Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
What is not in dispute: The arrival of the vast majority of the Jewish population in the region took the form of mass migration, particularly following the events of WWII. It is therefore hard to dispute that the creation of a nation-state for arriving migrants was not a case of indigenous self-determination. To the contrary, conquest via occupation of land and displacement of peoples is generally regarded as illegal by international law. A play-by-play of what generally happened just before and since the time of mass migration can be found in the Wiki description of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt. This thread relies on the reader taking the time to read that reference in order to make its points.
One highly significant part of the text reads:
There we have the font et origo of the ME conflict, right there.
I will also argue, I believe successfully, that support for the state of Israel as a Jewish state relies primarily on explicit acceptance of a religious tenet; namely, the "promised land", representing therefore the intellectual equivalent of an Islamist arguing for the restoration of the Caliphate. Further, that the plight of the Jewish people prior to the creation of Israel was primarily driven by virulent Christian ideology. The crux of the whole affair is religious fanaticism as practiced by all sides, certainly that of Islam being wholly destructive of the points they may otherwise have legitimately wished to make.
As for the protection and security of the Jewish people after WWII, the proper remedy was in the strengthening of Western democracy to assure sufficient guardrails were in place, perhaps including modifications to the First Amendment in the US case, such that denying basic humanity to anyone is an attack on foundational principles granting all rights, and thus a core philosophical contradiction (dehumanizing hate speech, internally inconsistent with "all men created equal") that can be banned in the name of protecting democracy.
Relating to current events, we have a simple conclusion laid out for us explicitly by the top two Israeli governmental officials:
(1) Israeli PM: Benjamin Netanyahu insists on Hamas ‘destruction’ as part of plan to end Gaza war
****plus
(1) Israeli President: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Isaac Herzog said as Israel ordered 1.1 million Palestinians to evacuate their homes.
****equals
(2) An explicit policy of genocide.
A remedy to the situation is available: the single-state solution. A democracy that represents a transition to the rule of law does not constitute the destruction of a people, only of a regime. International law goes so far as to place the onus on the general public for coming to terms with, denouncing, and acting to stop and prevent genocide, and to suggest in some cases the prosecution of those actively supporting it. Time to take sides and make positions clear. My position: Zionism is a genocidal ideology as argued and practiced for nearly a century. All policy measures providing for a peaceful transition to a single state solution should be the sole focus going forward.
ETA: Interesting to note that the creation of the state of Israel took place precisely when the entire region lacked all sovereignty guardrails and was therefore incapable of acting in defense of self-interest. Hardly fair.
One highly significant part of the text reads:
There we have the font et origo of the ME conflict, right there.
I will also argue, I believe successfully, that support for the state of Israel as a Jewish state relies primarily on explicit acceptance of a religious tenet; namely, the "promised land", representing therefore the intellectual equivalent of an Islamist arguing for the restoration of the Caliphate. Further, that the plight of the Jewish people prior to the creation of Israel was primarily driven by virulent Christian ideology. The crux of the whole affair is religious fanaticism as practiced by all sides, certainly that of Islam being wholly destructive of the points they may otherwise have legitimately wished to make.
As for the protection and security of the Jewish people after WWII, the proper remedy was in the strengthening of Western democracy to assure sufficient guardrails were in place, perhaps including modifications to the First Amendment in the US case, such that denying basic humanity to anyone is an attack on foundational principles granting all rights, and thus a core philosophical contradiction (dehumanizing hate speech, internally inconsistent with "all men created equal") that can be banned in the name of protecting democracy.
Relating to current events, we have a simple conclusion laid out for us explicitly by the top two Israeli governmental officials:
(1) Israeli PM: Benjamin Netanyahu insists on Hamas ‘destruction’ as part of plan to end Gaza war
****plus
(1) Israeli President: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Isaac Herzog said as Israel ordered 1.1 million Palestinians to evacuate their homes.
****equals
(2) An explicit policy of genocide.
A remedy to the situation is available: the single-state solution. A democracy that represents a transition to the rule of law does not constitute the destruction of a people, only of a regime. International law goes so far as to place the onus on the general public for coming to terms with, denouncing, and acting to stop and prevent genocide, and to suggest in some cases the prosecution of those actively supporting it. Time to take sides and make positions clear. My position: Zionism is a genocidal ideology as argued and practiced for nearly a century. All policy measures providing for a peaceful transition to a single state solution should be the sole focus going forward.
ETA: Interesting to note that the creation of the state of Israel took place precisely when the entire region lacked all sovereignty guardrails and was therefore incapable of acting in defense of self-interest. Hardly fair.
Last edited:
