52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
jmo1121109
Developer
Developer
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:20 pm
Karma: 341

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#21 Post by jmo1121109 » Tue May 15, 2018 1:05 am

I see I urgently need to re-remove the politics thread from the main page to get this fucking drivel out of sight.
5

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#22 Post by JamesYanik » Tue May 15, 2018 1:29 am

Kingdroid wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 12:52 am
Octavious wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:49 pm
It seems clear to me that Israel is not making the lives of the Palestinians a priority. I have no doubt whatsoever that they could have defended their borders with far fewer casualties if the will had been there.

Equally, it is clear that this is not a peaceful protest, and was never designed to be a peaceful protest. Nor were the Palestinians who were killed somehow under the impression that the Israelis would behave any differently. The Israelis have been accused of many things, but unpredictably isn't one of them.

It is very hard to be sympathetic to either side when neither sets of leaders are remotely interested in peace or compromise. The status quo suits the powers that be on both sides just fine.
I know you don't care about my opinion but I'm actually quite impressed with you for this response oct. i honestly expected to hear the same ridiculous zionist arguments I usually hear from right wingers from you as well.

Unfortunately, I cannot fully agree. While I recognize that the Palestinian side has not always been super peaceful (to put it lightly), I can't find myself to blame the people who have were summarily displaced from the land they've lived on for at least a thousand years, and then were continuously oppressed/attacked by a coalition of foreign governments and military force. The Palestinians, for a long time at the start of the Israel/palestinian conflict were attempting to come to agreements with Israel that were fair to both parties, while the Israelis continuously broke these agreements and pushed more and more Palestinians off what little land they have left. This sort of action continues to this day. The Israeli government has not acted in good faith literally ever.

In addition, this is just one incident in a long series of events where the Israeli military shoots unarmed (relatively) Palestinians and then israeli and Western Media attempts to whitewash the Israeli as anything less than the completely violent fascist ethnostate it is, that is slowly but surely attempting to commit a genocide.

For Exmaple, the New York Times first reported these murders with headlines such as "52 people *have died* during protests on the gaza strips" (emphasis mine), a completely blatantattempt to avoid casting blame on the group actively committing murder.

"I can't find myself to blame the people who have were summarily displaced from the land they've lived on for at least a thousand years, and then were continuously oppressed/attacked by a coalition of foreign governments and military force."

1. "Palestinian" wasn't a really thing until the mid-19th century, before then it was a pretty diverse mix of arabic muslims, jews and christians, albeit primarily muslim. Only during the Ottoman era did things start to coalesce into a national sentiment

2. If you really want to talk about people living in one place for millennia, then why not recognize jewish control of Jerusalem? the oldest known settlements there in the Bronze Age were of the Israelites, and since then there have always been Jews in Jerusalem.

3. This kind of ignores the fact that starting in '48 and for decades since, Palestine had the support of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria in ATTACKING Israel, with Israel only having mild and distant support from the USA for most of the time it was at war. Only after continuous defeats to Israel, was Israel recognized as the predominant force in the Middle East.




"The Palestinians, for a long time at the start of the Israel/palestinian conflict were attempting to come to agreements with Israel that were fair to both parties, while the Israelis continuously broke these agreements and pushed more and more Palestinians off what little land they have left. This sort of action continues to this day. The Israeli government has not acted in good faith literally ever."

1. I am not going to try to defend Israel going over the borders of agreements because they have, and its indefensible. You are right, and current settlements in the West Bank are in all likelihood illegal.

2. You are much to unfair to Israel when it comes to who actually came to bargain. Israel have been much more receptive in trying to form a deal, while for decades the Palestinian policy was merely to push every last Israeli into the sea, where they repeatedly refused some pretty generous offers by Israel.

3. They've NEVER acted in good faith EVER? What do you call a full on retreat from Gaza in 2005? They kept temporary control of the borders and water supplies just in case things went south, and within the days leading up to the Israeli evacuations there were riots, and Hamas took over (it turns out Israel made the right call not fully liberating Gaza, especially with regards to borders) and began firing rockets almost immediately. This was a move Israel DID NOT HAVE TO DO, it put THEM at risk, and they did it all the same, proving a fairly strong point about the level of radicalism that still exists in Palestine.




"In addition, this is just one incident in a long series of events where the Israeli military shoots unarmed (relatively) Palestinians and then israeli and Western Media attempts to whitewash the Israeli as anything less than the completely violent fascist ethnostate it is, that is slowly but surely attempting to commit a genocide."

1. "unarmed (relatively)" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are so disingenuous that is incredible. grenades, trying to set brush fires, burning tires, Molotov cocktails, and recently reports of actual gunfire. holy shit man this is bad.

2. umm... so when Palestinian governance for decades had the policy "death to Israel, every last Jew" for decades, that WASN'T a commitment to genocide?

3. also what do you think a Palestinian state WOULD look like? A Spinoza/Humian/Lockian humanist paradise? I doubt it. because for the years when they did have control of Jerusalem, Jews and Christians couldn't safely pray in the holy city. it would be just as much of an ethnostate, but that's not even the justification for Israel. The justification for Israel is "it's our land, we bought some of it, we bled and died for the rest it, and any Jew who is need of help can come to it." to this day Israel has never refused a Jewish refugee fleeing from religious persecution.




"For Exmaple, the New York Times first reported these murders with headlines such as "52 people *have died* during protests on the gaza strips" (emphasis mine), a completely blatantattempt to avoid casting blame on the group actively committing murder."

1. the thing is, I take offense at that headline saying "protests" at the Gaza Strip, when clearly these were people wanting to cross Israel's borders.

#GreatReturnMarch

saying these were just protests is unfair as well.

Tom Bombadil
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:52 pm
Location: Detroit, MI
Karma: 247

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#23 Post by Tom Bombadil » Tue May 15, 2018 2:22 am

In college my roommate burned a couch (I know, not a tire but bear with me). Strangely, he was not murdered.
2

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#24 Post by JamesYanik » Tue May 15, 2018 4:18 am

Amazing story Tom!!! I didn't know that your friend burned a couch while a part of a mob of 40,000 trying to invade a foreign nation with many of the people around him throwing grenades and Molotov cocktails at soldiers along with now reports of gunfire!

oh... wait

you mean your friend JUST burned a couch and didn't get murdered?


it's almost like that's an entirely dishonest comparison Tom, meant to draw a false equivalency between two events. surely you wouldn't do that, now would you Tom?
1

Kingdroid
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:01 pm
Karma: 44

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#25 Post by Kingdroid » Tue May 15, 2018 7:26 am

I get it Yanik, you support genocide of brown people. *yawn* the whole fascist pearl clutching over burning tires is getting quite old.

also, since I can't be bothered to read your incoherent ramblings, I'm going to respond to a key point, which is you claiming that Israel has only had distant support from the US.

Since its inception Israel has had vast Military and humanitarian support from the USA as well as Great Britain. The USA is consistently selling the Israelis weapons tech. Read a book, for fucks sake.
1

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#26 Post by JamesYanik » Tue May 15, 2018 8:47 am

Kingdroid wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 7:26 am
I get it Yanik, you support genocide of brown people. *yawn* the whole fascist pearl clutching over burning tires is getting quite old.

also, since I can't be bothered to read your incoherent ramblings, I'm going to respond to a key point, which is you claiming that Israel has only had distant support from the US.

Since its inception Israel has had vast Military and humanitarian support from the USA as well as Great Britain. The USA is consistently selling the Israelis weapons tech. Read a book, for fucks sake.
1. even you know that's nonsense. it never ceases to amaze me the bullshit people will say on the internet.

2. HAHAHA you aren't even reading what I'm posting, that's... well that's somewhat to be expected

3. I'm talking about boots on the ground support. compare the soldiers committed to Palestine in '48 and '67 by Iraq/Egypt/Syria/Jordan/Lebanon compared to US soldiers committed.

Israel were outmanned by warring population numbers, and still managed to win.

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#27 Post by JamesYanik » Tue May 15, 2018 9:03 am

By the way, this is the history of Israel as I've come to know it. if I'm getting facts wrong, please let me know.



- most of the land in Palestinian Mandate the Zionists got, was legally bought by what we would call landlords, it was the farmers on the land (who never actually owned the land) who got kicked off - the EXACT same thing happened in the Dust Bowl with Okies having to move to California, it's mean, but in no way is this illegal. this is the early post WWI movement. The land that Britain had control was rightfully Britain's after they won it from the Ottomans post WWI.

- the reaction by arabic Palestinians was very violent, Husseini for decades made it his goal to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine, despite nothing illegal actually having been done, this is clear anti-jewish sentiment. Husseini meets with Hitler, and influences policy that blocks European Jews from immigrating, likely ending up in thousands more dying in the Holocaust.

- but before WWII, we have the arabic revolt to jewish presence. this is initiated by arabs. Britain and the soon to be Israelis shut this down, and Britain sends in the Peel commission. The first attempt at a two state solution is offered, with Israel getting 20% of the designated land, and Palestine getting 80%. This is rejected by the Palestinians. Israel goes ahead and takes the land that they were offered, but Palestine has rejected the deal.

- Now we're post WWII, and Israel declares it's independence, with the original small partition that Britain granted it. Very much against this, the civil war is started and in '48 we have violence with Israel on one side, and Transjordan (Jordan), Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt on the other. The LATTER nations start the war, and despite physical outnumbering of Israelis, lose due to less preparation and cohesion. During the WAR, Israel expands its territory, and by the end, 1% of its population is dead.

- Now we're at the refugee crisis. 700,000 Palestinian arabs are displaced from what is being called Israel, and 800,000-1,000,000 Jews are displaced from surrounding muslim nations. Israel adopts a policy (which it still has to this day) to accept any jewish refugee fleeing from religious persecution. NO muslim majority nation NOR combination accepts any such broad acceptance refugee program, with thousands still displaced. Jordan takes control of the West Bank and Egypt of Gaza, Israel the rest.

*opinion section: this is where I say that Israel has done nothing wrong. They were attacked first, and they accepted a massive number of refugees from surrounding countries. But nobody ever seems to point the finger and blame Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq or Syria for not accepting in all the Palestinian refugees, though many were forced there.*

- Keep in mind, Palestine did not accept the land deal that Britain offered. this is where the argument of whether or not Palestine is technically a state and whether or not an occupation even comes into play. Frankly the reality of thousands of displaced Palestinians exists in either case, and their humanity still matters regardless of whether or not they have a *state*

- UN is given control by Britain of all prior stake they had btw, if I didn't mention that already. refugees aren't being dealt with properly, Israel doesn't see that they have an obligation to do so since they already dealt with more Jewish refugees, and other surrounding nations refuse to do anything about it.

- Into the 50s and Egypt and Jordan help Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel, to which Israel responds. This cumulates in the Suez crisis, when Israel, France and Britain decide they don't like Nasser nationalizing the canal, and Israel invades the entire of the Gaza Strip along with the canal being besieged. Eventually there is a stalemate and things calm down, and Israel recedes from the territory peacefully. As things have been escalating a lot in this region, UNEF peacekeepers are sent in to calm things down on the Israel/Egypt border.

- 1964 the PLO is created by Arafat, and they get a lot of support. Now the juicy part

- 1967 the six day war began with Egypt/Israel conflicts yet again. less to do with Palestine, let's make that clear. Israel says the strikes were preemptive and Egypt were ready to invade, Egypt denies, although admits they had troops all along the border, after they had reneged on a deal to keep the straights of Tiran open. Israel gets all of Gaza and the Sinai peninsula.

- Part two of the six day war, Egypt gets Syria and Jordan to come in. Keep in mind, Israel have made no aggression towards them at this point, but after they enter into the fight, Israel takes the Golan Heights from Syria in the north, and the West Bank from Jordan.

- The Khartoum Resolution is made by the united arab league: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel." The War of Attrition starts and the fighting doesn't really achieve much.

- Because the PLO was kicked out of the west bank, they had to relocate in Jordan, and that led to internal conflict leading to Jordan defeating a fairly belligerent PLO, although the PLO took over and seized much of southern Lebanon. This was the first time in the Middle East that another arabic country realized that the Palestinians weren't so friendly.

- In 1973 we have the Yom Kippur war, too often ignored, when Egypt and Syria along with other arabic nations attacked Israel on their holiest of days, crossing ceasefire lines in the Golan heights and Sinai peninsula. this led to a stalemate, and Israel eventually repelled them. however, the lack of preparation by Israel nearly led to their ultimate downfall. if they hadn't halted the Egyptian advance, Israel would not longer be here today.

- Then we have the Lebanese civil war, in which the Lebanese fought against the PLO, and Lebanon began to realize the pretty extreme martial nature of the PLO.

- Meanwhile, the PLO, while still fighting against the people who opened their doors to them in Lebanon, stage attacks against Israel, one heinous enough "Costal Road Massacre" which led to Israel invading Lebanon, causing the PLO to flee, then Israel ONCE AGAIN receded back.

- Finally, in 1982, Lebanon (after having gone through some regime changes) actually team up with Israel to fight the PLO in southern Lebanon, with much success. prior to this were the 1978 camp David accords, the sinai peninsula is handed back to Egypt, while the PLO fled to Tunisia (with yet more local violence) until 1993 Oslo accords allowed them to return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the hope of peace

- Peace didn't happen with the PLO (who could have guessed?) and waves of attacks on Israel occurred. We have the Camp David summit in 2000 when 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza along with annexation of East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine is offered to Arafat and the PLO. He says no, offers no alternative, and goes home and starts the second intifada. well holy shit.

*I haven't mentioned the rise to prominence of Hamas during this time period, they came to power in 1987 as a tributary to the muslim brotherhood, and there actually were some good early thing they did for education, but this quickly turned to anti-israeli violence and suicide bombings*

-the Taba 2001 summit is rarely heard of, and it still mired in controversy for what happens afterwards in why talks took a detour for the 2005 chaos. Many blame the regime change in Israel, while others attribute it to sudden resilience by Palestinians.

- Israel says "alright, we've had enough" in 2005 and pulls out of Gaza, leaving a considerable number of greenhouses. while evacuating all soldiers and civilians there are riots occurring, and after Israel leaves there is belligerence against them from Gaza. Hamas wins election in 2006, Israel asks them to recognize Israel's right to exist, not act violently, and negotiate on the earlier agreed upon israel/palestine accords. Hamas rejects ALL of these and begins launching rockets (seriously wtf people). note: Israel still has control of water resources, air and sea power surrounding Gaza with a border wall too. many consider this to represent the "apartheid state" but it was Israel who asked Hamas to talk about these, and it was Hamas who rejected to negotiate, said Israel has no right to exist, and wanted violence.

- more and more violence erupted from Hamas, so Israel retaliated and after operations Summer Rains and Cast Lead, Gaza was left massively hurt. A ceasefire occurred in '09.

- in '08 Olmert (israel) and Abbas (palestine) came to a near agreement, Israel would return all of the West Bank and Gaza, and annex east bank, along with some provisions of land for refugees. Abbas as of 2015 admitted he rejected this offer being uncertain about the map.







so what does this have to do with the Hamas inspired #GreatReturnMarch of Palestinians to the land just north of Gaza?

there was a small section in 1947 that the UN said should belong to Palestine. this was the agreement that Palestine rejected, remember.

then Israel was invaded by 6 countries, and somehow managed to win. the small section of land just north of Gaza, Israel kept, while the Gaza Strip went to Egypt.

THIS is what 40,000 people are marching north, attacking the Israeli border fence with explosives and incendiary devices for, many bringing their children with them on the mob, 70 years after the fact, saying they deserve this land back. I'm sorry but this line of argument is faulty for me, much less the violent way they're pursuing it.



and as for the larger conflict, you can accuse Israel of being to hardline, but after Yom Kippur and a near genocide level event (not to mention the literal holocaust, and rabid local antisemitism), I can understand that sentiment. furthermore, the only real time Israel were the controversial party/unwarranted aggressor in this was in the six day's war (and THAT'S a debate), and even then, that was conflict in the south with Egypt that was controversial. the fight over the West Bank (the most talked about part of this) was NOT started by Israel.

what Israel has to answer for now. is why in the Oslo accords they claimed they are moving out of the West Bank, but still build settlements there. the Golan Heights is also controversial, but with the recent Assad regime in power and ISIS being prevalent there's been a hold on that debate.

it's just the more I look at Palestine, the PLO and Hamas are consistently the voted in parties, and they have fought with EVERYONE they come in contact with. PLO with the Lebanese and Jordanians and Tunisians, and Hamas internally with Fatah for power in 2006/07.

If Palestine wants reform, Hamas needs to change big-time. the one positive for the PLO is that Abbas admitted his 2008 mistake recently, he decried the holocaust, and he actually seems somewhat reticent to peace. sure, there's still terrorist linkages, but that's why we need to open talks immediately.



And this is why Netanyahu is such a bitch.

Yeah Gaza is still a fucking mess but if Netanyahu actually put his mind to fixing the West Bank problem, this is a once in a generation chance to fix stuff. the Iran Deal does need changing because opening up Iran's economy from sanctions, and Iran has increased their military spending 40% since. Not to mention, the p51 reports say it went from 2-3 months for Iran to get a Nuke, to 12 months. that's all we got for the deal and Iran can still fund terrorism.

Now since the Iran deal is off an sanctions are back off, instability is going to rise, which is why if there's going to be peace talks, it'd need to be soon.

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2017-0 ... -july-2017

Randomizer
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 45

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#28 Post by Randomizer » Wed May 16, 2018 9:28 pm

What's being overlooked was this was the 6th week of Hamas led attacks on the border fence. In the first attack, Israeli soldiers used rubber bullets and other non-lethal deterrents and Palestinians still kept advancing using rocks, Molotov cocktails and other damaging attacks. So after the failure of non-lethal defense of the border, there was little reason to assume that it would work the 6th time.

Second Hamas had a kilometer long reinforced tunnel destroy near a kibbutz the previous week. So there was clear evidence that the protests are designed to cover an invasion.

Third what is barely mentioned is that Palestinians have breached the fence in these attacks, but were prevented from crossing into Israel.
2

Telamor
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:16 am
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 85

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#29 Post by Telamor » Thu May 17, 2018 12:05 am

I lived in Jerusalem for a time. People love sticking the word Hamas on Palestinian protests to delegitimise them and that's complete bs. The Palestinian people have no methods of self-assertion that aren't directed against Israel. All Palestinian borders are controlled by Israel. Israel dictates what can and cannot be imported/exported. Israel dictates who can and cannot immigrate/emigrate. They dictate what can be built where and with what materials. Israel can and will enter houses forcibly and regularly for any reason they fancy. I knew a 7 year old girl who developed anorexia and had frequent anxiety attacks because the IDF occupied her house about 6 times a month at gun point.

The thing to bear in mind is when Palestinians go and protest they know they aren't going to achieve anything but they're often so angry at the injustices of it all that they have to vent somehow. Also someone mentioned that the area the protests occurred at were uncontested I would remind them that Jerusalem was annexed into Israel by invasion.

There's a section in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov where one character describes a little girl that was abused by her parents and then locked in the outhouse in the middle of the Russian winter for complaining about it. Then her parents go to bed ignoring her weeping and howls. Castigating the Palestinians for protesting is like telling that girl off for crying. She has no other recourse so what else do you expect her to do.
5

Kingdroid
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:01 pm
Karma: 44

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#30 Post by Kingdroid » Thu May 17, 2018 1:22 am

Thank you telamor for being the voice of rationality and empathy. It truly speaks to the privilege and ignorance of Western citizens when they see the Palestinian protests and deaths and blame the victims for it. People like yanik have never and probably will never live in a world even remotely hell ish, unjust or as cruel as the Palestinian people have had to endure for the past 60 plus years.
1

Telamor
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:16 am
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 85

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#31 Post by Telamor » Thu May 17, 2018 5:02 pm

@JamesYanik

I don't have enough time to correct all your misconceptions about Israel/Palestine history but I can cover some.

Your history starts very late so I'll take you back a bit earlier to the mid 1800s. Nationalism is sweeping Europe and Europe's Jewish community, out of this develops Zionism the belief in a Jewish nation for the Jewish people. By the late 1800s wealth Jewish families in Europe have begun buying sizable tracts of land from Ottoman landlords/aristocrats. Most of these landlords live in Istanbul, Constantinople at the time, and have little interest in Palestine. The land is bought and thousand of Palestinian farmers are evicted. The land is then gifted to European and American Jews interested in living in Palestine. This, understandably leads to resentment amongst the Palestinian population and the two communities become fairly hostile to one another.

An interesting aside here the Palestinian Jewish community is firmly entrenched on the Palestinian side of the divide. There is very little interest in joining the Zionists from the Palestinian Jews and the Zionists view the Palestinian Jews as Palestinians, not Jews. At the time the Zionist narrative is one of expulsion and return, pre-existing Jewish communities in Palestine contradict this narrative and so are generally ignored or dismissed as non-Jewish Jews. This kind of thinking has never entirely disappeared.

The next notable phase in Israel/Palestine history is the Balfor declaration and the British mandate:

So a quick summary of Britain's involvement in the M/E during WWI. Britain and the Ottomans fight an extended war across the M/E with Britain essentially pushing from Iraq up to, if memory serves, Syria. The M/E is not the front Britain is primarily interested in, that'd be the Western front, and so Britain resorts to its trademark imperial tactic of Do It On The Cheap (patent pending). How do you fight a war on the cheap and still hope to win? You get someone else to fight it for you. In this case the Arabs. How do you get the Arabs to fight for you, essentially for free? Promise them a country from Saudi to the Northern Levant ruled by Arabs for Arabs.

But Britain also wants money and International backing. Funnily enough a lot of the European Jewish families that have been buying up land have money and international sway. How do you get their support? You promise them a country run by Jews for Jews. And you promise that country will be in what is currently the Ottoman province of Palestine.

But there is one final deal that has to be struck, this one with Britain's buddy France because heavens forbid they fail to acquire any land in the M/E. So Britain promises to split the land with France. France gets the Northern Levant and Britain gets the rest.

Now you may have noted that Britain has made three conflicting deals, so has Britain to an extent. So they decide to renege on the Arab part of the deal. No Arab state emerges from WWI and the Sharif of Mecca is humiliated when he attempts to attend the Versaille peace conference. By way of apology Britain installs his sons as puppet kings in Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. I'm fairly sure there were four sons but I can't remember where the fourth was sent. Side note, only the Jordanian son avoided death at the hands of a nationalist uprising. Britain maintains its promise to the Zionists by opening up immigration into Palestine but tensions between the Palestinians and the Jews leads to the imposition of immigration restrictions. The Jews are viewed by many of the Palestinians as Britain's colonizers and for a time the Mandate did basically serve the needs of the Zionists but there were increasing sympathies among the Mandate officials towards the Palestinian plight and eventually the Mandate settles into more of a neutral arbiter role with slight Palestinian leanings.

Britain spends a lot of the interwar years putting down Arab rebellions as the concept of Arab nationalism sweeps the M/E. It's difficult to attribute problems in Palestine to individual causes and there are bouts of violence between Palestinians and Zionists as well as between both groups and the British. It's in the early 30s that the Haganah militia (a Zionist defence force) splits over the policy of restraint and the Irgun emerges as a more proactive Zionist militia. By the late 30s the Irgun has ceased exclusively defensive actions and has begun launching attacks and raids on Palestinian villages. It is also worth noting this is a period of mass illegal immigration as Zionist groups set up networks to bring into Palestine. During this period Zionist groups managed to smuggle well in excess of 250,000 people into Palestine. This was also a period of brutal sectarian violence with tit-for-tat exchanges between Zionist and Palestinian groups.

1939 saw a government white paper emerge from Britain that suggested further reducing the number of Jewish immigrants allowed into the Mandate and put a halt to land purchases. Part of the justification for the halt on land purchase was that the land ownership records were in an absolute state and trying to figure out who actually owned what was proving a nightmare for mandate officials, this confusion had been pretty ruthlessly exploited for the past two decades and so purchases were halted until the record could be sorted. This was interpreted as a hostile action by a variety of Zionist groups particularly the Irgun and was followed by a spate of Terrorist attacks including the killing Mandate policemen with IEDs. However the paper was overshadowed by the eruption of WWII. Many Palestinians and Zionists volunteered to join the British in their fight against Nazism and a variety of underground organisations that had thus far been working in opposition to the British began gathering intelligence across central and eastern Europe. There was a small group of Zionists who believed Hitler intended to exile Germany's Jewish population and viewed the war as the perfect opportunity to overthrow the British and take advantage of this mass expulsion. They were a small and tragically mistaken minority.

We all know about the tragedy of the holocaust. Or at least I hope we all do and if you don't go read a history book or Wikipedia it or something. In 1945 the British vote to dispose of Churchill's conservative party bringing Labour to power in one of the great surprises of British politics. Labour had run on a variety of brilliant policies that led to the establishment of many of Britain's greatest institutions but one often forgotten promise was the repeal of the 1939 immigration limits in Palestine. Upon taking power as Foreign minister Ernest Bevin decided not to follow through with this promise.

It's hard to create an easy narrative for this period of Israel/Palestine history. Lots of histories take the 1945 refusal to overturn the white paper as the start of a new era of Zionist-british hostility but It's worth bearing in mind the Irgun had attempted to kidnap the head of the Mandate in 1943 and were only prevented from doing so because members of the Haganah leaked the plans to the British. It's also a.time of continued fragmentation and groups within groups within groups and had ended the ceasefire formally by 44 and resumed terrorist operations including bombings and assassinations. For ease we'll just say hostilities resumed towards the end of the war and Labour's decision not to overturn the white paper led to an escalation in violence.

Labour annonced an end to the policy of a two state solution instead proposing an Arab majority state of Palestine in which Jews would compose 1/3rd of the population. This outraged many zionists groups and in 1945 the King David hotel was bombed by the newly formed Jewish resistance movement killing 91 people and injuring a further 40 odd. A new terror campaign began with roadside bombs and attacks against off duty military personnel and their families increasing dramatically. The attacks weren't limited to the Mandate with Irgun members attacking a British Officers club in Vienna and a Sergeants club in Germany. In an effort to hinder British efforts to reduce immigration the British embassy in Rome was also bombed.

The Irgun stepped up attacks on British personnel internationally through out the years of 45-48. I'll give a short run of some highlights: The bombing of the officers club in Jerusalem killing 13 (only 2 were military personelle), the attempted jailbreak at acre leading to the escape of some 200 odd prisoners, mostly not Irgun members, several suicide bombings, and the sergeants affair. The sergeants affair involved the kidnapping of two off-duty British sergeants who were the Irgun tried to use to negotiate the release of several Irgun members caught during the Acre prison break and sentenced to death. Upon British refusal the sergeants were hung and their bodies rigged with explosives. By mid 1948 a war weary Britain decided to withdraw its troop .from the Mandate essentially washing its hands of the whole thing.

Britain had essentially ended WWII only to have to fight a bloody insurgency against the many of the people they'd helped liberate. Several of my Grandpa's friends served in WWII only to be transferred to Palestine and they were some of the most pro-Arab people I knew growing up. They were also sick of Palestine by the time they left from they told me you were never able to relax and let your guard down and everyone was a potential threat. The Irgun used to steal the uniforms off dead soldiers and use them to get close to checkpoints and bases before opening up. Sounded brutal to be honest. As for the rest of your history there Yanik I'd go and read up on the Lebanon civil.war and the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon because you've got a pretty wonky grasp of events then too and I don't have the energy to.produce another of these.
5

Telamor
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:16 am
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 85

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#32 Post by Telamor » Thu May 17, 2018 5:06 pm

I feel kinda like I just did a massive shit. I'm sort of proud of myself but I'm not sure anyone else wants to see it.

Octavious
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 363
Contact:

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#33 Post by Octavious » Thu May 17, 2018 6:31 pm

That's a damned fine shite, sir :). I was aware of the terrorism against the British because of my own family history, but was very vague on the details before then. Thank you.

Octavious
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 363
Contact:

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#34 Post by Octavious » Thu May 17, 2018 6:40 pm

Bob Genghiskhan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:33 pm
How many generations of Chinese occupation of Oklahoma would it take before you gave up on it?
Speaking from my personal experience, after 200 years such events are remembered but not really any differently to any other detail of history. It wasn't an issue for my grandfather either. I think that once the people who were evicted have died, as well as their descendants that knew them, it's essentially a dead issue.

flash2015
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 69

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#35 Post by flash2015 » Thu May 17, 2018 7:42 pm

Octavious wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 6:40 pm
Bob Genghiskhan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:33 pm
How many generations of Chinese occupation of Oklahoma would it take before you gave up on it?
Speaking from my personal experience, after 200 years such events are remembered but not really any differently to any other detail of history. It wasn't an issue for my grandfather either. I think that once the people who were evicted have died, as well as their descendants that knew them, it's essentially a dead issue.
Tell that to the protestants in Northern Ireland that still celebrate the Battle Of The Boyne victory from 1690:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth
1

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#36 Post by JamesYanik » Thu May 17, 2018 7:47 pm

Telamor wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 12:05 am
I lived in Jerusalem for a time. People love sticking the word Hamas on Palestinian protests to delegitimise them and that's complete bs. The Palestinian people have no methods of self-assertion that aren't directed against Israel. All Palestinian borders are controlled by Israel. Israel dictates what can and cannot be imported/exported. Israel dictates who can and cannot immigrate/emigrate. They dictate what can be built where and with what materials. Israel can and will enter houses forcibly and regularly for any reason they fancy. I knew a 7 year old girl who developed anorexia and had frequent anxiety attacks because the IDF occupied her house about 6 times a month at gun point.

The thing to bear in mind is when Palestinians go and protest they know they aren't going to achieve anything but they're often so angry at the injustices of it all that they have to vent somehow. Also someone mentioned that the area the protests occurred at were uncontested I would remind them that Jerusalem was annexed into Israel by invasion.

There's a section in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov where one character describes a little girl that was abused by her parents and then locked in the outhouse in the middle of the Russian winter for complaining about it. Then her parents go to bed ignoring her weeping and howls. Castigating the Palestinians for protesting is like telling that girl off for crying. She has no other recourse so what else do you expect her to do.

and this is where Israel is clearly in the wrong. As I said before, I want Israel to just pull out.

Of course, Israel pretty much offered that twice in 2000 and 2008, giving up all of Gaza, the first time 95% of the West Bank and the second time 100% of the west bank, and each time offering East Gaza.

The Palestinians rejected the offer (or the people they voted for did, Arafat then Abbas)

That's why on occupation, it's obvious that Israel is in the wrong, but it's not as if Palestine has been open in giving other options until VERY recently. and as we see with the #GreatReturnMarch, there are people in Gaza with motivations beyond just protesting the occupation, both garnering MORE land from Israel at the same time.


But on another anti-Israel point that is NOT NEARLY spoken about often enough; Israel controls the water resources in Gaza, and there are estimates coming out that close to 97% of it is undrinkable. That's a stunning figure, and we've had several different outside agencies confirm it.

I'm not just blindly pro-Israel, right now they're in power, and they're doing the bad... but I don't like people pretending (and you are not doing this, but many others I see seem to be) that the Palestinians would be perfectly benevolent and peaceful if they were in control.

that all having been said, of course all sovereign people have a right to a state.





Telamor wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 5:02 pm
@JamesYanik

I don't have enough time to correct all your misconceptions about Israel/Palestine history but I can cover some.

Your history starts very late so I'll take you back a bit earlier to the mid 1800s. Nationalism is sweeping Europe and Europe's Jewish community, out of this develops Zionism the belief in a Jewish nation for the Jewish people. By the late 1800s wealth Jewish families in Europe have begun buying sizable tracts of land from Ottoman landlords/aristocrats. Most of these landlords live in Istanbul, Constantinople at the time, and have little interest in Palestine. The land is bought and thousand of Palestinian farmers are evicted. The land is then gifted to European and American Jews interested in living in Palestine. This, understandably leads to resentment amongst the Palestinian population and the two communities become fairly hostile to one another.

An interesting aside here the Palestinian Jewish community is firmly entrenched on the Palestinian side of the divide. There is very little interest in joining the Zionists from the Palestinian Jews and the Zionists view the Palestinian Jews as Palestinians, not Jews. At the time the Zionist narrative is one of expulsion and return, pre-existing Jewish communities in Palestine contradict this narrative and so are generally ignored or dismissed as non-Jewish Jews. This kind of thinking has never entirely disappeared.

The next notable phase in Israel/Palestine history is the Balfor declaration and the British mandate:

So a quick summary of Britain's involvement in the M/E during WWI. Britain and the Ottomans fight an extended war across the M/E with Britain essentially pushing from Iraq up to, if memory serves, Syria. The M/E is not the front Britain is primarily interested in, that'd be the Western front, and so Britain resorts to its trademark imperial tactic of Do It On The Cheap (patent pending). How do you fight a war on the cheap and still hope to win? You get someone else to fight it for you. In this case the Arabs. How do you get the Arabs to fight for you, essentially for free? Promise them a country from Saudi to the Northern Levant ruled by Arabs for Arabs.

But Britain also wants money and International backing. Funnily enough a lot of the European Jewish families that have been buying up land have money and international sway. How do you get their support? You promise them a country run by Jews for Jews. And you promise that country will be in what is currently the Ottoman province of Palestine.

But there is one final deal that has to be struck, this one with Britain's buddy France because heavens forbid they fail to acquire any land in the M/E. So Britain promises to split the land with France. France gets the Northern Levant and Britain gets the rest.

Now you may have noted that Britain has made three conflicting deals, so has Britain to an extent. So they decide to renege on the Arab part of the deal. No Arab state emerges from WWI and the Sharif of Mecca is humiliated when he attempts to attend the Versaille peace conference. By way of apology Britain installs his sons as puppet kings in Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. I'm fairly sure there were four sons but I can't remember where the fourth was sent. Side note, only the Jordanian son avoided death at the hands of a nationalist uprising. Britain maintains its promise to the Zionists by opening up immigration into Palestine but tensions between the Palestinians and the Jews leads to the imposition of immigration restrictions. The Jews are viewed by many of the Palestinians as Britain's colonizers and for a time the Mandate did basically serve the needs of the Zionists but there were increasing sympathies among the Mandate officials towards the Palestinian plight and eventually the Mandate settles into more of a neutral arbiter role with slight Palestinian leanings.

Britain spends a lot of the interwar years putting down Arab rebellions as the concept of Arab nationalism sweeps the M/E. It's difficult to attribute problems in Palestine to individual causes and there are bouts of violence between Palestinians and Zionists as well as between both groups and the British. It's in the early 30s that the Haganah militia (a Zionist defence force) splits over the policy of restraint and the Irgun emerges as a more proactive Zionist militia. By the late 30s the Irgun has ceased exclusively defensive actions and has begun launching attacks and raids on Palestinian villages. It is also worth noting this is a period of mass illegal immigration as Zionist groups set up networks to bring into Palestine. During this period Zionist groups managed to smuggle well in excess of 250,000 people into Palestine. This was also a period of brutal sectarian violence with tit-for-tat exchanges between Zionist and Palestinian groups.

1939 saw a government white paper emerge from Britain that suggested further reducing the number of Jewish immigrants allowed into the Mandate and put a halt to land purchases. Part of the justification for the halt on land purchase was that the land ownership records were in an absolute state and trying to figure out who actually owned what was proving a nightmare for mandate officials, this confusion had been pretty ruthlessly exploited for the past two decades and so purchases were halted until the record could be sorted. This was interpreted as a hostile action by a variety of Zionist groups particularly the Irgun and was followed by a spate of Terrorist attacks including the killing Mandate policemen with IEDs. However the paper was overshadowed by the eruption of WWII. Many Palestinians and Zionists volunteered to join the British in their fight against Nazism and a variety of underground organisations that had thus far been working in opposition to the British began gathering intelligence across central and eastern Europe. There was a small group of Zionists who believed Hitler intended to exile Germany's Jewish population and viewed the war as the perfect opportunity to overthrow the British and take advantage of this mass expulsion. They were a small and tragically mistaken minority.

We all know about the tragedy of the holocaust. Or at least I hope we all do and if you don't go read a history book or Wikipedia it or something. In 1945 the British vote to dispose of Churchill's conservative party bringing Labour to power in one of the great surprises of British politics. Labour had run on a variety of brilliant policies that led to the establishment of many of Britain's greatest institutions but one often forgotten promise was the repeal of the 1939 immigration limits in Palestine. Upon taking power as Foreign minister Ernest Bevin decided not to follow through with this promise.

It's hard to create an easy narrative for this period of Israel/Palestine history. Lots of histories take the 1945 refusal to overturn the white paper as the start of a new era of Zionist-british hostility but It's worth bearing in mind the Irgun had attempted to kidnap the head of the Mandate in 1943 and were only prevented from doing so because members of the Haganah leaked the plans to the British. It's also a.time of continued fragmentation and groups within groups within groups and had ended the ceasefire formally by 44 and resumed terrorist operations including bombings and assassinations. For ease we'll just say hostilities resumed towards the end of the war and Labour's decision not to overturn the white paper led to an escalation in violence.

Labour annonced an end to the policy of a two state solution instead proposing an Arab majority state of Palestine in which Jews would compose 1/3rd of the population. This outraged many zionists groups and in 1945 the King David hotel was bombed by the newly formed Jewish resistance movement killing 91 people and injuring a further 40 odd. A new terror campaign began with roadside bombs and attacks against off duty military personnel and their families increasing dramatically. The attacks weren't limited to the Mandate with Irgun members attacking a British Officers club in Vienna and a Sergeants club in Germany. In an effort to hinder British efforts to reduce immigration the British embassy in Rome was also bombed.

The Irgun stepped up attacks on British personnel internationally through out the years of 45-48. I'll give a short run of some highlights: The bombing of the officers club in Jerusalem killing 13 (only 2 were military personelle), the attempted jailbreak at acre leading to the escape of some 200 odd prisoners, mostly not Irgun members, several suicide bombings, and the sergeants affair. The sergeants affair involved the kidnapping of two off-duty British sergeants who were the Irgun tried to use to negotiate the release of several Irgun members caught during the Acre prison break and sentenced to death. Upon British refusal the sergeants were hung and their bodies rigged with explosives. By mid 1948 a war weary Britain decided to withdraw its troop .from the Mandate essentially washing its hands of the whole thing.

Britain had essentially ended WWII only to have to fight a bloody insurgency against the many of the people they'd helped liberate. Several of my Grandpa's friends served in WWII only to be transferred to Palestine and they were some of the most pro-Arab people I knew growing up. They were also sick of Palestine by the time they left from they told me you were never able to relax and let your guard down and everyone was a potential threat. The Irgun used to steal the uniforms off dead soldiers and use them to get close to checkpoints and bases before opening up. Sounded brutal to be honest. As for the rest of your history there Yanik I'd go and read up on the Lebanon civil.war and the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon because you've got a pretty wonky grasp of events then too and I don't have the energy to.produce another of these.
--------------------
"Your history starts very late so I'll take you back a bit earlier to the mid 1800s. Nationalism is sweeping Europe and Europe's Jewish community, out of this develops Zionism the belief in a Jewish nation for the Jewish people. By the late 1800s wealth Jewish families in Europe have begun buying sizable tracts of land from Ottoman landlords/aristocrats. Most of these landlords live in Istanbul, Constantinople at the time, and have little interest in Palestine. The land is bought and thousand of Palestinian farmers are evicted. The land is then gifted to European and American Jews interested in living in Palestine. This, understandably leads to resentment amongst the Palestinian population and the two communities become fairly hostile to one another."

I actually did address this part... I compared it to the grapes of wrath where absentee landlords kicked people off the land. you may hate it, but it's 100% legal Israeli occupation of the land.

--------------------
I'm completely aware of the Balfor declaration, and Britain's sleaziness. however, there are three points that MUST be mentioned:

1. the nationalism against the Zionism I can understand, although keep in mind, this is not the Jew's fault.

2. When Britain tried to reconcile this after the Peel Commission and the Arab Revolt, they offered Zionist settlers only 20% of the land, The Palestinians 80%. the zionists accepted whatever they could get for refuge from growing anti-semtisim in Europe, and the Palestinians REFUSED.

at that moment in time, given the fact Britain promised both arabic and jewish control of palestine; the ZIONISTS were given the raw end of the deal, and they were willing to take what they could get.

3. if this were ONLY anti-zionist behavior for colonization, we're entirely glossing over the fact Al-husseini went to Nazi Germany and was in love with what Hitler was doing. this was not merely anti-colonization by Jews, this was anti-Jews.

--------------------
you mention the Haganah militia, but fail to mention that it was ONLY EVER FORMED because of anti-jewish riots in Jaffa and Jerusalem in the earl 1920s.

the split to the Irgun also occurred after the 1929 anti-jewish riots which sparked frequent raids on Israelis ever since.

If you're going to present history, present both sides.

--------------------
"It is also worth noting this is a period of mass illegal immigration as Zionist groups set up networks to bring into Palestine. During this period Zionist groups managed to smuggle well in excess of 250,000 people into Palestine. This was also a period of brutal sectarian violence with tit-for-tat exchanges between Zionist and Palestinian groups."

um... this is not true as far as I can tell... in parts I mean.

Saying they "smuggled in 250,000" as far as I can tell, zionist populations immigrating in wasn't illegal... especially not since many of these Jews were fleeing anti-semitism in the build up to WWII

as for the land they were staying on, this is where the controversy was. Mandatory Palestine was still British soil at this point. it's only illegal if the British say it is... and I don't see the evidence for that.

--------------------
and from the end of this, you mention the deal in which Israel would get the smaller share of the land, and Palestine more.

you talk about the Irgun's violent opposition to this... but what you don't talk about is the end result.

the zionists ACCEPTED the massively smaller amounts of land. going back to the original Balfor declaration, ZIONISTS are losing, PALESTINIANS are winning from this deal.



of course the Palestinians reject, and the deal gets handed off to the UN. The UN makes another deal, more 50/50, Israel is willing to accept (and does) then states nationhood.

Palestine rejects this, and with the help of 5 other nations attack Israel in the civil war. they are the aggressors, and they lose more land in defeat.




the land they lose just north of Gaza, is the land that the #GreatReturnMarch wanted back.

this is why I have very little sympathy for the march as a concept

Octavious
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 363
Contact:

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#37 Post by Octavious » Thu May 17, 2018 7:54 pm

It's a battle worth celebrating. A glorious win for the Pope over the French, fought by Kings of England in the middle of Ireland. But as much as it was a pivotal moment in history, the people who mark it have the same sort of emotional connection as your average Brit celebrating bonfire night. It doesn't really matter.

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#38 Post by JamesYanik » Thu May 17, 2018 8:18 pm

I had another post but when I submitted it, the wifi decided to buffer it, and I had to reload the page. oh well.

@Telamor

I'd also like to point out my point for making this thread was for this one conflict at the fence north of Gaza.

1. the massive Israel-bashing on twitter, with people pretending this was only a "peaceful protest" when in fact it was a march across Israel's borders with much violence on the Palestinian side. I've already posted on this, and Randomizer also covered some points I missed

2. the fact that the land SPECIFICALLY addressed, north of Gaza, Israel wasn't colonizing from back during Mandatory Palestine. Even in the UN deal they didn't get that land, but after THEY were attacked in '48 with the "civil war," they took the land, and I have no problems with THAT.

that's why I've said a protest at the fence, which was #IsraelLeaveUsAlone I could get behind but #GreatReturnMarch I cannot.


I really never intended to go this deep into the history, but there we are

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 35

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#39 Post by JamesYanik » Thu May 17, 2018 8:29 pm

Kingdroid wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 1:22 am
Thank you telamor for being the voice of rationality and empathy. It truly speaks to the privilege and ignorance of Western citizens when they see the Palestinian protests and deaths and blame the victims for it. People like yanik have never and probably will never live in a world even remotely hell ish, unjust or as cruel as the Palestinian people have had to endure for the past 60 plus years.
I do empathize with the Palestinians, which is why I want Israel to let them control their own borders, and for them to have a state. I've said this many times. I've decried Israel's illegal and terrifying overseas ventures, allowing the poisonous water in Gaza to go unchecked, using unnecessary violence, and not caring in the slightest about civil casualties (though people seem equally incapable of blaming Hamas for using children as shields, because seeing anything outside an absolutist lens is apparently looked down on in this conflict), this is why I want a Palestinian state:

this is why they accepted a peace deal and sovereignty in 2000 at Camp David.

oh, wait.

but then they accepted the deal in 2008...

oh, no to that too?

and I've criticized Netanyahu and current Israeli policy, for pushing themselves away from peace talks.


and as long as we're talking about blaming people for the last 60 years; Israel accepted every one of the estimated 800,000-1,000,000 Jewish refugees that wanted to go to Israel, after they were expelled from neighboring countries.

nobody ever talks about their "right to return"

the reason why so many refugee camps are STILL open is because for decades upon decades following the civil war, they were promised a return to their homeland after Israel was pushed into the sea. something which never happened.

so keep mudslinging Kingdroid, it seems all you're capable of doing

flash2015
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 69

Re: 52 Dead in Israel/Palestine Clashes

#40 Post by flash2015 » Thu May 17, 2018 8:30 pm

Octavious wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 7:54 pm
It's a battle worth celebrating. A glorious win for the Pope over the French, fought by Kings of England in the middle of Ireland. But as much as it was a pivotal moment in history, the people who mark it have the same sort of emotional connection as your average Brit celebrating bonfire night. It doesn't really matter.
The difference is that the celebration of the Battle Of The Boyne is quite divisive...while Guy Fawkes night is not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Telamor and 1 guest