In this discussion, @oncewasr and @ESimbakalia analyze complex moral and historical issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, questioning the assumptions about land rights, the justification of violence, and the idea of "fairness" in peace solutions. They challenge the notion that the conflict is solely about land or that joining groups like Hamas is inevitable based on where one is born, drawing parallels with historical examples to argue against such determinism. Introduction for Future Nargila Report Analysis Podcasts: Get ready for more in-depth analysis in our upcoming Nargila Report Analysis podcasts where we'll continue to dissect complex geopolitical issues. We'll introduce: @starkllrr: Bringing a critical perspective to the table, known for challenging mainstream narratives. @oncewasr: An expert in Middle Eastern studies, providing historical context and challenging common assumptions. @ESimbakalia: A voice in the discussion known for advocating for nuanced understanding of conflicts. Join us as we explore these perspectives, delve deeper into the history, and analyze the current discussions shaping the future of one of the world's most intractable conflicts. Stay tuned for nuanced, fact-based discussions that aim to shed light on both sides of this multifaceted issue.
You can you can choose unfair peace, or you can fight for fairness of the land. I mean, you can choose whichever you want, but sometimes unfair peace is probably okay.
So there are two hidden false assumptions here. The first false assumption is that the furnace, in terms of land, is on the side of the Palestinians. The second assumption, there's even more force, is that this is about land at all, and this is about furnace at all, and Jihad has nothing to do with it. Your
peace is probably better. If you were a Palestinian, it's living in Gaza, and you were young, you would have joined Hamas. In all likelihood, saying
that if you were born in Gaza, you would have automatically joined Hamas, and that's just a natural thing to do is exactly like saying that if you were born in Nazi Germany, you would become a Nazi, and you would have felt it's unfair and your country doesn't have enough living space and these laws that are inferior to you, then they're supposed to be your stays but, but they're not, so you're gonna automatically become a Nazi. Now, you know, actually, it might be true for many people. It might be true for even most people. There are two problems with this. One, it's not true for everyone, and these people who it's not true for and they decide they don't want to be changed. They don't want their kids to be indoctrinated into being shaheeds. They don't want to die killing innocent people babies in their cribs, or mutilating and raping women. Then these people actually deserve protection more than the ones that are terrorists, and more than you who have nothing to do with the conflict, even if you ignore these people, let's say even everybody does that. Then, does it make it the right thing to do? Does it make it the right thing to be a Nazi, if you're born in Nazi Germany, or even if you feel this is fair, does it make it the right thing to be to be a terrorist? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make it moral, or it doesn't make it right, just because if someone was born in some place, then they would be likely to do that. Clihood, I
understand verbal, listen, John, I told you
your family owned property that was now part of Israel. You would want that property back. He would view it as your property, right? But you wanna, okay,
there are three problems with this argument, and I'll try to make it short. The first one is when you say quote, unquote, land that belong to your family. Most of this land was sold by Arabs and it was bought by Jews between 19 119 48 so before 1948 there was no war of independence, there was no there was no no knock on, no nothing that that people had to flee their homes, even if it was their fault, it just didn't happen. Now, the second problem when you say not long ago, actually it is long ago. 75 years to 80 years is quite long ago. Many millions of people were displaced at this time. That includes also Jews, many hundreds of 1000s of Jews who had to leave their homes and her property in all of the Arab countries and also in Europe. And the third problem, which is the biggest problem, it does not excuse me from becoming a tourist. So it's not it's not like you can say something happened to me or to somebody in my family two generations ago or 80 years ago or 75 years ago, and now it's justified for me to become a terrorist. John Mearsheimer
makes a statement that if you had lost land or you had lost property, would you not want it back under what conditions was this land or property? Lost some of the land prior to the formation of the State of Israel, the formal formation was sold to Jews, which is why they were living there, even while it was still under the British Empire's control, some of the property or land was lost because some of the Arabs live in the area. Were told by the Arab armies that were attacking or going to attack after the formation estate, but they should leave, and once all the Jews had been killed, they could go back to your home, go back to their homes. And I again ask you, under what conditions was the land loss? Under what conditions was a property lost is a sale of land, a loss or legal transfer, if you left because you knew that all the Jews would have been slaughtered and killed, and that didn't happen. Under what conditions did you lose your property? I
understand that verbal Listen, John, I
told you your family owned property that was now part of Israel. You would want that property back. He would view it as your property, right? But you want to understand that this land, not too long ago, belong to the Palestinians.
Things happen all the time in history. John can't make that. Of course, people get displayed and I'm not saying, but don't, don't. At some point you kind of just like with Ukraine, at some point, they're going to have to accept what is
bershamer says. But you understand this land? Not long not that long ago, belong to the Palestinians. So first, 75 to 80 years ago is long ago. Many populations had land that they no longer have 75 years ago. Many Germans that that were in Poland, in dancing, in southenland, in many other places, they don't have this land anymore. Many Jews that were in the Arab countries or in Europe had land at exactly that time, or maybe five years before that. They don't have this land and accept it. Now, one difference between them and the Palestinians is when we say not long ago, that is 7580 years ago, and some of them even longer. Then. How long did they have this land before that? Now, and you can look at the group of people who, by the way, that they they were not those things. Then they called themselves Arabs. And the Arab identities, this is a strong one anyway, and they were living as clans. So let's say some clan or some family in a clan, they had land then they didn't have it for generations. Before that they have it for had it for 20 years, sometimes even 40 years. But the time they had this land is shorter than the time that this past Sean
happened all the time in history. John can't
make that. Of course, people get
displayed and I'm not saying, but don't, don't. At some point you kind of just like with Ukraine, at some point they're gonna have to accept what is and it's the same in Israel, I'm sorry, I think, I don't think it's that different. They're not going to accept that. That's quite clear, exactly, but I'm saying, like, that's why the Israelis
want to drive them. I wouldn't
say it's just like Ukraine. When you're looking at Ukraine, there are two fundamental differences. One, the Ukrainians did not start a war on the premise of the idea that they need to displace Russia and replace them as the only nation on this territory. They were also not launching rockets and civilian populations in Moscow before the war started. That's one difference. Second difference is the Ukraine Ukrainians, whether they can accept a quote, unquote, unfair solution is a more complicated question than for the gazas, because what does it mean? The war started from a side of the Russians. What it means is they're gonna continue oppressing crime as much as they can, as long as Ukraine is not the same as Russia. And because Ukraine's do not want to leave like the Russians, then saying, Okay, we're gonna accept an unfair solution. It means also we're gonna accept Russia staying there and continuing to try to do that and probably starting another war in a few years.