🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 on Nostr: npub1jflcd…gfmdd npub1jflcd…gfmdd Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims ...
npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd (npub1jfl…fmdd)
npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd (npub1jfl…fmdd) Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I’m glad that came across clearly. ;)
It did yes.. and calling immigrants who arive with guns and tanks shooting the other side simply “immigrants” rather than what they are, invaders is highly inaccurate. I did, many times. I do feel like you aren’t reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I’d appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I’ll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
As far as I know every time you asked for clarification I gave it to you. If that is not the case please feel free to let me know what I missed… Once I made it clear what I meant i continued to use the phrase, expecting you to now understand it. again if you remain unclear just ask. Ok again I don’t know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
In israel since its formation until the present day anyone who comes and immigrates there must serve int he IDF for several years as a condition of their citizenship (including those born into citizenship). Meaning these immigrants, when they landed, knew they would have to pick up a gun and shoot a bunch of native palestinians in order to earn their citizenship and be allowed to immigrate there.
So no they werent just immigrants they were comatants, invaders who were awarded immigration as well, but were combatants first.
The law that requires immigrants to fight was established as one of the first things when Israel was founded… so yes they are all combatants first, immigrants second. Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel’s conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we’re discussing? Or at least I think they are haha…)
Yes I am talking about that, and no it wasnt established much later. The policy was enacted when israel was first formed. Prior to the formation of Israel it was the british who were the combatants, so either way it was a consistent invading force. The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
We are talking about IDF mandatory conscription, which again was on the books since the very begining of the founding of israel. Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I’m wondering if, in a sense, this is all their “fault”: if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded knowing they would be taking land away fromt he natives and would have to pick up a weapon and terrorize them.. anyone who is a part of that is int he wrong. 1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. “invasion”) to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
So to be clear, no….
1920 - 1947 the invasion was carried out by the british as the occupying force, but during this time jews immigrating in were not strictly required to join the jewish terrorist groups, though many did by choice. During this time you had the Irgun and later the offshoot Lehi group which were the paramilitary arm of the jews migrating there during this time. Their goal, along side the british (and sometimes against them in the case of lehi) was to commit all sorts of horrific terrorist acts towards the palestinians. Int he case of Lehi their stated goal was to create an israli state so they can have uncontrolled immigration and take over and expel the arabs and british.
From the moment israel was formed this terrorism became mandatory and it was integrated into the IDF, and now all immigrants were required to join, rather than just joining cause they wanted to. (2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you’re talking about, like “invasion-by-good-guys”, reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don’t think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel like i did and see the horrible abuse the Israelis enforce on palestinian day after day… In the entire 2 years I was there they had parts of gaza strip intentionally without water or power as a punishment to the citizens (something amnesty international has called them out for before)… I have seen first hand what they do , this isnt a matter of history, its about the fact that they are STILL doing it.
npub1jflcdvljl0n8hlz27798d0044rxwkqz69gapvcctt4p4gdt4kasqjgfmdd (npub1jfl…fmdd) Right. That is one of my like 2 central claims here. I’m glad that came across clearly. ;)
It did yes.. and calling immigrants who arive with guns and tanks shooting the other side simply “immigrants” rather than what they are, invaders is highly inaccurate. I did, many times. I do feel like you aren’t reading my clarifying questions sometimes; if you want to use hyperbolic rhetoric to describe things, I’d appreciate it if you would throw me a bone! I’ll try to be more concise and clear. Maybe that was part of the problem.
As far as I know every time you asked for clarification I gave it to you. If that is not the case please feel free to let me know what I missed… Once I made it clear what I meant i continued to use the phrase, expecting you to now understand it. again if you remain unclear just ask. Ok again I don’t know what this means. I will ask to clarify. Are you suggesting that the Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms in the early 1900s were all professional soldiers that came off the ship with guns ablazing, killing all the Arabs they could see? (That seems obviously not remotely the case but you keep saying this so I am confused!)
In israel since its formation until the present day anyone who comes and immigrates there must serve int he IDF for several years as a condition of their citizenship (including those born into citizenship). Meaning these immigrants, when they landed, knew they would have to pick up a gun and shoot a bunch of native palestinians in order to earn their citizenship and be allowed to immigrate there.
So no they werent just immigrants they were comatants, invaders who were awarded immigration as well, but were combatants first.
The law that requires immigrants to fight was established as one of the first things when Israel was founded… so yes they are all combatants first, immigrants second. Again, mystified. Are you for reasons unknown talking about the state of Israel’s conscription policy? (Which was instituted much later than the events we’re discussing? Or at least I think they are haha…)
Yes I am talking about that, and no it wasnt established much later. The policy was enacted when israel was first formed. Prior to the formation of Israel it was the british who were the combatants, so either way it was a consistent invading force. The Jews did militarize throughout the early 1900s after the violence caused by the immigration-related tension, is that instead what you mean? Just curious: was this mandatory-participation? Can you point me to a source about that? (Not that I consider it all that significant, but I would find it surprising.) (Incidentally and apropos of nothing, this militarization is probably why they won the 48/49 war.)
We are talking about IDF mandatory conscription, which again was on the books since the very begining of the founding of israel. Again, unclear: are you still talking about colonial empires (Turks/Brits)? (That feels like the context here, maybe.) If so: again, I wholeheartedly agree. In talking to you here I’m wondering if, in a sense, this is all their “fault”: if the area had been locally governed by a just and popularly-supported government all those centuries, they could have maybe done a much better job managing any waves of refugees during the 1900s. (This would not be the only example of intractable violence after the dissolution of colonialism in the latter 1900s!)
I am talking about anyone who chooses to move to israel fromt he first day of its founded knowing they would be taking land away fromt he natives and would have to pick up a weapon and terrorize them.. anyone who is a part of that is int he wrong. 1) The motives or color of the Jewish immigration ~1900–47. You seem to be imputing evil (e.g. “invasion”) to, what, like a half million people, over many decades, many of them escaping genocidal violence. To me, that always seems suspect: there are definitely times when this sort of thing has happened, but the null hypothesis to me is always going to be: mostly people just trying to live their lives, with some assholes. There is a huge tendency though generally to ascribe evil conspiratorial motives to anything the Jews do throughout history, so this coloring is not surprising. (Again though you made a good point about the British probably making things worse in a variety of ways.)
So to be clear, no….
1920 - 1947 the invasion was carried out by the british as the occupying force, but during this time jews immigrating in were not strictly required to join the jewish terrorist groups, though many did by choice. During this time you had the Irgun and later the offshoot Lehi group which were the paramilitary arm of the jews migrating there during this time. Their goal, along side the british (and sometimes against them in the case of lehi) was to commit all sorts of horrific terrorist acts towards the palestinians. Int he case of Lehi their stated goal was to create an israli state so they can have uncontrolled immigration and take over and expel the arabs and british.
From the moment israel was formed this terrorism became mandatory and it was integrated into the IDF, and now all immigrants were required to join, rather than just joining cause they wanted to. (2) How much (1) matters when describing the moral implications of what Israel or Hamas or anyone else is doing in modern times. You have what I feel is kind of an idealistic desire to right all historical wrongs. To me I feel like a pretty extreme take on (1) would be necessary to justify the kinds of things you’re talking about, like “invasion-by-good-guys”, reparations, ethnic cleansing and mass forced migrations, etc. And even then I don’t think they would justify them: several generations have passed and your proposals would cause truly enormous, trail-of-tears–level, human suffering. (But see below about how we probably do agree on a lot!)
Yea well it would be alot different if you lived in israel like i did and see the horrible abuse the Israelis enforce on palestinian day after day… In the entire 2 years I was there they had parts of gaza strip intentionally without water or power as a punishment to the citizens (something amnesty international has called them out for before)… I have seen first hand what they do , this isnt a matter of history, its about the fact that they are STILL doing it.