politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The PLO of that era also advocated mass expulsion of Jews and their descendants except those who lived in Palestine before the late 19th century, and even that was ambiguous, so I don't know that "The phrase doesn't have any connotations of ethnic cleansing!" is really correct here.
The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you're likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).
First Aliyah, starting 1881.
Why? Though that's also not before the 19th century.
That's the commonly accepted date?
Didn't mean to say before the whole 19th century. I'll edit that.
1917 is when the Jewish Virtual Library says was the start of the "Zionist invasion" in Arab literature.
I've definitely seen PLO-friendly sources cite 1881 as the start of the invasion.
Ultimately, though, this is just an aside, the main thrust being that ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether the ethnic cleansers want a secular, democratic state (or, indeed, are being ethnically cleansed themselves).
I take the very shocking view that ethnic cleansing is bad, whether pre-emptive or in vengeance.
Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.
Certainly true. On one hand, ambiguous topics are a convenient way to discredit one's enemies by ascribing the more extreme position to them. On the other hand, they can just as easily be a dog whistle or motte-and-bailey argument.
I also wonder if when we talk about foreign and domestic troll farms if those are the topics they push.
Its like the Facebook math questions "8÷2(2×2)=?" Which gets thousands and thousands of engagement and people all arguing not knowing better or they do know better and attempt to explain.
You realize that before the British came in, all of the land there belong to Palestine, so the Palestinians working towards a secular state on land that was stolen from them is ethnic cleansing?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, "Yes, a solution that involves ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing" and the right to self-determination doesn't really affect that fact?
Well no, before the British arrived the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Before that it belonged to the Byzantine/Eastern Roman empire, Roman Empire, Greece, Persia. It hasn't been a "free" land since at least the mid to early Iron Age.
Edit: Even then, it was only free from the end of the Bronze Age, where it was a smattering of city states either part of or beholden to primarily the whims of the Hittites, Egyptians or Assyrians.
Can you speculate as to why the area is seemingly so desirable?
Geographically, It’s located in the best place to be THE door to Europe’s and Africa’s trade routes with Asia.
Whomever controls that territory, controls an immense amount of the world’s commerce.
That makes perfect sense, thank you.
I can also add that in the Bronze age there was a critical trade route used to get Tin from now-Afghanistan to the eastern Mediterranean, and a lot of the city states in that area were basically stopovers on that larger route or between the big empires in the region.
Also going further back into the stone age, the entire area was considerably less of a desert than it is now
It's much less important now thanks to the Suez but still a decently wealthy coastal country.
The land was changing hands for centuries: https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY (and if we care about silly things about who was first, that would historically be Jews)
In fact before the British, it was actually owned by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) which sided with the central powers in WW1. The British enrolled Palestinians and Jews to fight them and promised to give them that land in exchange for conquering it.
Edit: I meant WW1
This history is about WWI, not WWII. The Ottomans didn't exist in WWII and Turkey stayed neutral. The Ottomans allied with the Germans in WWI, but it wasn't the Axis.
You're right my bad
surprisingly, there were people there even before the Jews. they are not some indigenous population that sprung from the soil.
Yes, I never said there weren't, just that people picking up specific point in history and forgetting there was anything before that.
you said that if we cared about historical things then the Jews would be the first. it was this statement that prompted my reply.
Would be before Palestinians.
I suppose that would depend on how you define Palestinians. but the point remains.
Well, by the definition you are suggesting, the Jews would also be Palestinians.
there was also a group already in the area referred to as the Philistines. a young David is rumoured to have killed Goliath.
You realize the name Palestine is what the Romans renamed the land to add insult to injury after kicking out all the Jews.
that feels like not was quite some time ago.
There's no record of the expulsion ever actually happening, but they did get pissy and rename the region because the people wouldn't stop rebelling and worship the Emperor like civilized folk.
You mean the Ottoman Empire? Is that supposed to be the same entity? I have no fuckin' clue anymore.
Modern Turkey does claim to be the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, yes, and was recognized as such in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
Yes, but anglophone white people did it, so it doesn't count.
When British empire was there, it belonged to Britain, not Palestine.