Palestine

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I mean the whole mossadegh thing is quite complicated if you read around it in a bit of depth. Potentially would have been a democratic Iran but there is an argument to say it would have turned into another form of arab nationalist dictatorship in the end anyway. 

A weak argument I would say, considering the man involved, but by all means make it. Obviously, as with all historical counterfactuals, we have no idea how things would have turned out, but what we do know is that the US and UK had no interest in allowing the Iranian democratic experiment take hold as they perceived it to be a potential threat to their own political and financial interests. 

The reflexive support for Israel by many commentators in the West, on the basis that it's more democratic (provided you are not a Palestinian) than it's neighbours, has always been irritating, given the West's full support of many authoritarian regimes in the region and even their outright opposition to the birth of democracy in Iran.  

Furthermore, even though you'll get no argument from me that democracy is better than the alternatives, we still have to hold countries that are democracies (genuine ones as well as those that are merely democratic for some of their citizens) to the same standards as we hold other forms of government.  There is a tendency in the West to be more lenient when judging Israel  because it's a 'democracy'. The structure of a country's government is neither here nor there when that country is killing people en masse. 

 

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

And I posted a link which explains clearly why their democracy has several flaws in what makes a democracy. 

You don't think Hamas are smart? You think they live in caves shooting AK's at the ceiling shouting "death to the west"

Israel are smart though? Hence some of the most hilariously bad propaganda and blatant genocidal talk to go along with their decision to give up so much military advantage to go into urban combat. 

You said @Comrade 86was confusing a wartime response with whether a state is democratic or not. Is it possible October 7th was a response To the 150 dead Palestinians up to July? Did you know about those? How many children died in Palestine before October 7th? Do you know? 

Stop watching Hollywood films if you actually believe terrorists are just mindless murderers.(unless sponsored by America obvs) Hamas share a lot in common with the very smart and presentable Netenyahu. Amalekite? Sorry I meant, am I right?

 

I literally teach about terrorism at a university (where we use Israel and Palestine as an example) so I am well aware of the literature on terrorism, the distinction between strategic and ideological groups and the reasons why terrorist groups use violence as a method. I do not think Hamas are as you describe but neither do I believe they are particularly savvy operators for a terrorist group. I do not believe October 7th had anything to do with previously relatively small death tolls in what has been labelled a civil conflict no. I believe as I have stated before October 7th was done for other reasons as do numerous other reputable analysts (working at the Atlantic council and brookings for instance) who I have posted links to. 

[Leeds Ram]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

A weak argument I would say, considering the man involved, but by all means make it. Obviously, as with all historical counterfactuals, we have no idea how things would have turned out, but what we do know is that the US and UK had no interest in allowing the Iranian democratic experiment take hold as they perceived it to be a potential threat to their own political and financial interests. 

The reflexive support for Israel by many commentators in the West, on the basis that it's more democratic (provided you are not a Palestinian) than it's neighbours, has always been irritating, given the West's full support of many authoritarian regimes in the region and even their outright opposition to the birth of democracy in Iran.  

Furthermore, even though you'll get no argument from me that democracy is better than the alternatives, we still have to hold countries that are democracies (genuine ones as well as those that are merely democratic for some of their citizens) to the same standards as we hold other forms of government.  There is a tendency in the West to be more lenient when judging Israel  because it's a 'democracy'. The structure of a country's government is neither here nor there when that country is killing people en masse. 

 

It's not particularly weak when you consider Mossadegh was already stretching the limits of constitutionality in his rule and there was a distinct fear parliamentary rule would collapse entirely. Now of course we can say the people who replaced him (not just with our help but willing Iranians) were definitely no better and almost certainly somewhat worse but the counterfactual can't be completely discounted. 

I think also not just that Israel is democratic but it's certainly no more brutal in its method of war than its neighbours and history suggests is far more willing to accept legal limitations on its methodology of war when judges have limited state actions. I agree we still need to hold democracies to account, there is a whole theory about whether democracies practice war differently to authoritarians inherently but I'm not totally convinced by it. However, the reality is no matter how grim we consider Israel's actions to be it is certainly not as bad as all of its neighbours over the years. 

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

See, you can see from your post history in this thread and in the Ukraine thread referencing Trump/Afghanistan to get a good idea of what you think is an acceptable treatment of those Arab Muslim nations. Never once have I seen you speak on behalf of them. You'll justify drone strikes in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, you said (ref Israel) "the land grab is a problem"..... 

You discredit Finklestein, Pappe... I'm guessing Haaretz journalists are clueless, Raz Segal and any other expert or opinion you don't like. You say Palestine would probably be a terrorist breeding ground and Iran would probably be... 

Israel is not equal to all its citizens but it's a democracy so therefore it's much better than Jordan and whatever it does you can't possibly condemn. 

Hamas aren't smart at all. 

See, despite my bias I've never wavered from my position on Hamas. I've called them out exactly for what they are. But you managed "land grab".... It's terrorism. It's terrorism on Palestinians. 

We're looking at up to 15,000 dead. Babies dying because theres no power. Lack of evidence and terrible fake propaganda attempts to cover their tracks. Have you been oblivious to the things they actually say in that government? Really? It's Hitler level

I can say Israel has a right to defend itself. When it's actually defending. You could never say that about Palestinians. You could never imagine an Israel so aggressive that a group like Hamas should grow in numbers because Palestinians would rather die on the spot than be displaced. 

You've been outed. Go sit with Genocide Joe and tell him there's $500b pot of gold for the winner. Let's pretend he doesn't know and America aren't the most destabilising country on the globe. 

I actually believe in intervention as a method of helping citizens of those countries free themselves from oppressive tyrannical regimes. I don't believe the US's support for authoritarians is good and I've criticised Obama's policy of backing Sisi's coup over the Muslim Brotherhood and letting Assad gas his own citizens. I believe people in those nations deserve the same freedoms we demand for ourselves, that doesn't mean aligning myself with regimes or groups who are reprehensible. Giving the Palestinians a state with a Hamas led regime, or a regime where Hamas is a significant player is playing with geopolitical dynamite. Anyone who has read or knows anything about the region and the situation knows that. 

I didn't discredit Pappe, I said some historians, even in the 'new historians' field critique him which they do. I linked an article as such. However, I also highlighted that a lot of scholars, including some of my old lecturers, regularly use his materials and rate him. I gave a fair analysis of what I think. I don't buy what Finkelstein says and I've yet to know anyone who I respect on these questions who gives him any serious thought. 

It's not Hitler level for me. Again, your failure to distinguish between genocide with camps all over Europe, adapted killing techniques, dedicated murder squadrons, mass roundups for shooting and gassing and mass enslavement with a conflict in an urban environment of which many of the citizens are very young highlights your inability to separate out and distinguish between different types of actions. You can say what Israel has done is bad (I've written published articles where I've said this) and even illegal in the conduct of war but that doesn't mean it automatically constitutes genocide. I've yet to see a reasonable case be made that what has happened is a genocide according to the legal definitions of the term. 

I do believe Palestinians, like any people, have a right to defend themselves. I don't believe now that a Palestinian state is a viable political option and I do believe we're entering a new stage of the conflict where options will be limited because of the way both sides perceive one another. Of course I want Israel to give ground to Palestinians and I want Palestinains to recognise they won't get everything they want (like custody of Jerusalem) and settle for a bit less in return for an actual state and build from there. But that won't happen any time soon. 
 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

You pick and choose the experts I've noticed. 

Samuel Moyn is a seriously well respected historian who is very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause for statehood. It's hardly cherry picking to be citing him. 

[Highgate]

20 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

It's not particularly weak when you consider Mossadegh was already stretching the limits of constitutionality in his rule and there was a distinct fear parliamentary rule would collapse entirely. Now of course we can say the people who replaced him (not just with our help but willing Iranians) were definitely no better and almost certainly somewhat worse but the counterfactual can't be completely discounted. 

I think also not just that Israel is democratic but it's certainly no more brutal in its method of war than its neighbours and history suggests is far more willing to accept legal limitations on its methodology of war when judges have limited state actions. I agree we still need to hold democracies to account, there is a whole theory about whether democracies practice war differently to authoritarians inherently but I'm not totally convinced by it. However, the reality is no matter how grim we consider Israel's actions to be it is certainly not as bad as all of its neighbours over the years. 

That's quite the understatement. 

From the instigators of the Coup against Mossadegh perspective, namely the US and UK, I would say you have their concerns precisely backwards. Their fear was that parliamentary rule wouldn't collapse entirely and Mossadegh (who was considered by the West to be impervious to bribery) would succeed in developing an independent democracy that would look after Iranian interests, and one that was unconcerned with Cold War politics or BP's profit margin. Incidentally, was it the nationalizing of Anglo-Iranian oil (BP) that you consider to be stretching the limits of constitutionality? 

Considering that Israel's neighbours have been the likes of Saddam Hussein, Assad, the Saudis and recently ISIS, that's a pretty a pretty low bar.  Maybe we should just judge Israel on their own actions and forget the comparisons.  Hamas too.  

[Crewton]

9 hours ago, Highgate said:

Considering that Israel's neighbours have been the likes of Saddam Hussein, Assad, the Saudis and recently ISIS, that's a pretty a pretty low bar.  Maybe we should just judge Israel on their own actions and forget the comparisons.  Hamas too.  

Perhaps, but I think we have to recognise how their actions have been influenced by the attitudes and behaviour of those same neighbours. Had they always done things by the book, they almost certainly wouldn't exist now.

[Leeds Ram]

10 hours ago, Highgate said:

That's quite the understatement. 

From the instigators of the Coup against Mossadegh perspective, namely the US and UK, I would say you have their concerns precisely backwards. Their fear was that parliamentary rule wouldn't collapse entirely and Mossadegh (who was considered by the West to be impervious to bribery) would succeed in developing an independent democracy that would look after Iranian interests, and one that was unconcerned with Cold War politics or BP's profit margin. Incidentally, was it the nationalizing of Anglo-Iranian oil (BP) that you consider to be stretching the limits of constitutionality? 

Considering that Israel's neighbours have been the likes of Saddam Hussein, Assad, the Saudis and recently ISIS, that's a pretty a pretty low bar.  Maybe we should just judge Israel on their own actions and forget the comparisons.  Hamas too.  

I didn't say the leaders of the coup were only concerned with constitutionality. I was more highlighting that Mossadegh was merely a normal democratic leader is a bit of a myth precisely because he's been lionised as a result of his determination to get Iran's fair share from her natural resources. It's perfectly true to say Mossadegh was an anti-imperialist who wanted a fair deal and was also someone who stretched the boundaries of his office in doing so. 

Again if you read Samuel Moyn, Israel was historically one of the first leading countries to accept legal limitations on how she conducted warfare in the modern era. So I think merely comparing Israel to those groups/leaders is a bit of an error. 

[Highgate]

Just now, Crewton said:

Perhaps, but I think we have to recognise how their actions have been influenced by the attitudes and behaviour of those same neighbours. Had they always done things by the book, they almost certainly wouldn't exist now.

True, they've always been in a precarious position and with their particularly tragic history in the background their siege mindset is completely understandable.  But the dodgy way in which Israel was created in the first place and the forced expulsion of so many Palestinians in 1948 are the injustices that have placed Israel in this unenviable position from the start.  

[Alph]

14 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I actually believe in intervention as a method of helping citizens of those countries free themselves from oppressive tyrannical regimes. I don't believe the US's support for authoritarians is good and I've criticised Obama's policy of backing Sisi's coup over the Muslim Brotherhood and letting Assad gas his own citizens. I believe people in those nations deserve the same freedoms we demand for ourselves, that doesn't mean aligning myself with regimes or groups who are reprehensible. Giving the Palestinians a state with a Hamas led regime, or a regime where Hamas is a significant player is playing with geopolitical dynamite. Anyone who has read or knows anything about the region and the situation knows that. 

I didn't discredit Pappe, I said some historians, even in the 'new historians' field critique him which they do. I linked an article as such. However, I also highlighted that a lot of scholars, including some of my old lecturers, regularly use his materials and rate him. I gave a fair analysis of what I think. I don't buy what Finkelstein says and I've yet to know anyone who I respect on these questions who gives him any serious thought. 

It's not Hitler level for me. Again, your failure to distinguish between genocide with camps all over Europe, adapted killing techniques, dedicated murder squadrons, mass roundups for shooting and gassing and mass enslavement with a conflict in an urban environment of which many of the citizens are very young highlights your inability to separate out and distinguish between different types of actions. You can say what Israel has done is bad (I've written published articles where I've said this) and even illegal in the conduct of war but that doesn't mean it automatically constitutes genocide. I've yet to see a reasonable case be made that what has happened is a genocide according to the legal definitions of the term. 

I do believe Palestinians, like any people, have a right to defend themselves. I don't believe now that a Palestinian state is a viable political option and I do believe we're entering a new stage of the conflict where options will be limited because of the way both sides perceive one another. Of course I want Israel to give ground to Palestinians and I want Palestinains to recognise they won't get everything they want (like custody of Jerusalem) and settle for a bit less in return for an actual state and build from there. But that won't happen any time soon. 
 

Bore off with strawman arguments. Hamas lead state...  

Oh, if it's not experts your respected circles or the language used by Israeli officials when they talk about there being "NO innocent Palestinians" is not genocidal or Hitler level for you then that's enough. End of. Feck the experts that argue differently in Haaretz columns. Until they get the respect of you or your peers then they have no validity. 

These Arabs just won't accept our values. We've bombed them, invaded them, stolen from them... but they just won't accept our democracy. All they have to do is look at Israel and see the black Jews, the Arab citizens etc. They'll see the equal rights. But no. They live in their caves plotting ways to destroy the west when all we ever do is help them export their natural resources. If only they'd look at how we helped Africa. Bloody crying about "land grab". It's only land. Disputed land. And we'll remove that gas for them too. All part of our democracy service. 

Fed up of Amnesty, Human Rights, ICJ, UN etc keep criticising. Antisemitic organisations. They have no LeedsRam verified experts, that's their problem

[Alph]

5 hours ago, Crewton said:

Perhaps, but I think we have to recognise how their actions have been influenced by the attitudes and behaviour of those same neighbours. Had they always done things by the book, they almost certainly wouldn't exist now.

True. Which is a starting point of a us finding common ground. There always needs to be balance. But there never is. Israel is always playing the victim. Always protected. 

Nobody here is completely blind to Israeli/Jew suffering. 

[Highgate]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

I didn't say the leaders of the coup were only concerned with constitutionality. I was more highlighting that Mossadegh was merely a normal democratic leader is a bit of a myth precisely because he's been lionised as a result of his determination to get Iran's fair share from her natural resources. It's perfectly true to say Mossadegh was an anti-imperialist who wanted a fair deal and was also someone who stretched the boundaries of his office in doing so. 

Again if you read Samuel Moyn, Israel was historically one of the first leading countries to accept legal limitations on how she conducted warfare in the modern era. So I think merely comparing Israel to those groups/leaders is a bit of an error. 

Sounds like the West should have just left him alone to get on with it then. 

You've misunderstood me if you think I'm saying we should be making those comparisons, I've been saying that we should be judging Israel's actions on their own merits and forego relative judgements. 

I'm not sure Israel being a country that historically accepted legal limitations on how to conduct warfare is particular relevant now, given the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza that the world has just witnessed.  Nor do I think the news would be much comfort to the tens of thousands of Palestinians who are currently mourning the death of a loved one.  I'm not sure why anyone would bother mentioning it at this point to be honest. It's all a bit Orwellian if you ask me.  

[Leeds Ram]

49 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Bore off with strawman arguments. Hamas lead state...  

Oh, if it's not experts your respected circles or the language used by Israeli officials when they talk about there being "NO innocent Palestinians" is not genocidal or Hitler level for you then that's enough. End of. Feck the experts that argue differently in Haaretz columns. Until they get the respect of you or your peers then they have no validity. 

These Arabs just won't accept our values. We've bombed them, invaded them, stolen from them... but they just won't accept our democracy. All they have to do is look at Israel and see the black Jews, the Arab citizens etc. They'll see the equal rights. But no. They live in their caves plotting ways to destroy the west when all we ever do is help them export their natural resources. If only they'd look at how we helped Africa. Bloody crying about "land grab". It's only land. Disputed land. And we'll remove that gas for them too. All part of our democracy service. 

Fed up of Amnesty, Human Rights, ICJ, UN etc keep criticising. Antisemitic organisations. They have no LeedsRam verified experts, that's their problem

You're someone who clearly can't engage in good faith so I won't bother responding further. 

[Alph]

21 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

You're someone who clearly can't engage in good faith so I won't bother responding further. 

Gutted. 

[Crewton]

3 hours ago, Highgate said:

True, they've always been in a precarious position and with their particularly tragic history in the background their siege mindset is completely understandable.  But the dodgy way in which Israel was created in the first place and the forced expulsion of so many Palestinians in 1948 are the injustices that have placed Israel in this unenviable position from the start.  

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" eh.......

[ramit]

Not a two state solution, a final solution.  All perfectly legal, I am sure.

 

 

[Alph]

22 minutes ago, ramit said:

Not a two state solution, a final solution.  All perfectly legal, I am sure.

 

 

That's the "peace corridor" speech. Where he said Iran needs to face a nuclear threat, Palestine doesn't exist and they share a border with the good Muslims. 

[Alph]

Anyone here buying the Israel friendship song 2023?

It's in this video if you'd like the music video 

"In a year we will annihilate everyone " la la la la. Sing along guys. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Alpha

[PistoldPete]

On 25/11/2023 at 23:12, Leeds Ram said:

I actually believe in intervention as a method of helping citizens of those countries free themselves from oppressive tyrannical regimes. I don't believe the US's support for authoritarians is good and I've criticised Obama's policy of backing Sisi's coup over the Muslim Brotherhood and letting Assad gas his own citizens. I believe people in those nations deserve the same freedoms we demand for ourselves, that doesn't mean aligning myself with regimes or groups who are reprehensible. Giving the Palestinians a state with a Hamas led regime, or a regime where Hamas is a significant player is playing with geopolitical dynamite. Anyone who has read or knows anything about the region and the situation knows that. 

I didn't discredit Pappe, I said some historians, even in the 'new historians' field critique him which they do. I linked an article as such. However, I also highlighted that a lot of scholars, including some of my old lecturers, regularly use his materials and rate him. I gave a fair analysis of what I think. I don't buy what Finkelstein says and I've yet to know anyone who I respect on these questions who gives him any serious thought. 

It's not Hitler level for me. Again, your failure to distinguish between genocide with camps all over Europe, adapted killing techniques, dedicated murder squadrons, mass roundups for shooting and gassing and mass enslavement with a conflict in an urban environment of which many of the citizens are very young highlights your inability to separate out and distinguish between different types of actions. You can say what Israel has done is bad (I've written published articles where I've said this) and even illegal in the conduct of war but that doesn't mean it automatically constitutes genocide. I've yet to see a reasonable case be made that what has happened is a genocide according to the legal definitions of the term. 

I do believe Palestinians, like any people, have a right to defend themselves. I don't believe now that a Palestinian state is a viable political option and I do believe we're entering a new stage of the conflict where options will be limited because of the way both sides perceive one another. Of course I want Israel to give ground to Palestinians and I want Palestinains to recognise they won't get everything they want (like custody of Jerusalem) and settle for a bit less in return for an actual state and build from there. But that won't happen any time soon. 
 

LeedsRam you show knowledge and balance. I think you have landed on the wrong thread. 

[Leeds Ram]

20 hours ago, Highgate said:

Sounds like the West should have just left him alone to get on with it then. 

You've misunderstood me if you think I'm saying we should be making those comparisons, I've been saying that we should be judging Israel's actions on their own merits and forego relative judgements. 

I'm not sure Israel being a country that historically accepted legal limitations on how to conduct warfare is particular relevant now, given the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza that the world has just witnessed.  Nor do I think the news would be much comfort to the tens of thousands of Palestinians who are currently mourning the death of a loved one.  I'm not sure why anyone would bother mentioning it at this point to be honest. It's all a bit Orwellian if you ask me.  

Well then you get potentially a Nasser like situation which is hardly good. Again, it depends from the perspective you come from and I think we have quite different ones on this particular case 🙂 

I think when discussing absolute merits, you can't really divorce actions from context of the time they exist in to make a valid moral judgement. I don't think Israel has been entirely indiscriminate in the same way that Assad has been, but the barriers previously erected in terms of discrimination of military force have definitely been lowered. There are also completely valid questions about war crimes, even if they currently stop some way short of genocide.  Of course, to those who have lost loved ones intent does not matter nor does whether the act was strictly in the bounds of international law. But I wouldn't be making this argument to that family... I'm making this argument on a derby county forum. 

I don't think it's Orwellian to mention it at all. I'm not changing definitions to mean something else or to assert something didn't happen when it definitely did. I'm also not being morally hypocritical in saying one thing and practising another.