Israel - Hamas War V

[fionwe1987]

55 minutes ago, Ran said:

"The Holocaust justifies Israeli war crimes" is a canard. See? Easy.

"Colonialism is the proximate cause of this crisis and recognizing this will solve things" is also a canard.

You need to take a break, IMO, if you are unable to contextualize what other people are saying to you. 

No, those are not equivalent statements. Nor is "Colonialism is the proximate cause of this crisis and recognizing this will solve things" what you originally said. 

I'm glad you're adding sub clauses to your ignorant and historic revisionist statement, but all it reveals is your understanding of history and the impacts of colonialism is non-existent.

Colonialism is not the proximate cause of this situation. The persistence of colonial power structures in global political conflicts, however, is a proximate cause, and your blindness to it, and broader Western blindness to it, is definitely a problem. It allows the same mistakes to be perpetuated again and again. Your language of justifying civilian violence is also very much identical to how such language was deployed during colonial rule.

Your consistent dismissal of colonialism's impact is merely convenience, a way to seize the language of justice and peace to a Western centric lens where Western crimes and violations of basic human rights are given a different valence than that when perpetuated by non-Western peoples.

That is neither just, nor a pathway to an equitable solution. 

As much work as Germany has done to educate it's people on the harms of antisemitism and the Holocaust, the other colonial powers (resentment of whose colonies drive both world wars, by the way) of the age have not recognized the unique and differentiated harms of colonialism.

The Ottoman Empire was not a colonial empire of the kind Britain and France ran, because as far as I know, significant portions of their rule was not directly in the hands of private corporations that could and did violate common sense and basic geopolitics in their decision making which impacted millions of people. 

In modern parlance, colonialism represented a systematic disconnect between the rulers and the rules that is distinct in scale and impact to other empires, which, to be certain, don't get off the hook or have no role to play in this discussion.

But exactly like the existence of past mass murder and genocide doesn't allow us to dismiss the Holocaust as a minor blip, so too is colonialism no minor blip.

And just like antisemitism that drove the Holocaust alive and well, so is colonial power in the way modern geopolitics is shaped. 

Ignore that if you wish, but it reveals your analysis of the situation to be blind, and wilfully ignorant of context that drives the motivations and actions of the very people whose lives you claim to care about and claim you want to give agency.

The Holocaust doesn't justify Israeli war crimes. Nor does antisemitism.  But ignoring it or minimizing either will leave you proposing solutions that will neither work, nor be morally acceptable given the history. 

The same is true of colonialism and it's impact on modern geopolitics. Neither justifies Hamas's actions, but it is relevant context.

Yet every time this context is brought up, rather than engaging in it, you dismiss it. Why is this ok?

Historical revisionism will serve no one in this conflict. But that is what you're engaged in. 

On a separate note, I know these are not your views as an administrator, but you are aware there are a lot of citizens of former colonies in this board, and this thread, right? Are they allowed to bring in their understanding and context to this discussion? Or are you so certain of your view of the past that you'll insist on telling them their history and what it has taught them is meaningless, because you never lived through it? 

Edited October 22, 2023 by fionwe1987

[fionwe1987]

For those interested, here's a piece on the intersection of colonialism, Zionism, and the history of Israel and Palestine. What's chilling is how much of this story, while different in the particulars, is similar to how Britain sliced and diced the subcontinent to effect that other lovely powder keg (stuffed with Uranium on both sides), India, Pakistan, and Kashmir:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks

Quote

"On at least three occasions in thirty years," Arthur Koestler wrote in Promise and Fulfilment (1949), "the Arabs had been promised the setting up of a legislative body, the cessation of Jewish immigration and a check on Jewish economic expansion." And on each of these occasions, the Mandate authorities broke their promise. The Mandate was marked by outbreaks of violence, government white papers and the Arab population's loss of ground to Jewish immigrants. The Arab General Strike of 1936 led to an all-out rebellion against British rule. The British took three years to suppress it, during which, according to British records, the administration killed 3073 Arabs (112 of whom were executed). These figures exclude Arabs killed by Zionist organisations or the Jewish Special Night Squads under the command of a British intelligence officer, Captain Orde Wingate. Britain trained the Yishuv's elite army, the Palmach, and despatched its largest expeditionary force since the Great War - 25,000 troops - to Palestine. During the uprising, British security forces used the standard tactics of anti-colonial warfare: torture, murder, collective punishment, detention without trial, military courts, aerial bombardment and 'punitive demolition' of more than two thousand houses. The police commander Sir Charles Tegart (himself a believer in Zionism) built the notorious Tegart police fortresses and an electrified fence along the northern border. Major-General Bernard Montgomery, who arrived in 1938 to command a division, denigrated Arab nationalists as 'professional bandits'. By the summer of 1939, when Germany was about to invade Poland, Monty reported: "The rebellion is definitely and finally smashed."

The "standard tactics of anti-colonial warfare" of course, have a very traceable history. Over time, and across colonies, you can see how the British learned to suppress and end resistance. Those tactics continue to be used, and justified, today, not least in America's Middle Eastern adventures of the aughts, and by Israel right now. 

We have literal letters, official documents and journalism (contemporary and modern) that show us how individual decisions made by someone in London has direct reverberations to today's situation. The scars of Britain and France's colonial ambitions are the pathways of today's strife in so many places. Yet note, they continue to have a fucking veto over international decision making.

Everyone agrees Hamas must go for the scale of its atrocities. Now imagine instead that it gets a Security Council seat. Of course, whatever Hamas's stated genocidal goals, it has actually accomplished a minuscule fraction of the harms and murders the French and the English dealt out, often with obvious genocidal language, and yet, we're told not just that such justice being meted out is impractical, not just that far from punishment, these nations get to have continued oversized global influence, but that somehow, the harms of colonialism are so deep in the past that discussing them today is a meaningless canard? 

Incidentally, this article also gives the lie to the idea that somehow acknowledging the colonial impact on the establishment of the Israeli state is somehow anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism actually drove a lot of British support for creating a home for Jews elsewhere. 

The framework to understand this is that the British quite literally had a hierarchy of races. I will leave it for you to find out where they placed Jews in comparison to Muslims/Arabs, though both were "obviously" below the white Christian British citizens. I do know that this hierarchy placed Indians above East Africans, and there were legitimate discussions around the end of World War 1 of, I kid you not, and Indian colony in East Africa. 

And there were leaders of the Indian freedom struggle, including non-violent ones, who enthusiastically wanted this, and wrote in support of it, as a reward for India's contributions to the War effort (which were somewhat massive). Of course, in this context, India was still to be a Dominion of the British Empire, but all that went to shit, of course, and we thankfully dodged that quagmire.

The point being, colonialism's corrosive influence is pretty fucking vast. Its nasty little fingers leave few narratives or political groups free of complicity of some sort. Which is why ignoring it is just plain wrong. So much of how we do politics today is from frameworks established through a colonial lens. We have no business perpetuating that nonsense anymore.

Edited October 23, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Conflicting Thought]

11 hours ago, Ran said:

Colonialism is just a canard. It is the past, it's gone, there's no unspilling the milk.

thats so wrong, on so many levels, so insulting, so callous, ahistorical bullshit. you should be ashamed for saying this

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

thats so wrong, on so many levels, so insulting, so callous, ahistorical bullshit. you should be ashamed for saying this

Nope, and at this point you guys are starting to push on my forbearance. You subscribe to a world view about the reality of today that I do not subscribe to. You can have it, but try shaming me again about not bending to your outrage.

 

8 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

but you are aware there are a lot of citizens of former colonies in this board

Most of this forum are citizens of former colonies, including your cheerful administrator, in fact. My own family was largely born in another former colony. Your myopia is bizarre.

I do not buy the argument you are peddling in an attempt to grant one side moral superiority to another. It is nakedly transparent. Take your outrage elsewhere.

Neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian dead are comforted by your need to litigate the Balfour Declaration or whatever you're insisting on doing.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Ran

[Ran]

A final word on this subject, from my perspective, after which I hope people will prefer to move on to actually discussing the conflict today:

"But the Holocaust" does not give license to Israel to do what it wants.

"But colonialism" does not give license to Hamas to do what it wants.

It is axiomatic that neither Israel nor Palestine is going anywhere. The solutions to the intricate issues that arises from these two axioms will need to come from people of good will, on both sides, striving to better their future.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Ran

[Crixus]

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

A final word on this subject, from my perspective, after which I hope people will prefer to move on to actually discussing the conflict today:

"But the Holocaust" does not give license to Israel to do what it wants.

"But colonialism" does not give license to Hamas to do what it wants.

It is axiomatic that neither Israel nor Palestine is going anywhere. The solutions to the intricate issues that arises from these two axioms will need to come from people of good will, on both sides, striving to better their future.

Completely agree with the bolded. However, I do not think members who reference history are doing so in an attempt to dilute or question this reality i.e. Israel is a state that has the right to exist where it is, and Palestine has a right to a state where it is as well, which is of course an extremely complicated issue with no easy answers - or we wouldn't be where we are. In my view such situations prompt quite a bit of emotion and people naturally search for answers in our past and origins to try and figure out why shit is happening the way it is.

In my view @fionwe1987 wrote a long and thoughtful post on some of this history in response to your use of 'canard' for colonialism (that came off as pretty damned dismissive, which I hope wasn't the intent). We can all have differing, equally legitimate views, of course - my view is that dismissing what happened a century ago wrt colonialism and its effects today, is pretty unrealistic. As they said, one can turn this to horrific shit like the Holocaust and say 'get over it, it happened decades ago, it's split milk', which is disgusting and exactly the sort of thing Nazis and Islamic extremists say.

Colonialism impacted the lives of millions horribly too, apart from the callous drawing up of borders (I believe Sykes famously said something like 'from the C of Acre to the K of Kirkuk', which is breath-taking in its cavalier arrogance) - I'm also referring specifically to the subcontinent, where fionwe1987 and I are both from. I also think saying stuff like 'what about the Romans' is reductive, because the recent past is much more relevant with reverberations being felt today - this is simple logic. You can disagree on the extent and current relevance of this impact (though it's been extensively documented by many respected scholars and historians and is based on pure facts), but I would request, if I may, that you respect our views if possible. 

Finally, in reference to the bold above, it's unbelievably sad that those who are actually trying to work together are being silenced: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/22/an-atmosphere-of-fear-free-speech-under-threat-in-israel-activists-say 

 

 

 

[Ran]

Far be it from me to dissuade anyone from reading and studying history, having dual-majored in history and literature myself. It's important... but more to recognize the errors we should not make going forward, rather than for the purpose of relitigating things, because for real people today it genuinely makes no difference who was right or who was wrong 75 years ago, who came from where or why they came. No one's material conditions are going to change because of this stuff.

At the same time, it puzzles me that those who want to point to history than decide that there's some sort of time limit ("reductive") to how far back in the past we should look. Why? If the lessons of history are worth learning, then it should hold for all of history.

But in the specific context of the thread, my remarks about colonialism has a lot more to do with the fact that it has no actual utility in resolving the Gaza War. If Hamas will lay down its arms and free the hostages because it will be convinced that it has simply been a reactionary force to the iniquities of colonialism and European antisemitism that have also troubled the Jewish people, great! If Israel later ends its settlements in the West Bank out of recognition that the framework of the Sykes-Picot agreement's framework was fundamentally anti-Arab, nice!

But color me dubious that either side will be convinced by arguments along these lines. Instead, we need to consider what is needed for peace now. Hamas, an internationally condemned jihadist terrorist organization with genocidal intentions, founded in 1987, is presently the despotic, corrupt power in Gaza and has been such since 2007. That seems like the most immediate roadblock to peace. They are not going to allow their desires to be directed by careful study of colonialist power structures.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Ran

[Bironic]

If I understood @Ran correctly (and I might be mistaken), he didn't mean "colonialism was good" or "history doesn't matter" or "the roots of a problem are unnecessary to understand it". I think he meant that people today can move on from the past. The British partitioned Ireland in much the same way they partitioned British India, or the UN partitioned Palestine and with very similar (terrible) results.

But the majority in both Ireland and the UK have moved on, that doesn't mean that they do not acknowledge that terrible things happened in the past, or that the history of it is now suddenly unimportant and should be forgotten and relativised. But it means that the people are living right now and they can not change the past but they can change the present and the future. And if I look at the present in UK & Ireland that's what happened for the past ca. 30 years, with overall good results (not saying they have now solved the conflict at hand or that they have now found the magic win-win solution)or that everyone agrees with everyone. But they are slowly moving in the right direction... Which is very unlike Israel-Palestine... And I am not saying everyone in Europe does so (look at Putin for example)... But it is possible, but it has to come from within Palestine and Israel and if that happens all the imperialist powers in the world can't stop it. But sadly there's no such thing in sight...

[Ran]

And bringing it back to the here-and-now, some cross-border raids (apparently in search of hostages, rather than preparatory to the invasion) has left one IDF soldier dead as Hamas fought back. Think I read somewhere that up to 50 dual-national hostages may be released "soon" by Hamas after extended negotiations, as well.

ETA: Also, the NYT once more weighs in on the Al-Ahli explosion. Opening paragraph:

Quote

Five days after Hamas accused Israel of bombing a hospital in Gaza City and killing hundreds of people, the armed Palestinian group has yet to produce or describe any evidence linking Israel to the strike, says it cannot find the munition that hit the site and has declined to provide detail to support its count of the casualties.

Also this was a fun quote:

Quote

“The missile has dissolved like salt in the water,” said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official, in a phone interview. “It’s vaporized. Nothing is left.”

Suffice it to say, missiles do not dissolve or vaporize. There are always remnants. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Ran

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

If I understood @Ran correctly (and I might be mistaken), he didn't mean "colonialism was good" or "history doesn't matter" or "the roots of a problem are unnecessary to understand it". I think he meant that people today can move on from the past. The British partitioned Ireland in much the same way they partitioned British India, or the UN partitioned Palestine and with very similar (terrible) results.

But the majority in both Ireland and the UK have moved on, that doesn't mean that they do not acknowledge that terrible things happened in the past, or that the history of it is now suddenly unimportant and should be forgotten and relativised. But it means that the people are living right now and they can not change the past but they can change the present and the future. And if I look at the present in UK & Ireland that's what happened for the past ca. 30 years, with overall good results (not saying they have now solved the conflict at hand or that they have now found the magic win-win solution)or that everyone agrees with everyone. But they are slowly moving in the right direction... Which is very unlike Israel-Palestine... And I am not saying everyone in Europe does so (look at Putin for example)... But it is possible, but it has to come from within Palestine and Israel and if that happens all the imperialist powers in the world can't stop it. But sadly there's no such thing in sight...

The problem with comparing it with Ireland is that the British have all but left, with the exception of North Ireland, so they are living in a post colonial society. Palestine is basically where the Irish were in the 1800's, hopelessly outmatched, but still involved in a violent struggle against their colonial oppressors, but at this point, they have gained their independence and after a lot of blood shed and tragedy, the wounds of the past are slowly healing.

There is a quote by Malcolm X that I feel is particularly applicable here "If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.. And they won't even admit the knife is there." The healing can not begin until the knife is removed entirely, and only one side can do that.

Of course, in this case one side has a big knife buried deep into the other and the other side has a butter knife that they are repeatedly stabbing the other with, hurting them, yes, even sometimes drawing blood but never able to grievously wound them. Both sides need to stop, but one side is clearly the one causing the most damage and creating the situation where in the other side feels they have to retaliate.

[Crixus]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

At the same time, it puzzles me that those who want to point to history than decide that there's some sort of time limit ("reductive") to how far back in the past we should look. Why? If the lessons of history are worth learning, then it should hold for all of history.

But in the specific context of the thread, my remarks about colonialism has a lot more to do with the fact that it has no actual utility in resolving the Gaza War. If Hamas will lay down its arms and free the hostages because it will be convinced that it has simply been a reactionary force to the iniquities of colonialism and European antisemitism that have also troubled the Jewish people, great! If Israel later ends its settlements in the West Bank out of recognition that the framework of the Sykes-Picot agreement's framework was fundamentally anti-Arab, nice!

But color me dubious that either side will be convinced by arguments along these lines. Instead, we need to consider what is needed for peace now. Hamas, an internationally condemned jihadist terrorist organization with genocidal intentions, founded in 1987, is presently the despotic, corrupt power in Gaza and has been such since 2007. That seems like the most immediate roadblock to peace. They are not going to allow their desires to be directed by careful study of colonialist power structures.

I think I specified why I feel it is reductive: because the reverberations of the relatively recent past are more relevant and significant right now. I think that's quite straightforward - it isn't only about learning from past mistakes - it is also about 'how did this happen/come about?' For instance, antisemitism has been around for thousands of years and that is important for crucial context, but events of the past century (Holocaust) have a more immediate and current resonance to our world right now - such as the subject of this thread. 

And I do not think anyone has suggested on this thread that referring to such history will convince any side in any way? Not sure where you got that impression, tbh. I would venture it is likely more on the lines that the parties who were instrumental in making stuff happen back then that directly led to events happening today, should perhaps openly acknowledge their previous mistakes and also, more importantly, draw on these learnings from history to play a more constructive role in helping solve these issues right now. For instance, if the UK were to reference their hand in drawing up absolutely shitty borders in former colonies last century, and also the numerous highly shitty actions and crimes committed by their individual or state actors at that time, and demonstrate working toward better, more equitable solutions now (which they can influence, they are still a power on the world stage along with US etc.), it may go down a hell of a lot better with many of those affected (outside of extremists), who perhaps rightfully resent former colonial powers' previous shitty actions and arrogance being presently accompanied with often pompous, posturing, tone-deaf, prescriptive statements. 

I'm not trying to argue the point further, btw - just explain where I am coming from. I hope that's ok. 

 

 

[fionwe1987]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

A final word on this subject, from my perspective, after which I hope people will prefer to move on to actually discussing the conflict today:

"But the Holocaust" does not give license to Israel to do what it wants.

"But colonialism" does not give license to Hamas to do what it wants.

It is axiomatic that neither Israel nor Palestine is going anywhere. The solutions to the intricate issues that arises from these two axioms will need to come from people of good will, on both sides, striving to better their future.

You keep setting up straw men, dude. Stop. Someone quoted a British minister refusing Palestinian refugees. That was the context in which colonialsm was being discussed, when you dismissed it as a canard.

The context never was about turning back time and reversing the creation of Israel. That is your invention to justify your offensive statement. 

If this is your last word on this, great, but clearly, you wish to continue to impress upon us that your using the tactics of Holocaust denial on colonialism is correct. So keep shooting that shot. And expect push back. 

ETA: as for why the British Empire matters and history further back in time does not... This too is a straw man. Firstly, more ancient history does matter. But more recent history matters more directly and clearly, especially when things like current boundaries and population levels are direct results of those recent actions.

No one can make time work differently. It has a regency bias, simply because what happens recently affects us more strongly than something less recent. 

This is no excuse to ignore any history, but it's certainly not excuse to ignore recent history. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Bael's Bastard]

It is rich to preach to indigenous MENA peoples and center Arabs in sermons about recent western colonialism in MENA, as Arabs and the Arabized are the "white people" in the experiences of much of the indigenous peoples of MENA, forced Arabization is the colonialism we are most acquainted with, and the west almost entirely sacrificed us and our indigenous communities and homelands to nearly complete Arab sovereignty and domination. Bunch of bullshit.

[fionwe1987]

Why is it binary? Does talking about British colonialisation erase or lessen the impact  of Arab colonialisation? Feel free to share specifics of how the Ottoman Empire's actions shape the current situation. That isn't a rhetorical challenge, I'm happy to get any context for something this fraught and complex. 

But you can't select and choose which history to use. And you cannot tell people that some history which makes clean narratives of good and bad impossible needs to be ignored. 

British colonialisation matters to a lot of people today because what they did is more fresh, and people have grandparents who lived through it, so they remember more details, and know how it shaped their lives. 

Educate them if you think colonialism from further back matters too, but you can't tell them this recent history is a canard to ignore. Apart from being wrong, it won't work. People aren't going to forget. 

[Bironic]

I think one thing that we have to keep in mind is that Israel is not the direct result of british colonization(doesn't mean they weren't influential), very unlike a lot of countries on earth today(looking at you USA for example).

Jews lived in the region of Palestine long before the British colonized it, they lived in the region throughout the entire history of that region and they started to migrate more and more towards Palestine beginning in the 18/19th century(they have never stopped doing that entirely). At that time Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans... In the 19th Century Jerusalem had a majority jewish population (not Palestine in total were more Muslim/Arabs lived). Those are undisputed historical facts.

Zionism (aka jewish Nationalism) began as most other largely secular Nationalisms and influenced by them in Europe during the 19th Century, which together with many pogroms in the Russian empire and the rest of the World led to a massive increase in the Jewish population in the region of Palestine. The ottomans by and large did not care about this influx of Jews into Palestine. The Jews came there and largely followed the laws of the land (they mostly did not rob the lands of the Arabs, but actually bought it legally, very unlike other European settlers). In 1918 the British assumed control after having divided the Ottoman Empire between them and the French. For some time they did nothing to stop the influx of Jews but then reversed that policy, only to reverse it later on. The British did not care all that much about Palestine, since unlike Gibraltar, Egypt, India or Iraq it had little strategic value (it still doesn't). Now in 1947 the UN proposed a plan to separate the Jewish majority regions from the Arab majority regions. The Jews accepted, the Arabs did not and as far as I know no major Palestinian party ever has(meaning neither the PLO or Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state). And from then on it seems to me that the deals that the arabs got were less and less good.

[fionwe1987]

4 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I think one thing that we have to keep in mind is that Israel is not the direct result of british colonization(doesn't mean they weren't influential), very unlike a lot of countries on earth today(looking at you USA for example).

How not? The presence of Jews in the area isn't a result of British colonization. But the establishment of a Jewish state is, as the article I posted explains in considerable detail. A lot of the political groundwork for establishing a Jewish state occured in this period, a lot of it in London, or in the halls of the British administration in Palestine. The preferential treatment by the British of the Jews in Palestine, the stomping down of the resistance of the Arab populace and the laws allowing for apartheid practices on whom land could be sold to were established and inextricably linked to this period and to British rule.

What is different from America is the historical connection of Jews to this land, and their continuous migration there before the British came. But neither of those things require the presence of a state that prefers its citizens to be Jews, and is engineered to be majority Jewish so as to not be challenged by the political voices of the Arab populace.

That concept, and its implementation, is entirely linked to British rule, and depended on the British for enforcement for decades before 1947. 

4 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Jews lived in the region of Palestine long before the British colonized it, they lived in the region throughout the entire history of that region and they started to migrate more and more towards Palestine beginning in the 18/19th century(they have never stopped doing that entirely). At that time Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans... In the 19th Century Jerusalem had a majority jewish population (not Palestine in total were more Muslim/Arabs lived). Those are undisputed historical facts.

Correct. And I don't know anyone who is disputing any of this, at least on this thread.

4 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Zionism (aka jewish Nationalism) began as most other largely secular Nationalisms and influenced by them in Europe during the 19th Century,

What are these secular Nationalisms we're saying influenced the Zionists? If we mean Britain, France, Germany, etc, then calling it secular is bizarre. These nations were anything but secular during that period. 

4 minutes ago, Bironic said:

which together with many pogroms in the Russian empire and the rest of the World led to a massive increase in the Jewish population in the region of Palestine. The ottomans by and large did not care about this influx of Jews into Palestine. The Jews came there and largely followed the laws of the land (they mostly did not rob the lands of the Arabs, but actually bought it legally, very unlike other European settlers). In 1918 the British assumed control after having divided the Ottoman Empire between them and the French. For some time they did nothing to stop the influx of Jews but then reversed that policy, only to reverse it later on. The British did not care all that much about Palestine, since unlike Gibraltar, Egypt, India or Iraq it had little strategic value (it still doesn't). Now in 1947 the UN proposed a plan to separate the Jewish majority regions from the Arab majority regions. The Jews accepted, the Arabs did not and as far as I know no major Palestinian party ever has(meaning neither the PLO or Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state). And from then on it seems to me that the deals that the arabs got were less and less good.

What you ignore here is that the British established a police state for the Arab population of Palestine during the Mandate period, made promises to them as their administrators that they regularly violated, and then washed their hands off the whole affair (as they did elsewhere) with significantly less competence than the US did leaving Afghanistan.

What I don't get is why it is hard to understand this matters. Israel is not Britain, but it has continued specific practices that began during British rule, and for the Arab populace, there is a continuous history of such violence that has resulted in political leaders ending up dead, or exiled. 

This does not justify Hamas's actions on October 7. But if you insist none of this matters, and proceed with "solving" this problem while ignoring that history, you will perpetuate the mistakes of the past, which will lead to further violence, further civilian death, and deeper entrenchment of these divisions.

You want to heal this rift? Acknowledge the history for which we have clear documentary evidence. No one is making this shit up. If you insist on dismissing it as meaningless, or a canard, and the world will see your hypocrisy and deal with it accordingly.

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

There is a quote by Malcolm X that I feel is particularly applicable here "If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made.. And they won't even admit the knife is there." The healing can not begin until the knife is removed entirely, and only one side can do that.

Of course, in this case one side has a big knife buried deep into the other and the other side has a butter knife that they are repeatedly stabbing the other with, hurting them, yes, even sometimes drawing blood but never able to grievously wound them. Both sides need to stop, but one side is clearly the one causing the most damage and creating the situation where in the other side feels they have to retaliate.

 

I mean, if you're going to go with this analogy, then you have also to acknowledge that:

(1) the stabbing hand of the side with the butter knife is open about the fact that it won't stop using that butter knife even if the big knife is out. 

(2) one of the hands of the side with the big knife has been sharpening the butter knife on the sly.

(3) there is dispute over what 'withdrawing the knife' or 'healing the wound' would even mean. For some, an equitable two-state solution of some sort would begin the healing, though of course 'of some sort' is carrying a lot of weight there. For others... well, 'from the river to the sea' says it all, which if we're taking the analogy to its logical end means grabbing their own big knife and stabbing the other side till there's nothing left.

That's ignoring all the stuff around the situation that simply doesn't fit at all, like how in the original analogy the white people with the knife had not been in any way wronged whereas Israel exists in large part because of one of the most greivous wrongs ever committed against a group of people, who were then offered what was seen as a way to keep them safe from it happening again. Exploitation of the Palestinians was an effect, that should have been foreseeable, but it wasn't the point. 

It does, in other words, not work as an analogy. The situation here is in no way whatsoever similar to the civil rights movement in America. I can't see how the comparison is helpful to either understanding or solving what's happening.  

[fionwe1987]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That's ignoring all the stuff around the situation that simply doesn't fit at all, like how in the original analogy the white people with the knife had not been in any way wronged whereas Israel exists in large part because of one of the most greivous wrongs ever committed against a group of people, who were then offered what was seen as a way to keep them safe from it happening again. Exploitation of the Palestinians was an effect, that should have been foreseeable, but it wasn't the point. 

So lets focus on this. A grievous harm was perpetuated in Europe, harm that for a long time, European powers like Britain ignored. Once they got in on the fight and ended the horrors, they decided to keep these people safe not by reexamining and modifying their awfulness, but by a NIMBYish solution that actually didn't keep these people safe at all. 

I certainly don't accept any reversal of this. The people of Israel today didn't do any of this, and any solution that requires displacement of millions is unacceptable (no less so than displacing all Gazans to the West Bank, which someone blithely suggested a few pages ago). But the morality and practicality of "create Israel to keep the Jews safe" is highly questionable, not just because of how it impacted Palestinian Arabs, but because it didn't really deal with the anti-Semitism in Europe that led to the Holocaust, nor really create a safe haven for Jews.

That is why discussing colonialism is important. Because neither the Jews or the Arabs of Palestine actually got any of what they were promised or hoped for. They are left dealing with the decisions and inflamed tensions left behind by the British, and they aren't even unique in this.

And learning from the past allows one to hope for a different future solution. Ignoring it dooms us to repeat it, which is exactly what Israel is doing now with its refusal to draw a clear line between retaliating against Hamas and harming civilians, which is a big component of the knife we've been discussing. 

I know not all of the people I've been responding to have been saying colonialism is unimportant, or a canard, so I apologize if I'm overemphasizing this point in response to that atrocious comment. But to me, as a child of another land divided and scarred and left with religious divisions that were stoked for the profit of Empire, a post-colonial analysis of Israel and Palestine is the only one that gives a unifying narrative to Israeli's and Palestinian's, and dwelling on the harms of that time allow us to imagine a way forward that is respectful of the people on the ground, their histories, and devoid of the tactics and strategies of the colonial powers that are still so broadly used today.

[polishgenius]

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

That is why discussing colonialism is important.

 

I agree with this, actually. Was going to mention (it ended up in a chunk I edited out, I think) that I don't really agree with Ran's assertion that discussion of how colonialism affected the current situation isn't useful in the current time- it is. But I do also think it needs to be presented carefully- because oftentimes discussing Israel as a result of colonialism results in the implication that the colonialist power of Israel can withdraw in the same way Britain did, which as you rightly say isn't true and can be a dangerous idea. I know that's not what you're doing, but there are people in this thread and in the discourse in general being a bit careless with how they frame that discussion. 

[Kalbear]

Somewhat on the topic of colonialism and refugees, I want to point out that Palestinians do not want to be refugees in many cases, especially to other Arab nations in the area. For many they view that as ethnic cleansing - because in not so distant history that was exactly what happened when they were forced at gunpoint to flee. They had to go to Egypt or Jordan and never would be allowed to return to their homes.

That is one of the biggest open sores of the Israel and Palestinian conflicts. And suggesting that the UK take those people is probably not as easy a decision as we'd like to have for anyone. I do think the UK should open up more willingly but it needs to be with caveats - such as ensuring they will be returned.

This is a very different thing from refugees coming into the US from Latin America and is kind of interesting to me in contrast.