Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Hamas were under intense pressure because of the Israeli ground campaign in Gaza for the past 3 plus weeks. Had they not capitulated, the Israelis would've simply kept going and begun going after them in the south and underground in the coming weeks. That will of course still happen once the pause in fighting ends, at which point Hamas will have less hostages as collateral to bargain with. But at least 5 days plus whatever extension for 10 hostages per day they agree to, will allow a stoppage in fighting in hundreds of aid trucks in to provide some degree of relief.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is an enormous can of worm in Germany, one that almost nobody is willing to open. I think that the government, institutions, media and a good chunk of the population are just terrified and paranoid about anything on their part that could remotely be interpreted as antisemite, favourize Palästina or paint Israel in a bad light. Especially in their own country.
Basically every singel international law expert I watched since the beginning of the latest conflict said the same, Israel has been committing crimes against humanity since 2007.
Very interesting points.
one of the lawyers is a son of a Holocaust survivor.
Sorry to nitpick but this isn’t quite true. The US stopped accepting mass migration of East European Jews following the Immigration Act of 1924. This promptly led many of those fleeing Poland in the mid-1920s and then Germany in the 1930s to turn to Palestine instead. Along with Hitler’s rise it’s probably one of the most important factors leading to the establishment of Israel.
I am hoping the Israeli troops will ease up on the civilian targets after the deal or something like that. Otherwise, the deal is probably not a win for them (and Gazans) at all. The Israelis would just bomb or kill whatever and whoever they let in and out later.
Ethno-fascist behaviour, believing a god promised you some land so you're justified in brutalising other human beings.
Optics are more important
How are people losing their jobs for expressing very basic views? Doesn't it just perpetuate the (incorrect) stereotype there is a highly influential Jewish lobby in Hollywood and the media?
Why aren't these people being called hostages too? Why are they being labelled prisoners or detainees when amnesty international are saying it is 'a form of arbitrary detention'?
And 3000 of them?! In arbitrary detention, which I take to mean rounded up and detained for no real criminal reason?
Last edited:
I disagree it is the same principle. I see a massive difference, not in the severity of repercussions (which are obviously massive) but in its origins. If it is a state policy, that will get you jailed or killed, that is the end. You are done. There is no way back.
If the source of repercussion (loss of profit) is a dispute between two contractual business parties about what is free speech and what constitutes the break of contract... well, nobody forced you into this contract. It was your free will. No law limits your possibility to find a different contract partner which is more suitable to you. Especially, if we talk about industry where public image is a very important/sensitive issue. And if you feel no contract was broken, or that your rights were violated you can turn to the court of law. Massive difference that rotting in some filthy cell in the middle of nowhere.
Again, as documented on Marc Ruffalo, solidarity is ok. But how do you judge what is objetively anti-semitic and what hardly brushes antisemitism. Do you disagree with ADL definition?
Nah, that's not correct, that poster is deliberately misquoting out of context. The interviewee was stating in regards to how society views black and queer people.
Really bad faith and grotty from that poster.
Its not just pro-Israeli people who reject the claim of genocide but just about every recognised definition and accepted example across all ideological and political lines.
It's not a word that should be used lightly, especially for shock value. It's also a legal definition, defined by 5 acts, of which only 1 needs to be met in order to define something as genocide. None of these apply in regards to Israel.
That's not my opinion though. My opinion is that it's a lazy argument at best.
There's also another issue with its use and those who make the choice to do so facing consequences. The all to familiar claim that you can't criticise certain people because of their power and/or influence. Despite it being near universally unacceptable, regardless of the views of the organisation.
Nobody is losing their job for criticising Israel. Nobody. Once you start throwing terms like genocide around though, given the undeniable power of the word as well as it's origins and history, both of what it means and what it refers to then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences.
Because you only watch what fits your bias. Have you watched this expert?
Please stop this. This is the most disgusting fallacy. Do not hide behind Holocaust survivors.
Why is he assuming Pro-Palestinians are Muslim
Also, the answer is yes, Israel is an Apartheid state. Despite an army of pedants, this was resolved a few years ago. Move onto the next argument which is, "Is Israel committing genocide?"
Last edited:
Definition of genocide according to the United Nations
Yeah, Israel is committing genocide.
Why are pro-Israel supporters so keen on winning the moral battle here? You don't see pro-Russian bots (bar a few) claiming they aren't committing atrocities in Ukraine, they accept that they're bad. Own your bad shit
Yeah, Israel is committing genocide.
Why are pro-Israel supporters so keen on winning the moral battle here? You don't see pro-Russian bots (bar a few) claiming they aren't committing atrocities in Ukraine, they accept that they're bad. Own your bad shit
Yeah I thought that too but let it slide as the question was to the thread and not me.Why is he assuming Pro-Palestinians are Muslim
Also, the answer is yes, Israel is an Apartheid state
I think what he's getting at is "how can Israel be apartheid state when the Arabs living there have the same rights as the Israeli's?"
I have my own opinion on this but the question wasn't aimed at me, rather the thread (he can read the thread but can't post as he is newbie).
The ADL is a complete joke of an organization.
What percentage of the housing stock of Northern Gaza has now been destroyed? I'd wager at least half a million no longer have homes to return to.
The issue here is that the same standard isn't applied on both sides. You have Amy Schumer running her mouth, equating calls for a ceasefire with endorsing rapists and terror to little repercussion, likewise for a number of pro-Israeli celebrities, yet those on the other side are met with swift action, often resulting to a termination from their employers, or at best face ridiculously disproportionate scrutiny over their comments, no matter how tame they may be. Its that asymmetry and double standard which I equate to an essential silencing of one side, even if its less visceral and violent than what we'd expect in a despotic regime.
No I don't agree with the ADL definition. At face value I think its ridiculous to draw links between accusations of genocide and anti-semitism, and stinks of bad-faith shielding from the ADL to defend Israel from any condemnation, legitimate or otherwise.
And I don't take the ADL itself seriously nor think they're genuine in their goal of tackling bigotry. This is the same ADL who would spy on Noam Chomsky, who'd they derisively call 'the Arab apologist', and have a CEO who commends Elon Musk on his censorship of terms like 'decolonisation' from Pro Palestinian tweets, while remaining seemingly ignorant of the fact Musk was retweeting far-right anti-semitic tropes.
Why is he assuming Pro-Palestinians are Muslim
Also, the answer is yes, Israel is an Apartheid state. Despite an army of pedants, this was resolved a few years ago. Move onto the next argument which is, "Is Israel committing genocide?"
Context/clarification from the user:
As I said earlier, I think his overall point is how someone can call Israel apartheid state when the Arabs living there have same civil rights as Israelis.
And whether people consider Tel Aviv to be occupied.
I'll add that they aren't even considered citizens of Israel so they're detaining non Israelis under military law.
what percentage of the kibbutzim around Gaza was burned to the ground displacing 200k Israelis too terrified to ever live near the border of Gaza?
Arabs don't have the same rights as Jews. They are not treated the same.
And in addition, South Africa tried to pull the same bullshit arguments when they created Bantustans within their territory, and claimed that since black people in South Africa were not South Africans, but citizens of these Bantustans, they weren't entitled to rights granted to whites (and some coloureds), but it didn't classify as Apartheid. So no, you can't exclude Gaza and the West Bank from this discussion and only focus on Cape Town/Tel Aviv
Thank you for the response.
Arabs and Israelis live together peacefully. They share the same shops, beaches,Imams call out to pray from the mosques.
have you seen a synagogue in Gaza? Any Jews able to live there?
Very little was actually burned to the ground but yes, both are acts of terror inflicted upon unwitting civilians. I am glad you see clear enough to equate the current murderous Israeli policy to the equally heinous policy of Hamas though.
edit: Perhaps you could answer the question though. Estimates range from 20% to 40% of housing stock damaged or destroyed.
(S)he managed to make an already poorly worded question look even worse. I know that it's not meant with any ill intention, but Jesus Christ.
Is there any pro-palestinian muslim here, who believes that Israel doesn't have the right to exist at all, kind enough to please answer the bolded question?
Last edited:
Forget the fact that Arabs are treated as second class citizens, they can shop at the same places as the Jews, how touching
They have synagogues in the West Bank. Of course this is after they drive Palestinians off their land. Now the bombing and killing in Gaza makes sense; kill them off first, then build synagogues in Gaza
What's the UN Genocide Conventions view? Probably a little unfair tbh as we all know that they do not consider that Israel is committing a genocide in any capacity. It is their definition though so they're probably a good starting point.
So who is actually accusing Israel of genocide and on what basis? Genuinely curious. Google throws up some interesting names as far as Nations go while most individuals tend to be stating their opinion with very little consensus between them.
You're being dishonest here.
An Arab Israeli poster on this very thread shared the bigotry and double standard he's had to face, are you calling his experiences inauthentic?
To give more specific examples
- The Israeli state controls 93% of the land, directly or indirectly. Upon passing the 'acceptance to communities law' in the Knesset, its essentially give Jewish communities full control over who they allow or disallow to move into specific communities, and can turn away people based on 'unsuitability' criteria. This has essentially forced segregated communities in large parts of Israel.
- You have organisations like the Lehava given courts' blessing to picket weddings between Jews and Arabs
- The knesset also increased the electoral threshold for representation from 2% to 3.25%, essentially weakning parliamentary representation for ethnic minorities.
- Then there's of course the massive elephant in the room - the right of return. Any Jewish person on the globe is able to claim citizenship in Israel, yet a Palestinian who was ethnically cleansed with traceable roots to the land isn't allowed to return.
Your point about synagogues in Gaza is a silly one considering its a region thats perpetually under siege and largely inaccessible for Jews or Arabs alike. And I'm sure Israeli citizens wouldn't choose to live in what's essentially an open air prison given the choice.
You're disingenuously portraying life as rosey for Arab Israelis. A Mosque playing the call to prayer in Tel Aviv hardly absolves the actual reality they have to contend with.
Here is an article from Time where they ask a bunch of experts. They have different opinions about whether it is genocide or not. Some think it is, some think it isn't.
But they are all talking about the legal definition of genocide and acknowleding the reality that proving genocidal intent is very difficult. The article states that "all scholars who spoke to TIME say that it is much more likely that both Hamas and some Israeli officials could be found guilty of crimes against humanity."
If Jonathan Greenblatt wants to say "using genocide to refer to Israel's actions is inaccurate and sensationalistic. Please, crimes against humanity from now on" he's welcome to do so.
Here's some food for thoughts about why people talk about Israel being an Apartheid state.
Also here
And here
Even here
The last sentence is so disingenuous that it would be hilarious, if it didn't touch on such a tragic topic.
Last edited:
There was a small North African Jewish community in Gaza from at least the 1880s that left in the midst of the violence of August 1929.
This "expert" is Natasha Hausdorff , director for UK LAWYERS FOR ISRAEL.
UK LAWYERS FOR ISRAEL is the organization that lobbied a hospital to remove artwork drawn by Palestinian children because it was "making Jewish patients feel vulnerable and harassed."
Sounds credible!
Last edited:
Was he correct or incorrect in what he wrote?
It is worth remembering that it was possible for muslims and jews (and Christians) to all live side by side in Israel - it has happened for decades in relative peace. There are 1.7m muslims in Israel now - more than christians. It is not some crazy pipe dream - if anything returning to the more peaceful decades would be the best possible outcome within the non-Palestinian part of Israel. (alongside a proper two-state solution to be clear)
Obvious things have shifted hard to the right in the past 20 years, but it's not impossible to imagine a scenario that could function 'properly'. Indeed, given the coalition nature of Isreali governments, in theory the predominant muslim party could in fact be a kingmaker in the same way (depressingly) that the far right orthodox party currently is.
Obvious things have shifted hard to the right in the past 20 years, but it's not impossible to imagine a scenario that could function 'properly'. Indeed, given the coalition nature of Isreali governments, in theory the predominant muslim party could in fact be a kingmaker in the same way (depressingly) that the far right orthodox party currently is.