10 ms·
[flagged]
by FilosofumRex 1y ago
[flagged]
- alex1138 1y ago[flagged]
- 9dev 1y agoThese positions are not mutually exclusive though. You can both be in favor of stripping Irans ability to build nukes and oppose Israel’s settlements.
- spiderfarmer 1y agoIran is stupid trying to covertly get to a nuclear bomb, Israel is very stupid with those illegal settlements. It’s costing them both a lot of sympathy.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoIsrael's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. I can oppose IRA violence and British imperialism at the same time but if we're having a reasonable conversation we have to recognise that British colonial force in Ireland is what drove people to form the IRA.
- mrkstu 1y agoYou know that isn’t true. Israel could withdraw to the 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to destroying it.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoI'm not sure how that contradicts what I'm saying. To continue the analogy that's like going back to 1900 and saying Britain could pull out of Ireland except for Ulster and there'd still be people calling for further decolonisation.
- shusaku 1y ago> Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. Even Iran’s leaders would laugh in your face at such a naive statement, you should reconsider your media diet
- golol 1y agoYou can oppose something or you can create terorrist militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring countries.
- FilosofumRex 1y agoYour "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists. Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you? https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yasser-arafat/ https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yass...
- dontTREATonme 1y agoCan you name a single Palestinian who has actually moved the needle on a functioning democratic Palestinian state? Every single current and former Palestinian leader has been heavily theocratic, has pledged to kill Jews wherever they are and has never considered sharing any of whatever power he’s gotten with anyone else.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoDo you stop to ask what creates the environment where the most extreme views flourish and gain traction?
- Ray20 1y agoIslamist majority?
- AlecSchueler 1y agoNope, Islamism is an extreme position so that gets you no further in the answering the question. What set the stage for an Islamist majority? Again I assert that extreme politics don't develop in vacuums.
- dismalaf 1y agoOccupation of "Muslim lands"? Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities. Before the Ottomans and various Islamic conquests it was almost entirely Christian/Roman (as was the whole Middle East). Before that Jewish. And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there. Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN which you reference.
- dotancohen 1y agoI've never understood the argument of Muslim Land or Arab Land. If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that? Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus...
- dismalaf 1y agoI actually do know the "Muslim lands" reference. Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. It's a conquest tactic. It gets slightly reframed to be tolerable for westerners by invoking the idea that they're "indigenous", when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-saudi-arabia-and-claims-that-once-land-is-muslim-that-land-is-always-muslim https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-sau...
- dudefeliciano 1y ago> when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. So what area are arabs from? You know there are arab jews and christians right?
- dotancohen 1y ago
- fortran77 1y ago[flagged]
- edanm 1y ago> Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran. And yet, the previous government of Iran had friendly relations with Israel, as do some other Arab and Muslim countries. The US also has friendly relations with countries with whom it disagrees vehemently, and that do (IMO) far worse things than Israel does.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 1y agoIsrael occupies lands belonging to the Biblical patriarch Jacob. That was something like 1800 BCE, two and a half millennia before Mohammed. Islam refers to Jacob, as does the Torah/Old Testament as "Israel". I find the repeated suggestion that those are Muslim lands because Israel is a new territory to be strange -- it can't be a Quranic position. It doesn't appear consistent with history either.
- bambax 1y agoThat's a ridiculous position. We can't organize today's world based on who was where 4 millennia ago. (If we did, most if not all countries would immediately cease to exist, starting of course with the US but not limited to them.)
- pbhjpbhj 1y agoWell that's not my position. Islam, ie the Koran, recognises the banu Israel (forgive my spelling/transliteration) from c.2500 years ago. Apparent muslims say "Israel has only existed for 50 years" (or words to that effect). The inference made is that they then have no rights to the land. It seems the basis for the 'lack of rights of Israel to exist' is fundamentally opposed to the origin story of Islam itself. Personally I find the concept of nationhood a bit ridiculous; but I'm not sure how practical it would be to organise a World without statehood.
- ivell 1y agoI find historical claims like this not very convincing. 1800 BCE looked very different from today and if people from old civilizations start claiming their land, we would not see any end of wars. Should Italy claim most of Europe because Romans had it under their control?
- pbhjpbhj 1y agoMy point would be analogised to Italy thus: that despite it only having existed since 1946, suggesting that meant Italians have _no_ rights to occupation of that land is rather ludicrous. If it were a Roman Catholic claiming this that would be even closer of an analogue to my view.
- kikimora 1y agoLast time I checked history books said Britain donated land to Jews. At the time Britain took house land there were no state and no nation called Palestinians, just tribes. Since then Palestinians formed as a nation. So what do you want Israel to do, disappear? Or negotiate, but with whom? The only power there is hamas which is non-negotiable. I really interested in seeing any realistic solution to the problem, however far fetched it is.
- bambax 1y ago> Britain donated land to Jews Land it didn't own. Most people can be very generous with what they don't have.
- kikimora 1y agoAgree, but my point is in the question how to untangle the mess we have today.
- LtWorf 1y agoIf you start from made up premises, the conclusion is also made up. Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book…
- kikimora 1y agoThere is no conclusion on my part. There is an ask for reasonable ideas how to untangle the mess between jews and palestinians.
- LtWorf 1y agoIf you start from made up premises, you will not be able to judge "reasonable ideas".
- kikimora 1y agoSo I’m not good enough for you to share your ideas, did I get it right? You realize this is not how people reach consensus? If you cannot give me a compelling argument what makes you think jews and arabs would be happy with your ideas?
- ivell 1y agoMy understanding is that most countries support a two nation solution. I have not seen any Iranian statement that accepts this. On the other hand I have seen them consistently calling for outright destruction of Israel. Given their declared intend of destruction, no one in right mind would allow them the capability of destruction.
- dlahoda 1y agojust exactly predating goverment was friendly with israel: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-the-old-roots-of-a-failed-policy https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-t... so what exact goverment your arr referring?
- dartharva 1y agoAnyone who unironically attributes any land to be Muslim, Jewish or of any other religion must be immediately dealt with. Land is land. It should never, never be beholden to any one religion.