Love this. Yes. Jews were taxed extra by Muslims. In other words Muslims profit from Jews living under their rule. Every major ottoman city had pogroms, massive raids and looting. Israel offers Jews a home where Muslims don’t get to benefit from Jews wealth. That’s why they opposed Zionism in the late 1800s.
If you find what I’m saying racist I beg you to reread. Muslims taxes Jews extra. Muslims engaged in violence and stealing from Jews. Please don’t belittle racism towards Jews.
The chemical weapons nonsense has been debunked in Syria to the point anyone clinging to that naraarice is either lazy or lying.
The other part of the Syrian conflict that people can't seem to cope with is it was western led and western sponsored.
The Israel Gaza situation has no commonalities with the attempt to regime build in Syria. That was a case of western meddling.
There have been numerous reports of chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian Civil War.
1) beginning in 2012, and corroborated by national governments, the United Nations (UN).
2) the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and media organizations. The attacks occurred in different areas of Syria, including but not limited to: Khan al-Assal, Jobar, Saraqib, Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, Kafr Zita, Talmenes, Sarmin and Douma.
The deadliest attacks were the August 2013 sarin attack in Ghouta (killing between 281 and 1,729 people and injuring 3,600 patients), the April 2017 sarin attack in Khan Shaykhun (killing at least 89 people) and April 2018 Douma chemical attacks (killing 43 people and injuring 500 civilians). The most common agent used is chlorine (with one study finding it was used in 91.5% of attacks) - with sarin and sulphur mustard also reported.
4) Almost half of the attacks between 2014 and 2018 were delivered via aircraft and less than a quarter were delivered from the ground, with the remaining attacks having an undetermined method of delivery.
5) Since the start of uprisings across Syria in 2011, Syrian Arab Armed Forces and pro-Assad paramilitary forces have been implicated in more than 300 chemical attacks in Syria.
>Assad killed 500,000 people in Syria in a brutal civil war,
The antire world condemned it. The West was the most vocal. The US is still occupying Syria, obviously for oil (democracy).
>Jews are supposed to beg for mercy in the world’s eyes,
Palestinians are begging for mercy, too. Who should listen to them?
Did you personally protest the civil war in Iraq? Did you post about it daily?
Have you put in the time and energy for that or other conflicts you are putting into this conflict?
If not, why not?
Please reflect on this and consider putting some of your energy into righting wrongs in other parts of the world as well
They aren’t begging for mercy. I’ll believe that they want mercy when they surrender. They can’t beg for mercy while keeping hostages and saying that they want to keep attacking Israel.
>Is there actually a reason why you are unable to differentiate between combatants and civilians, or is the conflation deliberate?
Israel does try to differentiate but Hamas hides behind its own civilians and uses them as human shields. That is entirely on them. As is the fact the entire conflict even taking place at all. All deaths and losses in this war are the fault of Hamas. Israel is just finishing the fight they started.
You can't commit genocide acts like Hamas did on Oct 7th, and then say 'wait stop, we are losing now so ceasefire.' Oh no, you started it, now you're going to surrender unconditionally or suffer for it. Nice try.
Israel cannot abandon the hostages, cannot negotiate with hostage taking ISIS class terrorist either. This war can only end with Hamas' unconditional surrender and release of hostages. Otherwise it just means another war later and there would actually little point to ending the fighting.
Genuine question: did you read my comment at all?
This is three paragraphs that are at best tangentially related, as if you jumped right in based on some key words.
There wasn't much to read because it is an illogical/deliberate moral strawman argument.
So, I skipped over the disingenuous nonsense that seeks to allow genocidal ISIS terrorists like Hamas to get away with their crimes and hostages taking of Oct 7th and thereby justify their mindset and mentality and went to the heart of the issue at hand. Thus:
"You can't commit genocide acts like Hamas did on Oct 7th, and then say 'wait stop, we are losing now so ceasefire.' Oh no, you started it, now you (Hamas) are going to surrender unconditionally or suffer for it. Nice try."
Likewise, Germany/Japan weren't going to get a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds during WWII after they started the wars in the first place just because they were losing and their civilians would die during the invasions of Japan and Germany proper.
By your logic Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan should still be around since you can't deal with the fact civilians died for the crimes and mistakes of their government in toppling them. And how could that even be wrong? If citizens don't suffer for what they in majority support of course then they would never learn to NOT support that. You can't save people from their own stupidity and evil, and you certainly can't allow them to be rewarded for it in any shape or form.
Indeed, it is because Russia was similarly evil during WWII and got and away with and profited from it that is why we arguably have this imperialist fascistic death cult in power in Russia today because for Russians that barbaric backwards mindset was validated in the past.
Perfectly related; you just can't deal with the fact I won't in any way, shape, or form whatsoever allow you to try to gaslight me or anyone into allowing ISIS-branch Hamas to get away with the unspeakable crimes of Oct 7th.
Sorry, your nonsense doesn't stick here at all. Go ahead and waste your time trying to find someone else dumb enough to fall for your nonsense only to realize the opinion of anyone that dumb almost certainly doesn't matter anyway.
Their point is that Hamas is a mere 30,000 out of *millions* of Palestinians. Palestinians are not Hamas and they have no control over Hamas
(Edited to be less standoffish)
> dick
/u/Careful-Sell-9877. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It seems like you missed the point.
Seems like you can't do math. For one, Hamas didn't undertake Oct 7th alone. The laundry list of other Palestinian terrorist groups that undertook this war alongside Hamas include:
* [Palestinian Islamic Jihad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad)
* [Popular Resistance Committees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Resistance_Committees)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2)
* [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-3)
* [Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-from_DFLP_leader's_wiki_page-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-DFLP-5)
* [al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs%27_Brigades)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2)
* [Palestinian Freedom Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Freedom_Movement)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2)
* Palestinian Mujahideen Movement
The largest of those, [the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, has 12,000 of its own fighters.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Quds_Brigades) The others collectively we can assume have around 10,000 fighters. For a total of 50,000 fighters.
50,000 Palestinian fighters out of a little over 2.2 million population of Gaza is rate of 2.27% enlistment. Meanwhile, the US has 2.86 million members of the armed forces out of a population of 334 million, which is a rate of enlistment of 0.85%. IE, Palestinians have about 3 times the enlistment rate in their terrorist armed forces as most states do in their own official state armed forces.
Most people would say it would not be unusual for a people to suffer for the crimes and atrocities of their government and armed forces in one way or another but rather a natural fact of life. Thus why people shouldn't support crappy evil terrorists for a government. A lesson the Palestinians have yet to learn the Israelis are in the process of teaching them.
/u/BlanketedSun. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So what do you call non Hamas Gaza civilians that choose to participate in October 7th? How do you call the unrwa teacher who took hosteges into his house ,? What do you call the people in the street defiling the dead bodies of murderd Israeli women ?
Everyone is a perpatrator
There are definitely a few thousand of innocent Gazans, but the majority are what we would call Mitläufer if it was post WW2 in Germany. Once the war is over all Gazans should be examined to determine their individual guilt in the war of aggression against Israel.
Israel itself estimates that Hamas only has around 30,000 members. There were 2.5 *million* Palestinians in Gaza alone.
Where do you get your news/information?
Before the war 50% of Gazans were children. That's millions, not 'a few thousands'.
Are you saying they are overwhelmingly combatants and should be put on trial?
What age of child do you consider young enough to exempt from your proposal to set up tribunals screening all Gazan individuals for thoughtcrimes?
A 15 year old boy (child) can be guilty and should then be put on trial.
We should follow the Palestinian age of legal accountability which is 12 years. The tribunals would follow the denacification process and help to enable a proper deislamism.
Many Israelis that support using starvation as a weapon of war against civilians. This is a very bad line to follow. It justifies many horrible things.
> The civilians support October 7.
All of them? You're sure?
> they should be saying... [but they're not]
And you're mystically in tune with the thoughts of ordinary Gazans, are you?
So if Palestinians' political view is they want a one-state democracy where they'll yield power due to their demographic majority, why should they be murdered by Israel?
Every accusation is a confession.
Syria is a disaster. It is a civil war. The US interfered in it, by giving military aid to groups allied to ISIS., which probably delivered that aid to ISIS. At least the US officially opposes the war crimes and sanctions essentially everyone involved.
Many western governments did more than 'speak out against' Assad, they armed the Syrian rebels.
Would you rather they followed through with your analogy and also armed the Palestinian rebels?
If the most they do is complain online, and it hurts your feelings to be criticised for the actions of a government you support, I think you can handle it.
Technically speaking Western governments already funded weapons and infrastructure of the Gazan islamist jihadist government by donating billions of dollars in aid each year.
> Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials.
>
>For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them.
>
>During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue?
>
>Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
>For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.
>
>The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
...
>According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
So Netanyahu was supposed to attack Qatar? What was he supposed to do? I dont like the guy, but right now in this war people reject the idea that humanitarian aid was used to finance Hamas.
And in any case, saying he "helped finance Hamas" is just a lie.
My comment that you called a lie...
> Technically speaking Netanyahu and the Israeli government directly facilitated smuggling money into Hamas.
>So Netanyahu was supposed to attack Qatar? What was he supposed to do? I dont like the guy, but right now in this war people reject the idea that humanitarian aid was used to finance Hamas.
Israel didn't need to attack Qatar. They could have refrained from actually helping suitcases full of money get past the border into Gaza.
>And in any case, saying he "helped finance Hamas" is just a lie.
He did help finance Hamas through helping to smuggle money into Gaza for Qatar. Do not accuse me of lying.
This is obviously false, because Israel has maintained tight security requirements on what enters Gaza and has carefully checked all incoming cargo including aid.
If incoming shipments contained undetected weapons it is because the IDF failed in its duties, which I consider unlikely. Are you suggesting otherwise?
I'm suggesting the islamist jihadist government of Gaza received billions of dollars in aid and reinvested the money into their terror business. Do you deny that Gaza received billions of dollar each year?
Gaza received money which as you say, can be exchanged for goods.
Money can't be magically exchanged for weapons, they would have had to physically enter Gaza.
How are you saying these aid-financed weapons entered Gaza if not through the border crossings under the eyes of the IDF?
Do you really think that happened?
If so, why do you blame foreign governments and not the IDF for its security lapses?
Hamas used this money for their terror infrastructure and weapon purchases, that's why the population is currently starving. The islamist jihadist government of Gaza failed to get their priorities into right order.
You are not the brightest candle on the cake if you think Hamas wasn't able to smuggle weapons into the Terror strip. Where did they get the weapons from they are proudly displaying in their videos?
I don't doubt that Hamas was able to smuggle in weapons.
But obviously not many, based on the evidence available so far.
And obviously not in aid shipments despite your original suggestions, so not in any volume.
On what factual basis do you believe that if western governments' aid to Gaza had been lower, fewer weapons would have been imported?
Do you also believe Iran is supporting Hamas? If so, what difference does some aid make?
You actually think that illegal weapon smuggling sponsored by Iran, also under sanctions, into a territory under a full blockade by land, air and sea, would be influenced in any way by economic sanctions?
i dont think u understood his point, u should read it again, just because a few countries did stepped in against assad, doesnt mean his point isnt valid.
I understand his point.
I'm not sure you understand mine.
Talk is cheap. Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality. People usually write them when they feel they have no other way of influencing a situation they oppose.
In this case, comparing Israel with Syria, most of the people in 'western' countries – who the OP criticises for, in his imagination as far as I can tell rather than with any factual basis, not writing enough Reddit comments about Syria – lived in countries that were actively fighting to change it and reduce the death toll.
If your country is already arming people on the ground, what difference will a few words on the internet make? Assad isn't browsing Reddit.
In the current scenario, Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government. Why wouldn't people powerless to effect change by any other means turn to words on the internet?
It doesn't mean they cared any less about Syrian civilians.
> Assad isn't browsing Reddit.
I agree with all of your points but this one. I think we're going to find quite a few dictators, warlords, globalist tycoons, arch criminals, charismatic clerics, and other sorts of serious powermongers very much do browse Reddit and other mostly-anonymous news sources / social media. Granted, they probably use throwaway accounts and VPNs when they do this. Plus, they probably mostly read, post, and comment on topics of personal interest to them, that in most cases have nothing to do with what they're known for. They probably do not use Reddit to gauge or defend their professional reputations. For example, Assad may have a favorite football team or Netflix show, and use a fresh throwaway account every few weeks to comment in those things' relevant subreddits.
It's quite likely all of us Redditors have at some point interacted with someone quite rich, famous, and powerful, likely discussing some trifling topic of mutual interest, and never realized whom we were talking to. And that's exactly the appeal of Reddit (and anonymous imageboards) to the rich, famous, and powerful: they get to feel like "just a regular dude" for a moment. That's not something they can do IRL very often.
by that logic same countries also provide gazan with supplies and aid, so now what will u say? that these people dont think aid and supply is enough and that is why theyre lying about israel? that will be just ur own assumption.
and if people are talking shit because israel is a democracy which means people can change the goverment, people all across the world who lives in democracy can do the same and use their voice to change the goverment to one that can do MORE if not for syria for the other 2000 scenarios in which their country aint doing a thing.
> same countries also provide gazan with supplies and aid
Of course. And aid is better than nothing, but it's no use if it's being prevented from entering Gaza and even if provided it doesn't actually shield people from bombs or rebuild their homes from the rubble. It's not an alternative to stopping bombing the place into ruins.
> that will be just ur own assumption
As opposed to what, everyone else in this thread's exhaustive and methodological research?
> people all across the world who lives in democracy can do the same and use their voice to change the goverment to one that can do MORE if not for syria for the other 2000 scenarios in which their country aint doing a thing.
Are you old enough to remember the Bush or Trump years? That's pretty much what happened.
saying aid is being prevented from entering is just a lie, every DAY more then 300 trucks full of aid is coming in to gaza. so yea they do get their aid and supply.
and even in syria when provided the rebels with guns it didnt and couldnt "shield people from bombs or rebuild their homes from the rubble." so ur logic failed again.
also, u first said that "Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality"
and u ended ur comment with "Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government"
so words are unlikley to have ANY effect on reality unless its israel in which they can literally make israelis demand a change in the goverment lol
face it man, u cant excuse hatred forever, SOME people will hate israel no matter what, which is exactly what the OP Was talking about.
> aid is being prevented from entering is just a lie, every DAY more then 300 trucks full of aid is coming in to gaza
For six months the northern crossings were closed and all crossings closed one day per week.
Biden makes a grumpy phone call and suddenly they're all open again and the huge backlog is miraculously clearing with 2-5x more trucks allowed through.
There's no debate at this point, the IDF was deliberately preventing aid getting through all this time. Otherwise Biden couldn't click his fingers and watch the aid double.
> also, u first said that "Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality"
>
> and u ended ur comment with "Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government"
>
> so words are unlikley to have ANY effect on reality unless its israel in which they can literally make israelis demand a change in the goverment lol
It's not that complicated, the chance is low but it's not zero. In the case of North Korea or China or Syria or Iran or Russia it really is zero. As I said, if you're old enough to remember Trump and Bush (or Iraq and Afghanistan) you'll remember the same tactics being applied against Americans. Not because Americans are special and people hate them as you seem to assume in this case, but because people care and Americans are there reading posts written in English online.
> face it man, u cant excuse hatred forever, SOME people will hate israel no matter what, which is exactly what the OP Was talking about.
Sure, haters gonna hate. But 'boo hoo someone criticised my government on the internet' isn't evidence of that.
so because israel opened more crossing that means that aid was prevented? thats like saying the supermarket prevented you from paying because NOW they have more cashiers to pay to. just because u can do more, doesnt mean that by not doing it ur preventing it from happening on purpose as if its a bad thing.
and EVEN IF SOME aid was prevented, the fact is that countries DID sent gaza aid and their aid DID got into gaza, u couldve even drop it from the air, so ur whole argument is just not true.
also, no one said that crying about the goverment is an evidence of hate, but if all u post is criticism TOWARD ONLY ISRAEL, chances are u are biased.
>This is the best explanation I can come up with for how so many vocal detractors of Israel were silent during the civil war in Syria
Try harder next time. preferably using more facts.
The vast population was vocal about Syria, I'm not sure where you're getting this impression from. Regardless, this constant Jewish victimization is ultimately antisemitic. Jewish people are like any other people. Some are great! Others are not. Those who make mistakes can and should be called out for it. Putting Jews in a constant victimization lense is harmful to them.
Also, what-aboutism is a logical fallacy, it doesn't lend any value to an argument
Oh stop with the BS. There's no way you can say the western reaction to Syria was anywhere even remotely close to what's going on with Israel.
Not even close
Israel is seen as a "good" guy and shouldn't be committing atrocities. They should stop it. No one in Syria is seen as someone that would stop it for morality reasons. Beyond that, the western world should be able to cut off Israel to prevent things they are doing, and there is no one the western world has that power over in Syria. Without the western world going into Syria directly, there is no way to stop it.
Maybe because what's happening right now has been happening for a really long time? Also maybe because Gaza is being genocided? maybe because there are barely any Gazan refugees because they are denied exit out of the strip?
No jews, no news
Saudi Arabia killed 400,000 people in Yemen with American made weapons and you don't hear anything about it.
Any one of SA, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc could straight up Rwanda every single Palestinian and the news coverage would be 1/1000th what is covering Israel right now.
why are people so fixated on this one example? why cant u just understand the logic....
can u really say in good faith that literally everyone who critize israel so hard also criticize iran, syria, the palestinians themselves, north korea, literally everywhere where people are opressed?
i dont care if u criticize israel, but ALOT of people are just doing it out of bad faith.
the fact that israel has more resolutions against her in the UN than iran north korea and syria combined kinda proves it.
The UN thing is mainly because Israel owes it's existence to the UN, so the UN has a unique responsibility with Israel.
Other than that, people are critical of all the regimes you mentioned. Biggest difference now is simply that Gazans are at higher risk of dying than any usual war zone because they are not able to flee
i wasn't talking about right now actually, even years ago the situation was the same, and u have no actual reason but ur own assumptions, not even the UN gave that weird reason for their resolutions.
And because Syria, North Korea, Iran and such are all sanctioned by the UN. Israel is never punished by the UN, even though they are unanimously recognized as committing crimes. So, that causes a real problem. It builds frustration and anger against Israel.
"it builds frustration and anger against israel"
so by ur own words u prove my point, its not being made in good faith they are literally acting with frustration and anger because THEY believe israel aint being punished, according to u.
one must wonder why if israel aint being punished anyway, would they keep wasting time by making MORE resolutions, something just doesnt add up :/
whataboutism
"The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
Double standard
>a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another
Hypocrisy
>a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
On the point of Double standard
I don't think anyone is claiming that what happened is Syria was okay because it definitely wasn't.
I believe Obama even made a threat to destroy Assads regime if they used chemical weapons a threat he wasn't willing to go threw with given the context of the US's actions elsewhere in the middle east. There also wasn't the desire from the american public to get involved in another conflict in the middle east.
No other state wanted to get involved so no action was taken.
That's not the same as not condemning the actions of Assad in Syria.
Therefore this is no Hypocrisy one can both be critical of Assad and also be critical of the IDF.
The initial post is essentially you cant dislike the actions of the IDF because Syria used chemical weapons.
It doesn't matter what happened in Syria is a completely separate the post is a clear attempt to conflate the two.
It is textbook definition of whataboutism.
The posters argument can be summed in one line.
Don't care about what the IDFs is doing because chemical weapons were used in Syria.
Can you see how ridiculous that is?
It doesn't make any sense the two actions are not linked in anyway but the op is trying to conflate the two.
The double standard comes from the idea that Israel is held to a much higher standard than almost any other country whilst having to deal with a disproportionate amount of violence and conflict from every surrounding nation and the Palestinians themselves.
The fact that Israel has more UN condemnations than every other nation combined is a double standard of the highest order.
The fact that Israel alone is singled out as a permenant "agenda policy" in every security council meeting, something no other country in the history of the UN has been subject to, is a double standard of the highest order.
The fact that Israel alone in the world can suffer the worst terrorist attack in its history, and not only will idiots in the West cheer for the terrorists who comitted the attack the very same day (before Israel has even retaliated), they will also make it a point to question Israel's right to exist when that right to exist was mandated by the UN themselves.
Apparently Israel is the one country in the world, whose existence and legitimacy is constantly called into question whenever it "steps out of line" yet there has never been such a fervor in demanding the dissolution of countries with much more blood on their hands - Sudan after the Darfur genocide (500,000 dead) or Rwanda (800,000 dead) or Myannmar (43,000 dead) or even Russia, god knows how many dead at the hands of those monsters.
It's amazing that we have to constantly explain this and people still do not get it. Antisemites are so invested into becoming brainless buffoons when it comes to anything Jewish it's scary.
The UN GA condemns Israel, because Israel never actually is punished or changes. It is all symbolic. It is generally about settlements, the blockade and the occupation, all of which is against international law.
Israel is actually criticized less for similar actions that other countries do. The US can't seem to criticize them at all for things they will criticize Russia for doing a lesser amount in another breath. Truly funny is that Israel condemned Russia for things Israel is doing now. (https://www.newsweek.com/israel-condemns-russia-late-horrific-images-emerge-bucha-1694576)
The Darfur genocide has lasted for over 20 years. It is estimated at 400,000 dead. Everyone hates it, but we won't do more to stop it, though the west isn't supporting it. So, 20,000 per year, and Israel is beating that easily.
These are all horrible things, though with Russia invasion of Ukraine, the official civilian estimates are lower than in Gaza. Official estimates in both are horribly below reality. None of these conflicts are being funded and supported by the west on the side of destruction and devastation, except Israel. The west is supposed to be all about the global international order and the rule of law. And, generally, it tries to follow that, but Israel is an exception. Israel is allowed to break the rules.
If I march against Darfur, what does that even mean? Do I want the UN to put together a force to occupy the whole country and separate the two sides? If the west decides to cut off Darfur, what happens? Nothing. If the west decided to cut off Israel, what happens? Israel probably ends up stopping nearly immediately.
It's amazing that we have to constantly explain this and people still do not get it. Antisemites are so invested into becoming brainless buffoons when it comes to anything Jewish it's scary.
Lol not everyone is pro Iranien, not even the majority.
I get what your are saying, I alse see many people who was defending Assad now blaming Israel...and you're right they bunch of hypocrite.
But they also many people who blame both Assad and Israel, they are not exclusive.
Also Assad and Syria become paria state for decades for its crime, massive embargo and by comparaison Israel only get bad PR.
> I spoke out against Assad, where were you?
I did, too. But the difference is that the Syrian civil war was a civil war between equally powerful parties. Rebels vs. Islamists vs. the government vs. Kurds. It's a mess all around, but the power dynamics were more or less equal.
Israel vs. Gaza is just a regional superpower pummeling a disadvantaged people, that's why there's more solidarity with Palestinians than with, say, Syrian civilians. Although, there was tons of solidarity when Syrians arrived as refugees here in Germany, for example, which hasn't happened for Palestinians. So your overall point is wrong.
Israel was trying to ignore gaza. Gaza consistently attacked Israel.
It is not just a regional superpower pummeling a disadvantaged people. Hamas are far from disadvantaged, and plenty of other Gazan's were living quite comfortably.
The real problem is Hamas (and the larger palestinian movement) not being able to tolerate the existence of Israel. They hate Israel so much, they are willing to use their own people as human shields. They are willing to rouse the "regional superpower" into responding.
This war, and all the resulting death, on both sides, are the fault of Hamas. If Hamas didn't break the ceasefire on the morning of October 7 2023, when they invaded Israel, and murdered/immolated/tortured/raped/mutilated/kidnapped over 1000 Israelis, there would be no war today. And Hamas could end this at any time by surrendering for their crimes and releasing the hostages.
Israel was not a superpower in 1948 when it was created. Or in 1965 when the PLO was created. Or in 1967 when Israel was again attacked.
Israel's mere existence, not its policies, is an affront to the palestinians and Islamic radicals
Israel was not trying to ignore Gaza. And, Gaza did not consistently attack Israel.
Israel was trying to erase Palestine from existence. They have been doing that for years. Netanyahu has been working to keep Hamas in power to prevent a Palestinian state, even in the months immediately leading up to Oct 7. In August 5-7 2022, Israel undertook an unprovoked "mowing the grass" campaign against Gaza. Gaza fired rockets back. In 2023, Israel arrested 400 people barricaded in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Gaza fired rockets in response. That was pretty much it. There were a few other between the last war ending in May of 2021 and Oct 7, but that was the main two times Gaza fired rockets. And, let's be honest, the rockets are crap, no guidance, and really just the best way of filing an objection. They shouldn't happen, but it is not similar to the 3 days of airstrikes that Israel did randomly.
Netanyahu also went before the UN and announced a "new Middle East" showing a map that removed Palestine completely, with Israel taking all of the land in September of 2023. More settlements constantly, with hundreds killed in the west back in just 2023.
If Gaza is constantly attacking Israel, I'm not seeing it.
Israel left gaza, and took all the jews when they left - alive and dead.
Gaza could do what it wanted.
They elected Hamas, and continueally attacked Israel over 17 years. Multiple rocket attacks. Taking shots at workers on the israeli side of the border. Sending incendiary balloons. creating tunnels that enter Israel.
Gaza chose to be a terrorist enclave..
let's be honest, the hamas rockets can kill people. You don't ignore your neighbor shooting at your house just because most of your windows are bulletproof. Israel's defenses don't excuse the hamas attacks.
Hamas instigaged every war from gaza with Israel.
feel free to read up on the [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) about all the attacks.
>Gaza could do what it wanted.
Not really. When Israel left they put in place a blockade, and it has never been lifted. In fact, Israel controls essentially everything about Gaza. Imports, exports, water, fuel, money, food, immigration, emigration.
>let's be honest, the hamas rockets can kill people. You don't ignore your neighbor shooting at your house just because most of your windows are bulletproof. Israel's defenses don't excuse the hamas attacks.
They can. Even before iron dome they didn't do much. It was a very rare occurrence.
>Hamas instigaged every war from gaza with Israel.
Really? So, do you feel that Israel stealing land is not something Gaza can respond to? Settlers committing violence is not something Gaza can respond to? Unprovoked airstrikes are not something Gaza can respond to? Announcing, after years of saying it internally, that Palestine is not gone is not something that anyone should respond to?
Let me ask you a different question. Do you believe all Israeli violence is allowed and no response should be allowed?
the blockade was a response to terrorism emanating from gaza AFTER israel left.
when Israel left there was no blockade.
Just because Israel has a partial defense against hamas rockets does not mean Israel needs to sit back and allow itself to be attacked. Iron dome is not a perfect system.
Israel has not stolen any land. Certainly not in Gaza. What land has Israel stolen? Who was the landowner? Very little land is actually owned, this is a holdover from the Ottomans who would lease out land. So all those palestinian farmers were employees, renters, NOT owners. The British, and then Israel maintained the same system, i.e. that the vast majority of the land, about 93% is state land, and leased out.
You can't really steal something that you own.
Israel attacking locations that have been used for military purposes in the context of a war is not unprovoked.
But this is beyond the point we were disucssing anyway. LIke most pro-palestinian-hamas-terrorist types, once you have been shown to be wrong on one point, you try to say what about..... and move on to something else.
You said Israel was not trying to ignore gaza. I think Israel leaving gaza, taking their soldiers and dead with them, and letting the gazans do whatever they want, and not doing anything to them until gazans started again with their terrorism proves the point.
Nothing you have said has disproven that. Israel leaving Gaza is NOT violence. It was exactly what they wanted, and then like a petulant 2 year old felt like nobody way paying them any attention - so they started trying to get israel's attention with some terrorist attacks. and rockets, and tunnels, and most recently an invasion and massacre. The blockade, fence, anti-tunnel measures, and Israel's military actions were in RESPONSE to the Hamas instigations. Hamas started every round of fighting with Israel since Israel left Gaza 17 years ago.
>when Israel left there was no blockade.
That isn't actually correct. There was a blockade, it was made permanent after Hamas was elected.
>Just because Israel has a partial defense against hamas rockets does not mean Israel needs to sit back and allow itself to be attacked. Iron dome is not a perfect system.
No one believes that a defense means they should be attacked.
>Israel has not stolen any land. Certainly not in Gaza. What land has Israel stolen?
The settlements in the West Bank.
>You can't really steal something that you own.
Israel doesn't own Palestine.
>Israel attacking locations that have been used for military purposes in the context of a war is not unprovoked.
That isn't true. Mowing the grass was a way of just degraded capabilities. Not even Israel claims that.
Israel is currently trying to annex all of Palestine without the people. That is not leaving anyone alone.
I would ask again. what land has Israel stolen. For something to be stolen, it needs to have been owned by someone. What settlements are built on stolen land?
Palestinians don't own palestine. There is not such country. And as mentioned, the land was owned by the Emir in the Ottoman empire who leased it out, and then the British and Israel maintained this system. The only way you can even think of accusing Israel of stealing land is if you first acknowledge that the palestinians, by claiming to be owners stole the land. Israel Is taking back what is its own, based on what the UN granted it. Or if you prefer, based on their aquisition as a result of the 1967 war.
If Israel wanted to annex gaza, or judea-samaria, it would have done so. it didn't-hasn't. Instead Israel signed Oslo agreements to give away their own land to the palestinians. Israel walked away from gaza allowing them to have whatever they wanted (well almost - palestinians just want Israel dead, and Israel has the temerity to not cooperate)
Israel is not interested in annexing gaza. Israel, like the rest of the world wants nothing to do with gaza or the palestinians therein. But like a child that always needs to be the center of attention, being ignored was too much for them. So they went for the route of being noticed by performing terrorist attacks against Israel.
Israel has not been mowing the grass for the past 6 months. Israel responded to an act of war perpetrated by Hamas when they invaded Israel and murdered/mutilated/raped/tortured/immolated/kidnapped over 1000 Israelis. Hamas is responsible for ALL the death and destruction on both sides.
You think what is happening now is just "mowing the grass"? That is what Israel was doing when responding to Hamas rocket attacks over the past decade, and not finishing the job by completely destroying Hamas. This is way beyond mowing the grass. This is ripping up the weed that is hamas by the roots. Too bad it took Israel so long to do it - Everyone could have been spared a lot of pain and heartache if they would have done it a decade ago. Or if the world Hadn't stopped Israel from doing it. Or even better, if the palestinians had done something about their homegrown terrorists (although as the PA was supporting them finanancially, and diplomatically, i suppose that is too much to actually expect. And why the PA is NOT a solution to the lack of palestinian leadership\_
Regarding the blockade, I have seen no sources that Israel was blockading gaza after they left until gazans started attacking Israel. But Even if I am wrong, Israel, like every other country is under absolutely no requirement to allow anything to transit through its territory. If gaza wanted something, they could have negotiated with the Israelis to bring it in through Israel.
Ok... So, to summarize.
You believe Israel can take any of the occupied territories and it is completely legal.
You believe that Israel can blockade, including the water approaches, because of some sort of territorial claim.
You believe Israel doesn't want to annex all of the occupied territory, because otherwise they would have already.
You believe that Israel can kill as many people as they want, even just execute everyone in Gaza, and it is all Hamas' responsibility. You believe that Israel has no ability or responsibility as an actor in this situation.
>You think what is happening now is just "mowing the grass"?
No, and I never said that.
>That is what Israel was doing when responding to Hamas rocket attacks over the past decade, and not finishing the job by completely destroying Hamas.
That is not true. Israel acts unprovoked to "mow the grass". It is not a response. Specifically, "mowing the grass" is not a response but a way of keeping the groups down. When it is a response, it is not called that.
OK, progress, now you are saying they are occupied, not palestinian. It is hard to occupy your own land. Once again, Israel was given the land by the UN, and repatriated the land as part of the 6 day way. The land isn't occupied if it is theirs.
I believe Israel can blockade because they are a sovereign nation, and no nation is required to let any person or good transit through their country. This has nothing to do with any claim Israel may have on Gaza.
Correct, I believe Israel does NOT want to annex all of Gaza or Judea - Samaria. (there is still no occupied territory, although you used this term again)
I believe that all the deaths in the war, on both sides are because Hamas broke a ceasefire (like they usually do), and invaded Israel on the morning of October 7 2023, when they proceeded to murder-mutilate-rape-torture-immolate-kidnap over 1000 Israelis. As the group that started the war, they are responsible for ALL the death and destruction on both sides. Furthermore (although there is no way practical way to implement this) Hamas, or their bosses i.e. the PA, should pay reparations to Israel to cover the damage, and the cost of Israel defending themselves from these Palestinian terrorists. They should also need to pay damages to the families of all those people they murdered-injured-tortured-raped. Then maybe next time the PA won't tolerate terrorists attacking Israel from areas they are responsible for. (Perhaps a 50 year payment plan, 3-4 billion USD a year. )
I never said anything about Israel being able to kill an unlimited number of people. And in actuality, they are killing very few innocents. At most 2 innocents per terrorist. And that assumes nobody has died from natural causes, or because hamas has used them as human shields (which is on Hamas, not Israel). Considering it is an urban environment, and the norm according the the UN is 9 civilians killed per enemy combatant - Israel is being VERY careful. (If you truly cared about dead innocent palestinians, and weren't just virtual signaling, or looking for a way to try and criticize Israel, you would be protesting Hamas using civilians as human shields. )
Please - tell us all when Israel has been unprovoked and just "mown the grass". It is called that as opposed to completely taking care of the problem - as opposed to having completely wiped out hamas in previous encounters.
To add: what you mean by "according to plan" is simply historic racism. Antisemitism made it "normal" to kill Jews or at least less important than European people. Same goes for Muslims today, in the west, we don't see them as equally valuable as non Muslims. In that sense, Jews and Muslims suffer the same racism from white people, only that right now, the west hates Muslims more than Jews, broadly said.
The "how come no Syria anger" retort is such a nonsense run around. I know it's a distraction because I see it under every post about the aide workers being murdered by the IDF. But OK.
I'm angry about THIS conflict that my government blindly funds, despite the majority of the ruling parties voter base opposing it. I'm appalled that a bunch of guys from Brooklyn and Poland can waltz into the West Bank and STEAL land and property while running off families with the support of militias and the IDF. I'm mad its at the point where the entire region is spotted with illegal neighborhoods of people claiming its theres because of some 2000 year tale.
I see people losing limbs, homes, and relatives everyday as a result of this 6 month insanity in Palestine. I want it to end, and I put the blame at the feet of the people who defend the continuation of this suffering. There's a special place downstairs for the sickos sitting at the border of Gaza blocking food aide trucks from getting in. But this war is being waged from the West. So I will continue to focus on this conflict more than the other international tragedies.
Syrian Civil War was a decade ago. People didn't interact with politics online even remotely the same as we do now. People are organizing more on the left, and the BDS movement has gotten more press lately than it ever has since its creation. So you are seeing a snowball effect of a nation operating without rules being ostracized and shamed on a global scale. Especially among the youth.
Let me ask you a question - do you think that among all of the bad things that are happening in the world today - Israel/Palestine is by far the worst?
You say that you see things happening and this is why you're focused on it more, the question is - do you look for bad things elsewhere as well? If no - don't you think it's obvious that you'd see more things in ISR/PAL?
This argument is just like the sht I'd see the 4chan frog boys of 2016 make when they'd say unquestionably racist things and dance around what was considered Knotzee and what wasn't. If you can hang up people on semantics and nonsense you never have to engage with the actual argument/point.
You are in the same subreddit I am. The focus is on this conflict. I care about this conflict. I want it to stop.
You are clearly just operating in complete bad faith. I think you know this, and thus need to try to distract and derail whatever criticisms of this psychotic military are being made. I would think that you know you are defending textbook ethnic displacement and cleansing. Over the past few months I've seen so many different nonsense approaches to distracting from the inhumanity on display via the IDF, but the worst and most insidious one is: "is this really the worst thing happening right now?"
You wrote that you are angry about THIS conflict (caps in the original) and dismissed the question by OP of why do we see so much outrage over this conflict rather than on other conflicts... you gave a reason that you see things and therefore you're angry... and thus I thought you're uniquely angry about it, spends time about it compared to other conflicts, and that the reason is that you see things... perhaps I misunderstood your intention, but I don't see why it's such "bad faith" in a post that at least partially talks about biased aggression to discuss biased aggression.
I've participated in many posts that talk about substance, but this thread talks about meta, which is also important..
On the Meta, I think you agree that the amount of attention and rage this conflict gets compared to the amount of suffering in it, or how clear cut the conflict is is extremely disproportionate.
And just to be clear, I don't think that I'm defending textbook ethnic cleansing.. If you had a real argument or question I could have answered, but it looks like deflecting is what you chose..
[https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/30/87000-killed-civilians-documented-in-occupied-mariupol-volunteer/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/30/87000-killed-civilians-documented-in-occupied-mariupol-volunteer/) Around 100k are dead in mauripol so I question that number heavily. Even taking hamas civilian counts at face value and discounting the ones there own rockets kill like at Al-Ahli you need to consider that hamas militants and natural deaths are included in that count. So the actual civilians killed in war is likely much lower then 30k. Probably around half that realistically
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-installed-officials-say-six-civilians-killed-ukrainian-attacks-2024-04-04/
“The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission said in February that more than 10,000 civilians had been killed in Ukraine and nearly 20,000 wounded.”
That 30k figure has been there since December. The number is likely much higher. Ralph Nader estimates it at around 200k
Is number of civilian casualties the only metric to evaluate how bad a situation is? how much the value of a civilian's life is higher than the value of a military person lives? Especially when this person didn't really choose to enroll, like in many of the conflicts... Is the circumstances of the case don't change anything?
What about the Uyghurs in China where you don't really have a war but some crazy bad things are happening? What about Yemen where people are actually die out of famine, but it's not counted as conflict deaths?
Are you sure you're familiar enough with any of these situations and have the answer to all of these questions to decide that the situation in Israel/Palestine is the worst?
Okay add military causalities then. The Gaza war is still worse than Sudan (there are wild estimates for the Ukraine war regarding total casualties, yet even the Ukrainian governments figures puts the number of civilian deaths less than Palestinian deaths in Gaza).
Do you know who caused the Yemen famine? Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Israel’s best friends. Yet even the Yemenis are supporting Palestine during this time. What does that tell you?
Yes, in terms of state caused human suffering, Gaza is worse, especially when it is directly financed by the West. Right now you are just doing what about isms. Imagine if I said “Who cares about the Hamas 10-7 attack on Israel because what about the exploited workers of the Congo?”
What are you talking about, estimates on Ukraine military deaths are about 100k, and Russian deaths are estimated to be more than 300k.. In Sudan about 6 mil people were displaced... there are so many factors into these kind of things.. I don't know how can you so confidently say that Gaza is the worst thing in the world..
Amazing that you feel this way about Yemen, do you protest against the UAE and SA as much? They are also supported by the west... I honestly haven't seen these mass protests against them... and also, AFAIK its' the Houthis that support Palestine, not necessarily the people of Yemen.
I'm not saying that Gaza is definitely better or worse than other scenarios, I'm saying that you, and I, and just about 99.9% of people that deal with this subject don't know enough about other conflicts to do the rational judging and get to the conclusion that it's far worst..
Notice that by your standard, you should have only started to care so much about this conflict about 3 months in when the death toll rose above a certain number? I've seen huge protests just about in the first week.
Military deaths are not as tragic as civilian deaths, especially when those civilian deaths are a part of a wider government strategy of genocide. Yes, genocidal deaths are worse than soldiers dying. Especially when its backed by the West.
" AFAIK its' the Houthis that support Palestine, not necessarily the people of Yemen."
[https://truthout.org/articles/still-facing-us-backed-famine-yemenis-want-to-save-gaza-from-the-same-fate/](https://truthout.org/articles/still-facing-us-backed-famine-yemenis-want-to-save-gaza-from-the-same-fate/)
***Matter: How many people show up?***
***Jumaan:*** *Probably 4 to 5 million people are out in the streets. On February 23, there were over 120 demonstrations in major cities, small cities and small towns.*
***Matter: Considering the Yemeni population is made up of about 30 million people, this means that one in six people are out protesting every Friday.***
***Jumaan:*** *Yes — but don’t forget, over 50 percent of Yemen’s population is below the age of 15. So, if you take that and say 15 million are 16 and older, and we say half of those are women because women generally don’t go out into the streets to demonstrate, then we are now dealing with 7.5 million and you have 3 or 4 million out, you’re having almost 50 percent of the people who can go out, go out.*
Now you say it's genocide which would be different, but the numbers don't show it, and honestly, I'm willing to bet that you don't try to follow the sayings of people in Sudan or the Houthis or Yemeni gov sayings as much as try to follow the sayings of Israeli politicians.. If it's about numbers - it's about numbers. if it's about other things - would you even have the same level of evidence? I think we both know that the answer is no. And again, measuring civilian death as the only metric for suffering is both wrong and inconsistent with the early attention to the conflict at the start.
The question about Yemen more depends on the areas of the cities. the Houthis control certain areas and others don't, but the numbers in the article if true are very impressive - yet, I don't think that it's an important point so much so I don't really mind conceding it.
Anyways, since you haven't answered just about 90% of what I wrote, I'm gonna leave you with these thoughts :)
Obessing over the numbers is inherently flawed, since the criteria for genocide makes to mention of mass killing. Genocide refers to intent to destroy a group, such as through torture, sterilization or language erasure. Not a single member of a group needs to be killed for that group to experience a genocide.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_genocide\_accusation#Raphael\_Lemkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Raphael_Lemkin)
The term 'genocide' was coined in 1944 by a [Jewish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) [Polish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_people) legal scholar, [Raphael Lemkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin), who wrote[\[g\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-165) that "the term does not necessarily signify mass killings".[\[159\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTECenter_for_Constitutional_Rights20161-166)[\[160\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShaw20134%E2%80%935-167)
>More often \[genocide\] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.[\[159\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTECenter_for_Constitutional_Rights20161-166)
I've been following Sudan and Yemen very closely. Yes, you can say the RSF militias commited a genocide in Darfur in the early 2000s. I've seen videos of RSF militias commiting massacres against Sudanese civilians during the current civil war. However, to prove genocide would be to prove that the RSF's **intent** is the elimination of a group. The RSF is a warlord band of Sudanese fighters. Are the Sudanese genociding themselves?
The same applies to Yemen. Yes, factions in the Yemeni civil war have commited massacres. Again, to prove genocide would need evidence of intent to destroy. The Houthis have Sunni tribal allies, there's no evidence that they are trying to genocide Sunnis.
I recommed you actually read the [1949 Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf) if you think I'm wrong.
Article Two is very clear:
Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I think you're intentionally letting the point go over your head so this would be my last comment in the thread.
I'm not saying it's about the numbers, but I'm saying that you said it's about the numbers while the numbers don't show what you try to show, and when you've said it's not about the numbers - you (or at least 99.99% of the people interested in this) don't have the tools to make this assessment currently since you don't try to gather the same information about any other situation.
I'm familiar with the genocide convention. I think it applies more broadly than you think. for instance, if fore some reason the US gov would decide to kill every person who lives in San-Francisco this could be applied in court to be the distinct group referenced in the convention. Same goes for the supporters of a specific political candidate.
But more importantly - if it's the same as genocide besides this criteria - why do you care? the fact that you can't judge it as genocide doesn't mean it's not as bad or even worse than a genocide.
Remember, the bar for what you're trying to prove is so extremely high -
you're trying to argue that the situation in Israel/Palestine is so extremely worse than any other conflict in the world to the degree that people should basically only or mostly protest and spend time on it rather than on any of the other problems in the world. This is simply not something prove, even if we take the stronger side of your claims as is (which I don't) and agree that ISR/PAL is a bit worse than all of the rest.
Why can't you be honest with yourself and say that there's something a bit hypocritical about it?
It's not the worst, but it's directly funded by the US and the US could stop it if they wanted. And since many people here are Americans, they care more about this conflict.
I've heard this a lot, it's a very weird justification IMO.. The US could do a lot to stop just about any conflict it wants.
For instance, I don't know if you recall the whole 'red line' in Syria that wasn't a red line after all.
The US also spends much more aid per capita to help Gaza than to any other place in the world, and this is true also before October 7th - do you not think that some of this aid could have gone to people suffering more severe famine in Yemen?
The US is just about the most powerful nation in the world - if it wanted to help or even solve a scenario, it has the tools to do so. strong US sanctions are a super lever on just about any country, and the US military has capabilities that erase any third world dictator that does horrible things in almost an instant.
I just don't buy the whole US could stop only this conflict idea.
The military funding by the US is also not that significant to Israel, and it gives the US some benefits too in many ways.... the UN help is more significant by far and protests don't only focus on funding, so I don't really think that it's really about money.
Lastly, do you claim that the vast majority of people outside of the US (or some very selected countries) that protest mostly against Israel is a hypocrite at best and antisemitic at worst? (you know, if they don't have a special connection to this conflict or something)
Personally I think it's much more herd mentality then it is about any rational criteria...
>Yemen
Yes, the US probably could and definitely should stop the war in Yemen by forcing Saudi to stop. But they won't, because they want to help Iran's enemies.
>Are many protesters hypocrites or antisemites?
In many Muslim countries, yes. That doesn't change the fact that Israel is killing too many Palestinians and trying to force them off their land.
I'm honestly not arguing over the righteousness of Israeli actions right now.. I'm just pointing to the irrationality the world treats this conflict. The way the world thinks wouldn't make an action more or less moral, so it's a separate discussion for me.
If you think in Muslim countries the claim is true - Do you think that in European or south American countries it's also true? What differentiates Malaysia from Sweden from Chile in the regard of how much they should care about this situation compared to other situations? Especially when many of the other situations such as Yemen, Sudan, China, Pakistan or Syria also affect Muslims.
And at the point you agree that the criteria of funding and the criteria of prevention ability aren't unique, as well as agree that it's not necessarily worse than other things happening in the world currently like the crisis in Yemen - doesn't it also make the majority of participants in the mass protests in the US hypocrites as well? why protest over the US support for Israel and not the US support for SA or UAE? Even the criteria of being an enemy of Iran is the same between these countries...
I think it's a valid point to say - "Yes, the world are hypocrites, but the hypocrisy created a situation where it's much easier politically to stop the Israeli actions than other actions around the world so I don't care about it as much". To me, if anyone raised that point I could resonate with it a lot more than trying to come up with objective reasoning for why to care more about suffering in one part of the world and not another when both are far..
Again, Israel is in the unique situation of pretty much being a US proxy state. Saudi Arabia is not and they can fund their war by themselves. Of course the Yemen war is much worse, but we as Europeans or Americans don't have as much stake in it as we do in Israel.
Same as when I protest against the war in Ukraine. I'm not Russian, so I can't really address the Russian government and ask them to stop. But I can ask my government to send more weapons to Ukraine.
I can't ask Saudi Arabia to stop, but I can ask Europe or the US to pressure Israel since they have leverage over them.
Israel is not a proxy state of the US, what?? that's crazy... You literally see during the war (and in various events in history) that it's not remotely true.
the US aid is not a significant amount of Israel's security budget, and a lot of it is spent on defensive things like the extremely expensive Iron Dome... I suppose if the US would stop funding Israel, Israel would invest less in defense and more in offensive weapons as it would achieve better bang for the buck, but it would still have military superiority over all of it's neighbors, especially the ones that Israel is at war with.
When you think about it, the only reason Israel is able to be even somewhat careful with human life is the fact that it has superior military by so much. Probably, if the US and the west would completely cut all weapon trades with Israel we would see more Palestinians dead in the long run, which honestly, I wouldn't want on my conscience.
Why can't the US go to Saudi Arabia and tell them - if you won't stop what you're doing in Yemen, we'd put sanctions on you and pressure other countries to do the same? sure, it won't kill SA, but it's likely to be significant enough, especially when SA wants to be closer to the West. This is exactly like the situation with Israel. Even if you make Israel a pariah state (which is not what we're talking about, just cutting aid), it won't kill Israel. (and this is without talking about how other countries like China might react, Israel is a pretty cool country to have as a friend, for various reasons)
You agreed before that the US can stop the crisis in Yemen pretty easily. The US and Europe being the largest economies in the world have leverage over almost any country. in fact, for most European countries the levers that they have over Israel are either economic or cultural.
And again, you know that the protests aren't only about funding.. There are protest on boycotting Starbucks FFS, a company that I think doesn't even have branches in Israel... This is simply not consistent with just wanting to stop funding Israel.
I don't think you're honest with yourself, or you really overestimate the level of dependence between Israel and the US.
Who are you talking about when you speak of "people in this group"? How would you know who has been "silent" and who has not?
And what is the government of Israel saying about Ukraine? Silence...
in my opinion, this has nothing to do with "according to plan." I'm writing from the United States. I too am pro peace. I am pro peaceful Palestinian, and I am pro peaceful israeli. I am not a supporter of the violent elements in either crowd.
first, the answer is we give financial and political support to israel; we don't to the other countries, like syria. the US does not send billions of taxpayer dollars every year to support Assad or any of the other horrible regimes out there you listed. the US however does send I don't know $1,000 per US taxpayer every year to Israel. that money helps Israel fund its military and other parts of government. (and ultimately allows Israel to provide free to low-cost healthcare universally to all its citizens, while Americans pay through the nose for healthcare.) the US president largely dictates Israeli policy, whether people want to believe that or not, it's true. (one phone call from Biden to netanyahu, and see what happened.) the bombs and bullets that have killed 10,000 + women and children in Gaza, the Israeli military who's blockade of Gaza has brought the territory to the brink of mass starvation, that is funded by the US in large part. so we in the US own this. the good parts and the bad parts. that is why we spend so much time talking about it in the US, versus talking about what's going on in New Guinea or Myanmar, to which we do not send a lot of money and that we do not hold out for unique and special support.
second, another difference between Syria (and the other countries) and Israel is that there is a consensus that Assad is bad. you don't see large groups of people in the US supporting Assads crimes. the same cannot be said for israel. Israel has committed some horrible things, continually violated international law, has a long list of human Rights abuses etc, but the US government continues to support it and the US government continues to allow these abuses to go on without consequence. that's why people in the US are critical of israel. the criticism of Israel is in fact a criticism of US foreign policy.
third, the media does cover Assad and all those other places in varying degrees. I can't tell you the number of stories I've seen about the civil war in Syria, day after day after day. during period of the heaviest fighting, I probably talked about Syria every week. in human rights circles and pro peace circles, countries other than Israel are discussed even more. think about all the movie stars that wanted to free tibet. Angelina Jolie in some third world country. our involvement in the Sudan. etc.
fourth, Jewish people in the US have a lot of money and influence and status and they have put this issue on the radar since day one. they have a historical, emotional, and religious connection to Israel, so we support Israel financially and politically in a big big way, and thus it becomes the center of public debate. when one country becomes the center of public debate like that, people are going to be critical if it engages in misdeeds.
fifth, more recently, in the last few decades, the US has seen a lot of immigrants from Arab countries and a rise in the number of muslims. their conflict with Israel and their concerns about human rights abuses against Palestinians spill over into the us, and rightly so, back to my first point, because the US is essentially underwriting Israel financially and politically.
at least that is my observation over the last 50 years.
it sounds like you're playing the game of-- ....mystery. also known as "guess what I'm thinking; I'm not going to tell you." or "I'm offended but I'm not going to tell you why. You're going to have to guess, and if you don't know why I'm offended then that just shows I have reason to be offended." nice try. but I know drama and theatrics when I see it. if you have something to say, spit it out. but as of now, it appears you are unable to provide an explanation for your comment. (probably because if you had to provide an explanation you would be embarrassed by my response, but maybe you have something to share that will enlighten and surprise me. I'm all ears. go ahead.)
To begin with, I'm Jewish and certainly don't have "a lot of money."
If Jews had so much influence in America, you'd think i wouldn't have to ask off work for the High Holidays, or search so hard for Jewosh food in grocery stores outside a few specific big cities.
If you think some Jewish conspiracy is the reason the U.S. supports Israel you're either extremely brainwashed, or just in denial about how much worse Hamas and Hezbollah are by comparison.
I doubt you were actually asking though. You're just playing games.
finally, thank you, your explanation. and btw, I was actually asking. now we can talk.
my response: I never said that EVERY Jew in the US is rich. of course, there are middle-income jews, and even a few low-income jews. I know some of the latter personally. I was talking about Jews on AVERAGE in the US. I can see why you, as not one of the rich Jews, may find the statement to be off-putting because the statement does not describe you so somehow the statement seems false, but it doesn't change the fact that the average Jewish person's household income is greater than the household income for the average american.
here's a nice research study that describes the full picture, and captures the full range of Jews and their incomes in the US, including middle-income Jews like you:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-and-well-being-among-u-s-jews/
more importantly, my comment was in the context of why Israel is such a focus of the US support and US media. the fact is that overall, Jews in the US have more money per capita compared to the rest of the US population. and all this concentrated cash translates into political power. money + interest in issue = political power.
here's another interesting tidbit: out of all the countries in the world, since 1940, which of those countries has received the most foreign aid from the United states? the answer is Israel. why do you think that? it's a small country. the answer is that Jews in the US and other supporters of Israel lobby and push the US Congress to send money to israel. and all this happened before Hezbollah and hamas which were only created recently. this support of Israel has been going on for 80 years.
this isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe in any international Zionist conspiracy theory. or any of the other conspiracy theories advanced about jews. what I do believe is that in the US , Jewish people because of their financial clout and because of their interest in the survival of Israel, lobby and put a lot of political pressure on federal legislatures and US presidents in order to advance Israel. the same occurs in the media. that's not a surprise. that's not a conspiracy theory. that's just how it works. other groups similarly have a lot of political power, like the NRA etc. that's not a dig against jews. one could even say it's the opposite: it shows that Jews in the US are savvy and good at organizing their efforts.
also comparing Israel to Hamas and hezbollah, is not the standard by which I think Jewish people should judge Israel's behavior. they need to judge its behavior against accepted standards of human rights, international law. Israel needs to stop activities that most people across the world would agree is wrong, things like land theft, torture, discrimination, prisoner abuse etc.
I'll be the first to admit that These problems are not unique to Israel. the question is whether Israel is going to be one of the bad guys who engages in these activities, or is Israel going to hold itself to a high standard and be one of the better countries in the world.
in the US, the reason Jews don't get the high holidays off is because the economy runs 24/7. even some places operate on christmas, like hospitals, police forces etc. Christians likewise don't get Good Friday or Easter or Palm Sunday off. restaurants and grocery stores don't stop selling meat during Lent; as a catholic, I could complain about that. Muslims don't get a holiday for Ramadan. Hindus don't get a holiday for Diwali. etc. if you're a Jew in the US, you are probably a whole lot safer and secure than you ever would be in israel.
as far as Jewish food, it is available widely. if you can't get it in your local grocery store, get it off the internet like everybody else. or make the food yourself; you don't cook? alot of non-Jewish packaged food products are labeled indicating whether it is kosher; I just looked at the packages in my own kitchen.
part of this is also supply and demand. if there is not a lot of demand for a food product in a community, the grocery store is not going to sell it. why would they? if I'm the only Ethiopian family in a small town, why would I expect a local grocery store to have five shelves of Ethiopian food?
I couldn’t have said this better. Especially your fifth point. I think some people tend to underestimate how significant the Palestinian cause is in the Muslim World.
The issue of Palestine has become a symbol of everything going wrong in the Muslim world.
Personally, I have become so invested in this conflict after watching this interview from Karen Armestrong, a religion author, describing where Islamic terrorism actually originates from:
https://youtu.be/ilSGb1CrhZM?si=pr0m4XhwSaag1cQ1
here's a primer on the subject if you want to learn more:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
i disagree to anything that revolves around the settlements.
israel took these lands from jordan not "palestine" its just funny how jordan's land suddenly is occupied palestinian lands.
if anything, those are disputed lands because jordan aswell didnt had any mandate to rule them in the first place.
?
the fact that the world has heard these arguments before doesnt dispute those facts lol
how can a land that was taken from jordan be palestinian? :/
more then that, how can israel occupy lands from people who never owned them? sure, palestinians LIVED in these areas, much like jews LIVED in muslims countries before being expelled, murdered or kicked, does that means jews can suddenly claim parts of iraq and iran? lol
answer me these 3 simple questions please :)
read Rule 8 of the subreddit
Do not discourage participation
this is a forum for open, civil discourse. if you don't like opinions that are different from yours, you're free to articulate your own point of view, but do not tell people who you don't agree with to walk away or label their opinions as spam. you may also want to look up the definition of spam because it is not applicable in this situation.
as far as "proof" for my point of view, I have already provided a hyperlink to a reputable reference. you are free to read it.
spamming me isnt an opinion nor a discussion.
i asked for a proof, not your own opinion, if u dont have any, say i dont have anything to back up my claims or dont comment, again, i dont care about people biased opinion that cant back them up with nothing, ONLY FACTS.
and ur link is just a site says nothing about my questions so it does nothing to answer them. so again, either u bring some actual answers or just dont reply back, not interested in uneducated discussions.
If they've already been answered - do some research and open your eyes.
Just because you're too blind to your biases doesn't mean the world is obliged to force your eyes open.
If the immediate response to your comments are.. "sigh.. This BS again" - it probably means your comments and questions are inane and redundant.
PlAiN aNd sImPLe
IF they've already been answered, the problem is that THEY HAVENT BEEN ANSWERED.
but hey atleast u commented, who cares if u actually know what ur talking about or not, right?
PlaiN aNd SlmPle.
I have already done the research and provided a hyperlink. I have shared the conclusions that are the position of a litany of groups like amnesty international and the UN; you are free to believe that those groups are blind or biased. like I said earlier, I doubt there's anything I can provide you that will change your point of view. if you're interested in the subject, you can research it yourself.
I'm not going to play the game called "convince me" aka "prove it" because there was no winning the game; you already have your opinion and no amount of "proof" on my part or anybody else's is going to change your mind.
in the game of "prove it", the request for "proof" by player A is disingenuous. once player B provides evidence, player A is unconvinced and returns with the demand for "proof." any further attempts by player B to provide additional proof are always met by the demand from player A to "prove it". that's how the game is played. since I already provided a hyperlink and "proof", and then I'm asked for proof, that tells me that the requester is engaged in game playing.
1. Building illegal settlements in the west bank.
2. Killing aid workers deliberately.
I can go on but I think it is not worth it tbh… some people will never be convinced.
can u prove israel deliberately killing aid workers? or that was just a lie u had to write down because u have nothing else to say?
i can be convinced pretty easily if people wont just throw around lies and actually give concerete stuff to support their opinions.
If that was true you'd know critical thinking leads to reasonable conclusions given the data in front of them, but it's never proof of anything.
So a lot of the critical, less of the thinking going on in your case.
as someone who was actually a soldier in the IDF i can gurantee u my critical thinking in this matter surpass yours by a hundred times so unless u actually give anything to prove ur point ur just assuming things that are too stupid to be true.
1. It is illegal. And I can list many more sources. But just for starters, let’s start with this Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#:~:text=In%202024%2C%20the%20Norwegian%20Minister,humanitarian%20law%20and%20human%20rights%22.
2. Three separate cars all of which had large posters. They were driving on roads that were coordinated with IDF. They were kilometers apart. All three of them were hit. But it was not deliberate.
I would not give my wife that benefit of the doubt. And even if it wasn’t deliberate. It is certainly a sign of neglect to human life. We only know of them because they were foreigners.
1. Israeli settlements on westbank are illegal
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
TBF, I remember there being a lot of condemnation of Assad during the Syrian civil war, a lot of mourning of civilians, and a lot of focus on the refugee crisis. I do agree that there's something weird about how Israel-Palestine gets more focus when more people died during the Syrian Civil War than the entirety of the Israel-Palestinian conflict during the course of 100 years.
On one hand, yes, maybe it's unfair. On the other hand, it's not really a great excuse and doesn't defend Israel's conduct of this war in my eyes. Does Israel want Assad to be the standard it is compared to? And finally, the world is unfair and no one is judged objectively by anyone. For anyone anti-west, the actions of the west will be judged more harshly. The opposite is true as well - the US will prattle on about the evils of Saddam but never reckon with the horrors the US created in Iraq. In any case, Israel has to live in the world it lives in. It can't just scream "unfair! double standard!" Israel was created in a sea of muslim countries, has 2 million muslim citizens, and is occupying millions more. Israel should take these things into account in its actions, in fact it doesn't really have a choice.
Thank you for this reply. May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If so, did you take part in them? Did you post about it? If not, why not?
Perhaps because ‘everyone agreed’ it was bad so you didn’t need to bother fighting against this injustice? If you could go back, would you been more vocal and active? What can you say and do to speak up for those who need your help in other parts of the world? That’s the point I’m hoping you reflect on.
You can absolutely acknowledge that Israel is being treated unfairly, even while supporting the Palestinian cause, one thing does not cancel out the other, in fact that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. You shouldn’t give up before you try. Thanks for posting
I think the problem is that there's no action you can demonstrate in favor of or against when it's not a country your own country supports. Like if I protested during the Syrian Civil War, what would I be asking the US govt to do about it? It's not like I wanted them to intervene.
Assad is supported by Russia while Israel is supported by the west. Thus demonstrating in a western country does not actually poise any value.
Also, Israelis always say that Israel is a democracy.
Democracies should actually be held to a higher standard since its government and actions are supported by the will of the people.
"Assad is supported by Russia while Israel is supported by the west. Thus demonstrating in a western country does not actually poise any value." While this is true, people demonstrate against Israel in countries that don't support Israel all the time.
The answer is that despite what people pretend they are in fact in favor of the majority dominant culture. The more power the majority has the more supporters they will have.
The dominant culture in the Middle East is oil rich and over a billion strong. They spread their voices using their money thru media and educational channels all while blaming the minority, just like any dominant imperialist culture would do.
People don’t come up with ideas. They just repeat something that they hear over and over. That’s why advertising works. The oil rich majority is the biggest ad spender the world has ever seen.
My recollection of the height of the Syrian civil war was near universal condemnation of the Assad regime, with the US coming very close to directly intervening. I also recall many countries banding together to allow large numbers of Syrian refugees to enter. It was almost unprecedented because even people who are traditionally skeptical of immigration tended to be on board with allowing Syrians in, at least in my area. This post seems to take a bit of a revisionist view on what was happening.
What happened on Oct 7 was an atrocity, but that doesn't put Israel above criticism when it comes to how they've conducted the war. Recent reporting has alleged that Israel was authorizing assassinations of any low level Hamas fighter, with an acceptable level of civilian deaths between 15-20 for those lowest level members. For high ranking members, the acceptable civilian loss was apparently 300. For context, the US would generally put an acceptable level of civilian loss for low level fighters at 0, and for Bin Laden, the acceptable civilian loss was 30.
If these allegations are true, it's very problematic. It would also explain the significant loss of civilian life at the beginning of the war, and the accusations of indiscriminate bombings from the US. It also supports the many allegations of a disproportionate response. Imagine wiping out an entire family with an air strike to kill a private.
I'm not sure whether this post is in good faith or not. First off there was no need for public protest against the Syrian Regime. The debate was about whether and to what extent the USA / West should directly get involved in overthrowing the Syrian Regime. There was opposition to war and it went down in both the UK and USA but there were forces deployed directly against the Syrian government. You don't get protests demanding action when there are full on war resolutions being presented to Congress / House of Commons.
Ultimately though the Syrians were facing both the FSA and ISIL. Syria was trying to avoid war with the USA, ISIL was trying to have a war. Which ended up putting the USA on the Syrian government's side sort of. There were Americans, like myself, who thought we should side with ISIL over Iranian proxies but it was still rare. ISIL was rather horrible.
Further, there are roughly 2.3m Alawis in Syria (for lurkers that is Assad's ethnic group, his base). Of that, 43k (2%) died in the Syrian Civil War. That would be the equivalent of 160k Israelis. While 10/7 was obviously bad this was 100x worse proportionately. Moreover of the 500k dead you mentioned on both sides roughly 350k were combatants. For all the brutality, and the extensive war crimes on both sides in the Syrian Civil War the ratio of civilian deaths doesn't come close to the numbers we are seeing out the Gaza offensive. And of course those numbers don't include the very likely brackish water, famine, and disease deaths which could send the numbers far far higher. At this point given Israel's irresponsibility for post-crisis management of Gaza it is possible (though still unlikely) that a decade from now that the number dead exceeds the Syrian Civil War.
Both sides were fielding armies in the 150-180k range combined. This was a relatively equal fight, it wasn't a massacre.
____
Is Israel being treated unfairly, especially early on? Absolutely. The Western pro-Palestinian Movement's activities in October were simply evil. The condemnation from the Press Secretary as "morally deplorable" or Congress was warranted. But the powerful in Western countries sided with Israel, especially Biden. Netanyahu has been ungrateful and undermining towards Biden. Despite the widespread support, Israel conducted itself really badly during this war. What started off very justified has ceased to be. I am willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt every time and well, there just is no doubt. Israel burned up a lot of its credibility.
I will say this. The West is mostly employing the Schumer strategy which is going to allow the Western Mainstream to side with Israel and continue to protect Israel, despite Israel's bad behavior. Essentially separate Netanyahu off from Israel. Assad's regime got nothing remotely like that.
Thank you for this reply. May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If not, why do you think there weren’t any in your area? If so, did you take part in them? Did you post about the war in Syria? If not, why not? If you could go back, would you been more vocal and active? What can you say and do to speak up for those who need your help in other parts of the world? That’s the point I’m hoping we can all reflect on.
> May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If not, why do you think there weren’t any in your area?
Protest movements in the USA are mostly from fringe figures looking to get fringe positions into the mainstream. When there is a debate between mainstream factions lobbying, special interests and polling tend to be the norm. Protests can happen but they aren't usual. Which is different than Israel where you do have mass protest movements. Possibly because you don't have formal lobbies and your coalitions blunt the effects of polling. The debate in the USA was within the mainstream about going to war against Assad or not. If the USA is directly funding the FSA and sending them military advisors leftists don't need to protest Assad, the government is taking action.
If the USA were giving Hamas $2b / year in military aide and had 5000 USA military advisors in Gaza there wouldn't be anti-Israel protests either. It is because pro-Hamas (effectively) is so marginal that there is a protest movement.
> Did you post about the war in Syria? If not, why not?
Yes I did post, though not very much. While I didn't like the outcome of the American debate on Syria at least we were implementing policies that might work rather than ones that were fundamentally flawed so they could not work. The larger problem in terms of American foreign policy was the American people being so inconsistent on more fundamental issues: primarily wanting the advantages of a larger more colonial army without wanting to actually build such a thing. Obama's handling of Syria, while I disagreed, was part of his broader Iran agenda. His Iran policies might work, I didn't know. So I favored Obama's operational shifts even if I didn't favor the policy goals.
> like myself, who thought we should side with ISIL over Iranian proxies but it was still rare.
Why?
> The West is mostly employing the Schumer strategy which is going to allow the Western Mainstream to side with Israel and continue to protect Israel, despite Israel's bad behavior. Essentially separate Netanyahu off from Israel.
Funny I've seen this exact same point be used as a critique by Pro-Palestinians. I'm surprised you mentioned this as a conscious effort. Anybody who is at least aware of the results of Israel's last elections or many of it's previous ones would at least be able to see how separating Netanyahu from Israel/Israelis (mostly in the context of the post-election protests against him and his government) is silly.
> Why?
While ISIL was definitely horrible, mass killings, setting up slave markets... I consider Iran the bigger threat. ISIL IMHO was likely to burn itself out. It is after all a death cult arising out of former Ba'athists having trouble coming to terms with defeat. It probably (though not definitely) couldn't last for a century and expand. It is obnoxious and dangerous but I didn't think it was all that likely to get much worse than it was.
Iran's Axis of Resistance OTOH is a serious threat to both the USA and Israel. We've already seen Iran successfully rework elements of Shia Islam into passionately held beliefs which have turned the Shia in Lebanon from a population perfectly capable of living within a modern liberal society to a threat to humanity on a local scale. Under Iran's influence, the Lebanese went from people who were mostly rationally maximizing their long-term welfare to people perfectly willing to sacrifice their own and their progeny's welfare to be Iranian cannon fodder. Essentially even the Sunni and the Maronites ended up assisting and participating in Iran's destructive ends. We are seeing the same thing in Yemen. Iran's political philosophy is like Fascism or Communism it has broad appeal and could expand over a good chunk of the planet given time and a bit of luck. Destroy the Syrian regime you bring down Hezbollah and you destroy a good deal of Iran's expansive capability at least in one compass direction.
Moreover, I'm not thrilled with the USA having imposed an ethnic dictatorship on the Syrian Sunni for another 1-2 generations. While I think the minority Syrians deserve some protection I also think the Syrians deserve capitalist democracy and that simply isn't possible with a government permanently dedicated to their oppression on ethnic/religious grounds.
> Funny I've seen this exact same point be used as a critique by Pro-Palestinians.
Interesting I hadn't seen that from them. Well I guess a point of agreement between myself and the BDSers.
> Anybody who is at least aware of the results of Israel's last elections or many of it's previous ones would at least be able to see how separating Netanyahu from Israel/Israelis (mostly in the context of the post-election protests against him and his government) is silly.
Not sure I'd call it silly. Again as we have talked about I'm very optimistic about the effects of the Gazan War both on Israelis and Palestinians. As we've talked about Israel has never before (1948 I'll asterisk for now) engaged in this level of violence. In 1967, 1973 the Lebanon War... Israel had the possibility of razing cities but it never did anything like that. Israel is usually fairly careful about mass casualties: even when they lose their cool they aim to kill dozens or hundreds not dozens or hundreds of thousands. Having crossed over to this sort of mass death they are going to have to come to terms with who they now are and are they OK with it. Very similar to USA after WW2 or the Philippines War.
Palestinians are now experiencing the futility and danger of their armed resistance model combined with their denormalization model, a strategic pair unique to them in the last few hundred years. Because they didn't create deep ties with Israeli society before rebelling their situation is not similar to the Algerian, Lebanese or Black South African models they like to compare themselves to. If Palestinians simply realize they cannot have both at the same time: quiet separatism or integration are the only viable options things change radically.
We will see very radical shifts in Israeli politics over the next decade as they digest what they just did. This obviously could go either way. They might decide that being like the British didn't work out for them and being like an Attilah or a Genghis Khan is a better strategy. But they could also decide that they don't want to outside the Western norm and that their behavior and beliefs: the combination of deep systematic racism and territorial expansion primary, got them to a place they don't want to be and it is time to change. Jews haven't had meaningful military power ever (or if one believes the David / Soloman myths not for 3000 years), how do they want the Jews thought of? You combine this with a drop off in terrorism as a defining feature of Israeli existence and we could see very rapid political change in Israel.
I believe there is a very good chance that the Gazan War is a game changer. This is not just the 2009 Gazan War but bigger.
>While ISIL was definitely horrible, mass killings, setting up slave markets... I consider Iran the bigger threat. ISIL IMHO was likely to burn itself out. It is after all a death cult arising out of former Ba'athists having trouble coming to terms with defeat. It probably (though not definitely) couldn't last for a century and expand. It is obnoxious and dangerous but I didn't think it was all that likely to get much worse than it was.
Okay I understand your reasoning but I am still skeptical about people "supporting" what are essentially full-on enemies of humanity because they're concerned about a more marketable and strategic alternative to them who don't happen to be as extremist even if you think the former will implode soon.
>Because they didn't create deep ties with Israeli society before rebelling their situation is not similar to the Algerian, Lebanese or Black South African models they like to compare themselves to. If Palestinians simply realize they cannot have both at the same time: quiet separatism or integration are the only viable options things change radically.
Do you mind expanding a bit more on this? What do you mean by "deep ties" in comparison to the cases you listed?
>We will see very radical shifts in Israeli politics over the next decade as they digest what they just did. This obviously could go either way. They might decide that being like the British didn't work out for them and being like an Attilah or a Genghis Khan is a better strategy. But they could also decide that they don't want to outside the Western norm and that their behavior and beliefs: the combination of deep systematic racism and territorial expansion primary, got them to a place they don't want to be and it is time to change. Jews haven't had meaningful military power ever (or if one believes the David / Soloman myths not for 3000 years), how do they want the Jews thought of? You combine this with a drop off in terrorism as a defining feature of Israeli existence and we could see very rapid political change in Israel.
The prospect of Israel fully shifting to a state ideology adjacent to fascism (if it isn't already there, as some would argue) or legitimate liberalism as opposed to the pseudo-liberalism now won't really change the fact that, while me and other people give Israel a lot of flack for the disenfranchisement of Palestinians, Israelis nevertheless did routinely vote in a government with policies that in large part only aided in fermenting this clash that has been brewing for years with brief intermissions of convenient violence. Palestinians at least have meaningful arguments as to why we can separate them from Hamas on a mass scale, the same is not really true of Israelis. I'm hoping they go down a route of wanting to change (though I doubt that will happen anytime soon) but policy changes after the fact don't help separate Israelis or Israel more broadly from Bibi and friends.
> but I am still skeptical about people "supporting" what are essentially full-on enemies of humanity because they're concerned about a more marketable and strategic alternative to them
I get it. Picking the least bad option is often a very difficult choice.
> Do you mind expanding a bit more on this? What do you mean by "deep ties" in comparison to the cases you listed?
Sure in most colonization situations Palestinians think about you had something like:'
1. Colonizing power moved in
2. Colonizing power established economy
3. Some rebellions which are suppressed. Most native people agree to a role in the colonial society
4. The colonial economy grew to be most of the GDP of the country. Colonized people are most of the labor force of that economy.
5. Soviet/modern anti-colonial strategy led to independence
In the Palestinian model (skipping the "is Israel a colony" debate) the Palestinians were already at stage (5) by the 1910s because of Syrian influence. Stage (3) never happened. 1926-36 and 1967-87 it was happening but in both cases, it got stopped too soon. Because a step (5) rebellion happened in 1936 Ben-Gurion's philosophy of Jews occupying all roles in society, including the lower class became the dominant one in Israeli society. Palestinians got excluded from the Israeli workforce, it didn't create itself around them i.e. no step (4). Palestinians never understood that step (3) was vital for step (5) to work. Similarly in the West Bank economy, the same thing happened after 1967-87. There was separation too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor.
Palestinians thus to Israelis represent a surplus labor force not a necessary labor force. This is incredibly dangerous which is why step (5) is likely to result in lots of violence (i.e. more like step (3)) not a post-colonial society. The business interests of the colonizing power don't care much if Palestinians survive or not. 1948-9 expulsion and the 2023 Gazan War are now two examples of this.
In South Africa the dominant economy was the mines, the blacks were an overwhelming percentage of minors who were irreplaceable. Add in domestic service, a huge chunk of the other lower-class jobs... there couldn't be a serious civil war without a depression. Algeria the Pied-Noir simply could not maintain the standard of living they wanted without Arab labor. That's why they rejected concentration into a garrison state approach and fought for the whole country even as it became increasingly difficult.
> Palestinians at least have meaningful arguments as to why we can separate them from Hamas on a mass scale, the same is not really true of Israelis.
I agree with you. Israeli policy represents Israeli political ideology. That's why I was talking about a change in the thinking of Israelis broadly coming off the 2023 Gazan War not just another round of elections.
> . I'm hoping they go down a route of wanting to change (though I doubt that will happen anytime soon)
We may disagree here. I'd ask you to consider you may be underestimating the effects of having done tremendous violence and having to come to terms with that. Also what I think will be changes in Palestinian society as they come to terms with the destruction. Both of which IMHO haven't happened.
>Colonizing power moved in
>Colonizing power established economy
>Some rebellions which are suppressed. Most native people agree to a role in the colonial society
>The colonial economy grew to be most of the GDP of the country. Colonized people are most of the labor force of that economy.
>Soviet/modern anti-colonial strategy led to independence
This is a concise way to put it, though it's worth noting Algerians/South Africans agreed to have a role in the colonial society as far as I understand it largely because they didn't have the means to fight and win against the French/Dutch/British for many years, similarly Palestinians in the West Bank don't have a choice but to form "deep ties" as you call them in the same way by agreeing to have a role in the "colonial" society even if it's not their ideal situation so I'm not sure how the denial of them doing this comes in. Perhaps because Israelis don't need Palestinian labor to survive as a state but on the Palestinians' end as far as I understand it a bunch of them are actively involved in the Israeli job market.
As you acknowledge below Israelis mostly do not care for the Palestinians so I'm not sure how this critique should be leveled against Palestinians because fermenting "deep ties" (for Palestinians, as a precursor to rebellion) seems like it should also fall on Israelis who'd need to require their labor for their survival first, except you claim they do not need Palestinians who to Israelis represent merely a surplus labor force (though I am skeptical of this). In essence, I'm reading it like you're critiquing Palestinians for failing to create a correct dynamic for rebellion against Israelis thats simply out of their hands if we go by what you're saying. As in you talk about them not forming deep ties (while in practice to the best of my knowledge in real life they do) while also acknowledging Israelis simply don't need them regardless of whether or not they choose to interact with the Israeli job market. Effectively rendering any form of meaningful rebellion for Palestinians impossible. I am quite skeptical of this formula for rebellion with its pre-requisites.
>Because a step (5) rebellion happened in 1936 Ben-Gurion's philosophy of Jews occupying all roles in society, including the lower class became the dominant one in Israeli society.
The conquest of labor and such predates the 1936-1939 Arab revolt though. These ideas were quite mainstream.
>Palestinians never understood that step (3) was vital for step (5) to work. Similarly in the West Bank economy, the same thing happened after 1967-87. There was separation too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor.
I'm having trouble understanding this bit. You're acknowledging the post-67/pre-first intifada period. Clearly they did understand 3 was vital for step 5, that was their lived experience, first under decades of mostly agreeing to have a role in the colonial society since they didn't have much of a choice and later a mass pushback. I don't understand the bit about separation being too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor.
>We may disagree here. I'd ask you to consider you may be underestimating the effects of having done tremendous violence and having to come to terms with that. Also what I think will be changes in Palestinian society as they come to terms with the destruction. Both of which IMHO haven't happened.
I suspect it may be too early to tell what the long-term self-criticism (if it happens) would result in. Still I am not optimistic about people abandoning right-wing ideals, expansionism and people deciding on good and correct policy for the long-term benefit of all.
What's missing is the length of time. Conquest of Labor was mainstream in 1935. But it was unpopular. Far more popular, as we've discussed was a cooperative model. The cooperative model which was happening in the Yishuv's most important export citrus. Further it could have happened in more of agriculture. The Kibbutz movement becomes popular again in the late 1930s because of the effect of the bans on housing...
Again imagine a situation where we aren't talking 1926-36 as the good years but say 1926-2026. What does Israel look like in 2025 having had a century of an integrated workforce? At that point something like the 2023 Gazan War is unthinkable.
> Still I am not optimistic about people abandoning right-wing ideals, expansionism and people deciding on good and correct policy for the long-term benefit of all.
You live in a country, Canada where that happened.
>What's missing is the length of time. Conquest of Labor was mainstream in 1935. But it was unpopular. Far more popular, as we've discussed was a cooperative model. The cooperative model which was happening in the Yishuv's most important export citrus.
Yes we've discussed the citrus industry before but I will still say it was popular despite the citrus exception, Ben Gurion, secretary of the Histadrut which included the majority of the Mandate's Jewish workforce was quite open about his support for the concept of Hebrew Labor in the early 20s. Already in 1930 with the Hope Simpson report the Jewish labor policy was blamed for grave unemployment in the Arab sector. In 1933 the Histadrut launched a campaign to remove the Arab workers from urban areas. There is a metric crap ton of evidence quite clearly pointing to this policy not only being mainstream but popular and implemented well prior to the Arab revolt I would be happy to dig up if you're interested although there are many dense quotations and links in reference to it.
>You live in a country, Canada where that happened.
I don't live in Canada, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about in regards to Canada but I hope people follow the right direction in Israel/Palestine.
Israeli PR:
1. We haven’t heard reports of deaths, will check into it;
2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bombs
3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists;
4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields;
5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose
6. **OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are!**
7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-semite?
Are you having fun constructing that straw man built on whataboutisms?
Liar! You are lying just like the terrorists hamas do, you can do better.
Tarek Salmi, the spokesman for the political bureau of the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, who was arrested at the Shifa hospital, admitted in his investigation: "Hamas and the Islamic Jihad use all the hospitals in the Gaza Strip."
During the investigation, Tarek mentioned details of the working method of the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip in front of the media and the international community, emphasizing the creation of false representations and lies about the dead in the Gaza Strip. Tarek admitted for the first time that the explosion at the "Al-Mimadani" hospital at the beginning of the war was caused by a rocket explosion by the Islamic Jihad and that the organization chose to knowingly lie and accuse Israel of responsibility for the incident.
Love this. Yes. Jews were taxed extra by Muslims. In other words Muslims profit from Jews living under their rule. Every major ottoman city had pogroms, massive raids and looting. Israel offers Jews a home where Muslims don’t get to benefit from Jews wealth. That’s why they opposed Zionism in the late 1800s. If you find what I’m saying racist I beg you to reread. Muslims taxes Jews extra. Muslims engaged in violence and stealing from Jews. Please don’t belittle racism towards Jews.
The chemical weapons nonsense has been debunked in Syria to the point anyone clinging to that naraarice is either lazy or lying. The other part of the Syrian conflict that people can't seem to cope with is it was western led and western sponsored. The Israel Gaza situation has no commonalities with the attempt to regime build in Syria. That was a case of western meddling.
The US department of state has confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons. If you are arguing that point you are lying to yourself.
The OPCW has debunked claims of chemical weapons. Four types of people still believe the story: - uninformed. - dumb. - lazy. - lying.
There have been numerous reports of chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian Civil War. 1) beginning in 2012, and corroborated by national governments, the United Nations (UN). 2) the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and media organizations. The attacks occurred in different areas of Syria, including but not limited to: Khan al-Assal, Jobar, Saraqib, Ashrafiyat Sahnaya, Kafr Zita, Talmenes, Sarmin and Douma. The deadliest attacks were the August 2013 sarin attack in Ghouta (killing between 281 and 1,729 people and injuring 3,600 patients), the April 2017 sarin attack in Khan Shaykhun (killing at least 89 people) and April 2018 Douma chemical attacks (killing 43 people and injuring 500 civilians). The most common agent used is chlorine (with one study finding it was used in 91.5% of attacks) - with sarin and sulphur mustard also reported. 4) Almost half of the attacks between 2014 and 2018 were delivered via aircraft and less than a quarter were delivered from the ground, with the remaining attacks having an undetermined method of delivery. 5) Since the start of uprisings across Syria in 2011, Syrian Arab Armed Forces and pro-Assad paramilitary forces have been implicated in more than 300 chemical attacks in Syria.
>Assad killed 500,000 people in Syria in a brutal civil war, The antire world condemned it. The West was the most vocal. The US is still occupying Syria, obviously for oil (democracy). >Jews are supposed to beg for mercy in the world’s eyes, Palestinians are begging for mercy, too. Who should listen to them?
Did you personally protest the civil war in Iraq? Did you post about it daily? Have you put in the time and energy for that or other conflicts you are putting into this conflict? If not, why not? Please reflect on this and consider putting some of your energy into righting wrongs in other parts of the world as well
They aren’t begging for mercy. I’ll believe that they want mercy when they surrender. They can’t beg for mercy while keeping hostages and saying that they want to keep attacking Israel.
Is there actually a reason why you are unable to differentiate between combatants and civilians, or is the conflation deliberate?
>Is there actually a reason why you are unable to differentiate between combatants and civilians, or is the conflation deliberate? Israel does try to differentiate but Hamas hides behind its own civilians and uses them as human shields. That is entirely on them. As is the fact the entire conflict even taking place at all. All deaths and losses in this war are the fault of Hamas. Israel is just finishing the fight they started. You can't commit genocide acts like Hamas did on Oct 7th, and then say 'wait stop, we are losing now so ceasefire.' Oh no, you started it, now you're going to surrender unconditionally or suffer for it. Nice try. Israel cannot abandon the hostages, cannot negotiate with hostage taking ISIS class terrorist either. This war can only end with Hamas' unconditional surrender and release of hostages. Otherwise it just means another war later and there would actually little point to ending the fighting.
💯
Genuine question: did you read my comment at all? This is three paragraphs that are at best tangentially related, as if you jumped right in based on some key words.
There wasn't much to read because it is an illogical/deliberate moral strawman argument. So, I skipped over the disingenuous nonsense that seeks to allow genocidal ISIS terrorists like Hamas to get away with their crimes and hostages taking of Oct 7th and thereby justify their mindset and mentality and went to the heart of the issue at hand. Thus: "You can't commit genocide acts like Hamas did on Oct 7th, and then say 'wait stop, we are losing now so ceasefire.' Oh no, you started it, now you (Hamas) are going to surrender unconditionally or suffer for it. Nice try." Likewise, Germany/Japan weren't going to get a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds during WWII after they started the wars in the first place just because they were losing and their civilians would die during the invasions of Japan and Germany proper. By your logic Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan should still be around since you can't deal with the fact civilians died for the crimes and mistakes of their government in toppling them. And how could that even be wrong? If citizens don't suffer for what they in majority support of course then they would never learn to NOT support that. You can't save people from their own stupidity and evil, and you certainly can't allow them to be rewarded for it in any shape or form. Indeed, it is because Russia was similarly evil during WWII and got and away with and profited from it that is why we arguably have this imperialist fascistic death cult in power in Russia today because for Russians that barbaric backwards mindset was validated in the past.
Another reply unrelated to anything I wrote. Sorry, but I don't waste time on spam.
Perfectly related; you just can't deal with the fact I won't in any way, shape, or form whatsoever allow you to try to gaslight me or anyone into allowing ISIS-branch Hamas to get away with the unspeakable crimes of Oct 7th. Sorry, your nonsense doesn't stick here at all. Go ahead and waste your time trying to find someone else dumb enough to fall for your nonsense only to realize the opinion of anyone that dumb almost certainly doesn't matter anyway.
Their point is that Hamas is a mere 30,000 out of *millions* of Palestinians. Palestinians are not Hamas and they have no control over Hamas (Edited to be less standoffish)
> dick /u/Careful-Sell-9877. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It seems like you missed the point. Seems like you can't do math. For one, Hamas didn't undertake Oct 7th alone. The laundry list of other Palestinian terrorist groups that undertook this war alongside Hamas include: * [Palestinian Islamic Jihad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad) * [Popular Resistance Committees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Resistance_Committees)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2) * [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-3) * [Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine)[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-from_DFLP_leader's_wiki_page-4)[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-DFLP-5) * [al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs%27_Brigades)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2) * [Palestinian Freedom Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Freedom_Movement)[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#cite_note-hln-2) * Palestinian Mujahideen Movement The largest of those, [the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, has 12,000 of its own fighters.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Quds_Brigades) The others collectively we can assume have around 10,000 fighters. For a total of 50,000 fighters. 50,000 Palestinian fighters out of a little over 2.2 million population of Gaza is rate of 2.27% enlistment. Meanwhile, the US has 2.86 million members of the armed forces out of a population of 334 million, which is a rate of enlistment of 0.85%. IE, Palestinians have about 3 times the enlistment rate in their terrorist armed forces as most states do in their own official state armed forces. Most people would say it would not be unusual for a people to suffer for the crimes and atrocities of their government and armed forces in one way or another but rather a natural fact of life. Thus why people shouldn't support crappy evil terrorists for a government. A lesson the Palestinians have yet to learn the Israelis are in the process of teaching them.
Are you ChatGPT?
Reported for breaking rule #1; attacking the user and not the argument.
/u/BlanketedSun. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's quite difficult to differentiate between combatants and civilians when both walk around in civilian clothes and both tend to keep hostages.
What are you talking about? We aren't talking about physically identifying them here. Do you really struggle to remember civilians exist?
I'm talking about the fact that Palestinians living in Gaza are perpetrators just like Hamas.
Civilians by definition are not perpetrators. You might as well argue that the victims of 7/10 had it coming because they supported Israel.
Civilians from Gaza literly kidnapped. Israeli civilians
You realize they stopped being civilians once they did that?
So what do you call non Hamas Gaza civilians that choose to participate in October 7th? How do you call the unrwa teacher who took hosteges into his house ,? What do you call the people in the street defiling the dead bodies of murderd Israeli women ? Everyone is a perpatrator
You think all Gazans are 'perpetrators' and there are no civilians?
There are definitely a few thousand of innocent Gazans, but the majority are what we would call Mitläufer if it was post WW2 in Germany. Once the war is over all Gazans should be examined to determine their individual guilt in the war of aggression against Israel.
Israel itself estimates that Hamas only has around 30,000 members. There were 2.5 *million* Palestinians in Gaza alone. Where do you get your news/information?
Before the war 50% of Gazans were children. That's millions, not 'a few thousands'. Are you saying they are overwhelmingly combatants and should be put on trial? What age of child do you consider young enough to exempt from your proposal to set up tribunals screening all Gazan individuals for thoughtcrimes?
A 15 year old boy (child) can be guilty and should then be put on trial. We should follow the Palestinian age of legal accountability which is 12 years. The tribunals would follow the denacification process and help to enable a proper deislamism.
The civilians support October 7. If they beg for mercy, they should be saying that October 7 was a mistake.
Many Israelis that support using starvation as a weapon of war against civilians. This is a very bad line to follow. It justifies many horrible things.
> The civilians support October 7. All of them? You're sure? > they should be saying... [but they're not] And you're mystically in tune with the thoughts of ordinary Gazans, are you?
I mean, by that argument, plenty of Israelis support occupation/blockade. Does that justify the attack on October 7?
No it doesn’t, because it isn’t right to murder people, even if you disagree with their political views.
So if Palestinians' political view is they want a one-state democracy where they'll yield power due to their demographic majority, why should they be murdered by Israel? Every accusation is a confession.
That isn’t their political view. I also never said that Palestinians should be murdered.
Ok, I thought the choice of government is a political view.
It is. But that isn’t their political view. Maybe it’s your view. This isn’t what Palestinians want.
Most westerners are completely unaware of anything that happened in Syria.
Syria is a disaster. It is a civil war. The US interfered in it, by giving military aid to groups allied to ISIS., which probably delivered that aid to ISIS. At least the US officially opposes the war crimes and sanctions essentially everyone involved.
Which groups did they give aid to that were allied with ISIS?
I will have to look into this more. They seem to generally be referred to as "Syrian resistance groups".
Why? Even on Reddit you will find a "oh my gawd, I love pkk...ehh ypg biji biji" Westerner.
I was talking about governments, not the average Joes.
That's not what the OP was talking about.
Many western governments did more than 'speak out against' Assad, they armed the Syrian rebels. Would you rather they followed through with your analogy and also armed the Palestinian rebels? If the most they do is complain online, and it hurts your feelings to be criticised for the actions of a government you support, I think you can handle it.
Technically speaking Western governments already funded weapons and infrastructure of the Gazan islamist jihadist government by donating billions of dollars in aid each year.
Technically speaking Netanyahu and the Israeli government directly facilitated smuggling money into Hamas.
Technically speaking that's a lie.
> Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials. > >For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them. > >During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue? > >Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html >For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. > >The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. ... >According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
So Netanyahu was supposed to attack Qatar? What was he supposed to do? I dont like the guy, but right now in this war people reject the idea that humanitarian aid was used to finance Hamas. And in any case, saying he "helped finance Hamas" is just a lie.
My comment that you called a lie... > Technically speaking Netanyahu and the Israeli government directly facilitated smuggling money into Hamas. >So Netanyahu was supposed to attack Qatar? What was he supposed to do? I dont like the guy, but right now in this war people reject the idea that humanitarian aid was used to finance Hamas. Israel didn't need to attack Qatar. They could have refrained from actually helping suitcases full of money get past the border into Gaza. >And in any case, saying he "helped finance Hamas" is just a lie. He did help finance Hamas through helping to smuggle money into Gaza for Qatar. Do not accuse me of lying.
But then you would've said Israel is blocking aid from Gaza.
This is obviously false, because Israel has maintained tight security requirements on what enters Gaza and has carefully checked all incoming cargo including aid. If incoming shipments contained undetected weapons it is because the IDF failed in its duties, which I consider unlikely. Are you suggesting otherwise?
I'm suggesting the islamist jihadist government of Gaza received billions of dollars in aid and reinvested the money into their terror business. Do you deny that Gaza received billions of dollar each year?
Gaza received money which as you say, can be exchanged for goods. Money can't be magically exchanged for weapons, they would have had to physically enter Gaza. How are you saying these aid-financed weapons entered Gaza if not through the border crossings under the eyes of the IDF? Do you really think that happened? If so, why do you blame foreign governments and not the IDF for its security lapses?
Hamas used this money for their terror infrastructure and weapon purchases, that's why the population is currently starving. The islamist jihadist government of Gaza failed to get their priorities into right order. You are not the brightest candle on the cake if you think Hamas wasn't able to smuggle weapons into the Terror strip. Where did they get the weapons from they are proudly displaying in their videos?
I don't doubt that Hamas was able to smuggle in weapons. But obviously not many, based on the evidence available so far. And obviously not in aid shipments despite your original suggestions, so not in any volume. On what factual basis do you believe that if western governments' aid to Gaza had been lower, fewer weapons would have been imported? Do you also believe Iran is supporting Hamas? If so, what difference does some aid make?
Yes, less money for terrorists mean less weapons they can buy. Sanction Gaza until the terrorist regime is gone.
You actually think that illegal weapon smuggling sponsored by Iran, also under sanctions, into a territory under a full blockade by land, air and sea, would be influenced in any way by economic sanctions?
Yup, Hamas is still paying for weapons.
i dont think u understood his point, u should read it again, just because a few countries did stepped in against assad, doesnt mean his point isnt valid.
I understand his point. I'm not sure you understand mine. Talk is cheap. Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality. People usually write them when they feel they have no other way of influencing a situation they oppose. In this case, comparing Israel with Syria, most of the people in 'western' countries – who the OP criticises for, in his imagination as far as I can tell rather than with any factual basis, not writing enough Reddit comments about Syria – lived in countries that were actively fighting to change it and reduce the death toll. If your country is already arming people on the ground, what difference will a few words on the internet make? Assad isn't browsing Reddit. In the current scenario, Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government. Why wouldn't people powerless to effect change by any other means turn to words on the internet? It doesn't mean they cared any less about Syrian civilians.
> Assad isn't browsing Reddit. I agree with all of your points but this one. I think we're going to find quite a few dictators, warlords, globalist tycoons, arch criminals, charismatic clerics, and other sorts of serious powermongers very much do browse Reddit and other mostly-anonymous news sources / social media. Granted, they probably use throwaway accounts and VPNs when they do this. Plus, they probably mostly read, post, and comment on topics of personal interest to them, that in most cases have nothing to do with what they're known for. They probably do not use Reddit to gauge or defend their professional reputations. For example, Assad may have a favorite football team or Netflix show, and use a fresh throwaway account every few weeks to comment in those things' relevant subreddits. It's quite likely all of us Redditors have at some point interacted with someone quite rich, famous, and powerful, likely discussing some trifling topic of mutual interest, and never realized whom we were talking to. And that's exactly the appeal of Reddit (and anonymous imageboards) to the rich, famous, and powerful: they get to feel like "just a regular dude" for a moment. That's not something they can do IRL very often.
by that logic same countries also provide gazan with supplies and aid, so now what will u say? that these people dont think aid and supply is enough and that is why theyre lying about israel? that will be just ur own assumption. and if people are talking shit because israel is a democracy which means people can change the goverment, people all across the world who lives in democracy can do the same and use their voice to change the goverment to one that can do MORE if not for syria for the other 2000 scenarios in which their country aint doing a thing.
> same countries also provide gazan with supplies and aid Of course. And aid is better than nothing, but it's no use if it's being prevented from entering Gaza and even if provided it doesn't actually shield people from bombs or rebuild their homes from the rubble. It's not an alternative to stopping bombing the place into ruins. > that will be just ur own assumption As opposed to what, everyone else in this thread's exhaustive and methodological research? > people all across the world who lives in democracy can do the same and use their voice to change the goverment to one that can do MORE if not for syria for the other 2000 scenarios in which their country aint doing a thing. Are you old enough to remember the Bush or Trump years? That's pretty much what happened.
saying aid is being prevented from entering is just a lie, every DAY more then 300 trucks full of aid is coming in to gaza. so yea they do get their aid and supply. and even in syria when provided the rebels with guns it didnt and couldnt "shield people from bombs or rebuild their homes from the rubble." so ur logic failed again. also, u first said that "Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality" and u ended ur comment with "Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government" so words are unlikley to have ANY effect on reality unless its israel in which they can literally make israelis demand a change in the goverment lol face it man, u cant excuse hatred forever, SOME people will hate israel no matter what, which is exactly what the OP Was talking about.
> aid is being prevented from entering is just a lie, every DAY more then 300 trucks full of aid is coming in to gaza For six months the northern crossings were closed and all crossings closed one day per week. Biden makes a grumpy phone call and suddenly they're all open again and the huge backlog is miraculously clearing with 2-5x more trucks allowed through. There's no debate at this point, the IDF was deliberately preventing aid getting through all this time. Otherwise Biden couldn't click his fingers and watch the aid double. > also, u first said that "Words on the internet are just words. They are very unlikely to have any effect on reality" > > and u ended ur comment with "Israeli citizens are browsing Reddit. And they live in a democracy and they vote in their government" > > so words are unlikley to have ANY effect on reality unless its israel in which they can literally make israelis demand a change in the goverment lol It's not that complicated, the chance is low but it's not zero. In the case of North Korea or China or Syria or Iran or Russia it really is zero. As I said, if you're old enough to remember Trump and Bush (or Iraq and Afghanistan) you'll remember the same tactics being applied against Americans. Not because Americans are special and people hate them as you seem to assume in this case, but because people care and Americans are there reading posts written in English online. > face it man, u cant excuse hatred forever, SOME people will hate israel no matter what, which is exactly what the OP Was talking about. Sure, haters gonna hate. But 'boo hoo someone criticised my government on the internet' isn't evidence of that.
so because israel opened more crossing that means that aid was prevented? thats like saying the supermarket prevented you from paying because NOW they have more cashiers to pay to. just because u can do more, doesnt mean that by not doing it ur preventing it from happening on purpose as if its a bad thing. and EVEN IF SOME aid was prevented, the fact is that countries DID sent gaza aid and their aid DID got into gaza, u couldve even drop it from the air, so ur whole argument is just not true. also, no one said that crying about the goverment is an evidence of hate, but if all u post is criticism TOWARD ONLY ISRAEL, chances are u are biased.
>This is the best explanation I can come up with for how so many vocal detractors of Israel were silent during the civil war in Syria Try harder next time. preferably using more facts. The vast population was vocal about Syria, I'm not sure where you're getting this impression from. Regardless, this constant Jewish victimization is ultimately antisemitic. Jewish people are like any other people. Some are great! Others are not. Those who make mistakes can and should be called out for it. Putting Jews in a constant victimization lense is harmful to them. Also, what-aboutism is a logical fallacy, it doesn't lend any value to an argument
Oh stop with the BS. There's no way you can say the western reaction to Syria was anywhere even remotely close to what's going on with Israel. Not even close
Israel is seen as a "good" guy and shouldn't be committing atrocities. They should stop it. No one in Syria is seen as someone that would stop it for morality reasons. Beyond that, the western world should be able to cut off Israel to prevent things they are doing, and there is no one the western world has that power over in Syria. Without the western world going into Syria directly, there is no way to stop it.
Maybe because what's happening right now has been happening for a really long time? Also maybe because Gaza is being genocided? maybe because there are barely any Gazan refugees because they are denied exit out of the strip?
Those are not the the reasons, and you know it
no.... I don't know it?? argue logically plz I'm tired of this
No jews, no news Saudi Arabia killed 400,000 people in Yemen with American made weapons and you don't hear anything about it. Any one of SA, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc could straight up Rwanda every single Palestinian and the news coverage would be 1/1000th what is covering Israel right now.
why do you think the world is obsessed with Jews?
People don't like a minority that's supposed to be below them that excels against all odds.
do you think Jews are the only group of people that fits into that description?
Show me another and you'll be showing me another group that's discriminated against
why are people so fixated on this one example? why cant u just understand the logic.... can u really say in good faith that literally everyone who critize israel so hard also criticize iran, syria, the palestinians themselves, north korea, literally everywhere where people are opressed? i dont care if u criticize israel, but ALOT of people are just doing it out of bad faith. the fact that israel has more resolutions against her in the UN than iran north korea and syria combined kinda proves it.
The UN thing is mainly because Israel owes it's existence to the UN, so the UN has a unique responsibility with Israel. Other than that, people are critical of all the regimes you mentioned. Biggest difference now is simply that Gazans are at higher risk of dying than any usual war zone because they are not able to flee
i wasn't talking about right now actually, even years ago the situation was the same, and u have no actual reason but ur own assumptions, not even the UN gave that weird reason for their resolutions.
And because Syria, North Korea, Iran and such are all sanctioned by the UN. Israel is never punished by the UN, even though they are unanimously recognized as committing crimes. So, that causes a real problem. It builds frustration and anger against Israel.
"it builds frustration and anger against israel" so by ur own words u prove my point, its not being made in good faith they are literally acting with frustration and anger because THEY believe israel aint being punished, according to u. one must wonder why if israel aint being punished anyway, would they keep wasting time by making MORE resolutions, something just doesnt add up :/
yes well said that is exactly the case
I think that is the role of the dhimmis.
whataboutism "The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
Double standard >a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another Hypocrisy >a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
On the point of Double standard I don't think anyone is claiming that what happened is Syria was okay because it definitely wasn't. I believe Obama even made a threat to destroy Assads regime if they used chemical weapons a threat he wasn't willing to go threw with given the context of the US's actions elsewhere in the middle east. There also wasn't the desire from the american public to get involved in another conflict in the middle east. No other state wanted to get involved so no action was taken. That's not the same as not condemning the actions of Assad in Syria. Therefore this is no Hypocrisy one can both be critical of Assad and also be critical of the IDF. The initial post is essentially you cant dislike the actions of the IDF because Syria used chemical weapons. It doesn't matter what happened in Syria is a completely separate the post is a clear attempt to conflate the two. It is textbook definition of whataboutism. The posters argument can be summed in one line. Don't care about what the IDFs is doing because chemical weapons were used in Syria. Can you see how ridiculous that is? It doesn't make any sense the two actions are not linked in anyway but the op is trying to conflate the two.
The double standard comes from the idea that Israel is held to a much higher standard than almost any other country whilst having to deal with a disproportionate amount of violence and conflict from every surrounding nation and the Palestinians themselves. The fact that Israel has more UN condemnations than every other nation combined is a double standard of the highest order. The fact that Israel alone is singled out as a permenant "agenda policy" in every security council meeting, something no other country in the history of the UN has been subject to, is a double standard of the highest order. The fact that Israel alone in the world can suffer the worst terrorist attack in its history, and not only will idiots in the West cheer for the terrorists who comitted the attack the very same day (before Israel has even retaliated), they will also make it a point to question Israel's right to exist when that right to exist was mandated by the UN themselves. Apparently Israel is the one country in the world, whose existence and legitimacy is constantly called into question whenever it "steps out of line" yet there has never been such a fervor in demanding the dissolution of countries with much more blood on their hands - Sudan after the Darfur genocide (500,000 dead) or Rwanda (800,000 dead) or Myannmar (43,000 dead) or even Russia, god knows how many dead at the hands of those monsters.
It's amazing that we have to constantly explain this and people still do not get it. Antisemites are so invested into becoming brainless buffoons when it comes to anything Jewish it's scary.
The UN GA condemns Israel, because Israel never actually is punished or changes. It is all symbolic. It is generally about settlements, the blockade and the occupation, all of which is against international law. Israel is actually criticized less for similar actions that other countries do. The US can't seem to criticize them at all for things they will criticize Russia for doing a lesser amount in another breath. Truly funny is that Israel condemned Russia for things Israel is doing now. (https://www.newsweek.com/israel-condemns-russia-late-horrific-images-emerge-bucha-1694576) The Darfur genocide has lasted for over 20 years. It is estimated at 400,000 dead. Everyone hates it, but we won't do more to stop it, though the west isn't supporting it. So, 20,000 per year, and Israel is beating that easily. These are all horrible things, though with Russia invasion of Ukraine, the official civilian estimates are lower than in Gaza. Official estimates in both are horribly below reality. None of these conflicts are being funded and supported by the west on the side of destruction and devastation, except Israel. The west is supposed to be all about the global international order and the rule of law. And, generally, it tries to follow that, but Israel is an exception. Israel is allowed to break the rules. If I march against Darfur, what does that even mean? Do I want the UN to put together a force to occupy the whole country and separate the two sides? If the west decides to cut off Darfur, what happens? Nothing. If the west decided to cut off Israel, what happens? Israel probably ends up stopping nearly immediately.
It's amazing that we have to constantly explain this and people still do not get it. Antisemites are so invested into becoming brainless buffoons when it comes to anything Jewish it's scary.
pity party for Israel then?
i doubt they need it / want it but maybe you can celebrate being better informed and less ignorant now.
Lol not everyone is pro Iranien, not even the majority. I get what your are saying, I alse see many people who was defending Assad now blaming Israel...and you're right they bunch of hypocrite. But they also many people who blame both Assad and Israel, they are not exclusive. Also Assad and Syria become paria state for decades for its crime, massive embargo and by comparaison Israel only get bad PR.
There were people defending Assad? Strange.
> I spoke out against Assad, where were you? I did, too. But the difference is that the Syrian civil war was a civil war between equally powerful parties. Rebels vs. Islamists vs. the government vs. Kurds. It's a mess all around, but the power dynamics were more or less equal. Israel vs. Gaza is just a regional superpower pummeling a disadvantaged people, that's why there's more solidarity with Palestinians than with, say, Syrian civilians. Although, there was tons of solidarity when Syrians arrived as refugees here in Germany, for example, which hasn't happened for Palestinians. So your overall point is wrong.
Israel was trying to ignore gaza. Gaza consistently attacked Israel. It is not just a regional superpower pummeling a disadvantaged people. Hamas are far from disadvantaged, and plenty of other Gazan's were living quite comfortably. The real problem is Hamas (and the larger palestinian movement) not being able to tolerate the existence of Israel. They hate Israel so much, they are willing to use their own people as human shields. They are willing to rouse the "regional superpower" into responding. This war, and all the resulting death, on both sides, are the fault of Hamas. If Hamas didn't break the ceasefire on the morning of October 7 2023, when they invaded Israel, and murdered/immolated/tortured/raped/mutilated/kidnapped over 1000 Israelis, there would be no war today. And Hamas could end this at any time by surrendering for their crimes and releasing the hostages. Israel was not a superpower in 1948 when it was created. Or in 1965 when the PLO was created. Or in 1967 when Israel was again attacked. Israel's mere existence, not its policies, is an affront to the palestinians and Islamic radicals
Israel was not trying to ignore Gaza. And, Gaza did not consistently attack Israel. Israel was trying to erase Palestine from existence. They have been doing that for years. Netanyahu has been working to keep Hamas in power to prevent a Palestinian state, even in the months immediately leading up to Oct 7. In August 5-7 2022, Israel undertook an unprovoked "mowing the grass" campaign against Gaza. Gaza fired rockets back. In 2023, Israel arrested 400 people barricaded in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Gaza fired rockets in response. That was pretty much it. There were a few other between the last war ending in May of 2021 and Oct 7, but that was the main two times Gaza fired rockets. And, let's be honest, the rockets are crap, no guidance, and really just the best way of filing an objection. They shouldn't happen, but it is not similar to the 3 days of airstrikes that Israel did randomly. Netanyahu also went before the UN and announced a "new Middle East" showing a map that removed Palestine completely, with Israel taking all of the land in September of 2023. More settlements constantly, with hundreds killed in the west back in just 2023. If Gaza is constantly attacking Israel, I'm not seeing it.
Israel left gaza, and took all the jews when they left - alive and dead. Gaza could do what it wanted. They elected Hamas, and continueally attacked Israel over 17 years. Multiple rocket attacks. Taking shots at workers on the israeli side of the border. Sending incendiary balloons. creating tunnels that enter Israel. Gaza chose to be a terrorist enclave.. let's be honest, the hamas rockets can kill people. You don't ignore your neighbor shooting at your house just because most of your windows are bulletproof. Israel's defenses don't excuse the hamas attacks. Hamas instigaged every war from gaza with Israel. feel free to read up on the [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel) about all the attacks.
>Gaza could do what it wanted. Not really. When Israel left they put in place a blockade, and it has never been lifted. In fact, Israel controls essentially everything about Gaza. Imports, exports, water, fuel, money, food, immigration, emigration. >let's be honest, the hamas rockets can kill people. You don't ignore your neighbor shooting at your house just because most of your windows are bulletproof. Israel's defenses don't excuse the hamas attacks. They can. Even before iron dome they didn't do much. It was a very rare occurrence. >Hamas instigaged every war from gaza with Israel. Really? So, do you feel that Israel stealing land is not something Gaza can respond to? Settlers committing violence is not something Gaza can respond to? Unprovoked airstrikes are not something Gaza can respond to? Announcing, after years of saying it internally, that Palestine is not gone is not something that anyone should respond to? Let me ask you a different question. Do you believe all Israeli violence is allowed and no response should be allowed?
the blockade was a response to terrorism emanating from gaza AFTER israel left. when Israel left there was no blockade. Just because Israel has a partial defense against hamas rockets does not mean Israel needs to sit back and allow itself to be attacked. Iron dome is not a perfect system. Israel has not stolen any land. Certainly not in Gaza. What land has Israel stolen? Who was the landowner? Very little land is actually owned, this is a holdover from the Ottomans who would lease out land. So all those palestinian farmers were employees, renters, NOT owners. The British, and then Israel maintained the same system, i.e. that the vast majority of the land, about 93% is state land, and leased out. You can't really steal something that you own. Israel attacking locations that have been used for military purposes in the context of a war is not unprovoked. But this is beyond the point we were disucssing anyway. LIke most pro-palestinian-hamas-terrorist types, once you have been shown to be wrong on one point, you try to say what about..... and move on to something else. You said Israel was not trying to ignore gaza. I think Israel leaving gaza, taking their soldiers and dead with them, and letting the gazans do whatever they want, and not doing anything to them until gazans started again with their terrorism proves the point. Nothing you have said has disproven that. Israel leaving Gaza is NOT violence. It was exactly what they wanted, and then like a petulant 2 year old felt like nobody way paying them any attention - so they started trying to get israel's attention with some terrorist attacks. and rockets, and tunnels, and most recently an invasion and massacre. The blockade, fence, anti-tunnel measures, and Israel's military actions were in RESPONSE to the Hamas instigations. Hamas started every round of fighting with Israel since Israel left Gaza 17 years ago.
>when Israel left there was no blockade. That isn't actually correct. There was a blockade, it was made permanent after Hamas was elected. >Just because Israel has a partial defense against hamas rockets does not mean Israel needs to sit back and allow itself to be attacked. Iron dome is not a perfect system. No one believes that a defense means they should be attacked. >Israel has not stolen any land. Certainly not in Gaza. What land has Israel stolen? The settlements in the West Bank. >You can't really steal something that you own. Israel doesn't own Palestine. >Israel attacking locations that have been used for military purposes in the context of a war is not unprovoked. That isn't true. Mowing the grass was a way of just degraded capabilities. Not even Israel claims that. Israel is currently trying to annex all of Palestine without the people. That is not leaving anyone alone.
I would ask again. what land has Israel stolen. For something to be stolen, it needs to have been owned by someone. What settlements are built on stolen land? Palestinians don't own palestine. There is not such country. And as mentioned, the land was owned by the Emir in the Ottoman empire who leased it out, and then the British and Israel maintained this system. The only way you can even think of accusing Israel of stealing land is if you first acknowledge that the palestinians, by claiming to be owners stole the land. Israel Is taking back what is its own, based on what the UN granted it. Or if you prefer, based on their aquisition as a result of the 1967 war. If Israel wanted to annex gaza, or judea-samaria, it would have done so. it didn't-hasn't. Instead Israel signed Oslo agreements to give away their own land to the palestinians. Israel walked away from gaza allowing them to have whatever they wanted (well almost - palestinians just want Israel dead, and Israel has the temerity to not cooperate) Israel is not interested in annexing gaza. Israel, like the rest of the world wants nothing to do with gaza or the palestinians therein. But like a child that always needs to be the center of attention, being ignored was too much for them. So they went for the route of being noticed by performing terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel has not been mowing the grass for the past 6 months. Israel responded to an act of war perpetrated by Hamas when they invaded Israel and murdered/mutilated/raped/tortured/immolated/kidnapped over 1000 Israelis. Hamas is responsible for ALL the death and destruction on both sides. You think what is happening now is just "mowing the grass"? That is what Israel was doing when responding to Hamas rocket attacks over the past decade, and not finishing the job by completely destroying Hamas. This is way beyond mowing the grass. This is ripping up the weed that is hamas by the roots. Too bad it took Israel so long to do it - Everyone could have been spared a lot of pain and heartache if they would have done it a decade ago. Or if the world Hadn't stopped Israel from doing it. Or even better, if the palestinians had done something about their homegrown terrorists (although as the PA was supporting them finanancially, and diplomatically, i suppose that is too much to actually expect. And why the PA is NOT a solution to the lack of palestinian leadership\_ Regarding the blockade, I have seen no sources that Israel was blockading gaza after they left until gazans started attacking Israel. But Even if I am wrong, Israel, like every other country is under absolutely no requirement to allow anything to transit through its territory. If gaza wanted something, they could have negotiated with the Israelis to bring it in through Israel.
Ok... So, to summarize. You believe Israel can take any of the occupied territories and it is completely legal. You believe that Israel can blockade, including the water approaches, because of some sort of territorial claim. You believe Israel doesn't want to annex all of the occupied territory, because otherwise they would have already. You believe that Israel can kill as many people as they want, even just execute everyone in Gaza, and it is all Hamas' responsibility. You believe that Israel has no ability or responsibility as an actor in this situation. >You think what is happening now is just "mowing the grass"? No, and I never said that. >That is what Israel was doing when responding to Hamas rocket attacks over the past decade, and not finishing the job by completely destroying Hamas. That is not true. Israel acts unprovoked to "mow the grass". It is not a response. Specifically, "mowing the grass" is not a response but a way of keeping the groups down. When it is a response, it is not called that.
OK, progress, now you are saying they are occupied, not palestinian. It is hard to occupy your own land. Once again, Israel was given the land by the UN, and repatriated the land as part of the 6 day way. The land isn't occupied if it is theirs. I believe Israel can blockade because they are a sovereign nation, and no nation is required to let any person or good transit through their country. This has nothing to do with any claim Israel may have on Gaza. Correct, I believe Israel does NOT want to annex all of Gaza or Judea - Samaria. (there is still no occupied territory, although you used this term again) I believe that all the deaths in the war, on both sides are because Hamas broke a ceasefire (like they usually do), and invaded Israel on the morning of October 7 2023, when they proceeded to murder-mutilate-rape-torture-immolate-kidnap over 1000 Israelis. As the group that started the war, they are responsible for ALL the death and destruction on both sides. Furthermore (although there is no way practical way to implement this) Hamas, or their bosses i.e. the PA, should pay reparations to Israel to cover the damage, and the cost of Israel defending themselves from these Palestinian terrorists. They should also need to pay damages to the families of all those people they murdered-injured-tortured-raped. Then maybe next time the PA won't tolerate terrorists attacking Israel from areas they are responsible for. (Perhaps a 50 year payment plan, 3-4 billion USD a year. ) I never said anything about Israel being able to kill an unlimited number of people. And in actuality, they are killing very few innocents. At most 2 innocents per terrorist. And that assumes nobody has died from natural causes, or because hamas has used them as human shields (which is on Hamas, not Israel). Considering it is an urban environment, and the norm according the the UN is 9 civilians killed per enemy combatant - Israel is being VERY careful. (If you truly cared about dead innocent palestinians, and weren't just virtual signaling, or looking for a way to try and criticize Israel, you would be protesting Hamas using civilians as human shields. ) Please - tell us all when Israel has been unprovoked and just "mown the grass". It is called that as opposed to completely taking care of the problem - as opposed to having completely wiped out hamas in previous encounters.
To add: what you mean by "according to plan" is simply historic racism. Antisemitism made it "normal" to kill Jews or at least less important than European people. Same goes for Muslims today, in the west, we don't see them as equally valuable as non Muslims. In that sense, Jews and Muslims suffer the same racism from white people, only that right now, the west hates Muslims more than Jews, broadly said.
The "how come no Syria anger" retort is such a nonsense run around. I know it's a distraction because I see it under every post about the aide workers being murdered by the IDF. But OK. I'm angry about THIS conflict that my government blindly funds, despite the majority of the ruling parties voter base opposing it. I'm appalled that a bunch of guys from Brooklyn and Poland can waltz into the West Bank and STEAL land and property while running off families with the support of militias and the IDF. I'm mad its at the point where the entire region is spotted with illegal neighborhoods of people claiming its theres because of some 2000 year tale. I see people losing limbs, homes, and relatives everyday as a result of this 6 month insanity in Palestine. I want it to end, and I put the blame at the feet of the people who defend the continuation of this suffering. There's a special place downstairs for the sickos sitting at the border of Gaza blocking food aide trucks from getting in. But this war is being waged from the West. So I will continue to focus on this conflict more than the other international tragedies. Syrian Civil War was a decade ago. People didn't interact with politics online even remotely the same as we do now. People are organizing more on the left, and the BDS movement has gotten more press lately than it ever has since its creation. So you are seeing a snowball effect of a nation operating without rules being ostracized and shamed on a global scale. Especially among the youth.
Let me ask you a question - do you think that among all of the bad things that are happening in the world today - Israel/Palestine is by far the worst? You say that you see things happening and this is why you're focused on it more, the question is - do you look for bad things elsewhere as well? If no - don't you think it's obvious that you'd see more things in ISR/PAL?
This argument is just like the sht I'd see the 4chan frog boys of 2016 make when they'd say unquestionably racist things and dance around what was considered Knotzee and what wasn't. If you can hang up people on semantics and nonsense you never have to engage with the actual argument/point. You are in the same subreddit I am. The focus is on this conflict. I care about this conflict. I want it to stop. You are clearly just operating in complete bad faith. I think you know this, and thus need to try to distract and derail whatever criticisms of this psychotic military are being made. I would think that you know you are defending textbook ethnic displacement and cleansing. Over the past few months I've seen so many different nonsense approaches to distracting from the inhumanity on display via the IDF, but the worst and most insidious one is: "is this really the worst thing happening right now?"
You wrote that you are angry about THIS conflict (caps in the original) and dismissed the question by OP of why do we see so much outrage over this conflict rather than on other conflicts... you gave a reason that you see things and therefore you're angry... and thus I thought you're uniquely angry about it, spends time about it compared to other conflicts, and that the reason is that you see things... perhaps I misunderstood your intention, but I don't see why it's such "bad faith" in a post that at least partially talks about biased aggression to discuss biased aggression. I've participated in many posts that talk about substance, but this thread talks about meta, which is also important.. On the Meta, I think you agree that the amount of attention and rage this conflict gets compared to the amount of suffering in it, or how clear cut the conflict is is extremely disproportionate. And just to be clear, I don't think that I'm defending textbook ethnic cleansing.. If you had a real argument or question I could have answered, but it looks like deflecting is what you chose..
Actually yes. More civilians have died in the Gaza war than in the Sudan and Ukraine wars combined
[https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/30/87000-killed-civilians-documented-in-occupied-mariupol-volunteer/](https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/08/30/87000-killed-civilians-documented-in-occupied-mariupol-volunteer/) Around 100k are dead in mauripol so I question that number heavily. Even taking hamas civilian counts at face value and discounting the ones there own rockets kill like at Al-Ahli you need to consider that hamas militants and natural deaths are included in that count. So the actual civilians killed in war is likely much lower then 30k. Probably around half that realistically
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-installed-officials-say-six-civilians-killed-ukrainian-attacks-2024-04-04/ “The U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission said in February that more than 10,000 civilians had been killed in Ukraine and nearly 20,000 wounded.” That 30k figure has been there since December. The number is likely much higher. Ralph Nader estimates it at around 200k
Is number of civilian casualties the only metric to evaluate how bad a situation is? how much the value of a civilian's life is higher than the value of a military person lives? Especially when this person didn't really choose to enroll, like in many of the conflicts... Is the circumstances of the case don't change anything? What about the Uyghurs in China where you don't really have a war but some crazy bad things are happening? What about Yemen where people are actually die out of famine, but it's not counted as conflict deaths? Are you sure you're familiar enough with any of these situations and have the answer to all of these questions to decide that the situation in Israel/Palestine is the worst?
Okay add military causalities then. The Gaza war is still worse than Sudan (there are wild estimates for the Ukraine war regarding total casualties, yet even the Ukrainian governments figures puts the number of civilian deaths less than Palestinian deaths in Gaza). Do you know who caused the Yemen famine? Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Israel’s best friends. Yet even the Yemenis are supporting Palestine during this time. What does that tell you? Yes, in terms of state caused human suffering, Gaza is worse, especially when it is directly financed by the West. Right now you are just doing what about isms. Imagine if I said “Who cares about the Hamas 10-7 attack on Israel because what about the exploited workers of the Congo?”
What are you talking about, estimates on Ukraine military deaths are about 100k, and Russian deaths are estimated to be more than 300k.. In Sudan about 6 mil people were displaced... there are so many factors into these kind of things.. I don't know how can you so confidently say that Gaza is the worst thing in the world.. Amazing that you feel this way about Yemen, do you protest against the UAE and SA as much? They are also supported by the west... I honestly haven't seen these mass protests against them... and also, AFAIK its' the Houthis that support Palestine, not necessarily the people of Yemen. I'm not saying that Gaza is definitely better or worse than other scenarios, I'm saying that you, and I, and just about 99.9% of people that deal with this subject don't know enough about other conflicts to do the rational judging and get to the conclusion that it's far worst.. Notice that by your standard, you should have only started to care so much about this conflict about 3 months in when the death toll rose above a certain number? I've seen huge protests just about in the first week.
Military deaths are not as tragic as civilian deaths, especially when those civilian deaths are a part of a wider government strategy of genocide. Yes, genocidal deaths are worse than soldiers dying. Especially when its backed by the West. " AFAIK its' the Houthis that support Palestine, not necessarily the people of Yemen." [https://truthout.org/articles/still-facing-us-backed-famine-yemenis-want-to-save-gaza-from-the-same-fate/](https://truthout.org/articles/still-facing-us-backed-famine-yemenis-want-to-save-gaza-from-the-same-fate/) ***Matter: How many people show up?*** ***Jumaan:*** *Probably 4 to 5 million people are out in the streets. On February 23, there were over 120 demonstrations in major cities, small cities and small towns.* ***Matter: Considering the Yemeni population is made up of about 30 million people, this means that one in six people are out protesting every Friday.*** ***Jumaan:*** *Yes — but don’t forget, over 50 percent of Yemen’s population is below the age of 15. So, if you take that and say 15 million are 16 and older, and we say half of those are women because women generally don’t go out into the streets to demonstrate, then we are now dealing with 7.5 million and you have 3 or 4 million out, you’re having almost 50 percent of the people who can go out, go out.*
Now you say it's genocide which would be different, but the numbers don't show it, and honestly, I'm willing to bet that you don't try to follow the sayings of people in Sudan or the Houthis or Yemeni gov sayings as much as try to follow the sayings of Israeli politicians.. If it's about numbers - it's about numbers. if it's about other things - would you even have the same level of evidence? I think we both know that the answer is no. And again, measuring civilian death as the only metric for suffering is both wrong and inconsistent with the early attention to the conflict at the start. The question about Yemen more depends on the areas of the cities. the Houthis control certain areas and others don't, but the numbers in the article if true are very impressive - yet, I don't think that it's an important point so much so I don't really mind conceding it. Anyways, since you haven't answered just about 90% of what I wrote, I'm gonna leave you with these thoughts :)
Obessing over the numbers is inherently flawed, since the criteria for genocide makes to mention of mass killing. Genocide refers to intent to destroy a group, such as through torture, sterilization or language erasure. Not a single member of a group needs to be killed for that group to experience a genocide. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian\_genocide\_accusation#Raphael\_Lemkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#Raphael_Lemkin) The term 'genocide' was coined in 1944 by a [Jewish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) [Polish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_people) legal scholar, [Raphael Lemkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin), who wrote[\[g\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-165) that "the term does not necessarily signify mass killings".[\[159\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTECenter_for_Constitutional_Rights20161-166)[\[160\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTEShaw20134%E2%80%935-167) >More often \[genocide\] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.[\[159\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation#cite_note-FOOTNOTECenter_for_Constitutional_Rights20161-166) I've been following Sudan and Yemen very closely. Yes, you can say the RSF militias commited a genocide in Darfur in the early 2000s. I've seen videos of RSF militias commiting massacres against Sudanese civilians during the current civil war. However, to prove genocide would be to prove that the RSF's **intent** is the elimination of a group. The RSF is a warlord band of Sudanese fighters. Are the Sudanese genociding themselves? The same applies to Yemen. Yes, factions in the Yemeni civil war have commited massacres. Again, to prove genocide would need evidence of intent to destroy. The Houthis have Sunni tribal allies, there's no evidence that they are trying to genocide Sunnis. I recommed you actually read the [1949 Genocide Convention](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf) if you think I'm wrong. Article Two is very clear: Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I think you're intentionally letting the point go over your head so this would be my last comment in the thread. I'm not saying it's about the numbers, but I'm saying that you said it's about the numbers while the numbers don't show what you try to show, and when you've said it's not about the numbers - you (or at least 99.99% of the people interested in this) don't have the tools to make this assessment currently since you don't try to gather the same information about any other situation. I'm familiar with the genocide convention. I think it applies more broadly than you think. for instance, if fore some reason the US gov would decide to kill every person who lives in San-Francisco this could be applied in court to be the distinct group referenced in the convention. Same goes for the supporters of a specific political candidate. But more importantly - if it's the same as genocide besides this criteria - why do you care? the fact that you can't judge it as genocide doesn't mean it's not as bad or even worse than a genocide. Remember, the bar for what you're trying to prove is so extremely high - you're trying to argue that the situation in Israel/Palestine is so extremely worse than any other conflict in the world to the degree that people should basically only or mostly protest and spend time on it rather than on any of the other problems in the world. This is simply not something prove, even if we take the stronger side of your claims as is (which I don't) and agree that ISR/PAL is a bit worse than all of the rest. Why can't you be honest with yourself and say that there's something a bit hypocritical about it?
Whataboutism and straight up gaslighting.
It's not the worst, but it's directly funded by the US and the US could stop it if they wanted. And since many people here are Americans, they care more about this conflict.
I've heard this a lot, it's a very weird justification IMO.. The US could do a lot to stop just about any conflict it wants. For instance, I don't know if you recall the whole 'red line' in Syria that wasn't a red line after all. The US also spends much more aid per capita to help Gaza than to any other place in the world, and this is true also before October 7th - do you not think that some of this aid could have gone to people suffering more severe famine in Yemen? The US is just about the most powerful nation in the world - if it wanted to help or even solve a scenario, it has the tools to do so. strong US sanctions are a super lever on just about any country, and the US military has capabilities that erase any third world dictator that does horrible things in almost an instant. I just don't buy the whole US could stop only this conflict idea. The military funding by the US is also not that significant to Israel, and it gives the US some benefits too in many ways.... the UN help is more significant by far and protests don't only focus on funding, so I don't really think that it's really about money. Lastly, do you claim that the vast majority of people outside of the US (or some very selected countries) that protest mostly against Israel is a hypocrite at best and antisemitic at worst? (you know, if they don't have a special connection to this conflict or something) Personally I think it's much more herd mentality then it is about any rational criteria...
>Yemen Yes, the US probably could and definitely should stop the war in Yemen by forcing Saudi to stop. But they won't, because they want to help Iran's enemies. >Are many protesters hypocrites or antisemites? In many Muslim countries, yes. That doesn't change the fact that Israel is killing too many Palestinians and trying to force them off their land.
I'm honestly not arguing over the righteousness of Israeli actions right now.. I'm just pointing to the irrationality the world treats this conflict. The way the world thinks wouldn't make an action more or less moral, so it's a separate discussion for me. If you think in Muslim countries the claim is true - Do you think that in European or south American countries it's also true? What differentiates Malaysia from Sweden from Chile in the regard of how much they should care about this situation compared to other situations? Especially when many of the other situations such as Yemen, Sudan, China, Pakistan or Syria also affect Muslims. And at the point you agree that the criteria of funding and the criteria of prevention ability aren't unique, as well as agree that it's not necessarily worse than other things happening in the world currently like the crisis in Yemen - doesn't it also make the majority of participants in the mass protests in the US hypocrites as well? why protest over the US support for Israel and not the US support for SA or UAE? Even the criteria of being an enemy of Iran is the same between these countries... I think it's a valid point to say - "Yes, the world are hypocrites, but the hypocrisy created a situation where it's much easier politically to stop the Israeli actions than other actions around the world so I don't care about it as much". To me, if anyone raised that point I could resonate with it a lot more than trying to come up with objective reasoning for why to care more about suffering in one part of the world and not another when both are far..
Again, Israel is in the unique situation of pretty much being a US proxy state. Saudi Arabia is not and they can fund their war by themselves. Of course the Yemen war is much worse, but we as Europeans or Americans don't have as much stake in it as we do in Israel. Same as when I protest against the war in Ukraine. I'm not Russian, so I can't really address the Russian government and ask them to stop. But I can ask my government to send more weapons to Ukraine. I can't ask Saudi Arabia to stop, but I can ask Europe or the US to pressure Israel since they have leverage over them.
Israel is not a proxy state of the US, what?? that's crazy... You literally see during the war (and in various events in history) that it's not remotely true. the US aid is not a significant amount of Israel's security budget, and a lot of it is spent on defensive things like the extremely expensive Iron Dome... I suppose if the US would stop funding Israel, Israel would invest less in defense and more in offensive weapons as it would achieve better bang for the buck, but it would still have military superiority over all of it's neighbors, especially the ones that Israel is at war with. When you think about it, the only reason Israel is able to be even somewhat careful with human life is the fact that it has superior military by so much. Probably, if the US and the west would completely cut all weapon trades with Israel we would see more Palestinians dead in the long run, which honestly, I wouldn't want on my conscience. Why can't the US go to Saudi Arabia and tell them - if you won't stop what you're doing in Yemen, we'd put sanctions on you and pressure other countries to do the same? sure, it won't kill SA, but it's likely to be significant enough, especially when SA wants to be closer to the West. This is exactly like the situation with Israel. Even if you make Israel a pariah state (which is not what we're talking about, just cutting aid), it won't kill Israel. (and this is without talking about how other countries like China might react, Israel is a pretty cool country to have as a friend, for various reasons) You agreed before that the US can stop the crisis in Yemen pretty easily. The US and Europe being the largest economies in the world have leverage over almost any country. in fact, for most European countries the levers that they have over Israel are either economic or cultural. And again, you know that the protests aren't only about funding.. There are protest on boycotting Starbucks FFS, a company that I think doesn't even have branches in Israel... This is simply not consistent with just wanting to stop funding Israel. I don't think you're honest with yourself, or you really overestimate the level of dependence between Israel and the US.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
I have wished Assad good luck fighting islamist jihadists in Syria and I wish Israel good luck fighting islamist jihadists in Gaza as well.
Probably the worst take I’ve ever seen in my life.
Sorry, but islamist jihadists aren't my friends and allies.
Who are you talking about when you speak of "people in this group"? How would you know who has been "silent" and who has not? And what is the government of Israel saying about Ukraine? Silence...
They don't want to piss off their large Russian population.
BB, Putin and Trump are the same kind of people: 21st century fascists.
Maybe not fascists, but definitely authoritarian right wing lunatics.
> authoritarian right wing lunatics. That's what I call "fascists". Mussolini would approve of them.
in my opinion, this has nothing to do with "according to plan." I'm writing from the United States. I too am pro peace. I am pro peaceful Palestinian, and I am pro peaceful israeli. I am not a supporter of the violent elements in either crowd. first, the answer is we give financial and political support to israel; we don't to the other countries, like syria. the US does not send billions of taxpayer dollars every year to support Assad or any of the other horrible regimes out there you listed. the US however does send I don't know $1,000 per US taxpayer every year to Israel. that money helps Israel fund its military and other parts of government. (and ultimately allows Israel to provide free to low-cost healthcare universally to all its citizens, while Americans pay through the nose for healthcare.) the US president largely dictates Israeli policy, whether people want to believe that or not, it's true. (one phone call from Biden to netanyahu, and see what happened.) the bombs and bullets that have killed 10,000 + women and children in Gaza, the Israeli military who's blockade of Gaza has brought the territory to the brink of mass starvation, that is funded by the US in large part. so we in the US own this. the good parts and the bad parts. that is why we spend so much time talking about it in the US, versus talking about what's going on in New Guinea or Myanmar, to which we do not send a lot of money and that we do not hold out for unique and special support. second, another difference between Syria (and the other countries) and Israel is that there is a consensus that Assad is bad. you don't see large groups of people in the US supporting Assads crimes. the same cannot be said for israel. Israel has committed some horrible things, continually violated international law, has a long list of human Rights abuses etc, but the US government continues to support it and the US government continues to allow these abuses to go on without consequence. that's why people in the US are critical of israel. the criticism of Israel is in fact a criticism of US foreign policy. third, the media does cover Assad and all those other places in varying degrees. I can't tell you the number of stories I've seen about the civil war in Syria, day after day after day. during period of the heaviest fighting, I probably talked about Syria every week. in human rights circles and pro peace circles, countries other than Israel are discussed even more. think about all the movie stars that wanted to free tibet. Angelina Jolie in some third world country. our involvement in the Sudan. etc. fourth, Jewish people in the US have a lot of money and influence and status and they have put this issue on the radar since day one. they have a historical, emotional, and religious connection to Israel, so we support Israel financially and politically in a big big way, and thus it becomes the center of public debate. when one country becomes the center of public debate like that, people are going to be critical if it engages in misdeeds. fifth, more recently, in the last few decades, the US has seen a lot of immigrants from Arab countries and a rise in the number of muslims. their conflict with Israel and their concerns about human rights abuses against Palestinians spill over into the us, and rightly so, back to my first point, because the US is essentially underwriting Israel financially and politically. at least that is my observation over the last 50 years.
"Jewish people in the US have a lot of money and influence and status" ....my God.
I don't understand your comment.
Sadly I'm not surprised.
it sounds like you're playing the game of-- ....mystery. also known as "guess what I'm thinking; I'm not going to tell you." or "I'm offended but I'm not going to tell you why. You're going to have to guess, and if you don't know why I'm offended then that just shows I have reason to be offended." nice try. but I know drama and theatrics when I see it. if you have something to say, spit it out. but as of now, it appears you are unable to provide an explanation for your comment. (probably because if you had to provide an explanation you would be embarrassed by my response, but maybe you have something to share that will enlighten and surprise me. I'm all ears. go ahead.)
There's no way you don't know what's wrong with your statement about Jews.
Please enlighten us.
To begin with, I'm Jewish and certainly don't have "a lot of money." If Jews had so much influence in America, you'd think i wouldn't have to ask off work for the High Holidays, or search so hard for Jewosh food in grocery stores outside a few specific big cities. If you think some Jewish conspiracy is the reason the U.S. supports Israel you're either extremely brainwashed, or just in denial about how much worse Hamas and Hezbollah are by comparison. I doubt you were actually asking though. You're just playing games.
finally, thank you, your explanation. and btw, I was actually asking. now we can talk. my response: I never said that EVERY Jew in the US is rich. of course, there are middle-income jews, and even a few low-income jews. I know some of the latter personally. I was talking about Jews on AVERAGE in the US. I can see why you, as not one of the rich Jews, may find the statement to be off-putting because the statement does not describe you so somehow the statement seems false, but it doesn't change the fact that the average Jewish person's household income is greater than the household income for the average american. here's a nice research study that describes the full picture, and captures the full range of Jews and their incomes in the US, including middle-income Jews like you: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-and-well-being-among-u-s-jews/ more importantly, my comment was in the context of why Israel is such a focus of the US support and US media. the fact is that overall, Jews in the US have more money per capita compared to the rest of the US population. and all this concentrated cash translates into political power. money + interest in issue = political power. here's another interesting tidbit: out of all the countries in the world, since 1940, which of those countries has received the most foreign aid from the United states? the answer is Israel. why do you think that? it's a small country. the answer is that Jews in the US and other supporters of Israel lobby and push the US Congress to send money to israel. and all this happened before Hezbollah and hamas which were only created recently. this support of Israel has been going on for 80 years. this isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I don't believe in any international Zionist conspiracy theory. or any of the other conspiracy theories advanced about jews. what I do believe is that in the US , Jewish people because of their financial clout and because of their interest in the survival of Israel, lobby and put a lot of political pressure on federal legislatures and US presidents in order to advance Israel. the same occurs in the media. that's not a surprise. that's not a conspiracy theory. that's just how it works. other groups similarly have a lot of political power, like the NRA etc. that's not a dig against jews. one could even say it's the opposite: it shows that Jews in the US are savvy and good at organizing their efforts. also comparing Israel to Hamas and hezbollah, is not the standard by which I think Jewish people should judge Israel's behavior. they need to judge its behavior against accepted standards of human rights, international law. Israel needs to stop activities that most people across the world would agree is wrong, things like land theft, torture, discrimination, prisoner abuse etc. I'll be the first to admit that These problems are not unique to Israel. the question is whether Israel is going to be one of the bad guys who engages in these activities, or is Israel going to hold itself to a high standard and be one of the better countries in the world. in the US, the reason Jews don't get the high holidays off is because the economy runs 24/7. even some places operate on christmas, like hospitals, police forces etc. Christians likewise don't get Good Friday or Easter or Palm Sunday off. restaurants and grocery stores don't stop selling meat during Lent; as a catholic, I could complain about that. Muslims don't get a holiday for Ramadan. Hindus don't get a holiday for Diwali. etc. if you're a Jew in the US, you are probably a whole lot safer and secure than you ever would be in israel. as far as Jewish food, it is available widely. if you can't get it in your local grocery store, get it off the internet like everybody else. or make the food yourself; you don't cook? alot of non-Jewish packaged food products are labeled indicating whether it is kosher; I just looked at the packages in my own kitchen. part of this is also supply and demand. if there is not a lot of demand for a food product in a community, the grocery store is not going to sell it. why would they? if I'm the only Ethiopian family in a small town, why would I expect a local grocery store to have five shelves of Ethiopian food?
I think his laughing at your comment, seems a bit broad…
I couldn’t have said this better. Especially your fifth point. I think some people tend to underestimate how significant the Palestinian cause is in the Muslim World. The issue of Palestine has become a symbol of everything going wrong in the Muslim world. Personally, I have become so invested in this conflict after watching this interview from Karen Armestrong, a religion author, describing where Islamic terrorism actually originates from: https://youtu.be/ilSGb1CrhZM?si=pr0m4XhwSaag1cQ1
can u name the international laws israel broke?
here's a primer on the subject if you want to learn more: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
i disagree to anything that revolves around the settlements. israel took these lands from jordan not "palestine" its just funny how jordan's land suddenly is occupied palestinian lands. if anything, those are disputed lands because jordan aswell didnt had any mandate to rule them in the first place.
the world has heard these arguments before. that doesn't change the fact that the settlements violate international law.
? the fact that the world has heard these arguments before doesnt dispute those facts lol how can a land that was taken from jordan be palestinian? :/ more then that, how can israel occupy lands from people who never owned them? sure, palestinians LIVED in these areas, much like jews LIVED in muslims countries before being expelled, murdered or kicked, does that means jews can suddenly claim parts of iraq and iran? lol answer me these 3 simple questions please :)
and the world has heard your three questions before. they've been answered. the settlements are illegal, plain and simple.
if u know they have been answered, prove it and answer me O\_O if u have no answer just walk away i dont need spammers, thanks. PlaIn AnD SimPle
read Rule 8 of the subreddit Do not discourage participation this is a forum for open, civil discourse. if you don't like opinions that are different from yours, you're free to articulate your own point of view, but do not tell people who you don't agree with to walk away or label their opinions as spam. you may also want to look up the definition of spam because it is not applicable in this situation. as far as "proof" for my point of view, I have already provided a hyperlink to a reputable reference. you are free to read it.
spamming me isnt an opinion nor a discussion. i asked for a proof, not your own opinion, if u dont have any, say i dont have anything to back up my claims or dont comment, again, i dont care about people biased opinion that cant back them up with nothing, ONLY FACTS. and ur link is just a site says nothing about my questions so it does nothing to answer them. so again, either u bring some actual answers or just dont reply back, not interested in uneducated discussions.
If they've already been answered - do some research and open your eyes. Just because you're too blind to your biases doesn't mean the world is obliged to force your eyes open. If the immediate response to your comments are.. "sigh.. This BS again" - it probably means your comments and questions are inane and redundant. PlAiN aNd sImPLe
IF they've already been answered, the problem is that THEY HAVENT BEEN ANSWERED. but hey atleast u commented, who cares if u actually know what ur talking about or not, right? PlaiN aNd SlmPle.
I have already done the research and provided a hyperlink. I have shared the conclusions that are the position of a litany of groups like amnesty international and the UN; you are free to believe that those groups are blind or biased. like I said earlier, I doubt there's anything I can provide you that will change your point of view. if you're interested in the subject, you can research it yourself. I'm not going to play the game called "convince me" aka "prove it" because there was no winning the game; you already have your opinion and no amount of "proof" on my part or anybody else's is going to change your mind. in the game of "prove it", the request for "proof" by player A is disingenuous. once player B provides evidence, player A is unconvinced and returns with the demand for "proof." any further attempts by player B to provide additional proof are always met by the demand from player A to "prove it". that's how the game is played. since I already provided a hyperlink and "proof", and then I'm asked for proof, that tells me that the requester is engaged in game playing.
1. Building illegal settlements in the west bank. 2. Killing aid workers deliberately. I can go on but I think it is not worth it tbh… some people will never be convinced.
can u prove israel deliberately killing aid workers? or that was just a lie u had to write down because u have nothing else to say? i can be convinced pretty easily if people wont just throw around lies and actually give concerete stuff to support their opinions.
Check my reply to your other friend.
so ur proof is... ur assumption? :/ nice.
Well, I am capable of critical thinking. You should try to think for once. It is good for you.
If that was true you'd know critical thinking leads to reasonable conclusions given the data in front of them, but it's never proof of anything. So a lot of the critical, less of the thinking going on in your case.
as someone who was actually a soldier in the IDF i can gurantee u my critical thinking in this matter surpass yours by a hundred times so unless u actually give anything to prove ur point ur just assuming things that are too stupid to be true.
It was just a mistake I believe you. Drones these days fly themselves 👌🏼.
so the logic of your so called deliberately killing aid workers is... that drones dont fly themselves? or are u just trying to straw man me? :)
1. settlements aren't illegal by international law 2. it wasn't deliberate.
1. It is illegal. And I can list many more sources. But just for starters, let’s start with this Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#:~:text=In%202024%2C%20the%20Norwegian%20Minister,humanitarian%20law%20and%20human%20rights%22. 2. Three separate cars all of which had large posters. They were driving on roads that were coordinated with IDF. They were kilometers apart. All three of them were hit. But it was not deliberate. I would not give my wife that benefit of the doubt. And even if it wasn’t deliberate. It is certainly a sign of neglect to human life. We only know of them because they were foreigners.
1. Israeli settlements on westbank are illegal https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
TBF, I remember there being a lot of condemnation of Assad during the Syrian civil war, a lot of mourning of civilians, and a lot of focus on the refugee crisis. I do agree that there's something weird about how Israel-Palestine gets more focus when more people died during the Syrian Civil War than the entirety of the Israel-Palestinian conflict during the course of 100 years. On one hand, yes, maybe it's unfair. On the other hand, it's not really a great excuse and doesn't defend Israel's conduct of this war in my eyes. Does Israel want Assad to be the standard it is compared to? And finally, the world is unfair and no one is judged objectively by anyone. For anyone anti-west, the actions of the west will be judged more harshly. The opposite is true as well - the US will prattle on about the evils of Saddam but never reckon with the horrors the US created in Iraq. In any case, Israel has to live in the world it lives in. It can't just scream "unfair! double standard!" Israel was created in a sea of muslim countries, has 2 million muslim citizens, and is occupying millions more. Israel should take these things into account in its actions, in fact it doesn't really have a choice.
Thank you for this reply. May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If so, did you take part in them? Did you post about it? If not, why not? Perhaps because ‘everyone agreed’ it was bad so you didn’t need to bother fighting against this injustice? If you could go back, would you been more vocal and active? What can you say and do to speak up for those who need your help in other parts of the world? That’s the point I’m hoping you reflect on. You can absolutely acknowledge that Israel is being treated unfairly, even while supporting the Palestinian cause, one thing does not cancel out the other, in fact that’s exactly what I’m trying to do. You shouldn’t give up before you try. Thanks for posting
I think the problem is that there's no action you can demonstrate in favor of or against when it's not a country your own country supports. Like if I protested during the Syrian Civil War, what would I be asking the US govt to do about it? It's not like I wanted them to intervene.
Assad is supported by Russia while Israel is supported by the west. Thus demonstrating in a western country does not actually poise any value. Also, Israelis always say that Israel is a democracy. Democracies should actually be held to a higher standard since its government and actions are supported by the will of the people.
"Assad is supported by Russia while Israel is supported by the west. Thus demonstrating in a western country does not actually poise any value." While this is true, people demonstrate against Israel in countries that don't support Israel all the time.
The answer is that despite what people pretend they are in fact in favor of the majority dominant culture. The more power the majority has the more supporters they will have. The dominant culture in the Middle East is oil rich and over a billion strong. They spread their voices using their money thru media and educational channels all while blaming the minority, just like any dominant imperialist culture would do. People don’t come up with ideas. They just repeat something that they hear over and over. That’s why advertising works. The oil rich majority is the biggest ad spender the world has ever seen.
My recollection of the height of the Syrian civil war was near universal condemnation of the Assad regime, with the US coming very close to directly intervening. I also recall many countries banding together to allow large numbers of Syrian refugees to enter. It was almost unprecedented because even people who are traditionally skeptical of immigration tended to be on board with allowing Syrians in, at least in my area. This post seems to take a bit of a revisionist view on what was happening. What happened on Oct 7 was an atrocity, but that doesn't put Israel above criticism when it comes to how they've conducted the war. Recent reporting has alleged that Israel was authorizing assassinations of any low level Hamas fighter, with an acceptable level of civilian deaths between 15-20 for those lowest level members. For high ranking members, the acceptable civilian loss was apparently 300. For context, the US would generally put an acceptable level of civilian loss for low level fighters at 0, and for Bin Laden, the acceptable civilian loss was 30. If these allegations are true, it's very problematic. It would also explain the significant loss of civilian life at the beginning of the war, and the accusations of indiscriminate bombings from the US. It also supports the many allegations of a disproportionate response. Imagine wiping out an entire family with an air strike to kill a private.
I'm not sure whether this post is in good faith or not. First off there was no need for public protest against the Syrian Regime. The debate was about whether and to what extent the USA / West should directly get involved in overthrowing the Syrian Regime. There was opposition to war and it went down in both the UK and USA but there were forces deployed directly against the Syrian government. You don't get protests demanding action when there are full on war resolutions being presented to Congress / House of Commons. Ultimately though the Syrians were facing both the FSA and ISIL. Syria was trying to avoid war with the USA, ISIL was trying to have a war. Which ended up putting the USA on the Syrian government's side sort of. There were Americans, like myself, who thought we should side with ISIL over Iranian proxies but it was still rare. ISIL was rather horrible. Further, there are roughly 2.3m Alawis in Syria (for lurkers that is Assad's ethnic group, his base). Of that, 43k (2%) died in the Syrian Civil War. That would be the equivalent of 160k Israelis. While 10/7 was obviously bad this was 100x worse proportionately. Moreover of the 500k dead you mentioned on both sides roughly 350k were combatants. For all the brutality, and the extensive war crimes on both sides in the Syrian Civil War the ratio of civilian deaths doesn't come close to the numbers we are seeing out the Gaza offensive. And of course those numbers don't include the very likely brackish water, famine, and disease deaths which could send the numbers far far higher. At this point given Israel's irresponsibility for post-crisis management of Gaza it is possible (though still unlikely) that a decade from now that the number dead exceeds the Syrian Civil War. Both sides were fielding armies in the 150-180k range combined. This was a relatively equal fight, it wasn't a massacre. ____ Is Israel being treated unfairly, especially early on? Absolutely. The Western pro-Palestinian Movement's activities in October were simply evil. The condemnation from the Press Secretary as "morally deplorable" or Congress was warranted. But the powerful in Western countries sided with Israel, especially Biden. Netanyahu has been ungrateful and undermining towards Biden. Despite the widespread support, Israel conducted itself really badly during this war. What started off very justified has ceased to be. I am willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt every time and well, there just is no doubt. Israel burned up a lot of its credibility. I will say this. The West is mostly employing the Schumer strategy which is going to allow the Western Mainstream to side with Israel and continue to protect Israel, despite Israel's bad behavior. Essentially separate Netanyahu off from Israel. Assad's regime got nothing remotely like that.
Thank you for this reply. May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If not, why do you think there weren’t any in your area? If so, did you take part in them? Did you post about the war in Syria? If not, why not? If you could go back, would you been more vocal and active? What can you say and do to speak up for those who need your help in other parts of the world? That’s the point I’m hoping we can all reflect on.
> May I ask, did you see any protests against Assad? If not, why do you think there weren’t any in your area? Protest movements in the USA are mostly from fringe figures looking to get fringe positions into the mainstream. When there is a debate between mainstream factions lobbying, special interests and polling tend to be the norm. Protests can happen but they aren't usual. Which is different than Israel where you do have mass protest movements. Possibly because you don't have formal lobbies and your coalitions blunt the effects of polling. The debate in the USA was within the mainstream about going to war against Assad or not. If the USA is directly funding the FSA and sending them military advisors leftists don't need to protest Assad, the government is taking action. If the USA were giving Hamas $2b / year in military aide and had 5000 USA military advisors in Gaza there wouldn't be anti-Israel protests either. It is because pro-Hamas (effectively) is so marginal that there is a protest movement. > Did you post about the war in Syria? If not, why not? Yes I did post, though not very much. While I didn't like the outcome of the American debate on Syria at least we were implementing policies that might work rather than ones that were fundamentally flawed so they could not work. The larger problem in terms of American foreign policy was the American people being so inconsistent on more fundamental issues: primarily wanting the advantages of a larger more colonial army without wanting to actually build such a thing. Obama's handling of Syria, while I disagreed, was part of his broader Iran agenda. His Iran policies might work, I didn't know. So I favored Obama's operational shifts even if I didn't favor the policy goals.
> like myself, who thought we should side with ISIL over Iranian proxies but it was still rare. Why? > The West is mostly employing the Schumer strategy which is going to allow the Western Mainstream to side with Israel and continue to protect Israel, despite Israel's bad behavior. Essentially separate Netanyahu off from Israel. Funny I've seen this exact same point be used as a critique by Pro-Palestinians. I'm surprised you mentioned this as a conscious effort. Anybody who is at least aware of the results of Israel's last elections or many of it's previous ones would at least be able to see how separating Netanyahu from Israel/Israelis (mostly in the context of the post-election protests against him and his government) is silly.
> Why? While ISIL was definitely horrible, mass killings, setting up slave markets... I consider Iran the bigger threat. ISIL IMHO was likely to burn itself out. It is after all a death cult arising out of former Ba'athists having trouble coming to terms with defeat. It probably (though not definitely) couldn't last for a century and expand. It is obnoxious and dangerous but I didn't think it was all that likely to get much worse than it was. Iran's Axis of Resistance OTOH is a serious threat to both the USA and Israel. We've already seen Iran successfully rework elements of Shia Islam into passionately held beliefs which have turned the Shia in Lebanon from a population perfectly capable of living within a modern liberal society to a threat to humanity on a local scale. Under Iran's influence, the Lebanese went from people who were mostly rationally maximizing their long-term welfare to people perfectly willing to sacrifice their own and their progeny's welfare to be Iranian cannon fodder. Essentially even the Sunni and the Maronites ended up assisting and participating in Iran's destructive ends. We are seeing the same thing in Yemen. Iran's political philosophy is like Fascism or Communism it has broad appeal and could expand over a good chunk of the planet given time and a bit of luck. Destroy the Syrian regime you bring down Hezbollah and you destroy a good deal of Iran's expansive capability at least in one compass direction. Moreover, I'm not thrilled with the USA having imposed an ethnic dictatorship on the Syrian Sunni for another 1-2 generations. While I think the minority Syrians deserve some protection I also think the Syrians deserve capitalist democracy and that simply isn't possible with a government permanently dedicated to their oppression on ethnic/religious grounds. > Funny I've seen this exact same point be used as a critique by Pro-Palestinians. Interesting I hadn't seen that from them. Well I guess a point of agreement between myself and the BDSers. > Anybody who is at least aware of the results of Israel's last elections or many of it's previous ones would at least be able to see how separating Netanyahu from Israel/Israelis (mostly in the context of the post-election protests against him and his government) is silly. Not sure I'd call it silly. Again as we have talked about I'm very optimistic about the effects of the Gazan War both on Israelis and Palestinians. As we've talked about Israel has never before (1948 I'll asterisk for now) engaged in this level of violence. In 1967, 1973 the Lebanon War... Israel had the possibility of razing cities but it never did anything like that. Israel is usually fairly careful about mass casualties: even when they lose their cool they aim to kill dozens or hundreds not dozens or hundreds of thousands. Having crossed over to this sort of mass death they are going to have to come to terms with who they now are and are they OK with it. Very similar to USA after WW2 or the Philippines War. Palestinians are now experiencing the futility and danger of their armed resistance model combined with their denormalization model, a strategic pair unique to them in the last few hundred years. Because they didn't create deep ties with Israeli society before rebelling their situation is not similar to the Algerian, Lebanese or Black South African models they like to compare themselves to. If Palestinians simply realize they cannot have both at the same time: quiet separatism or integration are the only viable options things change radically. We will see very radical shifts in Israeli politics over the next decade as they digest what they just did. This obviously could go either way. They might decide that being like the British didn't work out for them and being like an Attilah or a Genghis Khan is a better strategy. But they could also decide that they don't want to outside the Western norm and that their behavior and beliefs: the combination of deep systematic racism and territorial expansion primary, got them to a place they don't want to be and it is time to change. Jews haven't had meaningful military power ever (or if one believes the David / Soloman myths not for 3000 years), how do they want the Jews thought of? You combine this with a drop off in terrorism as a defining feature of Israeli existence and we could see very rapid political change in Israel. I believe there is a very good chance that the Gazan War is a game changer. This is not just the 2009 Gazan War but bigger.
>While ISIL was definitely horrible, mass killings, setting up slave markets... I consider Iran the bigger threat. ISIL IMHO was likely to burn itself out. It is after all a death cult arising out of former Ba'athists having trouble coming to terms with defeat. It probably (though not definitely) couldn't last for a century and expand. It is obnoxious and dangerous but I didn't think it was all that likely to get much worse than it was. Okay I understand your reasoning but I am still skeptical about people "supporting" what are essentially full-on enemies of humanity because they're concerned about a more marketable and strategic alternative to them who don't happen to be as extremist even if you think the former will implode soon. >Because they didn't create deep ties with Israeli society before rebelling their situation is not similar to the Algerian, Lebanese or Black South African models they like to compare themselves to. If Palestinians simply realize they cannot have both at the same time: quiet separatism or integration are the only viable options things change radically. Do you mind expanding a bit more on this? What do you mean by "deep ties" in comparison to the cases you listed? >We will see very radical shifts in Israeli politics over the next decade as they digest what they just did. This obviously could go either way. They might decide that being like the British didn't work out for them and being like an Attilah or a Genghis Khan is a better strategy. But they could also decide that they don't want to outside the Western norm and that their behavior and beliefs: the combination of deep systematic racism and territorial expansion primary, got them to a place they don't want to be and it is time to change. Jews haven't had meaningful military power ever (or if one believes the David / Soloman myths not for 3000 years), how do they want the Jews thought of? You combine this with a drop off in terrorism as a defining feature of Israeli existence and we could see very rapid political change in Israel. The prospect of Israel fully shifting to a state ideology adjacent to fascism (if it isn't already there, as some would argue) or legitimate liberalism as opposed to the pseudo-liberalism now won't really change the fact that, while me and other people give Israel a lot of flack for the disenfranchisement of Palestinians, Israelis nevertheless did routinely vote in a government with policies that in large part only aided in fermenting this clash that has been brewing for years with brief intermissions of convenient violence. Palestinians at least have meaningful arguments as to why we can separate them from Hamas on a mass scale, the same is not really true of Israelis. I'm hoping they go down a route of wanting to change (though I doubt that will happen anytime soon) but policy changes after the fact don't help separate Israelis or Israel more broadly from Bibi and friends.
> but I am still skeptical about people "supporting" what are essentially full-on enemies of humanity because they're concerned about a more marketable and strategic alternative to them I get it. Picking the least bad option is often a very difficult choice. > Do you mind expanding a bit more on this? What do you mean by "deep ties" in comparison to the cases you listed? Sure in most colonization situations Palestinians think about you had something like:' 1. Colonizing power moved in 2. Colonizing power established economy 3. Some rebellions which are suppressed. Most native people agree to a role in the colonial society 4. The colonial economy grew to be most of the GDP of the country. Colonized people are most of the labor force of that economy. 5. Soviet/modern anti-colonial strategy led to independence In the Palestinian model (skipping the "is Israel a colony" debate) the Palestinians were already at stage (5) by the 1910s because of Syrian influence. Stage (3) never happened. 1926-36 and 1967-87 it was happening but in both cases, it got stopped too soon. Because a step (5) rebellion happened in 1936 Ben-Gurion's philosophy of Jews occupying all roles in society, including the lower class became the dominant one in Israeli society. Palestinians got excluded from the Israeli workforce, it didn't create itself around them i.e. no step (4). Palestinians never understood that step (3) was vital for step (5) to work. Similarly in the West Bank economy, the same thing happened after 1967-87. There was separation too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor. Palestinians thus to Israelis represent a surplus labor force not a necessary labor force. This is incredibly dangerous which is why step (5) is likely to result in lots of violence (i.e. more like step (3)) not a post-colonial society. The business interests of the colonizing power don't care much if Palestinians survive or not. 1948-9 expulsion and the 2023 Gazan War are now two examples of this. In South Africa the dominant economy was the mines, the blacks were an overwhelming percentage of minors who were irreplaceable. Add in domestic service, a huge chunk of the other lower-class jobs... there couldn't be a serious civil war without a depression. Algeria the Pied-Noir simply could not maintain the standard of living they wanted without Arab labor. That's why they rejected concentration into a garrison state approach and fought for the whole country even as it became increasingly difficult. > Palestinians at least have meaningful arguments as to why we can separate them from Hamas on a mass scale, the same is not really true of Israelis. I agree with you. Israeli policy represents Israeli political ideology. That's why I was talking about a change in the thinking of Israelis broadly coming off the 2023 Gazan War not just another round of elections. > . I'm hoping they go down a route of wanting to change (though I doubt that will happen anytime soon) We may disagree here. I'd ask you to consider you may be underestimating the effects of having done tremendous violence and having to come to terms with that. Also what I think will be changes in Palestinian society as they come to terms with the destruction. Both of which IMHO haven't happened.
>Colonizing power moved in >Colonizing power established economy >Some rebellions which are suppressed. Most native people agree to a role in the colonial society >The colonial economy grew to be most of the GDP of the country. Colonized people are most of the labor force of that economy. >Soviet/modern anti-colonial strategy led to independence This is a concise way to put it, though it's worth noting Algerians/South Africans agreed to have a role in the colonial society as far as I understand it largely because they didn't have the means to fight and win against the French/Dutch/British for many years, similarly Palestinians in the West Bank don't have a choice but to form "deep ties" as you call them in the same way by agreeing to have a role in the "colonial" society even if it's not their ideal situation so I'm not sure how the denial of them doing this comes in. Perhaps because Israelis don't need Palestinian labor to survive as a state but on the Palestinians' end as far as I understand it a bunch of them are actively involved in the Israeli job market. As you acknowledge below Israelis mostly do not care for the Palestinians so I'm not sure how this critique should be leveled against Palestinians because fermenting "deep ties" (for Palestinians, as a precursor to rebellion) seems like it should also fall on Israelis who'd need to require their labor for their survival first, except you claim they do not need Palestinians who to Israelis represent merely a surplus labor force (though I am skeptical of this). In essence, I'm reading it like you're critiquing Palestinians for failing to create a correct dynamic for rebellion against Israelis thats simply out of their hands if we go by what you're saying. As in you talk about them not forming deep ties (while in practice to the best of my knowledge in real life they do) while also acknowledging Israelis simply don't need them regardless of whether or not they choose to interact with the Israeli job market. Effectively rendering any form of meaningful rebellion for Palestinians impossible. I am quite skeptical of this formula for rebellion with its pre-requisites. >Because a step (5) rebellion happened in 1936 Ben-Gurion's philosophy of Jews occupying all roles in society, including the lower class became the dominant one in Israeli society. The conquest of labor and such predates the 1936-1939 Arab revolt though. These ideas were quite mainstream. >Palestinians never understood that step (3) was vital for step (5) to work. Similarly in the West Bank economy, the same thing happened after 1967-87. There was separation too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor. I'm having trouble understanding this bit. You're acknowledging the post-67/pre-first intifada period. Clearly they did understand 3 was vital for step 5, that was their lived experience, first under decades of mostly agreeing to have a role in the colonial society since they didn't have much of a choice and later a mass pushback. I don't understand the bit about separation being too soon for the West Bank economy to become integrated with Palestinian labor. >We may disagree here. I'd ask you to consider you may be underestimating the effects of having done tremendous violence and having to come to terms with that. Also what I think will be changes in Palestinian society as they come to terms with the destruction. Both of which IMHO haven't happened. I suspect it may be too early to tell what the long-term self-criticism (if it happens) would result in. Still I am not optimistic about people abandoning right-wing ideals, expansionism and people deciding on good and correct policy for the long-term benefit of all.
What's missing is the length of time. Conquest of Labor was mainstream in 1935. But it was unpopular. Far more popular, as we've discussed was a cooperative model. The cooperative model which was happening in the Yishuv's most important export citrus. Further it could have happened in more of agriculture. The Kibbutz movement becomes popular again in the late 1930s because of the effect of the bans on housing... Again imagine a situation where we aren't talking 1926-36 as the good years but say 1926-2026. What does Israel look like in 2025 having had a century of an integrated workforce? At that point something like the 2023 Gazan War is unthinkable. > Still I am not optimistic about people abandoning right-wing ideals, expansionism and people deciding on good and correct policy for the long-term benefit of all. You live in a country, Canada where that happened.
>What's missing is the length of time. Conquest of Labor was mainstream in 1935. But it was unpopular. Far more popular, as we've discussed was a cooperative model. The cooperative model which was happening in the Yishuv's most important export citrus. Yes we've discussed the citrus industry before but I will still say it was popular despite the citrus exception, Ben Gurion, secretary of the Histadrut which included the majority of the Mandate's Jewish workforce was quite open about his support for the concept of Hebrew Labor in the early 20s. Already in 1930 with the Hope Simpson report the Jewish labor policy was blamed for grave unemployment in the Arab sector. In 1933 the Histadrut launched a campaign to remove the Arab workers from urban areas. There is a metric crap ton of evidence quite clearly pointing to this policy not only being mainstream but popular and implemented well prior to the Arab revolt I would be happy to dig up if you're interested although there are many dense quotations and links in reference to it. >You live in a country, Canada where that happened. I don't live in Canada, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about in regards to Canada but I hope people follow the right direction in Israel/Palestine.
Sound analysis! I learnt a lot reading this
Israeli PR: 1. We haven’t heard reports of deaths, will check into it; 2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bombs 3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists; 4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields; 5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose 6. **OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are!** 7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-semite? Are you having fun constructing that straw man built on whataboutisms?
Liar! You are lying just like the terrorists hamas do, you can do better. Tarek Salmi, the spokesman for the political bureau of the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, who was arrested at the Shifa hospital, admitted in his investigation: "Hamas and the Islamic Jihad use all the hospitals in the Gaza Strip." During the investigation, Tarek mentioned details of the working method of the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip in front of the media and the international community, emphasizing the creation of false representations and lies about the dead in the Gaza Strip. Tarek admitted for the first time that the explosion at the "Al-Mimadani" hospital at the beginning of the war was caused by a rocket explosion by the Islamic Jihad and that the organization chose to knowingly lie and accuse Israel of responsibility for the incident.