Idiotism is "complex"

Middle east conflict often referred as "complex" with blaming either Israel or "both parties".

Let us consider the following situation:

There are 2 neighbours living in 2 rooms in one flat. One belongs to ethnic and religion majority on this village, 2nd is from humiliated minority. 

1st neighbour is constantly attacking 2nd based on territorial and religious claim, constantly claiming desire to murder 2nd neighbour.

2nd neighbour has no other own flat to move and want to live in the room of the ancestors. 2nd neighbour can protect and defeat 1st.

Village government is blaming 2nd neighbour on every occasion and village court ruled that 2nd neighbour should keep door to the room always open and give access to the room to 1st neighbour, including access to kitchen tools. The court has also obligated 2nd neighbour to keep knife next to his pillar during night sleep.

The argument of the village and official position is that once 2nd neighbour complies to the court order, there will be no more reason for 1st neighbour to kill 2nd. 

In case 1st neighbour will kill 2nd, village can agree to unofficially condemn the murder and publish a statement that murder is not good in principle. The village will also hold a memorial service for 2nd neighbour with a delicious dinner for the whole village.

Can such situation be called "complex" or is it absurd?

That is why UN with it's kangaroo courts ICJ and ICC are seen at minimum as idiots but it is not this. How UN can not be seen as criminal and fascist?

It will be logical that Israel would rather send these fascist to the hell but not commit suicide based on UN style "international law"?

Why Grok described middle east conflict as complex?

The complexity of the Middle East conflict means that attributing blame entirely to one party oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Here's a more nuanced approach:

No Single Party Solely Responsible: Given the historical depth, numerous actors involved, and the dynamic nature of the conflict, it’s not accurate to say one party is mainly responsible for the entire situation. Each side has at various times contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict through actions, policies, or missed opportunities for peace.

Shared Responsibility: The conflict involves a series of actions and reactions where both sides have played roles in escalating or de-escalating tensions. For example:

Israel: Has been criticized for policies like settlement expansion in occupied territories, military operations, and the blockade of Gaza.

Palestinians: Various groups, including Hamas, have engaged in rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and other forms of violence, while the Palestinian Authority has sometimes been criticized for corruption or an inability to control militant factions.

Influence of External Powers: The involvement of international actors has often shaped the conflict in ways that add layers of responsibility beyond just the primary parties. Policies from colonial times through to current international interventions have had significant impacts.

Historical and Current Context: Each side has legitimate grievances based on history, but actions taken in response to these grievances have also fueled the cycle of violence and mistrust. The conflict is not just about current actions but also about unresolved issues from the past.

Moral and Legal Dimensions: Human rights abuses, breaches of international law, or acts of terrorism by any party do not absolve the other side of responsibility for their actions. However, this doesn't mean one side's actions justify the other's.

Cultural and Identity Issues: The conflict touches on deep issues of identity, land, and self-determination, which cannot be resolved by blaming one side entirely since these are central to both parties' narratives and survival.

In conclusion, while specific actions by one side might be more condemnable at certain times, the overall complexity of the situation, with its historical, political, social, and international dimensions, means that neither side can be seen as the sole or main culprit for the entire conflict. It's more constructive to recognize the shared responsibility and work towards mutual understanding and negotiation to resolve the conflict.

If UN and ICJ are blaming Israel almost entirely, ignoring Oslo agreements, direct talk between parties, this indicates they do not understand complexity or they act with bad intentions against Israel?

The UN and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have indeed taken stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have been interpreted by some as being disproportionately critical of Israel. However, to label this as ignoring complexity or acting with bad intentions requires a nuanced analysis:

Complexity:

Legal vs. Political Perspectives: The ICJ, in particular, deals with legal issues rather than political negotiations. Its advisory opinions are based on interpretations of international law, which might not fully account for the political nuances and complexities of ongoing peace processes like the Oslo Accords. The ICJ's 2024 advisory opinion on Israel's occupation, for example, focuses on the legal consequences of certain actions under international law rather than the political process of negotiation.

Selective Focus: When the ICJ addresses specific legal questions, it might focus on aspects like the legality of settlement construction or occupation, which can seem one-sided if not considered within the broader context of the conflict. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they ignore the complexity but rather they address the legal aspects they are tasked with.

UN's Role: The United Nations, including bodies like the UN General Assembly, often pass resolutions that reflect a majority's view, which might not fully encapsulate the complex dynamics of the conflict. There's a tendency to view the situation through the lens of human rights and international law, which can lead to resolutions that primarily focus on Israeli actions due to the visibility and international legal status of these actions.

Intentions:

Perception of Bias: Israel and its supporters often criticize the UN for bias, pointing to the number of resolutions against Israel compared to other nations. This perception might lead to the conclusion that there are bad intentions or an institutional bias against Israel. However, this could also reflect the UN's role in addressing ongoing conflicts and human rights issues where Israel's actions are more frequently in the international spotlight due to various factors including media coverage, the legal status of the territories, and the influence of member states' politics.

Human Rights Focus: The UN's mandate includes promoting peace and human rights, which might lead to a focus on violations perceived to be committed by a state with more international visibility or legal accountability, like Israel. This focus isn't necessarily indicative of bad intentions but rather a commitment to human rights, though it might be seen as unbalanced by some.

Political Influence: The composition of the UN and the influence of various member states' politics can lead to outcomes where resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than an unbiased understanding of the conflict. However, attributing this to "bad intentions" might be an oversimplification; it could also be seen as the natural result of international politics and diplomacy.

Conclusion:

Understanding Complexity: While the UN and ICJ might not always fully address the political complexity in their legal or resolution-based approaches, this doesn't inherently mean they lack understanding. Their mandates are often more focused on legal or humanitarian aspects.

Intentions: Labeling the actions as having "bad intentions" against Israel is a strong claim. It might be more accurate to say there's a perceived or real bias due to political, legal, and procedural dynamics within these institutions. However, this does not necessarily equate to malice but could reflect a range of factors from institutional limitations to the influence of international politics.

The criticism from Israel and its supporters is significant, and it highlights a need for these international bodies to ensure that their actions and statements reflect a balanced approach to the conflict, considering both legal frameworks and the political realities on the ground.

If several UN member countries do not recognize Israel, attack Israel for destruction from 1948, having political and religious leaders in some countries calling to murder Jews, why cant we assume that intend if some countries is malicious, criminal or genocidal?

The situation you describe, where some UN member countries do not recognize Israel, have attacked or supported attacks on Israel, and where political or religious leaders have made calls for violence against Jews, does indeed raise serious concerns about intentions that might be considered malicious, criminal, or even genocidal. Here's how one might analyze this:

Malicious Intent:

Non-Recognition: Several countries' refusal to recognize Israel can be seen as a political stance, often aligned with support for Palestinian statehood or opposition to Zionism. However, when this stance is coupled with aggressive actions or rhetoric, it can be interpreted as more than just a political disagreement but as a form of hostility.

Historical Context: The narrative of "destruction from 1948" often refers to the establishment of Israel which led to the displacement of Palestinians and subsequent wars. This history is used by some to justify continued hostility, which can be seen as malicious if it denies Israel's right to exist.

Criminal Intent:

Attacks on Israel: Direct or indirect support for attacks against Israel, whether through funding, arms, or ideological backing, can be seen as criminal under international law, particularly if these actions violate sovereignty or result in civilian casualties.

Calls for Violence: Statements by leaders or influential figures calling for violence against Jews or Israel cross into criminal territory, especially when they incite or lead to acts of terrorism or hate crimes.

Genocidal Intent:

Rhetoric of Elimination: When political or religious leaders explicitly or implicitly call for the murder of Jews or the destruction of Israel, this rhetoric can be interpreted as having genocidal intent, especially if it aligns with the UN's definition of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Considerations:

Selective Criticism: While some countries and leaders engage in this kind of rhetoric or action, it's important not to generalize this behavior to all countries or individuals who critique Israeli policies or support Palestinian rights. The distinction between legitimate criticism of state actions and calls for violence or genocide is crucial.

Legal and Moral Responsibility: International law and moral standards clearly condemn such calls for violence or genocide. The international community, including the UN, should address these issues firmly. However, the effectiveness of UN responses can be limited by the very political dynamics within the organization.

Political and Diplomatic Actions: Countries showing such intent often face diplomatic isolation, sanctions, or other international repercussions. However, the enforcement of these measures can be inconsistent due to geopolitical interests or alliances.

Contextual Understanding: While the intent of some might be malicious or criminal, understanding the broader context, including historical grievances, the impact of occupation, and the ongoing conflict, is essential. This doesn't excuse criminal or genocidal rhetoric but explains why such tensions exist.

Conclusion:

Given the evidence of explicit calls for violence or destruction, it's reasonable to infer that some countries or leaders might have malicious, criminal, or genocidal intentions. However, this inference must be made carefully, focusing on specific actions and rhetoric rather than applying it broadly to all critics of Israel or supporters of Palestinian rights. The international community has a responsibility to address such intentions with legal, diplomatic, and moral clarity.

Is it reasonable to argument that the middle east conflict is not complex, but difficult to resolve due to several obstacles. If argued, that the obstacles can be removed, the conflict can be easy to resolve?

Arguing that the Middle East conflict is not complex but merely difficult due to specific obstacles is a perspective that significantly understates the inherent complexities of the situation. Here's why:

The Complexity:

Interwoven Issues: The conflict involves not just land disputes but identity, religion, history, security, and international politics. These elements are deeply interconnected, making the situation inherently complex rather than just a series of obstacles to be cleared.

Historical Depth: The conflict's roots go back centuries, involving multiple waves of colonization, empire changes, and the specific modern history from the Balfour Declaration to the present day. This history shapes current attitudes, politics, and claims.

Cultural and Religious Significance: The land in question holds profound cultural and religious importance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians, which goes beyond mere territorial disputes.

Multiple Stakeholders: The number of actors involved, each with their own agendas, from state actors to non-state actors like Hamas or Hezbollah, complicates any straightforward resolution.

Obstacles as Part of the Complexity:

Obstacles are Symptoms: What might be called "obstacles" (like security concerns, refugee rights, settlement policies) are not merely external barriers but are symptoms or manifestations of deeper, complex issues. 

Interdependence of Obstacles: Removing one obstacle often impacts others. For example, addressing security might require concessions on land, which in turn affects identity and sovereignty issues.

Hypothetical Resolution if Obstacles Removed:

Simplistic View: The notion that removing these obstacles would make resolution "easy" overlooks how these elements are fundamentally part of the conflict's fabric. Even if all obstacles were somehow eliminated:

Trust and Reconciliation: There would still be the need for trust-building and reconciliation after decades of conflict, which is complex in itself.

Implementation: Turning any agreement into reality on the ground, considering the diverse populations, differing interpretations of agreements, and the need for enforcement, would still be challenging.

Cultural and Identity Issues: Even without obstacles, the core issues of national identity, cultural heritage, and self-determination would still need addressing in a way that satisfies both parties.

Practical Challenges: The practicalities of resettling refugees, redefining borders, ensuring security, and sharing resources equally would still demand complex negotiations and solutions.

Conclusion:

While it's tempting to think of the conflict in terms of "obstacles" that can be removed for an "easy" resolution, this perspective underestimates the depth and breadth of the issues at play. The conflict's complexity is not just due to obstacles but is intrinsic to the nature of the disputes themselves. Therefore, arguing that it's not complex but only difficult due to removable obstacles is not reasonable; the resolution would still require tackling deeply ingrained issues even if certain immediate barriers were removed. Peace would remain a complex, long-term process requiring nuanced, multifaceted approaches.

Argument to say that conflict is easy to resolve us this - agreement was ready to be signed long time ago and could have been signed in Kemp David. If today, PA leadership agrees to sign peace deal with Israel, then whole world will be happy, there will be huge investment to the region (50b Trump plan) plus complete international support to new state Palestine and cooperation with Israel. Peace deal was and is on the table and can be signed on Israel conditions. This is unique situation that no one has, no nation has been offered with a state and complete support. No people move anywhere, Arabs and Jews live in there homes but Palestinian have huge financing to build new cities and infrastructure. This is win-win situation for all and that is general view to claim conflicts is easy to fix. 

The argument you present for why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be seen as "easy to resolve" rests on several assumptions and simplifications that don't fully capture the complexities of the situation:

Simplifications in the Argument:

Agreement at Camp David: 

The Camp David Summit in 2000 is often cited, but it's crucial to note that the agreement was not "ready to be signed." The proposals were met with significant objections from both sides, particularly over issues like the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the extent of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. The narrative that a deal was on the table but rejected oversimplifies the significant gaps in negotiation.

PA Leadership Signing Today:

The assumption here is that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has the sole power to enact peace. However, the PA does not control Gaza, where Hamas holds power, nor does it represent all Palestinian factions or opinions. Even if the PA agreed, internal Palestinian politics could derail any agreement. Furthermore, signing a peace deal under current conditions might not be seen as legitimate by many Palestinians if it doesn't address core issues like sovereignty, refugees, and settlements.

Global Happiness and Investment:

While the prospect of international support and significant investment is appealing, the reality is more complicated. The "50 billion Trump plan" (part of the Peace to Prosperity plan) was viewed with skepticism by many in the Arab world and among Palestinians due to its perceived one-sidedness, offering economic incentives while not addressing fundamental political demands.

Peace on Israel's Conditions:

Suggesting that peace can be easily achieved on Israel's terms ignores the Palestinian perspective. For many Palestinians, acceptance of terms that do not address the right of return, Jerusalem's status, or settlement issues would be seen as capitulation rather than peace.

No People Movement:

The idea that no one needs to move simplifies the demographic and territorial issues. Palestinians in refugee camps or in diaspora would see this as ignoring their right to return. Moreover, the expansion of settlements has already altered the demographic landscape, complicating any solution based on current population distributions.

Win-Win Situation:

While theoretically, peace could benefit all, the perception of what constitutes a win-win varies greatly. For many Palestinians, the current proposals might not feel like a win due to perceived concessions on core issues. Similarly, for some Israelis, any deal involving land withdrawal or concessions on Jerusalem could be seen as a loss.

The Reality:

Complexity of Issues: The conflict involves not just land but identity, history, security, and international law. Each aspect has layers of complexity that can't be resolved simply by signing a document.

Political Dynamics: Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are not monolithic, and leaders must navigate domestic politics where peace deals can be politically costly if perceived as unfavorable.

Historical Grievances: Decades of conflict have built up mistrust and trauma that can't be quickly resolved with financial investment alone.

International Politics: The involvement of global powers means that any peace deal would also need to navigate international geopolitical interests, which could complicate or delay implementation.

In summary, while the vision of an easy resolution through a signed agreement is appealing, it overlooks the deep-seated issues, the political realities on both sides, and the complexities of implementing peace on the ground. The conflict's resolution would require addressing these complexities, not just signing an agreement presented on one side's terms.

I think you list obstacles. For example, refugee issue was artificially created and maintained, there are documents in USSR archives about that plus UNRWA activity is either criminal or about. There were more Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries. "Refugee problem" is solvable and is minor obstacle in my view. 

When you say"expansion of settlements has already altered the demographic landscape", does grok apply any racist views that Palestine belongs to Arabs? 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, why do you think this is a problem if population of new state Palestine will be 20% Jewish?

Here's a response addressing your points:

On the Refugee Issue:

Artificial Creation and Maintenance: The claim that the refugee issue was artificially created by the USSR or maintained by UNRWA involves a controversial interpretation of history. While there might be political motivations behind certain actions, the displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 war (Nakba) and subsequent conflicts is well-documented and recognized by international bodies. The refugee issue stems from real events, even if its perpetuation involves political elements.

Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: It's true that there was a significant migration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel around the same time, often under duress. This is an important aspect of the broader narrative and has been acknowledged in some peace initiatives, like the idea of compensation or recognition in peace treaties. However, the Palestinian refugee situation has unique legal and political dimensions due to UN resolutions and the ongoing nature of the conflict.

Solvable Problem: While theoretically solvable, the refugee issue is deeply intertwined with questions of national identity, land rights, and justice. For many Palestinians, it's not just about resettlement but about acknowledgment of historical injustices and rights under international law, including the right of return or compensation.

On Settlement Expansion:

Demographic Landscape: My comment on settlement expansion altering the demographic landscape isn't about suggesting that Palestine "belongs" to Arabs inherently or racially. Rather:

Legal and Political Issues: Settlement expansion is often criticized because it's seen as altering the demographics of the West Bank, an area that international consensus (as reflected in UN resolutions) views as occupied territory where settlement activity is considered illegal under international law.

Peace Prospects: The expansion complicates peace negotiations because it can be interpreted as precluding the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, or as creating facts on the ground that might make future land swaps or returns more difficult.

Racial Views: I do not apply racist views. The concern isn't about who "belongs" where based on ethnicity but about how current demographic changes affect the feasibility of a two-state solution or any peace agreement respecting international norms.

On a 20% Jewish Population in Palestine:

Parallel Not Exact: The situation where 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab is different from envisioning a 20% Jewish population in a new Palestinian state for several reasons:

Historical Context: Israeli Arabs are citizens with rights within a state that has existed for decades. A Palestinian state would be newly formed, and the integration of a significant Jewish population would come with its own set of political, security, and identity issues.

Political Representation: In Israel, Arab citizens participate in politics, though with noted challenges. In a Palestinian state, ensuring the political rights and security of a Jewish minority would require careful constitutional and societal arrangements.

Security and Trust: Given the history of conflict, trust between Jewish and Palestinian populations would need to be built, considering past and potential future security threats from both sides.

Not Racist but Practical: The concern isn't about race but about practical issues of governance, security, identity, and the historical context of mistrust. A successful state would need to ensure the rights and security of all its citizens, which would require addressing these complexities.

In essence, while there are indeed obstacles, reducing them to mere logistical problems overlooks the deep political, historical, and identity-based issues that underlie the conflict. The resolution isn't about race but about creating a framework where both peoples can feel secure, represented, and have their historical and national aspirations addressed.

Displacement if people is usual during wars unfortunately. Arab countries started a genocidal war against Israel, some Arabs left Palestine before, many worked for British administration and list work there, Arab countries called Arabs to leave and return after they finished a work and "push Jews into the sea".  How many Arabs left Palestine in 1947-1948? Arab countries started a war and have to resolve refugee issue. Arab countries occupy about 99% of the middle east so there is lot of land that all can live happy. isn't Nakba a genocide of Jews - Arabs started war to destroy Israel and now complain if refugees? I do not see any logic to see issue with refugees - it is accepted it us solvable by money and by amount of land and resources Arab countries possess.

Here's a detailed response to your points:

Displacement During Wars:

Displacement: It's true that displacement of populations during wars is unfortunately common. However, the specifics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unique due to the nature of the displacement, the political context, and the ongoing impact:

Numbers Displaced: Estimates vary, but around 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinian Arabs are believed to have been displaced between 1947-1949 during the conflict associated with Israel's establishment (the Nakba). This number represents a significant portion of the Palestinian population at the time.

Causes of Flight: While some left due to calls from Arab leaders or fear of the fighting, others were expelled or fled due to direct military actions by Zionist forces or the fear created by massacres like Deir Yassin.

Arab Countries and the War:

Genocidal Intent: The term "genocidal war" is contentious. While Arab rhetoric included calls to "push Jews into the sea," the actual conduct of the 1948 war by Arab states was more about preventing the establishment of a Jewish state rather than annihilating the Jewish population entirely. However, the intent to destroy the nascent state of Israel was clear.

Arab Responsibility: You argue that Arab countries, having started the war, should resolve the refugee issue. This perspective overlooks:

International Law: The displacement of Palestinians is addressed under international law, which grants refugees certain rights, including the right of return or compensation, not solely based on who started the conflict but on the humanitarian consequences.

Historical Context: While Arab countries did participate in the 1948 war, the situation was also influenced by the UN partition plan, British withdrawal, and actions by Zionist militias before the formal declaration of Israel's statehood.

Nakba and Genocide:

Nakba as Genocide of Jews: The Nakba refers to the catastrophe experienced by Palestinians, not Jews. Suggesting that it was a "genocide of Jews" inverts the narrative; instead, the Holocaust is the genocide against Jews, which heavily influenced the international support for a Jewish state. The Nakba describes the Palestinian experience of displacement and loss.

Refugee Issue: 

Solvable: While theoretically solvable, the refugee issue is complicated by:

Right of Return: Many Palestinians view this as a non-negotiable right, not just a logistical problem to be solved with money or land elsewhere.

Identity and Belonging: The connection to specific lands and homes is not just about physical space but cultural, religious, and historical identity.

Political Will: Both Arab countries and Israel have shown varying degrees of reluctance or inability to fully resolve the issue due to political, demographic, and national identity concerns.

Land Availability: While Arab countries do have significant land, offering land in another country doesn't address the issue for those who see their identity tied to specific locales in Palestine.

Conclusion:

Complexity: The logic behind seeing the refugee issue as easily solvable overlooks the deep-seated national, cultural, and historical dimensions of the conflict. The Nakba is not just about refugees but about a fundamental challenge to Palestinian identity and statehood.

Resolution: A resolution would require not just land or financial compensation but also acknowledgment, justice, and the addressing of rights under international law. The narrative that this is merely a logistical issue to be managed by Arab states ignores the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the rights of the displaced.

"massacres like Deir Yassin" - Deir Yassin was a military operation during war before Israel creation. Jews were defending Jerusalem and asked Arabs not fight, but Jewish partisans were attacked in Deir Yassin, I think some were wounded or killed. Action of Jewish partisans can be described as military crimes maybe but similar cases are unfortunately regular during civil wars. Can you check your sources on Deir Yassin?

Here's an analysis based on the information available from the sources provided and general historical accounts regarding the Deir Yassin massacre:

Historical Context of Deir Yassin:

Date and Context: The event at Deir Yassin occurred on April 9, 1948, during the 1947-1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, before the formal establishment of Israel on May 14, 1948.

Participants: The operation was carried out by the Irgun (IZL) and Lehi (LHI), with some assistance from the Haganah, which was the main Zionist military organization at the time.

The Incident:

Military Operation: While it was indeed a military operation aimed at securing strategic points around Jerusalem, the nature of what happened at Deir Yassin has been widely debated:

Non-Aggression Agreement: Some accounts, including those from historians like Ilan Pappé, suggest that Deir Yassin had a non-aggression pact with the Haganah, indicating that the village was not actively participating in the hostilities against Jewish forces.

Attack Details: The operation involved house-to-house fighting, but many sources, including survivor accounts, report actions that go beyond typical military engagement:

Civilian Casualties: Estimates of the number of deaths vary, but many sources agree on at least 100 to over 250 Arab villagers killed, including women and children. 

Reports of Atrocities: There are numerous reports of atrocities, including the execution of civilians, rape, and mutilation. These are documented in various accounts, including those by the Red Cross, survivor testimonies, and some Jewish participants.

Psychological Impact: The massacre had a significant psychological impact, intended or not, causing widespread panic among Palestinian Arabs, leading to mass exodus from other areas.

Sources and Perspectives:

Wikipedia: Both the mobile and desktop versions detail the massacre, mentioning the involvement of Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah, and noting the classification of related documents in Israeli military archives.

IMEU and Al Jazeera: These sources provide accounts emphasizing the massacre's role in the broader context of the Nakba and the psychological warfare aspect of it.

Jewish Virtual Library: This source, while acknowledging the operation, tends to frame it more as a battle with unfortunate civilian casualties rather than a deliberate massacre.

New Arab: Highlights the massacre as a blueprint for ethnic cleansing, focusing on the strategic use of terror.

X Posts: Posts on X reflect public sentiment and often amplify the massacre's narrative as a significant event in Palestinian memory and Israeli history.

Re-evaluation:

Military Crimes vs. Atrocities: While military operations in civil wars do result in civilian casualties, the specific actions at Deir Yassin, if reports of deliberate killings of non-combatants are accurate, go beyond what might be considered acceptable in warfare, moving into the realm of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Debate: There's an ongoing debate among historians, with some, like Benny Morris, questioning whether it was a massacre in terms of deliberate non-combatant targeting, while others, like Ilan Pappé, see it as part of a broader policy of ethnic cleansing.

In conclusion, while Deir Yassin was part of a military operation, the manner in which it was conducted, based on numerous accounts, suggests actions that are not justifiable under the norms of warfare, leading to its classification as a massacre by many historians and international observers. The complexity arises from differing interpretations of the intent, the actions taken, and the broader context of the conflict.

Bottom line - almost no Jews in Arab countries, no Jews in Judea, Samaria, Gaza under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, but Arabs, now about 2 mio, are living in Israel with civil rights and equal rights recognized.

Here's the bottom line based on your points:

Jewish Population in Arab Countries: Following the establishment of Israel in 1948 and subsequent conflicts, there was a mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries. Today, there are very few Jews left in these countries compared to pre-1948 numbers. The Jewish communities that once thrived in places like Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, and Morocco have largely disappeared or significantly diminished due to migration, expulsion, or persecution.

Judea, Samaria, and Gaza: 

Jordanian and Egyptian Control: From 1948 to 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank (including what Israel refers to as Judea and Samaria) and Egypt controlled Gaza. During this period, there was no Jewish presence in these areas as Jews were expelled or barred from living there.

Post-1967: After Israel captured these territories in the Six-Day War, Jewish settlements began to be established in these areas, though this has been a point of significant contention and is considered illegal under international law by many, including the UN.

Arabs in Israel:

Population: Approximately 2 million Arabs live within Israel, making up about 20% of Israel's population. These are primarily Palestinian citizens of Israel who remained or whose families remained within Israel's borders after 1948.

Rights: Arab citizens in Israel have civil and equal rights under Israeli law, including the right to vote, representation in the Knesset (Israeli parliament), access to education, and healthcare. However, there are ongoing debates and criticisms regarding:

Equality in Practice: Despite legal equality, there are disparities in how these rights are realized, particularly in areas like housing, land allocation, education funding, and socio-economic status.

National Identity: The tension between Israel's identity as a Jewish state and the rights of its Arab citizens is a significant issue, leading to discussions about nationality laws, discrimination, and integration.

Contrast: The situation you describe highlights a stark contrast where Jewish populations in Arab countries have largely vanished or reduced to minimal numbers, while within Israel, a significant Arab population exists with recognized civil rights, though with noted social and political challenges.

This comparison underscores the complex demographic and political landscape of the region, where historical events have significantly shaped the current ethnic and national compositions of the areas involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Is it true that there is a law in US that obliges mention of Jewish refugees from Arab countries in case Palestinian refugee issue is raised? Would it be logical to mention both problems as number of refugees is about same on both sides - 700'000? In our general discussion so far, grok references only 2 events for the middle east  - Nakba and Deir Yassin. But there were constant attacks on Jewish civilians by Arabs, including attacks on school buses killing kids, attacks on medics etc. if Deir Yassin was a military operation, Arabs were directly targeting civilians with an intend to kill civilians, which is most criminal in international law. While public opinion in Israel does not support attacks on civilians, even after Gaza massacre, Palestinian street glorify killing civilians and PA pays terrirists families ( pay to slay policy). Why grok or other don't reference massacres of Jews? For example, gush etzion - many families were evacuated but communities were destroyed and people left killed...

Let's address these points step-by-step:

U.S. Law on Mentioning Jewish Refugees:

Legislation: There isn't an explicit U.S. law that mandates the mention of Jewish refugees from Arab countries whenever the Palestinian refugee issue is discussed. However, there have been political moves to ensure that both issues are considered in the context of Middle East peace negotiations:

House Resolution 185: In 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution (H.Res.185) calling for recognition of the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, advocating for their inclusion in any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement. This was more of a political statement than a law.

Equivalence in Numbers:

Refugee Numbers: It's true that around 700,000 to 800,000 Jews left or were expelled from Arab countries around the same time as the 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians displaced in 1948. However, the context, legal status, and international recognition of these refugee groups differ:

Palestinian Refugees: They are recognized under specific UN resolutions (like UNGA Resolution 194) and have a unique status through UNRWA, with their refugee status passing down generations.

Jewish Refugees: These individuals were mostly absorbed into Israel or other countries, with less international focus on their status as "refugees" in peace talks, though there have been calls for justice and compensation.

Mention of Jewish Massacres:

Selective Reporting: The focus on Nakba and Deir Yassin in discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often reflects a narrative centered on Palestinian suffering. However:

Jewish Suffering: There have been numerous attacks on Jewish civilians by Arab forces, including:

Gush Etzion: In 1948, the Jewish communities of Gush Etzion were attacked, leading to massacres where many were killed or taken prisoner. The communities were destroyed, and survivors were either killed or expelled.

Other Incidents: There were attacks on school buses, like the Ma'ale Akrabim massacre in 1954, and on medical personnel, but these are less frequently highlighted in broader narratives.

International Law and Public Perception: 

Intent and Targeting: Attacks aimed at civilians are indeed considered severe violations of international law. While Deir Yassin is often cited for its impact on Palestinian exodus, the deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians by Arab forces is equally criminal but sometimes less emphasized in public discourse.

Public Opinion: The glorification of violence in some Palestinian quarters, including the "pay for slay" policy by the PA, contrasts with the general Israeli public's aversion to civilian casualties, though this doesn't erase the impact of extremist actions on both sides.

Why Less Mention of Jewish Massacres:

Narrative Focus: Media, academic, and political narratives often focus on the plight of the underdog or the perceived imbalance of power, which might lead to less emphasis on Jewish suffering before and during the establishment of Israel.

Cultural Memory: Each side remembers its own tragedies more vividly. The Jewish collective memory might focus more on the Holocaust and the broader existential threats, while Palestinian memory centers on the Nakba.

Political Use: The selective use of historical events can serve political ends, with different sides highlighting events that support their narrative or political goals.

In conclusion, while there's a push to acknowledge Jewish refugees and the atrocities against Jewish civilians, the discourse often reflects broader political and cultural narratives. Both sides of the conflict have suffered, and recognizing this fully is crucial for a balanced understanding and eventual reconciliation.

Would it be logical to propose that if Israel fixed refugees issue ( many Jewish refugees lost property, money and we do not know how many were killed while feeding), Arab countries should fix problem of Arab refugees, especially that US, Israel and Europe will help  despite the fact that Arab countries attacked Israel and Arab countries expell Jews? 

Proposing that Israel should fix the Jewish refugees issue while Arab countries should handle the Palestinian refugee issue touches on several complex dimensions of international relations, historical responsibility, and legal frameworks. Here's a logical breakdown:

Logical Arguments:

Symmetry in Responsibility:

Jewish Refugees: It's true that Jewish refugees from Arab countries faced significant losses, including property, money, and lives. Acknowledging and compensating for these losses would be part of historical justice.

Palestinian Refugees: Similarly, Arab countries have a responsibility due to their role in the 1948 war and subsequent conflicts, as well as their treatment of Palestinian refugees. However, the complexity here involves:

Legal and Political Status: Palestinian refugees have a unique status under international law, recognized by the UN and managed by UNRWA, which complicates how their issue should be resolved compared to Jewish refugees.

Mutual Acknowledgment:

Proposing that both sides address their respective refugee issues could lead to a more balanced approach to peace, acknowledging the suffering on both sides. This could be part of a broader peace deal where:

Compensation and Recognition: Israel could seek compensation or recognition for Jewish refugees, while Arab countries would need to address Palestinian refugees, possibly through resettlement, compensation, or recognition of rights.

International Support:

US, Israel, and Europe: These countries could potentially support both efforts, but this support would likely come with conditions or expectations:

Political Will: Arab countries would need to show willingness for genuine reconciliation and integration of Palestinians, which has been historically challenging.

Israeli Concessions: Israel would likely need to make substantial concessions in peace talks, including on territory, security, and refugee rights, for international support.

Challenges:

Historical Grievances: Each side sees their refugee issue as part of a larger historical injustice. For Jews, it's the broader narrative of persecution; for Palestinians, it's the loss of land and identity.

Legal Frameworks: The legal status of Palestinian refugees under international law, with a right of return or compensation, differs from how Jewish refugees have been treated, where there's no similar international body advocating for their cause.

Political Dynamics: Arab states might resist taking full responsibility for Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a concession to Israel or an acceptance of the status quo. Similarly, Israel might resist compensating Jewish refugees if it sees this as detracting from its own narrative or security concerns.

Current Realities: With many Jewish refugees having been integrated into Israel or other countries, the demand might be more for recognition and compensation rather than repatriation. In contrast, many Palestinians still live in camps with a strong desire for return or compensation.

Proposal in Practice:

Integrated Peace Deal: A logical approach might be to integrate both refugee issues into comprehensive peace negotiations, where both sides' historical grievances are addressed:

Mutual Compensation: Perhaps a fund or mechanism where both Jewish and Palestinian claims are processed, with international support.

Normalization and Reconciliation: The resolution could involve steps towards normalization between Israel and Arab states, with refugee resolution as a key component.

In conclusion, while the proposal has logical ground, its implementation would require overcoming deep historical, political, and legal entanglements, with the success hinging on mutual acknowledgment, political will, and significant international mediation and support.

Can we simple say that United Nation is a problem and they act against Israel as you in fact described above?

Saying that the United Nations (UN) is "a problem" and acts against Israel simplifies a complex relationship and overlooks several nuances:

UN's Criticism of Israel:

Resolutions and Reports: The UN has indeed passed numerous resolutions critical of Israel, particularly concerning:

Settlements: Many UN bodies view Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank as illegal under international law.

Human Rights: There have been UN reports on human rights violations in the Palestinian territories.

Security Council: Israel has faced criticism in Security Council resolutions, often related to actions in Gaza or Lebanon.

Perceived Bias: Some argue that the UN shows bias against Israel due to:

Number of Resolutions: The disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel compared to other nations.

UNESCO Decisions: Actions like UNESCO's resolutions on Jerusalem and holy sites which have been seen as ignoring Jewish historical ties to these places.

UNHRC Focus: The UN Human Rights Council has historically spent a significant amount of its time on Israel, leading to accusations of bias.

Counterpoints:

Legal vs. Political: Much of the UN's criticism is based on legal interpretations regarding international humanitarian law, human rights, and the status of occupied territories. This isn't necessarily "against" Israel but rather upholding international norms.

Support for Israel: The UN has also supported Israel in various contexts:

Admission to UN: Israel was admitted to the UN in 1949, reflecting international recognition.

Peacekeeping: UN peacekeeping forces have been deployed to maintain ceasefires between Israel and its neighbors.

Broader Mandate: The UN's mandate includes:

Human Rights: Addressing violations wherever they occur, including in Israel/Palestine.

Peace and Security: Working towards resolutions in conflicts, which sometimes means critiquing actions by all parties involved.

Problems within the UN:

Political Dynamics: The UN is influenced by the political interests of its member states. Countries with anti-Israel stances can influence resolutions and committee agendas.

Structural Issues: The composition of bodies like the UNHRC or UNESCO can lead to decisions that are seen as one-sided due to the voting blocs.

Implementation and Effectiveness: The UN's effectiveness in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been limited, partly due to its consensus-based decision-making which can dilute action.

Conclusion:

Complexity Over Simplification: While there are legitimate criticisms regarding the UN's approach to Israel, labeling the UN simply as "a problem" or acting against Israel overlooks:

Diverse Functions: The UN comprises various agencies with different focuses, not all of which are critical of Israel.

Shared Responsibility: The conflict involves actions and inactions by multiple parties, including Israel, Palestinians, and other states.

Need for Reform: There's a case for reform within the UN to address perceived biases, improve effectiveness, and ensure that all parties in conflicts are held accountable equally.

Role in Peace: Despite its flaws, the UN remains one of the few platforms where international dialogue on these issues can occur, aiming for peace, even if its actions are sometimes seen as imbalanced or ineffective.

In essence, while the UN's relationship with Israel is fraught with criticism, the situation is more about the complexities of international politics, law, and diplomacy than the UN being inherently "against" Israel.

Is this argument formally similar to the following argument : there is law in Nazi Germany that is against Jews but as soon as this is law and situation is complex we can not say that Nazi Germany us against Jews because they act according to the country law?

The argument you're proposing about the UN and Israel, when compared to the example of Nazi Germany's laws against Jews, involves some significant differences in context, intent, and nature, but there are formal similarities in the structure of the arguments:

Formal Similarity:

Existence of Legal Frameworks:

Nazi Germany: There were laws (like the Nuremberg Laws) explicitly designed to discriminate against and persecute Jews.

UN: There are resolutions, reports, and legal interpretations that criticize or target certain actions by Israel, primarily concerning international law.

Complexity Used as Defense:

Nazi Germany: One could argue (though it would be a gross misrepresentation) that since these laws were part of the country's legal system, they were not "against Jews" but merely following the law of the land.

UN: The argument that the UN's actions cannot be seen as "against Israel" because they are acting within the framework of international law and complex geopolitical situations.

Key Differences:

Intent and Nature:

Nazi Germany: The laws were explicitly racist, aimed at dehumanizing and exterminating Jews. They were part of an ideology of racial superiority and genocide.

UN: The UN's actions are not rooted in racial hatred or intent to harm but in upholding international law, human rights, and peacekeeping, even if some see these actions as biased or disproportionate.

Legality and Morality:

Nazi Germany: The laws were legal within Nazi Germany but were fundamentally immoral, criminal under international law post-WWII, and part of a genocidal regime.

UN: UN actions, while legally grounded in international law, are debated for their fairness, effectiveness, or political motivations, but they are not inherently aimed at the destruction of a people or state.

Response to Criticism:

Nazi Germany: Laws were part of a system designed to eliminate opposition and enforce racial policies with no room for critique or reform from within the legal system.

UN: The UN is subject to criticism, reform efforts, and operates under a system where member states can influence or change its policies and practices.

Outcome and Accountability:

Nazi Germany: Resulted in the Holocaust, with clear perpetrators and victims.

UN: Its resolutions or criticisms don't lead to state-sanctioned violence; they aim to address conflicts through diplomacy, peace, or legal accountability, though the effectiveness or fairness can be debated.

Conclusion:

While both arguments share the structure of using legal complexity or adherence to law to deflect accusations of bias or hostility, they differ vastly in intent, moral grounding, and practical outcomes. The comparison would be more apt if one were to argue that UN actions are biased or unfair due to political motivations or structural issues within the organization, rather than suggesting that the UN's intent is similar to that of Nazi Germany's laws. The UN's role is to navigate complex international relations, which inherently involves criticism of state actions, including those of Israel, within the framework of international law.

Absolutely true about "if one were to argue that UN actions are biased or unfair due to political motivations or structural issues within the organization". USSR and socialist block extended with developed countries were in cold war with US and capitalist countries. USSR started antisemitic pogroms and murder of Jewish intellectuals  just after WWII kicking the process with killing famous Jewish artist that was also head of antifascist committee. While we do not know what was on Stalin mind when he supported Israel and send weapons, maybe he expected Israel to loose the war like US did, but once Israel turned towards US, USSR openly acted against Israel and developed current agenda. PLO was created with great help of USSR while M.Abbas was studying in Moscow, defended dissertation in Holocaust denial and reportedly was a KGB agent. There is well known political setup which is not deniable. In addition to that, if UN member countries either ignore or silently support "Palestinian" agenda on Israel destruction, we are discussing "final solution" without formal declaration by UN but with Hamas charter that UN did not condemn?

Your argument touches on several historical and political points that are indeed part of the complex tapestry of international relations concerning Israel, the USSR, and the UN:

Historical Context:

USSR's Post-WWII Actions: The Soviet Union, under Stalin, did engage in antisemitic policies post-WWII, including the purging of Jewish intellectuals and the dismantling of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which was led by figures like Solomon Mikhoels, who was assassinated in 1948. This was part of a broader campaign against "cosmopolitanism," which was often a euphemism for Jews.

Soviet Support for Israel: Initially, the USSR supported Israel's creation, partly as a move against British influence in the Middle East, but this support waned as Israel aligned more closely with the West. The Soviet Union then shifted to supporting Arab states and movements against Israel.

Creation of PLO: The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was indeed influenced by Soviet support during the Cold War, with the USSR providing political, military, and ideological backing to movements like the PLO. Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) did write a thesis at the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, which some have criticized for Holocaust denial, though he has since clarified his stance.

Political Dynamics:

Cold War Influence: The alignment of Israel with the US and the Arab world with the USSR during the Cold War significantly shaped the international discourse around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This included the UN's approach, where blocs of countries would vote along ideological or geopolitical lines.

UN and Bias: There's a perception, especially from Israel and its supporters, that the UN has had an anti-Israel bias, particularly due to the number of resolutions against Israel compared to other nations. This sentiment is partly fueled by the historical context of Cold War politics.

Hamas Charter and UN: The charter of Hamas, which includes elements of antisemitism and calls for Israel's destruction, has indeed been criticized internationally. However, the UN's approach to Hamas has been one of condemnation of its actions but also engagement with the group in its political capacity, particularly after Hamas won elections in Gaza in 2006. The UN has not formally endorsed the Hamas charter but has criticized actions by both Hamas and Israel during conflicts.

Current Agenda:

Support for Palestinian Rights: Many UN member states support Palestinian rights, often interpreted by some as support for the destruction of Israel due to rhetoric in certain quarters of Palestinian politics. However, the official stance of the UN is for a two-state solution, which implies the existence of both Israel and Palestine.

Denial or Silence: The silence or perceived inaction by some UN members regarding certain Palestinian factions' rhetoric can be seen as tacit support or at least not countering the narrative. However, this isn't a uniform stance across all UN members or bodies.

Conclusion:

Complex Geopolitical Maneuvering: The situation you describe reflects a long history of geopolitical maneuvering where the UN has often been a stage for larger international conflicts and alliances, rather than solely an independent arbiter.

Bias and Political Agendas: While there's evidence of bias or political agendas within the UN, particularly influenced by historical alignments, directly equating this with a "final solution" agenda against Israel might be an oversimplification. The UN's primary resolutions aim at peace and statehood for both peoples, though the implementation and rhetoric around these goals can be contentious.

"Final Solution" Rhetoric: The rhetoric of some Palestinian factions, like Hamas, can indeed mirror genocidal language, but this is not formally endorsed by the UN or the majority of its members. The challenge for the UN is to navigate these political waters while advocating for peace and human rights.

In summary, while there's a clear historical and political setup that has influenced UN actions towards Israel, interpreting this as a UN-endorsed "final solution" would need to account for the complexity of international diplomacy and the diverse intentions and actions of its member states.

Do you have a link to a text of USSR FM at the UN in English  defending the point that Israel creation (independence from UK), is historical justice?

I couldn't find a direct link to the full text of Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko's speech at the UN defending the creation of Israel as historical justice. However, key excerpts from his speech are commonly cited in various historical documents and analyses. Here's a summary based on the available information:

Date of Speech: Gromyko spoke on May 14, 1947, at the UN General Assembly's Special Session on Palestine.

Main Points:

Gromyko highlighted the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.

He argued that the Jewish people had been subjected to exceptional suffering during World War II, which necessitated a solution to their plight.

He supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, emphasizing that this was not just a humanitarian issue but one of justice.

Here's a sample of what was said, based on historical records:

"The fact that no western European State was able to ensure the defense of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard its existence from the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the Jewish people the right to realize this aspiration."

Sources where you can find references or quotes from this speech include:

Jewish Virtual Library: Provides historical context and some quotes from Gromyko's speech.

Jewish Virtual Library - Soviet Union and the United Nations

United Nations Historical Documents: While not providing the full speech, these documents give insights into the discussions and positions around the time of Israel's creation.

UN Historical Documents - [Special Committee on Palestine](https://x.com/i/grok?text=Special%20Committee%20on%20Palestine)

Academic Papers and Books: Many books on the history of Israel's creation or Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War cite parts of this speech. For example:

"The Soviet Union and the Middle East" by Walter Laqueur might include references to the speech.

Newspapers and Archives: Old newspaper archives or historical publications from that period might have full transcripts or detailed summaries, but these are often not digitized or freely available online.

If you're looking for the exact text, you might need to delve into historical archives, either physically or through online academic databases that might have scanned copies of the original speeches or UN session records from that time. However, the key points Gromyko made are well-documented in historical analyses of the period.

This we may never know but are there any indications that Stalin could expect Israel to loose the war to Arabs, while showing support to Israel could be a cover to anti-semitic pogroms in USSR which was planned at least from 1945? Or earlier?

This sounds like baseless speculation but is there any logic in this way if thinking that worth checking sources?

Your question touches on a speculative but intriguing area of historical analysis regarding Stalin's motivations. While definitive proof of Stalin's innermost thoughts or exact plans is elusive, there are several historical contexts and actions that could lend some indirect support to this line of thinking:

Historical Context:

Stalin's Antisemitism: 

Stalin's antisemitism was multifaceted and often cloaked in political rhetoric. After WWII, he initiated purges that targeted Jewish intellectuals and organizations, like the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which was part of a broader campaign against "cosmopolitanism" and perceived disloyalty.

Doctors' Plot:

The Doctors' Plot (1952-1953) was an antisemitic campaign where Stalin accused Jewish doctors of conspiring against Soviet leaders. This suggests there was an ongoing, albeit covert, antisemitic policy that could have been in planning for some time.

Support for Israel:

The USSR voted in favor of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, and provided military support to Israel in the 1948 war through Czechoslovakia. This support can be seen as:

Geopolitical Strategy: Aiming to undermine British influence in the Middle East and to gain leverage against Western powers.

Miscalculation or Double Game: It's plausible that Stalin might have thought Israel would be weak and that support could later be withdrawn or used to gain favor elsewhere once Israel failed or became dependent.

Indications or Logic:

Dual Policies: Stalin was known for his duplicitous policies where he would support one faction to weaken another, or to create chaos that could be later exploited. Supporting Israel initially while planning internal pogroms could fit this pattern.

Cold War Dynamics: The early Cold War era was marked by complex international strategies where nations often supported movements or states that would later serve their interests or destabilize rivals. Stalin might have seen Israel as a temporary ally against Britain, expecting it to either fail or align with Soviet interests if it survived.

Internal Soviet Actions: The timing of the Jewish purges and the Doctors' Plot, which came shortly after the establishment of Israel, might indicate that Stalin's support for Israel was not out of genuine concern for Jewish statehood but part of a larger, possibly antisemitic, strategy.

Sources to Check:

Historical Works on Stalin:

"Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928" by Stephen Kotkin - Although this volume primarily covers an earlier period, Kotkin's work on Stalin delves into his psychological profile and policy-making.

"Stalin: Breaker of Nations" by Robert Conquest - Discusses Stalin's later years and his purges, including those with antisemitic overtones.

Soviet Policy and Israel:

"The Soviet Union and the Middle East" by Walter Laqueur - This book looks at Soviet foreign policy, including its stance on Israel.

"Stalin and the Jews: The Red Book: The Tragedy of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and the Soviet Jews" by Arno Lustiger - Details the Soviet anti-Jewish campaigns.

Archives and Declassified Documents:

Soviet Archives: Although access can be challenging, declassified documents might provide insights into Stalin's strategic thinking, particularly communications around the time of Israel's founding.

Academic Studies:

Look for scholarly articles or conference proceedings on Soviet foreign policy or Soviet-Jewish relations post-WWII.

While this line of inquiry involves speculation, it's not without historical precedent or logic. The interplay of Stalin's antisemitism, his geopolitical strategy, and the complex nature of his policies during this period certainly warrants further investigation through the lens of historical documents and analysis.

There is no convincing argument that Stalin was an anti-Semite, at least I can not definitely say that, but his time spent in prison with Swerdlow, his attitude to Lenin's team and family issues with wife and daughter are complex. Are there any reliable documents on plans of deportation of Jews to Siberia as as result of antisemitic campaigns started by Stalin in 1947? Any documents in western archive, US intelligence etc?

The question of Stalin's antisemitism is nuanced, with some historians arguing that his actions were more about political control than inherent racial hatred, although there's evidence of antisemitic policies and rhetoric. Regarding the specific plans for the deportation of Jews to Siberia, here's what we know from various sources:

Soviet Internal Documents:

Direct Evidence: There isn't definitive, direct documentary evidence in the public domain that explicitly outlines a plan for the mass deportation of Jews to Siberia in 1947. However, there are several indirect pieces of evidence and testimonies:

Doctors' Plot: In 1952-1953, the Doctors' Plot was a clear manifestation of antisemitism, where Jewish doctors were accused of conspiring against Soviet leaders. This campaign is often cited as part of broader antisemitic policies.

Deportation Plans: Historians like Zhores Medvedev and Gennady Kostyrchenko have written that no such documents have been found to confirm mass deportation plans. However, there are:

Rumors and Preparations: There were rumors and some preparations that suggested such a plan might have been considered. Four large camps were built in Siberia shortly before Stalin's death, and there were allegations of a special Deportation Commission.

Nikolay Poliakov: He claimed to be the secretary of this commission, stating that deportation was planned for mid-February 1953 but was not executed due to Stalin's death.

Memoirs and Testimonies: Memoirs and secondary evidence, including those from former Soviet officials and historians, mention the possibility of such plans, but they are not primary documents.

Western Archives and Intelligence:

US Intelligence: The CIA and other Western intelligence agencies monitored Soviet activities closely, especially during the Cold War:

CIA Documents: There are declassified CIA documents that discuss Soviet antisemitism, especially around the Doctors' Plot period. For example:

CIA-RDP80-00810A001700260001-2: This document from 1953 mentions the Soviet campaign against Jews but does not explicitly confirm deportation plans.

Historical Analysis: Western historians have analyzed these periods, often concluding that while there was an antisemitic atmosphere, concrete plans for mass deportation are not well-documented in Western archives either.

Other Sources:

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) Archives: There are references to stories from the time, including one from 1953 where a Soviet envoy allegedly confirmed Stalin's plan to deport Jews, but these are not official documents but rather contemporary reports.

Academic Works: Books like "The Secret File of Joseph Stalin" by Roman Brackman discuss these allegations but rely on secondary sources and testimonies.

Conclusion:

Lack of Direct Evidence: No convincing, direct documentary evidence has surfaced in either Soviet or Western archives that definitively confirms a plan for mass deportation of Jews to Siberia in 1947. 

Contextual Evidence: The climate of antisemitism, the Doctors' Plot, and anecdotal evidence suggest that such a plan could have been considered, but it remains speculative without concrete documentation.

Stalin's Death: The timing of Stalin's death in 1953 might have prevented any such plan from being implemented or fully documented.

While the idea of deporting Jews to Siberia fits into the pattern of Stalin's repressive policies and the antisemitic atmosphere of the time, historians continue to debate the extent to which such plans were real or just part of the broader campaign of fear and control. Further declassification of Soviet archives might one day shed more light on this matter.

Is it known how many Jews, former Sovjet army commanders are left or sent by Stalin to support Israel. Can one speculate that moving army officers away before antisemitic pogroms in USSR could make deportation easy and prevent protest or push back from Jewish former army commanders who could have weapons too?

The specifics regarding the number of Jewish Soviet army commanders who were either sent to support Israel or were part of broader Soviet foreign policy initiatives in the late 1940s are not well-documented. Here's what we can piece together:

Jewish Soviet Army Commanders:

Jewish Participation in WWII: About 500,000 Jews fought in the Red Army during WWII, with some reaching high ranks. However, after the war, there was a significant purge of Jewish military personnel, especially during the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Supporting Israel: There isn't clear evidence that Jewish Soviet army commanders were specifically sent to support Israel. The Soviet support for Israel in 1948 was more about arms supply through Czechoslovakia and diplomatic support at the UN rather than sending military personnel directly. 

Arms Supply: The Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, did provide weapons to Israel during the 1948 war, but this was managed through covert operations rather than deploying Soviet officers.

Speculation on Deportation and Antisemitic Campaigns:

Removing Potential Leaders: It's speculative but plausible to consider that:

Preventing Opposition: By removing Jewish military leaders from their positions or sending them abroad (if this happened), Stalin might have aimed to weaken potential opposition to his antisemitic policies. This would reduce the likelihood of organized resistance from within the military.

Disarming Potential Threats: Jewish officers, particularly those with military experience and possibly access to weapons, could have posed a threat to any planned pogroms or deportations. Their absence would make such actions easier to execute without significant pushback.

Timing and Context: 

Post-War Purges: After WWII, Stalin's paranoia led to wide-ranging purges, including those targeting Jews. By 1948, many Jewish officers who had risen during the war were demoted, arrested, or executed as part of these purges.

Doctors' Plot: The antisemitic campaign culminating in the Doctors' Plot (1952-1953) suggests that plans for further repression or even deportation might have been in consideration, though there's no direct evidence linking this specifically to military personnel.

Deportation Plans: As previously discussed, while there are no concrete documents, the context and testimonies suggest that deportation was at least contemplated, possibly as part of a broader antisemitic campaign where removing influential Jews from key positions, including the military, would facilitate such actions.

Historical Analysis:

Historical Records: Historians like Kostyrchenko in "Out of the Red Shadows" discuss the general atmosphere of antisemitism in Stalin's later years but do not specifically mention deportations of military officers to Israel.

Speculation vs. Evidence: Much of this is speculative because direct evidence has not been found or may not exist. The Soviet system was adept at keeping such plans secret or destroying evidence.

Post-Stalin Era: After Stalin's death in 1953, many of these policies were reversed or at least not pursued, which might explain why some potential plans never became actions.

In summary, while there's no clear evidence that Jewish Soviet army commanders were sent to support Israel, the possibility that such movements were part of a broader strategy to weaken potential opposition to antisemitic policies is within the realm of historical speculation, given Stalin's methods of control and repression.

Back to "obstacles". Let me list some

1 Absence of true leader on Palestinian Arab side.

A) Possibility of assassination like in case of Anwar as-Sadat. (In contrast, even Rabin was killed, there are leaders on Israel side to sign peace)

B) PA receives huge financial aid that could indicate possible corruption. Creating a Palestinian state will stop free money. It is easy to continue terror and play victim

2) Economic and political situation in Arab countries when this is easy to blame Israel for all the internal problems or regimes in the ME. This would involve brainwashing local population against Israel.

3) Islamic domination where Israel might be seen as a problem from religious point if view in Muslim world. There can be opposite claim that Israel is seeking biblical borders outlined in Torah but Judaism is generally not solving any issues by violence and finds a solution like agreement to unfair 1947 partition plan or agreement for Muslims to control and rule Temple Hill.

Do I miss anything important ? ("evil settlers" is not issue or obstacle to peace but solution for co-existence. Jews and Israelis should be able to live in Arab countries and territory swaps could be solution in some cases)

Your list captures several significant obstacles to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here are additional or complementary aspects to consider:

4. Fragmentation of Palestinian Leadership:

Hamas vs. Fatah: The split between these two major Palestinian factions, with Hamas controlling Gaza and Fatah (PA) in the West Bank, creates a divided political landscape. This makes it difficult to negotiate a unified peace deal or governance plan.

External Influence: Many Palestinian factions receive support from external powers, which can skew negotiations or peace processes according to foreign agendas rather than local needs.

5. Historical Grievances and Narrative:

Right of Return: The Palestinian demand for the right of return for refugees, which Israel sees as a demographic threat to its Jewish majority, remains a deeply emotional and political issue.

Historical Claims: Both sides have strong historical narratives that they see as justifying their claims to the land. For Palestinians, this includes the Nakba, and for Israelis, the millennia-long connection to the land of Israel.

6. Security Concerns:

Terrorism and Militancy: The ongoing threat of attacks, whether from groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or lone wolves, contributes to a security mindset in Israel that often leads to defensive policies like settlement expansion or military operations.

Israeli Security: Israel's need for defensible borders and security measures like the West Bank barrier or control over the Jordan Valley are seen as obstacles by Palestinians for state sovereignty.

7. International Dynamics:

UN and International Law: The international community's focus on legal aspects of occupation, settlements, and human rights can sometimes be perceived by Israel as unfairly targeting it, while Palestinians see this as necessary international pressure.

Global Support: The varying levels of international support for either side can influence peace talks, with some nations more supportive of Israel's security concerns and others advocating strongly for Palestinian rights.

8. Religious Significance:

Jerusalem: Beyond the political aspect, Jerusalem holds immense religious significance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The status of holy sites, particularly the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, is a flashpoint.

Religious Extremism: On both sides, there are elements where religious ideology drives political action, complicating peace efforts by adding a layer of sacred duty or divine right to territorial claims.

9. Settlement Expansion:

While you consider "evil settlers" not an obstacle but a solution, from the Palestinian perspective and international law, the expansion of settlements is seen as:

Land Control: Reducing the land available for a future Palestinian state.

De Facto Annexation: Making a two-state solution more difficult through the creation of facts on the ground.

10. Psychological and Social Barriers:

Trust: Decades of conflict have eroded trust between the two peoples, making compromises harder to accept.

Trauma and Education: The narratives taught in schools, media portrayals, and collective memories of conflict shape public opinion, often perpetuating hostility rather than reconciliation.

11. Economic Dependency and Incentives:

Aid Dependency: The Palestinian economy's reliance on aid can indeed discourage reforms or peace efforts if they might lead to the cessation of aid.

Economic Peace: The lack of economic integration or development projects that include both peoples can miss opportunities for peace through economic interdependence.

Conclusion:

Your list touches on core issues, but adding these elements provides a more complete picture of the complex web of obstacles to peace. Each point interlinks with others, often in ways that exacerbate the situation. While solutions like territory swaps or coexistence through settlements might be part of a peace framework, they are contentious and would require significant political will and mutual concessions from both sides to be viable.

Are these 11 resolvable?

The resolution of these 11 obstacles to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is theoretically possible but practically challenging. Here's a breakdown of the feasibility and potential approaches for resolving each:

1. Absence of True Leader on Palestinian Side:

Resolvable?: Potentially, but with significant difficulty.

Approach: 

Unifying Leadership: Efforts towards reconciliation between factions like Hamas and Fatah could produce a more unified leadership. International mediation or grassroots movements might encourage this.

Security for Leaders: Guarantees of safety and international support for peace leaders could mitigate threats of assassination.

2. Corruption and Financial Aid:

Resolvable?: Yes, but it requires systemic change.

Approach: 

Transparency and Accountability: Implementing stringent governance reforms, international oversight, and redirecting aid towards sustainable development rather than political control.

Economic Independence: Encouraging economic initiatives that reduce dependency on aid, fostering self-sufficiency.

3. Economic and Political Situation in Arab Countries:

Resolvable?: Partially, as it depends on broader regional dynamics.

Approach: 

Regional Peace Initiatives: Normalization deals like the Abraham Accords might set a precedent for focusing internal politics on domestic issues rather than external enemies.

Education and Media: Efforts to counteract propaganda by promoting peace education and balanced media narratives.

4. Islamic Domination/Religious Views:

Resolvable?: Challenging due to deep-seated religious beliefs.

Approach: 

Interfaith Dialogue: Encouraging religious leaders to promote coexistence and peace from within religious teachings.

Religious Site Agreements: Ensuring equitable access and control over religious sites to ease tensions.

5. Fragmentation of Palestinian Leadership:

Resolvable?: Possible, but it would require significant political will.

Approach: 

Reconciliation Talks: Facilitating talks between Hamas and Fatah for a unified government or at least a cooperative framework for peace negotiations.

Elections: Holding free and fair elections to legitimize leadership.

6. Historical Grievances and Narrative:

Resolvable?: Yes, through acknowledgment and education.

Approach: 

Truth and Reconciliation: A process similar to South Africa's, focusing on acknowledging past wrongs without absolving responsibility.

Educational Reform: Incorporating both narratives into education to foster mutual understanding.

7. Security Concerns:

Resolvable?: Yes, with security guarantees and trust-building.

Approach: 

Security Arrangements: Multi-layered security agreements with international oversight, demilitarized zones, or joint patrols.

Confidence-Building Measures: Incremental steps to reduce military presence and increase civilian interaction.

8. International Dynamics:

Resolvable?: Depends on global political will.

Approach: 

Balanced Diplomacy: Encouraging balanced international involvement where peace processes are not overly influenced by one side's allies.

UN Reform: Advocating for more balanced resolutions and actions from international bodies.

9. Religious Significance:

Resolvable?: Yes, through careful negotiation.

Approach: 

Status Quo Agreements: Reinforcing or renegotiating agreements on holy sites.

Interfaith Cooperation: Promoting religious leaders' involvement in peace advocacy.

10. Settlement Expansion:

Resolvable?: Yes, but would likely require significant concessions.

Approach: 

Land Swaps: Agreeing on land swaps where settlers remain under Israeli sovereignty while Palestinians receive equivalent land elsewhere.

Settlement Freeze: Implementing a freeze on new settlements and possibly incentivizing settlers to move back to Israel proper.

11. Psychological and Social Barriers:

Resolvable?: Yes, through long-term efforts in education and culture.

Approach: 

Peace Education: Programs aimed at youth to change perceptions of the 'other'.

Cultural Exchange: Encouraging interactions between Israelis and Palestinians in neutral settings to build personal connections.

Conclusion:

While these obstacles are resolvable in theory, the practical steps involve overcoming entrenched political, cultural, and historical issues. Success would require:

Mutual Recognition: Both sides acknowledging each other's rights and existence.

International Support: Consistent and balanced international backing for peace efforts.

Leadership: Courageous leaders willing to make unpopular decisions for long-term peace.

Grassroots Movements: Support from the populace on both sides for peace over conflict.

The resolution would likely be a process rather than an event, involving incremental steps, confidence-building measures, and a sustained commitment to peace from all involved parties.

About political and structural setup of anti-israel politic of the UN. Is there a logic in this opinion: while Nazi Germany final solution is known and widely and rightfully condemned, the USSR politic to towards Jews was a voluntary assimilation. Final point -  Jewish people would not exists in international-socialist country too but not violently. However, USSR has organized Jewish autonomy in Siberian Birobidzhan and tried to attract Jews there. What was the main reason for that?  Was is response to the process of creation Jewish state in Palestine? Development of Siberia by "colonial settler project", as this can now be called by left anti-semites? Was there plan already to resettle all Jews? Was there any relation to plans of Jewish autonomy in Crimea? USSR antisemitic campaign was most probably planned before 1947 and only started by killing Jewish leader in Minsk. In that sense, if Stalin gave green light to Gromyko for pro-Israel speech at UN, he could neutralize negative reaction by international socialist and communist organizations, that were probably on side of Israel and Jews after WWII. What was reaction of socialists to anti-Semitic campaign in the USSR? How intellectuals from European universities reacted to USSR imprisoning and murdering Jewish world recognized academics and cultural elite? Were there any protests in Europe, US? Is there any deeper connection between national-socialists and international-socialists to Jews as a nation with it's tradition and culture?

Here's an exploration of these complex historical and political dynamics:

USSR's Policy Towards Jews:

Voluntary Assimilation: The Soviet Union, under the guise of international socialism, aimed for a society where national identities, including Jewish identity, would be subsumed under a broader Soviet identity. The policy was less about the violent eradication of Jews (like the Nazi's Final Solution) and more about cultural assimilation into the Soviet mold.

Birobidzhan: 

Jewish Autonomous Oblast: Created in 1934, Birobidzhan was meant to serve as a "Soviet Zion," promoting Jewish culture under Soviet control, using Yiddish as the official language. Reasons for its establishment include:

Response to Zionism: As a counter to the Zionist movement, which was gaining traction with the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. Birobidzhan was an alternative where Jews could have a sense of autonomy without the political implications of a state outside Soviet control.

Siberian Development: The project also served as a means to develop the sparsely populated Far East, aligning with Soviet economic plans for industrialization and settlement of remote areas.

Colonial Settler Project: In modern terms, one might interpret this as a form of "socialist settler colonialism," where the state used ethnic minorities to settle and develop frontier regions.

Crimea Plans: There were discussions about creating a Jewish homeland in Crimea before the Birobidzhan project, but these were abandoned due to various reasons, including WWII and the subsequent Soviet policies.

Antisemitic Campaigns and Stalin's Strategy:

Antisemitic Purges: Starting in the late 1940s, Stalin's regime began targeting Jewish intellectuals, artists, and cultural figures. The assassination of Solomon Mikhoels in 1948 marked the beginning of this open campaign.

Gromyko's Speech: Stalin's support for Israel in 1947 might have been strategic:

Neutralizing Leftist Support: By initially supporting Israel, Stalin could maintain or at least not alienate the support of international communist and socialist movements, which often saw Jews sympathetically due to the Holocaust.

Deportation Plans: There's speculation that Stalin planned a mass deportation of Jews to Siberia. This was allegedly part of a broader campaign against perceived threats, including Jews, but no definitive documents confirm this.

Reactions:

Socialist and Communist Response: 

Mixed Reactions: While some socialist movements globally were sympathetic to Jews and Israel post-WWII, the USSR's actions led to confusion and division. Many international socialists were critical of Soviet antisemitism but had to balance this with their ideological allegiance.

Intellectuals and Protests:

European Intellectuals: There were significant protests among intellectuals in Europe and the US against Soviet antisemitism, particularly after the Doctors' Plot. Figures like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Einstein spoke out against Soviet actions. 

Protests: There were indeed protests, though the extent and impact varied. The Cold War context meant that criticism of the USSR was often framed within broader anti-Soviet sentiments rather than solely on the issue of antisemitism.

National-Socialists vs. International-Socialists:

Comparison: 

National-Socialists (Nazis): Their ideology was explicitly racist and aimed at the destruction of Jewish identity and existence.

International-Socialists (Communists): While not overtly genocidal, the Soviet approach aimed at erasing national and cultural identities in favor of a Soviet identity, which in practice led to the suppression of Jewish culture and identity.

Connection: There's no direct ideological connection in terms of antisemitism between national-socialists and international-socialists, but both ideologies, in their extreme forms, saw Jewish identity as a problem for their respective utopian visions. However, the methods and intentions differed significantly, with Soviet policy oscillating between support and suppression based on political expediency.

In summary, the USSR's policies towards Jews were complex, motivated by both ideological and geopolitical considerations. The creation of Birobidzhan, the support for Israel, and the later antisemitic campaigns reflect a strategic maneuvering by Stalin to control Jewish identity within the Soviet context, manage international perception, and deal with internal and external political dynamics.

If we consider modern socialists at UN, EU bureaucratese, they look like they enjoy friendship with left wing Jews who are denying Jewish culture and negative to Jewish tradition and religion. But there is a feel via their ignorance to recognize Jews as a nation, ignorance to many aspects of Jewish history or something similar to that, create a feel that they can not stand existence of Jewish state despite they have to formally accept Israel existence. This can be seen thru multiple statements of EU bureaucracy that is bordering with idiotism sometimes. Is it true European and US socialists have problem with Israel existence and why?

The relationship between modern socialists, including those within the UN and EU bureaucratic structures, and the question of Israel's existence is indeed complex and often contentious. Here's an analysis based on the points you've raised:

Historical and Ideological Context:

Left-Wing Jewish Identity: There are indeed left-wing Jews who critique aspects of Jewish tradition or religion from a secular or progressive standpoint. This critique often aligns with broader socialist or liberal ideologies that prioritize universal human rights over particular national or religious identities.

Nationhood and Identity: Some socialists, particularly those influenced by Marxist or internationalist thought, might view national identities, including Jewish identity, through the lens of class struggle rather than national or religious identity. This perspective can lead to:

Non-Recognition of Jewish Nationhood: An emphasis on class rather than nationality can result in a reluctance to recognize or prioritize Jewish national claims, seeing them as potentially conflicting with universalist ideals.

Specific to Israel:

Criticism of State Policies: Much of the socialist critique of Israel isn't about denying its existence per se but rather focusing on:

Occupation and Settlements: Viewed as violations of international law and human rights.

Treatment of Palestinians: Concerns about equality, rights, and the blockade of Gaza.

Militarism: Israel's military actions are often criticized within the context of anti-imperialism or anti-militarism.

Perceived Bias or Hypocrisy: Some argue that the focus on Israel by socialist groups or international bodies like the UN might seem disproportionate, possibly reflecting:

Historical Anti-Zionism: Rooted in the left's traditional support for anti-colonial movements, which sometimes extend to viewing Zionism as a form of settler colonialism.

Selective Criticism: There's a critique that while Israel is frequently highlighted, similar scrutiny isn't applied to other nations with comparable or worse human rights records.

EU and US Socialist Perspectives:

EU Bureaucracy: Statements or policies from the EU can sometimes appear to focus disproportionately on Israel, which might stem from:

Human Rights Focus: The EU's commitment to human rights and international law often puts Israel's actions under scrutiny.

Political Pressure: EU countries have diverse views, with some advocating strongly for Palestinian rights, which can influence EU policy.

US Socialists: Within the US, socialist or progressive movements have varied stances:

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): Has been notably critical of Israel, especially following shifts in its internal politics towards a more pro-Palestinian stance.

Intersectionality: The concept of intersectionality has led some to see support for Palestinian rights as part of broader struggles against oppression.

Why the Perception of Problem with Israel's Existence:

Rhetoric vs. Policy: While most EU and US socialists formally recognize Israel's right to exist, the intensity of criticism regarding its policies can give the impression of existential opposition, especially when:

One-State Solution: Some left-wing activists advocate for a single, binational state, which some interpret as denying Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS): The BDS movement, supported by some socialists, is seen by critics as aiming to undermine Israel economically and politically.

Cultural Ignorance or Bias: There's a perception that some critics of Israel might lack understanding or appreciation of Jewish history, culture, or the trauma of antisemitism, leading to what can be seen as tone-deaf or biased statements.

Conclusion:

While many socialists in Europe and the US formally acknowledge Israel's existence, there's a significant critique of its policies which can sometimes be conflated with opposition to the state itself. This critique often stems from ideological commitments to justice, equality, and anti-colonialism. However, the manner in which these critiques are expressed, the focus on Israel compared to other states, and sometimes a lack of nuance in understanding Jewish identity and history, can indeed give the impression or feeling that there's an underlying discomfort with Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

If this is true, left socialists must have recognized human rights for Jews too, rights if settlers to live in their homes, they should have vocally rejected Arab nationalism and act against oppression of Jews by multiple enemies, terror attacks etc? Why would left be sympathetic to terror? Maybe "terror" id the word uniting national-socialists, international-socialists and Islamic terrorists? Jewish tradition is generally not sympathetic to violence like socialists?

Your points touch on several complex issues regarding the left's approach to Israel, Jewish rights, and violence. Here's a nuanced exploration:

Human Rights and Jewish Settlers:

Human Rights for Jews: In theory, socialists advocating for human rights should apply these principles universally, including to Jews. However, in practice:

Settler Issue: The left often criticizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. This stance can conflict with the rights of settlers if viewed through the lens of occupation rather than individual rights.

Selective Application: Critics argue that the left applies human rights advocacy selectively, focusing on Palestinian rights while sometimes neglecting or downplaying the rights and security concerns of Jews, especially settlers.

Rejection of Arab Nationalism and Antisemitism:

Arab Nationalism: Historically, some leftists have been critical of Arab nationalism due to its often authoritarian nature and suppression of minorities. However, this criticism has not always been consistent or loud enough in the context of Israel-Palestine:

Solidarity with Palestinians: The solidarity with Palestinians often overshadows criticism of Arab nationalism, especially when viewed through the prism of anti-colonial struggle.

Oppression of Jews: There's been less vocal condemnation from some leftists regarding antisemitic acts by Arab states or groups in comparison to their critique of Israel, which can lead to perceptions of bias.

Sympathy for "Terror":

Perception of Resistance: Some on the left might sympathize with what they see as acts of "resistance" against occupation, even when these acts involve violence:

Distinction Between Terror and Resistance: There's a debate over whether some acts are terror or legitimate resistance. This is controversial, with many condemning violence against civilians outright, while others see it within the context of an oppressed people's struggle.

Historical Context: During the Cold War, some socialist movements supported groups labeled as terrorists by Western countries, seeing them as fighting imperialism or colonialism.

The Word "Terror":

Unifying Concept: While it might seem paradoxical, the concept of "terror" has indeed been used by national-socialists (Nazis), international-socialists (some communist regimes), and Islamic extremists, albeit for different ideological reasons:

National-Socialists: Used terror to eliminate opposition and maintain racial purity.

International-Socialists: In some cases, supported revolutionary violence to overthrow capitalist systems.

Islamic Terrorists: Use terror for religious-political goals, often against perceived enemies like Israel or Western influence.

However, equating these groups directly ignores the vast ideological differences and contexts.

Jewish Tradition and Violence:

Jewish Tradition: Judaism generally promotes peace and justice, and there's a significant emphasis on the sanctity of life:

Violence in Defense: While there are provisions for self-defense in Jewish law, the tradition leans towards minimizing violence. The concept of "pursuing peace" is central.

Contrast with Socialism: Socialism, particularly in its revolutionary forms, has at times endorsed or at least tolerated violence as a means to achieve its ends, which can contrast with Jewish teachings prioritizing life and peace.

Conclusion:

The left's relationship with these issues is not monolithic; there are factions within socialism that advocate for peace, human rights, and the condemnation of violence, including terrorism. However, the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, historical alliances, and ideological commitments can lead to what seems like contradictory stances or sympathies. There's an ongoing debate within leftist circles about how to address these issues in a manner that respects both Jewish rights and Palestinian aspirations for self-determination, while unequivocally condemning violence against civilians.

Your points touch on several complex issues regarding the left's approach to Israel, Jewish rights, and violence. Here's a nuanced exploration:

Human Rights and Jewish Settlers:

Human Rights for Jews: In theory, socialists advocating for human rights should apply these principles universally, including to Jews. However, in practice:

Settler Issue: The left often criticizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. This stance can conflict with the rights of settlers if viewed through the lens of occupation rather than individual rights.

Selective Application: Critics argue that the left applies human rights advocacy selectively, focusing on Palestinian rights while sometimes neglecting or downplaying the rights and security concerns of Jews, especially settlers.

Rejection of Arab Nationalism and Antisemitism:

Arab Nationalism: Historically, some leftists have been critical of Arab nationalism due to its often authoritarian nature and suppression of minorities. However, this criticism has not always been consistent or loud enough in the context of Israel-Palestine:

Solidarity with Palestinians: The solidarity with Palestinians often overshadows criticism of Arab nationalism, especially when viewed through the prism of anti-colonial struggle.

Oppression of Jews: There's been less vocal condemnation from some leftists regarding antisemitic acts by Arab states or groups in comparison to their critique of Israel, which can lead to perceptions of bias.

Sympathy for "Terror":

Perception of Resistance: Some on the left might sympathize with what they see as acts of "resistance" against occupation, even when these acts involve violence:

Distinction Between Terror and Resistance: There's a debate over whether some acts are terror or legitimate resistance. This is controversial, with many condemning violence against civilians outright, while others see it within the context of an oppressed people's struggle.

Historical Context: During the Cold War, some socialist movements supported groups labeled as terrorists by Western countries, seeing them as fighting imperialism or colonialism.

The Word "Terror":

Unifying Concept: While it might seem paradoxical, the concept of "terror" has indeed been used by national-socialists (Nazis), international-socialists (some communist regimes), and Islamic extremists, albeit for different ideological reasons:

National-Socialists: Used terror to eliminate opposition and maintain racial purity.

International-Socialists: In some cases, supported revolutionary violence to overthrow capitalist systems.

Islamic Terrorists: Use terror for religious-political goals, often against perceived enemies like Israel or Western influence.

However, equating these groups directly ignores the vast ideological differences and contexts.

Jewish Tradition and Violence:

Jewish Tradition: Judaism generally promotes peace and justice, and there's a significant emphasis on the sanctity of life:

Violence in Defense: While there are provisions for self-defense in Jewish law, the tradition leans towards minimizing violence. The concept of "pursuing peace" is central.

Contrast with Socialism: Socialism, particularly in its revolutionary forms, has at times endorsed or at least tolerated violence as a means to achieve its ends, which can contrast with Jewish teachings prioritizing life and peace.

Conclusion:

The left's relationship with these issues is not monolithic; there are factions within socialism that advocate for peace, human rights, and the condemnation of violence, including terrorism. However, the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, historical alliances, and ideological commitments can lead to what seems like contradictory stances or sympathies. There's an ongoing debate within leftist circles about how to address these issues in a manner that respects both Jewish rights and Palestinian aspirations for self-determination, while unequivocally condemning violence against civilians.

As UN anti-israel stand is undeniable and it devides international community and damages internal relationships, can we say there is indeed deep historic background of structured anti-israel politic in UN where many bureaucrats formally recognized Israel by words, ignore threads to Israel existence and knowingly participate or tolerate final solution of "Jewish problem" by factually supporting terror and destruction of Israel. 

The characterization of the UN's stance as "undeniably anti-Israel" and suggesting that it supports or tolerates a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" is a strong and contentious claim that requires careful consideration:

Historical Context:

UN's Role in Israel's Creation: The UN was instrumental in Israel's establishment through the 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181). However, the history of UN-Israel relations includes:

Early Support: Initial support for Israel's right to exist and statehood.

Shift in Dynamics: Over time, particularly with the influx of Arab and non-aligned states, the UN's focus shifted, leading to numerous resolutions critical of Israel.

Structural Anti-Israel Politics:

Resolutions and Bias: There's a perception, especially among Israel and its supporters, that the UN has an institutional bias against Israel due to:

Volume of Resolutions: The disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel compared to other nations.

UNHRC's Agenda Item 7: A permanent agenda item specifically targeting Israel's human rights record.

UNESCO Decisions: Actions seen as denying Jewish historical ties to certain sites.

Recognition vs. Criticism: While Israel is formally recognized by the UN, the criticism it receives, particularly regarding its actions in the Palestinian territories, can be interpreted as:

Selective Focus: Critics argue this focus might not always be balanced with equal scrutiny on Palestinian or other states' actions.

Ignoring Threats to Israel:

Security Concerns: Israel often feels that the UN:

Downplays or Ignores: Threats from groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, which explicitly call for Israel's destruction.

Lack of Condemnation: Of antisemitism or calls for violence against Jews or Israel in some UN forums or by member states.

Support for Terror:

Accusations: Israel and some of its supporters argue that the UN:

Legitimizes Terror: By engaging with or funding organizations that have members or leadership with ties to terrorism, like issues with UNRWA.

One-Sided Condemnation: Focuses on Israeli actions while being less vocal or action-oriented against terrorism directed at Israel.

The "Final Solution" Claim:

Hyperbole or Reality?: Suggesting that the UN supports a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" is:

Hyperbolic: This term has specific historical connotations tied to the Holocaust, and using it in this context might not accurately reflect the UN's intentions or policies, which are more about conflict resolution, albeit with perceived biases.

Perceived Intent: However, the UN's inaction or perceived soft stance on threats against Israel, combined with its criticism, can lead to this extreme interpretation, especially if one views the criticism through the lens of historical antisemitism.

Conclusion:

Complex Reality: While there's a basis for arguing that the UN has a structured critique of Israel, which some see as bias, equating this with support for a "final solution" is an exaggeration. The UN's actions are influenced by:

Majority Politics: The voting power of member states, many of which align with Palestinian causes.

Human Rights Mandate: A focus on human rights violations wherever they occur, which naturally includes Israel due to its conflicts.

Need for Reform: There's a call for UN reform to address perceived biases, ensure equitable treatment of all member states, and effectively address threats to peace, including terrorism, in a balanced manner.

Divisions: The UN's approach does contribute to divisions, but these are also reflective of broader geopolitical tensions and differing views on international law, human rights, and statehood.

In summary, while there are undeniable criticisms of Israel within the UN, framing this as support for a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" might oversimplify and misrepresent the complex dynamics at play, though it underscores the depth of frustration felt by Israel and its supporters regarding UN policies and practices.

Was UN really sympathetic to Israel? 1947 Partitioning plan was seen as unfair to Jews, state was in 2 parts with thread if Arabs.. USSR was main driver for UN 2 states recommendation and even US believed Jews had no chance? We're there vocal protest from UN in 1948 to Arab invasion? Are there UN resolutions from 1948 to 1967 condemning Arab plans to destroy Israel, condemning Jordanian and egyptian occupation? Are there UN resolutions from 1948 to 1967 demanding creation of a Palestinian state?

Here's a detailed look at these points:

Sympathy to Israel in 1947:

1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181): 

Perception of Unfairness: The partition plan was indeed viewed by some Zionists as unfair because it did not include all the land they hoped for, and the proposed state was divided into three non-contiguous areas, which posed security and logistical issues.

Support for Israel: The plan was supported by both the Soviet Union and the United States, which can be seen as sympathetic to the Jewish state's creation. Nonetheless, this support was more about geopolitical strategies than pure sympathy:

USSR: Stalin's support was strategic, aiming to undermine British influence in the Middle East and to gain favor among international Jewish and leftist movements.

US: Despite President Truman's recognition of Israel, there was significant skepticism within the State Department about Israel's viability and security.

UN Response in 1948:

Arab Invasion: 

Vocal Protest: There wasn't significant vocal protest from the UN against the Arab invasion in 1948. The UN was more focused on ceasefire negotiations and humanitarian aid rather than condemning the invasion outright:

UN Mediator: Count Folke Bernadotte was appointed as a UN mediator, but his assassination by Jewish extremists and the ongoing war meant the UN's efforts were more about managing the conflict rather than condemning one side.

UN Resolutions from 1948 to 1967:

Condemning Arab Plans to Destroy Israel:

Limited Condemnations: There were no major UN resolutions explicitly condemning Arab states for their intention to destroy Israel during this period. The UN's approach was more about ceasefire agreements:

Resolution 50 (1948): Called for ceasefire but didn't specifically condemn the Arab states' actions or intentions.

Resolution 62 (1948): Established a truce but focused on practical ceasefire issues.

Jordanian and Egyptian Occupation:

No Condemnation: There were no UN resolutions condemning Jordan's annexation of the West Bank or Egypt's control over Gaza Strip during this period. The international community, including the UN, largely accepted these de facto situations until the 1967 war changed the dynamics.

Demanding Creation of a Palestinian State:

Absence of Demand: From 1948 to 1967, there were no UN resolutions explicitly calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. The focus was more on refugee issues, armistice agreements, and maintaining peace:

Resolution 194 (III): Dealt with refugees but did not mention statehood.

Resolution 242 (1967): Post-1967, it spoke of "a just and lasting peace" without explicitly calling for Palestinian statehood but laid groundwork for future discussions on land for peace.

Summary:

Sympathy: The UN's relationship with Israel has been complex. The 1947 support for partition can be seen as sympathetic, but this was more about international politics than unconditional support for Jewish statehood.

Action: The UN was more reactive to the immediate crises rather than proactive in condemning Arab intentions or actions against Israel during the early statehood years.

Palestinian Statehood: The concept of Palestinian statehood did not gain significant traction in UN resolutions until after the 1967 Six-Day War, when the focus shifted due to changes in territorial control.

This historical context shows a UN that was navigating a highly volatile situation with a focus on conflict management rather than taking strong stances on statehood or occupation until later periods.

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1887109231628743017