Israel

[hubb]

I would never claim the "raping and killing" was part of a "cutural agenda".

That was what I misunderstood from the tone!
my bad but.... it seemed like that a bit

[jrkhnds]

Israel doesn't have any legitimacy apart from being an intence guard dog for the crazy americans in the context of world politics

uh, ok. so what exactly is Iraq's legitimacy?

only the historic context

can there be more legitimacy to a country's existance than historic context? apart from that -
is that so? why doesn't Iraq belong to Turkey then? Iraq's borders were demarcated (fancy word, had to look that up) by the League of Nations in the early 1920s, after the Ottoman empire crumbled following its defeat in WW1. you could argue, of course, that the Ottomans occupied the land with military force and therefore have no right to that land; but then why do the arabs get to rule Iraq and not the assyrians, since they were there long before the arab people arrived?
these things are a bit more complicated than "x holds legitimacy" and "y doesn't".

What?

The point is people SHOULD think there's a difference between countries that have existed for many years and others that was just established on a wim

(accentuation by myself)

Iraq as a political state is a whopping 28 years older than Israel (16, if you count independent years only), or roughly 20 years younger than Tel Aviv.

[hubb]

sure but...

I dont know the figures but you would have to discount the bit of european jewish peeps that Israel also consists of, before making a comparison, even at face value imo..

but why not just leave it at me misunderstanding what you meant by
'they would just go back to murdering and raping each other' or what it was...

which ever way I think about it, i would refuse that israel as a stabilizer isn't based on a very questionable basis - like those lines drawn on a map in africa that has lead to all the tribes going at eachother after ww2 ... it's a mistake

I think there's a definitive zionist influence in israel that wouldnt succeed if things were handled locally (whatever that means). . . which again ..could be the answer in africa but i'm just saying that because i made the comparison and i dont have enough technical understanding of what the change in powerstructure would lead to.. i know you can live in acceptable conditions as an arab in israel but i dont know if that even says anything..

[Phigure]

@jrk Iraq (nor most other middle eastern nations) don't have much genuine legitimacy, since like you say, their borders were arbitrarily determined by foreign powers, rather than by any sort of self determination

But at least those countries don't owe their existence solely to the violent occupation of another people's land (and then setting up an apartheid state and committing systematic human rights abuses). I don't think you can truly equate Arabs in formerly Assyrian Iraq to the situation seen in Israel

[jrkhnds]

But at least those countries don't owe their existence solely to the violent occupation of another people's land (and then setting up an apartheid state and committing systematic human rights abuses).

like... the united states of america?
and how would self determination make a territorial state more legitimate? do me a favour and name one self determining state whose people didn't violently occupy another people's land at some point in time.

I'm disregarding the whole nation / state / nation-state situation for simplicity's sake, but most of you will know what I mean.

[nowaysj]

[Dystinkt]

The vast majority of middle eastern conflicts are ethnic and/or religious, im pretty convinced most people over there dont give a singular fuck about what country theyre in, and the sooner the west realises this and stops fucking about making countries up left right and centre the more success we'll have with our foreign policy.