Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnbad | Hacker News Reader

It's a war between Israel and the US vs Iran that was literally initiated by the US after a meeting between Trump and Netanyahu.

Also Israel is a rogue state that has been committing war crimes including genocide and is engaging in expansionist wars worse at this point than Russia's. It's in everyone's interest that Israel be either stopped or undergo a regime change that abandons Apartheid and creates a multicultural Western democracy.

View on HN

> is engaging in expansionist wars worse at this point than Russia's

You should really reevaluate the news sources you use if you think that

I mean Russia at least has a point that there are some people who live in Donbas who would be open to joining Russia, at least at the onset of the war. Israel doesn’t even have that, almost no one in Lebanon wants to join Israel. Outside of the settlements almost no one in the West Bank wants to join Israel.

There will like be settlements in Lebanon. And then Israel will need an expanded buffer zone and then rinse and repeat.

After 400 years of Ottoman rule, we the Brits took that region because we won WWI. We gave some to different Arab groups, and some to the Israelis. The muslim religious head of Jerusalem wrote fan mail to Hitler advocating for the Final Solution. The hostility toward Jews had been whipped up for years and the general unwillingness of the neighboring regions to agree to the lines that the UK delegated to the UN is why after we left the region descended into war. The Israelis held on to their land. The Iranian mullahs came along in the 70s and jumped onto the cause because they feed on hate. My father was an advocate of the Iranian regime, because he was a vulnerable conflict survivor with deep psychological issues. But I saw what they were peddling 45 years ago and I heard what they were inculcating in him, through the mullahs that they trained and sent to the UK. They love to stress the idea of Abraham sacrificing his children. These are people that use children in war. They fire their rockets and shoot their guns where their own civilians will get hurt in the counterattack because they are just pawns to them. They sent young boys to the frontlines against the Iraqis and they use human shield tactics against the Israelis. It's a tragedy when innocents die, but against a foe that uses innocents in the propaganda war, only steely resolve and self-preservation will rid this world of the scourge that is these Iranian mullahs.

Why the fuck does the colonial power dictate who “gets” land?

The land was stolen from the local farmers and fishermen and given to Europeans.

For the same reason all land ownership across the world and across the ages and across all animal species has been determined.

So you believe might makes right?

I don’t.

The reality that a contested position is determined by whoever can assert the claim, isn't a moral choice, it's simply an observable political fact.

No it isn’t.

There are many plots of land belonging to people with limited military power.

Iceland is a pretty good example.

Palestine was stolen by Europeans with powerful backers, a statement you then agree with?

It's adorable that you think Iceland somehow maintains itself without power. In the 1976 Cod War with the UK, where we the UK asserted dominion over 200 miles of their water with our superior navy, Iceland countered with its superior position to surveil Soviet movements in the GUIK gap, and it leveraged that with a powerful alliance within NATO members to get the UK to back down.

In WW2 Iceland's sovereignty was merely overridden. Britain took it over, because the Nazis had done the same in Denmark. We gave it back because the nature of our political, economic and diplomatic profile, compared to Nazism, made it advantageous for us to do so, all things considered.

>Why the fuck does the colonial power dictate who “gets” land?

Because the preWW2 era was a very different time, the Ottoman Empire that previously held the region lost WW1, disintegrated, and the victors were entitled to manage the breakup and created many states.

They thought it would be a good idea for the Jews to have a go at making a state, felt that they needed one to pursue self-determination considering their historical treatment, and had some very wishful ideas about how well the existing population would react or how partition would go.

The British didn't evict Arabs to move Jews in. (Tenant farmer evictions and the associated legal land purchases aside.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com