[wat0n]

Nope!

Yep!

Who claimed they were? What predates Israel is the British Mandate of Palestine.

...And the Jewish Agency, which took the governmental functions of what became Israel.

All Palestinians agree with this? Explain that one.

Some of their grievances algo predate Israel's founding.

It's only you claiming that there is a direct lineage between the contemporary entities that didn't exist in 1948 and other organizations that did. Hamas, for example, wasn't founded until 1987.

Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928. Also, Hamas itself was simply the armed wing of the Mujama al Islamiya, a charity that was itself a branch of the MB in Palestine.

Here's where your point starts to fall apart. "Some of the grievances"

How so? You do realize that the first Israeli settlers went to the West Bank claiming properties they lost in the 1948 war and before it (e.g. in Hebron in 1929) right? It's why it proved extremely hard for Israeli moderates to stop the pressure to send settlers after the Six Day War, back then their expulsion had been fairly recent. Religious arguments weren't as prominent as they are now.

And of course islamists resented the Mandate itself.

No one claims that Israel appears "from nowhere." It appeared from the context of the conflict in Europe and the zionist movement of the time. I hope you don't mean Israel was "refounded" rather than "founded" in 1948 of course. The idea that it was a "re" founding of a previous entity is ahistorical and false.

Why?

A refoundation doesn't mean literally copying to the last detail whatever used to be in place before.

[KurtFF8]

...And the Jewish Agency, which took the governmental functions of what became Israel.

Again you're just referring to conflicts within the British Mandate of Palestine which was generally a conflict over the future of what state would be there. That particular conflict was resolved via the creation of Israel.

The consequences and outcome of that conflict led to conditions for new organizations to later develop and new conflicts to come up later of course. But the idea that it's "just the same conflict" is utter nonsense.

Some of their grievances algo predate Israel's founding.

None of the current Palestinian groups engaged in fighting with Israel existed prior to Israel's founding.

Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928. Also, Hamas itself was simply the armed wing of the Mujama al Islamiya, a charity that was itself a branch of the MB in Palestine.

Hamas has ties to the MB yes, but Hamas itself is its own organization and wasn't founded until 1987. Hamas is not currently the "armed wing" of another group, you're wrong about that one too.

How so? You do realize that the first Israeli settlers went to the West Bank claiming properties they lost in the 1948 war and before it (e.g. in Hebron in 1929) right? It's why it proved extremely hard for Israeli moderates to stop the pressure to send settlers after the Six Day War, back then their expulsion had been fairly recent. Religious arguments weren't as prominent as they are now.

The current situation of Israeli settlements is largely the aftermath of the 1967 war.

And of course islamists resented the Mandate itself.

I'm sure the organizations that existed at that time did. But none of the contemporary organizations we're talking about for this current conflict were around then.

Why?

A refoundation doesn't mean literally copying to the last detail whatever used to be in place before.

The current state of Israel is wholly a modern concept and a modern invention. Any "ties" to an ancient society or state are simply nation state myth building. Israel is based on Zionism which as I'm sure you know is a movement started in the late 1800s. This has nothing to do with any ancient "nation state" (especially considering that nation states are only a few hundred years old at best).

You can't "reestablish" something that never existed before.

[wat0n]

Again you're just referring to conflicts within the British Mandate of Palestine which was generally a conflict over the future of what state would be there. That particular conflict was resolved via the creation of Israel.

The consequences and outcome of that conflict led to conditions for new organizations to later develop and new conflicts to come up later of course. But the idea that it's "just the same conflict" is utter nonsense.

This sounds like a rather arbitrary distinction you're making, and an absurd one at that since you acknowledge the connecting thread here.

None of the current Palestinian groups engaged in fighting with Israel existed prior to Israel's founding.

I'm sure the organizations that existed at that time did. But none of the contemporary organizations we're talking about for this current conflict were around then.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Hamas comes from, did.

Hamas has ties to the MB yes, but Hamas itself is its own organization and wasn't founded until 1987. Hamas is not currently the "armed wing" of another group, you're wrong about that one too.

No, I'm not wrong about that one. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the MB, one that chose to try the armed route.

The current situation of Israeli settlements is largely the aftermath of the 1967 war.

Sure, and the first settlements were established to provide return to people who were expelled from their properties in and before 1948 among other reasons.

The current state of Israel is wholly a modern concept and a modern invention. Any "ties" to an ancient society or state are simply nation state myth building. Israel is based on Zionism which as I'm sure you know is a movement started in the late 1800s. This has nothing to do with any ancient "nation state" (especially considering that nation states are only a few hundred years old at best).

You can't "reestablish" something that never existed before.

You did not really address my argument. Even Zionists themselves regarded Israel as the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the region.

Not surprising since Zionism is just Jewish nationalism.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sure, and the first settlements were established to provide return to people who were expelled from their properties in and before 1948 among other reasons.

Can you share the source you used for justifying this claim? For example official Israeli records justifying the Nakba and illegal settlement program on the basis of "people (Jews) who were expelled from the properties before 1948", like numbers, major examples, dates and so on.

In 1948 some 750,000 non-Jews were ethnically cleansed from their homes, 500 villages were emptied or destroyed. Explain why Israel would need to build settlements after this? The Jewish population at that time was about 715,000 before the Nakba.

So unless all 715,000 Jews were homeless, living as refugees there is no way on earth that your claim can be reconciled with the facts, i.e. its bogus, made up nonsense by the master Zionist apologist in this forum.

[wat0n]

Can you share the source you used for justifying this claim? For example official Israeli records justifying the Nakba and illegal settlement program on the basis of "people (Jews) who were expelled from the properties before 1948", like numbers, major examples, dates and so on.

That the first settlements were built because Israelis believed they were simply returning to their lost properties? Yes, that's what they believed:

In the early 1940s, the Jewish National Fund (JNF) acquired lands south of Bethlehem in a region that later became known as the Etzion bloc. In the years that followed, the JNF and the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency established a bloc of settlements on these lands that included four kibbutzim: Kfar Etzion (1943), Massuot Yitzhak (1945), Ein Zurim (1946), and Revadim (1947). These were the only Jewish settlements in the area between Jerusalem and Hebron. During the War for Independence, in 1948, these settlements were abandoned and destroyed, and a total of about 220 people lost their lives - almost all the male residents of Kfar Etzion as well as other Jewish defenders who had joined them. Nineteen years later, following the conquest of this territory by Israel in the Six Day War, the children of those who had been killed at Kfar Etzion appealed to the government to return to their homes, and to re-establish first and foremost Kfar Etzion. This effort, finally given governmental approval, became the vanguard of the movement to resettle the Etzion block, which, by Summer 1995, had a population of 9,000 and comprised three kibbutzim, four community settlements, and a town.

The motivation in 1967 for resettling the Etzion bloc - the first area in Judea and Samaria to be settled after the Six Day War - was not primarily ideological, political or security-related, as was the establishment of other settlements in Judea and Samaria. The renewal of settlement in the Etzion bloc - its goals, location, and the form it took - should be understood in the context of its symbolic significance for the children of those who were killed there, the survivors of the bloc, and the Israeli public in general, and is related to the massive loss of life during the War for Independence and the accompanying trauma. The symbolism of Etzion bloc can also explain the long-held and prevalent view among many Israelis that consensus exists in Israel about the need to keep the Etzion bloc in Israeli hands in any kind of settlement with the Palestinians. This article attempts to analyse the process that transformed the Etzion bloc into a symbol to which there is deep attachment and to recreate the unique process of resettlement there.

Note the similarities between this and the Palestinians using similar arguments and national mythology to get a right to return. The Israeli settlement project is exactly how imposing a right to return looks like.

In 1948 some 750,000 non-Jews were ethnically cleansed from their homes, 500 villages were emptied or destroyed. Explain why Israel would need to build settlements after this? The Jewish population at that time was about 715,000 before the Nakba.

So unless all 715,000 Jews were homeless, living as refugees there is no way on earth that your claim can be reconciled with the facts, i.e. its bogus, made up nonsense by the master Zionist apologist in this forum.

Given 850,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled from the Muslim countries and that they needed to be resettled, this ship already sailed. And yes, they were expelled as a reprisal for Israel winning the 1948 war that Israel's Arab neighbors started so it's one of the consequences of that war.

Their descendants tend to also be more right-wing and nationalist than the Ashkenazi Israelis and tend to vote for Likud.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That the first settlements were built because Israelis believed they were simply returning to their lost properties? Yes, that's what they believed:



Note the similarities between this and the Palestinians using similar arguments and national mythology to get a right to return. The Israeli settlement project is exactly how imposing a right to return looks like.



Given 850,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled from the Muslim countries and that they needed to be resettled, this ship already sailed. And yes, they were expelled as a reprisal for Israel winning the 1948 war that Israel's Arab neighbors started so it's one of the consequences of that war.

Their descendants tend to also be more right-wing and nationalist than the Ashkenazi Israelis and tend to vote for Likud.

You raise several points.

First the "Etzion Bloc" was the sight of a massacre of Jews the day before Israel declared its existence and cannot realistically be decoupled from that. There was tension all over Palestine and that had been growing for many years.

Read:

The United Nations partition plan for Palestine of November 29, 1947, placed the bloc, an enclave in a purely Arab area, inside the boundaries of the intended Arab state,[9] where, moreover, Jewish settlement was to be forbidden through a transitional period. For Hebronite Arabs, the bloc constituted an 'alien intrusion' on ground that had been wholly Arab for centuries,' though it had been built on land either purchased by Jews (1928) or acquired by them through a complex circumvention of Mandatory law in 1942.[11] According to Henry Laurens, Kfar Etzion had started hostilities in the area in December [1947] by destroying a local Arab village.

In the months prior to May 15, Haganah militiamen in the bloc's kibbutzim repeatedly fired on Arab civilians, and British traffic, including convoys, moving between Jerusalem and Hebron, under instruction to do so in order to draw and drain Arab forces from the fight for Jerusalem.[15][16] On two occasions, April 12 and May 3, Arab Legion units were ambushed, and several legionnaires killed or wounded[16] by the bloc militias.

So the land had been occupied by Arabs/Palestinians for centuries and "purchased" (fraudulently) by some Jews and the new occupiers then initiated hostilities against non-Jews many months before the Kfar Etzion massacre. Claiming that this justifies the ethnic cleansing of three quarters of a million Palestinians in 1948 followed by an illegal occupation of non-Israeli territory in 1967 followed by a systematic expansion of illegal settlements - is to put it mildly, pathetic .

Second the expulsion of Jews from Muslim nations that you cite here, began AFTER the 1948 Nakba, it did not occur in a vacuum as Zionists so often like to imply, seeking to play the victim card. Earlier in history Jews were persecuted by both Christians and Muslims, in waves, cycles but not in a sense of mass extermination or mass ethnic cleansing as was done under Hitler in Germany (which curiously is now called a "Friend" of Israel).

So you've shown me exactly zero reason to accept your original claim "That the first settlements were built because Israelis believed they were simply returning to their lost properties".

My position is that the UN have it right, the umpteen resolutions prove that according to international law (the same UN that was used by Israel to legitimize the states creation in 1948) Israel is a criminal state, stealing land, doing as it pleases when it pleases - it must be stopped, the neo-Nazi ideology must be stamped out as was the Third Reich in 1945.

Sadly some 70% of Israelis are now so indoctrinated, so racist, so far gone, that they agree with the likes of Beelzebub Snotritch that food and supplies should no be allowed into Gaza and Ben-Gvir has already recently issued ORDERS that Police are NOT TO INTERFERE WITH ISRAELIS WHO BLOCK THE ENTRY OF AID.

This is PROOF of genocidal intent, however you might like to dress it up.

Police chief to AG: Ben Gvir pushed to prevent police from guarding Gaza aid convoys

Outgoing Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai has revealed details of repeated attempts by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to interfere in operational matters in recent months, including attempts to prevent police patrols from guarding humanitarian aid convoys headed for Gaza.

In a May 27 letter to Attorney General Gali Baharav Miara circulated on Thursday, Shabtai wrote that Ben Gvir told senior police officials, behind his back, that he did not want police providing protection for humanitarian aid convoys crossing through Israel, arguing that the task came under the responsibility of the military.

These people are scum, nazified, xenophobic scum just like Heydrich and Himmler and all the rest. The greatest problem facing Israel and the population of Israel today is neo-Zionism, the militant racist Jew supremacist sickness that has soaked into society, it cannot go on and it will not end well for Israel.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Israel is starting to crack internally. We have Nazinyahu fighting with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, the Police bickering with Ben-Gvir, the IDF announcing 11 hour pauses and Nazinyahu decrying that decisions and now the simmering tension from the conscription problem starting to attract attention.

The state wants to enlist religious Jews into the army yet many of them refuse to do so on the grounds that they do no answer to men, to man made institutions, they take their direction from God. That attitude is deeply ingrained in Jewish culture, part of their identity and we now see that the fake nation of "Israel" purporting to be a "safe haven for Jews" is no such thing.

The one place where religious studious Jews should be safe from fear and violence is in fact the most dangerous place in the world for them. These Jews would be safer in London, Parsis even Berlin, than they are today in Israel!



Hard to tell if this picture is from Munich 1934 or Jerusalem 2024, perhaps they should migrate as they so often have during their history, to a safer country as refugees once more.

[wat0n]

You raise several points.

First the "Etzion Bloc" was the sight of a massacre of Jews the day before Israel declared its existence and cannot realistically be decoupled from that. There was tension all over Palestine and that had been growing for many years.

Read:





So the land had been occupied by Arabs/Palestinians for centuries and "purchased" (fraudulently) by some Jews and the new occupiers then initiated hostilities against non-Jews many months before the Kfar Etzion massacre. Claiming that this justifies the ethnic cleansing of three quarters of a million Palestinians in 1948 followed by an illegal occupation of non-Israeli territory in 1967 followed by a systematic expansion of illegal settlements - is to put it mildly, pathetic .

I don't think it justifies anything. But it does show Israelis regarded themselves as simply returning to the land they owned.

Also, the land of Kfar Etzion was purchased on the 1920s:

During British rule in Palestine (1917-48) attempts were made by Jews to settle the Etzion bloc. Two attempts failed but a third was successful and lasted until its evacuation in 1948 when the area was conquered by the Jordanian army. This third attempt to settle the area used lands previously bought by those engaged in the two previous unsuccessful attempts, some 8,400 dunams [840 hectares, one dunam = 1,000 sq metres]. At the end of the 1930s these Jewish landowners asked the JNF to buy their land. The JNF agreed to their request in 1940 for two main reasons: to circumvent British restrictions on land purchase by Jews and to bolster Jewish land holdings around Jerusalem.

Kfar Etzion itself was placed under siege in 1947:

After the 29 November UN decision decreeing the partition of Palestine, and the rejection of this decision by Arab leaders, Arab-Jewish relations deteriorated rapidly. Fighting between Arabs and Jews which began the day following the UN's decision, hurt the Etzion bloc settlements badly, since they were surrounded by Arab villages. In December 1947 a relief convoy attacked en route to the bloc lost ten of its members, mostly bloc settlers. As skirmishing intensified, the women and children of the bloc were evacuated to Jerusalem. Shortly afterwards, in mid-January 1948, a platoon of 35 sent from Jerusalem to fortify the bloc was completely annihilated. In March a convoy fought through from Jerusalem, but on its return fourteen were killed and 40 wounded.9

All in all, you've got some poor justifications for the massacre there. But I don't find it surprising, they're as bad as those you have for October 7.

Second the expulsion of Jews from Muslim nations that you cite here, began AFTER the 1948 Nakba, it did not occur in a vacuum as Zionists so often like to imply, seeking to play the victim card.

Also justifying ethnic cleansing now, not surprising coming from someone who also threatens diaspora Jews over whatever Israel does.

The funny thing is that you are also calling on Zelensky to surrender to Putin elsewhere, makes one wonder if you blame him because he's Jewish.

Second the expulsion of Jews from Muslim nations that you cite here, began AFTER the 1948 Nakba, it did not occur in a vacuum as Zionists so often like to imply, seeking to play the victim card. Earlier in history Jews were persecuted by both Christians and Muslims, in waves, cycles but not in a sense of mass extermination or mass ethnic cleansing as was done under Hitler in Germany (which curiously is now called a "Friend" of Israel).

Wrong again.

Jews were expelled many times from European countries in the Middle Ages. Sephardic Jews were themselves expelled from Spain in 1492, just to mention a particularly well known example.

Then you have Jews from Ukraine, around half of them were exterminated in the Khmelnytsky Uprising

As far as the Islamic world goes, one can't help but mention the Battle of Khaybar, which ended with the expulsion of the Jews from the region when Muhammad won it.

So you've shown me exactly zero reason to accept your original claim "That the first settlements were built because Israelis believed they were simply returning to their lost properties".

Did you read the paper I cited?

My position is that the UN have it right, the umpteen resolutions prove that according to international law (the same UN that was used by Israel to legitimize the states creation in 1948) Israel is a criminal state, stealing land, doing as it pleases when it pleases - it must be stopped, the neo-Nazi ideology must be stamped out as was the Third Reich in 1945.

Funny, why don't you demand this to be done to Russia for taking over land in Ukraine I wonder?

Sadly some 70% of Israelis are now so indoctrinated, so racist, so far gone, that they agree with the likes of Beelzebub Snotritch that food and supplies should no be allowed into Gaza and Ben-Gvir has already recently issued ORDERS that Police are NOT TO INTERFERE WITH ISRAELIS WHO BLOCK THE ENTRY OF AID.

This is PROOF of genocidal intent, however you might like to dress it up.

Police chief to AG: Ben Gvir pushed to prevent police from guarding Gaza aid convoys

...And the police didn't listen to him, as far as I'm aware.

These people are scum, nazified, xenophobic scum just like Heydrich and Himmler and all the rest. The greatest problem facing Israel and the population of Israel today is neo-Zionism, the militant racist Jew supremacist sickness that has soaked into society, it cannot go on and it will not end well for Israel.

Again, very triggered by Israel but not by Russia invading Ukraine, Turkey ethnically cleansing Kurds and Greek Cypriots, Israelis being massacred on October 7 and so on and so forth.

Lots of justifications for being a neonazi yourself though.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't think it justifies anything. But it does show Israelis regarded themselves as simply returning to the land they owned.

Also, the land of Kfar Etzion was purchased on the 1920s:



Kfar Etzion itself was placed under siege in 1947:



All in all, you've got some poor justifications for the massacre there. But I don't find it surprising, they're as bad as those you have for October 7.



Also justifying ethnic cleansing now, not surprising coming from someone who also threatens diaspora Jews over whatever Israel does.

The funny thing is that you are also calling on Zelensky to surrender to Putin elsewhere, makes one wonder if you blame him because he's Jewish.



Wrong again.

Jews were expelled many times from European countries in the Middle Ages. Sephardic Jews were themselves expelled from Spain in 1492, just to mention a particularly well known example.

Then you have Jews from Ukraine, around half of them were exterminated in the Khmelnytsky Uprising

As far as the Islamic world goes, one can't help but mention the Battle of Khaybar, which ended with the expulsion of the Jews from the region when Muhammad won it.



Did you read the paper I cited?



Funny, why don't you demand this to be done to Russia for taking over land in Ukraine I wonder?

This nonsense is just that, nonsense.



...And the police didn't listen to him, as far as I'm aware.

Again, very triggered by Israel but not by Russia invading Ukraine, Turkey ethnically cleansing Kurds and Greek Cypriots, Israelis being massacred on October 7 and so on and so forth.

Lots of justifications for being a neonazi yourself though.

Yes, lets conflate Russia-Ukraine with Israel-Palestine, that might enable you to regain some credibility. Critiquing my position on Israel by paraphrasing my posts about Russia is an act of desperation.

You've given a single example of Jews seeking to regain the land they owned with the Kfar Etzion case, that's one single example. You then moved onto the expulsion of Jews from Muslim countries in an attempt to play the victim card. Those expulsions FOLLOWED the Nakba, they are largely a reaction (that I do not approve by the way) to that. Israel - with military aid and financial backing from former colonial powers - ethnically cleansed 750,000 non-Jews. Those same colonial powers had already BETRAYED the Arabs in 1916 too, to NOT expect some reaction from Muslim countries is naivety at best, the Nakba was an act of pure racism, racial superiority ideology.

Ukraine-Russia is not comparable to Israel-Palestine. The issues and causes are different, one similarity though is the West's support for the racist and neo-Nazi elements in each case.

Here's some old pictures for you from Ukraine:




Ukraine - which of course borders Russia - collaborated with the Nazis and the Nazis attacked and invaded Russia as you know.

The Arabs have never sought an extermination of Jews, never put them in concentration camps, never used gas chambers, never made Jews dig their own graves, never used them for medical experiments, but the Germans did and the Ukrainians did.

During the Holocaust an estimated 1,500,000 Jews were exterminated IN UKRAINE by Nazis and Ukrainian collaborators. That you would admire and support the Zionist regime which now calls Germany and Ukraine it's "friends" beggars belief. As I've said before lies have become truth, evil has become good and wrong has become right.

[wat0n]

Yes, lets conflate Russia-Ukraine with Israel-Palestine, that might enable you to regain some credibility. Critiquing my position on Israel by paraphrasing my posts about Russia is an act of desperation.

You've given a single example of Jews seeking to regain the land they owned with the Kfar Etzion case, that's one single example. You then moved onto the expulsion of Jews from Muslim countries in an attempt to play the victim card. Those expulsions FOLLOWED the Nakba, they are largely a reaction (that I do not approve by the way) to that. Israel - with military aid and financial backing from former colonial powers - ethnically cleansed 750,000 non-Jews. Those same colonial powers had already BETRAYED the Arabs in 1916 too, to NOT expect some reaction from Muslim countries is naivety at best, the Nakba was an act of pure racism, racial superiority ideology.

Ukraine-Russia is not comparable to Israel-Palestine. The issues and causes are different, one similarity though is the West's support for the racist and neo-Nazi elements in each case.

Here's some old pictures for you from Ukraine:




Ukraine - which of course borders Russia - collaborated with the Nazis and the Nazis attacked and invaded Russia as you know.

The Arabs have never sought an extermination of Jews, never put them in concentration camps, never used gas chambers, never made Jews dig their own graves, never used them for medical experiments, but the Germans did and the Ukrainians did.

During the Holocaust an estimated 1,500,000 Jews were exterminated IN UKRAINE by Nazis and Ukrainian collaborators. That you would admire and support the Zionist regime which now calls Germany and Ukraine it's "friends" beggars belief. As I've said before lies have become truth, evil has become good and wrong has become right.

The example I gave you is what kicked off the settlement movement. Indeed, Israeli politicians didn't want to start with those until they budged under the pressure of the children of the people who fought in Kfar Etzion in 1948, who believed that going back was the best way to honor the memory of the fallen (as explained in the paper that you obviously didn't read). Sounds familiar?

As for Russia and Ukraine, both countries have their own neonazi problem. Interestingly, this is common among regions that had to live under communism, makes you think.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The example I gave you is what kicked off the settlement movement. Indeed, Israeli politicians didn't want to start with those until they budged under the pressure of the children of the people who fought in Kfar Etzion in 1948, who believed that going back was the best way to honor the memory of the fallen (as explained in the paper that you obviously didn't read). Sounds familiar?

As for Russia and Ukraine, both countries have their own neonazi problem. Interestingly, this is common among regions that had to live under communism, makes you think.

To argue that 127 Jews killed in the attack on Kfar Etzion (which was itself provoked by Zionist attacks on neighboring Arab villages) "kicked off" the "settlement movement" is beyond simplistic. The Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse Palestine decades before 1948, I've told you this before and shown you the copies of the British Intelligence records.

The "settlement movement" has been an integral part of Zionism since early in the 20th century, it is not some reaction to Jews being mistreated in the late 1940s. There were passive Jews in Palestine throughout history and they lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors. The "settlement movement" is due to one thing and one thing only, the inherent Jew supremacist nature of militant Zionism, the belief in being entitled to the land of Palestine.

It is not a result of Jewish descendants trying to right wrongs, if that were true they'd be extracting territory from Germany where six million were systematically executed not Palestine where they'd lived more or less safely for two thousand years.

[wat0n]

@Sherlock Holmes it is not "simplistic" to say the children of the people killed at Kfar Etzion mobilized to go back there, that's just historically accurate as accounted for in the paper I cited specifically dealing with this. And you have provided no such evidence of any plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians because it does not exist.

[KurtFF8]

This sounds like a rather arbitrary distinction you're making, and an absurd one at that since you acknowledge the connecting thread here.

Then you're confused as usual. You've claimed multiple times that it's "the same conflict" which is very obviously false. There's a major difference between explaining how earlier conflicts influenced later conflicts and claiming that they're "the same one"

The Muslim Brotherhood, which is where Hamas comes from, did.

Hamas of course didn't exist at the time. So you'd be wrong to claim they did.

No, I'm not wrong about that one. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the MB, one that chose to try the armed route.

Yes you're wrong about this. Hamas is a political organization that has a separate armed wing. They also aren't simply a branch of MB and they did not exist prior to 1987 even if they were simply a branch. I don't understand why you're trying to keep claiming something so false.

Sure, and the first settlements were established to provide return to people who were expelled from their properties in and before 1948 among other reasons.

What

You did not really address my argument. Even Zionists themselves regarded Israel as the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the region.

Not surprising since Zionism is just Jewish nationalism.

I addressed this multiple times. This is part of what is called a national myth. Today's Russia, for example, will reference things from the days of the Russian empire or even earlier to justify claims to territories or current actions even though those things have absolutely nothing to do with the contemporary Russian state.

Israel is a nation state, and nation states (especially ethnic and religious based ones) are a very modern concept. The idea that it's somehow related to an ancient state is laughable after a very elementary examination of what states are and different historical epochs are.

[wat0n]

Then you're confused as usual. You've claimed multiple times that it's "the same conflict" which is very obviously false. There's a major difference between explaining how earlier conflicts influenced later conflicts and claiming that they're "the same one"

I'm not confused. You're just making nonsense up.

It's even weirder when one considers there was no peace treaty (be it agreed or imposed) that ended the supposed precious conflict.

Hamas of course didn't exist at the time. So you'd be wrong to claim they did.

The MB did.

Yes you're wrong about this. Hamas is a political organization that has a separate armed wing. They also aren't simply a branch of MB and they did not exist prior to 1987 even if they were simply a branch. I don't understand why you're trying to keep claiming something so false.

Hamas is in fact a branch of the MB, nobody disputes that. One that made the armed way its distinctive seal (besides being Palestinian that is), which is why its military wing is currently calling the shots in the negotiations regarding Gaza.

What

Read the paper I cited earlier ITT.

I addressed this multiple times. This is part of what is called a national myth. Today's Russia, for example, will reference things from the days of the Russian empire or even earlier to justify claims to territories or current actions even though those things have absolutely nothing to do with the contemporary Russian state.

Israel is a nation state, and nation states (especially ethnic and religious based ones) are a very modern concept. The idea that it's somehow related to an ancient state is laughable after a very elementary examination of what states are and different historical epochs are.

Sure.

This doesn't mean modern Israel's establishment isn't regarded as a refounding of the old kingdom.

[KurtFF8]

I'm not confused. You're just making nonsense up.

It's even weirder when one considers there was no peace treaty (be it agreed or imposed) that ended the supposed precious conflict.

Today's Palestinian organizations did not exist during that conflict. So how would there be a peace treaty between them and the nation state that was just being created that year? Explain that one.

The MB did.

Yep, but Hamas didn't.

Hamas is in fact a branch of the MB, nobody disputes that. One that made the armed way its distinctive seal (besides being Palestinian that is), which is why its military wing is currently calling the shots in the negotiations regarding Gaza.

This is an oversimplification of the origins of Hamas. It is its own organization and did not exist prior to 1987. Its founding has a context in other organizations like the MB but it is its own thing. I don't know what point there is in disputing this.

Read the paper I cited earlier ITT.

No thanks. I doubt your paper would contradict the numbers I posted.

Sure.

This doesn't mean modern Israel's establishment isn't regarded as a refounding of the old kingdom.

Regarded by who other than religious fundamentalists?

[wat0n]

Today's Palestinian organizations did not exist during that conflict. So how would there be a peace treaty between them and the nation state that was just being created that year? Explain that one.

For once, there could be peace between Israel and those Palestinians organizations the current ones came from. In fact, those old organizations would still exist if they'd done so.

Yep, but Hamas didn't.

Yet their parent organization did.

This is an oversimplification of the origins of Hamas. It is its own organization and did not exist prior to 1987. Its founding has a context in other organizations like the MB but it is its own thing. I don't know what point there is in disputing this.

Their relationship is far, far closer than that. Hamas' founder was part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

No thanks. I doubt your paper would contradict the numbers I posted.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

But hey, thank you for admitting you don't read papers. Maybe that's why you're so ignorant about the Middle East.

Regarded by who other than religious fundamentalists?

Plenty of non fundamentalist Jews, for starters.

[Pants-of-dog]

The genocide continues:

GENEVA, June 12 (Reuters) - The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday that many people in Gaza were facing "catastrophic hunger and famine-like conditions".
"A significant proportion of Gaza's population is now facing catastrophic hunger and famine-like conditions," said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
"Despite reports of increased delivery of food, there is currently no evidence that those who need it most are receiving sufficient quantity and quality of food."

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 024-06-12/

[wat0n]

It's odd, given that the latest report by the IPC Famine Review Committee says that:

The FRC finds the last assumption above to be conservative, though plausible. However, the exclusion of all commercial and/or privately contracted deliveries and WFP deliveries of flour, sugar, yeast, and salt to bakeries, translates to the exclusion of food equal to as much as 38% to 49% coverage of the daily kilocalorie requirement in April. While FEWS NET estimated the caloric availability in the area as covering only 59-63% of the needs (based uniquely on Humanitarian Food Assistance) in April, the review done by the FRC estimates that this range would be 75% to 109% if commercial and/or privately contracted food deliveries were included (157% if a higher estimate was used6). It is possible and likely that a vast part of these commercial and/or privately contracted deliveries was and remains difficult to access, especially for the most vulnerable. However, the FRC finds unlikely that the totality of these supplies was and remains completely inaccessible to the population. For a more thorough analysis, FEWS NET could have developed scenarios assuming different levels of access to commercial and/or privately contracted deliveries as well as subsidized bread from WFP bakeries, avoiding a ‘zero’ assumption.

And indeed, their two main conclusions are:

The FRC does not find the FEWS NET analysis plausible given the uncertainty and lack of convergence of the supporting evidence employed in the analysis. Therefore, the FRC is unable to make a determination as to whether or not famine thresholds have been passed during April.

As the FRC does not find the FEWS NET analysis plausible for the current period, the FRC is unable to endorse the IPC Phase 5 (Famine) classification for the projection period.

However, this FEWS NET projection is in line with the FRC projection done in March 2024, which has not yet been updated.

[QatzelOk]

...Israelis learned that unilateral withdrawals won't bring peace or moderation by themselves...

For peace, Israel would have to stop stealing other people's land, and it has never stopped doing this since it was created.

It would have to show respect for the dreams and hopes of its Arab neighbors, rather than working with a handful of fat, anachronistic Arab tyrants who want to dominate their local populations with no regard for their opinions or views whatsoever.

It would have to demonstrate honesty, transparency, and a complete lack of racism towards Arabs and other locals.

In other words, it's never gonna happen.



So here's your Dead-Baby-In-Rubble award for trying so hard to defend the indefensible.

[Deutschmania]

The human shields argument has of course long been debunked

And it is Israel that kills those civilians. The idea that Palestinians are responsible for the military operations of Israel is a text book case of what's called "victim blaming"




What is antisemitic about calling to protest cultural institutions that invest in genocide? Your lie about antisemitism from the Left is shallow as usual.

Why do you have to lie so much?

By the definition of "human shields" that Israel uses those who died in the Oklahoma City Bombing were human shields . The relationship between the occupied territories and Israel reminds me of this one song .