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.
On January 22 2024 09:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So on one hand Hamas internal fighting has increased making diplomacy nearly impossible. While at the same Hamas leadership is fleeing Qatar and other countries as said countries cannot be seen as sponsors or safe havens for terrorism etc., otherwise no more investments. They also don't like Hamas and want them dealt with but don't want to say so publicly. Then there is Netanyahu who knows he might be headed to prison and will no longer see any position of power once he's gone. So why end the war?
DUBAI—The U.S., Egypt and Qatar are pushing Israel and Hamas to join a phased diplomatic process that would start with a release of hostages and, eventually, lead to a withdrawal of Israeli forces and an end to the war in Gaza, diplomats involved in mediating the talks said.
Taher Al-Nono, a media adviser to Hamas, said there was no real progress. After The Wall Street Journal’s report, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he rejected Hamas’s demands because they included an end to the war.
“If we agree to this, then our warriors fell in vain. If we agree to this, we won’t be able to ensure the security of our citizens,” Netanyahu said in a statement Sunday.
But people briefed on the talks said Israel and Hamas at least were again willing to engage in discussions after weeks of stalled talks following the end of the last cease-fire on Nov. 30. Negotiations were set to continue in Cairo in coming days, the people said.
The two parties’ “willingness to discuss the framework was a positive step. Mediators are now working to bridge the gap,” one of the people briefed on the talks said.
The new proposal, backed by Washington, Cairo and Doha, represents a new approach to defusing the conflict—aiming to make the release of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas part of a comprehensive deal that could lead to an end to hostilities.
In November, a pause in fighting lasted a week and was accompanied by an exchange of 100 Israeli hostages in Gaza for more than 300 Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Israeli negotiators have continued to push for a two-week halt to fighting to allow for hostage-prisoner exchanges and have been reluctant to discuss plans that envision a permanent cease-fire, Egyptian officials said.
Hamas, on the other hand, is seeking to gain maximum advantage from the captives it holds, and only wants to trade them for thousands of Palestinian prisoners and a permanent cease-fire. Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar believes that the Israelis will prioritize hostages over the battlefield and that Hamas needs to hold out as long as possible to exhaust Israel and keep international pressure on it, the officials said. Sinwar is willing to release hostages but wants a longer cease-fire and better terms than last time, the officials said.
In his remarks on Sunday, Netanyahu said he rejected Hamas’s demands, which he said included ending the war, pulling Israel’s troops out of Gaza, releasing Hamas militants involved in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, and leaving Hamas intact.
Netanyahu said he told Biden in the phone call on Friday that Israel would accept nothing but “total victory” in Gaza.
“I greatly appreciate U.S. support for Israel, and I said this to Biden. But I also stand firmly by our vital interest,” Netanyahu said.
Hamas took more than 200 hostages in a surprise assault on Israel on Oct. 7 that Israel says also left about 1,200 people dead. Some of those killed were tortured and raped, according to Israeli officials. Israeli officials have said the attack profoundly changed Israeli society and have vowed to destroy Hamas and kill its leaders.
The U.S., Egypt and Qatar see another hostage deal as the key to bringing a prolonged halt to the fighting. Egyptian officials say that while Israeli leaders publicly take an uncompromising stance, there are divisions within the Israeli cabinet, with some calling for prioritization of hostages.
In a rare interview with Israeli television, Gadi Eisenkot, a former general who is now a nonvoting member of Israel’s war cabinet, said: “We should say bravely that it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement.”
Other senior Israeli leaders disagree, saying that only continued military pressure on Hamas will compel the group to return captives.
On Tuesday in Cairo, Israeli negotiators offered another counterproposal on hostages that didn’t include a path to ending the war, Egyptian officials said. They said Egypt’s top negotiator, its intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, accused Israel’s team of not being serious about the talks.
Meanwhile, Hamas has told Egyptian and Qatari officials that the previous, short-term hostage deal was unsatisfactory, with less aid than promised reaching Gaza and many of its freed prisoners getting arrested again later.
A Qatari official said the Gulf state “continues to communicate with all parties with the objective of mediating an immediate end to the bloodshed, protecting the lives of innocent civilians, securing the release of hostages, and facilitating the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.”
The mediators have proposed a 90-day plan that would first pause fighting for an unspecified number of days for Hamas to first release all Israeli civilian hostages, while Israel would release hundreds of Palestinians that Israel has imprisoned, withdraw forces from Gaza’s towns and cities, allow freedom of movement in the Gaza Strip, end drone surveillance and double the amount of aid going into the enclave, according to the plan.
In the second phase, Hamas would free female Israeli soldiers and turn over bodies while Israel would release more Palestinians. A third phase would involve the release of Israeli soldiers and fighting-age men Hamas considers soldiers, according to Egyptian officials, while Israel would redeploy some of its forces outside the current borders of the Gaza Strip.
Israel says it has destroyed more than half of Hamas’s fighting battalions and largely cleared the enclave’s largest city, Gaza City, and its surroundings of militants. But its forces are now fighting in Khan Younis, a densely packed city in the Gaza Strip’s south, and looking ahead to clashes in the border town of Rafah, where more than 1.3 million civilians have sought refuge.
Also on the table: the formation of an international fund for the reconstruction of Gaza, and safety guarantees for Hamas political leaders, Egyptian officials said.
The plan then envisions talks for a permanent cease-fire, normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the relaunching of a process to create a Palestinian state, Egyptian officials said.
Gulf countries have ruled out funding a reconstruction of Gaza—as the Israelis have called for—without a clear and irreversible path to a Palestinian state.
A particular hindrance in the talks, said Egyptian officials, has been Hamas’s internal rifts.
On one side is Sinwar, an architect of the Oct. 7 attacks who is believed to be hiding deep in Gaza’s underground tunnel network with at least some of the hostages. Sinwar has told mediators that Hamas has essentially won the war, the officials said, despite heavy military losses, and at least 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive, mostly women and children—a Palestinian health ministry figure that doesn’t distinguish between civilians and militants.
The death and destruction has sparked criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war from Arab and other governments and protesters in the West. South Africa’s government filed a claim of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice. Israel has denied the allegation.
On the other side is Hamas’s political leadership outside of Gaza. Based in Doha, these officials have led the talks with Qatar and Egypt, are vying to keep Hamas relevant after the war ends and have indicated a willingness to demilitarize in Gaza—something Sinwar vehemently opposes, the Egyptian officials said.
Israel opposes a role for Hamas in any future Gaza government and has also expressed opposition to suggestions that the secular Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, should run the Gaza Strip, as the U.S. envisions.
Sinwar and Hamas’s political leader in Doha, Ismail Haniyeh, haven’t communicated directly in almost a month, the officials said. That has made progress on a deal difficult, they said.
It may also benefit Netanyahu to prolong the war (note that his problem is that no one is above the law in Israel. Even Prime Ministers can go to jail. A bar some other Western nations don't even reach.) But the whole point of the war was to remove Hamas from power so they can't just re-arm and commit another Oct 7 in a year or two. Any deal that leaves Hamas in power is missing the primary point of Israel fighting in the first place. They are like 80% of the way to removing Hamas from power entirely. It doesn’t make sense to give up on that goal now that it's in reach (and most of the fighting needed to make it happen is already done) and just return to the status quo of Oct 6.
Edit: Even the word "ceasefire" shows that it's a bad idea. A ceasefire is by definition a temporary cessation of fighting during a continuing war. Why is no one asking for "peace" (i.e. an end to war)? I want peace, not a ceasefire. That can only be achieved if Hamas (whose raison d'être is violently attacking Israel) is no longer in power in Gaza.
If the task is 80% complete then why is Israel warning that the war is still going to take long? If it took 3 1/2 months to get 80%, then the war should last roughly another month. I don't think that is the timeline Israel is working with. So either the task is not "80% complete", or the 80% was the easy but, and the remaining 20% is really damned hard. In neither case is 80% an accurate way to describe progress on something that is boolean in nature and has to be 100% complete to go home: the messaging is that it'll take months more, so in time, it's at most 50% complete, and in reality probably a lot less. Dismantling Hamas' ability to wage war is not the same as removing them as a local political power, which requires chopping off heads. Hamas leadership has so far remained mostly unscathed. As a comparison, it took the US over 9 years to find Osama. Would you be prepared for 9 years of occupying Gaza in order to find Yahya Sinwar and other top brass?
Fair point. I suppose I was referring to large scale warfare type actions as opposed to heading towards more police-style raids (plus tunnel demolition). Israel already has military control of most of the strip and the casualty rate has dropped off pretty sharply compared to earlier in the conflict. Israel sending a lot of their reservists home is another good indicator that the intensity is decreasing on this front.
As for your Osama comparison, I have to imagine finding someone in the 365 square km of the Gaza strip is easier than finding someone in 653,000 square km of Afghanistan, even with the tunnels. Besides for the fact that I'm not sure you need to catch Sinwar to end the heated conflict. If another government is put in control of the strip that is willing to clamp down on terrorism originating there, he's no longer very relevant. Freeing the hostages that are with him would still be a priority, but he won't be able to keep very many of them nearby if he wants to stay stealthy for long.
Oh actually, I am going to try this. Please reply with your thoughts on a path to a 2 state solution with the following assumptions already made:
1: The US supports genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, imperialism, racism, hatred, bigotry, and literally all other bad things
2: ^Same for Israel
3: Israel is 100% illegal and very bad and hateful
4: Palestinians do not possess any guilt because they are only responding to violence inflected upon them
I am curious what your thoughts are AFTER these assumptions are already carved into stone.
I will take you on that in reverse way - will show you there is a way for 2 state solution if even one of those points is false:
1 - if false - US gives Israel Cuba treatment - Israel is not self sufficient state the way US and Russia are, I would be surprised if it took as much as 10 years for them to sit down at negotiation table.
2 and 3 (this are basically same point, unless things mentioned in 1 are considered good and non hateful) + illegal which I consider settlements as such) - if false - Israel stops occupation, withdraws from settlements and stop with provocations. Hamas starts loosing support ( on the bases: if you lost kids, wife, family, friends, due to one country actions, you rather happily join to anyone who declares this country his enemy, If however your family is fine, you have house, job and some prospects for future, then it would take hell of a demagogue to convince you to some bizarre crusade, on which you have nothing to win, but everything to loose) and eventually someone reasonable takes over and some long term solutions can be found.
4 - this one is odd, I dont think anyone here suggested that Palestinians arent guilty of anything, while I would say that a lot of their recent actions is result of oppression rather than violence I would certainly not use the word "only" there. For this one then I'll try to show road to piece if it is true - If there aren't any terrorist actions (or any other which may be considered provocation) coming from Palestine and if domestic situation is stable, then any aggressive action taken by Israel, would tarnish its image (there is a big "if" though, considering that before October 7 this thread had 16 pages) and if news spread, then a lot of people would get mad and politicians want to win elections, eventually international pressure would reach the threshold where some actions would have to be taken which would lead to more actions (actions of governments tend to have self accelerating mechanism, as they generate interest, which generates more actions and so on. vide: Germany on the beginning of Ukraine war)
Fact that there doesnt seem to be the way to peace in foreseeable future ⇒ 1, 2 and 3 are true while 4 is false.
When I posted the history of Pan-Islamism, you asked me to do the same for Zionism. It took me a long time, but I did. In the link above, I also link back to my Pan-Islamism summary. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Pan-Islamism and/or Zionism, it is reasonable for us to disagree. But please keep in mind the facts I reference in both of my summaries are not commentary. They are direct references to events in history. Those facts are important when assessing these critical questions.
What you are describing in [1] is just a conscious decision to let Israel suffer under the weight of being surrounded by enemies geographically. You are saying they would negotiate more desperately because of the threat of being wiped out. As I already described, Palestinians are not looking to negotiate right now either. It is inaccurate and dishonest to frame the situation as Israel being the only ones who are not seeking negotiation. What you are describing is just making Israel so desperate that they would accept some sort of consolation prize rather than being wiped out entirely.
I already showed why [2]/[3/] is not true in my summaries of both Pan-Islamism and Zionism. I wrote up the summary of Zionism by your request, so I do hope you read it. It took me a long time to read up on everything and make sure I had all the facts right. The idea that Hamas and other hatred towards Israel is a result of Israel's existence/formation/conduct is conclusively shown to be false. In my summaries, I documented the history of antisemitism in the middle east, and a variety of reasons the victim blaming is bogus. Jews were victims all around the middle east throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. The targeting of Jews within middle eastern countries is well-documented and I even summarized it for the participants in this thread to make sure people have all the facts right. Jews had been present in the region in large numbers very recently, the victims of hatred very recently, and all of it came way before partitioning a Jewish state out of Palestine.
As for [4], this fits in with the history of pan-islamism. In my summary of pan-islamism, i highlighted founding members of Hamas and where their ideology was derived from. I traced the lineage of that ideology and showed why it came before Israel's formation. Since antisemitism was deeply widespread throughout the middle east, the formation of Israel was viewed by bigots as an atrocity beyond measure, but it wasn't the root-cause for the hatred.
Thank you for interesting read and for direct link. However when I asked you to so Palestine with similar dedication I had in mind something like you did for example for Syria, eg:
Systemic action in Palestine:
Nakba for starters, and since you put rioters as systemic actions then also: Deir Yassin, Lydda, Tantura and so on...
The central facts of the Nakba in 1948 are not disputed. Approximately 750,000 Palestinians--over 80% of the population in what would become Israel--were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states. About half were expelled or fled during the first half of the war, before 15 May 1948.
The Nakba continued after the end of the war in 1949. From 1948 to 1966, Palestinians in Israel lived under martial law, subject to strict curfews, travel restrictions, and other restrictions. Israel prevented Palestinian refugees outside of Israel from returning. Palestinians continued to be expelled, and more Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed, with new Israeli settlements established in their place. Palestinian place names and the name "Palestine" itself were removed from maps and books.
Before, during and after the 1947–1949 war, hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated and destroyed. Geographic names throughout the country were erased and replaced with Hebrew names, sometimes derivatives of the historical Palestinian nomenclature, and sometimes new inventions. Numerous non-Jewish historical sites were destroyed, not just during the wars, but in a subsequent process over a number of decades. For example, over 80% of Palestinian village mosques have been destroyed, and artefacts have been removed from museums and archives.
Quite frankly it seems dishonest that from one side you look at systemic oppressions in early 20th century, but for other your research ends at 1897.
1 - It depends what one considers "consolation prize" doesn't it? Regarding willingness to negotiate, this somewhat ties to points 2/3.
"And a Gallup poll found that just 24% of Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem supported a two-state solution, down from 59% in 2012."
Thats 35% drop in support, any idea what may have caused it?
"Under a coalition government made up of a broad range of political parties and with Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid as prime ministers, Israeli authorities doubled down on their severe repression of Palestinians. Israeli authorities’ practices, undertaken as part of a policy to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians, amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution."
2/3 - " I documented the history of antisemitism in the middle east, and a variety of reasons the victim blaming is bogus. Jews were victims all around the middle east throughout the 1800s and early 1900s." Your summaries, as pointed above, didnt include Palestine (after 1897) and also, this discussion is about Palestine and Israel where Israel is not the victim, but oppressor since 1947.
On January 22 2024 06:24 stilt wrote: Okok, i'll answer tomorrow, I have to go to bed. But overall there is disagrement over the beginning of zionnism (I have mainly two points on that) On the rise of antisemitism at least in both algeria, palestine and lebanon. And on the demographic argument during antiquity even if that's the point which I am not super well versed but it's generally impossible to be sure of a number at this period concerning the ethnic cleansing and yours is most likely very inflated.
Sounds good, thanks. Just so that people don't feel like they need to spend hours reading a bunch of history crap to reply to the conversation, this is what the conclusions of my research have indicated:
1: Jews have lived in "The Jerusalem area" for a really long time. Even after their largest kingdoms were destroyed, they continued to lived in the area ever since then. People often assume Jews were entirely genocided from Jerusalem by the Romans, but many fled to nearby areas, such as the coast. They continued to occupy the area as well as move to Europe.
2: In the 1800s, Jews were victims of extreme antisemitism in both the middle east and Europe. We have well-documented antisemitism in both regions.
3: Jews have been ethnically cleansed, genocided, victims of hatred, whatever you wanna call it, so many times that it feels entirely reasonable for them to want to have some safe haven where they will not be wiped out. Its just happened so many times at this point I think its totally fair to want some kinda safe haven.
4: Since Jews have lived in the Jerusalem area many times throughout history, and they never actually left the region, it is a decent candidate for where they would try to make a safe haven.
I think the specific % of Jews and specific populations throughout history are difficult to nail down from my research. But at the very least, we do 100% know many Jews have lived in the area continuously for a super long time. But I honestly don't think its necessary for Jews to even be a majority in the region to have the region be a valid place for their safe haven.
In fact, since no matter where you try to establish a new partition of land for Jews you will always be displacing someone from that area, there isn't really any such thing as an "ideal place". Deciding to give Jews a safe haven is also deciding to kick someone out from wherever that safe haven is. But since Jews have lived there a crazy long time, in many ways its the closest we can get to the "ideal" place. I think the only point that I could see being contentious is whether or not the whole safe haven thing should exist at all. I can understand why someone would say no. But in the case of the Jews, my research showed that they have had an insane history of being persecuted and just straight up wiped out from regions many times. I am compelled to cut them some slack and give them a home SOMEWHERE that they don't have to rely on people being nice to them. They just keep getting genocided over and over.
So since we can conclusively show they stuck around the region for a really long time and they were the victims of antisemitism throughout both Europe and the Middle East in the 1800s, it feels like its impossible to frame the situation as Israel causing the antisemitism. Of course the partition of Israel pissed a lot of people off, but that was going to happen no matter where Israel was placed. That's why I'm saying the only thing I could see someone disagreeing with me on is whether it should exist at all. But I definitely think it should exist.
It is of absolutely zero interest whether Israel should exist or deserves to exist, because, it does. Would the world be in a better spot if it didn't, sure, most likely, but that's not reality. We're not going to end this debate convincing you that Israel doesn't deserve to exist, then going back in time and keeping it from existing.
Now that Israel exists, does it get to keep killing, oppressing and displacing Palestinians because it wants more of their land. And if so, on what basis?
Does it get to keep existing? Was the natural question to ask from your preamble. And I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of you are scared to say it but you believe it should not.
It does get to keep existing, yes, obviously. The majority of its people were born there and didn't ask for any of this.
Glad to hear you think that way. Hard to guess that when you right that the world would be a better place if it didn’t and Hamas is right.
No it's not hard at all because the whole point of me writing about this topic was that it wasn't worth discussing that because Israel exists anyway, as I clearly indicated.
On January 22 2024 06:24 stilt wrote: Okok, i'll answer tomorrow, I have to go to bed. But overall there is disagrement over the beginning of zionnism (I have mainly two points on that) On the rise of antisemitism at least in both algeria, palestine and lebanon. And on the demographic argument during antiquity even if that's the point which I am not super well versed but it's generally impossible to be sure of a number at this period concerning the ethnic cleansing and yours is most likely very inflated.
Sounds good, thanks. Just so that people don't feel like they need to spend hours reading a bunch of history crap to reply to the conversation, this is what the conclusions of my research have indicated:
1: Jews have lived in "The Jerusalem area" for a really long time. Even after their largest kingdoms were destroyed, they continued to lived in the area ever since then. People often assume Jews were entirely genocided from Jerusalem by the Romans, but many fled to nearby areas, such as the coast. They continued to occupy the area as well as move to Europe.
2: In the 1800s, Jews were victims of extreme antisemitism in both the middle east and Europe. We have well-documented antisemitism in both regions.
3: Jews have been ethnically cleansed, genocided, victims of hatred, whatever you wanna call it, so many times that it feels entirely reasonable for them to want to have some safe haven where they will not be wiped out. Its just happened so many times at this point I think its totally fair to want some kinda safe haven.
4: Since Jews have lived in the Jerusalem area many times throughout history, and they never actually left the region, it is a decent candidate for where they would try to make a safe haven.
I think the specific % of Jews and specific populations throughout history are difficult to nail down from my research. But at the very least, we do 100% know many Jews have lived in the area continuously for a super long time. But I honestly don't think its necessary for Jews to even be a majority in the region to have the region be a valid place for their safe haven.
In fact, since no matter where you try to establish a new partition of land for Jews you will always be displacing someone from that area, there isn't really any such thing as an "ideal place". Deciding to give Jews a safe haven is also deciding to kick someone out from wherever that safe haven is. But since Jews have lived there a crazy long time, in many ways its the closest we can get to the "ideal" place. I think the only point that I could see being contentious is whether or not the whole safe haven thing should exist at all. I can understand why someone would say no. But in the case of the Jews, my research showed that they have had an insane history of being persecuted and just straight up wiped out from regions many times. I am compelled to cut them some slack and give them a home SOMEWHERE that they don't have to rely on people being nice to them. They just keep getting genocided over and over.
So since we can conclusively show they stuck around the region for a really long time and they were the victims of antisemitism throughout both Europe and the Middle East in the 1800s, it feels like its impossible to frame the situation as Israel causing the antisemitism. Of course the partition of Israel pissed a lot of people off, but that was going to happen no matter where Israel was placed. That's why I'm saying the only thing I could see someone disagreeing with me on is whether it should exist at all. But I definitely think it should exist.
It is of absolutely zero interest whether Israel should exist or deserves to exist, because, it does. Would the world be in a better spot if it didn't, sure, most likely, but that's not reality. We're not going to end this debate convincing you that Israel doesn't deserve to exist, then going back in time and keeping it from existing.
Now that Israel exists, does it get to keep killing, oppressing and displacing Palestinians because it wants more of their land. And if so, on what basis?
Does it get to keep existing? Was the natural question to ask from your preamble. And I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of you are scared to say it but you believe it should not.
It does get to keep existing, yes, obviously. The majority of its people were born there and didn't ask for any of this.
Glad to hear you think that way. Hard to guess that when you right that the world would be a better place if it didn’t and Hamas is right.
No it's not hard at all because the whole point of me writing about this topic was that it wasn't worth discussing that because Israel exists anyway, as I clearly indicated.
Stating your opinion as fact is a common thing you do I know. It does not make it fact though.
On January 23 2024 00:10 Razyda wrote: The central facts of the Nakba in 1948 are not disputed. Approximately 750,000 Palestinians--over 80% of the population in what would become Israel--were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees in neighboring states. About half were expelled or fled during the first half of the war, before 15 May 1948.
Those Arabs did leave their homes at that time. Since the Jews were willing to accept the 1947 UN partition plan as was without any fighting, it's a bit disingenuous to blame them for the results of the war that followed. Meanwhile, the invading Arab armies told all the local Arabs to leave the area so they could kill every man, woman, and child without having to worry about distinguishing between Jew and Arab. Since it was generally accepted at the time that 5+ Arab armies could easily crush 1 fledgling Jewish defense, it's reasonable to assume that that was the primary motivator for most of those leaving.
On January 23 2024 00:10 Razyda wrote:Palestinian place names and the name "Palestine" itself were removed from maps and books.
Local Arabs considered themselves Arabs at the time, not a unique subgroup called Palestinians. They didn't identify with the Roman named British title for the region. They didn't even desire a separate autonomous nation from other Arab states (as can be seen by the fact that none of them so much as complained when Jordan conquered and annexed the West Bank in 1948 with no intention of ever establishing an autonomous Palestinian state there. So too with Egypt and Gaza.) It was only in 1960 that the PLO was formed as a way to contest Israel's land claim to everything outside the West Bank and Gaza. You will not find any Arab proudly calling themselves Palestinian before that time, certainly not before 1948. So changing the name from "Palestine" to "Israel" might have been a way of pushing off British history, but it had nothing to do with the Arabs.
Here is a quote from PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein on this as late as 1977:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
On January 23 2024 00:10 Razyda wrote:Geographic names throughout the country were erased and replaced with Hebrew names, sometimes derivatives of the historical Palestinian nomenclature, and sometimes new inventions.
This is an example of practicality, not something more sinister and conspiratorial.
To give an example: the city of Schem has been called that name in Hebrew since the Jewish Patriarch Jacob and his children moved there ~4,000 years ago. It's discussed in the Torah and Jews have read it out publicly in synagogue at least once a year for over 2,000 years. Foreign Muslim invaders from Arabia changed the name of the city to Nablus when they colonized the region. It wouldn't make sense for Jews to suddenly start calling the city the new Arabic name when they already had a name for it that never went out of use.
Some places, like Jericho, weren't really renamed by the Muslims. The Arabic "Aricha" is pretty close to the Hebrew "Yericho". Still, it makes sense to call a place using your own language so your people can spell and pronounce it easily. I can't imagine you have an issue with that unless you also object to the English referring to "España" as "Spain" or "Deutschland" as "Germany".
Besides for all of this, if you actually visit Israel, you will see that virtually every place has signs that designate what it is called in Hebrew, Arabic, and English. So it's pretty clear that no cultural erasure is taking place regarding the place names.
On January 23 2024 00:10 Razyda wrote: For example, over 80% of Palestinian village mosques have been destroyed
Also, I don't know where you got your statistic, but that number seems pretty suspect to me. I wouldn't be surprised if some buildings got repurposed (Israel had ton of Jewish refugees flooding in around 1948, so they had to put them somewhere), but your number sounds pretty exaggerated.
When I was in Israel, it seemed like every third street corner had a mosque and/or minaret (one of those tall skinny towers by a mosque). I was pretty well aware of them because the minarets blast out announcements by loudspeaker 5 times a day to let local Muslims know that one of their prayer times had arrived. It's even more noticeable because one of those prayer times is apparently at like 3am and my baby would wake up to them. From my understanding, Israel is the only non-Muslim majority country that permits the minarets to blast at full volume to the public, rather than just expecting Muslims to wear a watch like all the other religious groups that have prayer times. So Muslims have more freedom of practice in Israel than they do in, say, France or Switzerland.
Anyways, I suppose you could suggest that Muslims just rebuilt all the mosques, but that doesn't jive because a lot of them are historical. Alternatively, you could say it's emphasizing "village mosques" as opposed to mosques in "towns" or "cities". Considering that most mosques are in more populated areas, you might just be able to fiddle with how you define "village" to make a scary sounding statistic.
The CIA Director is headed to Europe to try and broker a peace deal as well a hope to release the remaining hostages. One has to imagine that the West knows Hamas is destroyed Militarily so they can secure a peace deal, and during that time a loophole could exploited where Mossad and other "actors" kill the leaders of Hamas that have fled Qatar.
Because Qatar cannot find itself like Iran. Not to get too off topic albeit but it was revealed that they were warned, by the US oddly enough, of threats of a high potential terror attack, which they ignored, which killed over 80 people during the funeral.
President Biden plans to dispatch CIA Director William J. Burns in the coming days to help broker an ambitious deal between Hamas and Israel that would involve the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the longest cessation of hostilities since the war began last year, according to officials familiar with the matter.
Burns is expected to travel to Europe for the talks and meet with the Israeli and Egyptian intelligence chiefs, David Barnea and Abbas Kamel, and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. The planned gathering has not been previously reported.
Egypt and Qatar have been key interlocutors between Israel and Hamas, the militant group whose deadly cross-border attack Oct. 7 set off the war in Gaza. The two countries helped secure an initial pause in hostilities and hostage release in November. But tensions between the Israelis and Qataris are on a razor’s edge after leaked audio of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu captured the Israeli leader disparaging Qatar in a conversation with Israeli hostage families.
Burns’s discussions in Europe are expected to build on his phone conversations with counterparts, as well as the work of the White House’s top Middle East official, Brett McGurk, who this week has held related meetings in Qatar’s capital, Doha and in Cairo.
Israel’s latest proposal includes a 60-day pause in fighting in exchange for the phased release of the more than 100 captives, beginning with civilian women and children and followed by civilian men, military women and men and the remains of those who have died since their abduction. Such a pause would allow Israel to continue fighting after the two-month lull in line with Netanyahu’s vow to achieve “total victory” by destroying Hamas.
The CIA declined to comment.
The Israelis also have proposed that senior Hamas leaders agree to leave Gaza, but one official familiar with the negotiations said the idea was a nonstarter for the group and its military leaders, who are prepared to die as martyrs in the Palestinian enclave. Hamas also rebuffed Israel’s 60-day pause proposal, saying the next hostage release should involve a permanent cease-fire, said the official.
But multiple officials said negotiations on those key points remain active.
Samir Farag, a former Egyptian general and defense official, said both Hamas and Israel have shown a willingness to return to the negotiating table.
“Everybody wants peace — the Palestinians, Hamas and the Israelis. But everybody wants to win in the negotiations,” he said. “We are trying to reach a middle ground.”
Hamas’s possession of the hostages puts the group “in a very strong position,” Farag said.
“I think Netanyahu is under pressure, because the street in Israel, everybody wants to release the hostages,” he added. “So he has to do something, otherwise he’s in big trouble — especially because he lost a lot of soldiers in the war over there.” Some of the terms of the negotiations were reported by Axios and CNN.
The discussions come as Israel’s forces encircle the southern city of Khan Younis, where they believe top Hamas commanders are located. The United Nations accused Israel of shelling a U.N. compound housing 30,000 displaced people on Wednesday, which sparked rare condemnation from the United States. Israel denied responsibility.
Humanitarian organizations have reported that thousands of civilians are trapped in the city, many in hospitals. Across Gaza, more than 25,000 people, most of them civilians, have died since the fighting began, according to Palestinian health officials.
The violence has coincided with anger from Qatar over Netanyahu’s leaked remarks accusing Doha of failing to pressure Hamas into releasing hostages. He also said the Persian Gulf state was worse than the United Nations and the Red Cross, institutions Israel routinely accuses of anti-Israel bias.
“You haven’t seen me thank Qatar, have you noticed? I haven’t thanked Qatar. Why? Because Qatar, to me, is no different in essence from the U.N., from the Red Cross, and in a way it’s even more problematic,” said Netanyahu, according to audio obtained by Israel’s Channel 12.
Qatar said it was “appalled” by the remarks, which spokesman Majed al-Ansari called “irresponsible and destructive,” but “not surprising.” If Netanyahu’s comments were “found to be true,” Ansari said, “the Israeli PM would only be obstructing and undermining the mediation process, for reasons that appear to serve his political career instead of prioritizing saving innocent lives.”
An Israeli official did not immediately respond to a question on the leaked audio.
A U.S. official said the spat, though unwelcome, would not derail negotiations
The spy chiefs and Qatari prime minister also met shortly before the conclusion of November’s deal, which involved the release of more than 100 captives in exchange for more than 200 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. The pause also allowed critical flows of humanitarian aid to northern Gaza, where inhabitants are approaching near-famine conditions. Burns and McGurk both played a role in securing that deal.
After a flurry of diplomacy this month, both parties appear to be close to an agreement, Farag said. But Hamas “asked for a guarantee, because sometimes they deliver the hostages and after that [Israel] will attack them again.”
The United States is the only actor positioned to offer such a guarantee, Farag said. Even if Netanyahu has paid little heed to American entreaties on its conduct of the war and the entry of humanitarian aid to Gaza in recent months, he said, Egypt believes the United States retains crucial leverage by virtue of its military assistance to Israel. He referenced a famous quote by the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who took part in talks brokered by President Jimmy Carter that led to the 1978 Camp David Accords and a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt the following year.
“We do believe that as President Sadat said, 99 percent of the solutions in every place in the world come from the United States,” Farag said.
He added: “The Americans, they are very powerful, believe me. They can do whatever they want. The Israelis now they are facing a lot of problems — economic, because all the people that are working now in the army. But who is supporting Israel? The United States. Who gave them all of the munitions? … If the Americans said no, then it would stop.”
But Biden has appeared unwilling so far to put that kind of serious pressure on Netanyahu’s government, he said.
Michael Milshtein, a senior fellow at Reichman University and former head of Palestinian affairs for Israeli military intelligence, said he believes a deal could be reached in the coming weeks. “In Israel, there are more and more voices that really want to promote such a deal, and I think that Hamas also understands that the next stages of the conflict can cause this organization severe damages,” he said. “Both sides want to consider this idea.”
South Africa's case for rights of Palestinians for protection from genocide are plausible, judge says After detailing a series of quotes from senior Israeli politicians and UN officials, Judge Joan Donoghue says: "The aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.
"This is the case with respect to the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article three and the right of South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the convention."
As for the measures coming from the ruling:
ICJ appears to reject call to order immediate halt to hostilities in Gaza There has not been any mention of South Africa's key request - halting Israel's military operation while the ICJ investigates any possible violations.
Judge Donaghue told Israel it must:
Take all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide; Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Immediately enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza; Prevent the destruction, and ensure the preservation, of evidence related to South Africa's allegations.
Things began with the Judge refusing Israel's request to have the case thrown out.
Definite good news. Those are rare to come by, so relish them
I might be missing something but it seems to me that Israel couldn't really be taking "all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide" without a ceasefire, so the absence of the word doesn't seem that important.
On January 26 2024 22:25 Nebuchad wrote: Definite good news. Those are rare to come by, so relish them
I might be missing something but it seems to me that Israel couldn't really be taking "all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide" without a ceasefire, so the absence of the word doesn't seem that important.
I did a bit of reading and it appears that the absence of "ceasefire" is just a question of wording.
"Donoghue outlines measures Israel must take. She says the country must take all measures to prevent acts that could be considered genocidal – such as killing members of a group or inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group."
---
"Israel must take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal - killing members of a group, causing bodily harm, inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group, preventing births"
---
South Africa's foreign minister Naledi Pandor is speaking to reporters outside the court.
She says that without a ceasefire in Gaza, "the order doesn't actually work".
"I would have wanted that the word cessation is included in the judgement but I'm satisfied with the directions that have been given," she says.
Basically we got what we wanted, and what we needed.
EPT
