National Forum

Non-Gaa Forum

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To MachaireConnacht:  "That's not true. Just shy of 400k Jewish people from Europe and Russia colonised Palestine prior and up to the time Israel was created. Numbers from other Arab countries and Africa were miniscule, around 45k. It was only after Israel was created did numbers pick up from Asia and Africa and even then it was only equal to European migration.

I'd imagine they rejected it because it was after been pulled from right under their feet to make a zionist state. There is nothing radical in having a single state Palestine that contains all creeds. I'd say they were think why does a Jewish state have to be carved out of our country. Why the bloody hell didn't Germany have to give land over for it? Imagine County Wexford was carved out of Ireland to make a Ukrainian state to keep Ukrainians safe because of the actions of Russia. And all Wexford people were forced to give up their land and houses. How would that go down?"
"There are no government statistics categorizing Israeli Jews as "Ashkenazi", "Mizrahi", etc, but studies and estimates have been conducted.[52][53] In a 2019 study, in a sample meant to be representative of the Israeli Jewish population, about 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population were categorized as Mizrahi (defined as having grandparents born in North Africa or Asia), 31.8% were categorized as Ashkenazi (defined as having grandparents born in Europe, the Americas, Oceania and South Africa), 12.4% as "Soviet" (defined as having progenitors who came from the ex-USSR in 1989 or later), about 3% as Beta Israel (Ethiopia) and 7.9% as a mix of these, or other Jewish groups.[54] Note that this methodology isn't exact: See, for example, Bulgarian or Greek Jews, who would be categorized as Ashkenazi according to this definition, although they are overwhelmingly Sephardic."
Most of the Jewish population of Israel, 73.5% of Israels total population, are not Ashkenazi. 69% of them in fact. Yes during the 20s,30s and early 40s there were many Jewish immigrants into the region, but these mostly BOUGHT property there. They certainly didn't TAKE land owned by other people.
Historically nearly all Palestinians were Jewish. Muhammed wasn't born until the 6th century, and was from present day Saudi Arabia. Most of these modern day countries really existed until the British started drawing lines on maps.
Arab people identifying as Palestinians is a relatively recent thing. As are Jewish people identifying as Israelis or Zionists.

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13038 - 25/05/2024 19:48:56    2547055

Link

Replying To Doylerwex:  "While I appreciate where your priorities are, that's exactly the attitude that's allowed this country to arrive at the horrific state we now see it."
Could you please explain that post in more detail?
Are you suggesting that people who pay their bills and are in gainful employment are the cause of this nations woes?
If everyone quit their job tomorrow and decided not to pay their bills the country would get back on its feet?
I'm not aware of your family /employment situation, but if you have kids,, I'm to deduce from your post that keeping a roof over their heads is NOT your priority?

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1873 - 25/05/2024 20:43:50    2547071

Link

Replying To Viking66:  ""There are no government statistics categorizing Israeli Jews as "Ashkenazi", "Mizrahi", etc, but studies and estimates have been conducted.[52
[53] In a 2019 study, in a sample meant to be representative of the Israeli Jewish population, about 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population were categorized as Mizrahi (defined as having grandparents born in North Africa or Asia), 31.8% were categorized as Ashkenazi (defined as having grandparents born in Europe, the Americas, Oceania and South Africa), 12.4% as "Soviet" (defined as having progenitors who came from the ex-USSR in 1989 or later), about 3% as Beta Israel (Ethiopia) and 7.9% as a mix of these, or other Jewish groups.[54] Note that this methodology isn't exact: See, for example, Bulgarian or Greek Jews, who would be categorized as Ashkenazi according to this definition, although they are overwhelmingly Sephardic."
Most of the Jewish population of Israel, 73.5% of Israels total population, are not Ashkenazi. 69% of them in fact. Yes during the 20s,30s and early 40s there were many Jewish immigrants into the region, but these mostly BOUGHT property there. They certainly didn't TAKE land owned by other people.
Historically nearly all Palestinians were Jewish. Muhammed wasn't born until the 6th century, and was from present day Saudi Arabia. Most of these modern day countries really existed until the British started drawing lines on maps.
Arab people identifying as Palestinians is a relatively recent thing. As are Jewish people identifying as Israelis or Zionists."]So what? None of your ramblings excuse genoicide, mate.
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/examining-myths-israel/

points50swiththeargyllsonthewrongfeet (Tyrone) - Posts: 261 - 25/05/2024 21:02:57    2547078

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "Could you please explain that post in more detail?
Are you suggesting that people who pay their bills and are in gainful employment are the cause of this nations woes?
If everyone quit their job tomorrow and decided not to pay their bills the country would get back on its feet?
I'm not aware of your family /employment situation, but if you have kids,, I'm to deduce from your post that keeping a roof over their heads is NOT your priority?"
Did you read my post in the context of the one it was in reply to ? I never suggested anyone give up their job. I took exception to the tone of the previous.

I'm a senior manager in financial services. I have children. They're obviously a priority.

I took issue with somebody using their own family as an excuse not to get involved in global political issues that impact the entire human race.

I'd quite like my children to have a world to grow up . A house is no use if moral nations don't put pressure on a terrorist state committing genocide?

It's grand lads. Never try to do the right thing. Just make sure you pay your mortgage.

Doylerwex (Wexford) - Posts: 2947 - 25/05/2024 21:50:36    2547096

Link

Replying To Doylerwex:  "Did you read my post in the context of the one it was in reply to ? I never suggested anyone give up their job. I took exception to the tone of the previous.

I'm a senior manager in financial services. I have children. They're obviously a priority.

I took issue with somebody using their own family as an excuse not to get involved in global political issues that impact the entire human race.

I'd quite like my children to have a world to grow up . A house is no use if moral nations don't put pressure on a terrorist state committing genocide?

It's grand lads. Never try to do the right thing. Just make sure you pay your mortgage."
I might have misinterpreted what you said but you seemed to suggest that yew tree and others making sure they pay their mortgage and bills is the reason the country is in the state it is,, i just don't see how that's the case, what positive difference would it make if we all got together and decided not to pay our mortgages?

Also you say you work in financial services,, not sure what the nature of your work is, but as a senior manager, have you cancelled any dealings your business might have with U. S . British, E. U. institutions, to demonstrate your support for peace, or have you suggested to anyone above you that cutting off all ties your business might have with such entities would be the correct move to make in light of what's happening?
Judging by your above post, it would be the right thing to do wouldn't it?

Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1873 - 26/05/2024 07:13:33    2547105

Link

Replying To points50swiththeargyllsonthewrongfeet:  "
Replying To Viking66:  ""There are no government statistics categorizing Israeli Jews as "Ashkenazi", "Mizrahi", etc, but studies and estimates have been conducted.[52
[53
In a 2019 study, in a sample meant to be representative of the Israeli Jewish population, about 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population were categorized as Mizrahi (defined as having grandparents born in North Africa or Asia), 31.8% were categorized as Ashkenazi (defined as having grandparents born in Europe, the Americas, Oceania and South Africa), 12.4% as "Soviet" (defined as having progenitors who came from the ex-USSR in 1989 or later), about 3% as Beta Israel (Ethiopia) and 7.9% as a mix of these, or other Jewish groups.[54] Note that this methodology isn't exact: See, for example, Bulgarian or Greek Jews, who would be categorized as Ashkenazi according to this definition, although they are overwhelmingly Sephardic."
Most of the Jewish population of Israel, 73.5% of Israels total population, are not Ashkenazi. 69% of them in fact. Yes during the 20s,30s and early 40s there were many Jewish immigrants into the region, but these mostly BOUGHT property there. They certainly didn't TAKE land owned by other people.
Historically nearly all Palestinians were Jewish. Muhammed wasn't born until the 6th century, and was from present day Saudi Arabia. Most of these modern day countries really existed until the British started drawing lines on maps.
Arab people identifying as Palestinians is a relatively recent thing. As are Jewish people identifying as Israelis or Zionists."]So what? None of your ramblings excuse genoicide, mate.
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/examining-myths-israel/"]I never said it did lad. I only said it will keep going on because neither side wants peace.

By the way, the link you put up is mainly the myth. Not only was it mostly desert, it still is. I lived there for 3 years as a child. Did you not see the videos of the Hamas raid? Alot of the country looks like that.
400000, which he quotes as the population, is not a sizeable population, but was probably all the land could support at the time. If it could support more, then more would have lived there. Yer man speculates how many Jews lived there, I quoted you a figure from a British census in 1922. The figure of expatriate Palestinians living in Egypt, and their religion, cane from that same census.
He then completely ignores the fact that the Palestinians and their Arab Allies repeatedly attacked Israel from 1948 onwards with the aim of driving the Jews out "from the river to the sea". So it's hard to say that either side is worse that way, it's just that the Israelis are stronger. If the shoe was on the other foot you can be certain the Arabs in Palestine wouldn't be any more compassionate.
About the only thing he was 100% correct about is the hugely negative part the Brits played in the situation.
All the above doesn't make what's happening in Gaza in any way right, but how do you stop it? And more importantly how do you come up with a permanent peaceful solution so it doesn't happen again?

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13038 - 26/05/2024 07:55:12    2547108

Link

Replying To Tirchonaill1:  "We the people by the ballot box will get the chance some day soon hopefully to reunite Ireland."
Hopefully. .

How do you feel about your vote being worth less than the vote of a unionist Antrim, Tyrone or Derry man's?

The GFA was of it's time, it fulfilled its purpose at the time (to end the violence). But it is inherently flawed and should be revisited. It is not democratic as a vote this side of the border isn't given the same weight as one North of the border. 3 million people in the 26 counties could back a United Ireland but if those North of the border back remaining in the UK by, say, 501k to 500k, the 501k win out over the 3.5 million.

That isn't democracy.

The GFA was passed because the alternative was a continuation of unwanted violence. Just like the Anglo-Irish treaty 80 years earlier.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5082 - 26/05/2024 08:16:53    2547114

Link

Pappe himself thinks the only proper solution happens to be the same as what I think is the only proper solution. But it's not realistic because neither side wants it. A one state solution where everyone lives side by side in peace and harmony isn't what the majority, or at least a significant minority, want.

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13038 - 26/05/2024 08:41:33    2547121

Link

Replying To Galway9801:  "I might have misinterpreted what you said but you seemed to suggest that yew tree and others making sure they pay their mortgage and bills is the reason the country is in the state it is,, i just don't see how that's the case, what positive difference would it make if we all got together and decided not to pay our mortgages?

Also you say you work in financial services,, not sure what the nature of your work is, but as a senior manager, have you cancelled any dealings your business might have with U. S . British, E. U. institutions, to demonstrate your support for peace, or have you suggested to anyone above you that cutting off all ties your business might have with such entities would be the correct move to make in light of what's happening?
Judging by your above post, it would be the right thing to do wouldn't it?"
I wasn't suggesting that at all. When I said that attitude is what has our country the way it is I was referring to people only being concerned with what's going on within their own four walls. You obviously have to try to make your own life complete.

A practical way for everyone to help is to implore your own local representatives to challenge the EU to impose the exact same sanctions on Israel as they did Russia. We should also be expelling Israeli ambassadors.

An individual can also partake in a boycott of goods and services. Granted it depends on the definition one applies to Israeli owned. If you went all out you'd smell terrible and most likely starve.

On a professional level I've brought forward some proposals, none of which involved cutting ties with US or UK as I did not agree with that.

Finally, I do feel as if we should be using our unique position in Irish America to sway public opinion in the states. That could have an enormous impact as it has in the past.

Doylerwex (Wexford) - Posts: 2947 - 26/05/2024 09:19:16    2547129

Link

Replying To cavanman47:  "Hopefully. .

How do you feel about your vote being worth less than the vote of a unionist Antrim, Tyrone or Derry man's?

The GFA was of it's time, it fulfilled its purpose at the time (to end the violence). But it is inherently flawed and should be revisited. It is not democratic as a vote this side of the border isn't given the same weight as one North of the border. 3 million people in the 26 counties could back a United Ireland but if those North of the border back remaining in the UK by, say, 501k to 500k, the 501k win out over the 3.5 million.

That isn't democracy.

The GFA was passed because the alternative was a continuation of unwanted violence. Just like the Anglo-Irish treaty 80 years earlier."
As Michael Caine would say "Not many people know that."

Suits all sides to pretend that GFA was some seismic change. It wasn't. The only difference is that the radical nationalists agreed to take part in the running of the northern state for the first time.

A partitioned vote is not a legitimate vote on Irish unity, and in any event it is unlikely to be held, never mind passed if it is. Numbers don't stack up in British controlled part of island.

I don't agree that continuing a hopeless armed struggle was only alternative. It was certainly right to end it, but there was no compulsion on nationalists to agree to enter a Partition administration. They could have continued to campaign for unity outside of that, and for a 32 county vote on unity.

BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 2929 - 26/05/2024 10:11:20    2547142

Link

Replying To Doylerwex:  "I wasn't suggesting that at all. When I said that attitude is what has our country the way it is I was referring to people only being concerned with what's going on within their own four walls. You obviously have to try to make your own life complete.

A practical way for everyone to help is to implore your own local representatives to challenge the EU to impose the exact same sanctions on Israel as they did Russia. We should also be expelling Israeli ambassadors.

An individual can also partake in a boycott of goods and services. Granted it depends on the definition one applies to Israeli owned. If you went all out you'd smell terrible and most likely starve.

On a professional level I've brought forward some proposals, none of which involved cutting ties with US or UK as I did not agree with that.

Finally, I do feel as if we should be using our unique position in Irish America to sway public opinion in the states. That could have an enormous impact as it has in the past."
link

Not voting for Fine Gael candidates or any other MEP candidates who support Van der Leyen would be a small step in that direction.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7522 - 26/05/2024 11:23:35    2547168

Link

Replying To cavanman47:  "Hopefully. .

How do you feel about your vote being worth less than the vote of a unionist Antrim, Tyrone or Derry man's?

The GFA was of it's time, it fulfilled its purpose at the time (to end the violence). But it is inherently flawed and should be revisited. It is not democratic as a vote this side of the border isn't given the same weight as one North of the border. 3 million people in the 26 counties could back a United Ireland but if those North of the border back remaining in the UK by, say, 501k to 500k, the 501k win out over the 3.5 million.

That isn't democracy.

The GFA was passed because the alternative was a continuation of unwanted violence. Just like the Anglo-Irish treaty 80 years earlier."
Unfortunately you cannot erase historical facts. There is a border on this island which creates 2 states. This is a fact. So your vote is not worth less on this side of the border than it is in Northern Ireland....it is just that your vote is valid only in the Republic of Ireland. Primarily it is a decision for the people in Northern Ireland to decide if they want to dissolve the state they are living in and become part of a united Ireland. Our decision on this side of the border is about rubberstamping it if a majority in the north do vote for a united Ireland. Unfortunately we cannot go back to change the historic mistake of allowing a 6 county separate state to be established. It is an ultra-nationalist position to believe that the combined vote of the entire island should decide on a united Ireland. It is ignoring the facts on the ground and undoubtedly would lead to an armed uprising from unionists which would have the support of the entire unionist community.

Personally I dont think a united Ireland will ever happen. I would vote for it myself but I just dont ever see it happening. Ironically I was discussing the issue last year with a Belfast man from a middle class background. He said that "we" (the nationalist community in the north) "are quite confident that a vote for a united Ireland would pass in the 6 counties" ( based on the economic strength and greater affluence in the Republic) but, he said, "we are not so sure that the people in the 26 counties would vote for it." I would see it somewhat different: I think the Republic would (just about!) vote for it but I dont think a majority in the north ever will.

PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1931 - 26/05/2024 11:54:45    2547177

Link

Spare a thought for those poor unfortunate helpless refugees who were slaughtered yesterday in Rafah refugee camp.
Our Tánaiste and many other European leaders condemned it furiously but Ursula the supreme voice of Europe remained silent, - as expected.
Does human life matter anymore or is it just a talking shop.

supersub15 (Carlow) - Posts: 2955 - 27/05/2024 11:21:40    2547533

Link

Replying To Viking66:  "Pappe himself thinks the only proper solution happens to be the same as what I think is the only proper solution. But it's not realistic because neither side wants it. A one state solution where everyone lives side by side in peace and harmony isn't what the majority, or at least a significant minority, want."
A lot of people in Ireland don't want to understand what the middle east represents and put it into a simple, superpower v people fighting for their freedom, box.
If you look at the population trend in the middle east, since 1948 when the countries in the middle east tried to destroy the then new Israel state there has been a movement of Jewish populations from those and countries wider afield to Israel - these countries would say those Jews left voluntary but lets face they had to leave everything behind. Its estimated that between 1948 and 51, 260K left countries in the middle east to go to Israel. Was all of this the fault of the innocent Palestinians who lost their homes - no, but the unfortunately the actions of 1948 and the subsequent wars helped create the mindset in Israel that allows, what we see as a democratic and free country, to commit these terrible things. I don't think there can be any doubt as to what would have happed to Israel if they did not possess a superior military force - remember it was only in 81 that Sadat paid the price for making peace with Israel. The PLO allowed themselves and their people to be used as pawns by the other Arab nations who had no liking for them. The problem for the PLO is that there was never a Palestinian state, the PLO spoke of a pan Arab movement which of course also made others Arab countries immediately suspicious of them. They helped destroy Lebanon, where they certainly were not liked or wanted either. Another example of their friendly relations with their own Arab countries was shown when after the Kuwait war ever Palestinian was deported from the country no matter how long they lived there. The Palestinian people do not deserve what has been handed down to them either by their friends or foes.
Does any of it excuse the terrible behavior that Israel have conducted over the years (anyone who understands what they did in Lebanon should not be surprised at what is now happening in Gaza) - no and what they are doing today has the potential to undermine the very existence of the state itself. Solving looks impossible right now, to reach a peace (whatever for it is) both sides have to recognize the right for the other to exist and there is little chance of that happening now. There has always been a sizable amount of people on both sides (including their proxies the most serious remaining one is Iran) that want to see the other side eliminated from the region and unfortunately through the actions of Hamas and the retaliation by Israel they now have the upper hand.

zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1828 - 27/05/2024 18:31:13    2547757

Link

Replying To PoolSturgeon:  "Unfortunately you cannot erase historical facts. There is a border on this island which creates 2 states. This is a fact. So your vote is not worth less on this side of the border than it is in Northern Ireland....it is just that your vote is valid only in the Republic of Ireland. Primarily it is a decision for the people in Northern Ireland to decide if they want to dissolve the state they are living in and become part of a united Ireland. Our decision on this side of the border is about rubberstamping it if a majority in the north do vote for a united Ireland. Unfortunately we cannot go back to change the historic mistake of allowing a 6 county separate state to be established. It is an ultra-nationalist position to believe that the combined vote of the entire island should decide on a united Ireland. It is ignoring the facts on the ground and undoubtedly would lead to an armed uprising from unionists which would have the support of the entire unionist community.

Personally I dont think a united Ireland will ever happen. I would vote for it myself but I just dont ever see it happening. Ironically I was discussing the issue last year with a Belfast man from a middle class background. He said that "we" (the nationalist community in the north) "are quite confident that a vote for a united Ireland would pass in the 6 counties" ( based on the economic strength and greater affluence in the Republic) but, he said, "we are not so sure that the people in the 26 counties would vote for it." I would see it somewhat different: I think the Republic would (just about!) vote for it but I dont think a majority in the north ever will."
Is it really "ultra-nationalist" to not want to be bound by an agreement (or 2 agreements) signed under duress - i.e. the threat of violence.

We can't change history, but we can change the effect an historical mistake continues to have on our country.

Northern Ireland spent the majority of its existence as a gerrymandered, 2-tiered state. One where one man's vote was worth less than another's.

Why persist with such practices?

You have explained it correctly, but you have also explained the inherent flaw - that the historical injustice of partitioning this country is now the default accepted position and starting point for a vote that can be defeated by a minority "remain vote" of less than 20% of the combined turnout.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5082 - 28/05/2024 12:22:31    2547885

Link

Replying To zinny:  "A lot of people in Ireland don't want to understand what the middle east represents and put it into a simple, superpower v people fighting for their freedom, box.
If you look at the population trend in the middle east, since 1948 when the countries in the middle east tried to destroy the then new Israel state there has been a movement of Jewish populations from those and countries wider afield to Israel - these countries would say those Jews left voluntary but lets face they had to leave everything behind. Its estimated that between 1948 and 51, 260K left countries in the middle east to go to Israel. Was all of this the fault of the innocent Palestinians who lost their homes - no, but the unfortunately the actions of 1948 and the subsequent wars helped create the mindset in Israel that allows, what we see as a democratic and free country, to commit these terrible things. I don't think there can be any doubt as to what would have happed to Israel if they did not possess a superior military force - remember it was only in 81 that Sadat paid the price for making peace with Israel. The PLO allowed themselves and their people to be used as pawns by the other Arab nations who had no liking for them. The problem for the PLO is that there was never a Palestinian state, the PLO spoke of a pan Arab movement which of course also made others Arab countries immediately suspicious of them. They helped destroy Lebanon, where they certainly were not liked or wanted either. Another example of their friendly relations with their own Arab countries was shown when after the Kuwait war ever Palestinian was deported from the country no matter how long they lived there. The Palestinian people do not deserve what has been handed down to them either by their friends or foes.
Does any of it excuse the terrible behavior that Israel have conducted over the years (anyone who understands what they did in Lebanon should not be surprised at what is now happening in Gaza) - no and what they are doing today has the potential to undermine the very existence of the state itself. Solving looks impossible right now, to reach a peace (whatever for it is) both sides have to recognize the right for the other to exist and there is little chance of that happening now. There has always been a sizable amount of people on both sides (including their proxies the most serious remaining one is Iran) that want to see the other side eliminated from the region and unfortunately through the actions of Hamas and the retaliation by Israel they now have the upper hand."
Maybe you need to look prior to 1948 and at the rise of Zionism. The father of Zionism Theodor Herzl was very clear that this was a colonial project as far back as the late 1800's (this is the mindset a long time before 1948). He remarked;
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procurring employment for it in the tranist countries, while denying it employment in our own country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly."

This is incredibly similar language to that of those who administered English colonialism in Ireland. You can dress colonialism up all you want. Israel being attacked in 1948 was not the begining. 1917 to 1939 saw the take over of Palestine by Jewish settlers en masse primarily from Europe and Russia. The Nakba started in 1947 before any Arab states had attacked Israel. Early in 1948 the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Arab populations from Haifa and Jaffa along with West Jerusalem. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes before any Arab nation attacked Israel.

I don't know what you're on about that there was never any Palestinian state. When was there ever an Israeli state? A Lebanese state? A Syrian state? All of those seemed to have a right to exist. What about Ireland? There was never an Irish state before 1922.

You do realise that huge numbers of Palestinians when expelled by Israel had to flee to Lebanon. Maybe they should have sat in their refugee tents thanking Israel for this lovely holiday and looked across the border with gratitude instead of trying to launch resistance to the colonists.

MachaireConnacht (Roscommon) - Posts: 972 - 28/05/2024 14:33:55    2547925

Link

Replying To MachaireConnacht:  "Maybe you need to look prior to 1948 and at the rise of Zionism. The father of Zionism Theodor Herzl was very clear that this was a colonial project as far back as the late 1800's (this is the mindset a long time before 1948). He remarked;
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procurring employment for it in the tranist countries, while denying it employment in our own country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly."

This is incredibly similar language to that of those who administered English colonialism in Ireland. You can dress colonialism up all you want. Israel being attacked in 1948 was not the begining. 1917 to 1939 saw the take over of Palestine by Jewish settlers en masse primarily from Europe and Russia. The Nakba started in 1947 before any Arab states had attacked Israel. Early in 1948 the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Arab populations from Haifa and Jaffa along with West Jerusalem. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes before any Arab nation attacked Israel.

I don't know what you're on about that there was never any Palestinian state. When was there ever an Israeli state? A Lebanese state? A Syrian state? All of those seemed to have a right to exist. What about Ireland? There was never an Irish state before 1922.

You do realise that huge numbers of Palestinians when expelled by Israel had to flee to Lebanon. Maybe they should have sat in their refugee tents thanking Israel for this lovely holiday and looked across the border with gratitude instead of trying to launch resistance to the colonists."
The problems there go back 1000s of years.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/history-of-jerusalem

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13038 - 28/05/2024 15:28:02    2547948

Link

Replying To Bon:  "United Ireland is a fairy tale, unionists will never take it lying down"
For now it is…it will happen eventually but not in the short to medium term. That's just my opinion. There is going to be give and take on both sides. A new "federal state" most likely with a new flag, anthem and parliament/government structure. A new civil service, police etc. The six counties aren't just going to be absorbed into the republic in its current form. I wonder do people realise that?

yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11331 - 28/05/2024 21:57:13    2548051

Link

Replying To MachaireConnacht:  "Maybe you need to look prior to 1948 and at the rise of Zionism. The father of Zionism Theodor Herzl was very clear that this was a colonial project as far back as the late 1800's (this is the mindset a long time before 1948). He remarked;
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procurring employment for it in the tranist countries, while denying it employment in our own country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly."

This is incredibly similar language to that of those who administered English colonialism in Ireland. You can dress colonialism up all you want. Israel being attacked in 1948 was not the begining. 1917 to 1939 saw the take over of Palestine by Jewish settlers en masse primarily from Europe and Russia. The Nakba started in 1947 before any Arab states had attacked Israel. Early in 1948 the Zionists ethnically cleansed the Arab populations from Haifa and Jaffa along with West Jerusalem. 300,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes before any Arab nation attacked Israel.

I don't know what you're on about that there was never any Palestinian state. When was there ever an Israeli state? A Lebanese state? A Syrian state? All of those seemed to have a right to exist. What about Ireland? There was never an Irish state before 1922.

You do realise that huge numbers of Palestinians when expelled by Israel had to flee to Lebanon. Maybe they should have sat in their refugee tents thanking Israel for this lovely holiday and looked across the border with gratitude instead of trying to launch resistance to the colonists."
Theodor Herzl was a man on a journey and certainly his views and thoughts changed over the years up until his death. The quote you use has been used to paint what happened in Palestine as planned however nowhere will you find that he mentions Palestine (he also considered other options for the resettlement of Jews from Europe) and you will note that at the time there were no borders in the middle east - so what was he referring to, there are verious debates around what he said/believe/wrote. The isolation of one quote from and using it as justification for painting everything he did, plays into the propaganda of one side of the argument. Contemporary reviewers of Herzl (in particular the Herzls later thinking's on the subject of Zionism) would say that he would be shocked at what is happening today. If you also cared to learn the reason why he started on the journey you would understand it was from witnessing the antisemitism in Europe and the failure of assimilation to overcome this.

Your settlers en masse similar does not hold up to scrutiny. In 1882 Jews comprised 8% of the population, in 1918 9.1%, in 1922 11%. Thereafter the % increased 1931 16.9%. 1936 28.1%. Two factors are at play here, the Balfore declaration and the rise of the Nazis. However, the biggest increase in the population of Jews came after 1948 and these came about as a result of the 1948 war. Inadvertently the attack by its neighbors helped create the conditions which meant that the Palestinians going back to their original homes was never going to happen. This is 1948, three years after the victors in Europe had given parts of Eastern Germany where prior to the war it was 99% German to Poland. It doesn't make it right, however it shows that there was an acceptance at the time that territorial gains as a result of war were not given back. Nobody has ever said what would have happened if the Arab countries who attacked at the time were victorious - what do you think their aims were and what would have happened?
Yes, there was a wave of refugees as a result of the effective civil war that was going on prior to 1948 (since the 1947 Partition plan) but to also say that these were all expelled is not true either but without doubt quite a large number were.
I always look at conflict through the eyes that the first casualty of any conflict is the truth.
At no point in time was there a plan for a Palestinian state post the Partition plan, perhaps it would have been better if their Arab neighbors accepted the plan and supported the creation of both states rather than eye the territory themselves. You clearly don't understand the contribution of the PLO to the issues that the Lebanon went through.

The path that you seem to be on and others on both sides - deny that the other side has a right to exist, will never resolve the problem.

zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1828 - 29/05/2024 10:21:16    2548083

Link

Replying To yew_tree:  "For now it is…it will happen eventually but not in the short to medium term. That's just my opinion. There is going to be give and take on both sides. A new "federal state" most likely with a new flag, anthem and parliament/government structure. A new civil service, police etc. The six counties aren't just going to be absorbed into the republic in its current form. I wonder do people realise that?"
The Dublin government here has repeatedly stated that.

Sinn Fein in the 6 counties have repeatedly stated that.

The only people claiming it will be anything else (i.e. something anti-British, sectarian, Catholic, 2-tiered, something to be feared. . .) are unionists. They are either drumming up fear amongst their followers or they genuinely believe that the Irish would visit upon them the type of apartheid that was visited on the nationalist community in the North for decades.

I believe its simply fear mongering. . .
The NHS is crumbling.
The standard of living in Ireland is higher than in the UK (and NI is below the UK average for SOI).
"Rome rule" is gone.
London doesn't want the North.
And, by just about every measurable indicator (not opposition political parties or social media driven naysayers with agendas) the Irish state is one of the best in the world to live in.

Fear mongering is all they have left.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5082 - 29/05/2024 10:33:58    2548091

Link