Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[2mufc0]

Quite remarkable that they've managed to get into Khan Yunis so quickly.

Why is it so remarkable? They have carpet bombed with some of the most powerful bombs supported by state of the art technology. The guys they are fighting have no air defences equipped with ak47s and rpgs. Surprised it's taken this long.

 

[Raoul]

Why is it so remarkable? They have carpet bombed with some of the most powerful bombs supported by state of the art technology. The guys they are fighting have no air defences equipped with ak47s and rpgs. Surprised it's taken this long.

Because some were initially suggesting this would be a many months of years long project. They've gone into Gaza and in just over a month and taken over most of it. The tunnels will eventually be flooded after which any remaining fighting will be forced above ground where Hamas elements won't stand a chance.

 

[R'hllor]

Because some were initially suggesting this would be a many months of years long project. They've gone into Gaza and in just over a month and taken over most of it. The tunnels will eventually be flooded after which any remaining fighting will be forced above ground where Hamas elements won't stand a chance.

Good one.

 

[Shez]

Because some were initially suggesting this would be a many months of years long project. They've gone into Gaza and in just over a month and taken over most of it. The tunnels will eventually be flooded after which any remaining fighting will be forced above ground where Hamas elements won't stand a chance.

Yeah because no one was imagining bloodthirsty and blind bombing. All time projections went out of the window went international law did

 

[CallyRed]

Absolutely sickening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67629181

 

[ManUtd1999]

The Biden administration continues acting as the ministry of propaganda for Israel.

As a Biden voter, I want to see a more balanced approach, and this type of statement doesn’t fit into that category. Supporting Israel against Hamas is the right thing, but taking the Israeli side on every turn is not. It just doesn’t look good.

 

[calodo2003]

Yep, better timing can probably pre-empt tragedy…

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Liver_bird]

Absolutely sickening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67629181

This should come with a trigger warning of some kind. The abuses detailed in there are beyond horrific.

 

[RedSky]

Absolutely sickening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67629181

Yet here is the problem. All of this could very well be 100% true, but because Israel has lied so much already, none of this can actually be believed at face value.

 

[The Corinthian]

Absolutely sickening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67629181

This should come with a trigger warning of some kind. The abuses detailed in there are beyond horrific.

Yet here is the problem. All of this could very well be 100% true, but because Israel has lied so much already, none of this can actually be believed at face value.

It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.

Several people involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of those killed in the attack told us they had seen multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears, and that the victims ranged from children and teenagers to pensioners.

Police have privately shown journalists a single horrific testimony that they filmed of a woman who was at the Nova festival site during the attack.

Police say they have "multiple" eye-witness accounts of sexual assault, but wouldn't give any more clarification on how many. When we spoke to them, they hadn't yet interviewed any surviving victims.

This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify this account, and Israeli media reports have questioned some testimony from volunteers working in the traumatic aftermath of the Hamas attacks.

To our question about how he could be sure - without seeing it - that the screams he heard indicated sexual assault rather than other kinds of violence, he said he believed while listening at the time that it could only have been rape.

Investigators admit that in those first chaotic days after the attacks, with some areas still active combat zones, opportunities to carefully document the crime scenes, or take forensic evidence, were limited or missed.

That's from the article itself - there's also been a few retractions to date about rape:



and here:
Amid war and urgent need to ID bodies, evidence of Hamas’s October 7 rapes slips away
Despite definitive witness testimony, global skepticism persists about the terrorists’ sexual crimes. ToI investigates how a mass-casualty event in a war zone made forensic determination impossible
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-...vidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/

and there’s also Israel already smearing a UN led investigation into rape as antisemitic:



So, I’d exercise some professional judgement on that BBC article.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Yet here is the problem. All of this could very well be 100% true, but because Israel has lied so much already, none of this can actually be believed at face value.

And also the timing of things they release. Almost two months on.

(*NB* I’m NOT dismissing it or saying it‘s untrue)

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Absolutely sickening

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67629181

When you combine those accounts with the fact that Hamas refuses to release a number of young female hostages, this is how bad the situation has been and still is for those women. Now that the UN are sending investigators into this, the extent of sexual violence on October 7 victims and then upon some of the hostages since must be too onimous to turn a blind eye at. Twitter influencers (especially pro-Kremlin trolls) who fueled the denying of such war crimes must be publicly shamed, especially if those deniers are the same people who denied Russian war crimes in occupied Ukrainian territories over a year ago. I also have no sympathy for whoever else out there has been parrotting those denials or, worse, have gone as far as to blame the victims themselves.

 

[berbatrick]

true in so many ways

 

[Beans]

true in so many ways

Complete nonsense.

Were the Crusades a good idea as well?

If this is the way to save civilisation then I think we need to start bombing the American South.

 

[berbatrick]

These are words used to try to end an argument, not illuminate it.

We've argued about whether it is a genocide or not, I'm not going to repeat it.

But 'colonial' is the application of a word designed to describe a thing, to something that's different in important ways, and it is done to paint away the nuances, differences and context at the time - IMO - in order to weaken the legitimacy of Israel's founding.

I've posted the quotes about 10 times in this thread so won't do it again, but you can read any foundational Zionist thinker and their endorsement of Zionism as a colonial project. Comparisons to the British in Kenya and the European settlers of the US, appeals to Cecil Rhodes.
Precisely because Jabotinsky, Weizman, Herzl (and the project's supporter, Churchill!) were Europeans of the late 19th/early 20th century, they could be direct about the comparison in a way that liberal Zionists find uncomfortable now.

 

[Ahmer Baig]

No, the part underlined is not happening. As with all wars, there is terrible suffering among the civilians caught in the fighting and thousands of people have been killed or are being killed. But, Israel is clearly not trying to destroy the people of Gaza.

Israel killed more than 16,000 people, half to whom were children and you are saying Israel is not trying to destroy people of Gaza. WOW!!!!!

 

[africanspur]

I think the claim they are making is that Hamas released the female hostages who had been (reasonably) well treated in captivity and they don't want to release the remaining female hostages because they were not well treated.

Yes I fully understand the claim. I also fully understand that Israel are trying to fight a propaganda war (abetted by the USA) to justify everything they are doing and the extent of their destruction.

In the same way that before and during the ceasefire, every Israeli politician was quite clear about the fact that this ceasefire was always going to be a 'pause', that they would not stop the war, they would not stop until Hamas were destroyed, that they needed to continue until Hamas were a non-entity and could never strike again. They themselves admit they've killed only a fraction of Hamas' fighters and commanders so far. And yet they make sure to announce that they return to fighting with a heavy heart, because of a Hamas rocket, as if we haven't all heard them stating repeatedly they would return to the war and destroy Hamas. Its because as a species, even back to Roman times, we've usually needed a causus belli to go to war, even a flimsy one. They know that they need a reason to return as cover so people in the West would be happy.

So we have Israel and the USA. Who's intelligence agencies had no idea about the biggest intelligence failure in Israeli history, a huge attack from an open air prison from fighters with rudimentary technology. Yet who now have intelligence that the reason the ceasefire broke apart is because Hamas won't release the other female hostages, because those ones were raped? But the intelligence doesn't extend to actually knowing where the hostages are, or I guess there would have been rescue operations. But the previous comment was that they may have run out of female hostages to give back. But they've actually released lots of female hostages already, none of whom to my knowledge, as horrendous as their ordeal was, have accused sexual violence. And he ends it all with a statement that actually he has no evidence for this.

I mean, what the feck? Can people actually walk through the logic of that?

To me, its a very clear attempt to create further justifications for extreme violence, when I"m not sure any is needed? The people who think Israel are reacting in a horrendous way are not going to change their mind based on statements like this without evidence (and frankly I'm not going to agree that wide scale destruction like this is acceptable anyway). Those who think the destruction is justified have thought its justified since the beginning and will continue to do so regardless.

 

[nickm]

I've posted the quotes about 10 times in this thread so won't do it again, but you can read any foundational Zionist thinker and their endorsement of Zionism as a colonial project. Comparisons to the British in Kenya and the European settlers of the US, appeals to Cecil Rhodes.
Precisely because Jabotinsky, Weizman, Herzl (and the project's supporter, Churchill!) were Europeans of the late 19th/early 20th century, they could be direct about the comparison in a way that liberal Zionists find uncomfortable now.

This makes the argument better than I can:

"Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically. By any objective standard, Zionism fails to fit this definition. Zionism was a movement of desperate, idealistic Jews from Eastern and Central Europe bent on immigrating to a country that had once been populated and ruled by Jews, not “another” country, and regaining sovereignty over it. The settlers were not the sons of an imperial power, and the settlement enterprise was never designed to politically or strategically serve an imperial mother country or economically exploit it on behalf of any empire."

Now did the early zionists think there were colonising a land? Yes, in the narrow sense of establishing new settlements for a jewish homeland. But it wasn't a "colonisation" in above, bigger, sense - the sense people are using to try to imply the foundation of Israel was somehow illegitimate.

 

[nickm]

It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.






This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.







That's from the article itself - there's also been a few retractions to date about rape:



and here:
Amid war and urgent need to ID bodies, evidence of Hamas’s October 7 rapes slips away
Despite definitive witness testimony, global skepticism persists about the terrorists’ sexual crimes. ToI investigates how a mass-casualty event in a war zone made forensic determination impossible
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-...vidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/

and there’s also Israel already smearing a UN led investigation into rape as antisemitic:



So, I’d exercise some professional judgement on that BBC article.

I was just waiting for the Owen Jones of this thread to pop in with something like that. What a surprise.

 

[Sweet Square]

This makes the argument better than I can:

"Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically. By any objective standard, Zionism fails to fit this definition. Zionism was a movement of desperate, idealistic Jews from Eastern and Central Europe bent on immigrating to a country that had once been populated and ruled by Jews, not “another” country, and regaining sovereignty over it. The settlers were not the sons of an imperial power, and the settlement enterprise was never designed to politically or strategically serve an imperial mother country or economically exploit it on behalf of any empire."

Now did the early zionists think there were colonising a land? Yes, in the narrow sense of establishing new settlements for a jewish homeland. But it wasn't a "colonisation" in above, bigger, sense - the sense people are using to try to imply the foundation of Israel was somehow illegitimate.

Your doing VAR for colonialism. We live in very strange times.

 

[fergieisold]

It's a strange article. There isn't a single piece of evidence mentioned that has been independently verified by the BBC.






This one says they have a body of evidence (unspecified) but hadn't done any interviews.







That's from the article itself - there's also been a few retractions to date about rape:



and here:
Amid war and urgent need to ID bodies, evidence of Hamas’s October 7 rapes slips away
Despite definitive witness testimony, global skepticism persists about the terrorists’ sexual crimes. ToI investigates how a mass-casualty event in a war zone made forensic determination impossible
https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-...vidence-of-hamass-october-7-rapes-slips-away/

and there’s also Israel already smearing a UN led investigation into rape as antisemitic:



So, I’d exercise some professional judgement on that BBC article.

Reading the BBC article made me sick. It's almost hard to believe human beings could commit such crimes. I'm afraid your skepticism is likely unfounded - the BBC state clearly at the very beginning of the article -

"The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks"

Despite the awful civilian toll endured by the Palestinian people in Gaza there is only one side to blame in all of this - Hamas.

 

[nickm]

Your doing VAR for colonialism. We live in very strange times.

It is worth pointing out when language is used to obfuscate rather than clarify.

Looking forward to seeing if the definition is rape is going to evolve now on this thread, or maybe it'll just stay at denial.

 

[The Corinthian]

Reading the BBC article made me sick. It's almost hard to believe human beings could commit such crimes. I'm afraid your skepticism is likely unfounded - the BBC state clearly at the very beginning of the article -

"The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks"

Despite the awful civilian toll endured by the Palestinian people in Gaza there is only one side to blame in all of this - Hamas.

That’s the introduction to the article. There’s nothing that’s been independently verified by the BBC as per the snippets I posted.

Also, you think Israel collectively punishing the civilian population of Gaza is justified?

Note: this isn’t to suggest it didn’t happen either, but if a ‘genocide of rape’ occurred, it would be good for this to have some non-Israeli verification.

 

[fergieisold]

That’s the introduction to the article. There’s nothing that’s been independently verified by the BBC as per the snippets I posted.

Also, you think Israel collectively punishing the civilian population of Gaza is justified?

Note: this isn’t to suggest it didn’t happen either, but if a ‘genocide of rape’ occurred, it would be good for this to have some non-Israeli verification.

No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...

 

[RedC]

I was just waiting for the Owen Jones of this thread to pop in with something like that. What a surprise.

Do you not like basing your opinions on provable, verified facts? Do you not think the same standard is immensely important in a situation such as this?

 

[The Corinthian]

No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...

I mean they're targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques, UN schools, shelters, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, medical staff, children and women...and a whole other host of buildings and people. What do you think?

It's worth noting - out of those targets, only Al Shifa hospital was considered a 'Hamas control centre' which was debunked fairly soon after.

 

[fergieisold]

I mean they're targeting refugee camps, hospitals, mosques, UN schools, shelters, journalists, humanitarian aid workers, medical staff, children and women...and a whole other host of buildings and people. What do you think?

It's worth noting - out of those targets, only Al Shifa hospital was considered a 'Hamas control centre' which was debunked fairly soon after.

I find it hard to believe Israel is targeting these places for a laugh. They must be targeting Hamas, or attempting to. What's the latest on the hospital? I'm guessing US intelligence was not great?

 

[berbatrick]

This makes the argument better than I can:

"Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons, and exploiting it economically. By any objective standard, Zionism fails to fit this definition. Zionism was a movement of desperate, idealistic Jews from Eastern and Central Europe bent on immigrating to a country that had once been populated and ruled by Jews, not “another” country, and regaining sovereignty over it. The settlers were not the sons of an imperial power, and the settlement enterprise was never designed to politically or strategically serve an imperial mother country or economically exploit it on behalf of any empire."

Now did the early zionists think there were colonising a land? Yes, in the narrow sense of establishing new settlements for a jewish homeland. But it wasn't a "colonisation" in above, bigger, sense - the sense people are using to try to imply the foundation of Israel was somehow illegitimate.

For the first line - the US was no longer under the political control of the metropole after 1776, yet its settler colonialism - destruction of Native land and people for the benefit of fresh European settlement - accelerated after independence. If the USA isn't settler colonial, nothing is.
Clearly the definition isn't sufficient. The definition itself seems to be mixing up "classical" colonialism - "acquiring political control, exploiting it economically" with settler colonialism "acquiring political control, settling it with its sons" - I'm struggling to find an example where all three clauses are true (Was Canada a net benefit to the British treasury? No idea, doesn't matter for the classification)

For the line on strategic/political considerations -
First, Herzl (bolded the bit which is contradictory to that sentence)

Spoiler

Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.

From the British side, putting aside the anti-semitic motivations (covered well here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks_ )We also have strategic considerations. This same article also covers the use of Zionist migrants in suppressing the colonised population of the Mandate:

Spoiler

"On at least three occasions in thirty years," Arthur Koestler wrote in Promise and Fulfilment (1949), "the Arabs had been promised the setting up of a legislative body, the cessation of Jewish immigration and a check on Jewish economic expansion." And on each of these occasions, the Mandate authorities broke their promise. The Mandate was marked by outbreaks of violence, government white papers and the Arab population's loss of ground to Jewish immigrants. The Arab General Strike of 1936 led to an all-out rebellion against British rule. The British took three years to suppress it, during which, according to British records, the administration killed 3073 Arabs (112 of whom were executed). These figures exclude Arabs killed by Zionist organisations or the Jewish Special Night Squads under the command of a British intelligence officer, Captain Orde Wingate. Britain trained the Yishuv's elite army, the Palmach, and despatched its largest expeditionary force since the Great War - 25,000 troops - to Palestine. During the uprising, British security forces used the standard tactics of anti-colonial warfare: torture, murder, collective punishment, detention without trial, military courts, aerial bombardment and 'punitive demolition' of more than two thousand houses.

More pertinent quotes from British officials supporting Zionism:
Way back in the mid-19th century, countering Ottoman power:

Spoiler

The formulation and framework of British imperial policy in the area was best drawn out by its architect, Foreign Secretary Viscount Palmerston. In a letter to the British Ambassador at Constantinople explaining why the Ottoman Sultan should encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine, Palmerston wrote: " ... the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Muhammad Ali or his successor."

In 1918, the War Office agrees:

Spoiler

This concept did not only echo Palmerston's proposal but also responded to the rising Western needs in the area after the opening of the Suez Canal, British occupation of Egypt and the First World War. The gist of British strategic thought was spelt out in a memorandum by the General Staff at the (British) War Office: "The creation of a buffer Jewish State in Palestine, though this State will be weak in itself, is strategically desirable for Great Britain . . . ")

And Herzl backs them up:

Spoiler

To Chamberlain and to Lord Lansdowne, the Foreign Secretary, Herzl explained that by patronizing the Zionist endeavour the British Empire would not only "be bigger by a rich colony," but that also ten million Jews "will all wear England in their hearts if through such a deed it becomes the protective power of the Jewish people. At one stroke England will get ten million secret but loyal subjects active in all walks of life all over the world. At a signal, all of them will place themselves at the service of the magnanimous nation that brings long-desired help.

Jabotinsky, my favourite for his foresight, complains in 1923 that mainstream Zionists prefer to colonise under British weapons, while he argues for doing it with Jewish guns.

Spoiler

We conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.

All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.

So there was definitely a strategic component to encouraging Zionism. We're left with the middle sentence: a millennia-old "right of return" premised upon denying a 75-year "right of return".

For the last para, they explicitly made the comparisons you are unwilling to grant:

Herzl to Rhodes -

Spoiler

You are being invited to help make history,” Herzl wrote to Rhodes. “t doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial… [Y]ou, Mr. Rhodes, are a visionary politician or a practical visionary… I want you to.. put the stamp of your authority on the Zionist plan and to make the following declaration to a few people who swear by you: I, Rhodes have examined this plan and found it correct and practicable. It is a plan full of culture, excellent for the group of people for whom it is directly designed, and quite good for England, for Greater Britain…."

Jabotinsky (note his use of "natives" in the previous quote refers to Arabs in Palestine), elaborates on the Zionist project here, in my 100000th time quoting this paragraph in this thread:

Spoiler

Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

The reason we're quibbling over definitional differences (VAR is a great comparison! @Sweet Square ) is because the sun does set on the British Empire these days, and that c-word has gained negative implications. The facts remain the same as they were when the project was conceived and when colonialism was a good thing (regarded as aa genocidal but necessary progressive force by Marx, for example).

As for whether being a settler-colony makes Israel illegitimate, that is not a practical question. It is there, like the USA. But using this lens does help understand Palestinian politics, as in the prophetic second Jabotinsky quote here (I would only replace "culturally" and "spiritually" with "in weapons").

 

[langster]

Had 0 rights. Many Jews is not the majority. And definitely you don't give 55% of the land to precisely to the minority.



Why it was absorbed by Jordan? because of the UN resolution that cause the war. Again, Jewish population that was born in palestine by the end of the XIX century was 3% while a 2% was jew immigrant. After the WWI that there were starting to talk of a Israel state there was a massive immigration in the 20s. By 1948, 30% were jews but most likely only around the total 10% were born in the country. So you are giving 55% of a country to a 30% of the population that most of them are born in europe. Just because

c)



So yes. It was the preferred option for jews. But if their preferred option would be Germany, Spain or any other country the UN would not gift them half of that countries. Not even 1%. Argentina? do you even think that that was a possibility with an emergent power as Argentina was? give me a break

But anyway, it was what jews wanted. What about what the arabs wanted? What about the ancestral arabs that were living there and they were killed and pushed in the Nakba, killing and raping them? by the same people that just suffered the holocaust till 3 years prior? What does that tell you?

On the " so you admit thay probably all European countries killed Jews at some point.
What does that tell you?"

What to you mean "admit" like you got me in saying something that I would not like to admit? Jews had been prosecuted and gettoed during the whole history for many countries probably all around the mediterranian area and europes. But so all many others and they are not gifted land, specially for the UN


Now, all these historical reasons are irrelevant. Israel exist and has to continue to exist as I see it. We have to look into the future and Israel is the evil part here. They are causing ethnic cleansing for decades. Apartheid to their own population, not only in palestine. Festering a situation that perpetuates the likes of Hamas. And now they are perpetrating one of the biggest slaugther of civilians in the XXI and the biggest of a democracy in a short span of time. Meanwhile we have the WB that if the UN has aaaaaalll the right in Israel's opinion to decide on Palestine/Israel distribution in 1947, seems that UN doesn't have aaaaall the right when they decided that Israel can't build illegal settlements

Excellent post.

Yeah because no one was imagining bloodthirsty and blind bombing. All time projections went out of the window went international law did

Yup, spot on. They are cutting through the Gaza territory like a lumber company in the Amazon. They are devastating everything. Destroying all infrastructure that they don't need to advance, thousands of buildings, hospitals, and as we have seen cutting through the population at the same time. It's beyond barbaric. They absolutely have all the means at their disposal to attack far less discriminately and more surgically yet they are absolutely not doing that at all.

 

[The Corinthian]

I find it hard to believe Israel is targeting these places for a laugh. They must be targeting Hamas, or attempting to. What's the latest on the hospital? I'm guessing US intelligence was not great?

They're not doing it for a laugh. They're doing it because they consider Palestinians less than them, and they're doing it with impunity because of the likes of the US.

 

[langster]

No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...

How do you explain Israel telling the Palestinians to move to areas they are saying will be safe zones and then deliberately targetring those areas? Are they spotting a Hamas fighter from drone footage and thinking they should strike? How many innocent civilians are acceptable collateral damage in their equations?

Despite the awful civilian toll endured by the Palestinian people in Gaza there is only one side to blame in all of this - Hamas.

It really isn't that simple though is it? It goes so much deeper than that. It's incredibly disingenuous to simplify it all down like that. Yes, Hamas attacked but why?

 

[langster]

They're not doing it for a laugh. They're doing it because they consider Palestinians less than them, and they're doing it with impunity because of the likes of the US.

Everyone can see what's going on and knows why, if they say otherwise they are either lying, blind, stupid or incredibly naive. Netenyahu wants the entire territory for Israel and that includes the West Bank. Then they can either kill or force the remaining Palestinians out. They have been doing It for decades, it's just now they can use the Hamas attack as justification. As you say they are acting with impunity and they won't stop.

Let's not pretend Hamas wouldn't do the same if they had the chance and that's why this whole fecking shit show is an absolute nightmare and utterly depressing. If this Israeli campaign succeeds and irradicates Hamas then they will just have created a couple of generators of Palestinian fighters who will just have a different name. The way Israel has responded ensures that Hamas or any group following will be even more determined to rid the region of Jews and make it a singular state of Palestine.

All the while the US and to a lesser extent the UK and EU are playing fecking politics and too scared to stand up and intervene or do the right thing because of 'optics' and votes.. Worse is the defence contracts and guaranteed rebuilding contracts that are also going on behind the scenes. Their inaction is fecking disgraceful and as per usual the only people who suffer are the innocent civillians on BOTH sides.

This is so similar to Tony Blair blindly following Bush in to war. It's just this time Israel are Bush and the US and UK are Blair.

 

[calodo2003]

 

[maniak]

For those who don't consider this a genocide, do you consider the Rohingya situation as genocide?

Myanmar isn't killing everyone, the number of deaths is around 25k, the main focus is in displacing people. No one hesitates in calling this a genocide, so I wonder do you see as different.

 

[The Corinthian]

Difficult to post the whole thread but there’s more.

 

[Il Prete Rosso]

No it isn't justified if Israel is deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, is there evidence of Israel doing this? I kind of thought they'd be targeting Hamas and not giving a shit about civilians in the cross fire. Not that it makes it much better...

It's like blowing up a supermarket then saying, "We're trying to protect grocery carts in the process".

 

[The Corinthian]

Everyone can see what's going on and knows why, if they say otherwise they are either lying, blind, stupid or incredibly naive. Netenyahu wants the entire territory for Israel and that includes the West Bank. Then they can either kill or force the remaining Palestinians out. They have been doing It for decades, it's just now they can use the Hamas attack as justification. As you say they are acting with impunity and they won't stop.

Let's not pretend Hamas wouldn't do the same if they had the chance and that's why this whole fecking shit show is an absolute nightmare and utterly depressing. If this Israeli campaign succeeds and irradicates Hamas then they will just have created a couple of generators of Palestinian fighters who will just have a different name. The way Israel has responded ensures that Hamas or any group following will be even more determined to rid the region of Jews and make it a singular state of Palestine.

All the while the US and to a lesser extent the UK and EU are playing fecking politics and too scared to stand up and intervene or do the right thing because of 'optics' and votes.. Worse is the defence contracts and guaranteed rebuilding contracts that are also going on behind the scenes. Their inaction is fecking disgraceful and as per usual the only people who suffer are the innocent civillians on BOTH sides.

This is so similar to Tony Blair blindly following Bush in to war. It's just this time Israel are Bush and the US and UK are Blair.

I agree with everything you've said - but there's a couple of bits I want to expand on in this paragraph:.

Let's not pretend Hamas wouldn't do the same if they had the chance and that's why this whole fecking shit show is an absolute nightmare and utterly depressing. If this Israeli campaign succeeds and irradicates Hamas then they will just have created a couple of generators of Palestinian fighters who will just have a different name. The way Israel has responded ensures that Hamas or any group following will be even more determined to rid the region of Jews and make it a singular state of Palestine.

Hamas have agreed to a 2 state solution as recent as 2017 under 1967 borders. We've had the PA agree to it way before then, so the only stumbling block to peace (or rather a 2 state solution) has been Israel. On your secondary point, I wholeheartedly 100% agree - you won't eradicate the Hamas ideology by indiscriminately killing, brutalising, subjugating, and maiming Palestinians. I said a while back that if Israel were seen to work with the PA in the West Bank, to provide statehood for the Palestinians living there and rights, they could almost make Hamas obsolete overnight. But what have they done there? They've atomised it, and terrorised the native population living there. There were 200+ Palestinians killed in the WB prior to October 7th, I think that number is around 300 now. It's just disgusting - and I hate that my government is so weak about it.

 

[2cents]

Hamas have agreed to a 2 state solution as recent as 2017 under 1967 borders

They haven’t. The relevant section of their rebranded charter states:

“without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

The text immediately preceding that states:

“There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

 

[The Corinthian]

They haven’t. The relevant section of their rebranded charter states:

“without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

The text immediately preceding that states:

“There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

I stand corrected. I think in any case, it's a more pragmatic direction to what they've previously said.

The other side of it is that Hamas and Israel are both sides of the same coin - Hamas won't recognise Israel, and Israel won't recognise Palestine, regardless of who is governing it.