Middle East Conflict

[metalblue]

As Ric pointed out (although he never does anything about it), there's a group of people who only see one side of the story. Many of those curse the death of Muslims but justify or even applaud the deaths of Jews.

Imagine if it was the other way round?

Of course but I don’t think it’s a hatred of Jewish people (always will be the odd nut job) but more people see a huge imbalance of power, very few of the missiles regular sent do any damage so there isn’t the same sympathy for Israel there would be if they got consistently through - for Israelis of course it’s a constant pressure point and it was inevitable that something would trigger a big response at some point. Israel has been attacked in varying degrees constantly for 80 odd years or at least been wary of foes who want their destruction. It’s an awful way to exist.

That said, for me the only thing anyone can ever change, is themselves. So what do you think Israel can do differently? Not the big actions like two state or whatever but small actions - specifically on the unprofessionalism of the IDF and the perceived inequalities the civilian population of Gaza and the West Bank endure - both of these actions do more to foster and breed hatred IMHO.

 

[robbieh]

I don’t know which land, or when, or even why. What I know is that they didn’t start this round of conflict, but they intend to end it on their terms, if and when they see fit.

Before the October 7th massacre, in 2023, 300 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank alone. This is an ongoing process. October 7th did not just happen in a vacuum.

 

[PPT]

Plenty of Jews lost legally acquired land in 1948.

Not to mention money, gold and art treasures that are still in the vaults of the Swiss banks.

 

[Gremlin]

How many civilians have been killed on the Israeli side? Even if you include 7/10, in the last year the ratio of Israeli civilian deaths to civilian deaths caused by Israel elsewhere must be something like 100000:1. How on earth could this be called reasonable self-defence?

815 Israeli civilians were killed on 7/10 (according to Wikipedia). Israel has not killed 81.5 million civilians since then. There is a legitimate argument about proportionality but it doesn't help that argument to use figures that are clearly wrong.

 

[robbieh]

It’s guerrilla warfare, not of their choosing, against cowards who use human shields, because they don’t give a fuck about the(ir) general population.

I don't know if you were brought up in the US or not but if you were you've probably been exposed to more Israeli propaganda than we have on this side of the pond.

The above being a prime example.

 

[grunge]

Plenty of Jews lost legally acquired land in 1948.

Does that mean I can steel someone else car if mine is stolen?

 

[The blue phantom]

I don't know if you were brought up in the US or not but if you were you've probably been exposed to more Israeli propaganda than we have on this side of the pond.

The above being a prime example.

92% of Congress are funded by Aipac. Money shovelled into their pockets. No fuckin wonder the Murderer Netanyahu got a standing ovation in Congress.

 

[Vic]

No

Did you see the rubble in Europe after WWII?
Were my parents running into the air raid shelters for exercise?

War is horrific, which is why we do our utmost not to let/make it happen, but when it does there’s nothing sanitary, organized or convenient about it. Bad guys hide where they hope they will have an advantage, not in designated hiding spots.

No-one pretended carpet bombing was precision targeting. That's why many opposed it even after the Blitz.

 

[Bigga]

Perfectly summed up I think. Israel would 100% prefer to meet Hamas and Hezbollah on a battlefield where they could then just kill 'legitimate' targets. Hamas and Hezbollah much prefer the situation where they use their own people as human shields. The problem then becomes 'How can Israel defend itself and protect it's own innocents effectively without killing other innocents?"

Utter crap.

How many times did the IDF claim knowledge of knowing where the Hamas fighters were (in tunnels), but decided to blow up the area where the *IDF cunts claimed there were tunnels, murdering all and sundry (hostages as well)?

Make your argument about ground fight forces, not cowards bombing from distance.

*Made an edit for my own accountability cos I'm not against Israeli citizens that want a peaceful solution, so I can't use 'Israeli' to describe these Inhuman cunts.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don't know if you were brought up in the US or not but if you were you've probably been exposed to more Israeli propaganda than we have on this side of the pond.

The above being a prime example.

And you've not been exposed to anti-Israel/Islamic fundamentalist propaganda?

 

[bugsyblue]

That would be true if Hamas and Hezbollah wanted peace. They don't- their goal is the complete and utter destruction of Israel and it's Jewish population.

They are only in power, particularly hamas, because Isreal has systematically targeted Palestinians, taken land, cut them off from resources and increasingly made their life a living hell.

Terror breeds terror.

If Isreal were kinder to their neighbours and actually recognised them as a state then I doubt Hamas would have ever come to power. The majority of Palestinians want peace and the majority of Israelis want peace but there’s a faction either side that have become more and more extreme and they wield the power whilst each side is backed up by major nations (Iran / US) who have equally fuelled the fire. Iran in particular.

 

[robbieh]

And you've not been exposed to anti-Israel/Islamic fundamentalist propaganda?

Not that I'm aware of. Most of the mainstream media in the UK is quite Islamophobic.
I've been following this sad state of events since I was a kid and I suppose the way I think is conditioned by the history of European colonialism, whether it be British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and more latterly the US.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

They are only in power, particularly hamas, because Isreal has systematically targeted Palestinians, taken land, cut them off from resources and increasingly made their life a living hell.

Terror breeds terror.

If Isreal were kinder to their neighbours and actually recognised them as a state then I doubt Hamas would have ever come to power. The majority of Palestinians want peace and the majority of Israelis want peace but there’s a faction either side that have become more and more extreme and they wield the power whilst each side is backed up by major nations (Iran / US) who have equally fuelled the fire. Iran in particular.

I'd say it was more a case that the PLO/Palestinian Authority were totally corrupt and remote from the ordinary Palestinians. Hamas worked as a community organisation using Islamic institutions to gain the support of the ordinary Gazan population.

The thing is they could only do that under Israeli occupation, as the Egyptians (and other more moderate Arab countries like the UAE) see the Muslim Brotherhood and their supposed offshoots like Hamas) as mortal enemies and have long suppressed them, often brutally. It's also highly likely that some in Israel saw Hamas as a useful counterweight to Fatah. In hindsight that was a very foolish view.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Not that I'm aware of. Most of the mainstream media in the UK is quite Islamophobic.
I've been following this sad state of events since I was a kid and I suppose the way I think is conditioned by the history of European colonialism, whether it be British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and more latterly the US.

So is it OK for the Russians to indiscriminately kill Ukrainians? Because that's not a colonial issue, or based on race/religion. Are you as vocal about the treatment of the Muslim Uyghur people as you are about the Muslim Palestinians? Or the treatment of Muslims in India?

People talk about colonialism as a black-and-white issue, where the colonisers were wholly bad and the colonised wholly oppressed. I agree it caused many problems and probably the worst were the Belgians in places like the Congo. But it also had benefits, bringing countries like India into the modern age far quicker than if they'd been left to their own devices.

The independence that many previously colonial countries demanded, and many viciously fought for, left a mess. Incompetence, corruption, tribal rivalries and other issues have left some of these countries in a far worse state than they were when they were colonies. The DRC has been plundered at least as badly since its independence as it was before. How many African countries would you say were an unqualified success since they achieved independence?

The cynical carving up of the old Ottoman empire post-WW1 created plenty of problems of its own. Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon weren't independent sovereign states prior to that, yet no one questions their right to exist.

 

[robbieh]

So is it OK for the Russians to indiscriminately kill Ukrainians? Because that's not a colonial issue, or based on race/religion. Are you as vocal about the treatment of the Muslim Uyghur people as you are about the Muslim Palestinians? Or the treatment of Muslims in India?

People talk about colonialism as a black-and-white issue, where the colonisers were wholly bad and the colonised wholly oppressed. I agree it caused many problems and probably the worst were the Belgians in places like the Congo. But it also had benefits, bringing countries like India into the modern age far quicker than if they'd been left to their own devices.

The independence that many previously colonial countries demanded, and many viciously fought for, left a mess. Incompetence, corruption, tribal rivalries and other issues have left some of these countries in a far worse state than they were when they were colonies. The DRC has been plundered at least as badly since its independence as it was before. How many African countries would you say were an unqualified success since they achieved independence?

The cynical carving up of the old Ottoman empire post-WW1 created plenty of problems of its own. Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon weren't independent sovereign states prior to that, yet no one questions their right to exist.

Yes the Belgians were bad but historians suggest that under British rule from 1880 to 1920 , over 150 million Indians died as result of British policies.

As far as me being selective in who I feel sorry for, I'd say that one can't get worked up about everything. In addition the problems in the middle east were in some part caused by Britain unlike the issues you mention elsewhere in the world. And my father was born in Haifa.

 

[Ric]

I think it would be better for the thread as a whole if people refrained from posting propaganda videos on here in future.

Just a reminder for those who may have missed this at the time.

 

[inbetween]

815 Israeli civilians were killed on 7/10 (according to Wikipedia). Israel has not killed 81.5 million civilians since then. There is a legitimate argument about proportionality but it doesn't help that argument to use figures that are clearly wrong.

Sorry I wasn't trying to be accurate, it's probably 100:1, maybe 50:1, either way it's heavily weighed to one side.

This is all framed as a war on terrorism but to act against terror you shouldn't commit terror in return.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Yes the Belgians were bad but historians suggest that under British rule from 1880 to 1920 , over 150 million Indians died as result of British policies.

As far as me being selective in who I feel sorry for, I'd say that one can't get worked up about everything. In addition the problems in the middle east were in some part caused by Britain unlike the issues you mention elsewhere in the world. And my father was born in Haifa.

It's an old chestnut that has been used many times before. Often by ambassadors of despotic regimes appearing on BBC News programme Hardtalk.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Yes the Belgians were bad but historians suggest that under British rule from 1880 to 1920 , over 150 million Indians died as result of British policies.

As far as me being selective in who I feel sorry for, I'd say that one can't get worked up about everything. In addition the problems in the middle east were in some part caused by Britain unlike the issues you mention elsewhere in the world. And my father was born in Haifa.

Bit of a misnomer to just throw in British Polices saw off 150 million Indians, when British rule began the population was approx 180 million by 1920 it was 380 million, during the times you refer to there were some monumental monsoon failures so unless we were to blame for the weather it might be said British policies may well have mitigated the famines as the population increased by some 200 million.

 

[Vic]

Bit of a misnomer to just throw in British Polices saw off 150 million Indians, when British rule began the population was approx 180 million by 1920 it was 380 million, during the times you refer to there were some monumental monsoon failures so unless we were to blame for the weather it might be said British policies may well have mitigated the famines as the population increased by some 200 million.

On the mortality crises in India under British rule: A response to Tirthankar Roy — Jason Hickel

In a recent article published in World Development , we drew on newly available data to calculate that India suffered 50-165 million excess deaths during the mortality crisis of 1881-1920 (an average of 1.3 to 4.1 million excess deaths per year over the period, depending on our assumptions about

www.jasonhickel.org