists as a state. There are no stateless people in that situation.

But yes, I do also have a problem with it. Pakistan and Bangladesh should not exist as far as I am concerned. Their creation, particularly with reference to Pakistan, has caused nothing but problems in the region. India existed before British colonial rule and it should have reverted to its previous borders as much as possible after colonial rule.

 

[Homar]

But most of Jordan was British Manade Palestine as well. Where’s your issue with Jordan?

Also British Mandate Palestine existed as a thing for less than a generation and was arbitrary anyway.

It’s also worth noting that until Israel was attacked by its neighbours, it was just over half its current size and the West Bank was Jordanian and Gaza was Egyptian. There was more than enough ‘Arab’ land when Israel was formed.

I have no issue with Jordan. I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't see why the longevity of British Mandate Palestine matters. What matters in this particular instance is what happened during and after the break-up of British Mandate Palestine. The formation of Israel, even on the 1947 borders, excluded the Palestinians from vast swathes of their homeland. It's not about "how much" land there was for the Arabs. Could you even imagine if Russia were to occupy part of the UK, forcibly remove its inhabitants, and then give that part to Chechens so that they can do away with what they consider a "problem people"? The Jews do have an historical claim to live in the lands now called Israel, but they do not have the right to forcibly expel Palestinians or to expand their borders through warfare.

 

[SWP's back]

It's not quite the same in that India exists as a state. There are no stateless people in that situation.

But yes, I do also have a problem with it. Pakistan and Bangladesh should not exist as far as I am concerned. Their creation, particularly with reference to Pakistan, has caused nothing but problems in the region. India existed before British colonial rule and it should have reverted to its previous borders as much as possible after colonial rule.

Well I know plenty of Pakistani Brits that disagree with you.

 

[SWP's back]

I have no issue with Jordan. I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't see why the longevity of British Mandate Palestine matters. What matters in this particular instance is what happened during and after the break-up of British Mandate Palestine. The formation of Israel, even on the 1947 borders, excluded the Palestinians from vast swathes of their homeland. It's not about "how much" land there was for the Arabs. Could you even imagine if Russia were to occupy part of the UK, forcibly remove its inhabitants, and then give that part to Chechens so that they can do away with what they consider a "problem people"? The Jews do have an historical claim to live in the lands now called Israel, but they do not have the right to forcibly expel Palestinians or to expand their borders through warfare.

Where the fuck do you think Jordan comes from? I’ll tell you. British Mandate Palestine.

Israel expanded its borders through a defensive war and fair fucks to them for doing so. They had every right to do so after fighting for their very right to exist on more than one occasion after being invaded by their Arab neighbours.

More Palestinians live in Israel now than lived on those lands prior to Israel’s formation. So why do you care what it’s called? You’ve just said you’d rather Pakistan didn’t exist and you don’t care about their cultural differences and heritage. You’re a pick and choose kind of guy aren’t you.

At what year would you have preferred all maps to be locked in place? Should France cede Normandy and Britannia to England? Should the U.K. be broken up? Should France be able to buy back parts of the US? Should the U.K. regain control of all of North America or should be give the whole fucking thing back to the Native Americans?

I really don’t get why people such as yourself have such an issue with one map change but rarely do they get upset with every other one that has taken place in the last millennium.

 

[Homar]

Well I know plenty of Pakistani Brits that disagree with you.

I bet they do, but it doesn't make them right.

Muslims lived in India for thousands of years and they continue to live in India to this day. The idea that they need a separate state gives weight to the idea that Muslims must be separated from people of other faiths, which I reject.

 

[SWP's back]

I bet they do, but it doesn't make them right.

Muslims lived in India for thousands of years and they continue to live in India to this day. The idea that they need a separate state gives weight to the idea that Muslims must be separated from people of other faiths, which I reject.

So why do the Palestinians living in Israel need a separate state? You not a fan of irony? Or you are but prefer hypocrisy?

Ps, not Muslims lived in India for THOUSANDS of years. For a start Islam isn’t even THOUSANDS of years old.

 

[Homar]

Where the fuck do you think Jordan comes from? I’ll tell you. British Mandate Palestine.

Yes, but I still don't see your point. Jordan is a state that exists for the people that lived there prior to British Mandate Palestine. Israel is a state for people that arrived there during and after the break-up of British Mandate Palestine. The people that lived on the lands now settled by Israel are stateless.

Israel expanded its borders through a defensive war and fair fucks to them for doing so. They had every right to do so after fighting for their very right to exist on more than one occasion after being invaded by their Arab neighbours.

Apart from the fact that border expansion through war is illegal under international law (which is why the vast majority of states reject Israel's annexation of those territories), the Arabs had every right to fight the Israelis on the basis that they are occupying their lands. That also is enshrined under international. But more importantly, it is morally justifiable in my view and I'd hope in most peoples views.

More Palestinians live in Israel now than lived on those lands prior to Israel’s formation. So why do you care what it’s called? You’ve just said you’d rather Pakistan didn’t exist and you don’t care about their cultural differences and heritage. You’re a pick and choose kind of guy aren’t you.

I do not pick and choose. I'd much prefer to see one "Israel-Palestine" state, with all Palestinians given the right of return and compensation for their losses. The Israelis are ferociously opposed to this. They much prefer the status-quo.

At what year would you have preferred all maps to be locked in place? Should France cede Normandy and Britannia to England? Should the U.K. be broken up? Should France be able to buy back parts of the US? Should the U.K. regain control of all of North America or should be give the whole fucking thing back to the Native Americans?

This is a good point and there does have to be a date. That date should be the date that it was made illegal. You shout about Russia annexing Crimea, yet seemingly suggest a free-for-all where the might is right.

I really don’t get why people such as yourself have such an issue with one map change but rarely do they get upset with every other one that has taken place in the last millennium.

Because all the people that suffered from border changes hundreds or thousands of years ago are dead. Nobody is suffering today because of it. Israel has existed for 70 years. There are people still alive that can look from their houses at the land they once owned. There are people that can see the houses that their parents were forced to flee, now occupied by Jews that emigrated from Europe. These people are stateless. They lost everything. Many tens of thousands of them are living in Syrian and Lebanese refugee camps with nothing to their name.

 

[west didsblue]

The flight of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa is a shameful fact that cannot be ignored or excused.
However, I should point out that the Palestinians were not responsible for that, yet it is them that are punished. I should also point out that the flight of the Jews from the Middle East happened *after* the creation of the State of Israel (though it still doesn't excuse what happened). The British gave the lands of one people to another people when it was not theirs to give. The state of Israel was created on the lands of British Mandate Palestine, but no state of Palestine was created. The British share an enormous responsibility for the suffering stateless Palestinians that occupy the Gaza ghetto and the various refugee camps across the Middle East living in squalor.

If the Arab leaders had accepted the UN partition plan in 1947, there would be a Palestinian state in existance and Israel would be much smaller. They didn't, they lost the subsequent war started by them and the one after and we are where we are. It's time the descendants of the original refugees outside the Palestinian territories were given proper citizenship of Jordan, Lebanon and wherever else they have ended up and for those in the Palestinian territories to set up their own state on the West Bank and Gaza. As far as the latter point is concerned both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership share responsibility for this not happening.

 

[Homar]

So why do the Palestinians living in Israel need a separate state? You not a fan of irony? Or you are but prefer hypocrisy?

I have already said that I prefer a single state and not separate states. No irony. No hypocrisy.

Ps, not Muslims lived in India for THOUSANDS of years. For a start Islam isn’t even THOUSANDS of years old.

Islam is well over a thousand years old. And whether it is one or two or seven thousand years doesn't matter. The point is that they coexisted previously. And for the precise definition of thousands, refer to the following: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/thousand

 

[Homar]

If the Arab leaders had accepted the UN partition plan in 1947, there would be a Palestinian state in existance and Israel would be much smaller. They didn't, they lost the subsequent war started by them and the one after and we are where we are. It's time the descendants of the original refugees outside the Palestinian territories were given proper citizenship of Jordan, Lebanon and wherever else they have ended up and for those in the Palestinian territories to set up their own state on the West Bank and Gaza. As far as the latter point is concerned both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership share responsibility for this not happening.

So no right of return? They're somebody else's problem...
Ignore the fact that they were forcibly displaced. That is your solution.

 

[SWP's back]

Yes, but I still don't see your point. Jordan is a state that exists for the people that lived there prior to British Mandate Palestine. Israel is a state for people that arrived there during and after the break-up of British Mandate Palestine. The people that lived on the lands now settled by Israel are stateless.

Jordan was part of British Mandate Palestine when it was formed. It takes up for more of British Mandate Palestine than Israel did.

Apart from the fact that border expansion through war is illegal under international law

Fucking brilliant. You e spent the last week saying international law means fuck all and now you reference it. Israel were attack and formed buffer zones. Good luck to them. They should never have given the Sinai back in my opinion. At least it would be a safe place to visit right now.

Arabs had every right to fight the Israelis on the basis that they are occupying their lands.

Do they fuck as like. That’s just bullshit. They had no right to that land any more than the Spanish or Italians have a right to North Africa through force now.

That also is enshrined under international

Again the hypocrisy....

But more importantly, it is morally justifiable in my view and I'd hope in most peoples views.

Only the cunts and people that only hate it when the Jews fight for their right to survive.

This is a good point and there does have to be a date. That date should be the date that it was made illegal.

Again the hypocrisy. You couldn’t give a fig about international law regarding Syria and chemical weapon use so why is it so important to you now?

Israel has existed for 70 years.

So 50 years longer than Palestine did then?

 

[west didsblue]

So no right of return? They're somebody else's problem...
Ignore the fact that they were forcibly displaced. That is your solution.

They were forcibly displaced or fled as a result of a war started by people on their behalf. The leaders of those countries have as much of an obligation to resolve the situation as anyone. They are the ones that are responsible for their predicament.

 

[SWP's back]

Islam is well over a thousand years old. And whether it is one or two or seven thousand years doesn't matter. The point is that they coexisted previously. And for the precise definition of thousands, refer to the following: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/thousand

May I refer you to this:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/thousands

plural noun
1.
a very large but unspecifiednumber, amount, or quantity
Thousands of refugees are packed into over-crowded towns and villages.
Hundreds have been killed in the fighting and thousands made homeless.
I must have driven past that place thousands of times.
2.
the numbers 2000–9999

You know full well saying ‘thousands’ of years is incorrect and hyperbolic. Especially given the fact that the majority of people in the area were converted to Islam inside the last thousand years:

“Islam in Pakistan:

Following the rule of various Islamic empires, including the Ghaznavid Empire, the Ghorid kingdom, and the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals controlled the region from 1526 until 1739. Many Sufi missionaries from Middle Eastand Central Asia migrated and settled in South Asia and significant numbers of local populations were converted to Islam. Sufism in Pakistan plays an important role in the country.“

 

[Homar]

Jordan was part of British Mandate Palestine when it was formed. It takes up for more of British Mandate Palestine than Israel did.



Fucking brilliant. You e spent the last week saying international law means fuck all and now you reference it. Israel were attack and formed buffer zones. Good luck to them. They should never have given the Sinai back in my opinion. At least it would be a safe place to visit right now.



Do they fuck as like. That’s just bullshit. They had no right to that land any more than the Spanish or Italians have a right to North Africa through force now.



Again the hypocrisy....



Only the cunts and people that only hate it when the Jews fight for their right to survive.



Again the hypocrisy. You couldn’t give a fig about international law regarding Syria and chemical weapon use so why is it so important to you now?



So 50 years longer than Palestine did then?

I don't even know where to start in response to this. It's all rubbish.

I said that at some point border expansion through warfare must stop. If you disagree with this then state so clearly. Your previous comments with regards to Crimea suggest that you agreed with this.

The comparison of the Israel-Palestine conflict to colonial occupation of North Africa is utterly absurd. Western countries occupied North Africa. North Africa did not occupy North Africa. They had no right to be there and after bloody wars for independence they left. The Palestinians have every right to the lands that they, their parents and their grand parents owned and lived on. The French have no right to the land that they stole from the inhabitants of North Africa.

The Palestinians lived on those lands for thousands of years. As previously stated, and as you have again ignored, many of them are descend from the original Jewish inhabitants.