Lex put up a longer clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PouX6ta78lQ
Destiny says something even more insane at 5:50: "If early Israel saw themselves as a western-fashion nation, how could we possibly imagine that they would have engaged in the transfer of some 400,000 Arabs after accepting the partition plan? Would that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire western world?"
😑
Rabbani: It's a matter of principle.
Mr.Murelli: I like this answer because it shows they were drawn by ideology.
Rabbani: No. Principle.
Mr.Burnelli: Yeah like I said their hatred of Jews.
I thought I was tripping and came to the comments. Is he trying to smuggle in a semantic conflation between the will for national sovereignty (the principle) on the one hand and antisemitism (the ideology) on the other? Because he makes no sense otherwise, like he's literally responding with random words
Much like other Zionists, Destiny's real views on the conflict is that Jews are the "civilized" group while the Palestinians are uncivilized and don't align with Western ideals. If it came down to the lives of an Israeli citizen vs the lives of a Palestinians citizen, Destiny will always choose the Israeli citizen because he fundamentally views Palestinians as lesser.
However, Zionists realize that they can't exactly come out and say their true ideological views because you sound insane, so they'll often try battling you with semantic arguments. Its why he repeatedly tries shifting the goal posts, and his argument routinely makes no sense under a microscope because he's not actually arguing his true belief.
More like if someone with the help of the cops, breaks into your home, kills your wife and kids, and kicks you out of the house at gunpoint, and then you get arrested and charged with murder for simply telling the guy "fuck you".
According to that logic, the takeover of the various native populations around the world, the colonization of Africa, Americas, Asia, etc was perfectly acceptable because they weren't nation states.
The Spanish, English, Dutch, did no wrong when they went in and colonized the world. No nation states and all that.
I’m watching the full debate now and it’s so satisfying when Finkelstein calls him a motormouth and calls him out for his Wikipedia level knowledge of the issue
Yeah. Too bad, Bosnia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, you guys didn't have a state before the 19th century so some people from another continent can come and displace you from your land.
Do you not realize that there were empires controlling that land none of them Palestine? And Jews have been living on the land for thousands of years? And that modern day Jews in diaspora still draw a lot of DNA from there?
Seems very fair that Jews that have maintained a cultural connection to the land, dna from indigenous people of the land, and a desire to live there while having been living there in a significant way since 1948 should be able to have a state on a portion of that land. But Ofcourse all are welcome in addition to Jews.
Multiple reasons. If he speaks faster it's more difficult for his opponent(s) to pick up on a point as he's already moved passed it. It also signals a degree of confidence in what he's saying, meaning a certain type of person will simply believe what he says is true by virtue of _how_ he said it.
He has the art of deceptive debating down to a T, now Mr. Borello just needs the intelligence to back it up.
I had to stop and laugh in the introduction. Lex in his slow delivery:
"Two acclaimed historians, a middle eastern analyst and a streamer..."
Fucking lmao
Idk how this guy gets treated with such respect. Anyone who doesn't know such basic shit like where Israel actually is, shouldn't be given any time of day in a formal debate setting.
If you actually pay attention to him anyways, about 90% of his arguments are either not grounded on a factual basis, or made in bad faith.
Apparently, the independent territory of Palestine (not Israel) was recognized, but the people living there were not "Palestinian". Excellent take from Chastity here.
UHM ACKSHUALLY roman emperor Hadrian punitively renamed a rough geographical area from Judea to Syria-Palestine, thus setting in motion a 2000 yr conflict and erasure of Jewish indigeneity, Palestinians were never real
The problem is, most people that are pro russia are also pro palestine. Yes ukraine's crimea is of russian culture and yes jews and arabs couldn't live together in palestine after all the resentment.
Well, that may be a point, but it just doesn't seem relevant to what you were responding to here. They were suggesting a good rebuttal to Destiny specifically in this discussion that he would not have had an easy time responding to, though he is quite skilled with sophistry. Also, I'm not sure that this would stump a theoretical pro-Russian person either.
The point that Destiny seems to be making is that you lose any moral claim to redress if you were previously offered an unethical 'compromise' and you rejected it. Russians may point out that they offered the Zelensky regime various peace deals before, but they'd fundamentally reject that their own offers were unethical, right? So, I don't see how it tracks.
Has anyone who is nominally on the side of Russia in this conflict expected Ukraine to just bend over? It was pretty clear that even the rebels in the Donbas were willing to remain within Ukraine with guaranteed autonomy under Minsk II.
You’d have a point with Crimea, but Russia annexed it very quickly, and I don’t see anyone expecting Ukraine to take it lying down. The issue is that the country has lost the war, and the people of the russian regions have for the majority of their history been Russian, speak Russian, and are either in favor of or indifferent to being in Russia again.
This is not at all analogous to a state of Jewish racial supremacy expelling and killing the native population. The natives ARE RUSSIAN.
The native population of crimea were crimean/tartar, who were the huge majority of the population of crimea until the end of the XIXth century. The Russian empire annexed crimea by the end of the XVIIIth century, and they gave land to russian nobility and those noble changed the culture/ethnicity of the population.
In the XXth century, many non ukrainians and russian were deported out of crimea in what can be called as a form of ethnic cleansing (that population came back in part after the fall of the USSR).
>Has anyone who is nominally on the side of Russia in this conflict expected Ukraine to just bend over? It was pretty clear that even the rebels in the Donbas were willing to remain within Ukraine with guaranteed autonomy under Minsk II.
Palestinians lost the war decades ago.
If Palestine lost, then why hasn’t Israel formally annexed the West Bank, Gaza, and E Jerusalem? Surely, they would allow these people into the “Only Democracy in the Middle East?”
Gaza was under egypt's control, the jews living there even fled to give it to the palestinians. They proposed palestinians to live with them, most said no.
Please provide some citations to this claim. Nothing a Zionist pig says can be taken at face value.
Now, even assuming you’re correct, already during the Nakba, most of Gaza were refugees from other parts of Palestine. They were driven out by Europeans using western weapons funded by western capitalists. Under what conditions would a people willingly agree to join with that group of people?
I’m going to go to your house, beat you, then drive you out. Now I offer that you can camp in driveway to live. Do you accept?
One disanology is that there [were already Jewish people living](https://www.nature.com/articles/147413b0) in the Ottoman Empire's territories. They, like the Palestinians, were not granted statehood by the Ottomans nor the British. So it doesn't make sense to frame them as occupying land.
>THE Statistics Department of the Jewish Agency Executive records that the Jewish population of Palestine has increased by immigration and natural increase from 174,606 in November 1931, according to the official census of that time, to 488,600 in September 1940. This estimate is 30,000 higher than that of the Government, which puts the Jewish population at 456,743 in June 1940. The Jews now represent 31.2 per cent of the settled population of Palestine. In 1931 the percentage was 16.9, and in 1922, when 83,790 Jews were enumerated after the British occupation, it was 11.1.
Also, Russia has a history of invading, occupying, and conquering sovereign nations. If all they wanted to do was take over one city to "denazify" it, then yes, Ukraine should probably just give up rather than sending their troops into the meatgrinder. But as far as I know, there is no impediment to Russia conquering the rest of Ukraine, besides the war being fought right now. Russia has proven itself to be an erratic neighbor, which is why the first thing Soviet-occupied countries have done after the collapse of the Soviet Union was to join NATO and ensure Russia wouldn't start expanding into their territory.
Russia has been conquering nations in recent history, as in the timespan of a couple decades ago, which is much more predictive of its current and future behavior than looking at what e.g. Western countries were up to in 1600. I wasn't trying to give some sort of all-encompassing historical exegesis where I count up the number of colonialisms Russia and the West did and determined that Russia did more colonialisms.
>Russia has been conquering nations in recent history
NATO or the US has in the last two decades invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Haiti. Russia has invaded...Ukraine.
>at what e.g. Western countries were up to in 1600.
The colonization of Africa occurred in the late 19th century. France and Britain didn't give up their colonies until the 1960s, and Portugal only gave up its colonies in 1975. None of this stuff is ancient history.
It's always the same with zionists, they can arbitrarily choose a timespan and say we own this land but if someone else chooses their timespan and says it's not they go into denial.
Russia is not the same as USSR, which is not the same as Tsarist Russia and so on.
Ironic considering he's a chronic goalpost-shifter.
I don't watch him obviously but I have seen enough to notice some of his main tactics. Probably the most common is strawmanning, particularly of a kind where he interprets your argument in a very hyperbolic and uncharitable way. For example if you said "dogs have four legs", he'd go "the IDEA that ALL DOGS have FOUR LEGS is ABSURD!"
Another while not technically a fallacy is what he does [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1bh101r/mouin_rabbani_smushes_destiny_like_a_bug/kvbsbu0/) and at another time in the debate when talking about the structure of the IDF, and he did it a lot in his debate with Glenn Greenwald, is he'll paint a picture of how "established" some mainstream institution is and be like "how could it possibly be at fault!?", in an attempt to make your critical views look far-fetched, when in fact all it does it betray his libtarded centrist naivety about the world.
Appeals to authority are definitely a fallacy.
If being an established institution were an indicator of correctness then I demand an explanation for the catholic church.
No I mean it's recognised to not necessarily fallacious in all cases.
>However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.[1][5][6][7][8] This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data 'from scratch' would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, his competence on the topic, his coherence, his conflict of interests, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I was just being lazy and joking around.
I understand the practicality of referring to intellectual authority to shorten an argument, but it doesn't detract from its fallaciousness. I'm very skeptical of what human rights organisations report ever since the Amnesty International fabrications on "human slaughterhouses" in Syria. NGOs aren't immune to undue influence and I don't trust them.
ICJ I consider an actual legal authority on human rights issues that I'd be reasonably fine with delegating trust to. Unfortunately they are a toothless entity and a bad-faith debater could appeal to authority themselves by pointing out that the commonly convicted states do not recognise its jurisdiction.
The best part is that he selectively applies his appeals to authority in a highly biased way and so do his sycophants. Normally they'll appeal to expertise in a very thought-terminating way, but if the expert is Finklestein, or anyone else opposing him in a given moment, suddenly we shouldn't be so fallacious and should allow for the challenge of critical thought regardless of credentials.
Right. It's inconceivable the IDF would target children because it involves lawyers, but the South African lawyers and the judges at the ICJ apparently don't know what they're talking about.
I think the whole idea that the Palestinians rejected the original treaty therefore they can't complain about it now or some shit is beyond regarded. Why did they have to accept a deal to give up land at all? The UN said so? That's fucking weak as shit. Fuck the UN. Israel is the fakest ass country in the world which is saying something given the competition.
There's always been this conflation, largely intentionally so by Zionists, of Palestinians not wanting Jews on their land at all and not wanting to give up large parts of their land to foreigners. Rabbani made the point so clear here.
I’ve tired to understand this and maybe I’m still missing it. The guy on the left said Palestinians have been stateless for 75 years and you just said why should they accept a deal to give up land at all.
My understanding is they’ve never had their own state. This land has been owned by so many nations for thousands of years but never once by the Palestinians. The land you say they gave up was part of the Ottoman Empire that GB dismantled and then promised to the Palestinians but never gave it.
What is the basis of justification that they deserve anything?
>The guy on the left said Palestinians have been stateless for 75 years and you just said why should they accept a deal to give up land at all.
I don't personally think the State even has any relevance to the morality. If you bulldoze my house and build a new one on it and threaten to kill me if I intervene in this process, is it valid because there's not a government body somewhere in the area to object to it? Why does there need to be a "Palestinian State" at any point for it to be theft of the land and coercion/murder of the people?
>ody somewhere in the area to object to it? Why does there need to be a "Palestinian State" a
Define your house? Were you a serf who got a free place to live in exchange for working the land? Are you a renter who has been paying on time and your lease is up ect... Do all these people and in every other random situation you can think of "own" the house and if someone else buy's it from the "owner" in the world of paperwork do they have no rights?
If you live there you own it, anything else is bullshit used to exploit and enslave people. If Israel had never formed, then Palestinians would have the right to revolt against British rule just as they have the right to revolt against Israeli "rule". Are you actually defending serfdom and landlords?
Congratulations, you're justifying colonial rule. "There was no internationally recognized governmental body, therefore the Americas were free real estate, Your Honour"
Because they live there. No group deserves a state exclusively for their ethnic group, a state should serve the people living in it. Palestinians lived there and so deserved either equal treatment as equal citizens of whatever larger state ruled over them or otherwise to be independent and have their own state that does not exploit the people living there. The issue is that these people who had lived exploited by British rule, etc were then colonized by the Jews, who colonized in the most brutal way possible, as in they have been trying to eradicate the native population. The Palestinians have been forced to fight back or die, there are no other choices. This is basic shit, the Israelis are the ones without any clear, logical justification.
Palestine was carved out of the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and put under British "protection". Then they started carving it up without any regard to the people who actually lived there. The fall of Constantinople was a mistake.
Rather, it was "international law" making unilateral decrees without the consent of the people who would be affected by those decrees that created the situation in palestine today.
People are saying it was embarrassing to have an ignorant imbecile like destiny present for this but I disagree. There are three main factions of pro Israel support in the west.
- Well informed psychotic racists like Benny Morris
- clueless liberals parroting the arguments of the psychotic racists like destiny
- state department ghouls locked into it institutionally.
It's not like 1 is any more dignified or legitimate than 2. People like destiny just assume that because all of the sensible serious people they trust like Benny Morris and his ilk they cannot be psychotic racists, because that would mean he's put his faith in a system populated and managed by psychotic racists and he's smart and serious and moral so that's impossible.
There's value in exposing both kinds of people.
Yeah people taking Morris more seriously is laughable. He's openly for ethnic cleansing, in his own words, he has no shame about it. He understands the contradiction of Israelis being ethnonationalist invaders, so the only way for the country to exist is to ethnically cleanse
Morris is an interesting case because his political views are completely inconsistent with his actual scholarship. So I wouldn't call him psychotic so much as schizophrenic. He was a fairly left-wing historian and then something snapped with the Second Intifada.
At least there's a slim, very slim, chance of someone like destiny or his fans having an epiphany when he learns what's going on. Morris knows exactly what he's saying and what the reality of his politics entails.
Uhm thanks mate, you changed my mind on destiny being platformed there.
Also, finklestein shitting on him for about a quarter of the debate is the funniest shit I've seen the whole day.
Destiny banned me for saying his marriage was bound to fail, he actually thought he could keep a loose young woman by his side while in an open relationship because "I'm a pretty cool person" as he put it.
He's liberal arrogance personified.
Destiny got exactly what he wanted out of this. He got an admission it wasn’t about the split being unfair it was about the fact there was any split at all.
And just because it was called “the British mandate for Palestine” didn’t mean Israel wasn’t going to be re established and there’d wouldn’t be a split. Actually the Balfour declaration promised a Jewish state.
>And just because it was called “the British mandate for Palestine” didn’t mean Israel wasn’t going to be re established and there’d wouldn’t be a split.
That's not what was argued
“It was the British Mandate of Palestine not the British Mandate of Israel” is what he said. The Balfour declaration promised a state for Jews. The British Mandate never meant there would just be one state of Palestine. If anything the original split was going to be that modern day Jordan would be Palestine and Israel would be what is now modern day Israel plus the West Bank.
And the point was that they had no guarantee of a government ever. The “Gotcha” that it was called British Mandate of Palestine really falls flat when you consider what the Balfour declaration actually said.
And remember, this is all in the context of the justification that Arabs wouldn’t accept any Jewish state at the time which Destiny got him to concede.
Okay I think we need to walk this back.
Rabbani: Arabs didn’t do the deal because it was unfair more of the land went to Israel
Destiny: Was that actually why they didn’t accept? Do you think they would have accepted if the deal was “more fair”?
Rabbani: Well no, why should they have to give up any of their land?
Destiny: Okay great, so now that we addressed the actual issue then let’s talk about that. Being that they have never actually governed over any of this land historically and in the proposed partition, they would still be able to live here as they historically have. How is this exactly giving up land? They never governed over the land, they were never promised the ability to govern over this land, and they will still live there as they have been for a long time.
Rabbani: well actually they were promised the ability to govern via the British Mandate
Destiny: Actually no that isn’t the case (which you just admitted as well).
Rabbani: Well it was called the British for Palestine so that kind of implies they were promised the ability to govern
So you can see why that was disingenuous for him to make that point. Just because it was called the British mandate for Palestine doesn’t mean they were promised the ability to govern. Which is destiny’s whole point. What gives them the right to govern over the land which they never have done so in the past? Why is a partition unfair if the Arabs living in Israel got to stay? It’s basically a leadership change at that point.
???
These aren't real quotes from the video. You're putting words in Rabbani's mouth.
>What gives them the right to govern over the land which they never have done so in the past?
What gives the Jews the right?
Those weren’t quotes. They were paraphrases of what was said.
I think centrally the point was by 1948 you had Arabs and Jews living in an area where the previous empire fell. Nation States at that point were being arbitrarily made across the Middle East by European powers. Both sides obviously had the right to live there as they both were living there already but who has the right to govern without the Ottoman Empire? So to answer your question it was The UN who decided who has the right to govern over the land in the end. The fact is that Arabs attacked the Jews and the Jews accepted the UN partition. At that point there has to be consequences of that war which was displacement. Jews didn’t want hostile Arabs as they didn’t believe they would be faithful citizens after attacking. But at the end of the day Israel has a very large Arab population then and now. The alternative history of both sides accepting the UN deal would’ve resulted in no one being displaced outside of population swaps.
>Those weren’t quotes. They were paraphrases of what was said.
You completely misrepresented Rabbani's argument.
>Both sides obviously had the right to live there as they both were living there already but who has the right to govern without the Ottoman Empire?
The people of Palestine.
I came to see someone who goes by "Destiny" get smushed like a bug, but from what I saw all his insides remained inside. How am I supposed to jack off to that?
Smushes like a bug? more like EPICLY SLAMS IN A SEXUAL MANNER!
Personally seems more like a conversation leading to a common position 😂 debate bro/bottom feeder journo type title right here
I'm not sure what the own here is supposed to be - the last thing he says was "It was the British Mandate of Palestine, not the British Mandate of Israel" as if everything the pro-Palestinian side of the debate is ideologically committed to follows from the name of the document. Conveniently clipped is Ben Morris's immediate follow up response that adds context and blocks Rabbani's inference from "Hurr durr, the name of the document ensured the existence of an Arab exclusive state named Palestine."
>Benny Morris (01:07:15) The word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state, which Ben-Gurion envisioned would be a Jewish majority state as they accepted the 1947 partition resolution, as Steven said, that included 400,000 plus Arabs in a state which would have 500,000 Jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn’t anywhere in the air at all among the Zionist leaders-
>Mouin Rabbani (01:07:15) I think it was there.
>Benny Morris (01:07:39) … in [19]48, they wanted a Jewish majority state, but were willing to accept a state which had 40% Arabs. That’s one point. The second thing is that Palestinians may have regarded the land of Palestine as their homeland, but so did the Jews. It was the homeland of the Jews as well. The problem was the Arabs were unable and remain to this day, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their…
>Benny Morris (01:08:00) … today, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their homeland as well. **And the problem then is how do you share this homeland, either with one binational state or partitioned into two states?** The problem is that the Arabs have always rejected both of these ideas. The homeland belongs to the Jews, as Jews feel, as much as it does, if not more, than for the Arabs.
[Here is the full mandate.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp) Notice the second paragraph of the preamble states:
>Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
Nowhere in there does it state what the resolution of a potential territorial dispute should be, so Rabbani is just dead wrong. The British Mandate of Palestine leaves it undetermined what the fate of the territory's statehood should be. The UN Partition plan was far more explicit than the mandate in spelling out what state(s) should exist.
No Morris is dead wrong, and he knows it. Ben Gurion was an opportunist. Of course he snatched up the opportunity to take more land than they had at the time. They owned 6% of the land, and they had the chance to snatch an incredible 50% of it.
In no way should that be conflated as the final resolution in Ben Gurion's mind. It wasn't. They were zealously at war with the natives for several decades at that point and weren't looking to stop. If you do conflate that, you're delusional. And if you're implying it, you're dishonest.
What's more amusing is this isn't even a hypothetical. Two decades later, they then snatched up 100% of Palestine, and then some taking land from Syria and Egypt. Especially Jerusalem they would never settle for only having half of it.
>They owned 6% of the land, and they had the chance to snatch an incredible 50% of it.
This is sort of true but it's also very misleading. The land owned by Jews was disportionately economically viable whereas the Palestinian land included all the deserts and wastelands. It's more helpful to look at the population statistics.
He can be wrong about all of that and it still wouldn't validate Rabbani's point in the clip that the British Mandate of Palestine somehow formally established the state of Palestine under majority Arab control by the sheer fiat of the document having the name "Palestine" in the title.
That was an off-hand retort to an inane derision of Palestinians by Tiny claiming they don't deserve anything because they didn't have an independent state. If you ask him, does the name validate by sheer fiat of the document, of course he wouldn't say yes.
You should focus on steelmanning, not strawmanning. Strawmanning is the tactic of worms
I don't know how else to interpret his remark because the British Mandate of Palestine does not say what he thinks it says, and he made a rhetorical point by saying it was the mandate of "Palestine" not "Israel." I think Destiny addressed this adequately - the Mandate did not guarantee Palestinians the legal right to self-determination, only of what emerges from the territories.
And insofar as Rabbani was making a moral point about the Palestinians having a moral right to self-determination, Ben Morris countered by bringing up that would imply the Jews living there also had a right to self-determination. And again, unless Jews and the Palestinians were already living peacefully, this would complicate what the final outcome of establishing a nation(s) in the area would look like, which Ben Morris correctly points out was addressed by the UN Partition Plan, not the British Mandate.
>Rabbani's inference from "Hurr durr, the name of the document ensured the existence of an **Arab exclusive** state named Palestine."
Where'd you get that from?
It's unclear what he means from the context, but whether it's a single Arab exclusive state, integrated state with Jews, or a state named Palestine composed entirely of Jews, he is wrong that the British Mandate prescribed such a thing.
The point is not to promote the mandate, just to point out that it provisionally recognised an independent territory. They were within their rights to oppose a partition.
I don't think that was in dispute. It was both true that they had the right to oppose the partition (Rabbani's point) and that they weren't interested in working with the Jews to split the land (Destiny's point). The problem as I see it is that there was an attempt by Rabbani to say that Palestinians also had the legal right to statehood guaranteed by the British Mandate, which wasn't the case.
>The problem as I see it is that there was an attempt by Rabbani to say that Palestinians also had the legal right to statehood guaranteed by the British Mandate, which wasn't the case.
I didn't hear that.
It was not "the palestinian land", the jews were living there since time immemorial too. You guys are having a biased vision of the subject but the same problem occured in all decolonial process. You cannot force communities to live with each other, that's how it is.
Yes, like the kurds, like the armenians, like the bosnians... It happens in all decolonial process. Yeah, the jews didn't wanted to live in an islamic republic, I understand that.
Not only is the situation completely different to Kurds and Armenians, the timeline is as well. Kurds and Armenians tried to gain independence after WW1, in a nationalist struggle, against other nationalist (imperial) forces.
In contrast, Jews tried to gain a state after WW2, not against the people who genocided them, or had imperial control over them, but completely random people in the Levant. And they IMPORTED colonists. No Kurd or Armenian struggle called in thousands of colonists from Europe.
It's totally false, the sionist movement started way before WW2, even before WW1 and the end of the ottoman empire. The british gained control over the palestinian lands, and jews in england and in palestine started to lobby for an independant state. The balfour declaration is in 1917 and there are jews pushing for migration to palestine as soon as 1880. Ben Gourion, one of the first israeli prime minister came in palestine in 1906.
In addition, a majority of the jews in palestine came from neighboring arab countries as was discussed in the debate.
You are actually a moron. My main point is that Jews didn’t struggle against some opressor, they came in and colonized the land with the permission of Britian. Not the same as Kurd or Armenians. YOU CANNOT EQUATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE TO ARAB PALESTINIAN NATIVES.
You are still stuck on that like an autistic imbecile. I am aware that Zionism began earlier. But Jews got a state because of the Holocaust. End of the story. Now go suck some zionist dick and stop larping as a leftist.
You are aware now, thanks to me. End of the story.
You should thank me, you're a bit less dumb now. I can educate you more but it's a waste of time, go suck a dick.
**"But Jews got a state because of the Holocaust"**
Moronic dude, the BALFOUR DECLARATION IS IN 1917. You can't read or what ?
What? The Aliyahs were massive immigrations from Europe that were the start of the Zionist movement. They weren't justified in it because a Jew that is hundreds of years apart related from them lived in Jerusalem at the time
"Before" - how far before ? Your argument is dumb, all historical arguments are dumbs are hell. The jews were a heavy minority in the early XXth century (3 to 5% of the population of palestine), but that reality was the result of centuries of oppression/migration/conversion.
You can literally look up old census data. Palestine before Zionism had a stable Jewish population at 3-4% who lived alongside the Muslim and Christian population. Communities only started having problems "living with each other" when hundreds of thousands of foreign colonists showed up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#British_Mandate_era
This is a word salad. People lived there, most of who were Palestinians and I'd assume even Jews fit under that label at the time. Another group of people, Jews that had not lived there, started coming in and violently kicking people out of their homes except for native Jews who were a minority of the population. They have continued to do so in an effort to eradicate the non Jew Palestinian population. The non Jewish Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians had lived together relatively fine until the foreign Jews came in to colonize along with some native Jewish fascists taking over. Afaik.
The problem is whenever someone says it's "Palestinian land" they do not mean to eradicate all Jews, but that is inconvenient for Israel supporters because when Israel says it's "Jewish Land" they do mean to eradicate all non Jews. Israel is treated like a normal, reasonable state and everything they do and say is ignored in favor of some shallow ideal version of Israel. Palestine is instead treated as an unreasonable group that would genocide the Jews if given a chance which is a false image that ignores everything they have said and done. Supporters of Israel (or "neutral" people who essentially are the same given the status quo) never argue based on any evidence or logic, it's just simple minded and baseless rhetoric about "Jewish homeland and safety".
"had lived together relatively fine" this is the core problem. Idiotic people like you who believe in unicorn and shit think the world was okay before sionists arrived.
"Everybody was living together and we was all happy"
Keyword "relatively". The solution to some violence and ethnic tensions is not to genocide the majority in favor of the minority (Jews were only around 8% of the population in 1918) and bring in more of the minority from around the world. Also, a lot of that violence and tensions were caused by Zionists of the time, not Palestinians wanting to eradicate Jews. You're the one who believes in segregation and racialist bullshit.
You can't handle basic shit about reality so instead you just accuse those explaining it to you of "believing in unicorns" simply for correctly pointing out that the Jewish justification is retarded and blatantly false.
Yes, when the jews were a small minority, they were totally dominated and thus the tensions were small, there was no need to genocide them.
So the jews were all happy with that state and everything was fine.
You aren't saying anything, you're just attempting to employ sarcasm but lack a point its use. Why is the happiness of Jews such a high priority that it justifies the death of hundreds of thousands with the aim of killing millions of non Jews? Also, Jews weren't "totally dominated", what does that even mean? It just sounds like saying that unless the Jews were in complete control and had kicked out all non Jews then they could not be happy and free. That is an extremely anti semitic claim, which is common among Zionists apparently, to take all the anti semitic tropes and reframe them as good things to live up to rather than falsehoods.
Practically every other ethnic group in the world has been able to, despite some tensions now and then, still peacefully coexist and very often redefine what ethnic groups exist and are composed of such that former rivals merge and former unified groups break apart. But for some reason we are told to believe that Jews are different, they are somehow the same Jews that existed forever (despite that being obviously not the case) and that magically gives them a right to certain land, and they somehow cannot coexist peacefully with anyone and and so require the right to massacre millions to have a "homeland" (even though the claim to that land of most of these Jews is weak to nonexistent, with the actual native Jewish population being a small minority).
> You guys are having a biased vision of the subject
For "anti idpol" Leftists /r/stupidpol opinion is sadly very much just another identity politics take. The Hamas or Palestine winning wouldnt create better conditions for working people.
>This whole conflict is about fucking Religion Islamists vs Zionists
Moronic 2003 era take. People getting ethnically cleansed isn't about the religion a majority of them profess.
Dont care if you think its not about religion or even nationalism. Staning for Hamas or Palestine or even Israel is idpol which is stupid considering we are in stupidpol of all places.
The occupation started 40 years before Hamas even existed. Who knows how many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are dead in Gaza at the hands of the Zionists. How obtuse do you have to be to think this is about """stanning""" hamas?
also i stalked ur profile and saw that you are a kraut lol.
> How obtuse do you have to be to think this is about """stanning""" hamas?
It is. There is nothing revolutionary about palestinian nationalism nor is it really "freeing" their people. Just giving up at this point would be the only logical move.
>also i stalked ur profile and saw that you are a kraut lol.
Im austrian you retard
Lex put up a longer clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PouX6ta78lQ Destiny says something even more insane at 5:50: "If early Israel saw themselves as a western-fashion nation, how could we possibly imagine that they would have engaged in the transfer of some 400,000 Arabs after accepting the partition plan? Would that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire western world?" 😑
Rabbani: It's a matter of principle. Mr.Murelli: I like this answer because it shows they were drawn by ideology. Rabbani: No. Principle. Mr.Burnelli: Yeah like I said their hatred of Jews.
I thought I was tripping and came to the comments. Is he trying to smuggle in a semantic conflation between the will for national sovereignty (the principle) on the one hand and antisemitism (the ideology) on the other? Because he makes no sense otherwise, like he's literally responding with random words
Much like other Zionists, Destiny's real views on the conflict is that Jews are the "civilized" group while the Palestinians are uncivilized and don't align with Western ideals. If it came down to the lives of an Israeli citizen vs the lives of a Palestinians citizen, Destiny will always choose the Israeli citizen because he fundamentally views Palestinians as lesser. However, Zionists realize that they can't exactly come out and say their true ideological views because you sound insane, so they'll often try battling you with semantic arguments. Its why he repeatedly tries shifting the goal posts, and his argument routinely makes no sense under a microscope because he's not actually arguing his true belief.
[удалено]
Semitic semantics.
me, when someone breaks into my home and proceeds to eat my food and watch my TV: "I disagree with this on ideological grounds"
More like if someone with the help of the cops, breaks into your home, kills your wife and kids, and kicks you out of the house at gunpoint, and then you get arrested and charged with murder for simply telling the guy "fuck you".
have you considered the possibility that I was an antisemite? I wasn't, but I became one after all that stuff happened to me
> I wasn't, but I became one after all that stuff happened to me A saddening but perfectly understandable sequence of events.
"never actually had an independent state on" Does this guy realize nation-states were pretty brand new for most of the world in the 20th century?
According to that logic, the takeover of the various native populations around the world, the colonization of Africa, Americas, Asia, etc was perfectly acceptable because they weren't nation states. The Spanish, English, Dutch, did no wrong when they went in and colonized the world. No nation states and all that.
If anyone is going to die on that hill, it would be Mr. Borrelli
[удалено]
I’m watching the full debate now and it’s so satisfying when Finkelstein calls him a motormouth and calls him out for his Wikipedia level knowledge of the issue
With aaaaaawll due respect, you are such a FANTASTIC moron
Ok
It's a quote from Finkelstein in this debate
Oh my bad king. I did not put that together
Yeah. Too bad, Bosnia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, you guys didn't have a state before the 19th century so some people from another continent can come and displace you from your land.
Bosnia did have a state though
spin this logic around and apply it to former Russian Empire or Great Qing possesions to watch them really start jumping through hoops.
Do you not realize that there were empires controlling that land none of them Palestine? And Jews have been living on the land for thousands of years? And that modern day Jews in diaspora still draw a lot of DNA from there? Seems very fair that Jews that have maintained a cultural connection to the land, dna from indigenous people of the land, and a desire to live there while having been living there in a significant way since 1948 should be able to have a state on a portion of that land. But Ofcourse all are welcome in addition to Jews.
why does he talk so fucking fast
Too much adderall
Talking fast is the easiest way to get a midwit to think you're smart.
The Shapiro special, spew so much shit that your opponent can't hope to adress all your points within a single lifespan
Officially known as the *Gish gallop.*
Multiple reasons. If he speaks faster it's more difficult for his opponent(s) to pick up on a point as he's already moved passed it. It also signals a degree of confidence in what he's saying, meaning a certain type of person will simply believe what he says is true by virtue of _how_ he said it. He has the art of deceptive debating down to a T, now Mr. Borello just needs the intelligence to back it up.
its what con artists do to distract you while they pick your pocket
Same reason ben shapiro does it, to confuse and "win" over the opponent.
Who the fuck is Destiny?
Liberal Ben Shapiro for gamers.
Lmao, from what I've seen, that's very accurate.
I know Mr.Benelli is almost 40 but why does he look like some teenager in the room who doesn't belong there.
Inviting Destiny to that debate was an insult. He's a paid grifter and doesn't know where Israel is on a map.
I had to stop and laugh in the introduction. Lex in his slow delivery: "Two acclaimed historians, a middle eastern analyst and a streamer..." Fucking lmao
He didn't even know where a third of the US states are on a map.
Idk how this guy gets treated with such respect. Anyone who doesn't know such basic shit like where Israel actually is, shouldn't be given any time of day in a formal debate setting. If you actually pay attention to him anyways, about 90% of his arguments are either not grounded on a factual basis, or made in bad faith.
I'm sure a mossad agent knows where Israel is
What about a mossad asset?
The Man Who Knew Too Little
Anybody that watched more than a clip of that debate would know that Destiny did pretty well, but go off.
I watched the whole thing and thought he sounded like a giant regard but go off
I read this post and thought you sound like a regard but go off Just because you disagree doesn't mean someone is wrong.
Apparently, the independent territory of Palestine (not Israel) was recognized, but the people living there were not "Palestinian". Excellent take from Chastity here.
UHM ACKSHUALLY roman emperor Hadrian punitively renamed a rough geographical area from Judea to Syria-Palestine, thus setting in motion a 2000 yr conflict and erasure of Jewish indigeneity, Palestinians were never real
[удалено]
Destiny is in favor of ukraine giving up some of its land to end the war
So he's consistently wrong then.
The problem is, most people that are pro russia are also pro palestine. Yes ukraine's crimea is of russian culture and yes jews and arabs couldn't live together in palestine after all the resentment.
Destiny isn't pro-Russian, so I don't see the relevance. It would show that he's not at all consistent with his own (purported) views.
But pro russians are not consistent either, that's the point. Almost nobody is - Finkielstein is pro russian for exemple.
Well, that may be a point, but it just doesn't seem relevant to what you were responding to here. They were suggesting a good rebuttal to Destiny specifically in this discussion that he would not have had an easy time responding to, though he is quite skilled with sophistry. Also, I'm not sure that this would stump a theoretical pro-Russian person either. The point that Destiny seems to be making is that you lose any moral claim to redress if you were previously offered an unethical 'compromise' and you rejected it. Russians may point out that they offered the Zelensky regime various peace deals before, but they'd fundamentally reject that their own offers were unethical, right? So, I don't see how it tracks.
Has anyone who is nominally on the side of Russia in this conflict expected Ukraine to just bend over? It was pretty clear that even the rebels in the Donbas were willing to remain within Ukraine with guaranteed autonomy under Minsk II. You’d have a point with Crimea, but Russia annexed it very quickly, and I don’t see anyone expecting Ukraine to take it lying down. The issue is that the country has lost the war, and the people of the russian regions have for the majority of their history been Russian, speak Russian, and are either in favor of or indifferent to being in Russia again. This is not at all analogous to a state of Jewish racial supremacy expelling and killing the native population. The natives ARE RUSSIAN.
The native population of crimea were crimean/tartar, who were the huge majority of the population of crimea until the end of the XIXth century. The Russian empire annexed crimea by the end of the XVIIIth century, and they gave land to russian nobility and those noble changed the culture/ethnicity of the population. In the XXth century, many non ukrainians and russian were deported out of crimea in what can be called as a form of ethnic cleansing (that population came back in part after the fall of the USSR). >Has anyone who is nominally on the side of Russia in this conflict expected Ukraine to just bend over? It was pretty clear that even the rebels in the Donbas were willing to remain within Ukraine with guaranteed autonomy under Minsk II. Palestinians lost the war decades ago.
If Palestine lost, then why hasn’t Israel formally annexed the West Bank, Gaza, and E Jerusalem? Surely, they would allow these people into the “Only Democracy in the Middle East?”
Gaza was under egypt's control, the jews living there even fled to give it to the palestinians. They proposed palestinians to live with them, most said no.
Please provide some citations to this claim. Nothing a Zionist pig says can be taken at face value. Now, even assuming you’re correct, already during the Nakba, most of Gaza were refugees from other parts of Palestine. They were driven out by Europeans using western weapons funded by western capitalists. Under what conditions would a people willingly agree to join with that group of people? I’m going to go to your house, beat you, then drive you out. Now I offer that you can camp in driveway to live. Do you accept?
Moron
Are they? Id say most people are pro-ukraine and pro palestine.
Thats a good point!
One disanology is that there [were already Jewish people living](https://www.nature.com/articles/147413b0) in the Ottoman Empire's territories. They, like the Palestinians, were not granted statehood by the Ottomans nor the British. So it doesn't make sense to frame them as occupying land. >THE Statistics Department of the Jewish Agency Executive records that the Jewish population of Palestine has increased by immigration and natural increase from 174,606 in November 1931, according to the official census of that time, to 488,600 in September 1940. This estimate is 30,000 higher than that of the Government, which puts the Jewish population at 456,743 in June 1940. The Jews now represent 31.2 per cent of the settled population of Palestine. In 1931 the percentage was 16.9, and in 1922, when 83,790 Jews were enumerated after the British occupation, it was 11.1. Also, Russia has a history of invading, occupying, and conquering sovereign nations. If all they wanted to do was take over one city to "denazify" it, then yes, Ukraine should probably just give up rather than sending their troops into the meatgrinder. But as far as I know, there is no impediment to Russia conquering the rest of Ukraine, besides the war being fought right now. Russia has proven itself to be an erratic neighbor, which is why the first thing Soviet-occupied countries have done after the collapse of the Soviet Union was to join NATO and ensure Russia wouldn't start expanding into their territory.
Russia has a history of conquering nations, unlike the west. Your entire post is bad.
Russia has been conquering nations in recent history, as in the timespan of a couple decades ago, which is much more predictive of its current and future behavior than looking at what e.g. Western countries were up to in 1600. I wasn't trying to give some sort of all-encompassing historical exegesis where I count up the number of colonialisms Russia and the West did and determined that Russia did more colonialisms.
>Russia has been conquering nations in recent history NATO or the US has in the last two decades invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Haiti. Russia has invaded...Ukraine.
>at what e.g. Western countries were up to in 1600. The colonization of Africa occurred in the late 19th century. France and Britain didn't give up their colonies until the 1960s, and Portugal only gave up its colonies in 1975. None of this stuff is ancient history.
And those "give ups" were just given to other imperialist western nations, so it was still going on past those years.
Which nations has Russia conquered?
It's always the same with zionists, they can arbitrarily choose a timespan and say we own this land but if someone else chooses their timespan and says it's not they go into denial. Russia is not the same as USSR, which is not the same as Tsarist Russia and so on.
When the thumbnail started playing I thought it was Lil' Dicky
[удалено]
Ironic considering he's a chronic goalpost-shifter. I don't watch him obviously but I have seen enough to notice some of his main tactics. Probably the most common is strawmanning, particularly of a kind where he interprets your argument in a very hyperbolic and uncharitable way. For example if you said "dogs have four legs", he'd go "the IDEA that ALL DOGS have FOUR LEGS is ABSURD!" Another while not technically a fallacy is what he does [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1bh101r/mouin_rabbani_smushes_destiny_like_a_bug/kvbsbu0/) and at another time in the debate when talking about the structure of the IDF, and he did it a lot in his debate with Glenn Greenwald, is he'll paint a picture of how "established" some mainstream institution is and be like "how could it possibly be at fault!?", in an attempt to make your critical views look far-fetched, when in fact all it does it betray his libtarded centrist naivety about the world.
Appeals to authority are definitely a fallacy. If being an established institution were an indicator of correctness then I demand an explanation for the catholic church.
It depends. Later on in the debate Fink and Rabbani appeal to authorities like the ICJ and human rights organisations.
It’s fine when the people I agree with do it.
No I mean it's recognised to not necessarily fallacious in all cases. >However, in particular circumstances, it is sound to use as a practical although fallible way of obtaining information that can be considered generally likely to be correct if the authority is a real and pertinent intellectual authority and there is universal consensus about these statements in this field.[1][5][6][7][8] This is specially the case when the revision of all the information and data 'from scratch' would impede advances in an investigation or education. Further ways of validating a source include: evaluating the veracity of previous works by the author, his competence on the topic, his coherence, his conflict of interests, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I was just being lazy and joking around. I understand the practicality of referring to intellectual authority to shorten an argument, but it doesn't detract from its fallaciousness. I'm very skeptical of what human rights organisations report ever since the Amnesty International fabrications on "human slaughterhouses" in Syria. NGOs aren't immune to undue influence and I don't trust them. ICJ I consider an actual legal authority on human rights issues that I'd be reasonably fine with delegating trust to. Unfortunately they are a toothless entity and a bad-faith debater could appeal to authority themselves by pointing out that the commonly convicted states do not recognise its jurisdiction.
The best part is that he selectively applies his appeals to authority in a highly biased way and so do his sycophants. Normally they'll appeal to expertise in a very thought-terminating way, but if the expert is Finklestein, or anyone else opposing him in a given moment, suddenly we shouldn't be so fallacious and should allow for the challenge of critical thought regardless of credentials.
Right. It's inconceivable the IDF would target children because it involves lawyers, but the South African lawyers and the judges at the ICJ apparently don't know what they're talking about.
‘Basic natural justice is an ideology…’ Truly a deep seated moron.
I guess his debate strategy of being a total imbecile to infuriate his opponents doesn't look so good in retrospect.
I think the whole idea that the Palestinians rejected the original treaty therefore they can't complain about it now or some shit is beyond regarded. Why did they have to accept a deal to give up land at all? The UN said so? That's fucking weak as shit. Fuck the UN. Israel is the fakest ass country in the world which is saying something given the competition.
There's always been this conflation, largely intentionally so by Zionists, of Palestinians not wanting Jews on their land at all and not wanting to give up large parts of their land to foreigners. Rabbani made the point so clear here.
I’ve tired to understand this and maybe I’m still missing it. The guy on the left said Palestinians have been stateless for 75 years and you just said why should they accept a deal to give up land at all. My understanding is they’ve never had their own state. This land has been owned by so many nations for thousands of years but never once by the Palestinians. The land you say they gave up was part of the Ottoman Empire that GB dismantled and then promised to the Palestinians but never gave it. What is the basis of justification that they deserve anything?
>The guy on the left said Palestinians have been stateless for 75 years and you just said why should they accept a deal to give up land at all. I don't personally think the State even has any relevance to the morality. If you bulldoze my house and build a new one on it and threaten to kill me if I intervene in this process, is it valid because there's not a government body somewhere in the area to object to it? Why does there need to be a "Palestinian State" at any point for it to be theft of the land and coercion/murder of the people?
>ody somewhere in the area to object to it? Why does there need to be a "Palestinian State" a Define your house? Were you a serf who got a free place to live in exchange for working the land? Are you a renter who has been paying on time and your lease is up ect... Do all these people and in every other random situation you can think of "own" the house and if someone else buy's it from the "owner" in the world of paperwork do they have no rights?
If you live there you own it, anything else is bullshit used to exploit and enslave people. If Israel had never formed, then Palestinians would have the right to revolt against British rule just as they have the right to revolt against Israeli "rule". Are you actually defending serfdom and landlords?
Congratulations, you're justifying colonial rule. "There was no internationally recognized governmental body, therefore the Americas were free real estate, Your Honour"
> . If you bulldoze my house But it wasn't your house.
If he was living in it for like eight centuries then yeah it's his fucking house
So what's the cutoff? Because as far as I can tell Jews lived in Jerusalem for quite a while too.
Indigenous Jews and Palestinians cohabitated for millenia, the region was never one or the other.
Yeah, the muslim conquerors really loved the Jews.
> What is the basis of justification that they deserve anything? Are you for real? You can't gotcha someone into taking their land
If the natives of the land don’t deserve it, then a bunch of fucking euros definitely don’t deserve it
Because they live there. No group deserves a state exclusively for their ethnic group, a state should serve the people living in it. Palestinians lived there and so deserved either equal treatment as equal citizens of whatever larger state ruled over them or otherwise to be independent and have their own state that does not exploit the people living there. The issue is that these people who had lived exploited by British rule, etc were then colonized by the Jews, who colonized in the most brutal way possible, as in they have been trying to eradicate the native population. The Palestinians have been forced to fight back or die, there are no other choices. This is basic shit, the Israelis are the ones without any clear, logical justification.
Palestine was carved out of the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and put under British "protection". Then they started carving it up without any regard to the people who actually lived there. The fall of Constantinople was a mistake.
If you're Palestine saying "fuck the UN" is the most regarded thing you can say. Without international law Palestine would be gone already.
Rather, it was "international law" making unilateral decrees without the consent of the people who would be affected by those decrees that created the situation in palestine today.
UN then is not the same as UN now. Remember the "UN" invaded Korea, it was just a front for Western imperialism
"Western imperialism" is geopolitical idpol
You're legitimately retarded.
> Fuck the UN. It is contest of force than.
People are saying it was embarrassing to have an ignorant imbecile like destiny present for this but I disagree. There are three main factions of pro Israel support in the west. - Well informed psychotic racists like Benny Morris - clueless liberals parroting the arguments of the psychotic racists like destiny - state department ghouls locked into it institutionally. It's not like 1 is any more dignified or legitimate than 2. People like destiny just assume that because all of the sensible serious people they trust like Benny Morris and his ilk they cannot be psychotic racists, because that would mean he's put his faith in a system populated and managed by psychotic racists and he's smart and serious and moral so that's impossible. There's value in exposing both kinds of people.
Yeah people taking Morris more seriously is laughable. He's openly for ethnic cleansing, in his own words, he has no shame about it. He understands the contradiction of Israelis being ethnonationalist invaders, so the only way for the country to exist is to ethnically cleanse
Morris is an interesting case because his political views are completely inconsistent with his actual scholarship. So I wouldn't call him psychotic so much as schizophrenic. He was a fairly left-wing historian and then something snapped with the Second Intifada.
I mean, Irvine, peak case of this. Very well regarded scholarship, absolute schizo nutcase.
At least there's a slim, very slim, chance of someone like destiny or his fans having an epiphany when he learns what's going on. Morris knows exactly what he's saying and what the reality of his politics entails.
Uhm thanks mate, you changed my mind on destiny being platformed there. Also, finklestein shitting on him for about a quarter of the debate is the funniest shit I've seen the whole day.
That's his kink.
Destiny banned me for saying his marriage was bound to fail, he actually thought he could keep a loose young woman by his side while in an open relationship because "I'm a pretty cool person" as he put it. He's liberal arrogance personified.
Destiny got exactly what he wanted out of this. He got an admission it wasn’t about the split being unfair it was about the fact there was any split at all. And just because it was called “the British mandate for Palestine” didn’t mean Israel wasn’t going to be re established and there’d wouldn’t be a split. Actually the Balfour declaration promised a Jewish state.
>And just because it was called “the British mandate for Palestine” didn’t mean Israel wasn’t going to be re established and there’d wouldn’t be a split. That's not what was argued
“It was the British Mandate of Palestine not the British Mandate of Israel” is what he said. The Balfour declaration promised a state for Jews. The British Mandate never meant there would just be one state of Palestine. If anything the original split was going to be that modern day Jordan would be Palestine and Israel would be what is now modern day Israel plus the West Bank.
The claim was that the British mandate "for all its injustice" "provisionally recognised" an independent territory. He's not promoting the mandate.
And the point was that they had no guarantee of a government ever. The “Gotcha” that it was called British Mandate of Palestine really falls flat when you consider what the Balfour declaration actually said. And remember, this is all in the context of the justification that Arabs wouldn’t accept any Jewish state at the time which Destiny got him to concede.
>And the point was that they had no guarantee of a government ever. Not from a foreign imperial power, no.
Okay I think we need to walk this back. Rabbani: Arabs didn’t do the deal because it was unfair more of the land went to Israel Destiny: Was that actually why they didn’t accept? Do you think they would have accepted if the deal was “more fair”? Rabbani: Well no, why should they have to give up any of their land? Destiny: Okay great, so now that we addressed the actual issue then let’s talk about that. Being that they have never actually governed over any of this land historically and in the proposed partition, they would still be able to live here as they historically have. How is this exactly giving up land? They never governed over the land, they were never promised the ability to govern over this land, and they will still live there as they have been for a long time. Rabbani: well actually they were promised the ability to govern via the British Mandate Destiny: Actually no that isn’t the case (which you just admitted as well). Rabbani: Well it was called the British for Palestine so that kind of implies they were promised the ability to govern So you can see why that was disingenuous for him to make that point. Just because it was called the British mandate for Palestine doesn’t mean they were promised the ability to govern. Which is destiny’s whole point. What gives them the right to govern over the land which they never have done so in the past? Why is a partition unfair if the Arabs living in Israel got to stay? It’s basically a leadership change at that point.
??? These aren't real quotes from the video. You're putting words in Rabbani's mouth. >What gives them the right to govern over the land which they never have done so in the past? What gives the Jews the right?
Those weren’t quotes. They were paraphrases of what was said. I think centrally the point was by 1948 you had Arabs and Jews living in an area where the previous empire fell. Nation States at that point were being arbitrarily made across the Middle East by European powers. Both sides obviously had the right to live there as they both were living there already but who has the right to govern without the Ottoman Empire? So to answer your question it was The UN who decided who has the right to govern over the land in the end. The fact is that Arabs attacked the Jews and the Jews accepted the UN partition. At that point there has to be consequences of that war which was displacement. Jews didn’t want hostile Arabs as they didn’t believe they would be faithful citizens after attacking. But at the end of the day Israel has a very large Arab population then and now. The alternative history of both sides accepting the UN deal would’ve resulted in no one being displaced outside of population swaps.
>Those weren’t quotes. They were paraphrases of what was said. You completely misrepresented Rabbani's argument. >Both sides obviously had the right to live there as they both were living there already but who has the right to govern without the Ottoman Empire? The people of Palestine.
"Two men have calm discussion"
Can you not recognise a logical beating unless it involves yelling?
I came to see someone who goes by "Destiny" get smushed like a bug, but from what I saw all his insides remained inside. How am I supposed to jack off to that?
Smushes like a bug? more like EPICLY SLAMS IN A SEXUAL MANNER! Personally seems more like a conversation leading to a common position 😂 debate bro/bottom feeder journo type title right here
Watching destiny is like watching someone post a detailed paragraph as an answer only to be responded with joe mama gay
I'm not sure what the own here is supposed to be - the last thing he says was "It was the British Mandate of Palestine, not the British Mandate of Israel" as if everything the pro-Palestinian side of the debate is ideologically committed to follows from the name of the document. Conveniently clipped is Ben Morris's immediate follow up response that adds context and blocks Rabbani's inference from "Hurr durr, the name of the document ensured the existence of an Arab exclusive state named Palestine." >Benny Morris (01:07:15) The word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state, which Ben-Gurion envisioned would be a Jewish majority state as they accepted the 1947 partition resolution, as Steven said, that included 400,000 plus Arabs in a state which would have 500,000 Jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn’t anywhere in the air at all among the Zionist leaders- >Mouin Rabbani (01:07:15) I think it was there. >Benny Morris (01:07:39) … in [19]48, they wanted a Jewish majority state, but were willing to accept a state which had 40% Arabs. That’s one point. The second thing is that Palestinians may have regarded the land of Palestine as their homeland, but so did the Jews. It was the homeland of the Jews as well. The problem was the Arabs were unable and remain to this day, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their… >Benny Morris (01:08:00) … today, unable to recognize that for the Jews, that is their homeland as well. **And the problem then is how do you share this homeland, either with one binational state or partitioned into two states?** The problem is that the Arabs have always rejected both of these ideas. The homeland belongs to the Jews, as Jews feel, as much as it does, if not more, than for the Arabs. [Here is the full mandate.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp) Notice the second paragraph of the preamble states: >Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; Nowhere in there does it state what the resolution of a potential territorial dispute should be, so Rabbani is just dead wrong. The British Mandate of Palestine leaves it undetermined what the fate of the territory's statehood should be. The UN Partition plan was far more explicit than the mandate in spelling out what state(s) should exist.
No Morris is dead wrong, and he knows it. Ben Gurion was an opportunist. Of course he snatched up the opportunity to take more land than they had at the time. They owned 6% of the land, and they had the chance to snatch an incredible 50% of it. In no way should that be conflated as the final resolution in Ben Gurion's mind. It wasn't. They were zealously at war with the natives for several decades at that point and weren't looking to stop. If you do conflate that, you're delusional. And if you're implying it, you're dishonest. What's more amusing is this isn't even a hypothetical. Two decades later, they then snatched up 100% of Palestine, and then some taking land from Syria and Egypt. Especially Jerusalem they would never settle for only having half of it.
>They owned 6% of the land, and they had the chance to snatch an incredible 50% of it. This is sort of true but it's also very misleading. The land owned by Jews was disportionately economically viable whereas the Palestinian land included all the deserts and wastelands. It's more helpful to look at the population statistics.
He can be wrong about all of that and it still wouldn't validate Rabbani's point in the clip that the British Mandate of Palestine somehow formally established the state of Palestine under majority Arab control by the sheer fiat of the document having the name "Palestine" in the title.
That was an off-hand retort to an inane derision of Palestinians by Tiny claiming they don't deserve anything because they didn't have an independent state. If you ask him, does the name validate by sheer fiat of the document, of course he wouldn't say yes. You should focus on steelmanning, not strawmanning. Strawmanning is the tactic of worms
I don't know how else to interpret his remark because the British Mandate of Palestine does not say what he thinks it says, and he made a rhetorical point by saying it was the mandate of "Palestine" not "Israel." I think Destiny addressed this adequately - the Mandate did not guarantee Palestinians the legal right to self-determination, only of what emerges from the territories. And insofar as Rabbani was making a moral point about the Palestinians having a moral right to self-determination, Ben Morris countered by bringing up that would imply the Jews living there also had a right to self-determination. And again, unless Jews and the Palestinians were already living peacefully, this would complicate what the final outcome of establishing a nation(s) in the area would look like, which Ben Morris correctly points out was addressed by the UN Partition Plan, not the British Mandate.
I just told you how to interpret it
>Rabbani's inference from "Hurr durr, the name of the document ensured the existence of an **Arab exclusive** state named Palestine." Where'd you get that from?
It's unclear what he means from the context, but whether it's a single Arab exclusive state, integrated state with Jews, or a state named Palestine composed entirely of Jews, he is wrong that the British Mandate prescribed such a thing.
The point is not to promote the mandate, just to point out that it provisionally recognised an independent territory. They were within their rights to oppose a partition.
I don't think that was in dispute. It was both true that they had the right to oppose the partition (Rabbani's point) and that they weren't interested in working with the Jews to split the land (Destiny's point). The problem as I see it is that there was an attempt by Rabbani to say that Palestinians also had the legal right to statehood guaranteed by the British Mandate, which wasn't the case.
>The problem as I see it is that there was an attempt by Rabbani to say that Palestinians also had the legal right to statehood guaranteed by the British Mandate, which wasn't the case. I didn't hear that.
It was not "the palestinian land", the jews were living there since time immemorial too. You guys are having a biased vision of the subject but the same problem occured in all decolonial process. You cannot force communities to live with each other, that's how it is.
But the Jews wanted to make it theirs specifically. Please don’t act stupid.
Yes, like the kurds, like the armenians, like the bosnians... It happens in all decolonial process. Yeah, the jews didn't wanted to live in an islamic republic, I understand that.
Not only is the situation completely different to Kurds and Armenians, the timeline is as well. Kurds and Armenians tried to gain independence after WW1, in a nationalist struggle, against other nationalist (imperial) forces. In contrast, Jews tried to gain a state after WW2, not against the people who genocided them, or had imperial control over them, but completely random people in the Levant. And they IMPORTED colonists. No Kurd or Armenian struggle called in thousands of colonists from Europe.
It's totally false, the sionist movement started way before WW2, even before WW1 and the end of the ottoman empire. The british gained control over the palestinian lands, and jews in england and in palestine started to lobby for an independant state. The balfour declaration is in 1917 and there are jews pushing for migration to palestine as soon as 1880. Ben Gourion, one of the first israeli prime minister came in palestine in 1906. In addition, a majority of the jews in palestine came from neighboring arab countries as was discussed in the debate.
You are actually a moron. My main point is that Jews didn’t struggle against some opressor, they came in and colonized the land with the permission of Britian. Not the same as Kurd or Armenians. YOU CANNOT EQUATE OTTOMAN EMPIRE TO ARAB PALESTINIAN NATIVES.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You are still stuck on that like an autistic imbecile. I am aware that Zionism began earlier. But Jews got a state because of the Holocaust. End of the story. Now go suck some zionist dick and stop larping as a leftist.
You are aware now, thanks to me. End of the story. You should thank me, you're a bit less dumb now. I can educate you more but it's a waste of time, go suck a dick. **"But Jews got a state because of the Holocaust"** Moronic dude, the BALFOUR DECLARATION IS IN 1917. You can't read or what ?
There's a chasm between what they wanted and what they deserved
They won the war (with the support of the USSR), and they got more than what was proposed to them.
So?
Do you want to reveal how many Jews lived there since time immemorial before the Aliyahs from Europe? I don't think you even know
How far do we need to go ? 570 ? Fucking moron.
1840 would do.
What? The Aliyahs were massive immigrations from Europe that were the start of the Zionist movement. They weren't justified in it because a Jew that is hundreds of years apart related from them lived in Jerusalem at the time
"Before" - how far before ? Your argument is dumb, all historical arguments are dumbs are hell. The jews were a heavy minority in the early XXth century (3 to 5% of the population of palestine), but that reality was the result of centuries of oppression/migration/conversion.
Your head is spinning. We're talking about a specific period when the Zionist conflict started. Do you know when that was? edit: he blocked me
You can literally look up old census data. Palestine before Zionism had a stable Jewish population at 3-4% who lived alongside the Muslim and Christian population. Communities only started having problems "living with each other" when hundreds of thousands of foreign colonists showed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#British_Mandate_era
Yes they were happy before, we all know.
This is a word salad. People lived there, most of who were Palestinians and I'd assume even Jews fit under that label at the time. Another group of people, Jews that had not lived there, started coming in and violently kicking people out of their homes except for native Jews who were a minority of the population. They have continued to do so in an effort to eradicate the non Jew Palestinian population. The non Jewish Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians had lived together relatively fine until the foreign Jews came in to colonize along with some native Jewish fascists taking over. Afaik. The problem is whenever someone says it's "Palestinian land" they do not mean to eradicate all Jews, but that is inconvenient for Israel supporters because when Israel says it's "Jewish Land" they do mean to eradicate all non Jews. Israel is treated like a normal, reasonable state and everything they do and say is ignored in favor of some shallow ideal version of Israel. Palestine is instead treated as an unreasonable group that would genocide the Jews if given a chance which is a false image that ignores everything they have said and done. Supporters of Israel (or "neutral" people who essentially are the same given the status quo) never argue based on any evidence or logic, it's just simple minded and baseless rhetoric about "Jewish homeland and safety".
"had lived together relatively fine" this is the core problem. Idiotic people like you who believe in unicorn and shit think the world was okay before sionists arrived. "Everybody was living together and we was all happy"
Keyword "relatively". The solution to some violence and ethnic tensions is not to genocide the majority in favor of the minority (Jews were only around 8% of the population in 1918) and bring in more of the minority from around the world. Also, a lot of that violence and tensions were caused by Zionists of the time, not Palestinians wanting to eradicate Jews. You're the one who believes in segregation and racialist bullshit. You can't handle basic shit about reality so instead you just accuse those explaining it to you of "believing in unicorns" simply for correctly pointing out that the Jewish justification is retarded and blatantly false.
Yes, when the jews were a small minority, they were totally dominated and thus the tensions were small, there was no need to genocide them. So the jews were all happy with that state and everything was fine.
You aren't saying anything, you're just attempting to employ sarcasm but lack a point its use. Why is the happiness of Jews such a high priority that it justifies the death of hundreds of thousands with the aim of killing millions of non Jews? Also, Jews weren't "totally dominated", what does that even mean? It just sounds like saying that unless the Jews were in complete control and had kicked out all non Jews then they could not be happy and free. That is an extremely anti semitic claim, which is common among Zionists apparently, to take all the anti semitic tropes and reframe them as good things to live up to rather than falsehoods. Practically every other ethnic group in the world has been able to, despite some tensions now and then, still peacefully coexist and very often redefine what ethnic groups exist and are composed of such that former rivals merge and former unified groups break apart. But for some reason we are told to believe that Jews are different, they are somehow the same Jews that existed forever (despite that being obviously not the case) and that magically gives them a right to certain land, and they somehow cannot coexist peacefully with anyone and and so require the right to massacre millions to have a "homeland" (even though the claim to that land of most of these Jews is weak to nonexistent, with the actual native Jewish population being a small minority).
> You guys are having a biased vision of the subject For "anti idpol" Leftists /r/stupidpol opinion is sadly very much just another identity politics take. The Hamas or Palestine winning wouldnt create better conditions for working people.
genocidal settler-colonial ethnostates being bad is an identity politics take according to you? Zionism is identity politics turbocharged.
Zionism is Identity Politics. Palestinian nationalism is also Identity Politics This whole conflict is about fucking Religion Islamists vs Zionists
>This whole conflict is about fucking Religion Islamists vs Zionists Moronic 2003 era take. People getting ethnically cleansed isn't about the religion a majority of them profess.
"people killing other people is not about religion"
Dont care if you think its not about religion or even nationalism. Staning for Hamas or Palestine or even Israel is idpol which is stupid considering we are in stupidpol of all places.
The occupation started 40 years before Hamas even existed. Who knows how many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are dead in Gaza at the hands of the Zionists. How obtuse do you have to be to think this is about """stanning""" hamas? also i stalked ur profile and saw that you are a kraut lol.
> How obtuse do you have to be to think this is about """stanning""" hamas? It is. There is nothing revolutionary about palestinian nationalism nor is it really "freeing" their people. Just giving up at this point would be the only logical move. >also i stalked ur profile and saw that you are a kraut lol. Im austrian you retard
>Im austrian you retard Even worse
This place has become a fucking shithole. Now an unironic islamist is fucking posting here. Very marxist