Who created Hamas?

[icehorse]

The Palestinians who got Jordan?

Perhaps before deigning "to clarify and provide a broader context," you might wish to give some thought to the difference between

1. the fictive Palestinian State of Jordan, and
2. the very real Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

So how do you define "Palestinian"?

 

[Colt]

Josep Borell said: "The Israeli government itself has been boycotting a two-state solution for 30 years. In order to prevent it, they themselves created Hamas. Hamas was funded by the Israeli government to weaken Fatah's Palestinian Authority." Josep Borrell is a Spanish politician serving as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy since 1 December 2019.

Is Josep Borrell right or not?
Two questions arise: 1. How could Israel be so surprised? Were the Israeli secret services asleep? 2. Why did it take so long for the Israeli military to remove the Hamas from the country? Allegedly it took over 3 hours for the military to react and it took 2 days for the military to remove the Hamas from the country. Isn't that a bit too long for the modern Israeli military?

If we just assume that Israel itself ordered the Hamas leaders to carry out this attack, the question arises as to what goal they are pursuing. A possible answer would be that they were looking for an excuse to kill and expel the population of Gaza to send Israeli settlers there.

It is clear that the Western media spread aggressive anti-Palestinian propaganda during the attack. Pictures and videos of Hamas victims were posted, it was claimed that babies were beheaded and burned, etc. and the name "the Palestinians" was always mentioned. There was a clear attempt to discredit the entire people of Gaza in order to justify the bombing of Gaza.

It is also noticeable how they justify the high death toll of civilians in Gaza with a certain reason. Again and again you hear the statement that "Israel is bombing civilian structures because Hamas is hiding in them". This reason is accepted and spread by the Western media without any questioning.

It is also strange that even Israeli ministers have openly admitted that they want to destroy the whole of Gaza. There are also videos of Israeli soldiers celebrating and singing: "There are no civilians in Gaza" Critics see this as genocidal intent.

I also find the behavior of the USA very bizarre. On the one hand they claim how sorry they are for Gaza and that Israel is overdoing it, but it is the US that continuously sends a lot of weapons to Israel and it was the US that vetoed a ceasefire in Gaza three times. In response to Biden stating Israel's actions were "over the top," the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated, "If you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed."

I also find it strange how Egypt is criticized in the Western media for not taking in refugees. A better question would be why Israel doesn't take in the refugees? Why can't the civilians of Gaza seek protection on Israeli territory? Why does it have to be Egypt?

In the Gaza Strip there are about 2.4 million people.

View attachment 89557View attachment 89558

Palestinians were offered a 2-state solution a number of times but what they really want is to destroy the Jews!

 

[Revoltingest]

Palestinians were offered a 2-state solution a number of times but what they really want is to destroy the Jews!

The prevalence of that view is why
there's so much death & destruction,
& why it endures.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So how do you define "Palestinian"?

I was about to retort "nice pivot," but "clumsy" would be far more accurate.

 

[icehorse]

I was about to retort "nice pivot," but "clumsy" would be far more accurate.

Hmmm, it seems to me that context matters - a lot!

Some people contend that "Palestinian" as a name, is a very recent invention, only a few decades old. Others contend that "Palestinians" have lived in what is now Israel, Jordan, and Egypt for centuries.

So if we go with the longer time frame then it's safe to conclude that Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis are ALL occupying forces on "Palestinian land". (And of course, in very recent times we could also say that many countries in the ME are occupying forces, oppressing many weaker people e.g., Kurds, Yazidis, Coptics and others.)

So when do YOU think we should start the historical clock? With the Balfour agreement? Earlier? Later? And what's your reasoning for picking the starting date you think is correct?

 

[icehorse]

The prevalence of that view is why
there's so much death & destruction,
& why it endures.

Do you take Islamists at their word, or do you perform the soft bigotry of low expectations?

I think we should take them at their word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hmmm, it seems to me that context matters - a lot!

Hmmm, it seems to me that one should know the difference between Palestinians and the Hashemites before pontificating about the area's history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you take Islamists at their word, or do you perform the soft bigotry of low expectations?

Of all posters here, your accusations
of bigotry have the most irony.

 

[icehorse]

Hmmm, it seems to me that one should know the difference between Palestinians and the Hashemites before pontificating about the area's history.

Nice pivot.

 

[icehorse]

Of all posters here, your accusations
of bigotry have the most irony.

I make no bones about it. IMO, Islam is a collection of bad ideas: misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, theocracy, tribalism, and so on.

But here's the thing, they make declarations and I take them at their word, which it would appear you do not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I make no bones about it.

You complain that I'm hostile.
Yet you accuse me of bigotry.
Learn to interact better with others.

 

[libre]

I make no bones about it. IMO, Islam is a collection of bad ideas: misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, theocracy, tribalism, and so on.

But here's the thing, they make declarations and I take them at their word, which it would appear you do not.

Given the women and gay people in arab countries are suffering so... surely we should start a program to take more immigrants and refugees for their protection.
Surely you would agree?

 

[icehorse]

You complain that I'm hostile.
Yet you accuse me of bigotry.
Learn to interact better with others.

Ah I recall, I wondered whether you were guilty of soft bigotry. We won't know the answer, until you tell us whether or not you take Islamists at their word. And to be clear, I asked you a question, I didn't accuse you of anything.

 

[icehorse]

Given the women and gay people in arab countries are suffering so... surely we should start a program to take more immigrants and refugees for their protection.
Surely you would agree?

Traditionally host countries determine how many immigrants and refugees they can handle.

That said, I think "aid in place" is a fine alternative when moving people across the world is not an option.

I also think it's frequently the case that it's not the women and gays who are immigrating, it's the straight men. It seems like we agree that misogyny and homophobia are big issues in Muslim countries?

 

[libre]

I also think it's frequently the case that it's not the women and gays who are immigrating, it's the straight men.

This doesn't seem to be the case: International Migrant Stock | Population Division.
It doesn't make much sense that the arab wife leaves behind her husband and straight-male children to immigrate.

It seems like we agree that misogyny and homophobia are big issues in Muslim countries?

Yes, patriarchy and homophobia are issues in Muslim countries and this is not unique to Muslim dominated countries but also occur in other countries that occupy a similar economic position in the world system.

 

[icehorse]

This doesn't seem to be the case: International Migrant Stock | Population Division.

TLDR, any summaries?

It doesn't make much sense that the arab wife leaves behind her husband and straight-male children to immigrate.

So I guess I'm confused by what you meant in post #32? Can you clarify?

Yes, patriarchy and homophobia are issues in Muslim countries and this is not unique to Muslim dominated countries that occupy a similar economic position in the world system.

It seems that unless a Muslim country won the "oil lottery" it's typically a poor country. Islam has been around for 1400 years, why is poverty so common in Muslim countries?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah I recall, I wondered whether you were guilty of soft bigotry.

You presented alternatives.
The other was obviously wrong.
You know what you did.
You just won't admit what you do.

 

[libre]

So I guess I'm confused by what you meant in post #32? Can you clarify?

I was jesting at why it's wrong to use patriarchy and LGBT rights in the third world to attack other countries while also arguing for a policy on immigration and refugees which denies people from fleeing those evils. That's complicity.

 

[libre]

Islam has been around for 1400 years, why is poverty so common in Muslim countries?

I assume what you are gesturing at is that you think Muslim countries are poor because of Islam. If you'd like to share otherwise feel free to, but given that your argumentation style mostly consists of pointed questions, I can't help but assume such. Suffice it to say that I do not think this.

Why is poverty so common in South America? Why is poverty so common in Africa? Why is poverty so common in the Middle East?
Europe and to a lesser extent Asia stand above due to the classical empires and how they were able to transition into the Imperialist economy today (China being the primary outlier, with state-led industrialization).

It would be an error to think that most wealth is owned by Christians due to the merits of Christianity (unless brutal theft and exploitation of the third world should be considered a 'merit').

 

[icehorse]

You presented alternatives.
The other was obviously wrong.
You know what you did.
You just won't admit what you do.

another dodge.