Iran

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That's fair but your initial comment had much stronger language.

It's unimaginably hard (at least for me) to understand the complexity and difficulty with setting up any new state. In the (let's call it) Jewish colonization of modern Israel there was some violence in the establishment of the new state. Just as there was in Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. During the actual establishment of Israel, you could argue that the level of violence was lesser than what was experienced in the other nations I listed. Most of the violence in Israel and as a result of the forming of the country happened afterwards and most of it was initiated by neighbours who did not necessarily have good intentions. So, if we agree that setting up new countries is messy and bloody then the question, at least for me, is "does that country have a right to exist?" Or does any country have a right to exist if it's founded on bloodshed? If the answer is 'no' then there is probably no country in the world today that 'deserves' to exist.

Was it inaccurate? I don't think so.


The difference with Israel is it was done in a region surround by those hostile to them, and already occupied by people of similar decent. Conflict was inevitable. If you could go back to that time and show how much death, destruction, and suffering had occurred because of that decision, that 100 years later there is no peace for the Jewish people there, with air raid sirens and constant terrorist attacks, no peace in sight, would it give you pause on the plan? I mean, it should. But I get many think no price is too high to pay for it, which is why we are here, now.


Without the creation of Israel Hamas and Hezbollah probably wouldn't exist. You could debate how devastated the region would be with possible conflict between Shia and Sunni, but it's also possible they would not, and the entire region would be far more peaceful than it is now.


And I'm not saying Israel should be eliminated or destroyed, or that Israel alone is responsible for everything that occurs there, but that looking back, it has not led to the creation of the society they imagined at the time. Nobody would want this. This is all utter ####.

[Red Slinger]

Jews lived in the area for a long time before the establishment of modern Israel. There were certainly elements that were hostile to the the creation of Israel but it was mostly for, I would argue, the wrong reasons. So do we let bad actors dictate? There was probably a peaceful path for the establishment of Israel but the usual suspects prevented that from happening. I guess my question is, if the area currently known as Israel is not suitable for Jewish homeland because of hostility from their neighbours, where in the world would there be a suitable location? I suspect it would be very similar no matter where they set up.

[TorqueDog]

You can oppose yet another reckless and senseless US military incursion without laundering the Iranian regime into some misunderstood victim. Two things can be true.

The Iranian regime has agency. It funds, arms, and directs violent proxies because that serves its interests, not because history somehow forced its hand. And sure, western meddling is part of the story. The 1953 coup was significant in shaping the Iran that followed, and pretending otherwise is historical horse-blinders. But jumping from that to 'therefore every terror proxy is basically the fault of the west' is self-flagellating fan fiction.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Was it inaccurate? I don't think so.


The difference with Israel is it was done in a region surround by those hostile to them, and already occupied by people of similar decent. Conflict was inevitable. If you could go back to that time and show how much death, destruction, and suffering had occurred because of that decision, that 100 years later there is no peace for the Jewish people there, with air raid sirens and constant terrorist attacks, no peace in sight, would it give you pause on the plan? I mean, it should. But I get many think no price is too high to pay for it, which is why we are here, now.


Without the creation of Israel Hamas and Hezbollah probably wouldn't exist. You could debate how devastated the region would be with possible conflict between Shia and Sunni, but it's also possible they would not, and the entire region would be far more peaceful than it is now.


And I'm not saying Israel should be eliminated or destroyed, or that Israel alone is responsible for everything that occurs there, but that looking back, it has not led to the creation of the society they imagined at the time. Nobody would want this. This is all utter ####.

I don't agree with this for two major reasons.

Firslty, it wouldn't have just been the Sunni/Shia divide in the middle east that would have likely caused wars. At the time the British divided the lands, you had major conflicts brewing between Arab tribes, notably the Hashemite/Sunni conflict. Then you had additional conflicts amongst different factions based on which member of those tribes should lead and various political ideologies. For example, when the debate about Israel's existence was going on, none of the Arab groups were pushing for an independent Palestine. The Syrians declared the region part of Southern Syria. The Jordanians declared it the West Bank of Jordan. The Egyptians felt it was an extension of the Sinai Peninsula. In 1948, the invading Arab armies, weren't just trying to get rid of Israel but also trying to divide the land up amongst themselves, which is what they partially managed to accomplish.

After this initial conflict, you've got all sorts of other conflicts, mostly focused around overthrowing the Hashemite kingdoms or over who got to rule the Pan-Arab nation. Without Israel to focus on, almost certainly one of these conflicts boils over into something major. Let's keep in mind the scale of the other middle eastern conflicts in comparison to the Israel/Arab one. The Arab/Israeli conflict, over the course of 70ish years has a total death count of around 200k. Meanwhile if you look at the death toll of various nearby wars, they are much worse: Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran/Iraq, Kurdish genocide, Armenian genocide, etc... All it would take is a moderate conflict in the region to even the casualty numbers out.

Other conflicts, like the current one with Iran, almost certainly occur in any event. The root cause of this conflict was oil prices and the overthrow of Iranian elected president, who tried to remove British and US interests in their oil resources and nationalize.

As far as the experience of the Israelis themselves, who are mostly the descendants of refugees from Arab and Muslims nations. As bad as things are in Israel, it's so much better for them now than it was living as a minority under Arab or Muslim rule.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Jews lived in the area for a long time before the establishment of modern Israel. There were certainly elements that were hostile to the the creation of Israel but it was mostly for, I would argue, the wrong reasons. So do we let bad actors dictate? There was probably a peaceful path for the establishment of Israel but the usual suspects prevented that from happening. I guess my question is, if the area currently known as Israel is not suitable for Jewish homeland because of hostility from their neighbours, where in the world would there be a suitable location? I suspect it would be very similar no matter where they set up.

Yeah, the creation of the modern state of Israel wasn't the beginning. It was a major event for sure, but still only one in a long chain reaction of events. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of Shia theocracy with Twelverism ideology wasn't something new, but rather a reversion to Safavid Iran which oversaw the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the middle 1600s up until the 1750s. To understand Israel's policy towards Iran after 1979, you need to understand the full history and generational trauma that occurred during the Safavid colonial period and the rebirth of that ideology in 1979.

It's not really fair to say that Islamic extremism exists solely as a response to Zionism because if you go back further, you can say that Zionism was a reaction to Islamic extremism that was already going on for centuries before that.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You can oppose yet another reckless and senseless US military incursion without laundering the Iranian regime into some misunderstood victim. Two things can be true.

The Iranian regime has agency. It funds, arms, and directs violent proxies because that serves its interests, not because history somehow forced its hand. And sure, western meddling is part of the story. The 1953 coup was significant in shaping the Iran that followed, and pretending otherwise is historical horse-blinders. But jumping from that to 'therefore every terror proxy is basically the fault of the west' is self-flagellating fan fiction.

Even the 1953 coup is seen with deep anti-west revisionism today. Mosaddegh ended the 1952 election prior to votes coming in that would have lead to his government collapse, and declared dictatorial emergency powers to himself the same way Hitler did with the Enabling Act. The Ayatollah was deeply opposed to Mosaddegh by the time of the coup, and the coup was only possible because of mass dissent already existing within the Iranian population.

The coup or some sort of revolution would have occured at some point without CIA meddling. Whether that would have presented itself as an Islamic revolution is speculative but it certainly was plausible.

Note Ayatollah Kashani was pro-Nazi (read antisemite) and revealed in recent declassified documents to have been heavily involved with the coup with the CIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abol-Ghasem_Kashani

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/...s-today-97231/

Just a few weeks after the coup, in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Youm (editor’s note: the original article in Arabic is unavailable — this is a Farsi translation), Kashani said the biggest mistake of Mossadegh’s government was violating the constitution and disobeying the orders of the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He added: “Mossadegh’s great mistake was making efforts to establishing republicanism. He forced shah to leave the country, but shah returned a few days later with dignity and popularity. People love shah.”

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Jews lived in the area for a long time before the establishment of modern Israel. There were certainly elements that were hostile to the the creation of Israel but it was mostly for, I would argue, the wrong reasons. So do we let bad actors dictate? There was probably a peaceful path for the establishment of Israel but the usual suspects prevented that from happening. I guess my question is, if the area currently known as Israel is not suitable for Jewish homeland because of hostility from their neighbours, where in the world would there be a suitable location? I suspect it would be very similar no matter where they set up.

Yes, usual suspects...


I think the way you stated that, as if establishing a home land was something that was fait accompli, something required to occur is why we are here. It was something a lot of people wanted. But wanting something doesn't mean it's just tot take it. But then, should, say, the Roma people also have a country carved out for them? Perhaps from where they come from, in India and Pakistan. Or perhaps where they are most populace, in the US. Or perhaps where they have history, in Europe. Do they not deserve their own homeland with their own unique cultures and traditions, if that is the standard? Who else could claim the same?


Yes, this is looking back, but examining history so we don't make the same mistakes is a reasonable thing to do, and no, it doesn't make the question antisemitic in itself.


As a person with Jewish ancestry, I don't have any more connection to there as I do Danzig, where my grandfather fled from. I'm just an individual human, and I don't see a need to tie myself to thousands of year old stuff. I don't feel I have any ancestral claims to it, and I don't really understand those that claim that. I was born Canadian, and that's who I am. This is my home, not Israel. I wish we could all just be humans living places, and drop this tribal and religious baggage the leads to so much death and suffering.

[Bill Bumface]

It's a bit arrogant to suggest only the Western whities are capable of truly messing up a foreign nation. That said, they have proven very capable, and responsible for a lot of mess, but it's not like others aren't playing that same game.

[Fuzz]

I've never said that it is only western whites, or that others wouldn't do the same or worse. Maybe it would be better, we have no way of knowing. I can easily concede the entire region may be a bombed out wasteland with zero western influence or involvement, or with Chinese or Russian, or Mongolian interference. But at least we wouldn't have to wonder about our roll in making it what it is, and have to constantly intervene and support wars for...reasons. And to say, "well if we hadn't made it awful, someone else would have" isn't really a strong argument either.


Can we point to any real success story over there?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Even the 1953 coup is seen with deep anti-west revisionism today. Mosaddegh ended the 1952 election prior to votes coming in that would have lead to his government collapse, and declared dictatorial emergency powers to himself the same way Hitler did with the Enabling Act. The Ayatollah was deeply opposed to Mosaddegh by the time of the coup, and the coup was only possible because of mass dissent already existing within the Iranian population.

The coup or some sort of revolution would have occured at some point without CIA meddling. Whether that would have presented itself as an Islamic revolution is speculative but it certainly was plausible.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's a bit arrogant to suggest only the Western whities are capable of truly messing up a foreign nation. That said, they have proven very capable, and responsible for a lot of mess, but it's not like others aren't playing that same game.

Exactly. We can't pretend the west had nothing to do with things, but it requires a real lack of depth in understanding the history of Iran to exhibit the eagerness with which some people want to throw themselves so fully on the blame grenade.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, usual suspects...


I think the way you stated that, as if establishing a home land was something that was fait accompli, something required to occur is why we are here. It was something a lot of people wanted. But wanting something doesn't mean it's just tot take it. But then, should, say, the Roma people also have a country carved out for them? Perhaps from where they come from, in India and Pakistan. Or perhaps where they are most populace, in the US. Or perhaps where they have history, in Europe. Do they not deserve their own homeland with their own unique cultures and traditions, if that is the standard? Who else could claim the same?


Yes, this is looking back, but examining history so we don't make the same mistakes is a reasonable thing to do, and no, it doesn't make the question antisemitic in itself.


As a person with Jewish ancestry, I don't have any more connection to there as I do Danzig, where my grandfather fled from. I'm just an individual human, and I don't see a need to tie myself to thousands of year old stuff. I don't feel I have any ancestral claims to it, and I don't really understand those that claim that. I was born Canadian, and that's who I am. This is my home, not Israel. I wish we could all just be humans living places, and drop this tribal and religious baggage the leads to so much death and suffering.

"Usual Suspects" was referring to those in the Middle East that wanted to gain in power and influence and would use any excuse to do so. I should have been more clear.

Maybe the Roma should have a 'safe-space' allotted to them as they've been persecuted for a long time.

I have no real connection with Israel either. I also see myself as Canadian. However, following a global scale attempt at ethnic cleansing after centuries of other more localized attempts, I can understand why Jews would want somewhere safe to go that they can defend themselves.

And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of anti-semitism. Others have a tendency of taking largely reasonable criticisms about the creation of Israel and turning them into something much more sinister. So, I think it's important to have clarity in the details and intentions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Exactly. We can't pretend the west had nothing to do with things, but it requires a real lack of depth in understanding the history of Iran to exhibit the eagerness with which some people want to throw themselves so fully on the blame grenade.

How the Ottomans are let off the hook so easily is funny. A lot of the current administrative boundaries came from them and they sold land to Zionist settlers without compensating the tenants on the land who were currently living there (almost all land in the Ottoman Empire was considered "crown" land). They forcibly resettled people to manipulate demographics in the ME, they also did it in the Balkans which is one of the reasons that area also became messed up for so long.

When the Ottomans were defeated and Britain and France became the temporary caretakers, the place was already messed up. Modern day Turkey is by the way, considered the legal successor to the Ottoman Empire having inherited all their treaties and liabilities in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. If people are going to blanket blame "The West", at least include Turkey in that.

[opendoor]

No one cares about the Ottoman Empire because they haven't had control over the area in over 100 years. If the US stopped intervening in the area so much and didn't blindly support Israel's every action, then eventually people wouldn't care much about past US actions there either.

Like, the reason people still talk about US interventions from 70 years ago in the Middle East is because they're still doing the same thing, largely in response to the side effects of their prior destabilization. Whereas in places like South American and Africa, that has been scaled back a lot post-Cold War, so it's not something that gets as much attention anymore (at least until Trump invaded Venezuela).

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How the Ottomans are let off the hook so easily is funny. A lot of the current administrative boundaries came from them and they sold land to Zionist settlers without compensating the tenants on the land who were currently living there (almost all land in the Ottoman Empire was considered "crown" land). They forcibly resettled people to manipulate demographics in the ME, they also did it in the Balkans which is one of the reasons that area also became messed up for so long.

When the Ottomans were defeated and Britain and France became the temporary caretakers, the place was already messed up. Modern day Turkey is by the way, considered the legal successor to the Ottoman Empire having inherited all their treaties and liabilities in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. If people are going to blanket blame "The West", at least include Turkey in that.

Honestly folks bashing Israel's creation (separate from criticism of Israel policies and government) / "the west" probably have no idea what the Ottomans even are or will simply excuse it as being too far in the past. You give them too much credit to think they may have let something they have never heard of from social media history off the hook.

In 1891, a group of Jerusalem notables sent a petition to the central Ottoman government in Istanbul calling for the cessation of Jewish immigration, and land sales to Jews

Most opposition to the immigration of Jews to Palestine was extremely antisemitic and deeply xenophobic in its nature and existed just as strongly if not moreso 135 years ago.

As did those who invaded in 1948 under this same pretense.

https://www.gov.il/en/pages/arab-lea...n-of-palestine

England administered Palestine in a manner which enabled the Jews to flood it with immigrants and helped them to settle in the country. [This was so] notwithstanding the fact that it was proved that the density of the population in Palestine had exceeded the economic capacity of the country to absorb additional immigrants.

Someone famous also spoke against settlement and giving land to said people.

We are resolved to prevent the settlement in our country of a strange people which was capable of snatching for itself all the leading positions in the land, and to oust it.

https://www.yadvashem.org/docs/extra...er-speech.html

Almost like if there is a pattern behind the animosity and hostility.

[opendoor]

Most reasonable people don't have an issue with Jewish people immigrating to Palestine and eventually forming the state of Israel. The issue is that large areas of land that were almost wholly made up of Arab residents was basically stolen in 1948.

In Beersheeba, which makes up nearly half of modern-day Israel, the Arab population outnumbered the Jewish one by about 13:1 in the mid '40s. Acre was similar, with Arabs outnumbering the Jewish population 17:1, yet that became part of Israel and the Arab population was largely expelled and their land appropriated. There were essentially no Jews in Hebron, yet Israel took most of that too.

Not to mention, in the only 2 districts of Mandatory Palestine where Jewish residents were the largest ethnic group (like Jaffa and Haifa), the significant Arab population were forced out as the areas were depopulated, and their land and property appropriated by the state.

Taking opposition to those actions has nothing to do with antisemitism.

[TorqueDog]

People still harp on old US interventions because the US never really stopped intervening, sure. But 'therefore the Ottoman era no longer matters' is still nonsense.

At the same time, taking evidence that hostility to Jewish immigration predated 1948 and trying to flatten every later conflict into one eternal pattern of antisemitic animosity also gets poor marks. Yes, some of it plainly was antisemitic. Some of it plainly was not; some of it was anti-colonial, some of it was fear of displacement, and some of it was Arab nationalism.

History does not become clearer when you force every grievance into a single box; that cuts both ways.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Most reasonable people don't have an issue with Jewish people immigrating to Palestine and eventually forming the state of Israel. The issue is that large areas of land that were almost wholly made up of Arab residents was basically stolen in 1948.

In Beersheeba, which makes up nearly half of modern-day Israel, the Arab population outnumbered the Jewish one by about 13:1 in the mid '40s. Acre was similar, with Arabs outnumbering the Jewish population 17:1, yet that became part of Israel and the Arab population was largely expelled and their land appropriated. There were essentially no Jews in Hebron, yet Israel took most of that too.

Not to mention, in the only 2 districts of Mandatory Palestine where Jewish residents were the largest ethnic group (like Jaffa and Haifa), the significant Arab population were forced out as the areas were depopulated, and their land and property appropriated by the state.

Taking opposition to those actions has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Beersheeba itself was a settlement project that was an Arab colonial project that didn't start until the 1900s:

A visitor to Beersheba in May 1900 found only a ruin, a two-storey stone khan, and several tents.[33] By the start of 1901 there was a barracks with a small garrison as well as other buildings.[34] The Austro-Hungarian-Czech orientalist[35] Alois Musil noted in August 1902:

Bir es-Seba grows from day to day; This year, instead of the tents, we found stately houses along a beautiful road from the Sarayah to the bed of the wadi. In the government building a garden has been laid out, and all sorts of trees have been planted which are sure to prosper, for the few shrubs planted two years ago by the steam mill at the south-east end of the road have grown considerably. The lively construction activity is also causing a lively exploitation of the ruins.[36]
By 1907, there was a large village, military post, a residence for the kaymakam and a large mosque.[37] The population increased from 300 to 800 between 1902 and 1911, and by 1914 there were 1,000 people living in 200 houses.[31]

Bersheeba was also supposed to be included on the Arab side of the partition plan. Acre was also supposed to be part of the Arab state in the partition plan.

There were no Jews in Hebron, because they had been massacred about two decades before, and, once again, it was to be included on the Arab side of the partition plan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

These aren't the best arguments for why the partition plan shouldn't have ben accepted.

[Firebot]

Stolen as in stolen as a result of the UN partition plan? Or stolen as they stole the land prior to the official partition and declaration of Israel (or after in cases). Because 1948 is a very broad and important line for events.

I'm well aware of the civil war that happened prior and during, and the mass Palestinian exodus / expulsion that occured. Both Haifa and Jaffa were supposed to be part of the Jewish state partition but chaos and violence had completely deteriorated by 1948.

The civil war was most definitely a 2 sided vile event with atrocities and massacres aimed against civilians from both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

And there were lots of events prior well before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interc...tory_Palestine

It was already a colossal mess, but the only way to 'solve' it is by removing the idea of a Jewish state. It was always going to be incredibly ugly and hard to really make it work with such hostilities.

When discussions starts revolving around the creation of Israel or Israel's existence (as opposed to Israel actions and US defending Israel non stop) is where it starts getting ambiguous.

Generally, most people won't know the details behind Haifa / Jaffa (and yes they should).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No one cares about the Ottoman Empire because they haven't had control over the area in over 100 years. If the US stopped intervening in the area so much and didn't blindly support Israel's every action, then eventually people wouldn't care much about past US actions there either.

Like, the reason people still talk about US interventions from 70 years ago in the Middle East is because they're still doing the same thing, largely in response to the side effects of their prior destabilization. Whereas in places like South American and Africa, that has been scaled back a lot post-Cold War, so it's not something that gets as much attention anymore (at least until Trump invaded Venezuela).

It's not like it's ancient history though. Within my lifetime, l had living relatives that were born in the Ottoman Empire and lived under Turkish colonial rule, and those scars matter. They had institutions that would make North American colonialism seem humane in comparison.

When people talk about Israeli relationships with their neighbours and the creation of post-colonial states in the region that contribute to the complicated politics today, it's lazy to just say, well the problem is Israel and the West as if it just materialized out of a vacuum.

[afc wimbledon]

I would never blame all of the Middle Easts problems on the west, poverty and lack of development in the region is directly due to their faith but Hamas, Hezbollah and the currant regime in Iran are not only interconnected but their existence is directly predicated on the actions of the west, if we had left Iran alone in '53, not supported Saddam Hussain in 1980 when he invaded Iran there might well be a fundy ######bag in charge of Iran but they wouldn't be any angrier at us than Turkey.

Again Israel's invasion of Lebanon in '82, it's general treatment of Palestinians since is directly responsible for the existence of both Hamas and Hezbollah and the depth of their hatred, Israel's actions for the last 50 years have been predicated on the total blank cheque we have given them, yes Israel has been attacked and nothing would make the original loss of land sting less for Palestinians but every time Israel uses any attack as an excuse to steal more land and butcher a few thousand more Arabs it just deepens the hatred, had we reigned Israel in, had '82 not happened, had Israel been forced to act with some level of legality and proportion by now most of fight would have likely aged out of the Palestinians, none of them remember '49 now, few of them remember pre '67 if they weren't continuously shat upon, murdered and stolen from it's likely they would have begrudgingly accepted their fate by now