The Invasion of Palestine

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu May 05, 2022 12:20 pm

After a two-decade legal battle, Israel’s high court has ruled that about 1,000 Palestinians can be evicted from an area of the West Bank and the land repurposed for Israeli military use, in one of the single biggest expulsion decisions since the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories began in 1967.

About 3,000 hectares of Masafer Yatta, a rural area of the south Hebron hills under full Israeli control and home to several small Palestinian villages, was designated as a “firing zone” by the Israeli state in the 1980s, to be used for military exercises, in which the presence of civilians is prohibited.

According to the Geneva conventions pertaining to humanitarian treatment in war, it is illegal to expropriate occupied land for purposes that do not benefit the people living there, or to forcibly transfer the local population.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -bank-area
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

WFJ
Snowbonk
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by WFJ » Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm

Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm

WFJ wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm
Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu May 05, 2022 2:01 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm
Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?
Good to see you agree they should leave the West Bank, though. You do occasionally see people trying to justify the illegal settlements and associated abuses. Obviously Jordan's annexations and ethnic cleansings are just as bad as Israel's.

Jerusalem will clearly be the trickiest bit of negotiations, but ending the rest of the annexation would engender a lot of goodwill.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Thu May 05, 2022 2:13 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:01 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm
Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?
Good to see you agree they should leave the West Bank, though. You do occasionally see people trying to justify the illegal settlements and associated abuses. Obviously Jordan's annexations and ethnic cleansings are just as bad as Israel's.
No, they were rather worse. Under Jordan, Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, banned from even visiting the Temple Mount and Western Wall, laws put in place with the death penalty for selling land to a Jew*, etc.

Whereas under Israel, there are discriminatory laws allowing some people to pray but not others on the Temple Mount that...checks notes...favour Muslims and restrict Jews.

And I generally think Israel should withdraw from Judea and Samaria, aside from a few potential boundary adjustments that would leave both sides better off.
Jerusalem will clearly be the trickiest bit of negotiations, but ending the rest of the annexation would engender a lot of goodwill.
Palestinian - and more broadly Arab - attempts to destroy Israel predate any Israeli presence in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, indeed attempts to destroy the Yishuv predate Israel and were one of the reasons it was so important that Israel was founded. Israel withdrawing fully from the West Bank won't change that, just as Israel fully withdrawing from Gaza did not change that - not least because the Palestinian governments are not remotely interested in peace or long term negotiations at all.

*Which remain in force.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu May 05, 2022 3:00 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:13 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:01 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm


Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?
Good to see you agree they should leave the West Bank, though. You do occasionally see people trying to justify the illegal settlements and associated abuses. Obviously Jordan's annexations and ethnic cleansings are just as bad as Israel's.
No, they were rather worse. Under Jordan, Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, banned from even visiting the Temple Mount and Western Wall, laws put in place with the death penalty for selling land to a Jew*, etc.
Ah yes, and Israel left all the Arab residents of the bits they occupied living happily ever after.
wiki wrote:In contradiction to the Partition Plan, which envisioned a city separated from the Arab state and the Jewish state, Israel took control of the area which later would become West Jerusalem, along with major parts of the Arab territory allotted to the future Arab State; Jordan took control of East Jerusalem, along with the West Bank. The war led to displacement of Arab and Jewish populations in the city. The 1,500 residents of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were expelled and a few hundred taken prisoner when the Arab Legion captured the quarter on 28 May.[219][220] Arab residents of Katamon, Talbiya, and the German Colony were driven from their homes. By the time of the armistice that ended active fighting, Israel had control of 12 of Jerusalem's 15 Arab residential quarters. An estimated minimum of 30,000 people had become refugees.[221][222]
I don't think a blow-by-blow replay of all sides' atrocities is that useful. We both know that both Arabs and Israelis have frequently been the aggressors, with severe consequences for people today. We both know that the contemporary consequences for Palestinians are far worse. You're not convincing anybody with these one-sided cherry-picks from history.

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:13 pm
Jerusalem will clearly be the trickiest bit of negotiations, but ending the rest of the annexation would engender a lot of goodwill.
Palestinian - and more broadly Arab - attempts to destroy Israel predate any Israeli presence in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, indeed attempts to destroy the Yishuv predate Israel and were one of the reasons it was so important that Israel was founded. Israel withdrawing fully from the West Bank won't change that, just as Israel fully withdrawing from Gaza did not change that - not least because the Palestinian governments are not remotely interested in peace or long term negotiations at all.

*Which remain in force.
(fully withdrawing from gaza but still blockading it, bombing hospitals and journalists, I wonder why that's not changed public sentiment much lmao)

Palestine's been pretty clear, in the UN (where they are actively calling for negotiations, btw) and elsewhere, that Israel needs to stop expanding their illegal settlements first, which is entirely reasonable - why negotiate with a party that constantly shits all over international law? The international community is united against Israel on the issue of settlements, just as persuasively as they're against Russia. Ukraine would probably give up negotiating with Russia in 50 years too, and maybe start electing Azov types to government.

And you also conveniently omit that Israel's government is also "not remotely interested in peace or long term negotiations at all" - more one-sided cherry-picking from the forum's most notorious shill for an evil regime.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has made it clear that he has no interest in reviving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In a recent interview, he affirmed his longstanding position that he “opposes a Palestinian state and will not allow talks on the line of a Palestinian state.” Echoing Bennett, Israel’s more moderate Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid — set to take over in August 2023 — says he, too, will not seek peace talks once he takes office, despite his stated support for a two-state solution.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/ ... -messaging

I don't think the West should start sending arms to Palestine for fairly obvious reasons. But continuing normal relations while shutting Russia out of the international community just reinforces the message that the West plays favourites, tolerating shittiness from those it finds useful, and finding excuses for hostilities against those it doesn't like.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Thu May 05, 2022 3:43 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm
Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?
...and clearly we don't accept the legitimacy of
- the ethnic cleansing of the mainly German population of Konigsberg, now the entirely Russian city of Kaliningrad,
- the ethnic cleansing of 99% Polish city of Wilno, now Vilnius the mainly Lithuanian capital of Lithuania, nor
- the ethnic cleansing of the largely Finnish/Swedish city of Viipuri (until 1710 a Swedish city), now the entirely Russian city of Vyborg.
These all occurred around the end of WW2, so only a little before the 1947-49 conflict, and are but a small selection from many that could be mentioned. And elsewhere we were recently discussing the ethnic cleansing of Tatars (one R) from Crimea, and the likely impossibility of reversing that.

The overall effect of the various actions of the parties in the 1947-49 conflict was to leave the Palestinians a lot worse off. They were ethnically cleansed from many places and had large parts of their land grabbed, even if they were not entirely ethnically cleansed from the territory. We can hardly expect them to lie down and accept that situation without fighting back. In the course of that fighting, East Jerusalem became an unlivable conflict zone. In practice Jordan controlled it militarily when the conflict came to end. Jordan and Israel then came to an armistice agreement, which in effect accepted as de facto the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. We can hardly imagine many Jews wanting to return to the sites of their destroyed East Jerusalem homes at that point. And since Israel had no intention of making reciprocal arrangements for Palestinians to return, it was hardly something they could even dare request. So, in a sense, that armistice agreement did legitimise the situation as it was at that point in East Jerusalem. And had that situation persisted, instead of being overturned by the 1967 conflict, I think we would today be accepting that East Jerusalem was a de facto Jordanian/Palestinian city, just as today we realise that there is no going back for Kaliningrad, Vilnius, Vyborg, Istanbul, etc.

It does seem unlikely that Israel will be giving anything up it has taken de facto control of, and which it sees as part of historic Israel. It is the thesis, for example, of Avi Shlaim, one of the so-called New Historians of Israel, that it has been Israel's perpetual deliberate strategy to provoke the other side into situations where Israel can get away with a harsh reaction to extend control. Even if that wasn't deliberate policy, contrary to Shlaim's assertion, it is certainly the practical reality that an intermittently frozen conflict has repeatedly gone one way only for 75 years. It is easy to understand why there is a substantial party in Israel who has no intention of making more than nugatory offers to bring that frozen conflict to an end, when they would tend to think they are doing so well out of maintaining it.

With hindsight, the Palestinian side would have done well to accept the UN partition plan. And then they would repeatedly have done well to accept a peace deal on the basis of the facts on the ground as they were at various times. Because the facts on the ground have only got worse for them with every development and prolongation of the conflict. Though Shlaim's thesis is that if ever the Palestinians had had the wisdom see that, what was seemingly on offer would have become unavailable. In his view, Israel has only ever offered what it knew to be unacceptable to them, because they expected to do better by keeping what they had and hoping to grab more later. Thus, for example, Israel accepted the UN Partition Plan only because it was sure the Palestinians wouldn't, in Shlaim's view.

When I have been, for example, in Jordan travelling by bicycle and invited into the houses of incredibly hospitable people for cups of tea, I have always apologised for the terrible actions of British governments of the past which allowed this appalling situation to arise. Apologies don't do very much, I know.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Thu May 05, 2022 4:03 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 3:00 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:13 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:01 pm


Good to see you agree they should leave the West Bank, though. You do occasionally see people trying to justify the illegal settlements and associated abuses. Obviously Jordan's annexations and ethnic cleansings are just as bad as Israel's.
No, they were rather worse. Under Jordan, Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, banned from even visiting the Temple Mount and Western Wall, laws put in place with the death penalty for selling land to a Jew*, etc.
Ah yes, and Israel left all the Arab residents of the bits they occupied living happily ever after.
There's best part of a couple of million Arab citizens in Israel, there's Arabs in every walk of life, including in the Supreme Court and the Knesset - where Ra'am effectively hold the balance of power and were essential to the removal of Netanyahu.

When Jordan invaded and occupied parts of the Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan river, they expelled all Jews from those areas, destroyed almost all synagogues and desecrated Jewish cemetaries, including using headstones to line latrines.
wiki wrote:In contradiction to the Partition Plan, which envisioned a city separated from the Arab state and the Jewish state, Israel took control of the area which later would become West Jerusalem, along with major parts of the Arab territory allotted to the future Arab State; Jordan took control of East Jerusalem, along with the West Bank. The war led to displacement of Arab and Jewish populations in the city. The 1,500 residents of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were expelled and a few hundred taken prisoner when the Arab Legion captured the quarter on 28 May.[219][220] Arab residents of Katamon, Talbiya, and the German Colony were driven from their homes. By the time of the armistice that ended active fighting, Israel had control of 12 of Jerusalem's 15 Arab residential quarters. An estimated minimum of 30,000 people had become refugees.[221][222]
I don't think a blow-by-blow replay of all sides' atrocities is that useful. We both know that both Arabs and Israelis have frequently been the aggressors, with severe consequences for people today. We both know that the contemporary consequences for Palestinians are far worse. You're not convincing anybody with these one-sided cherry-picks from history.
I didn't expect to convince you - you can only convince people willing to look at the evidence and learn.
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:13 pm
Jerusalem will clearly be the trickiest bit of negotiations, but ending the rest of the annexation would engender a lot of goodwill.
Palestinian - and more broadly Arab - attempts to destroy Israel predate any Israeli presence in Gaza or Judea and Samaria, indeed attempts to destroy the Yishuv predate Israel and were one of the reasons it was so important that Israel was founded. Israel withdrawing fully from the West Bank won't change that, just as Israel fully withdrawing from Gaza did not change that - not least because the Palestinian governments are not remotely interested in peace or long term negotiations at all.
(fully withdrawing from gaza but still blockading it, bombing hospitals and journalists, I wonder why that's not changed public sentiment much lmao)[/quote]

How terrible to impose an arms embargo on territory ruled by a f.cking terrorist group (yes, the embargo does post-date Hamas's takeover) and return fire against those who shoot rockets at civilians and their rocket-launching and manufacturing facilities.
Palestine's been pretty clear, in the UN (where they are actively calling for negotiations, btw) and elsewhere, that Israel needs to stop expanding their illegal settlements first, which is entirely reasonable - why negotiate with a party that constantly shits all over international law?
And yet you expect Israel to negotiate with a government lead by a holocaust denier (Fatah) and a government who wrote into their charter the need to kill all jews worldwide (Hamas), and who consider subsidising murderers to be a political and budgetary priority.

And you know what, I expect them to negotiate, too. Because you have to be willing to talk to people to end conflicts, but the Palestinian leadership has never shown much interest in ending the conflict.

Previously, the PA demanded, as a precondition to talks, the release of a hundred murderers, which Israel granted, against substantial domestic protest. Then they walked out again.
And you also conveniently omit that Israel's government is also "not remotely interested in peace or long term negotiations at all" - more one-sided cherry-picking from the forum's most notorious shill for an evil regime.
If you want to talk about evil regimes, I have some very bad news for you about Palestinian governments, and indeed every other government in the area.

I omitted it because it wasn't the slightest bit relevant to my point - which was that if Israel were to withdraw from Judea and Samaria, it would not fix the peace process, as Arab/Palestinian opposition to Israel's existence - and earlier opposition to the existence of the Yishuv - predates the Egyptian/Syrian/Jordanian/Iraqi preparations for war and Israel's strike against them that lead to Israel even being in the West Bank and Gaza to begin with.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Thu May 05, 2022 4:43 pm

IvanV wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 3:43 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:54 pm
WFJ wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 1:35 pm
Current events in Ukraine highlight how shameful the West's hypocrisy towards Israel's actions are. Maybe we'll see similar sanctions until Israel leaves the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Why the hell would they leave East Jerusalem? Are we going back to the idea of Jerusalem as an international city, or do you believe that the annexation+ethnic cleansing of a majority Jewish city by Jordan were legitimate?
...and clearly we don't accept the legitimacy of
- the ethnic cleansing of the mainly German population of Konigsberg, now the entirely Russian city of Kaliningrad,
- the ethnic cleansing of 99% Polish city of Wilno, now Vilnius the mainly Lithuanian capital of Lithuania, nor
- the ethnic cleansing of the largely Finnish/Swedish city of Viipuri (until 1710 a Swedish city), now the entirely Russian city of Vyborg.
These all occurred around the end of WW2, so only a little before the 1947-49 conflict, and are but a small selection from many that could be mentioned. And elsewhere we were recently discussing the ethnic cleansing of Tatars (one R) from Crimea, and the likely impossibility of reversing that.

The overall effect of the various actions of the parties in the 1947-49 conflict was to leave the Palestinians a lot worse off. They were ethnically cleansed from many places and had large parts of their land grabbed, even if they were not entirely ethnically cleansed from the territory. We can hardly expect them to lie down and accept that situation without fighting back. In the course of that fighting, East Jerusalem became an unlivable conflict zone. In practice Jordan controlled it militarily when the conflict came to end. Jordan and Israel then came to an armistice agreement, which in effect accepted as de facto the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. We can hardly imagine many Jews wanting to return to the sites of their destroyed East Jerusalem homes at that point. And since Israel had no intention of making reciprocal arrangements for Palestinians to return, it was hardly something they could even dare request. So, in a sense, that armistice agreement did legitimise the situation as it was at that point in East Jerusalem. And had that situation persisted, instead of being overturned by the 1967 conflict, I think we would today be accepting that East Jerusalem was a de facto Jordanian/Palestinian city, just as today we realise that there is no going back for Kaliningrad, Vilnius, Vyborg, Istanbul, etc.
In a counterfactual scenario where Jordan either didn't sign on for the attempt to destroy Israel in 67, or didn't subsequently lose, perhaps yes, but as it is they held Jerusalem for nineteen years, which ended fifty five years ago, and came after the better part of a century of the city having a Jewish majority.

Assuming that Jerusalem must belong to the Palestinians because of the Jordanian annexation is a good example of the "owner by default" fallacy that assumes that all of former territories of the Mandate of Palestine* belonged to the Arab Palestinians and that they were thus taken from the Arab Palestinians if they ended up as part of Israel - sometimes people exempt privately owned Jewish property from this assumption, but even then it is intensely problematic as it still excludes Jews from a claim on publically owned lands in areas they lived and made up the majority.
It does seem unlikely that Israel will be giving anything up it has taken de facto control of, and which it sees as part of historic Israel. It is the thesis, for example, of Avi Shlaim, one of the so-called New Historians of Israel, that it has been Israel's perpetual deliberate strategy to provoke the other side into situations where Israel can get away with a harsh reaction to extend control. Even if that wasn't deliberate policy, contrary to Shlaim's assertion, it is certainly the practical reality that an intermittently frozen conflict has repeatedly gone one way only for 75 years. It is easy to understand why there is a substantial party in Israel who has no intention of making more than nugatory offers to bring that frozen conflict to an end, when they would tend to think they are doing so well out of maintaining it.

With hindsight, the Palestinian side would have done well to accept the UN partition plan. And then they would repeatedly have done well to accept a peace deal on the basis of the facts on the ground as they were at various times. Because the facts on the ground have only got worse for them with every development and prolongation of the conflict. Though Shlaim's thesis is that if ever the Palestinians had had the wisdom see that, what was seemingly on offer would have become unavailable. In his view, Israel has only ever offered what it knew to be unacceptable to them, because they expected to do better by keeping what they had and hoping to grab more later. Thus, for example, Israel accepted the UN Partition Plan only because it was sure the Palestinians wouldn't, in Shlaim's view.
It's probably best to ignore historians that keen on revisionism. Israel would not have been looking for a conflict in 48 because they were outnumbered and outgunned with little opportunity to fix that. The odds were heavily stacked against them, and there was a very real risk they could have been defeated - and with the Arab Higher Comittee run by Nazi allies who had already organised one massacre of Jews*, the situation for the Jews of Israel would have been very very dangerous.

And yes, the Arabs of the Mandate would have been much better off if they'd accepted the partition plan. Much better off if they'd made peace in 48, rather than being invaded and annexed/occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Better if they'd negotiated in 67 instead of the Three Nos.
When I have been, for example, in Jordan travelling by bicycle and invited into the houses of incredibly hospitable people for cups of tea, I have always apologised for the terrible actions of British governments of the past which allowed this appalling situation to arise. Apologies don't do very much, I know.
The British Empire certainly f.cked a lot up, but they didn't particularly favour Jews in the Mandate - they restricted Jewish immigration and killed protestors against that policy, even after the holocaust.

*Excluding those east of the Jordan, which became the Emirate of Transjordan in 1921, later the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
**The Farhud

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Fri May 06, 2022 9:28 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:43 pm
Assuming that Jerusalem must belong to the Palestinians because of the Jordanian annexation is a good example of the "owner by default" fallacy that assumes that all of former territories of the Mandate of Palestine* belonged to the Arab Palestinians and that they were thus taken from the Arab Palestinians if they ended up as part of Israel - sometimes people exempt privately owned Jewish property from this assumption, but even then it is intensely problematic as it still excludes Jews from a claim on publically owned lands in areas they lived and made up the majority.
But ownership by default is what happens after long enough. Which is why London is an English city, the Anglo-Saxons having kicked out what we now call the "Welsh" who lived there until 1500 years ago. Which is why Istanbul is Turkish having partly half-kicked the Greeks out 500 years ago and finishiing the job off 100 years ago, sadly occasioned by a Greek attack on Turkey. So ownership by default, fallacy or not, is what actually happens.

All I am saying is that if the 1967 conflict had been avoided, then East Jerusalem would have been a de facto Palestinian settlement, with no going back save for an utterly illegitimate attempt to conquer and ethically cleanse it. The Palestinians ended up where the Palestinians ended up after being ethnically cleansed from other places, and attempts to move them on is still ethnic cleansing, regardless of whether someone different lived there 75 years ago.

Which is why ill-intentioned nations who can get away with it do carry out ethnic cleansing, knowing that after long enough it becomes an irreversible fact on the ground, regardless of its legitimacy at the time. That's what Israel does and has been doing, in fact, for rather longer than 75 years. The sad fact is that during the Ottoman empire, large parts of Palestine were owned by absentee landlords living in places like Lebanon and Syria. A Jewish settler would come along, buy a big piece of land off the Lebanese guy (who sadly had no concern whatever for the tenants), and then gradually kick all the Palestinian tenants out and replace them with Jews. They knew that they were putting facts on the ground as they did that, well before 1947.

You say that Israel had no intention of fighting in 1947. Well, if they thought they could get away with what they did in 1947 without much fighting, they were exceedingly naive. So, I don't believe you.

I would suggest you read Shlaim and see what you think for yourself. I think he makes a good case that the "Official Narrative" has no leg to stand on. Many of the attempts to criticise his well-documented points come from an "Israel? That evil and devious? I'm a Jew? How could I accept that?" position. He's not the only historian I read on this - the early facts-on-the-ground point came from somewhere else, I forget where.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by discovolante » Fri May 06, 2022 10:08 am

Can anyone explain why nearly half the population of the gaza strip is under 14? And another 20% under 24?
I'M HEATING STREAKY BACON IN A TROUSER PRESS

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Fri May 06, 2022 10:19 am

IvanV wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 9:28 am
He's not the only historian I read on this - the early facts-on-the-ground point came from somewhere else, I forget where.
Actually I've just found it - right in front of my nose, I was using it as part of a block of books to raise up the computer. Enemies and Neighbours by Ian Black. A review on the back says "Has achieved the rare distinction of being acclaimed by both Israeli and Palestinian historians for rigour and impartiality."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri May 06, 2022 10:47 am

discovolante wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 10:08 am
Can anyone explain why nearly half the population of the gaza strip is under 14? And another 20% under 24?
I found this article in New Scientist. Short version is that few women are employed, employers pay more per kid, and maybe because it's one of the few remaining liberties in a small besieged territory.
“Palestinian women are not having lots of children because they don’t know about contraception, or can’t access contraception,” says Sara Randall, an anthropologist at University College London, who co-authored the 2006 investigation. “So one has to conclude that they actually want lots of children.”
Call to arms

Randall’s study, involving interviews with 16,204 Gazan women and 4900 Jordanian women for comparison, concluded that the Intifada was a key driving factor for the surge in marriage and fertility. In the Intifada years of 1989 and 1990, for example, women were 1.4 times more likely to marry than in 1980. The rate during the Intifada was even higher, at twice that in 1980, for more educated women.

“Whether the phenomenally high fertility levels in Gaza are also a more long-term response to political oppression and a perceived need to increase the numbers of Palestinians cannot be inferred from the data available, but it certainly seems to be a plausible hypothesis,” concludes Randall’s study. “In a situation where disempowerment, underemployment and marginalisation have left few opportunities for expression of identity, reproduction is one of the few liberties which remains, and also contributes to the larger goal of increasing the Palestinian people,” it says.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -so-young/
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Fri May 06, 2022 11:22 am

discovolante wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 10:08 am
Can anyone explain why nearly half the population of the gaza strip is under 14? And another 20% under 24?
A very high fertility rate, though in a sense that is a tautology and just restating the question in different terms. in 1990 it was over 8 children per woman, which was quite extraordinarily high. It has fallen rapidly since then, and latest figure (2021) is only 3.5, still very high. But even just 10 years ago it still around 5, which would still have been on a par even then with only a handful of African states that have the highest fertility rates in the world. The population of Gaza increased by around 70% in the last 20 years, which is comparable to Ethiopia.

Why does the Gaza Strip have such incredibly high fertility rates? The typical common reasons for high fertility rates are:
- People have lots of children when they feel insecure about the survival of those children, for example in mediaeval times when infant mortality rates were over 50%, and
- When they feel the need to have a lot of children to to look after them when they are old.

Lower infant mortalities and formalised pension systems have been major drivers of reducing fertility across the world. But still a few places, mainly in Africa, have much higher fertility rates than other countries around them that look economically similar. Often you see in these cases particular social factors, such as a high proportion of women not having paid labour.

The same article from 8 years ago that Disco quoted notes that Gaza does share that latter factor - an unusually high proportion of women not in work. But also the intifada creates a sense of risk that you might lose half your family or more in a single rocket attack, and thus a feeling of insecurity in the mortality of your children.

Meanwhile Israel also has high fertility - around 3 - because there is a (growing) proportion of highly religious Jews in the population who have very large families, as that is their culture. And often the father doesn't work, but pursues religious study - subsidised by the state - and avoid military service. As that part of the population is growing fast, soon that that will become unaffordable to the nation. The secular majority are already getting rather twitchy about it, and suggesting that point has already arrived. Why should they work and fight for them who claim a right not to work and fight?

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Fri May 06, 2022 12:07 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 9:28 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 4:43 pm
Assuming that Jerusalem must belong to the Palestinians because of the Jordanian annexation is a good example of the "owner by default" fallacy that assumes that all of former territories of the Mandate of Palestine* belonged to the Arab Palestinians and that they were thus taken from the Arab Palestinians if they ended up as part of Israel - sometimes people exempt privately owned Jewish property from this assumption, but even then it is intensely problematic as it still excludes Jews from a claim on publically owned lands in areas they lived and made up the majority.
But ownership by default is what happens after long enough. Which is why London is an English city, the Anglo-Saxons having kicked out what we now call the "Welsh" who lived there until 1500 years ago. Which is why Istanbul is Turkish having partly half-kicked the Greeks out 500 years ago and finishiing the job off 100 years ago, sadly occasioned by a Greek attack on Turkey. So ownership by default, fallacy or not, is what actually happens.
That's not what I was referring to, I was referring to the assumption that all the land in the Mandate of Palestinian inherently belonged to the Arabs, and land that ended up as part of Israel must have been taken from the Arab Palestinians, whereas the reality is that most land was state land or owned by absentee landlords, and all the residents of the Mandate of Palestine - including Jewish ones - had valid claims on where they lived.
All I am saying is that if the 1967 conflict had been avoided, then East Jerusalem would have been a de facto Palestinian settlement, with no going back save for an utterly illegitimate attempt to conquer and ethically cleanse it.
Yes, I know that. I'm not sure why this counterfactual is relevant when I was challenging the idiotic notion that Israel ought to abandon parts of Jerusalem they acquired in 67 after Jordan went all-in on trying to destroy Israel and lost.
The Palestinians ended up where the Palestinians ended up after being ethnically cleansed from other places, and attempts to move them on is still ethnic cleansing, regardless of whether someone different lived there 75 years ago.

Which is why ill-intentioned nations who can get away with it do carry out ethnic cleansing, knowing that after long enough it becomes an irreversible fact on the ground, regardless of its legitimacy at the time. That's what Israel does and has been doing, in fact, for rather longer than 75 years. The sad fact is that during the Ottoman empire, large parts of Palestine were owned by absentee landlords living in places like Lebanon and Syria. A Jewish settler would come along, buy a big piece of land off the Lebanese guy (who sadly had no concern whatever for the tenants), and then gradually kick all the Palestinian tenants out and replace them with Jews. They knew that they were putting facts on the ground as they did that, well before 1947.
This isn't that far off from a BNP attitude to migration. The truth is there was a lot of inward migration in the 19th and 20th centuries, including very extensive migration by Arabs and other non-Jews. In addition, a large amount of the Jewish migration - especially in the nineteenth century, before the Zionist movement began among Ashkenazim - was MENA Jews, notably Yemenis fleeing anti-Jewish policies that would today be considered genocide.
You say that Israel had no intention of fighting in 1947. Well, if they thought they could get away with what they did in 1947 without much fighting, they were exceedingly naive. So, I don't believe you.
They idea that "What they did in 1947" was some evil that inevitably lead to war is deeply f.cking questionable. There was violence in both directions in the 45-47 period -though most Jewish violence at this point was against the British colonial occupation - following on from extensive violence against Jews before WWII, including the Hebron massacre, and going back at least as far as the mid nineteenth century. In 47, Zionists lobbied the UN to support the partition plan, and the day after it was voted on, there were massacres of Jews when busses were attacked.

The Israelis were outnumbered - there are sources claiming otherwise, but these only count Arab fighting units and don't include militia, while the Israeli count includes logistics personnel as well, with only about 40% of the nominal Israeli number actual conbatants - and heavily outgunned - the Arab forces had a dozens to one tank and artillery advantage and the Israeli guns were 65mm mountain guns so antiquated they were nicknamed "Napoleonchiks" for their appearance.

In addition, Jewish fighters struggled with an arms embargo that did not affect supply of arms to the Arab nations, and struggled to secure sufficient arms, mostly by smuggling in stuff from Czechoslovakia, where the arms industry was desperate for the business.

In short, the military position was intensely dangerous for Israel, and losing a war would have been catastrophic - the closest thing to a Palestinian political leader was a Nazi supporter who had known about and approved of the holocaust, incited the Farhud and recruited for the SS, and other Arab leaders had made their genocidal intent clear.
I would suggest you read Shlaim and see what you think for yourself. I think he makes a good case that the "Official Narrative" has no leg to stand on. Many of the attempts to criticise his well-documented points come from an "Israel? That evil and devious? I'm a Jew? How could I accept that?" position. He's not the only historian I read on this - the early facts-on-the-ground point came from somewhere else, I forget where.
Please don't assume I am unfamiliar with the New Historians. There are problems with the official narrative, but they frequently overreach into downright revisionism.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Fri May 06, 2022 12:13 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 10:47 am
discovolante wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 10:08 am
Can anyone explain why nearly half the population of the gaza strip is under 14? And another 20% under 24?
I found this article in New Scientist. Short version is that few women are employed, employers pay more per kid, and maybe because it's one of the few remaining liberties in a small besieged territory.
Calling it a liberty is a bit of a stretch when there's a male guardianship law, husbands are more likely to make contraceptive choices for their wives than women are for themselves, and abortion is illegal in almost all circumstances - it is only available to save the womans life with the approval of two physicians and the written permission from the womans husband or guardian.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Fri May 06, 2022 3:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 12:07 pm
That's not what I was referring to, I was referring to the assumption that all the land in the Mandate of Palestinian inherently belonged to the Arabs, and land that ended up as part of Israel must have been taken from the Arab Palestinians, whereas the reality is that most land was state land or owned by absentee landlords, and all the residents of the Mandate of Palestine - including Jewish ones - had valid claims on where they lived.
I might have been confused by the fact that I didn't make that assumption.
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 12:07 pm
Yes, I know that. I'm not sure why this counterfactual is relevant when I was challenging the idiotic notion that Israel ought to abandon parts of Jerusalem they acquired in 67 after Jordan went all-in on trying to destroy Israel and lost.
Israel took control of the entire West Bank in 1967, and has gradually occupied and cleansed more and more of it. You can put "West Bank" in your sentence instead of "Jerusalem" and it doesn't really alter its logic. What is "Jerusalem" anyway? Israel has extended it to include extensive formerly unoccupied lands in the Judean Desert to the east, and built huge new suburbs there. New Jewish suburbs, as they would never allow an Arab to occupy such a building, even if they had the money to offer. Is that the Jerusalem you mean when you say Israel should abandon none of it? Or the little Jerusalem that it was in 1947?

Is "no steps back from anything they have occupied and cleansed and built on over the course of the last 55 years" really an idiotic notion? No Palestinian will talk to them without something like that on the table. And one is hardly surprised by that, given how the facts on the ground have got worse and worse for them. And unless something of that nature is contemplated, Israel has no incentive except to carry on its de facto expansion into the West Bank.

For avoidance of doubt, I have no "if only"s. I no longer have any vision of a feasible and satisfactory outcome for the Palestinians, that I briefly held before the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir. I don't see Israel agreeing to any kind of retreat, and the extent of retreat required to create a feasible Palestinian state is probably now far beyond the realms of possibility. Things get further and further apart. But at least, we should try to stop things getting worse. For they continue in that direction.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Fri May 06, 2022 3:33 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 3:22 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 12:07 pm
That's not what I was referring to, I was referring to the assumption that all the land in the Mandate of Palestinian inherently belonged to the Arabs, and land that ended up as part of Israel must have been taken from the Arab Palestinians, whereas the reality is that most land was state land or owned by absentee landlords, and all the residents of the Mandate of Palestine - including Jewish ones - had valid claims on where they lived.
I might have been confused by the fact that I didn't make that assumption.
I brought it up because it appears to underpin a number of your assumptions, including that Israel did something bad in 47 that necessitated a response, as well as WFJ's original piece of knee-jerk stupidity.
Israel took control of the entire West Bank in 1967, and has gradually occupied and cleansed more and more of it. You can put "West
For avoidance of doubt, I have no "if only"s. I no longer have any vision of a feasible and satisfactory outcome for the Palestinians, that I briefly held before the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir. I don't see Israel agreeing to any kind of retreat, and the extent of retreat required to create a feasible Palestinian state is probably now far beyond the realms of possibility. Things get further and further apart. But at least, we should try to stop things getting worse. For they continue in that direction.
Israel offered a couple of pretty solid deals that certainly could have been built upon in 2000 and 2008 the former ~95% of the West Bank, the latter all but 6.3% of the West Bank and transfers from Pre-67 Israel to compensate. Abbas admitted walking away from the latter. In both cases Palestinian leaders walked away without a counter-offer, so it appears your assessment was way off.

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by IvanV » Fri May 06, 2022 4:52 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 3:33 pm
I brought it up because it appears to underpin a number of your assumptions, including that Israel did something bad in 47 that necessitated a response,
What I said was that Israel did something in 1947 that was bound to result in fighting. Clearly because it was seeking to impose not just what the Palestinian cause had explicitly rejected in the UN partition plan moments earlier, but in practice came to a situation well beyond that. Of course they were going to fight.

What was "reasonable" for the Jewish cause to do in 1947 in the circumstances, given all the unpleasantness going on, is rather hard to say, and one is hardly going to get a consensus on it. I think the most objective statement one can make about it is that the immediate facts on the ground that resulted was well beyond what the UN had recently assessed as reasonable.

And are you really saying that the extensive ethnic cleansing of 47-49 was not something bad? Or are you separating that as something subsequent and separate to "what Israel did in 47".
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 3:33 pm
Israel offered a couple of pretty solid deals that certainly could have been built upon in 2000 and 2008 the former ~95% of the West Bank, the latter all but 6.3% of the West Bank and transfers from Pre-67 Israel to compensate. Abbas admitted walking away from the latter. In both cases Palestinian leaders walked away without a counter-offer, so it appears your assessment was way off.
And that is what it looked like to me too at the time. Until I read books that suggested that the Palestinians were not convinced there were good faith clear offers on the table. For example, in 2008, Olmert refused to allow Abbas to take the map showing the offer out of the room. Rather Olmert said, sign there and then, or never be offered it again - trust me, it's better than you'll ever be offered again. Which is no kind of a good faith negotiation. And Abbas wouldn't sign, reasonably enough according to US Envoy George Mitchell, because there was far too much vagueness in the terms. Those vaguenesses would likely be subsequently be finessed by Israel, Palestinians would think, as vague terms always had been before, as they were in the position of strength. (Ian Black, Enemies and Neighbours, page 423.) After Oslo, Palestine was never going to agree to "this will be sorted out later" unless it was sufficiently narrowed down. And I think one could reasonably have doubted whether something Olmert signed would have been respected, he was hanging on by his fingertips as he headed towards convictions for corruption.

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Fri May 06, 2022 6:06 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 4:52 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 3:33 pm
I brought it up because it appears to underpin a number of your assumptions, including that Israel did something bad in 47 that necessitated a response,
What I said was that Israel did something in 1947 that was bound to result in fighting. Clearly because it was seeking to impose not just what the Palestinian cause had explicitly rejected in the UN partition plan moments earlier, but in practice came to a situation well beyond that.
There's a couple of points here - what you describe as the "Palestinian Cause" (in effect the Arab Higher Comittee, lead by Nazi-aligned Haj Amin al-Husayni) rejection of the UN partition plan is a rejection of Jewish sovereignty over an area with a Jewish majority in a former Ottoman/British colony.

Supporters of that cause took violent action against Jews with the Fajja bus attacks and the Jerusalem Riots, which escalated into open conflict, with pogroms in Syria and Bahrain as well.

The conflict would not have happened as it did had the Arab Higher Comittee, the Arab League* and so on not violently opposed the partition of the Mandate of Palestine that was to occur with the British withdrawal as colonial power. The Pre-67 borders of Israel were the ceasefire lines of this conflict, and it was during this conflict - before and after the invasion by the Arab states - that a large part of the Arab population were displaced, both by deliberate expulsion, and fear of the conflict, which was amplified by propaganda from both sides.

And it's also important to note that even with the foundation of Israel and the 48-49 Arab-Israeli war going as they did, it is not the foundation of Israel that prevented the foundation of an Arab Palestinian state on parts of the former Mandate - that occured due to Egyptian and Jordanian occupation and defacto/dejure annexaction, the latter supported by Britain.
What was "reasonable" for the Jewish cause to do in 1947 in the circumstances, given all the unpleasantness going on, is rather hard to say
What was reasonable for them was to seek their survival by lobbying for partition and defending against attack, as they would have been in extreme danger as a minority in a territory controlled by a man who had supported the Nazis and recruited for the SS.
And are you really saying that the extensive ethnic cleansing of 47-49 was not something bad? Or are you separating that as something subsequent and separate to "what Israel did in 47".
I'm separating these things because it didn't happen in 47! Of course the displacement of people was bad. Conflict in general is bad and inter-ethnic conflict is even worse. I support reparations for those displaced - both the descendants of the 710000 displaced from Israel and the ~900000 Jews displaced from Arab states.

*The Arab League backed Arab Liberation Army - with the utterly charming emblem of a curved dagger thrust through a Magen David - was active in the Mandate well before Israel's declaration of independence and the formal invasion by the Arab states.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri May 13, 2022 2:25 pm

Not content with (probably) killing a clearly-identified American journalist covering their illegal raid near Jenin, the IDF follows up by raiding her home and then beating mourners at her funeral.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Fri May 13, 2022 11:43 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 2:25 pm
Not content with (probably) killing a clearly-identified American journalist covering their illegal raid near Jenin, the IDF follows up by raiding her home and then beating mourners at her funeral.
We don't know who fired the bullet that killed Shireen Abu Akleh yet, but there are some things we do know.

The initial statements from Al Jazeera and so on that set the narrative are directly contradicted by evidence released from both sides. Contrary to claims there were no Palestinian gunmen operating, there was a raging gun battle nearby that is clearly audible on footage of the aftermath. Islamic Jihad and the IDF have both released footage confirming a gunfight.

It is very unlikely anyone would have deliberately targetted her. Israel, if they wished to restrict the activity of the press in that area, could have done so without the reputational damage they will have suffered from her death regardless of who pulled the trigger. Palestinian militants reaction shows they thought she was broadly on their side. Neither side was likely to have any motive for deliberately targetting her.

Geolocations of the gun-fight place it at 32°27'40.2"N 35°16'59.4"E. Footage from Islamic Jihad shows them emerging from an alley and firing towards Israeli forces, who were to the north of them. They are equipped with AR-15 type rifles, and at times they fire without looking down their sights. I haven't managed to get a street name for the street they are firing along, but it is two streets eastwards of and parallel to Khawla Bint Al-Aswar street. Shireen Abu Akleh was hit at the point where the north-south street in question meets Balat Al-Shuhada street. Additional footage shows that militants - Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade both claim to have been involved - firing from a rooftop, again firing north. This firing is a few hundred metres from where Shireen Abu Akleh was hit, very much within range of a 5.56mm carbine.

This gives a possible answer - stray gunfire from Palestinian Militants - but does not preclude other answers.

The Palestinian side have refused a joint investigation. A Palestinian medical examiner said it was not clear who killed her. She was reportedly struck by a 5.56mm calibre bullet, which doesn't really shed any light on the situation; it is the standard issue infantry cartridge in Israel, but it's also extremely common worldwide, and widely used by Palestinian Militants, and the footage of them in from Jenin on the day in question shows them using AR15-type rifles chambered for that cartridge. Israeli snipers - originally accused - don't use that cartridge, but given people's tendency to call any gunman they can't see a sniper, it doesn't mean much. I'm not aware of any eyewitness accounts where the witness could see the shooter.

Israeli police claim that Palestinian activists removed the coffin from the hearse with the intent of parading it to the cemetery, and threw projectiles. I've not been able to get a good timeline on events yet. I completely understand scepticism of Israeli police claims - but I would ask people to extend that to Palestinian government and militant claims, and claims by the government media of heriditary dictatorships.

In other news, an Israeli sergeant major was killed during the operation, bringing the combatant/noncombatant ratio of those killed by Palestinian militants this year up from 0% to an impressive 5%.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat May 14, 2022 8:44 am

Invading armies don't generally get invited to participate in investigations, no. I'm sure Ukraine isn't inviting Russia to join investigations of civilian casualties either.

If you don't want Palestinians to investigate shootings that happened near where you were shooting, simply avoid going to Palestine shooting people.
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by EACLucifer » Sat May 14, 2022 9:04 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat May 14, 2022 8:44 am
Invading armies don't generally get invited to participate in investigations, no. I'm sure Ukraine isn't inviting Russia to join investigations of civilian casualties either.

If you don't want Palestinians to investigate shootings that happened near where you were shooting, simply avoid going to Palestine shooting people.
You have a special way of taking a complicated situation and distilling it into a stupid piece of simplistic rhetoric that doesn't actually mean very much, and reflects your preconceptions more than it does any knowledge of what's actually going on in the region. Bonus points for an imbelcilic comparison which shows you probably don't understand much about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, either.

The two groups that could have fired the shot that killed her are;

The IDF
Palestinian Militants tolerated by the PA - in this case Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Neither should be the sole investigator.

And if you are wondering why Israeli forces were there, it's because there's been a wave of terrorism against Israeli civilians and some of the perpetrators have come from Jenin and it appears that some of it was organised in Jenin - to avoid having counter-terror units deployed on your territory, simply avoid going to Israel and shooting civilians or murdering them with axes.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 8751
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The Invasion of Palestine

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat May 14, 2022 9:06 am

As for attacking grieving family members at a funeral, even the US has condemned it. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... el-blinken
Tree dwellers leaping out the boughs shouting «Get the paper»
Trunk hugging rebels chucking petals at a detonator

Post Reply