EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 129
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24402 Posts
On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote: I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking? Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things. These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides. They do not deserve the benefit or trust. I get the people all the way down the rabbit hole who are some how anti Ukraine as well. But for those people who are not guzzling down the Russian propaganda, Iran is supporting Russia, AND Hamas is their proxy army. Do you really believe they are fighting Israel for the freedom of Palestinians? They hate freedom! + Show Spoiler + Before I get yelled at, this does not mean you can criticize Israel just do it about the things they are actually doing and without always assuming the worst intentions without facts to back it up It’s overwhelmingly a case of ‘we don’t like these things and wish Israel would stop doing them’. The things you point to in many people’s eyes are precisely why Israel gets more criticism more frequently than other places. If you can be relatively egalitarian to your own, then subjugating another people is, in some eyes that much worse. As the wider left may be more vocally critical about police abuse of power, it doesn’t naturally follow that they don’t condemn criminals. The bar should be set higher for the arm of the state that can enact violence. In a similar fashion people can hold a liberal state to a higher standard than a populace penned into a borderline prison with zero prospects. Add to that power, and the wielding of power being a pretty big lens in the left wing toolkit. The history of the region and the classic hallmarks of colonialism and imperialism have distorted it into the state it is in now. Take your pick of a veritable smorgasbord of examples of Western powers interfering for their own benefit, frequently against any kind of secular liberalisation movements. This is entirely consistent with still being against Hamas, or Iran’s actions or whatever. | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote: This is pure fantasy. Firstly, I think you’ve got a very mistaken idea of how radical the people you listed were. They didn’t simply ask nicely and win the men with guns over with the raw power of pacifism. Hell, MLK was murdered by the men with guns and his message was buried with him. I didn't explain precisely what those leaders did, so I'm not sure what mistake you saw that needed correcting here. They promoted non-violent methods of protest. Those methods worked. I'm suggesting that similar methods (feel free to speak out the historical specifics if you like) would work here too. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Secondly, it solves nothing. I don't personally consider self determination and a state nothing. That would solve most of the major issues Pro-Palestinians are concerned with by itself. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Will Israelis give up their lands simply because Palestinian Ghandi asked for it? Israel is pretty desperate for nearby friends, they usually settle for countries who will even be willing to just not attack them. They gave Egypt the oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) for an agreement than Egypt would just stop attacking them. The West Bank and Gaza are a major pain in the butt for them financially, militarily, and politically. If they had reasonable assurances that those places would be friendly (or even just neutral) towards them, the vast majority of the war weary Israeli electorate would happily hand over the keys. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:And how much land will they give up? Probably to around the 1967 borders with some adjustments, as multiple offers have indicated.On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:They’re not fighting because they’re too stupid to try asking nicely... They’re fighting because they feel that is all that remains. The Palestinian may feel this way, sure. I wasn't posting to tell them what they should feel. I was posting to explain what would be strategically advantageous for their cause. I did say that them following my suggestion was unlikely. That feeling may be part of the reason why it's unlikely. It doesn't make it a bad idea, if they were able to overcome their feelings and do it.On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:This revelation you’ve had is nonsense. This is not some novel revelation of mine. Golda Meir said it decades ago “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Not to mention, the nonviolent protest idea was implemented successfully by leaders (Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela) in locations around the world. The fact that you are surprised by the suggestion of non-violent Palestinian protest is actually a really sad commentary on the situation in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm separating these other parts of your post because they have less to do with the point of my post and more to do with other points that we happen to also disagree on. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:How much of India did Ghandi allow Britain to keep? That's not really a reasonable comparison. England was an imperial power whose people lived half a world away and just had some companies and soldiers in India. Israel's population base is in Israel and nowhere else. They can't just pull out the troops and fly back to Israel. They are already in Israel and they have nowhere to retreat to.On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Are Palestinians going to be allowed to move back onto their grandfather’s land? I'm not sure that that is a reasonable request at this point and it would upturn world society if we followed the logic to it's conclusion. Should some guy living in Wisconsin be able to take over the private house of some guy living in Tel Aviv because his grandfather lived nearby 70 years ago? I don't think Native Americans should be able to go up to anyone's house in America and take it because their grandparent lived there. Nor the Aboriginals in Australia. Nor the First Peoples in Canada. The people who live there now didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished for something done by someone they probably didn't even know in ages gone by. And no modern government offers such things, even though many have displaced peoples in the past. The morally elevated nations who feel guilt for the past actions of their country do give reparations in other ways. Germany gives monetary payouts to holocaust survivors. America and Canada give tax and educational benefits to descendants of natives. But literally no one let's them take back their old house decades later, after it's changed hands multiple times. Certainly not for people who didn't even live there themselves. (Edit: I could hear the idea of Palestinians requesting monetary compensation from Israel btw. I personally feel that the surrounding Arab nations are more at fault for their plight and that they should be the ones paying, but at least that sort of request would be within the realm of things real countries actually do, rather than a unique standard applied to Israel and no one else.) On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Because if not they will remain in a perpetual state of intergenerational refugees. The intergenerational refugee status is a weird thing because it's an artificial creation unique to this conflict. In WW2, there were over 40 million displaced persons (according to Wikipedia). The whole of Europe was in upheaval and people had to flee as armies moved through and the borders of many countries were redrawn. Those people moved to new places, made a life for themselves, and stopped being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks displaced from Turkey didn't move back to Turkey to stop being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Jews didn't have to move back to their various Arab states to stop being refugees. Don't even get me started about where everyone ended up in the Balkans. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War and the War in Ukraine are currently ongoing and already the refugee problems are diminishing as those people move to new countries and make new homes for themselves. I've met a number from both with jobs in my area. These situations are tragic for all of these peoples when they are displaced. But why are Palestinians unique that they keep their "refugee" status after they get a new home a job etc? There are Palestinian "refugee camps" that are basically just neighborhoods today. Not tents, but houses. People are dentists and stuff. They aren't on the run anymore. They are so stable they are able and willing to raise families there (not many families are formed when people are running for their lives.) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15466 Posts
On November 30 2023 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So either Hamas is 1.) Lying. or 2.) Can't get the groups in the South to partake in the exchange anymore. https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1730070597491691584 Lmao I love how Hamas is like “wow dude I’m doing my best, can you cut me a break”, as if they didn’t violently kidnap these people and hold them for weeks. One of my favorite parts about the knee jerk tribalism people are experiencing is that they are able to pretend this is some kinda totally equal transaction between 2 entirely valid factions. As if kidnapping a bunch of people is some totally valid form of bargaining, rather than the situation itself being a glowing example of what Hamas really is. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22988 Posts
On November 30 2023 14:00 WombaT wrote: It’s overwhelmingly a case of ‘we don’t like these things and wish Israel would stop doing them’. The things you point to in many people’s eyes are precisely why Israel gets more criticism more frequently than other places. If you can be relatively egalitarian to your own, then subjugating another people is, in some eyes that much worse. As the wider left may be more vocally critical about police abuse of power, it doesn’t naturally follow that they don’t condemn criminals. The bar should be set higher for the arm of the state that can enact violence. In a similar fashion people can hold a liberal state to a higher standard than a populace penned into a borderline prison with zero prospects. Add to that power, and the wielding of power being a pretty big lens in the left wing toolkit. The history of the region and the classic hallmarks of colonialism and imperialism have distorted it into the state it is in now. Take your pick of a veritable smorgasbord of examples of Western powers interfering for their own benefit, frequently against any kind of secular liberalisation movements. This is entirely consistent with still being against Hamas, or Iran’s actions or whatever. There's also the whole people living in Western ostensible democracies that are aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign with their tax dollars and votes having visceral reactions to this realization and its implications (particularly in the under 40 crowd). | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 29 2023 15:33 Acrofales wrote: In addition to what kwark said, Arafat was a pretty decent leader. Maybe not a once-in-a-generation figure who captures the global imagination of what a leader should be, as Ghandi and Mandela did, but someone the Palestinians and Israeli both listened to, and who had left armed insurgency behind in the hope of forging lasting peace. In hindsight, that did not work out. I mean, he was a terrorist for most of his life, so I'm not sure that's "what a leader should be," but he did pivot towards negotiations towards the end, which was a revolutionary turn towards peaceful solutions for the PLO, so I give him credit where credit is due there. The "in hindsight that did not work out" line is a weird way of saying that he effectively scuttled the best chance his people had of having a state. Clinton really wanted a two state solution to happen and blamed Arafat for the talks falling apart, saying: "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." and Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one." | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15466 Posts
Is there not historical record? Negotiations of this nature must be documented in ways that couldn't be explained away. I know they likely try to keep most stuff secret, but "agreed to these terms when offered" or "did not agree to these terms when offered" is too major for it to not be agreed upon fact | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On November 30 2023 14:47 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand how there is uncertainty or disagreement regarding negotiation processes. Do they both say the other didn't sign? They'd sign but the other one won't? I feel like I often hear people say Palestinians turned down negotiations but I also often hear people say Israel turned down negotiations. Is there not historical record? Negotiations of this nature must be documented in ways that couldn't be explained away. I know they likely try to keep most stuff secret, but "agreed to these terms when offered" or "did not agree to these terms when offered" is too major for it to not be agreed upon fact Well there is at least this: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution Edit: I am a bit curious though, the people who are saying Israel is committing war crimes and so, how should they deal with a "group" (Nation? idk what to call it), that shoots rockets to them from next to hospitals etc? | ||
|
Cerebrate1
265 Posts
On November 29 2023 19:03 Magic Powers wrote: Palestinians didn't "go to war" in 1948, that's strictly not true. You're making that up. It's true that they didn't have their own armed forces, so I should ammend my language a bit there. But the Palestinian leadership certainly encouraged the Arab armies to attack. So in my list of "times they didn't choose peace," I think that still counts pretty cleanly. On November 29 2023 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler + My point with this post was not to debate what is most just (I make that argument in other posts). My point is that them choosing violence over peace has always been ineffective. Many Israeli's argued they got the short end of the stick with the UN plan too, but they were still willing to choose peace and take the deal. Their problem was that they weren't given the chance to do so.In reality it was an escalation on both sides. Jews came out victorious during that conflict, which was in part because of the favoritism that British occupying forces displayed towards Jewish settlements. The tensions resulted from actions on both sides, Jewish and Palestinian. There was no "one bad side" and "one good side". Furthermore, Palestinians had every right to reject the UN partition plan because it was inherently injust for the local Palestinian population. On November 29 2023 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler + There wasn't really much primarily Arab land for Israel to give after 1948. Egypt held Gaza and Jordan held the West Bank. Egypt and Jordan could have offered Palestine a state at that point though, so if your point is that those countries never really cared about Palestinian self determination, then point taken.Many had been displaced by Jewish people under the watchful eye of British forces. And as we know with hindsight, more and more land was then taken away from Palestinians immediately as soon as the Zionist takeover had come to fruition. On November 29 2023 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:I could dismantle the rest of your arguments, too. They're all equally biased and wrong. You're rewriting history, none of what you say is true. I'm really only making one argument in that post: That non-violent solutions are better for the Palestinians than violent ones. Considering how much you preach non-violence for Israel (and that this is some universal liberal value), I'm confused why you should be so bothered by this thesis. As for re-writing history, if any historical point I said is factually inaccurate, please let me know. I'd rather be corrected than work with false information. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17916 Posts
On November 30 2023 14:34 Cerebrate1 wrote: I mean, he was a terrorist for most of his life, so I'm not sure that's "what a leader should be," but he did pivot towards negotiations towards the end, which was a revolutionary turn towards peaceful solutions for the PLO, so I give him credit where credit is due there. The "in hindsight that did not work out" line is a weird way of saying that he effectively scuttled the best chance his people had of having a state. Clinton really wanted a two state solution to happen and blamed Arafat for the talks falling apart, saying: and Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you say there. But I don't really put much stock in the Great Person view of history. Sure, we can point to some points in history where the drive of a single person in the right place at the right time appears to have moved worlds. But counterfactually, I think in South Africa, which I know quite well, we just don't know who would have lead the resistance if Mandela had died in jail. I don't think South Africa would be significantly different right now if Desmond Tutu had been the sole leader of the anti-Apartheid movement, or if Steve Biko hadn't been murdered in jail and was the leader of the ANC. The ANC would still have existed in the absence of Mandela, and somebody would have been its leader when economic conditions forced the Apartheid government's hand. That is not to detract anything from Mandela's leadership. He no doubt filled that role with aplomb and was a visionary leader who was instrumental in the peaceful transition away from Apartheid. But South Africa would have been forced to transition away from Apartheid regardless. It may have looked more like Kenya or Zimbabwe's violent regime changes, and thus been a tragic mess, with lots of dead, but ultimately a similar outcome. I know less about India, but think it would have gotten its independence from the Brits post-WW2 regardless. Ghandi may have been the leader, but there were hundreds of thousands of protesters in the non-cooperation movement. Even if nobody else had organised that movement successfully in Ghandi's absence, the time was clearly ripe for mass protests and the Brits were clearly weary of strife. It's quite amazing that India got its independence through relatively peaceful methods, but let's not act as if European nations were not pulling away from colonies in general, and not generally peacefully: the independence of Indonesia from the Dutch was contemporary and I note, Sukarno, the violent leader of the Indonesian resistance, is not in your list of examples of great leaders the Palestinians needed as a precondition for their independence. I also think the only way forward for Israel is by ensuring independence of the Palestinians in a two-nation solution, regardless of whether they have a great leader or not. Regrettably the best they had was Arafat. Right now they're stuck with Abbas, at best. That doesn't excuse Israel's behaviour. Because I don't think the world will stand idly by if Israel instead opts for the other famous historic solution to violent insurgency by anti-colonial forces: genocide. Whether in the US, Australia, Argentina or Crimea, ethnic cleansing and genocide was the preferred tool of colonizers to deal with locals who violently didn't want them there. And that seems to be the route Netanyahu wants to follow right now. Mandela needed a de Klerk. Where is Israel's version of him? | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On November 30 2023 16:05 Acrofales wrote: I also think the only way forward for Israel is by ensuring independence of the Palestinians in a two-nation solution, regardless of whether they have a great leader or not How do you suggest they do that, since over 70% of Palestinans apparently don't believe in two-state solution, even less believe that permanent peace between PAL - ISR can be achieved, and around same number believe the answer is either "peaceful popular resistance" (22%) or "armed conflict" (52%)? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24402 Posts
On November 30 2023 14:24 GreenHorizons wrote: There's also the whole people living in Western ostensible democracies that are aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign with their tax dollars and votes having visceral reactions to this realization and its implications (particularly in the under 40 crowd). Indeed, there is also that. At least with the Gulf States, or China or whoever some might have issue with there’s some economic realpolitik at play, and people like their modern lifestyles so tolerate a certain degree of bending over in terms of foreign policy. Or at least an argument can be made there, although it’s not my personal politics. Israel it’s very much less the case so it’s even less palatable again to many. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On November 30 2023 16:51 WombaT wrote: Indeed, there is also that. At least with the Gulf States, or China or whoever some might have issue with there’s some economic realpolitik at play, and people like their modern lifestyles so tolerate a certain degree of bending over in terms of foreign policy. Or at least an argument can be made there, although it’s not my personal politics. Israel it’s very much less the case so it’s even less palatable again to many. Are you saying that because Israel is a "free nation with western views" it's somehow less okay to shoot an enemy in a war than for someone else? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5496 Posts
On November 30 2023 16:16 raynpelikoneet wrote: How do you suggest they do that, since over 70% of Palestinans apparently don't believe in two-state solution, even less believe that permanent peace between PAL - ISR can be achieved, and around same number believe the answer is either "peaceful popular resistance" (22%) or "armed conflict" (52%)? To be precise, 70-80% of Palestinians support a one-state solution in which they get to ethnically cleanse the entirety of Palestine. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24402 Posts
On November 30 2023 17:12 raynpelikoneet wrote: Are you saying that because Israel is a "free nation with western views" it's somehow less okay to shoot an enemy in a war than for someone else? No I’m not sure how you got that from that post, or indeed my general posting history. Apologies if I wasn’t particularly clear. Don’t like, as I certainly don’t, the cordial relations my nation has with Saudi Arabia, that our arms manufacturers peddle our wares there? Well it’s fucking shit but they’ve certain leverage given they sit on huge reserves of the current lifeblood of the world economy. It doesn’t make their more heinous actions any better, but it does make tolerance of it in foreign policy, regrettable though I find it, at least somewhat pragmatically explicable. Or on the other end of the scale you have Ukraine, where generally public sentiment is that even if it costs our collective pocket a bit, helping out a nation invaded in a war of aggression is worth doing for reasons of humanitarian principle. Saying ‘generally’ as I’m parsing how many see it and not getting into any particular debate(s’) that some people would have on that issue. Israel doesn’t tick either crude box particularly. It’s not got the economic clout that it needs placated, even reluctantly. And its policies aren’t that of some blameless actor that needs protected against unprovoked aggression either. There’s neither a ruthlessly pragmatic, nor an idealistic reason for many to support Israel to the degree many of our governments do. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On November 30 2023 18:02 WombaT wrote: No I’m not sure how you got that from that post, or indeed my general posting history. Apologies if I wasn’t particularly clear. Don’t like, as I certainly don’t, the cordial relations my nation has with Saudi Arabia, that our arms manufacturers peddle our wares there? Well it’s fucking shit but they’ve certain leverage given they sit on huge reserves of the current lifeblood of the world economy. It doesn’t make their more heinous actions any better, but it does make tolerance of it in foreign policy, regrettable though I find it, at least somewhat pragmatically explicable. Or on the other end of the scale you have Ukraine, where generally public sentiment is that even if it costs our collective pocket a bit, helping out a nation invaded in a war of aggression is worth doing for reasons of humanitarian principle. Saying ‘generally’ as I’m parsing how many see it and not getting into any particular debate(s’) that some people would have on that issue. Israel doesn’t tick either crude box particularly. It’s not got the economic clout that it needs placated, even reluctantly. And its policies aren’t that of some blameless actor that needs protected against unprovoked aggression either. There’s neither a ruthlessly pragmatic, nor an idealistic reason for many to support Israel to the degree many of our governments do. I am referring to the post where you said: The bar should be set higher for the arm of the state that can enact violence. In a similar fashion people can hold a liberal state to a higher standard than a populace penned into a borderline prison with zero prospects. I don't understand that statement. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
On November 30 2023 17:12 raynpelikoneet wrote: Are you saying that because Israel is a "free nation with western views" it's somehow less okay to shoot an enemy in a war than for someone else? It's not any worse for Israel to act in x manner than it is for some non-western country to act in the same manner, but our opposition is more meaningful, and while say, Ethiopia's treatment of the Tigray population is worse than Israel's treatment of Palestine ((just pulling this example out of thin air, not interested in arguing the specifics of how the two compare), there's an argument to be made that Israel's treatment is contingent on western support while Ethiopia's treatment of the Tigray population is not, and thus, that it's a lot more meaningful to voice opposition to Israel even if we are equally opposed to both. The same applies to Hamas. I think the parallels to South Africa are the ones that are most apt, tbh. Maybe there's a point to be made that Palestine would benefit from a Mandela, but I think Israelis who argue for this have failed to grasp Mandela's essence. Mandela wasn't a pacifist - he thought armed resistance was the only way to end apartheid, he was considered a terrorist by much of the west, and supported acts of violence even when they resulted in civilian casualties. Now, he is still in many ways an exceptional individual who is rightly seen as a figure fighting for peace, but this is more due to his reconciliatory nature at the end of the struggle, not that he was opposed to violence to achieve justice. There's also no comparison between Hamas and Mandela; Mandela didn't fight to expel white people from South Africa, but to end oppression. But that's where the important comparison between SA and Israel is, imo: Apartheid regimes that get and are reliant upon western support. Part of why I'm so comfortable describing Israel as an apartheid regime is that I've seen the phrase be used consistently by black south africans whom I assume are able to recognize it. And then, how did apartheid end in South Africa? To put bluntly, it was not because the kind white south africans, confronted by Mandela's gentle soul, felt bad and decided to stop. More accurately, the violent struggle was increasingly difficult to deal with/combat, and the international pressure eventually caused a necessary shift in policy - and de Klerk was a change from prior hardliners who 'would not negotiate with terrorists'. Now, to be clear, I don't idealize or support a violent response to Israel's actions. However, I also don't believe for a second that the oppression would stop if the violence stopped (even if the violence is a genuine reason for increased oppression). I also believe that the violence is an almost inevitable reaction to the oppression (it's hard for me to think of any subjugated group entirely pacifist in their response to that subjugation), but I also don't think events like October 7th are inevitable (it's also hard for me to think of any other instance where a subjugated group managed to inflict that type of damage upon its oppressors). | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On November 30 2023 18:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: Now, to be clear, I don't idealize or support a violent response to Israel's actions. However, I also don't believe for a second that the oppression would stop if the violence stopped (even if the violence is a genuine reason for increased oppression). I also believe that the violence is an almost inevitable reaction to the oppression (it's hard for me to think of any subjugated group entirely pacifist in their response to that subjugation), but I also don't think events like October 7th are inevitable (it's also hard for me to think of any other instance where a subjugated group managed to inflict that type of damage upon its oppressors). Do you have any other way of stopping the conflict (war?) than what Israel is doing? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
On November 30 2023 18:28 raynpelikoneet wrote: Do you have any other way of stopping the conflict (war?) than what Israel is doing? I'm not talking about the current invasion of Gaza to stop Hamas, but rather what has been happening in the west bank (not saying there are no terrorists there, but it's not governed by Hamas) for the past decades. Solving Gaza, right now, is way above my pay grade and I'm not really opining strongly on that, other than 'avoid actions that cause too much human suffering' (which is why I've mostly been firmly arguing against blocking food water electricity and supplies. I also don't really think that bombing locations with both Hamas and civilians solves anything, but it's not a discussion I particularly care about engaging in). The West Bank is different. There, according to this, we have 141 Israeli casualties and 1220 Palestinian casualties since 2008, but only 12 Israeli non-settler non-IDF casualties. These are more managable numbers. (For comparison, the ANC killed 52 civilians between 1976 and 1984). But like, I just flat out don't believe the 'Israel's hand is forced by Hamas/palestinians' 'If Palestine would just be nice, they'd get to have much larger territory', because as far as I am concerned, this is disproven by the settlers taking more and more territory. This is a trend that has only been increasing over the past years, and one with significant political support. Not in any way arguing that all Israelis support this: For example, here are some opinion pieces/articles in Hareetz by (what I assume are jewish writers) who largely make the same arguments I do: Data collected by the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reveals that there have been at least 570 attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank this year – an average of three attacks a day Israeli Settlers and Their Political Allies Are Turning the West Bank Into Apartheid Land This camp is no longer offended by the word 'apartheid' – in fact it's doing everything it can to make it happen. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett might have a new 'brother' as part of his plans to form a new center-right party and unseat Netanyahu's Likud Settlers Have a Very Effective System for Forcing Palestinians Out of Their Homes Herding sheep into others' fields, preventing access to water, blocking roads, killing animals and breaking into homes in the middle of the night – these and other tactics are part of the daily terror perpetrated by settlers in Palestinian villages Israeli Defense Officials Slam Gov't for Harming Efforts to Fight Settlers' Violence Basically, all this needs to stop, and I can't take Israeli claims that 'everything would be good if Hamas would lay down their arms' seriously until it does. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On November 30 2023 14:52 raynpelikoneet wrote: Well there is at least this: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution Edit: I am a bit curious though, the people who are saying Israel is committing war crimes and so, how should they deal with a "group" (Nation? idk what to call it), that shoots rockets to them from next to hospitals etc? Without war crimes | ||
| ||
