Israel, Palestine and Iran (and Lebanon)

[magnkarl]

19 minutes ago, Jareth said:

In Israel that can be achieved at the ballot box - elsewhere it's not so easy. 

Argh - hadn't read back the page - scuzeee

Lebanon has fairly 'free' elections, aside from Hezbollah banning many minorities a vote in their main area in the South.

They do have a choice, it just seems that they've swallowed the Iranian priesthood's propaganda, and once PLO helped the extremists cleanse the country of secularism in the late 70's\early 80's, they've been operating with a sunken cost fallacy position ever since.

'Oh crap, getting all the minorities out/killed and making the government religious rather than secular didn't help, let's get the Iranians to help!'

Even though Hezbollah and their dime a dozen Iranian buddies want to blame everything on Israel - they've managed perfectly well themselves to ruin country after country even if they've introduced the same draconian rule of law as their black robed maniacs to the East.

Edited yesterday at 10:41 by magnkarl

[Jareth]

Just now, magnkarl said:

Lebanon has fairly 'free' elections, aside from Hezbollah banning many minorities a vote in their main area in the South.

They do have a choice, it just seems that they've swallowed the Iranian priesthood's propaganda, and once PLO helped the extremists cleanse the country of secularism in the late 70's\early 80's, they're operating with a sunken cost fallacy.

I've obvs had to google it but in 2022 Hezbollah lost their majority - so you could say they're moving in the right direction. Although I'd like to see how they remove Hezbollah had they lost entirely. As @Mandy Lifeboats points out, in Israel they want a far right government, one which does not believe in a 2 state solution. If Lebanon kicked out Hezbollah, it still wouldn't move the dial on peace in the region. If Israel elect a government that wants a 2 state solution - then it changes everything. 

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I've obvs had to google it but in 2022 Hezbollah lost their majority - so you could say they're moving in the right direction. Although I'd like to see how they remove Hezbollah had they lost entirely. As @Mandy Lifeboats points out, in Israel they want a far right government, one which does not believe in a 2 state solution. If Lebanon kicked out Hezbollah, it still wouldn't move the dial on peace in the region. If Israel elect a government that wants a 2 state solution - then it changes everything. 

Ideally Lebanon should look to Jordan about how to be prosperous in the region and stay out of Syria and Iran's pocket.

Jordan, Lebanon and Israel are much closer to each other if you look at their political mentality than Syria, Iran and the Gulf countries, it's just a shame that PLO ruined Lebanon in the civil war.

There are plenty of exiled Lebanese who are pretty happy that Israel is going after Hezbollah, and in particular Nasrallah.

Edited yesterday at 10:45 by magnkarl

[sne]

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Sincere question-  did you actually listen to the speech and the context of the map?  Or did you just react to the picture and the X post?  

I listed to the speech I posted (on double speed).  It was a speech of partnership. 

I don't have or use x, never had. Just thought it was a easy way to post it. 

It was indeed about partnership, just with Palestine erased. At least it was better than the map the Israeli finance minister seemed to promote last year.

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 minute ago, sne said:

I don't have or use x, never had. Just thought it was a easy way to post it. 

It was indeed about partnership, just with Palestine erased. At least it was better than the map the Israeli finance minister seemed to promote last year.

 

Israel have done plenty of awful things.  So have the Palestinians. 

There's plenty of legitimate things out there without including pictures without context and where it's easy for one side to jump to a false conclusion.  

I mean that as a criticism of " X ".  I mean you no offence.  

 

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I don’t get the meaning of what you’re saying there. Is there a typo or am I being dense?  What is the point? What are “the repeated replies to support Israel” 

Apologies, the autocorrect predictive text has made a mess of a messy point. Essentially I'm saying it's interesting to see Israel is always getting the tacit support, defending, mitigation.

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

We agree that both sides are ruthless bastards. 

But only one side has declared in writing that the other side has no right to exist.  

A first step to peace might be to soften that starting point.  

True. 

One side is actually making a decent stab at doing it though.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I wrote about the topic below in the Russian thread. It seems worth repeating here.  

Very few armed conflicts involve the complete destruction of a state.  It normally reaches a point where  the loser has no means of achieving anything and the victor doesn't want to lose more of its own lives for little gain.  Or both of the sides reach an effective stalemate with little to gain but a lot to lose.  

Palestine is well past the defeat stage and needs to settle in order to save its own lives.  It's only hope is to raise itself up to stalemate with the intervention of Iran.  Iran isn't going to commit that sort of support. 

Germany should have surrendered in 1944 to save more of its own people's lives.  Palestine should do the same (regardless of whether you believe they are right or wrong).  

The only thing that matters now is saving lives. 

Palestinians might gain more settling today than waiting until tomorrow.  

[sne]

11 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Israel have done plenty of awful things.  So have the Palestinians. 

There's plenty of legitimate things out there without including pictures without context and where it's easy for one side to jump to a false conclusion.  

I mean that as a criticism of " X ".  I mean you no offence.  

 

I might be wrong here but where we seem to differ is that I don't think there is one side here who just want's to live in peace and get on with their lives while the other is intents on erasing the other. I think both sides are intent on erasing each other. One of these sides is actually doing a fair job at succeeding at it, although not at the pace they would have liked. The other side are rattling their cans and doing a lot of posturing (and killing) about it and In an alternate universe where they had the backing of the biggest military complex in the world I'm certain they would have been even more ruthless, barbaric and evil than Israel currently are.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

We actually are in agreement more that you think. 

Both sides are conducting themselves terribly and neither really want peace.  

Both sides would be happy to destroy the other.  

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Apologies, the autocorrect predictive text has made a mess of a messy point. Essentially I'm saying it's interesting to see Israel is always getting the tacit support, defending, mitigation.

Ta. From my personal perspective, it’s obvious that the US Government ultimately takes the side of Israel, almost unquestionably (by them). The last UK Government sort of did what the US did, but a bit less (apart from the difference that we sell them almost no arms). Germany for historical reasons also has a very supportive relationship with Israel. Beyond that though, I feel most people are extremely critical of what Israel has done in Gaza, less critical of what’s going on in Lebanon. They are also appalled by the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah and hold no torch for Iran’s mad mullahs.

Of course there are people who are invested emotionally, or culturally, in one side or the other and those people seem to kind of be ultra sensitive of any criticism of “their” side, or any comment that the “other” side might have some reasoning or justification for some of their actions or words.

[bobzy]

4 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Palestine is well past the defeat stage and needs to settle in order to save its own lives.  Its only hope is to raise itself up to stalemate with the intervention of Iran.  Iran isn't going to commit that sort of support. 

Germany should have surrendered in 1944 to save more of its own people's lives.  Palestine should do the same (regardless of whether you believe they are right or wrong).  

The only thing that matters now is saving lives. 

Palestinians might gain more settling today than waiting until tomorrow.  

It isn’t that straight forward though, is it? They’ve seen “their land” continually eroded over the past 70 or whatever years - there is no prospect of peace. Israel doesn’t want the existence of those Palestinian lands.

And that isn’t a “they’re the bad guys” thing, it’s just how it has played out. One side has taken a far greater humanitarian battering over the years than the other. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

They’ve seen “their land”

Whose land exactly? The Ottoman Empire's land?

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

It isn’t that straight forward though, is it? They’ve seen “their land” continually eroded over the past 70 or whatever years - there is no prospect of peace. Israel doesn’t want the existence of those Palestinian lands.

And that isn’t a “they’re the bad guys” thing, it’s just how it has played out. One side has taken a far greater humanitarian battering over the years than the other. 

Israel has ample resources to make further gains.  

The Palestians can only lose more.  

Regardless of who is right or wrong -:surrender is sometimes the best option.  

 

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Whose land exactly? The Ottoman Empire's land?

 

My knowledge is far more limited on this subject than many others in here, but my vague understanding is that millions of Palestinians have been displaced with “their land” (not really sure how else to phrase this) taken away from them, as such, and “gained” by Israel.

Is this not correct?

[bickster]

Just now, bobzy said:

My knowledge is far more limited on this subject than many others in here, but my vague understanding is that millions of Palestinians have been displaced with “their land” (not really sure how else to phrase this) taken away from them, as such, and “gained” by Israel.

Is this not correct?

There was no Palestine

The short version is this.

It was the Ottoman Empire. The Empire collapsed in WW1 and that part of it came under British Rule (under the League of Nations) as Mandatory Palestine, WW2 happens, blah blah Israel created and the rest as they say....

At no point between now and the 1500's was there an independent country called Palestine

[sharkyvilla]

Reminds me a bit of this from the West Wing

 

[sne]

 

[bobzy]

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

There was no Palestine

The short version is this.

It was the Ottoman Empire. The Empire collapsed in WW1 and that part of it came under British Rule (under the League of Nations) as Mandatory Palestine, WW2 happens, blah blah Israel created and the rest as they say....

At no point between now and the 1500's was there an independent country called Palestine

I deliberately didn’t mention “Palestine”, but the displacing of people labelled Palestinians.

I don’t know how else to phrase it other than “their land” because it was, presumably, where they lived until they were displaced by Israelis.

But, as I say, I don’t have in-depth knowledge. 

[chrisp65]

47 minutes ago, bickster said:

There was no Palestine

The short version is this.

It was the Ottoman Empire. The Empire collapsed in WW1 and that part of it came under British Rule (under the League of Nations) as Mandatory Palestine, WW2 happens, blah blah Israel created and the rest as they say....

At no point between now and the 1500's was there an independent country called Palestine

If I had a home and some people with flags and guns came and took it, driving me out and causing me to live in a refugee camp, they’ve taken my land.