3 ms·

Against a guy's essay, which was criticised, you have actual murders, rapes and robbery by Arabs against Jews. Here is a list: "List of killings and massacre

Against a guy's essay, which was criticised, you have actual murders, rapes and robbery by Arabs against Jews. Here is a list: "List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres... Several things to note: That particular list starts in 1920, not because that's when Arabs began their nonsense but because it's a list of massacres in Mandatory Palestine and that started in 1918. The Muslim Arab massacre of Jews began literally at the beginning of Islam. But perhaps directly relevant, Arabs massacred Jews throughout the 1800s in spasms of violence in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Aleppo, Cairo, Damascus and surrounds. The war against Jews in 1948 and all the accusations against Jews for "stealing land" was just a continuation of centuries of SOP. Despite all of this violence, directed by Arabs towards Jews, thousands of Jewish deaths at the hands of Arabs in the preceding decades and centuries and millenia, you have to scroll down to 1939 before finding the first instance of Jewish retaliation. As for "Zionists stole muh lands", here is a concise video that makes the case in under a minute that Jews stole no Arab land. https://youtube.com/shorts/a3CNMHabxrE https://youtube.com/shorts/a3CNMHabxrE > *You, after quoting a 1915 essay*: "The roots of the conflict run very deep indeed." You wouldn't believe how deep.

racional 2y ago
You have to scroll down to 1939 before finding the first instance of Jewish retaliation. There's also this fellow Menachem Begin and the accomplishments of his crew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_British_Mandated_Palestine_(1937–1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_B... This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 (or whether these atrocities were in any meaningful sense "retaliatory"). But if you're going to somehow not mention -- whether by choice, or simple carelessness -- one of the most important chapters of the lead-up to the so-called "defensive war" of 1947-1949 then I don't see us heading towards a productive analysis of the larger historical context. Wikipedia is pretty good, overall. But uneven also, in terms of edit quality. So when assembling data on such large scale tragedies (as the matter of targeted violence against civilians by both sides in this conflict), it's best to check against other sources. Like moldy old books in the library. And listening to people whose families have lived through these events. Against a guy's essay ... The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. Not the guy or his essay.
- rendall 2y ago
  > This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. I don't blame you. I wouldn't address it either if I were you. That it was in 1937 vs 1939 still entirely undermines your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil and Palestinians are their innocent victims. Why are you like this? > The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. The guy had an opinion, for which he was bitterly criticised by other Zionists. What is with you?
  - racional 2y ago
    Your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil It's not my thesis, and nothing I've written even remotely suggests that.
    - rendall 2y ago
      I mean, really, if you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist, then outline a realistic plan of what will happen to the Israelis after its end?
      - racional 2y ago
        If you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist I never said that either.
        rendall 2y ago
        Lots of tit-for-tat here. My thesis is that it was not Zionism that caused today's conflict, but today's conflict is but a continuation of centuries of Arab violence against Jews. In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries. Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too. In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality. Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis? So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?

racional 2y ago

You have to scroll down to 1939 before finding the first instance of Jewish retaliation. There's also this fellow Menachem Begin and the accomplishments of his crew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_British_Mandated_Palestine_(1937–1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_B... This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 (or whether these atrocities were in any meaningful sense "retaliatory"). But if you're going to somehow not mention -- whether by choice, or simple carelessness -- one of the most important chapters of the lead-up to the so-called "defensive war" of 1947-1949 then I don't see us heading towards a productive analysis of the larger historical context. Wikipedia is pretty good, overall. But uneven also, in terms of edit quality. So when assembling data on such large scale tragedies (as the matter of targeted violence against civilians by both sides in this conflict), it's best to check against other sources. Like moldy old books in the library. And listening to people whose families have lived through these events. Against a guy's essay ... The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. Not the guy or his essay.

rendall 2y ago
> This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. I don't blame you. I wouldn't address it either if I were you. That it was in 1937 vs 1939 still entirely undermines your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil and Palestinians are their innocent victims. Why are you like this? > The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. The guy had an opinion, for which he was bitterly criticised by other Zionists. What is with you?
- racional 2y ago
  Your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil It's not my thesis, and nothing I've written even remotely suggests that.
  - rendall 2y ago
    I mean, really, if you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist, then outline a realistic plan of what will happen to the Israelis after its end?
    - racional 2y ago
      If you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist I never said that either.
      - rendall 2y ago
        Lots of tit-for-tat here. My thesis is that it was not Zionism that caused today's conflict, but today's conflict is but a continuation of centuries of Arab violence against Jews. In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries. Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too. In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality. Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis? So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?