The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
The problem with “taking in” the Palestinians, is that it actively helps Israel’s ethnic cleansing efforts and theft of land/property. Israel has stolen peoples homes, land, and livelihoods, and has been doing such since 1947.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing. Also, there are a fuckload of Palestinians, Most countries are not setup to absorb millions of extra citizens.
Even so, a lot of Palestinians have left the country over the decades, and have ended up in those same Arab nations you claim won’t take them. The Arab nations just can’t take millions at once.
Gaza is extremely over populated and is inhabitated almost exclusively by Palestinians. Taking some of them (those who want) would not contribute to cleansing in any meaningful way. The truth is that Muslim countries don’t really care about the Palestinians other than using them as a political tool.
There are living 2 million people in gaza. Germany has currently 1 million Ukrainian refugees and poland also another million. So it is not like it would be impossible for the arab countries to absorb them.
I’m with you though when it comes to your point that they do not want to give up their presence as a thorn in Israel’s expansion. They (the Muslim Arab world) would never again gain a better bargain against Israel. Giving them the land would be a victory for Israel that would hang like a shadow over their history for centuries - or so they see it. The Arab world can (from a religious standpoint) never accept the jewish nation invading their sphere. If it were not for Israel, the Middle East would have formed a strong combined player in the geopolitical game. For some moments in the early 1900s it almost looked like syria were able to unite the Arab world to transform it into a single voice sitting in between asia and Europe. But external forces and internal ethnic differences and in the end the Israel state made it permanently impossible for the region to unite. The fallout is what we see today. If it were not for the religious aspect and the Arab world would have given Israel „its land“, it might would have even started relations with each others by now in economy and technology, being a vital partner in developing the Middle East. But both the arab world and Israel are the religious bigots that they are and that is hindering the evolutionary development in their own interest.
I I think the west knew how much the Arab world would chew on this for the next century when they bid to put Israel in that area. The power move by the Arab world would have been to accept it and create political relations with it to profit from this strong economic player. But some in the west knew that this would be impossible for them because of their deeply religious rooted society. It will keep the Middle East out of the game for another better half of half century. To profit from Israel would mean for the Arab world to transform their nations from a theocracy to a modern national state, where not religious doctrines are used to narrate to their people for control. But the people in power need the theocratic narration to stay in power. A strong Middle East would have been a United Middle East (Syria 1900s), where a national state is put above the theocratic narration to keep control of the people while benefiting hugely from trade and technology as religious differences is not hindering talks with one another anymore (Inside and outside). Israel would have never happen to a United Middle East and now they can never change because the differences is absorbed into their theocratic narration. They are locked into a limbo of not being able to progress - all because Israel.
Yeah it is weird that your link is not providing any information about why they did it. I would say the Wikipedia has a better text about it, while also not going to deep:
Your first have to understand the territorial occupations at the time of 1946 and who was invested in the region. After the ottoman empire fell Britain gained foot in the area of palestine around 1919. It was only possible by a coalition with the Arab neighbors in the region that were more fond of the british than the ottoman disarray.
After WW2, Britain had a big interest in keeping this area in control and not further develop conflicts in the area by the refugee of jewish people coming from the european camps, that would clash with the coalition partners from the arab countries in the region. The efforts made to create a jewish state was mostly driven by the US, and not britain:
In 1947, the UN adopted a partition plan for a two-state solution in the remaining territory of the mandate. The plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab leaders, and Britain refused to implement the plan. On the eve of final British withdrawal, the Jewish Agency for Israel, headed by David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of the State of Israel according to the proposed UN plan.
You can see how britain lost control of the whole region the moment they gave in. Up until this moment they were still hoping to keep the jews out and keep the control of the country. That is the reason they blocked the Exodus.
There is also a good take on the SS Exodus Article on britains stance until the caved into the UN Mandate:
Britain’s position was summed up by John Coulson, a diplomat at the British Embassy in Paris, in a message to the Foreign Office in London in August 1947: “You will realize that an announcement of decision to send immigrants back to Germany will produce violent hostile outburst in the press. … Our opponents in France, and I dare say in other countries, have made great play with the fact that these immigrants were being kept behind barbed wire, in concentration camps and guarded by Germans.”[56] Coulson advised that Britain apply as best they could a counter-spin to the story: “If we decide it is convenient not to keep them in camps any longer, I suggest that we should make some play that we are releasing them from all restraint of this kind in accordance with their wishes and that they were only put in such accommodation for the preliminary necessities of screening and maintenance.”[57] The mission of bringing the Jewish refugees of Exodus 1947 back to Germany was known in diplomatic and military circles as “Operation Oasis.”[55]
Removed by mod
The problem with “taking in” the Palestinians, is that it actively helps Israel’s ethnic cleansing efforts and theft of land/property. Israel has stolen peoples homes, land, and livelihoods, and has been doing such since 1947.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing. Also, there are a fuckload of Palestinians, Most countries are not setup to absorb millions of extra citizens.
Even so, a lot of Palestinians have left the country over the decades, and have ended up in those same Arab nations you claim won’t take them. The Arab nations just can’t take millions at once.
Gaza is extremely over populated and is inhabitated almost exclusively by Palestinians. Taking some of them (those who want) would not contribute to cleansing in any meaningful way. The truth is that Muslim countries don’t really care about the Palestinians other than using them as a political tool.
Solution: Everyone has to leave. Israel becomes a wildlife preserve/world heritage site. Nobody but staff visits for a hundred years.
Maybe they can move that fucking ladder.
Religion is so fucking dumb
There are living 2 million people in gaza. Germany has currently 1 million Ukrainian refugees and poland also another million. So it is not like it would be impossible for the arab countries to absorb them.
I’m with you though when it comes to your point that they do not want to give up their presence as a thorn in Israel’s expansion. They (the Muslim Arab world) would never again gain a better bargain against Israel. Giving them the land would be a victory for Israel that would hang like a shadow over their history for centuries - or so they see it. The Arab world can (from a religious standpoint) never accept the jewish nation invading their sphere. If it were not for Israel, the Middle East would have formed a strong combined player in the geopolitical game. For some moments in the early 1900s it almost looked like syria were able to unite the Arab world to transform it into a single voice sitting in between asia and Europe. But external forces and internal ethnic differences and in the end the Israel state made it permanently impossible for the region to unite. The fallout is what we see today. If it were not for the religious aspect and the Arab world would have given Israel „its land“, it might would have even started relations with each others by now in economy and technology, being a vital partner in developing the Middle East. But both the arab world and Israel are the religious bigots that they are and that is hindering the evolutionary development in their own interest.
I I think the west knew how much the Arab world would chew on this for the next century when they bid to put Israel in that area. The power move by the Arab world would have been to accept it and create political relations with it to profit from this strong economic player. But some in the west knew that this would be impossible for them because of their deeply religious rooted society. It will keep the Middle East out of the game for another better half of half century. To profit from Israel would mean for the Arab world to transform their nations from a theocracy to a modern national state, where not religious doctrines are used to narrate to their people for control. But the people in power need the theocratic narration to stay in power. A strong Middle East would have been a United Middle East (Syria 1900s), where a national state is put above the theocratic narration to keep control of the people while benefiting hugely from trade and technology as religious differences is not hindering talks with one another anymore (Inside and outside). Israel would have never happen to a United Middle East and now they can never change because the differences is absorbed into their theocratic narration. They are locked into a limbo of not being able to progress - all because Israel.
I don’t think that’s the case - if it was the plan, why would the British have tried to block immigrants from reaching Palestine?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/exodus-1947
Yeah it is weird that your link is not providing any information about why they did it. I would say the Wikipedia has a better text about it, while also not going to deep:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus
Your first have to understand the territorial occupations at the time of 1946 and who was invested in the region. After the ottoman empire fell Britain gained foot in the area of palestine around 1919. It was only possible by a coalition with the Arab neighbors in the region that were more fond of the british than the ottoman disarray.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
After WW2, Britain had a big interest in keeping this area in control and not further develop conflicts in the area by the refugee of jewish people coming from the european camps, that would clash with the coalition partners from the arab countries in the region. The efforts made to create a jewish state was mostly driven by the US, and not britain:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine)
You can see how britain lost control of the whole region the moment they gave in. Up until this moment they were still hoping to keep the jews out and keep the control of the country. That is the reason they blocked the Exodus. There is also a good take on the SS Exodus Article on britains stance until the caved into the UN Mandate:
Jordan is like 50% Palestinian what the fuck are you talking about?
When you say “either”, are you referring to yourself as the first person who doesn’t care about Palestinians?
I’m referring to you.
Removed by mod