If you had to be immediately relocated to either (a) Iran or (b) Israel and in the event of choosing the latter, this would include the possibility of being randomly allocated a location within the West Bank or Gaza, which would you choose.
You could tie up a big 4 consultant for a few years (and several million $$$) with a question like that. Would depend what you mean by random though. How do you weight the selection mechanism?
So you’d take the risk of being born into Gaza or WB then Laz? Because that’s what the question is getting at. The question is not asking you to choose between Israel (excluding Gaza/West Bank) and Iran
Not appealing YWTF but I would prefer to wear a head covering rather than risk being bombed to death or killed by a sniper or starve to death because of malnutrition or have to live in an open air prison or have some illegal settlers come murder me because they want me off my own land.
I'd prefer Iran either way. Unlike a lot of Brits, I've lived outside of the UK and have seen that there's a lot of fearmongering that goes on from within the UK (as Face has just proven) about life in other countries. "South Africa! Ahhhhh, you'll be murdered before you get to baggage reclaim"
Iran is a beautiful country with stunning scenery, great food & culture, friendly people and, in the main cities, a decent quality of life. Since I'm now used to living in the Middle East and have experienced what it's like to live here (rather than just going off of what the Daily Heil says), I'll take my chances with Iran over a conscious decision to take the blue pill and elect to be part of the privileged (majority) group turning a blind eye to war crimes within an apartheid society. It's called principles
Like Gorlami, I’ve spent a lot of years living outside the UK and so am largely immune to UK media fearmongering about certain parts of the world. I haven’t had the chance to visit Iran yet but my Iranian brother-in-law tells me it’s a great place with hospitable people and a rich history.
Israel would be very problematic for me. Like I said, a mandatory head covering is a lesser evil and one I would take over being part of a society largely ok with its government committing genocide.
Committing genocide on another country is very bad.
Hanging people from cranes for being gay is very bad.
This might be very selfish, but I think I’d prefer to live in a country committing genocide against another country, but with an ability and freedom to protest against it, than a country where my gay friends could be executed or I could walk down the street one day and see someone hanging from a crane.
Israel, unless some joker wants to persuade me that Tehran actually has a thriving and visible lgbtq community
Like many ultra-conservative religious groups (including in the US) Iran is relatively accommodating towards trans-identifying people, who they think are far preferable to gay people. “Trans away the gay”
MYTH: Beliefs ingrained in Iranian culture manifest in an ultraconservative and aggressive government approach to homosexuality and non-binary gender identity. Government policies persecute both homosexuals and transgender individuals alike for their sexuality and gender identification, criminalizing same-sex relations and gender reassignment procedures.
FACT: Iran has maintained and pursued policies which condemn and harshly punish homosexuality, a practice widely, and appropriately, criticized as a human rights violation. However, this government persecution does not apply equally to transgender individuals; gender reassignment surgery is legal in Iran, and formal gender recognition is supported by the Iranian theocracy.
Hang on, I thought the anti-israeli lot said Gaza and WB WERE NOT Israel
Id go for Israel like literally anyone else putting any thought to it
I mean, unless you really really cannot stand Israeli Jews then I hear it's a wonderfully advanced country with lovely natural features such as beaches?
"Not pretending. Why is it so unimaginable to prefer to live in Iran rather than Israel?"
Because, not to denigrate the Iranian people who are the ones who have to suffer it first and foremost, revolutionary Iran is pretty much the most evil regime on earth HTH
Davos - how about reading the thread from the start first to see what it's really about? OP to please correct me if wrong but I think they were trying to understand whether people would - if given the choice - prefer to be born into Iran or Israel (with the caveat that "Israel" includes WB and Gaza so someone choosing Israel runs the risk in this fictional scenario of winding up in Gaza/WB). The implication was that there's a risk assessment in choosing Israel because you may get Gaza.
This wasn't supposed to be another thread to litigate the historic injustices, partition of land, unlawful settlements etc
I think we’ve lost sight of the question. This isn’t about which is country is objectively better, since clearly both countries have a lot of bad issues going on.
But if I had to be randomly born into either one, I would rather it’s one that is not committing genocide against people indigenous to that land. If you place lgbtq rights above human rights, then that’s totally your call.
Similarly, if you’d rather be part of a society that largely supports that genocide because at least you’d have freedom to not cover your head and/or have lgbtq rights etc, then that’s your call too.
The factors in choosing are different for men than for women. Iran is indeed a beautiful ancient culture but any woman choosing Iran would be putting herself under the State-enforced control of her father, brothers or husband. They might be as nice as your UK father,brothers or husband but still sincerely believe it is best if they take your life decisions for you.
The factors in choosing are different for white people than for brown people. Israel is indeed a modern country with excellent standard of healthcare and infrastructure but any Palestinian citizen of Israel would be putting themselves under the State-imposed Apartheid system. They might not be physically violent towards you (if you're one of the lucky ones) but you still have no rights.
Hun bun lgbtq rights ARE human rights, more specifically MY human rights. My personal choice would be to not live in a country where my freedom to love, choose etc makes me sub human in my governments eyes. I appreciate this is all theoretical as both countries are currently fooked up by their leaders, and dont think you were suggesting lgbtq rights are not human rights, but thought this clarification would be helpful.
Are you having trouble with comprehension today or were you born like this?
No one remotely suggested Iran is a beacon of human rights.
I too have no ill feelings towards Jewish people (what an absurd thing to insinuate), I do have plenty of ill feelings towards zionists though (no matter what their religion).
No g’wan, I wasn’t suggesting lgbtq rights aren’t rights- of course they are.
My point was that someone (such as your average Palestinian in Gaza) is not going to have lgbtq rights at the top of their agenda right now. They need to have the right to live first.
But yes as you say, the choice is a personal one. For me, no one is free until everyone is.
Lack of LGBTQ rights in Iran isn't Iran's only human rights abuse FFS
The list is basically endless
I get the average Gazan has no human rights right now, but your average Iranian never has and will never have. So objectively speaking on the measures that seem to matter to people, Israel is clearly preferable
I don't know if it will exist, but I think there is a genuine chance it won't.
Being reliant on security guarantees from other countries (namely US) for its existence is not a great place to be in the long term. Guarantees expire. Especially when surrounded by largely hostile neighbours.
Stop being so dramatic Davos. As a general principle, errors - once identified - should be corrected. If the world ever wakes up and accepts that it was an error to have partitioned Palestine and dispossessed the indigenous people in favour of the creation of Israel (aka the Zionist settler colonialist project) then that error should be corrected. That doesn't mean that we're saying "kill the Jews". The correction could take many other forms.
Jews are able to live peacefully and with freedom in other countries and they don't have a monopoly on being the victims of bigotry, racism and prejudice.
Gorlami, I dont know what wiser heads than post WW2 Britain's at the time might have done, but whilst grateful that they did what they did, I entirely understand the harm that this did to the equilibrium of the area. You know my view on lost opportunities to resolve the predicament.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is real. Whether wiser heads can unravel this diabolical situation remains to be seen. Frankly I doubt it, but I hope I am wrong.
Prodigal - I do know your views and, whilst we don't agree on everything, you're always rational and civil when addressing it. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for all Jews not just because of the horrors of the Holocaust but because of the harm that I think Israel does to Jews around the world by purporting to act on behalf of the Jewish faith. From my personal experience, I simply can't reconcile the Jews who I've met with the actions of Israel and some of (I know it's not all by any stretch) its citizens.
Any other historic errors on the world map that you'd seek to 'correct' Gorlami, or just the one that's 20,000 sq km wide (a quarter of the size of the UAE)?
I would seek to correct every single incident where the United Nations voted to partition land against the wishes of the indigenous population (or majority thereof) in order to create a state for immigrants of a specific faith with ancient ties to that same land.
Purely as a thought exercise, it would be interesting to imagine how Europeans would react if Muslims migrated in considerable numbers to Al-Andalus, kicked out the locals and then set up an Islamic State...
Ah I get it, so you want to wipe out the error of the United Nations partitioning a country. I am assuming that the one or two incidents where a people has invaded a neighbour and killed/turfed out/forced conversion etc on its inhabitants does not count as one of your ‘world map errors’?
But yes, also a big HEH at 'correcting' (whatever that means) the map but only amending the Jewish country
Well Davos, I either chose it because it’s the only “Jewish country” or because it’s the only country that meets the conditions I set out above. You decide for yourself but frankly my dear….
Correct Wilf - it’s not that I consider those other conquests to be good or worthy of praise but they are a reflection of natural human behaviours. Conflicts where the strongest of the belligerents prevails and the victor acquires control of the land and the inhabitants. To the victor goes the spoils.
But since the concept of nation states came to the fore, and especially since the middle of the 20th century, we’ve tended to resolve conflicts without eradicating the state. See Germany as a prime example.
But Israel is different. There was no war between two groups of inhabitants of the land. This was a situation where the victims of Germany’s atrocities were given more than 50% of the land that belonged to a group that had no part in WWII or what happened to the Jews. Are you honestly telling me that you think what was done by the UN in 1946-1948 was fair?
Gorlami- you’re talking to Wilf, Rof’s self proclaimed proud Zionist. As he’s indicated multiple times on these pages, he couldn’t care less…and apparently neither should you.
Palestine wasn’t a nation state. It was an area within the British Empire which had Arab inhabitants with a sizeable and growing community of Jewish emigrants who had been bigging up the idea of a Jewish state since the 19th century. Bit like those bloody Angles hearing about a pleasant land full of greenery and squirrels and deciding it sounded like a great place to settle.
Do I think that it was fair? I’m not entirely sure the Greco Turkish swap, the Partition of India, the Cypriot divide or the Chinese takeover of Tibet were fair. I’m also genuinely puzzled as to why you’re saying that war and aggression are fair but partition isn’t.
And hunbun, just faod I’m pretty sure I’ve never called myself a Proud Zionist. I am a Zionist because I believe that the State of Israel should exist. But I don’t think I’ve ever described myself as a ‘proud’ anything in my life. Bit of a w**ky turn of phrase. Maybe a ‘proud dad’ in one of my weaker moments.
I’m still waiting for another example of where the UN voted to partition land against the wishes of the indigenous population (or majority thereof) in order to create a state for immigrants of a specific faith with ancient ties to that same land.
Not one of Wilf’s examples meets those criteria. They’re all either partitions agreed between groups with no new inhabitants entering the mix or one party (China) forcibly taking over another (Tibet).
What’s reassuring though is that there are some genuinely decent Israelis who get it. As Prodigal has said before (and I hope he’s right), we need more of these sensible adult voices in the conversation as opposed to the deniers and apologists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lFB9ugm_yfU
Because you’ve asked for a very specific example which is intended to only catch Israel. But I’m assuming by your rationale that you would have been happy for said settlers in the 1920s and 30s (of which there were many) to simply have driven the Palestinians off their land or killing them and then declaring the land the Jewish state of Israel? In fact you’ll probably say that that’s exactly what the Jews did. Basically your issue is the UN being involved.
After all, warfare is what makes international borders and it’s fair.
Davos - tell us more about this “right to exist” concept. Why does Palestine not have the same “right” to exist? It’s such an odd phrase. The fact of its existence is undeniable but why the right?
Wilf - correct. The other way of looking at it is that the conditions I’ve described are unique to Israel which is exactly what makes it an outlier case and one that is so blatantly unjust. It’s not that I’m setting out to target Jews (as was previously suggested) - I’m just calling out a set of uniquely unfair circumstances that have led to the creation of a nation state which, by design, is considered a Jewish homeland.
Everyone except Palestine? At least that’s what every member of the Israeli government seems to think. So you’d support the recognition of Palestine as an independent sovereign state?
And the UN point is such a logical failure that you can’t address it without deflecting.
Hmm. If exactly the same set of circumstances had happened as I describe (ie purely conquer) I genuinely struggle to believe we wouldn’t still be having an argument about imperialist, aggressive Israel in 2024 with people taking to the streets waving placards.
The point is Israel is a tiny pocket of Judaism amidst a veritable sea of Muslim Arabs and Persians. Its existence would always be a bone of contention no matter the circumstances of its establishment.
Wilf has pointed out one - invading a country is ok with you
So Israel could invade Palestine or anyone it wishes (e.g. Iran) if it wanted to and you'd be fine with that (your logic)
If the UN 'made a mistake with creating israel' (your view, to be clear) and should 'undo' the mistake (your view), then the UN would be creating a state of Palestine. You oppose the UN creating states (presumably for any religion or peoples)
There have been far worse post war issues with state creations without the UN in terms of numbers of people displaced, numbers killed etc etc. why focus on the UN's involvement??????
Hmm. If exactly the same set of circumstances had happened as I describe (ie purely conquer) I genuinely struggle to believe we wouldn’t still be having an argument about imperialist, aggressive Israel in 2024 with people taking to the streets waving placards.
This is a false dilemma. It’s not that one is acceptable and the other isn’t. China/Tibet is example of a takeover by force. I’d be critical of that too. In an ideal world, there would be a body who could and would take action in response to this. So your example (of a scenario where Israel acquired the land by force with no UN or other third party involvement) would elicit the same response from me.
The point is Israel is a tiny pocket of Judaism amidst a veritable sea of Muslim Arabs and Persians. Its existence would always be a bone of contention no matter the circumstances of its establishment.
And yet the Zionist leaders chose this land over other options knowing full well that it would place this “tiny pocket of Judaism amidst a veritable sea of Muslim Arabs and Persians”. Do you see how ridiculous it is that the Zionist leaders got what they wanted and are now playing the victim because those who paid the price for that (and their neighbours/friends) are upset at how they’ve gone about it. So it’s not Israel’s mere existence that the “sea of Muslims” has issues with….its where they have chosen to exist (I.e. on their land). Had the Zionist leaders elected to take the land offered in Argentina or Uganda instead, my guess is that the animosity would still exist but just between a different group of people.
If you choose Iran there’s a 1 in 2 chance you’re born as a woman. Which in Iran is a shoite hand to be dealt.
However, if you choose Israel, there is a 1 in 3 chance you end up as a Palestinian. So that’s a big gamble. A 1 in 3 chance you’re on the wrong end of the apartheid equation is a properly shoite hand to be dealt.
So do you feel lucky? A 50% chance of a moderately shoite hand, or a 33% chance of a properly shoite hand.
In the west about 3% of the population identify as gay, which for this purpose is background noise. The big risks for future happiness and flourishing in this scenario are being born female or Palestinian.
So to be clear you are saying in effect that no Jewish state should have been created after WW2? Given that you think the Jews would have caused as much animosity in Argentina or Uganda?
You are not silly enough to play dumb about the rationale for Israel to be created where it was. By 1914 there were 100,000 Jews in Israel. By 1936 380,000 Jews. This wasn’t a random choice by the Jews.
Of course it wasn’t random choice by the leaders of the Zionist movement (you can keep saying “Jews” and I’ll keep being accurate where there’s an important distinction to be drawn as is often the case).
Around the turn of and during the early years of the 20C, Herzl and other Zionist leaders were considering the alternative locations of the new Jewish homeland. Herzl died in 1904 and from around that time it became pretty settled that Palestine was the preferred location due to ancient historical ties. The Balfour Declaration cemented this in 1917 and was effectively a green light for the British supported colonisation of Palestine by Zionists.
Other sources report the population growth over roughly the same period as:
Population of Palestine, 1922–1945
Year
Muslims
Christians
Jews
Total
1922
589,177
73,024
83,790
757,182
1931
759,717
91,398
174,610
1,035,821
1945
1,061,270
135,550
553,600
1,764,520
Interesting to look at that first period (1922-1931) and see the population doubles but then during the second period (1931-1945) it almost tripled.
I keep saying Jews because they were just Jews. They were Jews who were seeking a refuge from the increasing ravages of European anti-Semitism. Many would have understandably been committed Zionists, others just wanted somewhere to live where they wouldn’t be persecuted.
An 'Israel' in Argentina would not have had anything like the same trouble with its neighbours as Israel has had but I am not sure statehood was ever realistically on the cards and for obvious reasons anything less that statehood was not appealing.
Uganda was a real possibility in the early 20th century but it was also an incredibly inhospitable place at that time.
Re the OP obviously being born in Iran right now is much less bad than being born a Palestinian in the West Bank and massively less bad than being born in Gaza. Almost all children born in Gaza in the past few months will (if they survive at all) have lifelong consequences from malnutrition and disease/lack of basic medical care.
Kaulbach - fair enough to put an objective test into it (gets away from the Israel haters approach) but your test is fundamentally flawed if you ignore key things
0
2
Israel obviously
0
1
Tough one. Israel
12
1
If it's randomly allocated, how do I choose?
Asking on behalf of non-morons.
1
1
Prefer then. I think you probably understood the point.
I think I'd go with Iran as wouldn't fancy being a Palestinian plus I would have more faith in country enduring into the long term.
2
4
I.e. taking the risk of being randomly allocated as a Palestinian
0
1
Iran.
Better skiing, better food.
3
4
So your question is:
If you had to be immediately relocated to either (a) Iran or (b) Israel and in the event of choosing the latter, this would include the possibility of being randomly allocated a location within the West Bank or Gaza, which would you choose.
You could tie up a big 4 consultant for a few years (and several million $$$) with a question like that. Would depend what you mean by random though. How do you weight the selection mechanism?
0
0
Allocated at birth
1
2
Iran for me
0
0
Randomly allocated choice. A newspeak high.
0
0
I think I could take over Iran, reform it and create a progessive economic super power that dominated the region
1
2
Iran.
0
0
Although I should add that if the question was framed differently and we could choose any country in which to be born, I would choose Italy.
0
0
Iran. Hebrew hurts my ears.
1
3
heh @ all the people pretending Iran
2
2
Not pretending. Why is it so unimaginable to prefer to live in Iran rather than Israel?
1
1
So you’d take the risk of being born into Gaza or WB then Laz? Because that’s what the question is getting at. The question is not asking you to choose between Israel (excluding Gaza/West Bank) and Iran
2
1
Life in Gaza and West Bank is hell on earth right now. And continues to be, whilst everyone is distracted by Israel vs Iran.
3
0
The risk of being arrested and beaten to death for not wearing a hanky on your head?
3
0
Not appealing YWTF but I would prefer to wear a head covering rather than risk being bombed to death or killed by a sniper or starve to death because of malnutrition or have to live in an open air prison or have some illegal settlers come murder me because they want me off my own land.
0
0
You asked why would anyone prefer living in Iran to Israel, not Iran to Palestine.
3
1
I'd prefer Iran either way. Unlike a lot of Brits, I've lived outside of the UK and have seen that there's a lot of fearmongering that goes on from within the UK (as Face has just proven) about life in other countries. "South Africa! Ahhhhh, you'll be murdered before you get to baggage reclaim"
Iran is a beautiful country with stunning scenery, great food & culture, friendly people and, in the main cities, a decent quality of life. Since I'm now used to living in the Middle East and have experienced what it's like to live here (rather than just going off of what the Daily Heil says), I'll take my chances with Iran over a conscious decision to take the blue pill and elect to be part of the privileged (majority) group turning a blind eye to war crimes within an apartheid society. It's called principles
3
0
Like Gorlami, I’ve spent a lot of years living outside the UK and so am largely immune to UK media fearmongering about certain parts of the world. I haven’t had the chance to visit Iran yet but my Iranian brother-in-law tells me it’s a great place with hospitable people and a rich history.
Israel would be very problematic for me. Like I said, a mandatory head covering is a lesser evil and one I would take over being part of a society largely ok with its government committing genocide.
2
0
Can you get Amazon prime deliveries in each. What about Waitrose?
1
1
Iran all day. For the women alone.
2
4
Israel, unless some joker wants to persuade me that Tehran actually has a thriving and visible lgbtq community
1
0
Committing genocide on another country is very bad.
Hanging people from cranes for being gay is very bad.
This might be very selfish, but I think I’d prefer to live in a country committing genocide against another country, but with an ability and freedom to protest against it, than a country where my gay friends could be executed or I could walk down the street one day and see someone hanging from a crane.
0
0
FACT: Iran has maintained and pursued policies which condemn and harshly punish homosexuality, a practice widely, and appropriately, criticized as a human rights violation. However, this government persecution does not apply equally to transgender individuals; gender reassignment surgery is legal in Iran, and formal gender recognition is supported by the Iranian theocracy.
1
3
Hang on, I thought the anti-israeli lot said Gaza and WB WERE NOT Israel
Id go for Israel like literally anyone else putting any thought to it
I mean, unless you really really cannot stand Israeli Jews then I hear it's a wonderfully advanced country with lovely natural features such as beaches?
2
3
"Israel, unless some joker wants to persuade me that Tehran actually has a thriving and visible lgbtq community"
I did a LOL at this
The only person of Iranian descent I know ran away for fear of his life because of who he loves
Obviously I appreciate not everyone cares about such stuff
1
1
"Not pretending. Why is it so unimaginable to prefer to live in Iran rather than Israel?"
Because, not to denigrate the Iranian people who are the ones who have to suffer it first and foremost, revolutionary Iran is pretty much the most evil regime on earth HTH
4
3
Davos - how about reading the thread from the start first to see what it's really about? OP to please correct me if wrong but I think they were trying to understand whether people would - if given the choice - prefer to be born into Iran or Israel (with the caveat that "Israel" includes WB and Gaza so someone choosing Israel runs the risk in this fictional scenario of winding up in Gaza/WB). The implication was that there's a risk assessment in choosing Israel because you may get Gaza.
This wasn't supposed to be another thread to litigate the historic injustices, partition of land, unlawful settlements etc
3
2
I think we’ve lost sight of the question. This isn’t about which is country is objectively better, since clearly both countries have a lot of bad issues going on.
But if I had to be randomly born into either one, I would rather it’s one that is not committing genocide against people indigenous to that land. If you place lgbtq rights above human rights, then that’s totally your call.
Similarly, if you’d rather be part of a society that largely supports that genocide because at least you’d have freedom to not cover your head and/or have lgbtq rights etc, then that’s your call too.
My choice remains Iran.
0
1
Iran - a beacon of human rights LOL
Yeah I'll take Israel
I have no ill feelings towards Jewish people
0
0
The factors in choosing are different for men than for women. Iran is indeed a beautiful ancient culture but any woman choosing Iran would be putting herself under the State-enforced control of her father, brothers or husband. They might be as nice as your UK father,brothers or husband but still sincerely believe it is best if they take your life decisions for you.
3
1
The factors in choosing are different for white people than for brown people. Israel is indeed a modern country with excellent standard of healthcare and infrastructure but any Palestinian citizen of Israel would be putting themselves under the State-imposed Apartheid system. They might not be physically violent towards you (if you're one of the lucky ones) but you still have no rights.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
1
1
Hun bun lgbtq rights ARE human rights, more specifically MY human rights. My personal choice would be to not live in a country where my freedom to love, choose etc makes me sub human in my governments eyes. I appreciate this is all theoretical as both countries are currently fooked up by their leaders, and dont think you were suggesting lgbtq rights are not human rights, but thought this clarification would be helpful.
1
1
Yes your religion also pretty key in deciding to live in Iran
Didn't Iran score 0 out of 4 for that.....
0
1
Iran - a beacon of human rights LOL
Yeah I'll take Israel
I have no ill feelings towards Jewish people
Are you having trouble with comprehension today or were you born like this?
No one remotely suggested Iran is a beacon of human rights.
I too have no ill feelings towards Jewish people (what an absurd thing to insinuate), I do have plenty of ill feelings towards zionists though (no matter what their religion).
Hth as you clearly seem to need it.
1
1
Not everything is about you
Human rights far better protected by Israel
So all good on that front
3
0
No g’wan, I wasn’t suggesting lgbtq rights aren’t rights- of course they are.
My point was that someone (such as your average Palestinian in Gaza) is not going to have lgbtq rights at the top of their agenda right now. They need to have the right to live first.
But yes as you say, the choice is a personal one. For me, no one is free until everyone is.
0
4
Lack of LGBTQ rights in Iran isn't Iran's only human rights abuse FFS
The list is basically endless
I get the average Gazan has no human rights right now, but your average Iranian never has and will never have. So objectively speaking on the measures that seem to matter to people, Israel is clearly preferable
Which I said from the outset
4
1
Seems like more ppl would take the gamble on being born in the West Bank or, worse, Gaza than I had expected.
Both areas are de facto (not sure about de jure) part of the state of Israel.
As mentioned, I would choose Iran for reasons including:
0
2
You think Israel won't be around in 75-100 years??.?
Wow. The complete destruction of the Jewish homeland is (we are told) entirely unlikely and it faces no existential threats
Well, save for post revolution Iran which really quite wants to genocide the Jews and destroy Israel
1
3
I don't know if it will exist, but I think there is a genuine chance it won't.
Being reliant on security guarantees from other countries (namely US) for its existence is not a great place to be in the long term. Guarantees expire. Especially when surrounded by largely hostile neighbours.
0
3
Yes Israel does face many existential threats
I agree
2
4
Stop being so dramatic Davos. As a general principle, errors - once identified - should be corrected. If the world ever wakes up and accepts that it was an error to have partitioned Palestine and dispossessed the indigenous people in favour of the creation of Israel (aka the Zionist settler colonialist project) then that error should be corrected. That doesn't mean that we're saying "kill the Jews". The correction could take many other forms.
Jews are able to live peacefully and with freedom in other countries and they don't have a monopoly on being the victims of bigotry, racism and prejudice.
2
3
Gorlami, I dont know what wiser heads than post WW2 Britain's at the time might have done, but whilst grateful that they did what they did, I entirely understand the harm that this did to the equilibrium of the area. You know my view on lost opportunities to resolve the predicament.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is real. Whether wiser heads can unravel this diabolical situation remains to be seen. Frankly I doubt it, but I hope I am wrong.
3
1
Prodigal - I do know your views and, whilst we don't agree on everything, you're always rational and civil when addressing it. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for all Jews not just because of the horrors of the Holocaust but because of the harm that I think Israel does to Jews around the world by purporting to act on behalf of the Jewish faith. From my personal experience, I simply can't reconcile the Jews who I've met with the actions of Israel and some of (I know it's not all by any stretch) its citizens.
1
4
Any other historic errors on the world map that you'd seek to 'correct' Gorlami, or just the one that's 20,000 sq km wide (a quarter of the size of the UAE)?
2
34
I would seek to correct every single incident where the United Nations voted to partition land against the wishes of the indigenous population (or majority thereof) in order to create a state for immigrants of a specific faith with ancient ties to that same land.
0
0
Purely as a thought exercise, it would be interesting to imagine how Europeans would react if Muslims migrated in considerable numbers to Al-Andalus, kicked out the locals and then set up an Islamic State...
1
2
Gorlami - an educated adult - says that we can get just rid of Israel without anyone dying
I'd suggest that is utter bollocks
But yes, also a big HEH at 'correcting' (whatever that means) the map but only amending the Jewish country
1
5
"a state for immigrants of a specific faith with ancient ties to that same land."
Ah ok
Great idea
So the Jews go to...... nobody tell them, they'll get there
0
0
Ah I get it, so you want to wipe out the error of the United Nations partitioning a country. I am assuming that the one or two incidents where a people has invaded a neighbour and killed/turfed out/forced conversion etc on its inhabitants does not count as one of your ‘world map errors’?
2
3
Well Davos, I either chose it because it’s the only “Jewish country” or because it’s the only country that meets the conditions I set out above. You decide for yourself but frankly my dear….
1
5
Let's be honest, they are caught between many different inconsistent opinions which they haven't thought though properly
They just know they hate Israel
2
4
Correct Wilf - it’s not that I consider those other conquests to be good or worthy of praise but they are a reflection of natural human behaviours. Conflicts where the strongest of the belligerents prevails and the victor acquires control of the land and the inhabitants. To the victor goes the spoils.
But since the concept of nation states came to the fore, and especially since the middle of the 20th century, we’ve tended to resolve conflicts without eradicating the state. See Germany as a prime example.
But Israel is different. There was no war between two groups of inhabitants of the land. This was a situation where the victims of Germany’s atrocities were given more than 50% of the land that belonged to a group that had no part in WWII or what happened to the Jews. Are you honestly telling me that you think what was done by the UN in 1946-1948 was fair?
2
4
Gorlami- you’re talking to Wilf, Rof’s self proclaimed proud Zionist. As he’s indicated multiple times on these pages, he couldn’t care less…and apparently neither should you.
1
5
Palestine wasn’t a nation state. It was an area within the British Empire which had Arab inhabitants with a sizeable and growing community of Jewish emigrants who had been bigging up the idea of a Jewish state since the 19th century. Bit like those bloody Angles hearing about a pleasant land full of greenery and squirrels and deciding it sounded like a great place to settle.
Do I think that it was fair? I’m not entirely sure the Greco Turkish swap, the Partition of India, the Cypriot divide or the Chinese takeover of Tibet were fair. I’m also genuinely puzzled as to why you’re saying that war and aggression are fair but partition isn’t.
0
5
Don't use historical fact, reason and their own logic wilf
None of them stops them hating Israel
1
0
And hunbun, just faod I’m pretty sure I’ve never called myself a Proud Zionist. I am a Zionist because I believe that the State of Israel should exist. But I don’t think I’ve ever described myself as a ‘proud’ anything in my life. Bit of a w**ky turn of phrase. Maybe a ‘proud dad’ in one of my weaker moments.
1
0
I’m still waiting for another example of where the UN voted to partition land against the wishes of the indigenous population (or majority thereof) in order to create a state for immigrants of a specific faith with ancient ties to that same land.
Not one of Wilf’s examples meets those criteria. They’re all either partitions agreed between groups with no new inhabitants entering the mix or one party (China) forcibly taking over another (Tibet).
What’s reassuring though is that there are some genuinely decent Israelis who get it. As Prodigal has said before (and I hope he’s right), we need more of these sensible adult voices in the conversation as opposed to the deniers and apologists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lFB9ugm_yfU
0
4
There is of course a difference between Israel's right to exist and Israel's actions
Not that's that relevant but presumably it's been brought up as your other arguments are all over the shop
0
0
Because you’ve asked for a very specific example which is intended to only catch Israel. But I’m assuming by your rationale that you would have been happy for said settlers in the 1920s and 30s (of which there were many) to simply have driven the Palestinians off their land or killing them and then declaring the land the Jewish state of Israel? In fact you’ll probably say that that’s exactly what the Jews did. Basically your issue is the UN being involved.
After all, warfare is what makes international borders and it’s fair.
0
1
Yes and on their own logic, they would be happy with the Jews to march from Israel via Jordan and invade/occupy Iran
Just as long as the Jews leave the land they've been tied to for many centuries
1
4
Davos - tell us more about this “right to exist” concept. Why does Palestine not have the same “right” to exist? It’s such an odd phrase. The fact of its existence is undeniable but why the right?
Wilf - correct. The other way of looking at it is that the conditions I’ve described are unique to Israel which is exactly what makes it an outlier case and one that is so blatantly unjust. It’s not that I’m setting out to target Jews (as was previously suggested) - I’m just calling out a set of uniquely unfair circumstances that have led to the creation of a nation state which, by design, is considered a Jewish homeland.
0
0
Gorlami - everyone has a right to exist
Regardless of religion
0
3
The UN point is a logic fail on many levels
1
3
Everyone except Palestine? At least that’s what every member of the Israeli government seems to think. So you’d support the recognition of Palestine as an independent sovereign state?
And the UN point is such a logical failure that you can’t address it without deflecting.
0
3
Hmm. If exactly the same set of circumstances had happened as I describe (ie purely conquer) I genuinely struggle to believe we wouldn’t still be having an argument about imperialist, aggressive Israel in 2024 with people taking to the streets waving placards.
1
26
The point is Israel is a tiny pocket of Judaism amidst a veritable sea of Muslim Arabs and Persians. Its existence would always be a bone of contention no matter the circumstances of its establishment.
0
3
Everyone sensible supports a two state solution as the only logical long term solution
Unfortunately the current people in charge of both sides will not allow that
0
0
Correct. Imagine it will still happen though because there is no realistic long term-alternative.
0
4
On the UN point it is a logic fail
The reasons are endless
But a few
Wilf has pointed out one - invading a country is ok with you
So Israel could invade Palestine or anyone it wishes (e.g. Iran) if it wanted to and you'd be fine with that (your logic)
If the UN 'made a mistake with creating israel' (your view, to be clear) and should 'undo' the mistake (your view), then the UN would be creating a state of Palestine. You oppose the UN creating states (presumably for any religion or peoples)
There have been far worse post war issues with state creations without the UN in terms of numbers of people displaced, numbers killed etc etc. why focus on the UN's involvement??????
Etc etc
0
3
I agree wilf - I think it will happen in my lifetime (hopefully I have 50 years left.....)
1
4
This is a false dilemma. It’s not that one is acceptable and the other isn’t. China/Tibet is example of a takeover by force. I’d be critical of that too. In an ideal world, there would be a body who could and would take action in response to this. So your example (of a scenario where Israel acquired the land by force with no UN or other third party involvement) would elicit the same response from me.
And yet the Zionist leaders chose this land over other options knowing full well that it would place this “tiny pocket of Judaism amidst a veritable sea of Muslim Arabs and Persians”. Do you see how ridiculous it is that the Zionist leaders got what they wanted and are now playing the victim because those who paid the price for that (and their neighbours/friends) are upset at how they’ve gone about it. So it’s not Israel’s mere existence that the “sea of Muslims” has issues with….its where they have chosen to exist (I.e. on their land). Had the Zionist leaders elected to take the land offered in Argentina or Uganda instead, my guess is that the animosity would still exist but just between a different group of people.
2
0
Ok.
If you choose Iran there’s a 1 in 2 chance you’re born as a woman. Which in Iran is a shoite hand to be dealt.
However, if you choose Israel, there is a 1 in 3 chance you end up as a Palestinian. So that’s a big gamble. A 1 in 3 chance you’re on the wrong end of the apartheid equation is a properly shoite hand to be dealt.
So do you feel lucky? A 50% chance of a moderately shoite hand, or a 33% chance of a properly shoite hand.
Would probably go for Iran too.
0
0
Kaulbach - you haven't done the equation to take into people whom are gay, different races, different religions etc etc etc
2
0
The chances of being born a Palestinian are reducing daily.
2
0
I’m just doing the big probabilities.
In the west about 3% of the population identify as gay, which for this purpose is background noise. The big risks for future happiness and flourishing in this scenario are being born female or Palestinian.
0
0
So to be clear you are saying in effect that no Jewish state should have been created after WW2? Given that you think the Jews would have caused as much animosity in Argentina or Uganda?
You are not silly enough to play dumb about the rationale for Israel to be created where it was. By 1914 there were 100,000 Jews in Israel. By 1936 380,000 Jews. This wasn’t a random choice by the Jews.
1
4
Of course it wasn’t random choice by the leaders of the Zionist movement (you can keep saying “Jews” and I’ll keep being accurate where there’s an important distinction to be drawn as is often the case).
Around the turn of and during the early years of the 20C, Herzl and other Zionist leaders were considering the alternative locations of the new Jewish homeland. Herzl died in 1904 and from around that time it became pretty settled that Palestine was the preferred location due to ancient historical ties. The Balfour Declaration cemented this in 1917 and was effectively a green light for the British supported colonisation of Palestine by Zionists.
Other sources report the population growth over roughly the same period as:
Interesting to look at that first period (1922-1931) and see the population doubles but then during the second period (1931-1945) it almost tripled.
0
0
I keep saying Jews because they were just Jews. They were Jews who were seeking a refuge from the increasing ravages of European anti-Semitism. Many would have understandably been committed Zionists, others just wanted somewhere to live where they wouldn’t be persecuted.
0
0
An 'Israel' in Argentina would not have had anything like the same trouble with its neighbours as Israel has had but I am not sure statehood was ever realistically on the cards and for obvious reasons anything less that statehood was not appealing.
Uganda was a real possibility in the early 20th century but it was also an incredibly inhospitable place at that time.
1
0
Re the OP obviously being born in Iran right now is much less bad than being born a Palestinian in the West Bank and massively less bad than being born in Gaza. Almost all children born in Gaza in the past few months will (if they survive at all) have lifelong consequences from malnutrition and disease/lack of basic medical care.
0
3
Kaulbach - fair enough to put an objective test into it (gets away from the Israel haters approach) but your test is fundamentally flawed if you ignore key things
0
0
Such as?
1
0
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to have feelings of hate towards Israel that are based on their oppression, brutality and “plausible genocide”.
Join the discussion