• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 4

Propaganda claim: "The UN Partition Plan was supported by many Zionists, but opposed by most Arabs, since it unfairly allocated a disproportionate share of land to Jews relative to their share of the population."

This is untrue on three counts.

* First, the plan was not accepted by "many Zionists" (a deliberately vague term), but by the Jewish National Council, the elected leadership body of the Jewish community in Mandate Palestine (who elected the Arab leaders?). The Plan had the support of the overwhelming majority of Jews, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Had the Arabs accepted it, there would have been a Palestinian state these last 77 years.



* Second, and more importantly, the Arab side did not reject the Plan because of the proposed distribution of land, but because they opposed the whole principle of partition and the creation of any kind of sovereign Jewish entity in Palestine. That is why they refused to participate in the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which devised the plan.



* Thirdly, it is untrue that the Plan "unfairly allocated a disproportionate share of land to Jews." It is true that the land area allocated to the Jewish state was larger (though not much larger) than that allocated to the Arab state. But that was because the Jewish state included most of the Negev, which was then a desert. In fact the Plan allocated to each community the lands where most of its population actually lived.* Perfectly reasonable -- if you did not want 100% of the prize.



In drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Jewish leadership specifically rejected the idea that it was bound by the failed Partition Plan. David Ben-Gurion said: "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?" The Declaration itself says that Israel is being established, first, "by virtue of our natural and historic right," and, only secondarily, "on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly."



Having rejected the Partition Plan, the Palestinian Arab leadership and five Arab states then waged an explicitly genocidal war against the new State of Israel. They were defeated, and Israel took possession of the land west of the 1949 ceasefire lines, including western Jerusalem. The idea that Israel should have refrained from entering Jerusalem because the failed Partition Plan had reserved it for UN jurisdiction, when the Arab armies were bent on killing the Jews or driving them out of Israel altogether, is frankly ridiculous. The losses that the Palestinians suffered in 1949, and in 1967, and in every contest with Israel since, have been inflicted on them by the folly of their own leadership.



No-one has ever seriously proposed that the Israelis and the Palestinians should return to the borders proposed by the Plan (which were in any case never delineated in detail). That boat sailed in 1949. Any two-state solution will have to be based on demographic reality, which is that a future Palestinian state can consist only of those areas where Palestinians are now a majority of the population: most of the WB, the Gaza strip and eastern Jerusalem.



Even that will be extremely difficult to achieve given continued Palestinian rejectionism, the growing Jewish population of the WB, and the extreme reluctance of most Israelis to contemplate a renewed partition of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, that was in fact the plan which Prime Minister Olmert offered to Mahmoud Abbas in 2008, only to have Abbas literally walk out on the discussion. Once again, as in 1936, 1948, 1967 and 2000, the Palestinian leadership betrayed their own people by rejecting the best offer they were ever likely to get. I will be very surprised if any Israel government is ever again willing to put any part of Jerusalem on the negotiating table.



* As the map shows. The Arabs got the highlands of Judaea and Samaria, the coastal strip from Ashdod to the Egyptian border, western Galilee and the city of Jaffa. The Jews got the coastal strip from Yavne to Akko, eastern Galilee and most of the Negev.



1762052317349.png
 
Someone should point out to the "Jewish Council of Australia" [Given that JC translates as "Judenrat" in German, this is either being clueless or being clever] that their "Not all Jews support Zionism" when most Jews do is the sort of argument that these same secular leftists opposed when it was used by the monarchists in the 1999 republic referendum.
 
The relevant piece of international law is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. It defines genocide as follows:


Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


(a) Killing members of the group;


(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;


(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;


(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
To establish that a country is guilty of genocide, therefore, it is not enough to show that the country has committed some or all of the listed acts. It is necessary to show that they did so "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." The key word is INTENT. To convict Israel of genocide, you need to show that Israel INTENDS to destroy the Palestinian people, or at least those of them living in Gaza.


The Hamas/PLO groupies in the west cannot do that, because it is not in fact Israel's intent to destroy the Palestinian people. If it was, they could have killed the entire population of Gaza from the air ten times over by now, without risking the life of a single Israeli soldier. Israel's military operations in Gaza are intended to destroy Hamas, not to kill Palestinians. Civilian casualties in Gaza are the product of two decisions by Hamas - to start a war by launching the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, and to use the population of Gaza as human shields in the conduct of that war.


Hamas and its cheer-squad in the west claim that 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza. We have no way of verifying that number, but let's assume it's correct. If it is, that means that Israel has killed about 3% of the population of Gaza (2.2 million), and of course that figure includes about 12,000 Hamas combatants. This is in fact not a very high figure. It is about what we would expect after two years of intense urban warfare, particularly warfare in which one side deliberately exposes the civilian population to danger by placing its military infrastructure in and under schools, hospitals, mosques and apartment blocks.


It is instructive to compare Israel's alleged genocide in Gaza with other examples of genocide in modern times.


* The Turks (who now accuse Israel of genocide), killed up to 1.5 million Armenians in two years (1915-17).


* In occupied Poland, the Germans killed 1.5 million Jews in 18 months in Action Reinhard (1942-43).


* In Hungary, the Germans and their Hungarian allies killed 430,000 Jews in three months (May-July 1944).


* In Nigeria, 3 to 4 million Igbo people were deliberately starved to death during the Nigerian Civil War (1967-70).


* In Bangladesh, the Pakistani army killed 500,000 people in eight months (March-December 1971)


* In Rwanda, the Hutu killed 600,000 Tutsi in four months (April-July 1994).


* In Sudan, the army killed 200,000 people in the Darfur region in two years (2003-05), and is still doing so now.


It does seem strange that the Israelis, who have themselves, within living memory, experienced an attempted genocide, and who ought to be very clear about how to commit genocide, have proved so completely incompetent at committing genocide in Gaza.

1762145712143.png
 

Of the thousands of bombs that have fallen – and fall still – on Gaza, there is one to which Navi Pillay returns: a lone shell, fired by the Israel Defense Forces at the Al-Basma fertility clinic in December 2023. A single strike that wiped out 4,000 embryos in a moment.

The strike was “intended to prevent births” among Palestinians in Gaza, says Pillay, the former chair of the UN’s Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Territory of Palestine and Israel.

“That clinic stands alone in the grounds, separate from the rest of the hospital buildings. They didn’t fire on the hospital – if the excuse is that Hamas is hiding in the hospitals, they didn’t touch the hospital. They came straight to this building and targeted and hit the nitrogen tanks that kept the embryos alive.”

Also, I'm seeing a report that the Israelis are pouring cement into a tunnel in which Palestinian resistance fighters are trapped. Can anyone else confirm this? @webfusion, with your oh-so-reliable Israeli sources?
 
arthwollipot, the IDF has utilized various methods to make the tunnels unusable and for those within to die.

The current situation is that HAMAS is being told to come out, waving a white flag, and without weapons.

The entire tunnel system is problematic, honestly.
 
Hamas could have stopped the war at any time. By surrendering and releasing the hostages. Every death is the responsibility of Hamas. Just as the deaths of Axis people were the responsibility of Hitler, Benny the Moose, Hirohito et all.

Actions have consequences.

As Calbear noted about the Reich and this is also true of the WB and Gaza, millions of civilians (MDs, clerks, enginners and such) helped the machinery of death.

Most of those people in Germany and Japan and such? They got to die in bed.
 
Hamas could have stopped the war at any time. By surrendering and releasing the hostages. Every death is the responsibility of Hamas. Just as the deaths of Axis people were the responsibility of Hitler, Benny the Moose, Hirohito et all.

Actions have consequences.

As Calbear noted about the Reich and this is also true of the WB and Gaza, millions of civilians (MDs, clerks, enginners and such) helped the machinery of death.

Most of those people in Germany and Japan and such? They got to die in bed.
Very true, as was your earlier post which pointed out that there would have been a Palestine state decades ago if Palestinian leaders had accepted the reality of Israel.

The continued references to biblical events of millennia ago have no relevance to modern Middle East history.
 
Very true, as was your earlier post which pointed out that there would have been a Palestine state decades ago if Palestinian leaders had accepted the reality of Israel.
Accepted the reality of a globally-sanctioned group of invaders forcing them out of their homes and off their land?

The whole region would have been better off if Israel was never created. But the world was reeling from the Holocaust and the Zionists had the sympathy of the world. So it is what it is.
 
The war hasn't stopped even if all hostages returned - so it's objectively false to claim that Hamas could have stopped it earlier.
It tried to make this deal for more than a year, and Israel rejected it.

But people need to believe that it's okay to support this genocide
 
The whole region would have been better off if Israel was never created. But the world was reeling from the Holocaust and the Zionists had the sympathy of the world. So it is what it is.
Or, of course, the Palestinian leaders could have accepted Israel.

The ability of some to excuse the culpability of Arab states in the ME is quite staggering.

Israel has been successful, which clearly sticks in the craw of some.
 
It tried to make this deal for more than a year, and Israel rejected it.
Utter nonsense and I think you know it. Hamas would have accepted nothing less than Israel withdrawing and leaving Hamas in charge. In other words, a surrender.

You are completely misrepresenting Hamas’ intent.
 
Utter nonsense and I think you know it. Hamas would have accepted nothing less than Israel withdrawing and leaving Hamas in charge. In other words, a surrender.
Meanwhile Israel accepts nothing less than the death or expulsion of every Palestinian man, woman and child in Gaza. In other words, a genocide.
 
arthwollipot, where do you come up with that concept that the Israelis are seeking the death or expulsion of "every Palestinian man, woman and child in Gaza"? That is clearly not the truth, yet here you are, propounding that blood libel as if there was some actual basis. Which there isn't.

 
arthwollipot, where do you come up with that concept that the Israelis are seeking the death or expulsion of "every Palestinian man, woman and child in Gaza"? That is clearly not the truth, yet here you are, propounding that blood libel as if there was some actual basis. Which there isn't.
I'm getting it from non-Zionist sources, like the experts at the International Association of Genocide Scholars. You know, people who make a career out of defining and describing genocide.

And to call it a "blood libel" is profoundly offensive.
 
Even Wiki is being chastized for the 'genocide' label.

What is actually profoundly offensive here is arthwollipot declaring that "Israel" is seeking the deaths of "every man woman and child in Gaza" -- And he excuses that obvious blood libel against the Jewish State, by offering a reference to an obscure source (that itself notes that out of its 500 members, 28% took part in the vote and 86% of those who voted supported the resolution)

Math -- 140 voted, 360 did not. (why didn't they? Has anyone asked them?)
Of those 140, 20 declared "Nay" (why did these twenty scholars and experts vote against? Has anyone asked them?)

To an audience supposedly composed of skeptics, that seems fairly basic; to evaluate a claim while looking at several angles. For instance, how about the Israeli response?
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the report was based on "Hamas lies" and poor research, calling it an "embarrassment to the legal profession"
 
Israel doesn't stoop to such tactics. Israel just blows them to bits. And their children. And their neighbours. And bombs their houses, schools, and hospitals into rubble. Much simpler, more straightforward.
Israeli soldiers have returned the remains of a Palestinian teenager who was killed in October in the occupied West Bank, only to be told by the family that it was the body of someone else.

The macabre mix-up, which the army called an “unfortunate mistake,” was likely to draw attention to Israel’s policy of holding the remains of Palestinians killed while allegedly carrying out attacks, which human rights groups say amounts to collective punishment of the bereaved families.
If Israel can return the wrong body of a child hostage, with all its forensic and medical resources intact and not under constant attack, then it seems hypocritical to expect Gazans with no resources to confirm identity not to make mistakes.
 
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the report was based on "Hamas lies" and poor research, calling it an "embarrassment to the legal profession"
Of course it did! Criminals deny committing their crimes every day.

Amnesty International calls it a genocide. Human Rights Watch calls it a genocide. The IAGC calls it a genocide. The United Nations calls it a genocide. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ B'Tselem calls it a genocide. Everybody calls it a genocide except for Israel and its Zionist supporters, like Arutz Sheva.

The government of Israel under Netanyahu is committing genocide. And saying so is not antisemitic, and it is profoundly ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ not a blood libel. You pulling that card on me shows just how desperate and depraved you are.
 
There would not be a seperation barrier or checkpoints if there had not been a Munich, a Klinghoffer, a Dolphinarium.

No Hamburg, Dresden or Tokyo without Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry.

Actions have consequences and the more you take advantages of morals, decency and gallantry, the more that they erode.
And these wouldn't have happened without the first anti-semitic genocide and occupation of Palestine by Israel. Yes, actions do have consequences and at the heart of every action in the Levant you find Israel as the intitiator.
 
There wasn't a country or nation called Palestine in 1947. The Palestinian national identity remained shadowy until after the defeat in the Six Day War. In fact, just after the Yom Kippur War, student unions in the west, including my father's, passed motions demanding that Israel return the territory it seized in 1967 to Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The notion that these were "Palestinian territories" had not yet been thought of.
 

Back
Top Bottom