German militarism didn't end by a decree by the Allies. It died because of a persistent drive by West German officials to create a new Citizen-soldier army (Bundeswehr) and simply because the people saw what an epic fail it all had been. In fact the East German army represented far more the older Wehrmacht because they simply declared that they hadn't anything to do with Nazism.Prussia was abolished in 1947, deemed a "bearer of militarism and reaction" by the Allies. Could this be genocide? Genocide of the focal point of German militarism? — BitconnectCarlos
They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted.I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac
Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden?was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac
As far as I’m concerned, the primary worry for us is not Palestinians or Jews getting their nation-states (neither are perceived as necessary to people other than them themselves) because we can’t write their history for them, it’s about keeping us as far as possible from WW3. And the dilemma for the US as global hegemonic power remains: how is it possible to deter rivals without escalating or risking an overstretch?
I’m not going to pretend I have a clue - but at face value, colonialism.
This is actually the real tragedy here. Because if it would have been another administration, then yes, naturally we would have had the war... but perhaps no ICJ ruling. No Israeli Cabinet members celebrating on a conference how they will put up new settlements in Gaza and no talk of 'voluntary' moving of Palestinians from Gaza. That would be just the "ordinary" political rhetoric going around in Israel which we wouldn't have to take seriously.October 7th was the first realistic chance they had to go full-on genocide. They couldn't have done that under the gaze of the rest of the world without a really good bit of provocation. And they got it. — bert1
Bibi and the Israeli leadership understands that for now they will have the support of those that will support them, but that can change if some "final solution" type razing to the ground is implemented. One thing is rhetoric, another thing is implementin strategies that the Roman Army or the Soviet Army in Afghanistan implemented. They do understand that in the prison camp called Gaza, people don't have anywhere to go in the end. Yet you have a 300 000 strong force, which the majority is land forces. Gaza is small: it's 40 kilometers wide and only 6 kilometers deep. Yes, even 100 000 troops are a large force on that kind of area.
You can go literally check every building and shed there and then have the forces quite close. With a force of 100 000 you have basically one soldier watching over 20 Palestinians. Naturally it doesn't go like this, but it just shows the contrast here. (For example to Ukraine).
Because at some death toll that support that people have for Israelis will turn if the death toll of Palestinians goes very much up. — ssu
I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac
They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted. — ssu
was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac
Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden? — ssu
Who else would agitate for a world war. Or be capable of conducting a large scale war?
What may happen though, is a wider regional war with power brokers conducting proxy wars and more of the Middle East left in ruin and failed states. — Punshhh
That's true. And you can see from the example of Iraq how difficult these countries are to manage, when borders are drawn by actually thinking about the people living there.The promise wasn't to the Palestinians nor explicitly/specifically about Palestine, if you are referring to the Hussein-McMahon agreements (whose actual content is still disputed given its critical textual ambiguities). — neomac
With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac
Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual!“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac
But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. Or there may have been, but it's on the counterfactual. That possible time ended when Yigal Amir killed Yitzhak Rabin. Then it was over. And then you got the vicious circle of attacks and counterattacks which the hawks enjoyed on both sides. The hawks enjoyed each other so much, that actually Bibi supported Hamas by funding them! It makes perfect sense for Bibi.My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac
What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac
With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.
“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac
Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual! — ssu
My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac
But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. — ssu
And it seems that you totally forget or ignore that PLO actually stopped it's fight against Israel and did recognize it. Or that isn't enough of "show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state"? Oh but they didn't finalize the peace process... well, because those who celebrated that Rabin was dead came to power. — ssu
when those Evangelists outnumber Jewish-Americans (of whom many are critical to the actions of the Netanyahu administration), it's a slam dunk. To win votes in the US, you have to favor Israel. Doesn't matter if few "leftist hippies" are angry about it, it's the culture war, baby! The US will support Israel no matter what. — ssu
If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac
Exactly, now those political leaders could have prevailed if it genuinely would have brought peace. The real question is if really even with a written peace deal on paper celebrated on the White House lawn, would it have been carried through by the "River-to-the-Sea" Likud party and the "River-to-the-Sea" Palestine militant factions? Because all it takes is a small cabal of terrorists blowing up something... or one ultra-zionist assassin to shoot an Israeli prime minister.No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac
No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac
It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac
If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.
And then don't forget the other side also. Ask yourself, who killed Folke Bernadotte? As you should notice, at that time also the Israeli side wasn't some unified actor benevolently hoping to share the land with the Palestinians. So your alternative reasoning simply doesn't add up. — ssu
I think the misunderstandings are mutual: my point is that ordinary people would opt for peace, stability and prosperity if that chance would exist. It doesn't.he reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. — neomac
It is a fact that Israel doesn't accept a huge number of UN resolutions, even Security Council resolutions, so what is your point?It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. — neomac
Educate! Counterexamples? And I am not as generous as the fellow in the video who calls for just one; rather I would prefer to see a representative voice. Do I correctly infer that you perceive no significant distinction between Israelis and their neighbors? That they are in moral terms no different than two crocodiles duking it out in a small pond?And gives a typical bullshit lie that "all their Palestinian leaders have said they want it all". It simply isn't true. — ssu
First of all, when PLO laid down it arms and recognized Israel, that naturally means that there is a state of Israel. Or just what do you think recognizing a sovereign state means?Educate! Counterexamples? — tim wood
The initiative offers normalisation of relations by the Arab world with Israel, in return for a full withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories (including the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Lebanon), with the possibility of comparable and mutual agreed minor swaps of the land between Israel and Palestine, a "just settlement" of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Initiative was initially overshadowed by the Passover massacre, a major Palestinian attack that took place on 27 March 2002, the day before the Initiative was published.
The Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat immediately embraced the initiative. His successor Mahmoud Abbas also supported the plan and officially asked U.S. President Barack Obama to adopt it as part of his Middle East policy.
The Israeli government under Ariel Sharon rejected the initiative as a "non-starter" because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders.
And yes, there are many examples, but I guess even one tells the story(LA Times, Dec 12th 1988) PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat will recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders in his address to the United Nations in Geneva, Arafat’s political adviser Bassam Abu Sharif said in an interview published today.
Sharif told the largest-selling Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, that Arafat will clarify resolutions passed in Algiers last month by the Palestine National Council at the U.N. General Assembly’s debate on Palestine on Tuesday.
(The Guardian, May 1st 2017) Hamas has unveiled a new political program softening its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state in territories occupied by Israel in the six-day war of 1967.
The new document states the Islamist movement it is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only with Zionism that drives the occupation of Palestine.
The new document also insists that Hamas is a not a revolutionary force that seeks to intervene in other countries, a commitment that is likely to be welcomed by other states such as Egypt.
Israel rejected the document before its full publication, with a spokesman for the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world, but it will not succeed.”
dehumanises the victims and is actively hostile to their human dignity — Punshhh
This is clearly ethnic cleansing and is open to the charge of genocide. — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.