Israel v Hamas

[Stirlingsays]

So Grok upheld my points then pretty much. I should've said "Jewish lobbying" about his re-election rather than direct funding.

I think it upheld the points you made pretty much yeah.

AI isn't a god or anything and takes from literature out there but I think it gave your points a reasonable positive.

It makes for fascinating reading.

 

[Spindle]

It also demonstrates the experience that the British had with dealing with colonies, what works and what doesn't. The left would do well to realise just how good we were.

 

[Living In Hope]

I'm not against the existence of Israel for more than one reason in the modern day but that's a different topic.

However, purely for objectivity a couple of things should be said in relation to a point in your post.

We can argue (not that I'm that interested in it) on whether what the UN gave to the Jews after WW2 was valid or justice or whatever.

However,

Israel never stuck to the borders that the UN gave them (enforced by the British) and used the importation of millions of Jews over twenty years (allowed by the British) to start by forcing out the British by terrorist groups (the leader of one they later elected PM) by murdering our troops.

But once having forced out the British by bombing and hanging our troops (never apologised) but soon after they soon forced out 700,000 mostly Muslims living outside their set boundary by forcing them out and if they wouldn't move killing them. These weren't military they were civilians being attacked by Jewish militants mostly armed illegally (another story in of itself).

Is someone antisemitic if they regard that as wrong?

I don't so easily forget the murder of our troops as easily as career politicians do.

No, I don't have to like the net effect of Muslims and their own colonizations and wrong doings..... to say that in the modern world that's wrong......What wrong did Muslim civilians living outside the UN boundary do?

Since then they have continually expanded, even beyond the 1967 borders that become a compromise position later on. Not all those wars were started by them but they all resulted in Israel expansion due to several reasons....again beyond the scope of my post.

Resistance to Israel's expansion has become known as antisemitism.....It's not my war and I'm hardly pro Muslim due to what they do to others themselves.......but I find it quaint to know the history and still think it's all fine and dandy...and then get called anti semitic if you stay true to the history.

Not because I prefer Muslims to Jews....in fact it's very much the opposite.

But just if you stay objective.

But I find it quaint that if you have an issue with what happened and what's happening....which is essentially colonization by force of arms that it gets called antisemitism....In other words that you just hate Jews....even though I want British Jews to stay in my country and for Muslim trouble makers to be booted out.

But when if it was the British colonization and empire building in the past....that instead gets continually rejected as evil by everyone. No one says it's racial hatred or anti white or anti British or whatever to attack us....it literally gets taught in the schools that what we did (which every nation did at some point) was wrong and evil and no one bats an eyelid.....Even though I regard this lefty worldview as out of context and lacking nuance.

There is a double standard there.....and when you dig into it...the reason why is obvious.

For clarity I would never have reached the end of my post if I had attempted to argue about the definition of Zionism, but perhaps I should have. It most commonly refers to the right of Israel to exist, though it is sometimes interpreted as the right of Israel to expand, and these are fundamentally different. In stating that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism I am using the former definition. The view that Israel has no right to exist is anti-semitic, in fact it's genocidal racism that is not aimed at any other country in the world, to my knowledge, apart from the one Jewish state.

But the right of Israel to expand, and settle in the occupied territories is completely different. My post refers to Israel's borders being set by international law - clearly their extension into Palestinian territory is therefore contrary to international law, and in my view wholly wrong. I would argue strongly that our support for Israel should be on the expectation that it removes its settlements from the occupied territories. I also make no argument for the merits of Netanyahu and his government - of course it is not anti-semitic to criticise them and what they do.

I would point out however that if there was a country which neighboured Britain whose government was dedicated to the annihilation of Britain, and it launched a terror attack to murder thousands of our citizens (pro-rata on populations of Israel and Britain for the nit-pickers, 1,200 Israelis is equivalent of 8,200 Britons), I would probably demand that Britain utterly destroyed that government, and my sympathy for its citizens would in turn be quite limited.

But the argument that Israel has no right to exist is another matter altogether, and sadly most of the people out on the pro-Palestinian marches appear to believe it.

 

[Stirlingsays]

For clarity I would never have reached the end of my post if I had attempted to argue about the definition of Zionism, but perhaps I should have. It most commonly refers to the right of Israel to exist, though it is sometimes interpreted as the right of Israel to expand, and these are fundamentally different. In stating that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism I am using the former definition. The view that Israel has no right to exist is anti-semitic, in fact it's genocidal racism that is not aimed at any other country in the world, to my knowledge, apart from the one Jewish state.

The right for Israel is exist now....Well, I think that is only argued against by people who are anti semitic because for that to happen would have to involve genocide.

The right and wrongs of what happened in 47-49 during the formation of the original Israel state, that's a different matter. Einstein for example was against the formation of the Israeli state but said that once it was created that it had to fight for it's existence when attacked......I agree, but as the AI said, it was a complex situation with many moving parts.

There's a discussion to be had about the past if people want it, but I think that in the present no one sensible is suggesting that Israel shouldn't exist.

If you are against what has happened to the Palestinians and others under old Netty, then you'd also be against what would be required to make Israel not exist as well.

People talk about the genocide in Gaza, but they are talking less than a hundred thousand people....maybe it's more, we won't know properly for a long time. But Israel is over ten million people.

But the right of Israel to expand, and settle in the occupied territories is completely different. My post refers to Israel's borders being set by international law - clearly their extension into Palestinian territory is therefore contrary to international law, and in my view wholly wrong. I would argue strongly that our support for Israel should be on the expectation that it removes its settlements from the occupied territories. I also make no argument for the merits of Netanyahu and his government - of course it is not anti-semitic to criticise them and what they do.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

What you are saying has basically been the position of everyone except the US and Israel for all my life. The only difference being that most US administration have said this but have in reality allowed Israeli governments to do what they want without it effecting the massive amounts of money they give them.....which has only increased over the years....essentially the expansion into the west bank and other areas was only possible with US tacit support.

I would point out however that if there was a country which neighboured Britain whose government was dedicated to the annihilation of Britain, and it launched a terror attack to murder thousands of our citizens (pro-rata on populations of Israel and Britain for the nit-pickers, 1,200 Israelis is equivalent of 8,200 Britons), I would probably demand that Britain utterly destroyed that government, and my sympathy for its citizens would in turn be quite limited.

This is of course true.

However, I would like to think that we wouldn't bomb a residential complex to get one person......If we do that then I condemn it. I would condemn it because I love my country and I have to think we have some kind of moral standard other than 'us good, them bad'.

I think the west has lost a lot of soft power since 9/11 and that saddens me.

But the argument that Israel has no right to exist is another matter altogether, and sadly most of the people out on the pro-Palestinian marches appear to believe it.

Agreed.....We have a lot of imported foreign loyalty, first and second generation, that is anti western and it shouldn't be here.

The left, social liberals (in power), left media and big business, worked their socks off to create that situation (whether deliberately or not) and continue to work their socks off to protect and nurture it today.

They betrayed their own working class to make it happen and demonise them every day for resisting these changes that they never agreed to.....Changes that effect their lives more than the mostly middle class and business and housing lobbies who ask and vote for it.