S Africa Makes Case: Israel Committing Genocide

[icehorse]

You didn't zoom out far enuf to see how
Christians have run roughshod over Muslims
in the Middle East....killing, stealing, invading,
& oppressing

When was this exactly? Because I think the opposite is true. Islam started in a small space in SA and rapidly expanded throughout the ME, North Africa and southern Europe via bloody conquest, including 500+ recorded battles. They have held the ME ever since. (Oh I can't wait for you to bring up the Crusades )

 

[Revoltingest]

When was this exactly?

Zooming out just a little, let's start with the Nakba in 1948.
Then it got worse, eg, the Iran coup, attacking Iran (killing
nearly a million), invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq,
invading Iraq again, supporting Israel's many many crimes
against Palestinians.

 

[icehorse]

Zooming out just a little, let's start with the Nakba in 1948.
Then it got worse, eg, the Iran coup, attacking Iran (killing
nearly a million), invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq,
invading Iraq again, supporting Israel's many many crimes
against Palestinians.

The history of Israel proper is quite complex, 1948 was terrible.

But the rest of your examples have nothing to do with "Christians" running roughshod over Muslims. If you want to say that G. Bush is a war criminal, you'll get no push back from me, but it wasn't religious.

 

[icehorse]

Besides, if it weren't for Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians, Hamas wouldn't exist in the first place. It wouldn't have a reason to. This is ultimately Israel's fault.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You didn't zoom out far enuf to see how
Christians have run roughshod over Muslims
in the Middle East....killing, stealing, invading,
& oppressing

I too am unaware of that. Is that from a movie?

 

[Revoltingest]

I too am unaware of that. Is that from a movie?

History.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Anything to say?

 

[icehorse]

Besides, if it weren't for Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians, Hamas wouldn't exist in the first place. It wouldn't have a reason to. This is ultimately Israel's fault.

This situation is unbelievably complex. There are no easy answers.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This situation is unbelievably complex. There are no easy answers.

Bs. Ethnic cleansing and stealing land is wrong. Hijacking the media and goverment policies of countries for the betterment of a foreign nation is wrong. Zionism is a racist ideology based on nonsense. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[icehorse]

Bs. Ethnic cleansing and stealing land is wrong. Hijacking the media and goverment policies of countries for the betterment of a foreign nation is wrong. Zionism is a racist ideology based on nonsense. Seems pretty clear to me.

I think your analysis is quite shallow, but I also think I'm going to just agree to disagree with you.

peace

 

[Brickjectivity]

History.

History is a curse upon the young and a plague upon the old, and its even worse for the dead.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think your analysis is quite shallow, but I also think I'm going to just agree to disagree with you.

peace

Yeah, just like the last time when you didn't respond to what I said. That's fine.

And "shallow"? How ironic, since you blame all conflicts in the Middle East on Islam, which is ridiculously ignorant and simplistic. You actually think Israel is fighting for its survival. Lol.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This situation is unbelievably complex. There are no easy answers.

I notice that you only bring out the "super complex"/"unbelievably complex" claim when you dismiss criticism of Israel's policies, not when you reduce the decades-long struggle to a fault of "Islamism" or Islam.

Either the situation is "unbelievably complex," in which case one can't simplistically reduce it to "Islamism is the problem," or it isn't "unbelievably" complex (but may still be complex nonetheless) and clearly includes a stronger side with a far greater ability to oppress the other. I don't see how one could assert "unbelievable" complexity but then try to pin the decades of struggle on just one ideology or religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

History is a curse upon the young and a plague upon the old, and its even worse for the dead.

The dead don't care about history.
This despite their being part of it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The dead don't care about history.
This despite their being part of it.

Maybe. Depends on if you count us as the dead or not.

 

[icehorse]

I notice that you only bring out the "super complex"/"unbelievably complex" claim when you dismiss criticism of Israel's policies, not when you reduce the decades-long struggle to a fault of "Islamism" or Islam.

Either the situation is "unbelievably complex," in which case one can't simplistically reduce it to "Islamism is the problem," or it isn't "unbelievably" complex (but may still be complex nonetheless) and clearly includes a stronger side with a far greater ability to oppress the other. I don't see how one could assert "unbelievable" complexity but then try to pin the decades of struggle on just one ideology or religion.

Context matters. Whenever we think about this situation we get into blame games and "chicken and egg" sorts of discussions. In the last 100 years Israel has made mistakes. But so have the Arabs. So when do you start the clock when tying to figure out the issue? The Balfour declaration? 1948? 1967? Oslo accords? 2005? And when you pick a starting point, why do you pick that one?

But one thing IS clear, and that's the fact that Islamists have been systematically erasing all non-Islamic people from the ME for centuries. So while Israel has made missteps I do not see how you can ignore the overwhelming history of Islamism in ALL of the lands surrounding Israel?

Next, how do we decide who's land is whose? After WWI Jordan won the land lottery. Much of Jordan is on lands that have been inhabited by Palestinians for centuries. Why isn't a part of Jordan's land up for discussion to create a Palestinian homeland? Why isn't the Sinai also under consideration? Or Lebanon or Syria? Those countries were handed that land quite recently. Why not redraw borders again?

Seems complex to me.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But one thing IS clear, and that's the fact that Islamists have been systematically erasing all non-Islamic people from the ME for centuries. So while Israel has made missteps I do not see how you can ignore the overwhelming history of Islamism in ALL of the lands surrounding Israel?

This is historically inaccurate, especially because Islamism is a relatively recent poltical movement that is barely over a century old. It is also currently not in control of Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, or Oman, just to name some countries in the region. To blame Islamism for geopolitical issues in "ALL of the lands surrounding Israel" when it has rarely—relative to their overall history—held any real positions of power in most of them is largely to tilt at windmills. The influence of Islamism on the region as a whole (as opposed to specific countries therein) has been much more limited in scope than what you seem to be asserting.

Ironically and sadly, Western interventionism in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among others, has been among the primary catalysts for the increased empowerment of radical Islamist factions in the last several decades.

Next, how do we decide who's land is whose? After WWI Jordan won the land lottery. Much of Jordan is on lands that have been inhabited by Palestinians for centuries. Why isn't a part of Jordan's land up for discussion to create a Palestinian homeland? Why isn't the Sinai also under consideration? Or Lebanon or Syria? Those countries were handed that land quite recently. Why not redraw borders again?

Uprooting Palestinians from land in which they have lived for generations is a "solution" that would create more problems than it would purport to solve.

There's no justification for redrawing borders in that manner just because Israel currently refuses to negotiate a treaty that would enable the establishment of a Palestinian state per the pre-1967 borders drawn by the UN.

Seems complex to me.

Good. That's a reason not to try to boil it all down to "Islamism."

 

[icehorse]

This is historically inaccurate, especially because Islamism is a relatively recent poltical movement that is barely over a century old. It is also currently not in control of Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, or Oman, just to name some countries in the region. To blame Islamism for geopolitical issues in "ALL of the lands surrounding Israel" when it has rarely—relative to their overall history—held any real positions of power in most of them is largely to tilt at windmills. The influence of Islamism on the region as a whole (as opposed to specific countries therein) has been much more limited in scope than what you seem to be asserting.

It seems we should clean up some semantics here. Perhaps I use the term Islamism too broadly? I mean it to mean those Muslims who view Islam as having a strong political facet and who have no issue conquering non-Muslim land, by force if necessary. So if there is a better term for that subset of Muslims, I'm open to using it. I'll use "Islamist" until you tell me a better term.

All of the countries you listed are the result of Islamic conquests, typically violent ones, correct? It might have happened a 1000 years ago, but it was still Islamism as I'm defining it.

Ironically and sadly, Western interventionism in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among others, has been among the primary catalysts for the increased empowerment of radical Islamist factions in the last several decades.

I think we're somewhat agreed on this point. I would agree that Western interventions have been totally horrible. But it's interesting to note that "the West" carved up the Ottoman empire about 100 years ago, and those newly formed countries that were granted a lot of land are not complaining.

Uprooting Palestinians from land in which they have lived for generations is a "solution" that would create more problems than it would purport to solve.

There's no justification for redrawing borders in that manner just because Israel currently refuses to negotiate a treaty that would enable the establishment of a Palestinian state per the pre-1967 borders drawn by the UN.

A couple of responses:

- Why did you pick 1967?
- Over the last seven(?) decades or so, Arab leaders have been offered many treaties - many of them quite generous - to create a two-state solution and they have all been rejected. Do you really think that "this time" such a treaty is possible? Why would it work this time when it's never worked in the past?
- As for the UN, when it comes to Israel the fact is that the UN has been captured by the OIC, and it's transparently obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe. Depends on if you count us as the dead or not.

Spamalot introduced me to the
concept of dubious death.

 

[Jimmy]

This OP more or less claims that Israel is committing genocide. There are several issues with that claim, including:

- The population in Gaza is hundreds of thousands more people than it was 20 years ago, which in itself makes claims of "genocide" preposterous.
- Context matters. Israel and Gaza are a part of a region. It is nonsensical to artificially isolate them from the rest of the region and judge them in isolation. This is a complex, dynamic system. You must - for example - consider Eygpt, Jordan, Lebanon and others when trying to determine what's really going on. To provide more specific examples, shouldn't we factor in Egypt's long standing blockade of Gazans? Shouldn't we factor in Jordan and Lebanon's treatment of Palestinians?

Killin 30 K is a touch much in response to oct 7. ya think?