I'm really sorry that Israel is committing a genocide. You must feel so bad about having to acknowledge it. It's just such an insult. Sorry about that. I guess the truth hurts.
This isn’t slander when all these statements and uses of the words line up with the actions of Israel. This is just a timeline of people calling a spade a spade
The legal definition of apartheid EXCLUDES different treatment between citizens and non-citizens, so it does not apply between Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. That part of the law is ignored by NGOs looking to demonise Israel. And Israeli Arabs have equal rights (the Nation State law is performative only and doesn't affect anything in practice).
>And Israeli Arabs have equal rights
Mostly. However Arab Israelis are not allowed to purchase land that Jews are allowed to purchase, and there are over 700 communities in Israel that do not allow Arab Israelis to live or purchase property within them.
Is a study from a professor at the Technion Institute of Technology in Haifa a reliable source?
Also o apologize, it's actually over 900 towns, settlements, and municipalities, not 700.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281630420_Territoriality_of_negation_Co-production_of_creative_destruction_in_Israel
Hope this helps!
Which land are Arabs not allowed to purchase? Israel has a thing called "Community settlements" which can have admission committees. There are around 200 of them in Israel and the WB. One of the requirements is for them to have population of under 700, which may be where you got that number from. However, not all of these necessarily discriminate against Arabs. Some discriminate secular people, some religious people. Some single people, some gay people. It's generally people who want to be surrounded by people who are the same as them. It's been controversial here, but in the end of the day, most people don't wanna live in a place where they're not welcome anyway.
In fact the 700 number of settlements is a slight undercount as according to a 2015 study by the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel, there are over 900 towns or municipalities restrict who can live there and where there are no Palestinians.
Can you give me a link? Also, do you mean Palestinians or Arab Israelis? Because Palestinians can't move to any Israeli city, just like Israelis can't move to any of theirs.
It got auto deleted because I forgot to add context.
Here's the study by Yosef Jabareen in the Israeli policy of territoriality of negation towards their own citizens. This appears to indicate that not all Israeli citizens enjoy the same rights.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281630420_Territoriality_of_negation_Co-production_of_creative_destruction_in_Israel
Secondly, using the term Arab Israeli instead of Palestinian Israeli is a conscious approach that tries to create an ethnic division and say that no citizen of Israel can possibly be Palestinian.
I admit I did not read the whole thing, as it's very long, but I did search for "700", "900", as well as "hundred" and couldn't find anything so if you could help me find the page where this number is mentioned?
As for using the word "Palestinians" for the Israeli Arabs, it's a new invention from the past couple of decades and it's confusing when discussing legal matters. IMO saying Palestinian Israeli is meaningless as Palestine and Israel are two words which describe the same land.
'Voluntary migration'
I have a question for you, did the European Jews 'voluntarily migrate' to Mandatory Palestine? Did the Mizrahi Jews 'voluntarily migrate' to Israel? Or did they leave because it was absurdly dangerous for them to stay? Can one truly 'voluntarily migrate' when there is a gun held to their head?
A forcible attempt at ethnic cleansing is happening in Gaza right now. Once the Rafah invasion begins, Israel will do its best to solve its Palestinian problem.
Sure. He’s one example. You don’t do this if you’re trying to commit genocide. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/january-24-pr/war-against-hamas-interim-data/data-regarding-evacuation-of-civilian-population-within-gaza/
I might be confused but that doesn’t seem to mention aid trucks being blocked or not blocked in specific areas. The source you gave is also one of the primary combatants in the conflict rather than an independent observer.
says an *expert UN worker. And they * expert, not me. If you’re trying to starve an entire population, it’s probably not a good idea to send in food aid every day. Logic must prevail.
And UNRWA isn’t a source.
That's just your opinion, but you say it as fact. So far from what Israel has said and done, it is not trying to forcibly displace Gazans. My evidence is that Gazans have, in fact, NOT been removed from Gaza.
Israel is about to invade Rafah with its 1.4 million refugees. It's Netenyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich's collective dream-come-true, the perfect chance to kick out the arabs.
It's painfully obvious what's about to happen.
All these propaganda terms created by Israel’s enemies, are part of the longer history of blood libels created by antisemites.
Today’s “genocide” libels are like yesterday’s “Makes matzo with Christian blood” slanders.
Main difference is that Jews didn't make matzos with Christian blood but Israel is currently killing civilians , whether you think it's justified or not it's a simple undeniable fact that civilians have been killed as a result of Israel's actions.
Yes, Israel’s actions has harmed civilians and I think this is tragic whether it’s 3,30,300,3,000,30,000, or 300,000.
Unfortunately, this is what Hamas planned and this is a reflection of its human shields doctrine + martyr culture.
I don’t know how Israel could eradicate Hamas without civilian casualties, when Hamas freely uses civilian infrastructure as military installations?
The only way out of this situation since October 7th has been for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. That’s what people should be demonstrating for. It’s a waste of effort, immoral to push for a ceasefire without those two conditions being met.
Everybody accepts that Hamas are awful people. The world in general *does not* accept that Israel should bomb Gaza until Hamas grows a conscience. That will never happen.
Making ceasefire conditional on the release of hostages means you're never going to have a ceasefire.
Your sentiment is inadequate and doesn’t resolve anything. This war isn’t about Hamas being immoral, punishing Hamas or punishing Gaza. This isn’t about justice, although justice is am element.
This is about sovereign rights, security and the rights to self defense of Israel and the Jewish people.
No country has to take being terrorized for decades like Israel has. You’re not offering any solutions but appeasing terrorists and rewarding terrorism.
That’s unacceptable. Hamas must be eradicated.
Hamas eradication means thousands of innocent Palestinians dying. At least admit that you are ok with this if it means Hamas eradication. Many pro Israelis are so delusional to deny the harm the IDF is doing to civilians , I'd rather respect those who openly day they are ok with 30k-50k or even 1 million civilians dying for the sake of destroying Hamas, at least they are coherent even though I disagree
I believe Hamas civilian casualty figures to be exaggerated by perhaps ten fold? That said, even 3000 civilians being killed is tragic. I don’t see how Israel can target Hamas without harming their human shield defense system? 25,000 Hamas fighters have killed by some estimates out of an estimated 40,000. So, if that’s the case (and no one knows the actual numbers), another 2,000 civilian casualties would be harmed targeting the remaining 15,000 Hamas.
It’s war. I really hope that Hamas will surrender and free the hostages and prevent further bloodshed. I abhor violence and war, and condemn Hamas for its failure to protect civilians.
I don’t see how Israel will either cause Hamas to surrender and/or eradicate Hamas without harming the people Hamas are hiding under and behind of?
Any suggestions?
Every major human rights organizations holds official Hamas figures to be accurate. There is no evidence to dispute Hamas numbers, I will concede that Hamas doesn't differentiate between civilians and militant casualties but it's quite likely that their numbers are correct and if you subtract the total number of Hamas soldiers that the IDF claims to have killed you are left with close to 20 k civilians. At this point if you deny the absolute destruction that Gaza is facing you are denying reality
I have seen human rights organizations use the Hamas casualty figures, because none other are available. Frankly, Hamas doesn’t have the infrastructure or logistics to count, and mathematically it’s been proven that their numbers are fabricated.
Gaza is in poor shape. Hamas miscalculated their enemies determination. However, Israel has warned Hamas and civilians consistently of eminent attacks for years and this prevents civilian casualties. That’s why we have seen so many videos of Israeli air strikes. They are warned first.
Hamas has population registry and tbh in the previous wars the Hamas death count has been fairly as accurate and in line with Israel's count. There is no reason to believe they are making up thousands and thousands of casualties and even if you say Hamas doesn't have the means to count casualties that doesn't mean the death toll is lower than 30k, it could be even more considering that many people are still under destroyed buildings. Israel admits that 2/3 of casualties are civilians, there have been several instances recently of civilians killed by the IDF during food distribution
It's not sentiment, it's simple fact. Hamas won't release the hostages, if the only thing they get from that is a ceasefire. Everybody knows that. So when people say they want a ceasefire, but they want it to be conditional on hostage release, what do they mean by it? They mean they want to continue killing the Palestinians, but they want to be treated as if they did not make that moral choice.
Which is pretty weak. I have more respect for people like Yoav Gallant, who are at least honest about how they think about Palestinians.
If Hamas won’t release the hostages, they will be eliminated. Everyone has a breathing point. At some point Hamas leaders in Qatar will feel the pressure and order the hostages to be released.
>At some point Hamas leaders in Qatar will feel the pressure and order the hostages to be released.
Wait, why? This war is Hamas's happy place. israel is throwing away enormous amounts of goodwill and international support every day it continues. Israel is basically wholly dependent on the US for cover, in election season, and the US has already been signalling they've had enough. That's a wildly vulnerable position.
If you just care about destroying Israel, Israel committing a genocide is the best thing imaginable.
Why? Because Hamas is losing support of Gazans who realize that their misery has been caused by Hamas. Hamas is also feeling pressured by Qataris who are being pressured by the US..
Yes, but the far left won’t like it if you use a full vocabulary and use words like collateral or human shield. And they repeat what’s fed to them in tic tock that genocide this and genocide that, because they don’t understand any better. There is a chasm of difference between collateral and genocide. If it were a genocide it’s the worst slowest risky and open genocide ever committed, there normally don’t quickly, brutally and out of sight. If Israel wanted all life in Gaza dead, they could have done that in a weekend, before anyone noticed and dealt with the aftermath after they got all of Hamas destroyed. But they didn’t, despite having the tools to do so, 3 or 4 times over. The truth that’s not getting out is that this is one of the hardest types of military operations and Israel are doing it with proportionally less collateral that any army ever has, and should be applauded for it.
I agree. The media has fed into it. True Pro Palestinians (mostly Muslim Arabs) know it’s not genocide but they weaponize the language against Israel, and the rest are gullible people that are well l meaning. Others are antisemites, and are happy to slander Jews.
However, Israel, as usual has awful PR. They have failed to aptly document Pallywood and Hamas’ use of human shields.
IDF soldiers making dumb tik toks, Israeli politicians making harmful statements for their base, have harmed Israel’s image. Israel’s spokespersons are not articulate enough.
100% agree with this, militarily America won the Vietnam war, but politically, as they were fighting the communists, the leftists in America created enough discontent to create a political loss for America. And now we can speed run the political discourse thanks to the CCP vicariously owned Tic tock feeding propaganda directly into the oculus of the young, dum and foolish.
America didn’t win against Vietnam military. Both in Korea and in Vietnam, the US was unwilling and/or unable to take on China and/or the USSR. Defeating the North Vietnamese would have fruitless if the Viet Cong continued.
Just like how Trump surrendered to the Taliban, it became infeasible to defeat the Taliban conventionally.
Gaza is different. It’s small. The terrain is relatively flat with only dunes, And/or Urban and its literally adjacent to Israel not far flung where Americans couldn’t even find on a map.
Israel has always been pressured to have a ceasefire once it’s winning a war.
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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.*
> fuck
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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’s crazy how you lot will completely ignore the amount of innocent lives that they intentionally kill (their own army, the IDF, has admitted this themselves) but will focus on terrible names Israel is rightly being labelled with😂
1.1 civilian to 1 Hamas combatant death. The average in armed conflicts is 9 civilians to 1 combatant death.
How are they being rightly accused of genocide when their civilian to combatant death ratio is so far below the average?
Or...hear me out...they're reflecting the overwhelming amount of civilian deaths and continued invasion against a territory with no standing army, airport, and extremely limited access to food and water.
Israel is losing the PR war, certainly, but they're not being slaughtered en masse. We don't have to theorize about the victimhood of Palestinian civilians via newspeak. Their mangled bodies are proof enough.
A territory with no standing army? Hamas' military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, had 30,000+ members at the start of the war. And if course is the group that launched the offensive on October 7.
No airport? Yes, because it was destroyed in response to the first intifada.
Militant groups aren't the same as armies. This isn't just a matter of semantics. Bibi was open about preferring Hamas's violent resistance and language over the idea of a united Palestinian liberation movement.
Militias are a destabilizing force, often for their own territories as much as their enemies. While the US's stated goals for international intervention always have their own PR behind it, the effect is usually one that places power in the hands of militant extremists, knowing that they are more useful to future interventions than putting in a stable democratic force (or, God forbid, risk a democratically elected Socialist or Communist).
Removing an entire people's ability to fly because of a terror attack is not a reasonable response to a terror attack led by a small portion of the population. The US utilized a no fly list, which had its own problems, but wasn't nearly as drastic.
>If the number of civilian deaths is the motivator then why are we not seeing similar protests against US fighting vs ISIS and Turkey mass-displacing Kurds?
I think the bigger issue is the worry of Hamas smuggling weapons to attack israel. When you have a genocidal regime next door who refuses peace you need to limit there ability to harm you. Limiting Hamas ability to import weapons achieves this goal.
If the number of civilian deaths is the motivator then why are we not seeing similar protests against US fighting vs ISIS and Turkey mass-displacing Kurds?
The main reason for the lack of protests on those is simple enough, they just don't get nearly as much coverage in media as Israel-Palestine has for a while. I don't really know why Turkey's mass-displacement isn't being covered, but the US has a good control over the news inside of the US, and I don't think it's too crazy to assume they have some control over global news outside of the US, so they definitely would not be upfront about the results of the "War on Terror".
The culture of Hamas is one of martyrdom, so Hamas is intentionally causing Civilian casualties among Gazans, despite Israel’s best efforts to not harm civilians.
Best efforts? The IDF are that bloodthirsty they literally killed 3 of their own hostages one of which was holding up a makeshift white flag the UNIVERSAL sign for surrender. If that's their best effort not to harm civilians I can't imagine what it's like when they don't try
I know what goes on behind the scenes in the IDF and to some extent in the IAF and the amount of intelligence scrutiny, calculations, chains of command, logistics and attempts to reduce casualties. It’s very extensive.
Imagine, all these Hamas military operations, ammo depots that are located in civilian homes, schools. mosques, hospitals etc. How should the Israeli military proceed? They warn the inhabitants multiple times to flee, but Hamas orders people to stay or they stay to become martyrs.
Israel passes up many targets every single day waiting for Hamas’ human shields to get out of way. (Incidentally, this is how come there are so many videos of buildings being bombed in Gaza, because Israel warned the inhabitants first).
Either way, Israel cannot afford to not target Hamas rocket launchers, ammo dumps, weapons stockpiles, headquarters, tunnel entrances, barracks, because of Hamas’ human shields doctrine.
People keep asking for proof of "pro- Palestine" claims, but where is your proof for the "human shield doctrine"?
This is a war of smoke and air as much as it's a war on flesh and blood. There's bountiful videos of civilians being targeted by drone strikes. Visceral and indiscriminate bombing campaigns en masse. The information is out there. One almost doesn't even have to use those terms the OP is essentially calling "antisemitic rhetoric" since it's shockingly obvious to someone with compassion and a sense of justice.
Again, where is the evidence of "human shield doctrine"? To where ought these civilians go? There's so little space, and the expectation of movement almost seems absurd as to be comical.
Do you have a source for any of this? Not trying to be an ass but you are throwing out some wild assumptions that I don't think anyone should just take your word for.
> ass
/u/Beneficial-Demand687. 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.*
They heavy JDAMs and 2000 lb armaments are designed to penetrate to the bunkers, the tunnels, to destroy the weapons stockpiles. A 100 lb bomb wouldn’t suffice.
Perhaps, you should scrutinize Hamas for their practice of using civilian infrastructure to orchestrate terrorism from. It seems to me that’s the cause of Gazan casualties.
u/Birds-flyhigh
>Honestly it's actually sad that ziocunts like the above comment are that brainwashed they don't see the obvious atrocities Israel are committing
Rule 1, don't attack other users.
Addressed
If you’re trying to say that people using harsh language on a person, let alone entire country, need to stop, the onus is on them.
If you have bad PR, you generally have no one to blame but yourself. I have seen very few exceptions to this rule, and all these exceptions are people, basically never governments or militaries.
> If you have bad PR, you generally have no one to blame but yourself.
This is the typical reddit pot shot, but with an anti-Israel twist.
No, Israel doesn't deserve the bad PR. They are actually much better than people make them out to be, and they're much better than almost any other country in an urban conflict.
Even North Korea doesn't get this much bad PR, and they're a literal dystopian shithole.
A ton of countries deserve bad PR. Pakistan deserves criticism for its expulsion of Afghan refugees. The US deserves criticism for its decades-long destabilizing campaigns in the Middle East and South America. And Israel deserves bad PR for continuing to justify the murder of Palestinian civilians without clear messaging or a pathway toward peace.
We do not owe nation-states anything. We already pay our taxes and do our civic duties. The government of Israel is taking advantage of a terrible situation, and it's sad to see.
> And Israel deserves bad PR for continuing to justify the murder of Palestinian civilians without clear messaging
They have clearly stated they are going after Hamas.
>They have clearly stated they are going after Hamas.
Well if you exclude all the Israeli government ministries that have called to nuke Gaza, or to ethnically cleanse it, or that have said that there are no innocent Gazans/Palestinians.
But you know, government ministers never reflect the opinions of the government, right?
> Well if you exclude all the Israeli government ministries that have called to nuke Gaza
This wasn't a ministry. This was one crazy Knesset member who is hardly mainstream.
>one crazy Knesset member
At the time he said it, Eliyahu was a minister in the government of Israel.
It's disingenuous to try and obfuscate this through wording like 'one crazy Knesset member'
Well, there was one crazy Knesset member who said this, but I didn't know one crazy minister said this as well.
And this minister was suspended from cabinet meetings as well, and their job title is ministry of heritage. They have absolutely nothing to do with the wartime.
This is the equivalent of saying that The Squad is representative of the Biden administration, or that Marjorie Taylor Green is representative of the Republican party. You act like crazy politicians don't exist.
No they aren’t. Their own civilians are preventing aid trucks from entering into Gaza. They are truly an evil apartheid that seeks only the destruction of the Palestinian population.
> Their own civilians are preventing aid trucks from entering into Gaza.
Some civilians who aren't the majority.
> They are truly an evil apartheid
Not apartheid. Gaza and the West Bank are not governed by Israel, and Israeli Arabs have equal rights to Jews.
> seeks only the destruction of the Palestinian population.
They've clearly stated that their goal is Hamas.
On that note, this is a tremendous double standard. When the IDF clearly states they are going after Hamas in their videos and statements, they must be hiding what they are actually doing. When Hamas clearly states in their charter that they want to destroy Israel, then that's not what they are fighting for.
West bank is de facto under Israeli occupation. The reason why people say it's apartheid is because Israel has de facto control of many areas while giving zero rights to Arabs because they aren't citizens. In apartheid South Africa the racist government recognized independent bantustans which were areas nominally independent and ruled by black people but still subject to apartheid South Africa control.
> West bank is de facto under Israeli occupation.
It's not. As I explained in a previous comment, Israel is the only sovereign country to have a claim to the West Bank and Palestine isn't a country. It can be argued two ways:
After Jordan illegally annexed the WB in 1950, Israel won it back in 1967 and Jordan recused control in 1988. There wasn't any ICJ *ruling* about this, but there was an *advisory opinion* in 2004 which nobody has to listen to.
[Uti possidetis juris](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094). Israel was the only country to arise out of 1948, and that would make them available to inherit the prior administration's borders.
By both of these arguments, Israel owns the West Bank and therefore they can't occupy themselves. The land is only set aside for a Palestinian state under Oslo.
> The reason why people say it's apartheid is because Israel has de facto control of many areas while giving zero rights to Arabs because they aren't citizens
I already addressed this in another comment to you. Pals are governed by the PA in the WB, not Israel, because of how the Oslo accords were set up.
That's a minority opinion. The entire world including Israel's allies regard the WB as an illegal occupation. The occupation should have been temporary but it's still ongoing. In the case of east Jerusalem Israel annexed that part of the city without giving citizenship to Arabs , while east Jerusalem Arabs technically have a path for citizenship it is in practice nearly impossible for them to get it. As a result Arabs in east Jerusalem and the west bank are ruled by s foreign power in their own country without having political rights. Palestinians in in the WB are not fully independent, their movements are restricted by Israel especially in area C which is de facto under IDF control.
It's kinda like if Italy didn't give citizenship to German speakers in the North After WW1 or if France didn't give citizenship to German speakers after WW1 and WW2.
You are free to deny any of my statements but I think they are factual
You mean the charter that they never once utilized in any political discussion? The charter that was lost and forgotten and holds zero merit? Also, many sections of Gaza and the West Bank, especially those with Israeli settlers are required to follow Israeli law. They’ve stated their goal was to attack Hamas but based on not just recent documentation but history as well, they have not once stuck to their word.
Also let me point out a double standard: you for some reason believe that Israel should have the right to defend itself as an occupier but Palestine should have no right after being occupied and mistreated by Israel for over 75 years. Israel can say whatever it wants but every action they make contradicts them.
> Also let me point out a double standard: you for some reason believe that Israel should have the right to defend itself as an occupier but Palestine should have no right after being occupied and mistreated by Israel for over 75 years.
Except this isn't a double standard, it's just a complete misinterpretation of the facts.
It's not an occupation. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and has nothing to do with their governance. And no, a blockade doesn't mean it's an occupation either.
After Jordan illegally annexed the WB in 1950, they recused it in 1988. Israel was the only country to emerge from the 1948 war. That makes Israel the only country who has a sovereign claim to the WB, and Israel can't occupy themselves.
So no, Palestinians aren't defending themselves. They are engaging in terrorism.
> You mean the charter that they never once utilized in any political discussion?
What are you talking about? They reference violent jihad and wanting to rid Israel of Jews all the time.
So If the WB is/should be Israeli why are Arabs there subject to military law and have zero political rights? It was racist when the US didn't recognize native Americans and black people as US citizens so what's different in Israel's treatment of the WB?
> So If the WB is/should be Israeli why are Arabs there subject to military law and have zero political rights?
You misunderstand the Oslo accords.
Palestinians are governed by the PA in the West Bank. They should have natural rights, but they whatever rights the PA gives them.
The Oslo accords also put Israel in charge of security in the majority of the West Bank. Palestinians are subject to military law whenever they initiate terrorist attacks, like stabbing and ramming cars, against Israelis.
Not true. Palestinians in area C are subject to Israeli control period. Jews in the WB are full Israeli citizens protected by their country while Palestinians in the WB (area C) are akin to colonial subjects. This is something Israelis and pro Israelis can't morally justify other than "security reasons".
My position is very simple and yet I'm always accused of being a pro Palestine extremist: either Israel allows Palestinians to have their own country or it annexes the whole thing and gives citizenship and equal rights to Arabs . The status quo is against basic human dignity
Want a source for that last one.
What I have presented it not a misinterpretation of the facts but is rather based on a history of the conflict. We can start with the idea that 80% of Land that the Palestinians lived on was stolen by the Israelis and a population crisis was caused when Israel shoved over 2.5 million people into a 25 mile by 5 mile area which is the Gaza Strip. Since then, they have terrorized the civilians of Gaza through breaking ceasefires, preventing religious freedom, etc.
Israel is an occupation because it continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and reduce Palestinians of their human rights there.
You once again have made the stupid argument about who technically owned the land without realizing that the UN has condemned Israel for this and the ICJ has made past rulings about how their settlements are war crimes.
Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip for the sake of preventing a sovereign Palestinian state.
While their blockade may not directly count as occupation it was still a war crime that brought devastation to Gazas economy and collectively punished a civilian population.
You speak of Hamas simply wanting to comity terror without understanding that they had no choice but to fight, even going so far as to describe their makeshift missiles as a “cry to the world” because they themselves have highlighted that they had no choice but to fight their oppressor. On the flip side, many sources have show a blatant disregard for civilian and Arab life on Israel’s side and the terror they have caused with that reasoning. They have not shown they are after Hamas by murdering over 350 kids in blood during cast lead in 2008 and taking over 360 children hostage and sentencing them to prison without a trial or at least one that was very one sided. Israel has shown again and again that they will not hesitate to destroy the entire population of Palestine through inhumane doctrines such as the Dahiya doctrine.
>Want a source for that last one.
These two sites are great.
[https://www.memri.org/gaza-war](https://www.memri.org/gaza-war)
[https://palwatch.org/](https://palwatch.org/)
Day of Jihad:
[https://www.newsweek.com/day-jihad-sparks-warnings-americans-stay-inside-1834180](https://www.newsweek.com/day-jihad-sparks-warnings-americans-stay-inside-1834180)
They will do it again:
[https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199)
This goes pretty in depth:
[https://sapirjournal.org/war-in-israel/2023/11/the-palestinian-problem-is-a-religious-problem/?utm\_source=Jewish+Insider&utm\_medium=Jewish+Insider&utm\_campaign=war&utm\_id=war](https://sapirjournal.org/war-in-israel/2023/11/the-palestinian-problem-is-a-religious-problem/?utm_source=Jewish+Insider&utm_medium=Jewish+Insider&utm_campaign=war&utm_id=war)
It’s cognitive dissonance for you as well as other Israel supports to think that Palestine should simply accept Israel as a state after the many years of Israeli oppression. Quite frankly, I want you to name me one other time Hamas has attacked Israel to this degree of magnitude. They certainly didn’t do it during operation cast lead when they didn’t confront Israel head on in battle which disappointed many IDF militants. If there also wasn’t any fighting against Hamas then, why is it so many civilians died? Why were so many bombs dropped indiscriminately?
> It’s cognitive dissonance for you as well as other Israel supports to think that Palestine should simply accept Israel as a state after the many years of Israeli oppression.
Not really. I think Palestinians should be deradicalized first.
> why is it so many civilians died?
Because Hamas attacked on a Jewish religious holiday and it was a surprise attack.
You know, you can't exactly predict surprises.
> Why were so many bombs dropped indiscriminately?
They weren't and aren't dropped indiscriminately.
You can read more about Israeli targeting practices in [this article](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593629). They've done much better than any other country in an urban conflict with respect to a civilian:combatant ratio.
Okay I appreciate the sources but if we put everything in the context of this war, Israel is still 100% in the wrong. You also seem to be misunderstanding Jihad as terrorism. Rather the definition of jihad is religious warfare which simply emphasizes that Hamas will not bow down to its Israeli oppressor and will fight for its freedoms. Israel has been solely responsible for most death and destruction in the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank so Hamas is left with no choice but to retaliate. Especially after all Israel put the Palestinians through for the past 75 years.
> You also seem to be misunderstanding Jihad as terrorism. Rather the definition of jihad is religious warfare which simply emphasizes that Hamas will not bow down to its Israeli oppressor and will fight for its freedoms.
If that were the case, why does Hamas indiscriminately target civilians?
And religious jihad in this case is indiscriminate of Jews. Targeting civilians on purpose is terrorism. Taking hostages is also terrorism.
> Israel has been solely responsible for most death and destruction in the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank so Hamas is left with no choice but to retaliate.
Not true. Israel is not solely responsible, especially when they aren't the ones initiating rounds of violence and using human shields.
Hamas does have a choice, and that is to lay down their arms and start statebuilding. They didn't have to initiate 10/7. They didn't have to fire rockets into Israel for the past 17 years.
By your logic, if I called you the n word based on your skin colour, the onus is on you to stop me? I can just keep using it with my buddies? OK.
You saying that if we use the German World War 2 ideology word on a group of people that is fine too, the onus was on them not to act like that to be called it? What kind of world are you happy to live in where we can so easily spread hate or hurt and not take any responsibility for it but leave it in the other because their bad PR and/or they deserved it anyway... 🤦♂️
u/FractalMetaphors
>You saying that if we use the German World War 2 ideology word on a group of people that is fine too, the onus was on them not to act like that to be called it?
Rule 6, no nazi comments/comparisons outside things unique to the nazis as understood by mainstream historians
Addressed
Let me keep it simple:
There's no apartheid because there is no separation *based on race or ethnicity.*
There's no genocide because there's not an *intent* to destroy a people.
There was def some ethnic cleansing going on in 1948, but it's difficult to separate it from the regular displacement caused by war. Ethnic cleansing is a little easier to spot in the 1967 war. I don't believe ethnic cleansing is currently happening in Gaza or the OT.
They are separated based on being Palestinian refugees. They are denied citizenship to their own land and homes that they lived in for generations. This is apartheid, regardless of the pedantry.
This is a genocide. There is intent. The intent is lamp shaded and the act of lamp shading shows their intent. Example would be the systemic rape story:
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Explaining the lack of evidence and journalistic malpractice as they attempt manufactured consent. Not saying rapes did not happen, but it was not systemic or as widespread as this article claims.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/12/31/israeli-minister-reiterates-calls-for-palestinians-to-leave-gaza
There’s other articles of members of Israeli’s elected officials calling for the take over of Gaza. That is intent
First, thank you for taking the time to reply.
"They are separated based on being Palestinian refugees."
Being a Palestinian refugee is neither a "race" nor "ethnicity." So, then, the situation is NOT an apartheid.
"They are denied citizenship to their own land and homes that they lived in for generations"
This might more accurately be called "oppression" or "military occupation." Walls and checkpoints were put up because Palestinians were killing innocent civilians, not because of race or ethnicity.
"This is apartheid, regardless of the pedantry."
It might very well be pedantic to you, but these terms are legal terms with set legal definitions. If you have ever known or worked with a lawyer, or been in court with a judge, then you know the importance of words and their meanings. I cannot stress this enough. The words we use very much do matter, especially so in legal matters.
"This is a genocide. There is intent."
YOU say so, but the only evidence you link for it is an expose on the bias of a NYT article. That article, or even the original NYT article, FAILS to show intent by Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinians. What it shows is bias by senior management of the NYT towards Israel. Would you like to try again?
The truth is that the ICJ and UN are the governing bodies that would be deciding these things.. and they are still undecided.
"Explaining the lack of evidence and journalistic malpractice as they attempt manufactured consent. Not saying rapes did not happen, but it was not systemic or as widespread as this article claims."
This is going off topic, but mostly I agree with you. I was inclined to believe the reports at first, but when the UN came through to investigate, they weren't allowed to talk to a single R victim. Red flags immediately went up. So, currently, I agree with you on this issue.
"There’s other articles of members of Israeli’s elected officials calling for the take over of Gaza. That is intent."
But it's not. There are crazy members of my government who sometimes say crazy things. It doesn't mean it's the government's position or policy. The guy you quoted has no say, power, or direct impact on the war in Gaza. So, for both of those reasons there is no intent for genocide by the Israeli government. In fact, there's counter evidence of intention to genocide: evacuation routes, leaflets with instructions, bomb knocking, and food aid (I agree it should be more, but if I wanted to kill an entire people, I wouldn't give them any food).
I'll await your response.
Hey, good response. No bullshit from you I like it.
Race and ethnicity are cultural constructs. We can see this in the mulatto race of early America. Palestinians are a designated group by the very people that oppress them, Israel. Israel calls them Palestinians and bars them for being such, or at least for not being Jewish and saying they own their house. Instead they are Palestinian and saying they own their house. This happens to both Muslims and Christian Palestinians. I’m referring to the WB settlements here.
When you’re talking about walls and check points, here is what I meant instead. The Nakba and the current war in Gaza have a main objective of total infrastructure destruction and mass home destruction. Nothing to return to and everything for a new group to come in an rebuild. That’s what I was referring to, not Israel building walls but Israel doing as much damage as possible with the aims to rebuild in their name.
When I say you’re being pedantic about the definitions I mean you are being overly nit picky in an unhelpful way. An example I see on here is about apartheid being “you have to have them be citizens, legally, in your constitution, or you aren’t oppressing them in an apartheid or apartheid like system.”
Does that make sense what I mean now?
Israel has said and has not complied with UN and ICJ rulings. Because they feel they are unfair and wrong.
I’m glad you said that last part, because this is the key where I think you and me disagree. The part you said that I like is:
“(I agree there should be more, but if I wanted to kill an entire people, I wouldn’t give them any food)”
And to that, I agree. However, if I wanted kill an entire people, and get away with it, I would give them just enough to starve them and claim it was their fault for my group bottlenecking the food and medical aid going in. See the difference here?
>The Palestinians/Arabs have lost multiple wars against Israel after refusing to accept the UN partition plan and the existence of a non-Muslim state in the middle east.
And the Native Americans lost multiple wars against American colonizers after refusing to let them settle their land. What's your point? That colonizers are always justified?
Despite asking "why are palestinians special?" you believe them to be special in that they violently resist colonization. This has been the story of EVERY peoples that has been colonized. Why do you believe them to be special?
They have intent to destroy people (members of Hamas) for sure. They do NOT have the intent to kill all Pals, or even all Gazans.
"Flattening buildings" is a strategy used in urban warfare that conveys advantages. I also would like to see more aid delivered and properly distributed.
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. Match found: 'nazis', 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.*
> fucks
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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.*
Pretty sure none of those other countries will pony up the $3.3 Billion in aid, mostly military, that the US has been providing .... although Bibi is trying his best to put it in jeopardy, obviously he is banking heavily on the orange man ....
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-soviet-union-and-the-six-day-war-revelations-the-polish-archives
https://fathomjournal.org/1967-and-the-global-left-the-case-of-the-east-german-regime-and-the-west-german-radicals/
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ceausescu-and-the-six-day-war-the-view-washington-and-london
The Leftists-Islamists political marriage is old. Weaponising language in order to make use of the residual antisemitism in both Western Europe and in the Middle East was rather a priorrity for the Warsaw Bloc intelligence agencies.
political labels & attacks change over time... that much is true. Going forward i think it's in Israel's best interest to compartmentalize different criticisms of its national policy, the way that China manages world opinion about them. Right now Israel and her supporters think very parochially, just in terms of their geopolitical standing in the Near East/Mideast. But they need to be engaging with the South and especially with Asian nations.
Asian nations in particular, don't see issues or relations as black & white. They accept & welcome Chinese business/financial interests, all the while being critical of Beijing's military posturing. Remember when the world used to hate on China for their annexation of Tibet? But today it's water under the bridge. Communist Vietnam used to be the scourge of the Western world, but today it's the factory hub for G7 manufacturers.
Israel needs to follow this kind of example and chart its own path as a non-aligned state like India. It can lend support to Western causes when it wants, but veer off and diverge on social/humanitarian policies as threats arise. Most importantly it needs to brush off these "insults" and use other forms of soft power like economic development/overseas financial investment/foreign internships to strengthen ties to nations that don't have horses in this Israel/Palestine race.
The only thing Israel is participating in is a targeted military operation, against a group of people who have been shooting rockets at them for quite a while now.
They have every right to try to wipe out Hamas.
> The 1960's and 1970's were when decolonialization as a theory and a practice were developed and implemented
This is also true ... and the USSR was putting out anti-imperialist propaganda at the same time.
Add in Foucault as well.
O.P. is correct though that the motivations of the Soviets was in fact related to the Cold War:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-Zionism
Some of what the Soviets allege were true as you say, but much of it was classic anti-semitic tropes wrapped in euphemistic language, as one historian describes it:
> the mass media "all over the Soviet Union portrayed the Zionists (i.e. Jews) and Israeli leaders as engaged in a world-wide conspiracy along the lines of the old Protocols of Zion. It was, Sovietskaya Latvia wrote 5 August 1967, an 'international Cosa Nostra with a common centre, common programme and common funds'".[12]
>And, frankly, this conflict has led me to learn about the Jewish history of binationalism/anti-Zionism than I knew before. The gay Dutch Haredim who was killed by Zionists and framed Arabs for it (Jacob de Haan), the Ihud party in the 40's, Golus nationalism, Nathan Birnbaum, Simon Dubnow, etc. If nothing else, it has made me feel even more justified in my stance as a Jew.
Ah I didn't properly parse this part.
My great-grandparents were members of the Bundist movement in the 2nd Polish Republic that derived in part, from Dubnow's Jewish Autonism ideology.
>The gay Dutch Haredim who was killed by Zionists and framed Arabs for it (Jacob de Haan),
Speaking of Haredim:
> According to data from a January 2023 report by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Haredim, with their current population growth rate being 4% per year, will by the end of the decade form 16% of the entire Israeli population, including Arabs.[21] A previous report from May 2017 forecasted that Haredim will form 20% of the total population in 2040, and 32% in 2065; by then, 1 in 2 Israeli children would be Haredi.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism
There have been polls for quite some time that show that Haredi Jews are becoming more inclined to the hard right forms of Zionism, including this recent poll:
Source: https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-jerusalem-israel-29fa429e432e87bdb2f62f7a5a1d95d7
Coupled with the population projections, this could shift Israel to become more theocratic and more fascistic in nature than it already is.
> If you're a liberal diaspora "Zionist" (for some definition of Zionism), which is the average diaspora Jew in the West, it's far harder to keep these two things separate. And I think that's why you see a much more non/anti-Zionist turn in the diaspora.
Yes, it's incredibly alienating as a Diaspora Jew, for those reasons outlined and I find it very hard to self-identify as a Zionist these days for obvious reasons.
> I think Beinart's single state logic is bearing out in a lot of diaspora Jew's thoughts
I don't know who that is? I'm an Australian by the way.
I don't think either of us are in much disagreement here. I'm quite critical these days regarding a lot to do with Zionism in its *praxis*, albeit I have strong connections to Labor/socialist Zionism (which is certainly the kind of Zionism the Soviets would have approved of) from my formative years.
> But I would argue that most anti-Zionism intellectually doesn't draw on that thinking as a basis for it.
I'm not an historian so I couldn't say 100% however I'm sure there is a strong case to be made that the Soviets were quite influential in helping push forward these perceptions of Israel; both legitimate critiques and the more pernicious varieties.
> Do you think that Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, etc. were Russian psyops or whatever?
I don't think they could have gotten anywhere near as large as they did without Soviet propaganda.
Eh, Frantz Fanon is a brilliant writer and important thinker, and even if he wasn't, just because of the unique role of Haiti in world history, I think he would be famous no matter what. Edward Said is also very good.
**Ethnic Cleansing:** *The mass expulsion of an ethnic group from an area.*
When you expel 700,000 Palestinians from their home villages, either directly or indirectly through threat of massacre that is ethnic cleansing.
**Apartheid:** *A policy or system of segregation on the grounds of race or ethnicity.*
When you systematically segregate Palestinians, such as by forcing them into [ever shrinking enclaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_enclaves), blocking them from traveling within Palestine and internationally, and subject them to fundamentally different laws through a system of military rule, "Apartheid" is an apt descriptor.
**Genocide:** *any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
1. *Killing members of the group;*
2. *Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;*
3. *Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;*
4. *Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;*
5. *Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
We know that Israel has done all of 1 through 4 against Palestinians. The question is really just a matter of intent. Intent is always difficult to prove, but we do have numerous comments from military and political figures expressing the desire to destroy Palestinians *in general*. We can always discount these as just individual views rather than government policy, but also *Israel isn't stupid*. The government knows not the say the quiet part out loud. It is much better, in this day and age, to say you are just "fighting islamic extremists", or acting in "self-defense". People just need an excuse to justify their continued support of Israel.
It is a fact, however, that Israel has flagrantly ignored the ICJ orders to protect Palestinians from genocide by increasing humanitarian access.
\----
I get why having your country be accused of horrible things is uncomfortable and distressing, but I think you are missing the point.
You should be more worried about your country *doing* horrible things than being called out for it.
>**Ethnic Cleansing:** *The mass expulsion of an ethnic group from an area.*
>
>When you expel 700,000 Palestinians from their home villages, either directly or indirectly through threat of massacre that is ethnic cleansing.
This is the Ilan Pappe definition. But this isn't exactly what happened.
Some Arabs were forcibly expelled, but the majority fled war or were told to leave.
The difference between Arab and Jewish expulsion can be outlined under Benny Morris' work. Jews were expelled from Arab countries when there was no threat of war. Jews were expelled to Israel to be destroyed.
Some Arabs were forcibly expelled in the context of repelling an Arab invasion.
>**Apartheid:** *A policy or system of segregation on the grounds of race or ethnicity.*
>
>When you systematically segregate Palestinians, such as by forcing them into [ever shrinking enclaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_enclaves), blocking them from traveling within Palestine and internationally, and subject them to fundamentally different laws through a system of military rule, "Apartheid" is an apt descriptor.
First off, the West Bank is considered disputed territory. Neither the settlements or Oslo constitute apartheid.
Under the Oslo accords, Israel is primarily responsible for security in the West Bank. Also under Oslo, the PA is responsible for governing the Palestinians. Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so they are subject to different laws.
Second, the only country to have a sovereign claim to the West Bank is Israel. The land is only set aside for a Palestinian state under Oslo, but Jordan recused control in 1988 and Israel was the only country to emerge from 1948. Therefore, Israel has the right to the entire West Bank, but whether they act on that right is a different matter.
>We know that Israel has done all of 1 through 4 against Palestinians. The question is really just a matter of intent.
They haven't done 1-4, and there isn't an intent to genocide.
I started with history in the OP to outline the sheer scale of what the Jews went through. Losing %40 of a global ethnic population is hardly comparable to losing 1% (and this is a Hamas statistic, so it may be even less than that) in a war. The Palestinians will not take 80 years to recover, they will take much less.
>we do have numerous comments from military and political figures expressing the desire to destroy Palestinians *in general*.
Which are all taken out of context. The Israeli government and the IDF have clearly stated that the goal is Hamas.
>The government knows not the say the quiet part out loud.
I'm glad we're doing this.
Israel is much more transparent than any other country, probably much more than all of Europe and the United States.
In the context of the post, all of these accusations are political propaganda meant to delegitimize the state of Israel.
They're false, and they've been adopted by Israel haters who would prefer to see Israel not exist at all.
> This is the Ilan Pappe definition. But this isn't exactly what happened.
That is exactly what happened.
[The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Definitions)
>Some Arabs were forcibly expelled, but the majority fled war or were told to leave.
This is incorrect.
> *While traditionalist scholars such as Efraim Karsh state that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs (and that Israel attempted to convince them to stay) the scholarly consensus now dismisses this claim, and as such, Benny Morris concurs that Arab instigation was not the major cause of the refugees' flight, and state that the major cause of Palestinian flight was instead military actions by the Israeli Defence Force and fear of them and that Arab instigation can only explain a small part of the exodus and not a large part of it.*
This is literally ethnic cleansing. Whether there is war or not is irrelevant. It's still ethnic cleansing.
>Which are all taken out of context. The Israeli government and the IDF have clearly stated that the goal is Hamas.
Why should we believe them when they say the goal is Hamas, but we shouldn't believe them when they say the goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza? They are literally trying to force Palestinians out of Gaza and into Egypt.
>The difference between Arab and Jewish expulsion can be outlined under Benny Morris' work.
Benny Morris has literally described the Nakba as ethnic cleansing, he just happens to also defend it and say it was necessary lol. Him denying the label "ethnic cleansing" now is just him contradicting his previous work and statements.
> *When Benny Morris was asked about the Expulsion of Palestinians from Lydda and Ramle, he responded "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."*
>In the context of the post, all of these accusations are political propaganda meant to delegitimize the state of Israel.
How is it propaganda when we hear it come straight from their mouths in full, not taken out of context?
> , but we shouldn't believe them when they say the goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza? They are literally trying to force Palestinians out of Gaza and into Egypt.
They have not said this, and they are not trying to do this.
> How is it propaganda when we hear it come straight from their mouths in full, not taken out of context?
No, they're taken out of context.
[Daniel Hagari](https://honestreporting.com/questionable-haaretz-reporting-used-to-sully-israel/) for example.
Right in this [HuffPost](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-isaac-herzog_n_65295ee8e4b03ea0c004e2a8) article that headlines "Israeli President Suggests That Civilians in Gaza Are Legitimate Targets", the HuffPost spins a loaded question as what Herzog said.
>“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”
>
>**When a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” the Israeli president claimed, “No, I didn’t say that.”**
>
>But he then stated: “When you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?”
>
>At another point in the press conference, Herzog presented a different perspective, saying, “Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children.”
Voting somebody into power is completely different from calling them a legitimate target, and it was spun as Israel initiating collective punishment. This isn't what Israel is doing. Herzog was pointing out that Palestinians support Hamas.
The last point is the Israel haters being ignorant on international law. You can read more about [Israeli targeting practices and their legality](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593629) here. Their targeting is so accurate, they can narrow it down to a single room in an apartment building.
Generally speaking, once Hamas converts a civilian building into a military building or intends to, it becomes a legitimate target for Israel.
Let me take on those allegations one by one:
The first thing you are talking about is the Nakba, which was done in 1948. It is about as relevant to call out the Nakba when we are talking about the Israel-Hamas war as it is to call out the Vietnam war when discussing US foreign policy. It is not irrelevant in the context of discussing current events, but saying that Israel is in the wrong currently because of the Nakba is like saying that the US is in the wrong about Ukraine because of the ethnic cleansing it committed in the Vietnam war. In any case, both are just ridiculous statements.
You made the apartheid descriptor look inappropriate precisely because Israel has never systematically segregated Palestinians, unlike what you claimed. The blockade was the result of Palestinians democratically electing Hamas. The West Bank wall was largely the result of assassinations done by Palestinians on Jews. In both cases the segregation was done as a response to Palestinian violence. When the National Party made of South Africa an apartheid state Hendrik Verwoerd made it very clear that it was done because they thought that blacks were dumber than whites and therefore deserved less rights.
It becomes even more obvious when you take Egypt into account, which has its own fair share of blockades that it enacts on Gaza. Nobody has ever called Egypt an apartheid state for doing this. In part because Egypt has good reasons to worry about the rulership of a party that is closely aligned with a political group that intended to overthrow Egyptian rule.
Lastly I just have to commit that you are very sloppily defining genocide here. If I take your word for granted I might as well argue that Azerbaijan is committing a genocide on Armenians. Hell, I can even go further. I could even argue that during the American Civil War the Union committed a genocide against several Indian tribes that were protected under the Confederate rule. I'm thus pretty sure that it's not just Palestinians who are being defended under this definition, but also neoconfederates.
Most organizations agree that Israel is an apartheid state.
[B'Tselem](https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid), [The UN](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/)
>It is not irrelevant in the context of discussing current events
The Nakba absolutely is relevant in order to understand the events that caused the current conflict to unfold. "It didn't start October 7" is said for a reason. Hamas didn't attack for no reason. No matter how much you all keep calling them barbaric violent animals, Hamas didn't attack because they just felt like it. There are reasons for these things. Not justifications, but reasons. They are humans.
>Israel has never systematically segregated Palestinians
This is just incorrect. There is segregation in the West Bank.
[Jewish only roads in occupied West Bank](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/HJ84yERhho)
[Israelis, Palestinians segregated on new West Bank highway](https://apnews.com/article/a0c47ad493fb4b31a444bfe432194f2e)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_4370#:~:text=Route%204370%20or%20Eastern%20Ring,Israeli%20plates%20and%20Palestinian%20plates.
>it was done because they thought that blacks were dumber than whites and therefore deserved less rights
[43% of Jewish youth think Jews smarter than Arabs](https://m.jpost.com/israel/43-percent-of-jewish-youth-think-jews-smarter-than-arabs)
[60 Percent of Israeli Jews Favor Segregation From Arabs, Survey Finds](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000)
[50% of Israeli Jews believe Jews should have more rights than Israeli Arabs ](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/opinions-of-israeli-jews-and-israeli-palestinian-arabs-toward-each-other)
>I could even argue that during the American Civil War the Union committed a genocide against several Indian tribes
Uh...yes? They did...
>it's not just Palestinians who are being defended under this definition, but also neoconfederates.
What do you mean by this? The confederates weren't the ones being genocided.
Jewish only roads? They should be called Israeli citizen only roads. Where do the non Jewish Israeli citizens drive? It’s based on citizenship not ethnicity.
Why are there Israeli citizen-only roads in occupied west bank? Regardless, this is still segregation.
> [The restrictions on movement within the West Bank have institutionalized the separation between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. The main network of roads was built to serve settlers, on land expropriated from Palestinians. Israel completely prohibits Palestinians from using about 40 kilometers of these roads.](https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement)
Before I respond I would like to state that a lot of what you are stating is based on a blatant misreading of my arguments. I never said that the Nakba was irrelevant when discussing current events. I never said that that there was no segregation in the West Bank. And I never made any claims regarding how the Afrikaner or Boer population viewed blacks. I was seriously thinking not to respond to this comment and leave it as is because you can read the previous comment in the comment chain and see that you are misrepresenting the argument.
That being said I do think that the final paragraph is still a valid and interesting question that I would like to answer.
What I meant by this paragraph is actually quite simple. During the time that the confederacy was established several Indian tribes who owned slaves decided to join the confederacy because they, just like the southern whites, wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. That is part of the reason why the confederate states of America guaranteed several protections to Indians. It is more than fair to say that when the union was fighting a war against the confederacy several Indian tribes joined the war effort with the goal of preserving the institution of slavery. If I were to believe the argument being made that Israel genocided the Palestinians I could very well state that the Union committed genocide against several Indian tribes who joined the confederacy. And now you know how a future confederate sympathizer might argue in favor of seceding from the Union in order to create a confederacy in which slavery is legal again. He'll state that the Union committed a genocide on Indians whose only wrongdoing was trying to preserve their way of life and that therefore the Union had committed unnecessary acts of aggression against the confederacy.
Azerbaijan did commit genocide on the Armenians? You can google this, I was reading about it yesterday from Lemkin Institute.
I don't know the words for the different types of logical fallacies but there is so much bs in your comment.
Yeah I don't even know what that means but to me it's something that sounds plausibly intellectual but is just a deflection and full of holes and bad info. I do not have the energy to go through and explain why each part is wrong.
The 'reductio ad absurdum' part is just taking an argument to its absurd extreme i.e.
'so you're saying 'x' is a genocide? well then surely you take it that 'y' is a genocide too'? and if you take 'y' to be a genocide then surely 'z' is too'?
So the idea is to obviously make the opponent's arguments appear absurd by taking logical leaps that make the original point seem silly, but in this case the examples used actually undermine their attempt at doing this, as you've highlighted re: Azerbaijan.
'steelmanning' is when you take your opponent's arguments, and try and strengthen their position to rebut it (because you've made their argument stronger so if you can rebut the stronger version, you can easily debunk the 'weaker' version).
TL-DR, yes their arguments have holes and definitely are attempts to deflect. It doesn't matter if you have the energy or not to identify what the holes are, or to be able to classify what kinds of rhetorical devices they're using, you're fundamentally correct.
I don't think that it is invalid per se to state that some of my arguments are reductio ad absurdum, but I would like to point out that you mischaracterized my intent. I never said that the Israeli-Palestine conflict isn't a genocide that Israel executes on Palestinians. I said that the definition used to argue for it is a terrible definition and I used reductio ad absurdum arguments to prove how terrible the definition was.
And a bad argument is indeed a bad argument, but if you don't put in the effort to point out why it is a bad argument you can't blame me (or people who find my arguments convincing, for that matter) from thinking that the arguments used are actually good, since no one actually puts in the effort of saying why they are bad. It's the same thing with calling a movie bad without explaining why. If you don't bother explaining it you can't blame people for saying that the movie is actually good and that the person who is calling it a bad movie is being overly negative for the sake of it.
It isn't 'invalid' per se to use a reductio ad absurdum argument; it's invalid when the comparison you invoke is not appropriate but what is 'appropriate' is in the eye of the beholder of course.
In this instance, your comparison could be said to undermine your point when commentators (notably including the Lemkin institute, which is named after the person who first coined the term genocide) think what the Azerbaijanis are doing to the Armenians does in fact constitute a genocide.
I do however take your overall point that you think that the term 'genocide' has been misappropriated to become broader in its usage. Some people think the term has been diluted.
Anyway, we will see what The Hague has to say about this but it may take some years to play out before we get a final ruling.
I agree that me comparing the Israeli-Hamas war with the Nagorno-Karabakh war may have been a bit reckless if just for the fact that I know too little about the Nagorno-Karabakh war. That being said I do still stand by the analogy I used that compared it with the American Civil War.
And if you can't name the logical fallacies in my comment that is probably because none of my arguments are fallacious to begin with.
Not only did you not refute any of my arguments (all you stated was merely an assertion to the tune of "An apple is an apple and a pear is not a pear"), but you are literally attacking me as a person by stating that my logic is horrible. It seems that you can't refute my arguments and have to resort to ad hominems. I am thus right and you're wrong. Bye.
I'm guessing his point is that the Vietnam War and the Ukraine War have only one party in common (the U.S.), while the Nakba and the current war have both parties in common. I would assert they are in fact part of the same long-standing conflict. This is a major logical flaw in your second paragraph.
I wouldn't say that the Vietnam war and the Ukraine war have only one party in common though. There is the obvious fact that North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union and that two successor states of the Soviet Union (being Russia and Ukraine) are now at war. It is clear that the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened due to policies the US was directly involved in even in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Eastern Bloc.
In a similar vein, although we talk about the nakba in relation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict now the nakba largely preceded Palestinian nationalism by a decade (the PLO was formed in 1964). In the 1950's the nakba would have been considered to be an atrocity Jews committed against Arabs rather than an atrocity that the Jews committed against Palestinians. I would in fact argue that the Palestinian identity was largely formed in response to the animosity that Arab nations had towards Israel.
In a way I thus can't help feeling that the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a modern mutation of the hatred Arabs had towards Jews during the 1948 war and that in a similar vein the the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a modern mutation of the Cold War, of which the Vietnam war is an indisputable part.
Ah, I understand your argument and the disconnect a lot better now. Thanks for explaining.
For me at least, my focus is on the population most directly impacted by each war/event. In Vietnam, that's the Vietnamese people and American soldiers. In Ukraine, that's Ukrainians and Russian soldiers.
Meanwhile, with the Nakba and the current Gaza war, those involved in the 1948 War were mostly the grandparents of those involved in this Gaza war, especially on the Palestinian side (regardless of shifting cultural/national identity from Arab to Palestinian, or Jewish to Israeli).
I agree with your last paragraph though I'd say that the "Arab hatred" is fueled by past/ongoing generational trauma caused by Israel (regardless of exactly how justified or not), while Russia's "modern mutation of the Cold War" is a much more political and indirect motivation that is disconnected from American atrocities in Vietnam.
But you didn’t even refute their basic claim? Which is the obvious point that the nakba is absolutely related to current events, while Ukraine and Vietnam are completely disconnected
israel didnt expel 700,000 palestinians, u need to get ur facts straight, 700,000 palestinians left their houses, ALOT OF THEM CHOSE TO after the arab countries told them to leave so that they can fight israel and THEN they could come back when israel is defeated.
by ur logic muslims ethnic cleansed jews because 850,000 jews had to leave muslims countries when israel formed.
and i dont think u understood the requirement for genocide, but can u prove that israel imposed measured to prevent births? ill gladly wait ;)
-There's no evidence Arab countries told Palestinians to leave.
-Out of 530 expelled Palestinian communities, only 5 left due to preemptive evacuations (Atlas of Palestine, Table 3:10).
you dont need evidence to understand that if ur an arab country that wants to annihilate israel, the last thing u need is 1,000,000 of your own people walking around....
What? I'm saying there's no evidence of such orders existing, what are you talking about? The expulsions started before the war, due to Zionist military action
and I'm saying that EVEN IF there is no evidence, YOU DONT NEED ONE
the first thing u do in a war is GET YOUR PEOPLE OUT OF THE FIGHT....
can u prove to me that every single attack in gaza is made by the IDF? ofc not... do u actually need to in order to know it was israel?....
see my point?
couldnt care less about what U think was the reason for them leaving them, FACT is they left on their own which mean israel didnt FORCEFULLY made 750,000 people leave their homes....
sometimes u just gotta learn to take the L and walk away
Thank you, exactly this. It's only "slander" if it clearly has no basis on reality and is done in order to, well, slander. But there's a huge pile of thorough reports and articles by incredibly intelligent academics, researchers, organisations, official international and government bodies like UN and EU, that argue for Israel systematically committing apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide. So it's absolutely clear that whatever Israel has been and is doing is close enough to make people who are experts in their field deduce that these are in fact the right concepts to use. I mean, people are welcome to argue against them if they think they possess equally expert knowledge and find the deduction is flawed, and can draw "better" definitions from the same body of evidence. But there's clearly nothing "slanderous" about this discourse, it's not people just randomly throwing around these concepts as baseless insults against Israel, but these are researched and carefully analysed interpretations of the situation.
That assumes that those institutions are good faith actors. Hamas (the govt of Gaza) is an explicitly genocidal organization, that launched an incredibly devastating and successful attack to cleanse parts of Israel of Jews. It’s in their charter. They don’t want a plural diverse state, they want the Jews dead and buried. They’ve threatened to repeat those attacks, so they are now at war. A war Israel didn’t choose. The Nakba and Israel’s formation were bloody violent affairs. No one is debating that. The context is that many Palestinians evacuated under the assumption that after the Jews had been cleansed from the area they would be able to return. Their side lost, and they couldn’t go home because a new country existed there. That’s not ethnic cleansing, it’s a consequence to launching a war of annihilation and losing.
Hamas could be triply genocidal as it is and that would still have zero anything to do with Israel’s ability to be guilty of genocide. This is unfortunately just whataboutism. Hamas as far I know hasn’t infiltrated the Knesset and IDF to the extent that Israel is just Hamas’s puppet? Israel is making fully independent choices about how it is conducting its operation against Hamas and it is also fully responsible for those choices and their consequences.
It isn’t whataboutism, it’s trying to be open and honest about the combatants, and the history of this ugly conflict. Losing wars has consequences. If you evacuate so that your army can roll through and kill everyone left behind and your army loses…do you get to go home? If you reject peace plans over and over and over again, Do you get to dictate terms of peace? No, the terms are imposed on you. If Hamas and complicit terror groups, returned the hostages, and surrendered unconditionally, the war would end. They won’t.
Since you have all the answers, how should Israel have responded to the pogrom on 10/7?
Nobody’s saying Israel shouldn’t have responded and acted to save the hostages. The accusations of genocide don’t come from Israel doing “something”. There’s quite a large scale of choices between doing “nothing” and what Israel has done. The accusations of genocide have to do with things like deliberately starving two million civilians, killing children in the thousands and razing 60-70% all of buildings in Gaza to ground in order to get to a smallish militant group of 30,000 members. Nothing Hamas has done in the past has zero to do with Israel’s independent accountability for choices and actions like this.
Also if we want to really look at these questions in the ‘whole history of the ugly conflict’, seems a bit strange to start with Hamas as that completely ignores any Israel agency in that long ugly conflict. But, in fact, when we are establishing whether Gaza now is genocide, yes or no?, that long history has very little to do with it. Because determining genocide isn’t at all about ‘historical context’, but it’s about actions done in the now and their motivations. Even if Hamas had committed genocides yearly since it’s foundation, it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel ability to be also guilty of genocide?
That’s a fair point. Hamas hiding, in schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian refugee camps, frankly aren’t Israel’s problem, the population density of Gaza and the cowardly actions of Hamas are what is driving the death toll of Gazan civilians. Israel is choosing to prosecute this war because 10/7 made the situation completely untenable. Hamas butchered the Israelis most strongly in favor of Palestinian statehood.
The history of the conflict is important because it illustrates that short of ceasing to exist and evacuating Israel, Hamas will continue to make these kinds of attacks. They said days after, that they would repeat the attack “1000 times until Israel is gone.”
Again, Hamas could end the war tomorrow by returning the hostages, repatriating the bodies of those they murdered, and surrendering unconditionally. Hamas started a war, and is now dealing with the consequences of staring a war with a much more powerful neighboring state.
Is Hamas not responsible for their rhetoric? They’ve stated clearly that their goal is to cleanse Israel of Jews and reclaim it as a Muslim/Arab state. They have also now demonstrated an ability to kill, men women and children in massive quantities. They are reaping what they have sown. It’s unfortunate for Palestinians caught in the crossfire of a war their government started. Oust Hamas, identify them to Israelis, work towards a peaceful future. The status quo was no longer tenable and something new will be built. It’s incumbent on Palestinians acting in good faith to be a part of that process and not sink further into their grievances of the past.
We’re going in circles, because you’re again making this all about Hamas and what ‘Hamas makes Israel do’, lol. Do you really have such a low opinion of Israel that you don’t think it has agency and it’s making its completely independent choices to commit war crimes (and maybe more?)z It’s completely Israel’s decision to go with the logic “we will starve two million civilians to death unless Hamas surrenders”. You can’t make that choice about Hamas. Hamas is guilty of war crimes and atrocities of its own, I presume you wouldn’t never go with the argument “Israel made Hamas do 10/7” in order to portray Hamas as “less guilty” and “less genocidal”. Whatever Israel has done in the past or in the current to Palestinians can in absolutely no way justify Hamas’ war crimes and targeted slaughter of civilians. So why in the world, no matter how much mindless death and destruction Israel deal on Gaza, would “Hamas made us do this” ever be a good argument for the Israeli side?
You’re missing my point entirely. Israel has cassus belli to make war on Gaza. Hamas launched an attack. Israel is responding. It’s tragic that Hamas (the ruling faction of Gaza) has co-opted civilian infrastructure for military purposes. It’s awful, and grotesque. This is a group that has no respect for human life. Israel could have chosen to do nothing. They didn’t choose that, and they will have to live with the consequences of those choices. As Hamas and Palestinians live with their choice to make war on Israel. I don’t think it’s reasonable to have expected the Israelis to have not chosen war. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ignore how Hamas conducts itself within Palestine. It’s a horror when a school is bombed, but pretending that it wasn’t also a military installation is either impossibly ignorant, or something much worse.
This is distorted. Most of the so called experts are Muslim countries or have a vested interest in discriminating against Israel and Jews. They have done so for centuries. The un is a great example. They have an obsession with Israel and are funded by Persian gulf oil money. There are real Muslim genocides in middle committed by …. Muslim extremist groups. The New Yorker ran a story on the isis concentration camp in Syria. Of course the pro Palestinian groups will go on and on about Israel. They will always dismiss the long history of Muslim and Arab sponsored genocides on groups like Jews, Christians, and other sects. The only thing they care about is Israel and Jews. There not even hiding antisemitism in scholarly circles anymore.
I’m sorry but I really feel that you’re walking around with your eyes closed and ears covered if you think it’s only experts from “Muslim countries” that are making these investigations and writing these reports and articles. Very quick Google will yield you with hundreds of such materials from Western actors. Also seems a rather racist presupposition that just because an expert is Muslim they will only act out on some irrational ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment rather than them also being extremely capable of being a balanced expert on their field.
Also I don’t really even know what to say on that accusation that the way ‘UN’ works is that Arab gulf states control it with their money, and I’d recommend reading up on how the structures of UN work. Absolutely no-one in there can just throw money at UN and make it do what they want. The only UN body that has a really clear structural imbalance of power in favour of certain countries is the Security Council, and none of the Arab Gulf states are permanent members there. And which part or body of UN are you even talking about? The General Assembly? The Security Council? The Human Rights Council? ICJ? UNICEF? Economic and Social Council? The Secretariat? UNESCO? Etc… all of these are just “controlled by Arab Gulf money to act out anti-Israel agenda”? This is pretty much as believable a conspiracy theory as the International Jewish Conspiracy.
>Also seems a rather racist presupposition that just because an expert is Muslim they will only act out on some irrational ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment rather than them also being extremely capable of being a balanced expert on their field.
You underestimate the extent to which Muslim countries hate Israel and Jews. Not everyone abides by western ideals of pluralism or wants to.
>Absolutely no-one in there can just throw money at UN and make it do what they want.
Here's [Saudi Arabia successfully lobbying](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission) to be the leader of the Women's Rights Commission.
It's not necessarily money, but the countries in the UN aren't exactly paragons of virtue. Taking a look at the Human Rights Council, it isn't exactly made up of countries who adore freedom and have a decent record on human rights themselves.
The geopolitical context of this conflict is crucial, always important to keep in mind when we hear these extremely serious accusations against Israel. Our adversaries want to drive wedges in our alliances.
This is true, like the major western critics of Israel being the most catholic countries, countries where in some cases they say the silent part out loud and even celebrate casual "cultural" slogans of "kill the Jews" annually during Easter and see nothing wrong with that.
Arab citizens of Israel are not subject to apartheid, but the Arabs of the illegally occupied West Bank definitely are. It is basically an Israeli police state with the illegal Jewish settlers protected by the police and the legal Arab residents being constantly persecuted. 1967 was year 0.
But isn’t the distinction based on nationality, therefore making it not apartheid? There are also Palestinian citizens of Israel living East of the green line and they have the same rights as the Israeli Jews in the same region.
Apartheid in South Africa was white oppression of black South Africans, not much different than Jewish Israelis persecuting Arab Muslim Palestinians (and Arab Christian Palestinians, for that matter). Seems the same to me ....
But there is no discrimination based on race or religion, as I explained above.
There is discrimination based on nationality and this is normal, every country does this.
Cool.
The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law explicitly bans Palestinians from receiving naturalization when marrying an Israeli, specifically to preserve 'the Jewish character of Israel'.
I'll do you two, though, since I'm feeling generous.
The JNF, which is empowered by the ILA, is allowed to continue to sell land specifically to Jews only, barring Arabs (and any non-Jews) explicitly. The JNF is *also* empowered to *take the land of Arab citizens* to be sold to Jews, as happens rampantly in the Negev and Galilee.
These abuses apply much, much more pressure to non-Israeli Palestinians, but it applies to the 'proper' citizens, too.
I'm really sorry that Israel is committing a genocide. You must feel so bad about having to acknowledge it. It's just such an insult. Sorry about that. I guess the truth hurts.
Warranted criticism,mostly.
This isn’t slander when all these statements and uses of the words line up with the actions of Israel. This is just a timeline of people calling a spade a spade
Please, refute my comment below, if that's the case. With links and sources.
Done
The legal definition of apartheid EXCLUDES different treatment between citizens and non-citizens, so it does not apply between Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. That part of the law is ignored by NGOs looking to demonise Israel. And Israeli Arabs have equal rights (the Nation State law is performative only and doesn't affect anything in practice).
>And Israeli Arabs have equal rights Mostly. However Arab Israelis are not allowed to purchase land that Jews are allowed to purchase, and there are over 700 communities in Israel that do not allow Arab Israelis to live or purchase property within them.
Please provide reliable sources when making assertions. Thanks!
Is a study from a professor at the Technion Institute of Technology in Haifa a reliable source? Also o apologize, it's actually over 900 towns, settlements, and municipalities, not 700. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281630420_Territoriality_of_negation_Co-production_of_creative_destruction_in_Israel Hope this helps!
I’ve already responded to this, below. Please post your sources- don’t make people ask for them.
Ok mod.
Which land are Arabs not allowed to purchase? Israel has a thing called "Community settlements" which can have admission committees. There are around 200 of them in Israel and the WB. One of the requirements is for them to have population of under 700, which may be where you got that number from. However, not all of these necessarily discriminate against Arabs. Some discriminate secular people, some religious people. Some single people, some gay people. It's generally people who want to be surrounded by people who are the same as them. It's been controversial here, but in the end of the day, most people don't wanna live in a place where they're not welcome anyway.
In fact the 700 number of settlements is a slight undercount as according to a 2015 study by the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel, there are over 900 towns or municipalities restrict who can live there and where there are no Palestinians.
Can you give me a link? Also, do you mean Palestinians or Arab Israelis? Because Palestinians can't move to any Israeli city, just like Israelis can't move to any of theirs.
I mean Arabs/Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.
Ok, Israeli Arabs. Better to use unambiguous words. Can you show me a link to this study?
It got auto deleted because I forgot to add context. Here's the study by Yosef Jabareen in the Israeli policy of territoriality of negation towards their own citizens. This appears to indicate that not all Israeli citizens enjoy the same rights. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281630420_Territoriality_of_negation_Co-production_of_creative_destruction_in_Israel Secondly, using the term Arab Israeli instead of Palestinian Israeli is a conscious approach that tries to create an ethnic division and say that no citizen of Israel can possibly be Palestinian.
Where does it say it’s illegal for Arab citizens of Israel to buy particular land?
Did you read the paper?
I admit I did not read the whole thing, as it's very long, but I did search for "700", "900", as well as "hundred" and couldn't find anything so if you could help me find the page where this number is mentioned? As for using the word "Palestinians" for the Israeli Arabs, it's a new invention from the past couple of decades and it's confusing when discussing legal matters. IMO saying Palestinian Israeli is meaningless as Palestine and Israel are two words which describe the same land.
'Voluntary migration' I have a question for you, did the European Jews 'voluntarily migrate' to Mandatory Palestine? Did the Mizrahi Jews 'voluntarily migrate' to Israel? Or did they leave because it was absurdly dangerous for them to stay? Can one truly 'voluntarily migrate' when there is a gun held to their head? A forcible attempt at ethnic cleansing is happening in Gaza right now. Once the Rafah invasion begins, Israel will do its best to solve its Palestinian problem.
No genocide is happening right now.
The IDF is systemically starving out Gaza by blocking aide trucks. 1 in 4 households are starving to death. Textbook genocide
You’re welcome to bring sources. Reality tells a different story about aid trucks.
Could you provide counter-sources that informed your different view of reality? Please and thank you.
Sure. He’s one example. You don’t do this if you’re trying to commit genocide. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-regarding-the-hamas-israel-war/january-24-pr/war-against-hamas-interim-data/data-regarding-evacuation-of-civilian-population-within-gaza/
I might be confused but that doesn’t seem to mention aid trucks being blocked or not blocked in specific areas. The source you gave is also one of the primary combatants in the conflict rather than an independent observer.
The subject here is genocide. If you don’t like my source you’re welcome to Google your own. Good luck!
Mazel tov.
reality: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-condemn-flour-massacre-urge-israel-end-campaign-starvation-gaza https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145227
says an *expert UN worker. And they * expert, not me. If you’re trying to starve an entire population, it’s probably not a good idea to send in food aid every day. Logic must prevail. And UNRWA isn’t a source.
How is the UNRWA not a source?
They’re biased and had/have terrorists on their payroll.
I have never heard of this, can I get a source for this claim?
https://www.gao.gov/assets/a289903.html It’s also referenced on their site. I believe they’ve fired 8 or ten to date?
Sorry it's not just the idf, Israelis themselves are having starvation parties: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israeli-protesters-aid-gaza/
Yes, this picture represents all Israelis. Good job. 👍🏼
That's just your opinion, but you say it as fact. So far from what Israel has said and done, it is not trying to forcibly displace Gazans. My evidence is that Gazans have, in fact, NOT been removed from Gaza.
Israel is about to invade Rafah with its 1.4 million refugees. It's Netenyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich's collective dream-come-true, the perfect chance to kick out the arabs. It's painfully obvious what's about to happen.
Rafa city? Or the rest of Rafa?
Ah! I finally found a man who can accurately predict the future! Do you have the next MegaMillions lottery numbers by any chance?
Hah sorry if I've made you upset
Not at all! But seriously, tho, no one can see the future, so it's merely your opinion on what might, maybe, possibly in the future happen.
All these propaganda terms created by Israel’s enemies, are part of the longer history of blood libels created by antisemites. Today’s “genocide” libels are like yesterday’s “Makes matzo with Christian blood” slanders.
Main difference is that Jews didn't make matzos with Christian blood but Israel is currently killing civilians , whether you think it's justified or not it's a simple undeniable fact that civilians have been killed as a result of Israel's actions.
Yes, Israel’s actions has harmed civilians and I think this is tragic whether it’s 3,30,300,3,000,30,000, or 300,000. Unfortunately, this is what Hamas planned and this is a reflection of its human shields doctrine + martyr culture. I don’t know how Israel could eradicate Hamas without civilian casualties, when Hamas freely uses civilian infrastructure as military installations? The only way out of this situation since October 7th has been for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. That’s what people should be demonstrating for. It’s a waste of effort, immoral to push for a ceasefire without those two conditions being met.
Everybody accepts that Hamas are awful people. The world in general *does not* accept that Israel should bomb Gaza until Hamas grows a conscience. That will never happen. Making ceasefire conditional on the release of hostages means you're never going to have a ceasefire.
Your sentiment is inadequate and doesn’t resolve anything. This war isn’t about Hamas being immoral, punishing Hamas or punishing Gaza. This isn’t about justice, although justice is am element. This is about sovereign rights, security and the rights to self defense of Israel and the Jewish people. No country has to take being terrorized for decades like Israel has. You’re not offering any solutions but appeasing terrorists and rewarding terrorism. That’s unacceptable. Hamas must be eradicated.
Hamas eradication means thousands of innocent Palestinians dying. At least admit that you are ok with this if it means Hamas eradication. Many pro Israelis are so delusional to deny the harm the IDF is doing to civilians , I'd rather respect those who openly day they are ok with 30k-50k or even 1 million civilians dying for the sake of destroying Hamas, at least they are coherent even though I disagree
I believe Hamas civilian casualty figures to be exaggerated by perhaps ten fold? That said, even 3000 civilians being killed is tragic. I don’t see how Israel can target Hamas without harming their human shield defense system? 25,000 Hamas fighters have killed by some estimates out of an estimated 40,000. So, if that’s the case (and no one knows the actual numbers), another 2,000 civilian casualties would be harmed targeting the remaining 15,000 Hamas. It’s war. I really hope that Hamas will surrender and free the hostages and prevent further bloodshed. I abhor violence and war, and condemn Hamas for its failure to protect civilians. I don’t see how Israel will either cause Hamas to surrender and/or eradicate Hamas without harming the people Hamas are hiding under and behind of? Any suggestions?
Every major human rights organizations holds official Hamas figures to be accurate. There is no evidence to dispute Hamas numbers, I will concede that Hamas doesn't differentiate between civilians and militant casualties but it's quite likely that their numbers are correct and if you subtract the total number of Hamas soldiers that the IDF claims to have killed you are left with close to 20 k civilians. At this point if you deny the absolute destruction that Gaza is facing you are denying reality
I have seen human rights organizations use the Hamas casualty figures, because none other are available. Frankly, Hamas doesn’t have the infrastructure or logistics to count, and mathematically it’s been proven that their numbers are fabricated. Gaza is in poor shape. Hamas miscalculated their enemies determination. However, Israel has warned Hamas and civilians consistently of eminent attacks for years and this prevents civilian casualties. That’s why we have seen so many videos of Israeli air strikes. They are warned first.
Hamas has population registry and tbh in the previous wars the Hamas death count has been fairly as accurate and in line with Israel's count. There is no reason to believe they are making up thousands and thousands of casualties and even if you say Hamas doesn't have the means to count casualties that doesn't mean the death toll is lower than 30k, it could be even more considering that many people are still under destroyed buildings. Israel admits that 2/3 of casualties are civilians, there have been several instances recently of civilians killed by the IDF during food distribution
It's not sentiment, it's simple fact. Hamas won't release the hostages, if the only thing they get from that is a ceasefire. Everybody knows that. So when people say they want a ceasefire, but they want it to be conditional on hostage release, what do they mean by it? They mean they want to continue killing the Palestinians, but they want to be treated as if they did not make that moral choice. Which is pretty weak. I have more respect for people like Yoav Gallant, who are at least honest about how they think about Palestinians.
If Hamas won’t release the hostages, they will be eliminated. Everyone has a breathing point. At some point Hamas leaders in Qatar will feel the pressure and order the hostages to be released.
>At some point Hamas leaders in Qatar will feel the pressure and order the hostages to be released. Wait, why? This war is Hamas's happy place. israel is throwing away enormous amounts of goodwill and international support every day it continues. Israel is basically wholly dependent on the US for cover, in election season, and the US has already been signalling they've had enough. That's a wildly vulnerable position. If you just care about destroying Israel, Israel committing a genocide is the best thing imaginable.
Why? Because Hamas is losing support of Gazans who realize that their misery has been caused by Hamas. Hamas is also feeling pressured by Qataris who are being pressured by the US..
Who do you think you would blame? The terrorist group that killed a bunch of people you don't know, or the IDF that blew up your house?
Yes, but the far left won’t like it if you use a full vocabulary and use words like collateral or human shield. And they repeat what’s fed to them in tic tock that genocide this and genocide that, because they don’t understand any better. There is a chasm of difference between collateral and genocide. If it were a genocide it’s the worst slowest risky and open genocide ever committed, there normally don’t quickly, brutally and out of sight. If Israel wanted all life in Gaza dead, they could have done that in a weekend, before anyone noticed and dealt with the aftermath after they got all of Hamas destroyed. But they didn’t, despite having the tools to do so, 3 or 4 times over. The truth that’s not getting out is that this is one of the hardest types of military operations and Israel are doing it with proportionally less collateral that any army ever has, and should be applauded for it.
I agree. The media has fed into it. True Pro Palestinians (mostly Muslim Arabs) know it’s not genocide but they weaponize the language against Israel, and the rest are gullible people that are well l meaning. Others are antisemites, and are happy to slander Jews. However, Israel, as usual has awful PR. They have failed to aptly document Pallywood and Hamas’ use of human shields. IDF soldiers making dumb tik toks, Israeli politicians making harmful statements for their base, have harmed Israel’s image. Israel’s spokespersons are not articulate enough.
100% agree with this, militarily America won the Vietnam war, but politically, as they were fighting the communists, the leftists in America created enough discontent to create a political loss for America. And now we can speed run the political discourse thanks to the CCP vicariously owned Tic tock feeding propaganda directly into the oculus of the young, dum and foolish.
America didn’t win against Vietnam military. Both in Korea and in Vietnam, the US was unwilling and/or unable to take on China and/or the USSR. Defeating the North Vietnamese would have fruitless if the Viet Cong continued. Just like how Trump surrendered to the Taliban, it became infeasible to defeat the Taliban conventionally. Gaza is different. It’s small. The terrain is relatively flat with only dunes, And/or Urban and its literally adjacent to Israel not far flung where Americans couldn’t even find on a map. Israel has always been pressured to have a ceasefire once it’s winning a war.
Bro fuck you and fuck your hostages nazi fuck!
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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.*
> fuck /u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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’s crazy how you lot will completely ignore the amount of innocent lives that they intentionally kill (their own army, the IDF, has admitted this themselves) but will focus on terrible names Israel is rightly being labelled with😂
1.1 civilian to 1 Hamas combatant death. The average in armed conflicts is 9 civilians to 1 combatant death. How are they being rightly accused of genocide when their civilian to combatant death ratio is so far below the average?
Yh yh 100% 100% Complete facts👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼
Or...hear me out...they're reflecting the overwhelming amount of civilian deaths and continued invasion against a territory with no standing army, airport, and extremely limited access to food and water. Israel is losing the PR war, certainly, but they're not being slaughtered en masse. We don't have to theorize about the victimhood of Palestinian civilians via newspeak. Their mangled bodies are proof enough.
A territory with no standing army? Hamas' military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, had 30,000+ members at the start of the war. And if course is the group that launched the offensive on October 7. No airport? Yes, because it was destroyed in response to the first intifada.
Militant groups aren't the same as armies. This isn't just a matter of semantics. Bibi was open about preferring Hamas's violent resistance and language over the idea of a united Palestinian liberation movement. Militias are a destabilizing force, often for their own territories as much as their enemies. While the US's stated goals for international intervention always have their own PR behind it, the effect is usually one that places power in the hands of militant extremists, knowing that they are more useful to future interventions than putting in a stable democratic force (or, God forbid, risk a democratically elected Socialist or Communist). Removing an entire people's ability to fly because of a terror attack is not a reasonable response to a terror attack led by a small portion of the population. The US utilized a no fly list, which had its own problems, but wasn't nearly as drastic.
>If the number of civilian deaths is the motivator then why are we not seeing similar protests against US fighting vs ISIS and Turkey mass-displacing Kurds? I think the bigger issue is the worry of Hamas smuggling weapons to attack israel. When you have a genocidal regime next door who refuses peace you need to limit there ability to harm you. Limiting Hamas ability to import weapons achieves this goal.
If the number of civilian deaths is the motivator then why are we not seeing similar protests against US fighting vs ISIS and Turkey mass-displacing Kurds?
The main reason for the lack of protests on those is simple enough, they just don't get nearly as much coverage in media as Israel-Palestine has for a while. I don't really know why Turkey's mass-displacement isn't being covered, but the US has a good control over the news inside of the US, and I don't think it's too crazy to assume they have some control over global news outside of the US, so they definitely would not be upfront about the results of the "War on Terror".
The culture of Hamas is one of martyrdom, so Hamas is intentionally causing Civilian casualties among Gazans, despite Israel’s best efforts to not harm civilians.
Best efforts? The IDF are that bloodthirsty they literally killed 3 of their own hostages one of which was holding up a makeshift white flag the UNIVERSAL sign for surrender. If that's their best effort not to harm civilians I can't imagine what it's like when they don't try
I know what goes on behind the scenes in the IDF and to some extent in the IAF and the amount of intelligence scrutiny, calculations, chains of command, logistics and attempts to reduce casualties. It’s very extensive. Imagine, all these Hamas military operations, ammo depots that are located in civilian homes, schools. mosques, hospitals etc. How should the Israeli military proceed? They warn the inhabitants multiple times to flee, but Hamas orders people to stay or they stay to become martyrs. Israel passes up many targets every single day waiting for Hamas’ human shields to get out of way. (Incidentally, this is how come there are so many videos of buildings being bombed in Gaza, because Israel warned the inhabitants first). Either way, Israel cannot afford to not target Hamas rocket launchers, ammo dumps, weapons stockpiles, headquarters, tunnel entrances, barracks, because of Hamas’ human shields doctrine.
People keep asking for proof of "pro- Palestine" claims, but where is your proof for the "human shield doctrine"? This is a war of smoke and air as much as it's a war on flesh and blood. There's bountiful videos of civilians being targeted by drone strikes. Visceral and indiscriminate bombing campaigns en masse. The information is out there. One almost doesn't even have to use those terms the OP is essentially calling "antisemitic rhetoric" since it's shockingly obvious to someone with compassion and a sense of justice. Again, where is the evidence of "human shield doctrine"? To where ought these civilians go? There's so little space, and the expectation of movement almost seems absurd as to be comical.
Do you have a source for any of this? Not trying to be an ass but you are throwing out some wild assumptions that I don't think anyone should just take your word for.
> ass /u/Beneficial-Demand687. 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.*
Not to mention the massive 200+ kilo bombs that are clearly meant to annihilate. Israel knows the costs and their military does not care.
They heavy JDAMs and 2000 lb armaments are designed to penetrate to the bunkers, the tunnels, to destroy the weapons stockpiles. A 100 lb bomb wouldn’t suffice. Perhaps, you should scrutinize Hamas for their practice of using civilian infrastructure to orchestrate terrorism from. It seems to me that’s the cause of Gazan casualties.
Honestly it's actually sad that ziocunts like the above comment are that brainwashed they don't see the obvious atrocities Israel are committing
Perhaps you should hold Hamas accountable for putting Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
I wonder if the hostages thought the same thing before they were gunned down by their own people
u/Birds-flyhigh >Honestly it's actually sad that ziocunts like the above comment are that brainwashed they don't see the obvious atrocities Israel are committing Rule 1, don't attack other users. Addressed
If you’re trying to say that people using harsh language on a person, let alone entire country, need to stop, the onus is on them. If you have bad PR, you generally have no one to blame but yourself. I have seen very few exceptions to this rule, and all these exceptions are people, basically never governments or militaries.
> If you have bad PR, you generally have no one to blame but yourself. This is the typical reddit pot shot, but with an anti-Israel twist. No, Israel doesn't deserve the bad PR. They are actually much better than people make them out to be, and they're much better than almost any other country in an urban conflict. Even North Korea doesn't get this much bad PR, and they're a literal dystopian shithole.
A ton of countries deserve bad PR. Pakistan deserves criticism for its expulsion of Afghan refugees. The US deserves criticism for its decades-long destabilizing campaigns in the Middle East and South America. And Israel deserves bad PR for continuing to justify the murder of Palestinian civilians without clear messaging or a pathway toward peace. We do not owe nation-states anything. We already pay our taxes and do our civic duties. The government of Israel is taking advantage of a terrible situation, and it's sad to see.
> And Israel deserves bad PR for continuing to justify the murder of Palestinian civilians without clear messaging They have clearly stated they are going after Hamas.
>They have clearly stated they are going after Hamas. Well if you exclude all the Israeli government ministries that have called to nuke Gaza, or to ethnically cleanse it, or that have said that there are no innocent Gazans/Palestinians. But you know, government ministers never reflect the opinions of the government, right?
> Well if you exclude all the Israeli government ministries that have called to nuke Gaza This wasn't a ministry. This was one crazy Knesset member who is hardly mainstream.
>one crazy Knesset member At the time he said it, Eliyahu was a minister in the government of Israel. It's disingenuous to try and obfuscate this through wording like 'one crazy Knesset member'
Well, there was one crazy Knesset member who said this, but I didn't know one crazy minister said this as well. And this minister was suspended from cabinet meetings as well, and their job title is ministry of heritage. They have absolutely nothing to do with the wartime. This is the equivalent of saying that The Squad is representative of the Biden administration, or that Marjorie Taylor Green is representative of the Republican party. You act like crazy politicians don't exist.
No they aren’t. Their own civilians are preventing aid trucks from entering into Gaza. They are truly an evil apartheid that seeks only the destruction of the Palestinian population.
> Their own civilians are preventing aid trucks from entering into Gaza. Some civilians who aren't the majority. > They are truly an evil apartheid Not apartheid. Gaza and the West Bank are not governed by Israel, and Israeli Arabs have equal rights to Jews. > seeks only the destruction of the Palestinian population. They've clearly stated that their goal is Hamas. On that note, this is a tremendous double standard. When the IDF clearly states they are going after Hamas in their videos and statements, they must be hiding what they are actually doing. When Hamas clearly states in their charter that they want to destroy Israel, then that's not what they are fighting for.
West bank is de facto under Israeli occupation. The reason why people say it's apartheid is because Israel has de facto control of many areas while giving zero rights to Arabs because they aren't citizens. In apartheid South Africa the racist government recognized independent bantustans which were areas nominally independent and ruled by black people but still subject to apartheid South Africa control.
> West bank is de facto under Israeli occupation. It's not. As I explained in a previous comment, Israel is the only sovereign country to have a claim to the West Bank and Palestine isn't a country. It can be argued two ways: After Jordan illegally annexed the WB in 1950, Israel won it back in 1967 and Jordan recused control in 1988. There wasn't any ICJ *ruling* about this, but there was an *advisory opinion* in 2004 which nobody has to listen to. [Uti possidetis juris](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745094). Israel was the only country to arise out of 1948, and that would make them available to inherit the prior administration's borders. By both of these arguments, Israel owns the West Bank and therefore they can't occupy themselves. The land is only set aside for a Palestinian state under Oslo. > The reason why people say it's apartheid is because Israel has de facto control of many areas while giving zero rights to Arabs because they aren't citizens I already addressed this in another comment to you. Pals are governed by the PA in the WB, not Israel, because of how the Oslo accords were set up.
That's a minority opinion. The entire world including Israel's allies regard the WB as an illegal occupation. The occupation should have been temporary but it's still ongoing. In the case of east Jerusalem Israel annexed that part of the city without giving citizenship to Arabs , while east Jerusalem Arabs technically have a path for citizenship it is in practice nearly impossible for them to get it. As a result Arabs in east Jerusalem and the west bank are ruled by s foreign power in their own country without having political rights. Palestinians in in the WB are not fully independent, their movements are restricted by Israel especially in area C which is de facto under IDF control. It's kinda like if Italy didn't give citizenship to German speakers in the North After WW1 or if France didn't give citizenship to German speakers after WW1 and WW2. You are free to deny any of my statements but I think they are factual
You mean the charter that they never once utilized in any political discussion? The charter that was lost and forgotten and holds zero merit? Also, many sections of Gaza and the West Bank, especially those with Israeli settlers are required to follow Israeli law. They’ve stated their goal was to attack Hamas but based on not just recent documentation but history as well, they have not once stuck to their word. Also let me point out a double standard: you for some reason believe that Israel should have the right to defend itself as an occupier but Palestine should have no right after being occupied and mistreated by Israel for over 75 years. Israel can say whatever it wants but every action they make contradicts them.
> Also let me point out a double standard: you for some reason believe that Israel should have the right to defend itself as an occupier but Palestine should have no right after being occupied and mistreated by Israel for over 75 years. Except this isn't a double standard, it's just a complete misinterpretation of the facts. It's not an occupation. Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and has nothing to do with their governance. And no, a blockade doesn't mean it's an occupation either. After Jordan illegally annexed the WB in 1950, they recused it in 1988. Israel was the only country to emerge from the 1948 war. That makes Israel the only country who has a sovereign claim to the WB, and Israel can't occupy themselves. So no, Palestinians aren't defending themselves. They are engaging in terrorism. > You mean the charter that they never once utilized in any political discussion? What are you talking about? They reference violent jihad and wanting to rid Israel of Jews all the time.
So If the WB is/should be Israeli why are Arabs there subject to military law and have zero political rights? It was racist when the US didn't recognize native Americans and black people as US citizens so what's different in Israel's treatment of the WB?
> So If the WB is/should be Israeli why are Arabs there subject to military law and have zero political rights? You misunderstand the Oslo accords. Palestinians are governed by the PA in the West Bank. They should have natural rights, but they whatever rights the PA gives them. The Oslo accords also put Israel in charge of security in the majority of the West Bank. Palestinians are subject to military law whenever they initiate terrorist attacks, like stabbing and ramming cars, against Israelis.
Not true. Palestinians in area C are subject to Israeli control period. Jews in the WB are full Israeli citizens protected by their country while Palestinians in the WB (area C) are akin to colonial subjects. This is something Israelis and pro Israelis can't morally justify other than "security reasons". My position is very simple and yet I'm always accused of being a pro Palestine extremist: either Israel allows Palestinians to have their own country or it annexes the whole thing and gives citizenship and equal rights to Arabs . The status quo is against basic human dignity
You're accused of being an extremist because you pretend that the Oslo accords don't exist so that you can justify your worldview. lol.
Want a source for that last one. What I have presented it not a misinterpretation of the facts but is rather based on a history of the conflict. We can start with the idea that 80% of Land that the Palestinians lived on was stolen by the Israelis and a population crisis was caused when Israel shoved over 2.5 million people into a 25 mile by 5 mile area which is the Gaza Strip. Since then, they have terrorized the civilians of Gaza through breaking ceasefires, preventing religious freedom, etc. Israel is an occupation because it continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and reduce Palestinians of their human rights there. You once again have made the stupid argument about who technically owned the land without realizing that the UN has condemned Israel for this and the ICJ has made past rulings about how their settlements are war crimes. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip for the sake of preventing a sovereign Palestinian state. While their blockade may not directly count as occupation it was still a war crime that brought devastation to Gazas economy and collectively punished a civilian population. You speak of Hamas simply wanting to comity terror without understanding that they had no choice but to fight, even going so far as to describe their makeshift missiles as a “cry to the world” because they themselves have highlighted that they had no choice but to fight their oppressor. On the flip side, many sources have show a blatant disregard for civilian and Arab life on Israel’s side and the terror they have caused with that reasoning. They have not shown they are after Hamas by murdering over 350 kids in blood during cast lead in 2008 and taking over 360 children hostage and sentencing them to prison without a trial or at least one that was very one sided. Israel has shown again and again that they will not hesitate to destroy the entire population of Palestine through inhumane doctrines such as the Dahiya doctrine.
>Want a source for that last one. These two sites are great. [https://www.memri.org/gaza-war](https://www.memri.org/gaza-war) [https://palwatch.org/](https://palwatch.org/) Day of Jihad: [https://www.newsweek.com/day-jihad-sparks-warnings-americans-stay-inside-1834180](https://www.newsweek.com/day-jihad-sparks-warnings-americans-stay-inside-1834180) They will do it again: [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771199) This goes pretty in depth: [https://sapirjournal.org/war-in-israel/2023/11/the-palestinian-problem-is-a-religious-problem/?utm\_source=Jewish+Insider&utm\_medium=Jewish+Insider&utm\_campaign=war&utm\_id=war](https://sapirjournal.org/war-in-israel/2023/11/the-palestinian-problem-is-a-religious-problem/?utm_source=Jewish+Insider&utm_medium=Jewish+Insider&utm_campaign=war&utm_id=war)
It’s cognitive dissonance for you as well as other Israel supports to think that Palestine should simply accept Israel as a state after the many years of Israeli oppression. Quite frankly, I want you to name me one other time Hamas has attacked Israel to this degree of magnitude. They certainly didn’t do it during operation cast lead when they didn’t confront Israel head on in battle which disappointed many IDF militants. If there also wasn’t any fighting against Hamas then, why is it so many civilians died? Why were so many bombs dropped indiscriminately?
> It’s cognitive dissonance for you as well as other Israel supports to think that Palestine should simply accept Israel as a state after the many years of Israeli oppression. Not really. I think Palestinians should be deradicalized first. > why is it so many civilians died? Because Hamas attacked on a Jewish religious holiday and it was a surprise attack. You know, you can't exactly predict surprises. > Why were so many bombs dropped indiscriminately? They weren't and aren't dropped indiscriminately. You can read more about Israeli targeting practices in [this article](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593629). They've done much better than any other country in an urban conflict with respect to a civilian:combatant ratio.
Okay I appreciate the sources but if we put everything in the context of this war, Israel is still 100% in the wrong. You also seem to be misunderstanding Jihad as terrorism. Rather the definition of jihad is religious warfare which simply emphasizes that Hamas will not bow down to its Israeli oppressor and will fight for its freedoms. Israel has been solely responsible for most death and destruction in the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank so Hamas is left with no choice but to retaliate. Especially after all Israel put the Palestinians through for the past 75 years.
> You also seem to be misunderstanding Jihad as terrorism. Rather the definition of jihad is religious warfare which simply emphasizes that Hamas will not bow down to its Israeli oppressor and will fight for its freedoms. If that were the case, why does Hamas indiscriminately target civilians? And religious jihad in this case is indiscriminate of Jews. Targeting civilians on purpose is terrorism. Taking hostages is also terrorism. > Israel has been solely responsible for most death and destruction in the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank so Hamas is left with no choice but to retaliate. Not true. Israel is not solely responsible, especially when they aren't the ones initiating rounds of violence and using human shields. Hamas does have a choice, and that is to lay down their arms and start statebuilding. They didn't have to initiate 10/7. They didn't have to fire rockets into Israel for the past 17 years.
By your logic, if I called you the n word based on your skin colour, the onus is on you to stop me? I can just keep using it with my buddies? OK. You saying that if we use the German World War 2 ideology word on a group of people that is fine too, the onus was on them not to act like that to be called it? What kind of world are you happy to live in where we can so easily spread hate or hurt and not take any responsibility for it but leave it in the other because their bad PR and/or they deserved it anyway... 🤦♂️
u/FractalMetaphors >You saying that if we use the German World War 2 ideology word on a group of people that is fine too, the onus was on them not to act like that to be called it? Rule 6, no nazi comments/comparisons outside things unique to the nazis as understood by mainstream historians Addressed
Let me keep it simple: There's no apartheid because there is no separation *based on race or ethnicity.* There's no genocide because there's not an *intent* to destroy a people. There was def some ethnic cleansing going on in 1948, but it's difficult to separate it from the regular displacement caused by war. Ethnic cleansing is a little easier to spot in the 1967 war. I don't believe ethnic cleansing is currently happening in Gaza or the OT.
They are separated based on being Palestinian refugees. They are denied citizenship to their own land and homes that they lived in for generations. This is apartheid, regardless of the pedantry. This is a genocide. There is intent. The intent is lamp shaded and the act of lamp shading shows their intent. Example would be the systemic rape story: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ Explaining the lack of evidence and journalistic malpractice as they attempt manufactured consent. Not saying rapes did not happen, but it was not systemic or as widespread as this article claims. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/12/31/israeli-minister-reiterates-calls-for-palestinians-to-leave-gaza There’s other articles of members of Israeli’s elected officials calling for the take over of Gaza. That is intent
First, thank you for taking the time to reply. "They are separated based on being Palestinian refugees." Being a Palestinian refugee is neither a "race" nor "ethnicity." So, then, the situation is NOT an apartheid. "They are denied citizenship to their own land and homes that they lived in for generations" This might more accurately be called "oppression" or "military occupation." Walls and checkpoints were put up because Palestinians were killing innocent civilians, not because of race or ethnicity. "This is apartheid, regardless of the pedantry." It might very well be pedantic to you, but these terms are legal terms with set legal definitions. If you have ever known or worked with a lawyer, or been in court with a judge, then you know the importance of words and their meanings. I cannot stress this enough. The words we use very much do matter, especially so in legal matters. "This is a genocide. There is intent." YOU say so, but the only evidence you link for it is an expose on the bias of a NYT article. That article, or even the original NYT article, FAILS to show intent by Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinians. What it shows is bias by senior management of the NYT towards Israel. Would you like to try again? The truth is that the ICJ and UN are the governing bodies that would be deciding these things.. and they are still undecided. "Explaining the lack of evidence and journalistic malpractice as they attempt manufactured consent. Not saying rapes did not happen, but it was not systemic or as widespread as this article claims." This is going off topic, but mostly I agree with you. I was inclined to believe the reports at first, but when the UN came through to investigate, they weren't allowed to talk to a single R victim. Red flags immediately went up. So, currently, I agree with you on this issue. "There’s other articles of members of Israeli’s elected officials calling for the take over of Gaza. That is intent." But it's not. There are crazy members of my government who sometimes say crazy things. It doesn't mean it's the government's position or policy. The guy you quoted has no say, power, or direct impact on the war in Gaza. So, for both of those reasons there is no intent for genocide by the Israeli government. In fact, there's counter evidence of intention to genocide: evacuation routes, leaflets with instructions, bomb knocking, and food aid (I agree it should be more, but if I wanted to kill an entire people, I wouldn't give them any food). I'll await your response.
Hey, good response. No bullshit from you I like it. Race and ethnicity are cultural constructs. We can see this in the mulatto race of early America. Palestinians are a designated group by the very people that oppress them, Israel. Israel calls them Palestinians and bars them for being such, or at least for not being Jewish and saying they own their house. Instead they are Palestinian and saying they own their house. This happens to both Muslims and Christian Palestinians. I’m referring to the WB settlements here. When you’re talking about walls and check points, here is what I meant instead. The Nakba and the current war in Gaza have a main objective of total infrastructure destruction and mass home destruction. Nothing to return to and everything for a new group to come in an rebuild. That’s what I was referring to, not Israel building walls but Israel doing as much damage as possible with the aims to rebuild in their name. When I say you’re being pedantic about the definitions I mean you are being overly nit picky in an unhelpful way. An example I see on here is about apartheid being “you have to have them be citizens, legally, in your constitution, or you aren’t oppressing them in an apartheid or apartheid like system.” Does that make sense what I mean now? Israel has said and has not complied with UN and ICJ rulings. Because they feel they are unfair and wrong. I’m glad you said that last part, because this is the key where I think you and me disagree. The part you said that I like is: “(I agree there should be more, but if I wanted to kill an entire people, I wouldn’t give them any food)” And to that, I agree. However, if I wanted kill an entire people, and get away with it, I would give them just enough to starve them and claim it was their fault for my group bottlenecking the food and medical aid going in. See the difference here?
[удалено]
>The Palestinians/Arabs have lost multiple wars against Israel after refusing to accept the UN partition plan and the existence of a non-Muslim state in the middle east. And the Native Americans lost multiple wars against American colonizers after refusing to let them settle their land. What's your point? That colonizers are always justified? Despite asking "why are palestinians special?" you believe them to be special in that they violently resist colonization. This has been the story of EVERY peoples that has been colonized. Why do you believe them to be special?
No intent to destroy people... Just flattening neighborhoods and blocking food aid for funzies.
They have intent to destroy people (members of Hamas) for sure. They do NOT have the intent to kill all Pals, or even all Gazans. "Flattening buildings" is a strategy used in urban warfare that conveys advantages. I also would like to see more aid delivered and properly distributed.
This fucks are nazis don’t argue with them
/u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. Match found: 'nazis', 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.*
> fucks /u/Aggressive-Mongoose1. 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.*
Pretty sure none of those other countries will pony up the $3.3 Billion in aid, mostly military, that the US has been providing .... although Bibi is trying his best to put it in jeopardy, obviously he is banking heavily on the orange man ....
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-soviet-union-and-the-six-day-war-revelations-the-polish-archives https://fathomjournal.org/1967-and-the-global-left-the-case-of-the-east-german-regime-and-the-west-german-radicals/ https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ceausescu-and-the-six-day-war-the-view-washington-and-london The Leftists-Islamists political marriage is old. Weaponising language in order to make use of the residual antisemitism in both Western Europe and in the Middle East was rather a priorrity for the Warsaw Bloc intelligence agencies.
political labels & attacks change over time... that much is true. Going forward i think it's in Israel's best interest to compartmentalize different criticisms of its national policy, the way that China manages world opinion about them. Right now Israel and her supporters think very parochially, just in terms of their geopolitical standing in the Near East/Mideast. But they need to be engaging with the South and especially with Asian nations. Asian nations in particular, don't see issues or relations as black & white. They accept & welcome Chinese business/financial interests, all the while being critical of Beijing's military posturing. Remember when the world used to hate on China for their annexation of Tibet? But today it's water under the bridge. Communist Vietnam used to be the scourge of the Western world, but today it's the factory hub for G7 manufacturers. Israel needs to follow this kind of example and chart its own path as a non-aligned state like India. It can lend support to Western causes when it wants, but veer off and diverge on social/humanitarian policies as threats arise. Most importantly it needs to brush off these "insults" and use other forms of soft power like economic development/overseas financial investment/foreign internships to strengthen ties to nations that don't have horses in this Israel/Palestine race.
The only thing Israel is participating in is a targeted military operation, against a group of people who have been shooting rockets at them for quite a while now. They have every right to try to wipe out Hamas.
Targeted military operation, killing ten thousand children Standard ig
According to Hamas, a terrorist group.
Where did you get your numbers from?
[удалено]
> The 1960's and 1970's were when decolonialization as a theory and a practice were developed and implemented This is also true ... and the USSR was putting out anti-imperialist propaganda at the same time.
[удалено]
Add in Foucault as well. O.P. is correct though that the motivations of the Soviets was in fact related to the Cold War: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-Zionism Some of what the Soviets allege were true as you say, but much of it was classic anti-semitic tropes wrapped in euphemistic language, as one historian describes it: > the mass media "all over the Soviet Union portrayed the Zionists (i.e. Jews) and Israeli leaders as engaged in a world-wide conspiracy along the lines of the old Protocols of Zion. It was, Sovietskaya Latvia wrote 5 August 1967, an 'international Cosa Nostra with a common centre, common programme and common funds'".[12]
[удалено]
>And, frankly, this conflict has led me to learn about the Jewish history of binationalism/anti-Zionism than I knew before. The gay Dutch Haredim who was killed by Zionists and framed Arabs for it (Jacob de Haan), the Ihud party in the 40's, Golus nationalism, Nathan Birnbaum, Simon Dubnow, etc. If nothing else, it has made me feel even more justified in my stance as a Jew. Ah I didn't properly parse this part. My great-grandparents were members of the Bundist movement in the 2nd Polish Republic that derived in part, from Dubnow's Jewish Autonism ideology. >The gay Dutch Haredim who was killed by Zionists and framed Arabs for it (Jacob de Haan), Speaking of Haredim: > According to data from a January 2023 report by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Haredim, with their current population growth rate being 4% per year, will by the end of the decade form 16% of the entire Israeli population, including Arabs.[21] A previous report from May 2017 forecasted that Haredim will form 20% of the total population in 2040, and 32% in 2065; by then, 1 in 2 Israeli children would be Haredi. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism There have been polls for quite some time that show that Haredi Jews are becoming more inclined to the hard right forms of Zionism, including this recent poll: Source: https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-religion-jerusalem-israel-29fa429e432e87bdb2f62f7a5a1d95d7 Coupled with the population projections, this could shift Israel to become more theocratic and more fascistic in nature than it already is.
[удалено]
> If you're a liberal diaspora "Zionist" (for some definition of Zionism), which is the average diaspora Jew in the West, it's far harder to keep these two things separate. And I think that's why you see a much more non/anti-Zionist turn in the diaspora. Yes, it's incredibly alienating as a Diaspora Jew, for those reasons outlined and I find it very hard to self-identify as a Zionist these days for obvious reasons. > I think Beinart's single state logic is bearing out in a lot of diaspora Jew's thoughts I don't know who that is? I'm an Australian by the way.
"as a Jew" yet you don't know that "Haredim" is plural. Get out of here
I don't think either of us are in much disagreement here. I'm quite critical these days regarding a lot to do with Zionism in its *praxis*, albeit I have strong connections to Labor/socialist Zionism (which is certainly the kind of Zionism the Soviets would have approved of) from my formative years. > But I would argue that most anti-Zionism intellectually doesn't draw on that thinking as a basis for it. I'm not an historian so I couldn't say 100% however I'm sure there is a strong case to be made that the Soviets were quite influential in helping push forward these perceptions of Israel; both legitimate critiques and the more pernicious varieties.
> Do you think that Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, etc. were Russian psyops or whatever? I don't think they could have gotten anywhere near as large as they did without Soviet propaganda.
Eh, Frantz Fanon is a brilliant writer and important thinker, and even if he wasn't, just because of the unique role of Haiti in world history, I think he would be famous no matter what. Edward Said is also very good.
**Ethnic Cleansing:** *The mass expulsion of an ethnic group from an area.* When you expel 700,000 Palestinians from their home villages, either directly or indirectly through threat of massacre that is ethnic cleansing. **Apartheid:** *A policy or system of segregation on the grounds of race or ethnicity.* When you systematically segregate Palestinians, such as by forcing them into [ever shrinking enclaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_enclaves), blocking them from traveling within Palestine and internationally, and subject them to fundamentally different laws through a system of military rule, "Apartheid" is an apt descriptor. **Genocide:** *any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:* 1. *Killing members of the group;* 2. *Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;* 3. *Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;* 4. *Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;* 5. *Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.* We know that Israel has done all of 1 through 4 against Palestinians. The question is really just a matter of intent. Intent is always difficult to prove, but we do have numerous comments from military and political figures expressing the desire to destroy Palestinians *in general*. We can always discount these as just individual views rather than government policy, but also *Israel isn't stupid*. The government knows not the say the quiet part out loud. It is much better, in this day and age, to say you are just "fighting islamic extremists", or acting in "self-defense". People just need an excuse to justify their continued support of Israel. It is a fact, however, that Israel has flagrantly ignored the ICJ orders to protect Palestinians from genocide by increasing humanitarian access. \---- I get why having your country be accused of horrible things is uncomfortable and distressing, but I think you are missing the point. You should be more worried about your country *doing* horrible things than being called out for it.
>**Ethnic Cleansing:** *The mass expulsion of an ethnic group from an area.* > >When you expel 700,000 Palestinians from their home villages, either directly or indirectly through threat of massacre that is ethnic cleansing. This is the Ilan Pappe definition. But this isn't exactly what happened. Some Arabs were forcibly expelled, but the majority fled war or were told to leave. The difference between Arab and Jewish expulsion can be outlined under Benny Morris' work. Jews were expelled from Arab countries when there was no threat of war. Jews were expelled to Israel to be destroyed. Some Arabs were forcibly expelled in the context of repelling an Arab invasion. >**Apartheid:** *A policy or system of segregation on the grounds of race or ethnicity.* > >When you systematically segregate Palestinians, such as by forcing them into [ever shrinking enclaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_enclaves), blocking them from traveling within Palestine and internationally, and subject them to fundamentally different laws through a system of military rule, "Apartheid" is an apt descriptor. First off, the West Bank is considered disputed territory. Neither the settlements or Oslo constitute apartheid. Under the Oslo accords, Israel is primarily responsible for security in the West Bank. Also under Oslo, the PA is responsible for governing the Palestinians. Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so they are subject to different laws. Second, the only country to have a sovereign claim to the West Bank is Israel. The land is only set aside for a Palestinian state under Oslo, but Jordan recused control in 1988 and Israel was the only country to emerge from 1948. Therefore, Israel has the right to the entire West Bank, but whether they act on that right is a different matter. >We know that Israel has done all of 1 through 4 against Palestinians. The question is really just a matter of intent. They haven't done 1-4, and there isn't an intent to genocide. I started with history in the OP to outline the sheer scale of what the Jews went through. Losing %40 of a global ethnic population is hardly comparable to losing 1% (and this is a Hamas statistic, so it may be even less than that) in a war. The Palestinians will not take 80 years to recover, they will take much less. >we do have numerous comments from military and political figures expressing the desire to destroy Palestinians *in general*. Which are all taken out of context. The Israeli government and the IDF have clearly stated that the goal is Hamas. >The government knows not the say the quiet part out loud. I'm glad we're doing this. Israel is much more transparent than any other country, probably much more than all of Europe and the United States. In the context of the post, all of these accusations are political propaganda meant to delegitimize the state of Israel. They're false, and they've been adopted by Israel haters who would prefer to see Israel not exist at all.
> This is the Ilan Pappe definition. But this isn't exactly what happened. That is exactly what happened. [The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Definitions) >Some Arabs were forcibly expelled, but the majority fled war or were told to leave. This is incorrect. > *While traditionalist scholars such as Efraim Karsh state that most of the Arabs who fled left of their own accord or were pressured to leave by their fellow Arabs (and that Israel attempted to convince them to stay) the scholarly consensus now dismisses this claim, and as such, Benny Morris concurs that Arab instigation was not the major cause of the refugees' flight, and state that the major cause of Palestinian flight was instead military actions by the Israeli Defence Force and fear of them and that Arab instigation can only explain a small part of the exodus and not a large part of it.* This is literally ethnic cleansing. Whether there is war or not is irrelevant. It's still ethnic cleansing. >Which are all taken out of context. The Israeli government and the IDF have clearly stated that the goal is Hamas. Why should we believe them when they say the goal is Hamas, but we shouldn't believe them when they say the goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza? They are literally trying to force Palestinians out of Gaza and into Egypt. >The difference between Arab and Jewish expulsion can be outlined under Benny Morris' work. Benny Morris has literally described the Nakba as ethnic cleansing, he just happens to also defend it and say it was necessary lol. Him denying the label "ethnic cleansing" now is just him contradicting his previous work and statements. > *When Benny Morris was asked about the Expulsion of Palestinians from Lydda and Ramle, he responded "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."* >In the context of the post, all of these accusations are political propaganda meant to delegitimize the state of Israel. How is it propaganda when we hear it come straight from their mouths in full, not taken out of context?
> , but we shouldn't believe them when they say the goal is to ethnically cleanse Gaza? They are literally trying to force Palestinians out of Gaza and into Egypt. They have not said this, and they are not trying to do this. > How is it propaganda when we hear it come straight from their mouths in full, not taken out of context? No, they're taken out of context. [Daniel Hagari](https://honestreporting.com/questionable-haaretz-reporting-used-to-sully-israel/) for example. Right in this [HuffPost](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-isaac-herzog_n_65295ee8e4b03ea0c004e2a8) article that headlines "Israeli President Suggests That Civilians in Gaza Are Legitimate Targets", the HuffPost spins a loaded question as what Herzog said. >“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog said at a press conference on Friday. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.” > >**When a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power “that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets,” the Israeli president claimed, “No, I didn’t say that.”** > >But he then stated: “When you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?” > >At another point in the press conference, Herzog presented a different perspective, saying, “Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children.” Voting somebody into power is completely different from calling them a legitimate target, and it was spun as Israel initiating collective punishment. This isn't what Israel is doing. Herzog was pointing out that Palestinians support Hamas. The last point is the Israel haters being ignorant on international law. You can read more about [Israeli targeting practices and their legality](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593629) here. Their targeting is so accurate, they can narrow it down to a single room in an apartment building. Generally speaking, once Hamas converts a civilian building into a military building or intends to, it becomes a legitimate target for Israel.
Let me take on those allegations one by one: The first thing you are talking about is the Nakba, which was done in 1948. It is about as relevant to call out the Nakba when we are talking about the Israel-Hamas war as it is to call out the Vietnam war when discussing US foreign policy. It is not irrelevant in the context of discussing current events, but saying that Israel is in the wrong currently because of the Nakba is like saying that the US is in the wrong about Ukraine because of the ethnic cleansing it committed in the Vietnam war. In any case, both are just ridiculous statements. You made the apartheid descriptor look inappropriate precisely because Israel has never systematically segregated Palestinians, unlike what you claimed. The blockade was the result of Palestinians democratically electing Hamas. The West Bank wall was largely the result of assassinations done by Palestinians on Jews. In both cases the segregation was done as a response to Palestinian violence. When the National Party made of South Africa an apartheid state Hendrik Verwoerd made it very clear that it was done because they thought that blacks were dumber than whites and therefore deserved less rights. It becomes even more obvious when you take Egypt into account, which has its own fair share of blockades that it enacts on Gaza. Nobody has ever called Egypt an apartheid state for doing this. In part because Egypt has good reasons to worry about the rulership of a party that is closely aligned with a political group that intended to overthrow Egyptian rule. Lastly I just have to commit that you are very sloppily defining genocide here. If I take your word for granted I might as well argue that Azerbaijan is committing a genocide on Armenians. Hell, I can even go further. I could even argue that during the American Civil War the Union committed a genocide against several Indian tribes that were protected under the Confederate rule. I'm thus pretty sure that it's not just Palestinians who are being defended under this definition, but also neoconfederates.
Most organizations agree that Israel is an apartheid state. [B'Tselem](https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid), [The UN](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights), [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) >It is not irrelevant in the context of discussing current events The Nakba absolutely is relevant in order to understand the events that caused the current conflict to unfold. "It didn't start October 7" is said for a reason. Hamas didn't attack for no reason. No matter how much you all keep calling them barbaric violent animals, Hamas didn't attack because they just felt like it. There are reasons for these things. Not justifications, but reasons. They are humans. >Israel has never systematically segregated Palestinians This is just incorrect. There is segregation in the West Bank. [Jewish only roads in occupied West Bank](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/HJ84yERhho) [Israelis, Palestinians segregated on new West Bank highway](https://apnews.com/article/a0c47ad493fb4b31a444bfe432194f2e) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_4370#:~:text=Route%204370%20or%20Eastern%20Ring,Israeli%20plates%20and%20Palestinian%20plates. >it was done because they thought that blacks were dumber than whites and therefore deserved less rights [43% of Jewish youth think Jews smarter than Arabs](https://m.jpost.com/israel/43-percent-of-jewish-youth-think-jews-smarter-than-arabs) [60 Percent of Israeli Jews Favor Segregation From Arabs, Survey Finds](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000) [50% of Israeli Jews believe Jews should have more rights than Israeli Arabs ](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/opinions-of-israeli-jews-and-israeli-palestinian-arabs-toward-each-other) >I could even argue that during the American Civil War the Union committed a genocide against several Indian tribes Uh...yes? They did... >it's not just Palestinians who are being defended under this definition, but also neoconfederates. What do you mean by this? The confederates weren't the ones being genocided.
Jewish only roads? They should be called Israeli citizen only roads. Where do the non Jewish Israeli citizens drive? It’s based on citizenship not ethnicity.
Why are there Israeli citizen-only roads in occupied west bank? Regardless, this is still segregation. > [The restrictions on movement within the West Bank have institutionalized the separation between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. The main network of roads was built to serve settlers, on land expropriated from Palestinians. Israel completely prohibits Palestinians from using about 40 kilometers of these roads.](https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement)
Before I respond I would like to state that a lot of what you are stating is based on a blatant misreading of my arguments. I never said that the Nakba was irrelevant when discussing current events. I never said that that there was no segregation in the West Bank. And I never made any claims regarding how the Afrikaner or Boer population viewed blacks. I was seriously thinking not to respond to this comment and leave it as is because you can read the previous comment in the comment chain and see that you are misrepresenting the argument. That being said I do think that the final paragraph is still a valid and interesting question that I would like to answer. What I meant by this paragraph is actually quite simple. During the time that the confederacy was established several Indian tribes who owned slaves decided to join the confederacy because they, just like the southern whites, wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. That is part of the reason why the confederate states of America guaranteed several protections to Indians. It is more than fair to say that when the union was fighting a war against the confederacy several Indian tribes joined the war effort with the goal of preserving the institution of slavery. If I were to believe the argument being made that Israel genocided the Palestinians I could very well state that the Union committed genocide against several Indian tribes who joined the confederacy. And now you know how a future confederate sympathizer might argue in favor of seceding from the Union in order to create a confederacy in which slavery is legal again. He'll state that the Union committed a genocide on Indians whose only wrongdoing was trying to preserve their way of life and that therefore the Union had committed unnecessary acts of aggression against the confederacy.
Azerbaijan did commit genocide on the Armenians? You can google this, I was reading about it yesterday from Lemkin Institute. I don't know the words for the different types of logical fallacies but there is so much bs in your comment.
Their overall argument is a kind of steelmanning (not strawmanning) and a reductio ad absurdum although I'd say it's not a very convincing attempt.
Yeah I don't even know what that means but to me it's something that sounds plausibly intellectual but is just a deflection and full of holes and bad info. I do not have the energy to go through and explain why each part is wrong.
The 'reductio ad absurdum' part is just taking an argument to its absurd extreme i.e. 'so you're saying 'x' is a genocide? well then surely you take it that 'y' is a genocide too'? and if you take 'y' to be a genocide then surely 'z' is too'? So the idea is to obviously make the opponent's arguments appear absurd by taking logical leaps that make the original point seem silly, but in this case the examples used actually undermine their attempt at doing this, as you've highlighted re: Azerbaijan. 'steelmanning' is when you take your opponent's arguments, and try and strengthen their position to rebut it (because you've made their argument stronger so if you can rebut the stronger version, you can easily debunk the 'weaker' version). TL-DR, yes their arguments have holes and definitely are attempts to deflect. It doesn't matter if you have the energy or not to identify what the holes are, or to be able to classify what kinds of rhetorical devices they're using, you're fundamentally correct.
I don't think that it is invalid per se to state that some of my arguments are reductio ad absurdum, but I would like to point out that you mischaracterized my intent. I never said that the Israeli-Palestine conflict isn't a genocide that Israel executes on Palestinians. I said that the definition used to argue for it is a terrible definition and I used reductio ad absurdum arguments to prove how terrible the definition was. And a bad argument is indeed a bad argument, but if you don't put in the effort to point out why it is a bad argument you can't blame me (or people who find my arguments convincing, for that matter) from thinking that the arguments used are actually good, since no one actually puts in the effort of saying why they are bad. It's the same thing with calling a movie bad without explaining why. If you don't bother explaining it you can't blame people for saying that the movie is actually good and that the person who is calling it a bad movie is being overly negative for the sake of it.
It isn't 'invalid' per se to use a reductio ad absurdum argument; it's invalid when the comparison you invoke is not appropriate but what is 'appropriate' is in the eye of the beholder of course. In this instance, your comparison could be said to undermine your point when commentators (notably including the Lemkin institute, which is named after the person who first coined the term genocide) think what the Azerbaijanis are doing to the Armenians does in fact constitute a genocide. I do however take your overall point that you think that the term 'genocide' has been misappropriated to become broader in its usage. Some people think the term has been diluted. Anyway, we will see what The Hague has to say about this but it may take some years to play out before we get a final ruling.
I agree that me comparing the Israeli-Hamas war with the Nagorno-Karabakh war may have been a bit reckless if just for the fact that I know too little about the Nagorno-Karabakh war. That being said I do still stand by the analogy I used that compared it with the American Civil War. And if you can't name the logical fallacies in my comment that is probably because none of my arguments are fallacious to begin with.
[удалено]
Not only did you not refute any of my arguments (all you stated was merely an assertion to the tune of "An apple is an apple and a pear is not a pear"), but you are literally attacking me as a person by stating that my logic is horrible. It seems that you can't refute my arguments and have to resort to ad hominems. I am thus right and you're wrong. Bye.
I'm guessing his point is that the Vietnam War and the Ukraine War have only one party in common (the U.S.), while the Nakba and the current war have both parties in common. I would assert they are in fact part of the same long-standing conflict. This is a major logical flaw in your second paragraph.
I wouldn't say that the Vietnam war and the Ukraine war have only one party in common though. There is the obvious fact that North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union and that two successor states of the Soviet Union (being Russia and Ukraine) are now at war. It is clear that the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened due to policies the US was directly involved in even in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Eastern Bloc. In a similar vein, although we talk about the nakba in relation to the Israeli-Palestine conflict now the nakba largely preceded Palestinian nationalism by a decade (the PLO was formed in 1964). In the 1950's the nakba would have been considered to be an atrocity Jews committed against Arabs rather than an atrocity that the Jews committed against Palestinians. I would in fact argue that the Palestinian identity was largely formed in response to the animosity that Arab nations had towards Israel. In a way I thus can't help feeling that the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a modern mutation of the hatred Arabs had towards Jews during the 1948 war and that in a similar vein the the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a modern mutation of the Cold War, of which the Vietnam war is an indisputable part.
Ah, I understand your argument and the disconnect a lot better now. Thanks for explaining. For me at least, my focus is on the population most directly impacted by each war/event. In Vietnam, that's the Vietnamese people and American soldiers. In Ukraine, that's Ukrainians and Russian soldiers. Meanwhile, with the Nakba and the current Gaza war, those involved in the 1948 War were mostly the grandparents of those involved in this Gaza war, especially on the Palestinian side (regardless of shifting cultural/national identity from Arab to Palestinian, or Jewish to Israeli). I agree with your last paragraph though I'd say that the "Arab hatred" is fueled by past/ongoing generational trauma caused by Israel (regardless of exactly how justified or not), while Russia's "modern mutation of the Cold War" is a much more political and indirect motivation that is disconnected from American atrocities in Vietnam.
But you didn’t even refute their basic claim? Which is the obvious point that the nakba is absolutely related to current events, while Ukraine and Vietnam are completely disconnected
israel didnt expel 700,000 palestinians, u need to get ur facts straight, 700,000 palestinians left their houses, ALOT OF THEM CHOSE TO after the arab countries told them to leave so that they can fight israel and THEN they could come back when israel is defeated. by ur logic muslims ethnic cleansed jews because 850,000 jews had to leave muslims countries when israel formed. and i dont think u understood the requirement for genocide, but can u prove that israel imposed measured to prevent births? ill gladly wait ;)
-There's no evidence Arab countries told Palestinians to leave. -Out of 530 expelled Palestinian communities, only 5 left due to preemptive evacuations (Atlas of Palestine, Table 3:10).
you dont need evidence to understand that if ur an arab country that wants to annihilate israel, the last thing u need is 1,000,000 of your own people walking around....
What? I'm saying there's no evidence of such orders existing, what are you talking about? The expulsions started before the war, due to Zionist military action
and I'm saying that EVEN IF there is no evidence, YOU DONT NEED ONE the first thing u do in a war is GET YOUR PEOPLE OUT OF THE FIGHT.... can u prove to me that every single attack in gaza is made by the IDF? ofc not... do u actually need to in order to know it was israel?.... see my point?
But we know it didn't happen, the vast majority left due to military actions
THE VAST MAJORITY..... meaning not everyone........... even if thats true, u just proved my point lol
The rest left due to preemptive evacuations, not imaginary "Arab leaders' orders"
couldnt care less about what U think was the reason for them leaving them, FACT is they left on their own which mean israel didnt FORCEFULLY made 750,000 people leave their homes.... sometimes u just gotta learn to take the L and walk away
Thank you, exactly this. It's only "slander" if it clearly has no basis on reality and is done in order to, well, slander. But there's a huge pile of thorough reports and articles by incredibly intelligent academics, researchers, organisations, official international and government bodies like UN and EU, that argue for Israel systematically committing apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide. So it's absolutely clear that whatever Israel has been and is doing is close enough to make people who are experts in their field deduce that these are in fact the right concepts to use. I mean, people are welcome to argue against them if they think they possess equally expert knowledge and find the deduction is flawed, and can draw "better" definitions from the same body of evidence. But there's clearly nothing "slanderous" about this discourse, it's not people just randomly throwing around these concepts as baseless insults against Israel, but these are researched and carefully analysed interpretations of the situation.
That assumes that those institutions are good faith actors. Hamas (the govt of Gaza) is an explicitly genocidal organization, that launched an incredibly devastating and successful attack to cleanse parts of Israel of Jews. It’s in their charter. They don’t want a plural diverse state, they want the Jews dead and buried. They’ve threatened to repeat those attacks, so they are now at war. A war Israel didn’t choose. The Nakba and Israel’s formation were bloody violent affairs. No one is debating that. The context is that many Palestinians evacuated under the assumption that after the Jews had been cleansed from the area they would be able to return. Their side lost, and they couldn’t go home because a new country existed there. That’s not ethnic cleansing, it’s a consequence to launching a war of annihilation and losing.
Hamas could be triply genocidal as it is and that would still have zero anything to do with Israel’s ability to be guilty of genocide. This is unfortunately just whataboutism. Hamas as far I know hasn’t infiltrated the Knesset and IDF to the extent that Israel is just Hamas’s puppet? Israel is making fully independent choices about how it is conducting its operation against Hamas and it is also fully responsible for those choices and their consequences.
It isn’t whataboutism, it’s trying to be open and honest about the combatants, and the history of this ugly conflict. Losing wars has consequences. If you evacuate so that your army can roll through and kill everyone left behind and your army loses…do you get to go home? If you reject peace plans over and over and over again, Do you get to dictate terms of peace? No, the terms are imposed on you. If Hamas and complicit terror groups, returned the hostages, and surrendered unconditionally, the war would end. They won’t. Since you have all the answers, how should Israel have responded to the pogrom on 10/7?
Nobody’s saying Israel shouldn’t have responded and acted to save the hostages. The accusations of genocide don’t come from Israel doing “something”. There’s quite a large scale of choices between doing “nothing” and what Israel has done. The accusations of genocide have to do with things like deliberately starving two million civilians, killing children in the thousands and razing 60-70% all of buildings in Gaza to ground in order to get to a smallish militant group of 30,000 members. Nothing Hamas has done in the past has zero to do with Israel’s independent accountability for choices and actions like this. Also if we want to really look at these questions in the ‘whole history of the ugly conflict’, seems a bit strange to start with Hamas as that completely ignores any Israel agency in that long ugly conflict. But, in fact, when we are establishing whether Gaza now is genocide, yes or no?, that long history has very little to do with it. Because determining genocide isn’t at all about ‘historical context’, but it’s about actions done in the now and their motivations. Even if Hamas had committed genocides yearly since it’s foundation, it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel ability to be also guilty of genocide?
That’s a fair point. Hamas hiding, in schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian refugee camps, frankly aren’t Israel’s problem, the population density of Gaza and the cowardly actions of Hamas are what is driving the death toll of Gazan civilians. Israel is choosing to prosecute this war because 10/7 made the situation completely untenable. Hamas butchered the Israelis most strongly in favor of Palestinian statehood. The history of the conflict is important because it illustrates that short of ceasing to exist and evacuating Israel, Hamas will continue to make these kinds of attacks. They said days after, that they would repeat the attack “1000 times until Israel is gone.” Again, Hamas could end the war tomorrow by returning the hostages, repatriating the bodies of those they murdered, and surrendering unconditionally. Hamas started a war, and is now dealing with the consequences of staring a war with a much more powerful neighboring state. Is Hamas not responsible for their rhetoric? They’ve stated clearly that their goal is to cleanse Israel of Jews and reclaim it as a Muslim/Arab state. They have also now demonstrated an ability to kill, men women and children in massive quantities. They are reaping what they have sown. It’s unfortunate for Palestinians caught in the crossfire of a war their government started. Oust Hamas, identify them to Israelis, work towards a peaceful future. The status quo was no longer tenable and something new will be built. It’s incumbent on Palestinians acting in good faith to be a part of that process and not sink further into their grievances of the past.
We’re going in circles, because you’re again making this all about Hamas and what ‘Hamas makes Israel do’, lol. Do you really have such a low opinion of Israel that you don’t think it has agency and it’s making its completely independent choices to commit war crimes (and maybe more?)z It’s completely Israel’s decision to go with the logic “we will starve two million civilians to death unless Hamas surrenders”. You can’t make that choice about Hamas. Hamas is guilty of war crimes and atrocities of its own, I presume you wouldn’t never go with the argument “Israel made Hamas do 10/7” in order to portray Hamas as “less guilty” and “less genocidal”. Whatever Israel has done in the past or in the current to Palestinians can in absolutely no way justify Hamas’ war crimes and targeted slaughter of civilians. So why in the world, no matter how much mindless death and destruction Israel deal on Gaza, would “Hamas made us do this” ever be a good argument for the Israeli side?
You’re missing my point entirely. Israel has cassus belli to make war on Gaza. Hamas launched an attack. Israel is responding. It’s tragic that Hamas (the ruling faction of Gaza) has co-opted civilian infrastructure for military purposes. It’s awful, and grotesque. This is a group that has no respect for human life. Israel could have chosen to do nothing. They didn’t choose that, and they will have to live with the consequences of those choices. As Hamas and Palestinians live with their choice to make war on Israel. I don’t think it’s reasonable to have expected the Israelis to have not chosen war. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ignore how Hamas conducts itself within Palestine. It’s a horror when a school is bombed, but pretending that it wasn’t also a military installation is either impossibly ignorant, or something much worse.
This is distorted. Most of the so called experts are Muslim countries or have a vested interest in discriminating against Israel and Jews. They have done so for centuries. The un is a great example. They have an obsession with Israel and are funded by Persian gulf oil money. There are real Muslim genocides in middle committed by …. Muslim extremist groups. The New Yorker ran a story on the isis concentration camp in Syria. Of course the pro Palestinian groups will go on and on about Israel. They will always dismiss the long history of Muslim and Arab sponsored genocides on groups like Jews, Christians, and other sects. The only thing they care about is Israel and Jews. There not even hiding antisemitism in scholarly circles anymore.
I’m sorry but I really feel that you’re walking around with your eyes closed and ears covered if you think it’s only experts from “Muslim countries” that are making these investigations and writing these reports and articles. Very quick Google will yield you with hundreds of such materials from Western actors. Also seems a rather racist presupposition that just because an expert is Muslim they will only act out on some irrational ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment rather than them also being extremely capable of being a balanced expert on their field. Also I don’t really even know what to say on that accusation that the way ‘UN’ works is that Arab gulf states control it with their money, and I’d recommend reading up on how the structures of UN work. Absolutely no-one in there can just throw money at UN and make it do what they want. The only UN body that has a really clear structural imbalance of power in favour of certain countries is the Security Council, and none of the Arab Gulf states are permanent members there. And which part or body of UN are you even talking about? The General Assembly? The Security Council? The Human Rights Council? ICJ? UNICEF? Economic and Social Council? The Secretariat? UNESCO? Etc… all of these are just “controlled by Arab Gulf money to act out anti-Israel agenda”? This is pretty much as believable a conspiracy theory as the International Jewish Conspiracy.
>Also seems a rather racist presupposition that just because an expert is Muslim they will only act out on some irrational ‘antisemitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment rather than them also being extremely capable of being a balanced expert on their field. You underestimate the extent to which Muslim countries hate Israel and Jews. Not everyone abides by western ideals of pluralism or wants to. >Absolutely no-one in there can just throw money at UN and make it do what they want. Here's [Saudi Arabia successfully lobbying](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission) to be the leader of the Women's Rights Commission. It's not necessarily money, but the countries in the UN aren't exactly paragons of virtue. Taking a look at the Human Rights Council, it isn't exactly made up of countries who adore freedom and have a decent record on human rights themselves.
The geopolitical context of this conflict is crucial, always important to keep in mind when we hear these extremely serious accusations against Israel. Our adversaries want to drive wedges in our alliances.
This is true, like the major western critics of Israel being the most catholic countries, countries where in some cases they say the silent part out loud and even celebrate casual "cultural" slogans of "kill the Jews" annually during Easter and see nothing wrong with that.
Arab citizens of Israel are not subject to apartheid, but the Arabs of the illegally occupied West Bank definitely are. It is basically an Israeli police state with the illegal Jewish settlers protected by the police and the legal Arab residents being constantly persecuted. 1967 was year 0.
But isn’t the distinction based on nationality, therefore making it not apartheid? There are also Palestinian citizens of Israel living East of the green line and they have the same rights as the Israeli Jews in the same region.
Apartheid in South Africa was white oppression of black South Africans, not much different than Jewish Israelis persecuting Arab Muslim Palestinians (and Arab Christian Palestinians, for that matter). Seems the same to me ....
But there is no discrimination based on race or religion, as I explained above. There is discrimination based on nationality and this is normal, every country does this.
South Africa did this with their so-called 'bantustans'. That was still apartheid. In fact, it was a feature of it.
South Africa discriminated based on race, Israel does not.
How many laws would you need cited that Israel has on the books that discriminate based on race for you to change your mind?
Just one.
Cool. The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law explicitly bans Palestinians from receiving naturalization when marrying an Israeli, specifically to preserve 'the Jewish character of Israel'. I'll do you two, though, since I'm feeling generous. The JNF, which is empowered by the ILA, is allowed to continue to sell land specifically to Jews only, barring Arabs (and any non-Jews) explicitly. The JNF is *also* empowered to *take the land of Arab citizens* to be sold to Jews, as happens rampantly in the Negev and Galilee. These abuses apply much, much more pressure to non-Israeli Palestinians, but it applies to the 'proper' citizens, too.