That's a very one-sided explanation. I'm not saying that Israel are the "good guys" but there's more to their conflicts with their neighbors than just Israeli aggression.
Only if you believe that Israel's occupation of Palestine is legitimate. In 1948 we knew better that to create a new colonization project (or should have).
You're changing arguments. Your first comment was phrased in present tense and was about current Israeli aggression. Now you are supporting your one-sided view by claiming the original settlement was illegitimate.
The reality is at some point you have to move past history to make the best decision now. It's neither moral nor practical to uproot or kill the people currently living in Israel because the original settlement was wrong or misguided.
Palastinian claims over Israel make as much sense as Taiwanese claims over mainland China (or PRC claims over Taiwan). And I say that as someone who is very against continued aggression from Israel and for recognition of a Palastinian state.
>Your first comment was phrased in present tense and was about current Israeli aggression.
What about Israel regularly attacking the Syrian territory near its capital using Lebanese airspace without permission and allegedly using civilian aircraft to shield its warplanes from return fire? Yes, Israel and Syria are formally in a state of war, but so are Russia and Japan.
Iranian forces on the Syrian soil pose a threat to Israel? Sure. But they stay there with permission from the internationally recognized government (does not matter if you like it or not), so those strikes is a clear act of aggression against Syria and violation of its sovereignty.
And I haven't even touched the Golan Heights, continued occupation of which is clearly illegal under the international law. But who cares about the international law if it's your best buddy in the region, right? You may as well recognize its sovereignty over the territory with zero repercussions.
I think what's missing here is that Israel trying to defend itself from Syrian aggression. Israel's occupation of the Golan heights is in response to multiple Syrian invasions and attacks from the position, and Israel has offered to return the Golan heights to Syria in return for peace. Unfortunately, Syria still chooses not to recognize Israel, and as you point out, hosts Iranian forces on Israel's border. It's fair to say Israel has violated international law in an attempt to protect its sovereignty from Syrian aggression.
> The reality is at some point you have to move past history to make the best decision now. It's neither moral nor practical to uproot or kill the people currently living in Israel because the original settlement was wrong or misguided.
Indeed. No one in the right mind would suggest that the European settlers that colonized North America should go home. However, we very much expect them to treat the remaining Native Americans that they didn't exterminate as equals and also to recognize that a genocide took place.
Israel was founded in much the same way. In 1948, 80% of all Palestinians in what became Israel were driven into exile by Jewish forces. They were prevented from returning while Israel confiscated their property and handed it over to Jewish immigrants. "In Israel, only Jews have a right to return" Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed.
To this date, Israel still doesn't allow the Palestinian refugees to return while granting every Jew in the world the privilege of settling in Israel. Israel has not even considered compensating the Palestinians that it ethnically cleansed and whose property it stole.
I think your misconception of the conflict is that it is "all in the past". It is not. 50% of all Palestinians live in exile, unable to visit their homeland. A large fraction of those live in refugee camps or are destitute and dependent on UNRWA for subsistence. Gaza is an open air prison and the underemployment rate is approaching 80%. In the West Bank, extremist Jewish settlers harass Palestinians daily and more and more settlements are being built. In Israel, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens and explicitly condemned as a threat to the state by leading politicians.
My argument is consistent. Israel was an illegally created colony and it continues its illegal expansion.
I strongly disagree that we should just give up on stopping the Palestinian colonization. For example, one concrete thing that is absolutely politically attainable would be to completely cut the US funding sent to Israel (billions of dollars a year).
I do not think a colony that's less than 100 years old has to be taken "as a given".
a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.
Which country is controlling and settling the Israel? It's not a colony you are thinking of, at best you can claim it's a part-invasion part-colony, but you are not. you are saying that its all a colony. so you are wrong.
There is no requirement that the colonizers be from a single country. The US is certainly playing part in the colonization by funding Israel. The UK also played a huge role in the creation of Israel. The point is that the colonizers of Israel were not from Palestine, then they created a nation over the top of someone else's land and have aggressively expanded the borders of that nation.
> at best you can claim it's a part-invasion part-colony
I think that's a pretty apt description actually. You have to invade a place before you colonize it.
The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did.
Dov Weissglass, senior advisor to prime minister Ariel Sharon
Immigrant would imply moving to an existing country. Please don't confuse this with Israel. Israel is engaging in colonialism, the practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
> Colonialism is where one country assumes political control over another, often by establishing colonies and generally with the aim of economic dominance.
The Jews after WWII weren't a country. They were a group of refugees and holocaust survivors. They created a country for themselves in Israel since they had nowhere else to go. Comparing them to rich powerful nations like the British Empire, which took over other nations to gain even more wealth and power, is dishonest propaganda.
This is where this breaks down. Without support from Britain, France, and the United States the Palestinian majority would not have allowed the formation of Israel.
There are slight differences from traditional colonialism, as there are a few countries working together and the colonists aren't necessarily from those countries. But it still broadly fits that definition.
As I've addressed in previous comments: none of these nations actually helped Israel at all in its early days.
The British in fact actively fought against the formation of Israel, by forcibly preventing incoming Jewish immigration, and actively fighting against the Jewish defense groups that were to be the Jews' only defense against the Arabs who attacked them once the Brits left in 1948:
The US enforced an arms embargo against Israel starting from 1948, and only became its ally after it won a major victory in 1967, proving it to be a valuable regional ally.
Still, the main point is that this isn't colonialism, because Israel isn't a colony of any other country or power.
>Jewish immigration, and actively fighting against the Jewish defense groups that were to be the Jews' only defense against the Arabs who attacked them once the Brits left in 1948:
Yes, while they were fine maintaining their empire they opposed a Jewish state. Sometime during or after the war their policy shifted as they would rather not give such prime land over to a group certain to be bitter over their very recent mistreatment. Better to support the colonization of outsiders and make them dependent on you militarily.
And as for the US, you ignore their role in stopping the 1948 war, their role in the Tripartite alliance, and Kennedy's beginning of the military alliance.
Really not sure what you're trying to say. You admit that the Brits were opposed to the Jewish efforts to establish Israel. In other words, Israel was not established with the help of the Brits, but in fact against their opposition, contrary to your original claim.
I'm not sure what actions by the US during the 1948 war you refer to. From wikipedia:
> This situation caused the United States to withdraw its support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition.
In other words, US policy actually encouraged the attack on Israel and Arab hopes that they could destroy Israel and subjugate the Jews.
The only way US was involved at any later point was as part of the UN efforts to establish a ceasefire, after the Jews successfully defended Israel against the Arab attack. In other words, after the Jews already won.
The US allied itself with Israel during the Kennedy administration, i.e. much much later, because Israel won the 1967 war.
Either way, your representation that Israel was established based on foreign powers is not supported by any facts.
As a side note, one of the most capable armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948 was the Arab Legion, a forced trained, organized, and armed by the British Empire, and commanded by British officers:
>Really not sure what you're trying to say. You admit that the Brits were opposed to the Jewish efforts to establish Israel.
Before WWII, they wanted to maintain Mandatory Palestine. As the breakup of the Empire became obvious during the war, they changed their tune and supported Israel.
>The only way US was involved at any later point was as part of the UN efforts to establish a ceasefire,
Ignoring the large amount of US arms that ended up in Israel's hands, you act like US stepping in to end the war is a small thing. Prolonging the war would not benefit Israel, and guaranteeing their gains in the aftermath is what gave them the time they needed to truly colonize.
>much much later, because Israel won the 1967 war.
Kennedy was elected in 1960, and served under a term.
> a forced trained, organized, and armed by the British Empire, and commanded by British officers:
Obviously, as before that the region was a part of the British Empire.
Much of your claims that nobody supported Israel seemed to be based on their resistance to arm the nation. Immediately following WWII, the hope was to limit the ability of such nations to wage war, and guarantee them in case they are invaded. Plus, the west's constant worst fear was arming Israel only for the Kibbutz to take control.
> As the breakup of the Empire became obvious during the war, they changed their tune and supported Israel.
So you're just going to keep repeating this claim, that is backed by zero evidence or facts, and is contradicted by established historical facts which I cited.
You claim that Britain decided to support Israel after WWII, which ended in 1945. Yet in 1948, the most powerful military force that attacked Israel was organized, trained, and armed by the British and led by acting British officers:
>So you're just going to keep repeating this claim, that is backed by zero evidence or facts, and is contradicted by established historical facts which I cited.
None of your facts mention a time past 1942, except the existence of the Arab Legion which I addressed in my last post. As for evidence, the fact that Britain allowed the creation of Israel in their territory is about all you need.
There's plenty of evidence that the Brits took anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli actions after 1942 and even 1945. This evidence is in the links I posted, and you haven't read.
> British troops intervened to stop Operation Hametz, leading to a small battle with the Irgun. The intervention succeeded in preventing a Jewish takeover of Jaffa, while it failed to expel the Irgun from Menashiya due to stiff resistance. To put pressure on Ben-Gurion to rein in the Irgun, British planes flew over Tel Aviv and also bombed Haganah positions in Bat Yam. Eventually the British issued an ultimatum to Ben-Gurion, threatening to bomb Tel Aviv if he didn't stop the Irgun offensive. The next day, an agreement was reached in which Haganah fighters would replace the Irgun in Menashiya, and the Haganah pledged not to attack Jaffa until the end of the Mandate. British troops were allowed to reoccupy the police fort in Menashiya, but the town remained in Jewish hands.
So the Brits fought directly against Jewish defense organizations, engaged them in firefights, bombed their positions, bombed Jewish civilians, and threatened to bomb civilians in Tel-Aviv - Israel's effective capital and largest city.
All that happened in April-May 1948, just as the Brits were being forced out of Israel.
Yet I'm sure you'll keep claiming that Israel was founded with the help and support of the Brits, because you aren't here to debate facts but to promote an agenda.
Operation Hametz was the British trying to stop Jewish expansion during the the partitioning they were involved with to create Israel. Looking just at that incident while ignoring the fact that Britain was creating Israel is promoting an agenda, if they truly opposed Israel they could have ended that insurgency at any point.
The British were doing it for the benefit of British interests, which don't always align with Israeli interests.
There is zero evidence that the British "were creating Israel". This is just a false propaganda point you are repeatedly trying to make, with no evidence and against available evidence.
The wikipedia pages I linked above are full of literally hundreds of examples of British forces acting against the Jewish residents trying to form their new state and defend themselves against Arab attacks. In many of these cases, British forces engaged the Jewish armed groups in direct combat, just like in Operation Hametz.
You and others are not debating honestly here. Your only goal is to spread counterfactual, false propaganda by any means at your disposal.
>There is zero evidence that the British "were creating Israel
It was British Territory, and they allowed a UN resolution through creating the original dual state solution. The petition plan you mentioned earlier was impossible without them. Britain could have ended it before it even started.
>You and others are not debating honestly here. Your only goal is to spread counterfactual, false propaganda by any means at your disposal
Stop making shit up because someone disagrees with you. I have provided plenty of factual information, and anything that goes against your narrative you ignored and go back to claiming my argument only exists out of some desire to spread anti-Israel propaganda. Notice how France and the US have completely disappeared from the discussion.
Multiple times you've completely ignored what I've said about something, and immediately brought it up again in your next post. Like in this post, just because the British opposed Israeli expansion doesn't mean they were against Israel.
Your conspiracy theory that Britain decided to give land to the Jews "to support the colonization of outsiders and make them dependent on you military" makes no sense. Israel has never been dependent on the UK for military support. The UK has even attempted to impose arms embargoes on Israel. Relations between the two countries have been strained at best for nearly all of Israel's lifetime; it was only in the 2000s that things improved. The first ever joint training session occurred in 2019.
>The UK has even attempted to impose arms embargoes on Israel.
During a period where they guaranteed Israel's border with an agreement to intervene in any war. And beyond that, what about the 1956 war? This claim is just ridiculous, not wanting to arm Israel is separate from not making them dependent on the UK military
You've asserted without evidence over and over again that Israel is somehow dependent on the UK for military support, and that this was true around the time of Israel's founding as well.
The UK opposed Israel's creation, armed its enemies, and its officers served in armies that actively attempted to crush the state, while its air force provided air support. If you somehow contest this, and claim that Israel and the UK were close allies despite everything linked to you in this discussion thus far, please provide evidence. It's pointless to continue this while you handwave away numerous and repeated historical references to actual military engagements where the two countries were on opposite sides, and provide no references of your own other than your own assertions.
The first time Israeli and UK forces even trained together was in 2019. The claim that the UK provided long-term military support from the date of Israel's founding is just totally specious.
>You've asserted without evidence over and over again that Israel is somehow dependent on the UK for military support, and that this was true around the time of Israel's founding as well.
> According to Gerald M. Steinberg, the "agreement did not prevent the Arab states from obtaining weapons through their alliance relationships with suppliers, but Israel was excluded.... Little foreign aid was provided by the United States, and Israeli military officials who sought to purchase weapons and ammunition in the United States were rebuffed."
Thus this agreement, that was aimed at stopping the Israeli-Arab arms race (which by itself is a neutral and not a pro-Israeli agenda), led in fact to Israel being blocked from purchasing weapons, while Arabs were still able to purchase them.
This is in fact yet another example of the major powers active in the area - United States, United Kingdom, and France - acting against Israel and its interests.
So I have to conclude you don't bother reading your own links, in hopes other won't as well.
>Thus this agreement, that was aimed at stopping the Israeli-Arab arms race
That is the secondary goal of the agreement. The primary one is spelt out immediately
>The Tripartite Declaration of 1950... was a joint statement by the United States, United Kingdom, and France to guarantee the territorial status quo that had been determined by the 1949 Arab–Israeli Armistice Agreements.
I never said that the countries wanted to prop up the Israeli army, they didn't want it to exist.
I think you are profoundly misinformed on this topic. Britain, in particular, was violently opposed to the formation State of Israel, and the invading armies of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan were in part led by British forces.
Similarly, although the US now is closely aligned with Israel, it disavowed the partition plan prior to the Arab invasion.
The country that (ironically, given later alliances) gave the most direct military support to Israel in 1948 was the USSR under Stalin.
This is the case. Britain had learn that the Zionists were pretty insane group. It was them that started suicide bombing the British to make them leave, so they could start the exact war they later did.
Source, please? The Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi did carry out bombings — as did many, many other groups ruled over by the British, not just Jewish ones, so why that's particularly "insane" seems hard to discern — but I don't believe any of the attacks were suicide bombings. Suicide bombings were first introduced by Hezbollah in the 1980s in Lebanon. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/suicide-terrorism
