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

The very people the helpless Palestinians rely upon to change their lives and bring about change for the better are the very people stabbing them in the back. The so-called Muslim leaders, the US and European progressives, the lame UN are just empty words written or said without much substance. Just PR to appease their electorate, paymasters or make themselves feel good. Once the conflict subsides it's back to status quo. Basically, Israel is just too powerful militarily and have made friends with the powerful of this world. I'm not sure where Palestinians go from here but to keep their heads up whilst mourning their dead and lost possessions hoping history repeats itself and just like the oppressive regimes of the past finally fall or come to their senses.
 
2cents said:
The Holocaust/Nazi analogy is not meant as a serious, good faith historical comparison by those who make it. There’s no amount of detail or statistics, historical context, or alternative analogies that will convince its proponents to stop using it, since it has little or nothing to do with a genuine attempt to understand what’s going on.

Rather, it’s an attempt to appropriate the moral legitimacy they believe Israel has derived from the Holocaust and confer it on to the Palestinians, re-cast now not only as victims of Zionism, but also of the Nazis and their greatest crime. In doing so, they diminish the exceptional nature of the Holocaust and the pity that its Jewish victims (who had nothing to do with Israel’s crimes) might be expected to receive. That many do this unwittingly - in contrast to those who are just blatantly attempting to troll Jews - does not negate its impact in this. Nor does the fact many some Jews themselves often invoke the analogy.
Click to expand...

Whilst I acknowledge some folk will be trolling or letting emotion get to them I think certain comparisons are inevitable. Of course this can be argued depending on understanding or narrative individuals follow.

An example may be Israel's Nation state law. Now that his similarities to Jim Crow and the Indian removal act but also has sections similar to the Nuremberg laws. Focussing/comparing on the Nuremberg laws over the Jim Crow is understandable considering what Jews themselves have faced in the past.
 
2cents said:
The Holocaust/Nazi analogy is not meant as a serious, good faith historical comparison by those who make it. There’s no amount of detail or statistics, historical context, or alternative analogies that will convince its proponents to stop using it, since it has little or nothing to do with a genuine attempt to understand what’s going on.

Rather, it’s an attempt to appropriate the moral legitimacy they believe Israel has derived from the Holocaust and confer it on to the Palestinians, re-cast now not only as victims of Zionism, but also of the Nazis and their greatest crime. In doing so, they diminish the exceptional nature of the Holocaust and the pity that its Jewish victims (who had nothing to do with Israel’s crimes) might be expected to receive. That many do this unwittingly - in contrast to those who are just blatantly attempting to troll Jews - does not negate its impact in this. Nor does the fact many some Jews themselves often invoke the analogy.
Click to expand...
100%
 
We can debate and argue about the rights and wrongs of the conflict for eternity from each of our personal perspectives. However, the only genuine way to learn about this conflict is through the words of those who have been dispossessed themselves and their daily struggles against apartheid, colonisation, occupation and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, in this latest escalation in Sheikh Jarrah, Al-Aqsa compound, Damascus Gate, and elsewhere.
 
Roane said:
Sorry if this sounds insensitive but is holocaust, as a word, only applicable to WW2 and killing of Jewish folk?

Not a trick question here. Maybe it's a language thing but I've seen it used for Uighars and initially for the Yazidis etc.

On here some folk seem to use it just for Jewish people.

Is it not a general term as per the definition? As in killing of a people? Any people?
Click to expand...

No, the word itself is not only used for the holocaust done by the nazis, at least not by definition or origin. It obviously depends on the context, but when speaking about "the" holocaust, it's clear the machine engineered murder of 6 million jews is meant. Generally speaking, holocaust is usually used for said genocide, but can be used for others as well. Due to the ruthless way in which the nazis have done it (and for what reasons they did it) it became the synonym for the most barbaric act ever done by humans. Which is why I think this terminology should never be used lighty.
 
2cents said:
The Holocaust/Nazi analogy is not meant as a serious, good faith historical comparison by those who make it. There’s no amount of detail or statistics, historical context, or alternative analogies that will convince its proponents to stop using it, since it has little or nothing to do with a genuine attempt to understand what’s going on.

Rather, it’s an attempt to appropriate the moral legitimacy they believe Israel has derived from the Holocaust and confer it on to the Palestinians, re-cast now not only as victims of Zionism, but also of the Nazis and their greatest crime. In doing so, they diminish the exceptional nature of the Holocaust and the pity that its Jewish victims (who had nothing to do with Israel’s crimes) might be expected to receive. That many do this unwittingly - in contrast to those who are just blatantly attempting to troll Jews - does not negate its impact in this. Nor does the fact many some Jews themselves often invoke the analogy.
Click to expand...
I would say it's more the fact that people are in disbelief that a group, who suffered so much from an event like the Holocaust, can impart any form of suffering equivalent to what is going on in Israel/Palestine, seemingly without any self awareness(or they just don't care?). The comparison would happen regularly with any such act from anyone, that could be seen as hypocritical. Just because the scale of the Holocaust was magnitudes worse than what is happening in Palestine, doesn't mean that what is happening there isn't approaching the same levels of batshit crazy.

Watching some of the videos in this thread, seeing everyday Israeli Jews talking about carpet bombing Palestinians as the only solution to the problem, I really don't see how highlighting the past as something to try and avoid is an issue in the slightest.
 
Roane said:
I think the advent of social media is a big issue on how people see the conflict.

In the past the suffering has only been through word of mouth and the media being selective how they portray the incidents that occur. So narratives like "Hamas rockets" have impacted on people's views and stance.

Now however, although the media continue with their selective narrative, people see the devastation as it happens via social media on their phones, laptop etc and imo the view is changing somewhat on who the perpetrator actually is.
Click to expand...

Definitely. That horrific video of children getting carried with their legs blown off is still fecking up my head.
 
Are children being politicized within this conflict? Or do other conflicts have a similar focus.

As a father to two young children I am atleast ten steps ahead of any danger to them. I know I am fortunate to live in a safe environment. But it just seems too late to be using children as short clips to emphasis a point I just don't understand.

'look what they did'? Is this it, what did you not do? Did you do everything in your power?

Do children have to be killed to get your attention, how have they been living the last year??
 
Conor said:
I would say it's more the fact that people are in disbelief that a group, who suffered so much from an event like the Holocaust, can impart any form of suffering equivalent to what is going on in Israel/Palestine, seemingly without any self awareness(or they just don't care?). The comparison would happen regularly with any such act from anyone, that could be seen as hypocritical. Just because the scale of the Holocaust was magnitudes worse than what is happening in Palestine, doesn't mean that what is happening there isn't approaching the same levels of batshit crazy.

Watching some of the videos in this thread, seeing everyday Israeli Jews talking about carpet bombing Palestinians as the only solution to the problem, I really don't see how highlighting the past as something to try and avoid is an issue in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I assume the psyche of not wanting their neighbours to become powerful enough to cause them such suffering in the future has arrived from their past experiences in Europe and elsewhere where they suffered horrifically in the past. Basically hedging their bets just like Feroh did by killing babies and waging untold misery on those who supported Moses.
 
The Corinthian said:
I think you’re over analysing this when it’s far simpler than what you’re making out.

We’re seeing the Palestinian people being murdered en masse and over a protracted period where the aggressors are the IDF/Israelis.

The reason people use the word genocide, ethnic cleansing etc is fairly obvious. The reason the word holocaust is also used is fairly obvious.

This doesn’t diminish at all from what the Jews went through in WW2 or their pity who have nothing to do with the present day situation.

However, there is a certain question to be asked on how a group who endured one of the greatest tragedies in modern history can be so bereft of empathy and morality when it comes to the Palestinians. That’s the key takeaway. Not the use of the word itself.
Click to expand...
Agreed, particularly with the boldened.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
No, the word itself is not only used for the holocaust done by the nazis, at least not by definition or origin. It obviously depends on the context, but when speaking about "the" holocaust, it's clear the machine engineered murder of 6 million jews is meant. Generally speaking, holocaust is usually used for said genocide, but can be used for others as well. Due to the ruthless way in which the nazis have done it (and for what reasons they did it) it became the synonym for the most barbaric act ever done by humans. Which is why I think this terminology should never be used lighty.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

As I say I can't speak for other people's motivations but depending on what part of the world you come from and what history was taught to you the word isn't simply a WW2 or Jewish issue.

Neither is the person's understanding of what is most barbaric.

For me for example the "Asian holocaust" is a real concept too. Something I learnt about many years ago and was portrayed as the most barbaric act by humans. I speak of the Japanese for those who don't know. Even Nazi Germany was shocked by what occurred there.

Again this isn't to belittle or take away from what horrific and barbaric acts were committed against the Jews in Nazi Germany. My point is simply to clarify that not all takes on a situation are based on what some posters have said. For me it's simply having studied before coming to UK and certain topics covered which were never discussed once I came to UK and entered the educational systems.
 


Israelis have successfully eliminated a Hamas leader (age 2-3 yo).
 
Last edited:
hellhunter said:
While I agree with your general point, let's not put words in their mouth they clearly neither said nor meant.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? When speaking about pro-Israel rhetoric they're concise and there's no room for misunderstanding. When on the other foot, things become vague and holistic and there's a general downplaying of anything anti Israel.
 
The Corinthian said:
I think you’re over analysing this when it’s far simpler than what you’re making out.

We’re seeing the Palestinian people being murdered en masse and over a protracted period where the aggressors are the IDF/Israelis.

The reason people use the word genocide, ethnic cleansing etc is fairly obvious. The reason the word holocaust is also used is fairly obvious.

This doesn’t diminish at all from what the Jews went through in WW2 or their pity who have nothing to do with the present day situation.

However, there is a certain question to be asked on how a group who endured one of the greatest tragedies in modern history can be so bereft of empathy and morality when it comes to the Palestinians. That’s the key takeaway. Not the use of the word itself.
Click to expand...

100% this
 
Rektsanwalt said:
No, the word itself is not only used for the holocaust done by the nazis, at least not by definition or origin. It obviously depends on the context, but when speaking about "the" holocaust, it's clear the machine engineered murder of 6 million jews is meant. Generally speaking, holocaust is usually used for said genocide, but can be used for others as well. Due to the ruthless way in which the nazis have done it (and for what reasons they did it) it became the synonym for the most barbaric act ever done by humans. Which is why I think this terminology should never be used lighty.
Click to expand...
Would you not say that the express purpose for the creation of Israel in historic Palestine was the eradication/displacement of non-Jews (most especially the Muslims, due to the location of Al-Aqsa) from the country? Let's be honest here, the illegal settlements are not a recent phenomena and were being upheld and supported by very many moderate Israeli governments before Netanyahu established himself and concentrated his power.

They might not be doing it en masse and immediately like the Nazis did, but are doing it incrementally. With the presence of the Palestinians diminishing little by little within their own country. And of the Palestinians who decided to stay in what is now Israel, they are living as virtual second class citizens, just as the blacks did during segregation in America.

And that's before we even consider the apartheid conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
 
The term holocaust in my understanding, was reserved for destruction and killing on a massive and devastating scale - usually in terms of a nuclear or similar event. Its use in terms of The Holocaust serves to highlight the unprecedented and almost unimaginable destruction of Jews by the Nazis and collaborators.

When you start using it to label every atrocity that happens, it lessens the impact and meaning of the word. It also allows those committing the atrocities, in this case Israel, to hide behind semantics and faux outrage at the use of those words, instead of taking accountability for the actual crimes they are committing in the here and now.

There are plenty of words we can use to describe what Israel are doing to Palestinians today. Use those words instead and stop letting them drag the conversation back into areas they can attempt to gain a moral high ground.
 
Champ said:
Finally a reasoned response!
Makes sense to me.

I just feel that the outrage that is pouring from the anti Israel 'side' will put pressure on western Governments to finally put pressure on Israel.
When/if that happens we will see major escalation I feel.
Click to expand...

Finally put pressure on Israel to do what? What do we want them to do?
 
diarm said:
The term holocaust in my understanding, was reserved for destruction and killing on a massive and devastating scale - usually in terms of a nuclear or similar event. Its use in terms of The Holocaust serves to highlight the unprecedented and almost unimaginable destruction of Jews by the Nazis and collaborators.

When you start using it to label every atrocity that happens, it lessens the impact and meaning of the word. It also allows those committing the atrocities, in this case Israel, to hide behind semantics and faux outrage at the use of those words, instead of taking accountability for the actual crimes they are committing in the here and now.

There are plenty of words we can use to describe what Israel are doing to Palestinians today. Use those words instead and stop letting them drag the conversation back into areas they can attempt to gain a moral high ground.
Click to expand...
Spot on. I understand why people may want to use it as a comparison but I've never seen it lead to a constructive debate - it invariably ends up allowing the supporters of Israel to deflect and move the conversation away from the atrocities being committed.
 
The feck happened here? Looks like 3 or 4 rockets malfunctioning on launch.

 
owlo said:
two of them are peer reviewed academic research. A bunch of others have direct quotes and evidence. Do you think the upenn paper is trash?
Click to expand...

Those that I've looked through before reek of confirmation bias — they take a true statement that "Russia is not as anti-semitic as it could've/should've been" and then use it as a factual confirmation that Putin has personal & political preference towards Jews & Israel, which is, well, stretching it to put it mildly.

I've scrolled through the upenn paper now. For some reason I can't properly copy all of the needed quotes from pdf, so look them up in full yourself if you want to — part of the text just doesn't seem to want to be copied, maybe there's some sort of copyright protection installed on the website. I've spoilered my detailed response as I don't think that it would be interesting to most of the thread viewers. For those who are interested, here's the article in question.

It's actually quite bad as it misunderstands a lot of subtleties about Russian culture. The statement below (on page 44) would be absurd to any Russian — Putin & his regime had appropriated the words such as "fascism/fascists" & "Nazis" (slightly less so) without any correlation to the Holocaust whatsoever. To be fair, the author makes sure to use the words like "suggests" and "seems to be", but it's still obvious that he fully believes his own conclusions that are far detached from reality.

You have to understand the historical meaning of the WW2 to Russia/Soviet Union and, specifically, its meaning to the current regime. The myth (I'm using this word not because it didn't happen, but because its meaning had been completely changed) of the WW2 (or, rather, The Great Patriotic War) has been reshaped into the myth of the creation of the Russian nation. In USSR it was the October Revolution, in USA it's the end of the Civil War, in France it's their Revolution as well. It may sound weird, but that's what it is — this regime doesn't want to make a choice between the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as the entities that Russia originates from, as both have a very divided set of supporters that don't like each other. So the myth of the War, or rather, the myth of the Victory, is chosen as the point of today's country/nation/culture's "creation"/"emergence" — because it's so pure and it supersedes any political agenda.

While branding anyone who stands oppose this regime a "fascist" without any real correlation to the original term, has become the norm. Americans are fascists, Georgians are fascist, Baltic countries are fascist, Ukrainians are fascist etc. — whoever is convenient at the moment. In Russia (and especially in Russia's official propaganda), it's not a term that correlates to the Holocaust or to Jews in any way anymore. This is why Russian nationalism & its significant issues with racism (towards Asians, towards people from Caucasian republics, towards black people and towards jews — it's very much alive is well) paradoxically lives alongside the complete and utter distain to so-called fascists (whoever is called that at the moment).

However cynical, the Russian government’s use of accusations of anti-Semitism to slander its foes also suggests a consistent pro-Semitic self-perception. The annexation of Crimea and proxy war in Donbas following the Euromaidan of 2014 have provided ... ("..." go where parts of the text won't copy — harms)

Kremlin to view new Ukrainian values as incompatible with those of Russia and Eurasia. In his press conference, Putin referred to the Ukrainian events as the ‘rampage .....

Referring to the Euromaidan protests, .....

Certainly, the Kremlin has also accused others of its own bad behavior, such as interfering in the domestic politics of other countries. Ordinarily, accusations against other countries by the Putin government bear little ontological weight. Indeed, Kremlin endorsement is often a contrary indicator to verisimilitude. However, given the context of the steady continuation of the Kremlin’s Jewish policies under Putin, these statements might be viewed in another light – not as arch-cynical accusations, ....

Semitic (at least relative to Russia) may contain a kernel of truth.
Click to expand...

As for the obvious confirmation bias. For example this is seen as a sign of a an official pro-Semitic policy by Putin...

During his stay in the Kremlin, Putin met with rabbis several times. In his last meeting with Russia’s chief rabbi in June 2007, he promised to donate one month’s salary for the construction of a Jewish museum of tolerance. Putin meets regularly with representatives from Russian Jewish Communities and various Western Jewish organizations. In October 2007, he met with a representative of the European Jewish Congress, attended many Jewish religious celebrations (for instance, Hanukkah in 2001) and regularly sent congratulations to the Russian...
Click to expand...

Putin continues to make positive gestures towards Russia’s Jewish community by attending major Jewish events, praising the role of Jews in Russia’s history and contemporary life, and strongly condemning antisemitism. In many regions, it is no longer uncommon to see a mayor or governor visit a synagogue or congratulate the community of Jewish life in Russia, as evidenced by the growing number of synagogues being returned to the community after decades of government ownership, the increasing media coverage of Jewish communal activities and statements by Jewish leaders about domestic and international events, and a rising willingness of Jewish leaders in some parts of the country to stand up publicly for their rights.
Click to expand...

While those are seen as "policies, consequential as they may be, are deviations from the pro-Semitic norm of the 21st-century Kremlin" without any actual evidence that one is more important than the other.

Unlike Western leaders, he did not openly stand up against the two greatest anti-Semites of our timed the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. In October 2003, Putin attended the meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, during which Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Jews who ruled the world. As Putin’s semi-official biographer Kolesnikov wrote in his book Putin Saw Me, the Russian President said nothing about this rude anti-Semitic tirade, even though he had the opportunity to do so, because he addressed the conference following the Malaysian leader. While chatting with the Russian journalists who attended the conference, Putin did mention that some speeches at the conference were ‘extremist’. What is more, Putin never made critical comments about the appeal of the current [2008] president of Iran to obliterate Israel.
Click to expand...

He has also hosted meetings with groups such as Hamas, which are openly anti-Semitic in ways most similar to Ahmadinejad. On a lesser count, Putin’s government has been in firm opposition to returning the library of the Lubavicher Rebbe Menachem Shneerson
Click to expand...
 
This convo always reminds me of this great Dr Norman Finkelstein put down.

 
diarm said:
I've never thought this about anyone on the caf before, because I don't know any of ye from Adam. But reading your posts on here this week, I feel comfortable saying it.

You are not a good person.
Click to expand...
You're not alone and imagine this times a few hundred thousand.
 
diarm said:
The term holocaust in my understanding, was reserved for destruction and killing on a massive and devastating scale - usually in terms of a nuclear or similar event. Its use in terms of The Holocaust serves to highlight the unprecedented and almost unimaginable destruction of Jews by the Nazis and collaborators.

When you start using it to label every atrocity that happens, it lessens the impact and meaning of the word. It also allows those committing the atrocities, in this case Israel, to hide behind semantics and faux outrage at the use of those words, instead of taking accountability for the actual crimes they are committing in the here and now.

There are plenty of words we can use to describe what Israel are doing to Palestinians today. Use those words instead and stop letting them drag the conversation back into areas they can attempt to gain a moral high ground.
Click to expand...

Isn't the word holocaust used mainly due to burning?

I read a piece a few years back which asked something along the lines of if the word was used by Jewish folk due to any scripture or (and I don't know how to put this without someone taking offence) writings to justify a "prophesy" that wasn't scripture but, in this case, Zionism.

If I recall the piece, and it was quite a few years back, it also focussed on the figure of 6 million, specifically. I recall the burning and 6 million figure being used at other times in history (Russia as I recall) because it was the starting or needed to be due to said "prophesy".

Tbh my memory isnt as good as it once was and this was a while back. So may have some of it wrong but that was the gist. Maybe someone can clarify.
 
Roane said:
Isn't the word holocaust used mainly due to burning?

I read a piece a few years back which asked something along the lines of if the word was used by Jewish folk due to any scripture or (and I don't know how to put this without someone taking offence) writings to justify a "prophesy" that wasn't scripture but, in this case, Zionism.

If I recall the piece, and it was quite a few years back, it also focussed on the figure of 6 million, specifically. I recall the burning and 6 million figure being used at other times in history (Russia as I recall) because it was the starting or needed to be due to said "prophesy".

Tbh my memory isnt as good as it once was and this was a while back. So may have some of it wrong but that was the gist. Maybe someone can clarify.
Click to expand...

Yes:

The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen, and gained wide usage, because, in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria or open fires.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
Really ? What did the children do this time ?
Click to expand...

Maybe someone can clarify but I have heard from a person who works with NGOs in Palestine/Israel who says the spark in this case was about evicting Palestinian families from sheikh Jurrah as some Israelis had got "court validated" documents of proof of ownership to land where Palestinians live.

Palestinians, under Israeli law, cannot file similar lawsuits as it's seen as a threat to "the state as a Jewish one".
 
2cents said:
The Holocaust/Nazi analogy is not meant as a serious, good faith historical comparison by those who make it. There’s no amount of detail or statistics, historical context, or alternative analogies that will convince its proponents to stop using it, since it has little or nothing to do with a genuine attempt to understand what’s going on.

Rather, it’s an attempt to appropriate the moral legitimacy they believe Israel has derived from the Holocaust and confer it on to the Palestinians, re-cast now not only as victims of Zionism, but also of the Nazis and their greatest crime. In doing so, they diminish the exceptional nature of the Holocaust and the pity that its Jewish victims (who had nothing to do with Israel’s crimes) might be expected to receive. That many do this unwittingly - in contrast to those who are just blatantly attempting to troll Jews - does not negate its impact in this. Nor does the fact many some Jews themselves often invoke the analogy.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.

I think there are very legitimate arguments to be made for ethnic cleansing and apartheid but genocide and holocaust in particular is not accurate and in my opinion is almost always just used to get a rise/emotional reaction.

If the Israelis wanted to commit a genocide, there'd be a lot more dead Palestinians.

That isn't to take away from the horrific attacks and daily aggressions of the Israeli state towards Palestinians.

But people need to stop using this offensive comparison. It doesn't help.
 
Velshi On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Right To Exist Goes Both Ways


 
Frosty said:
Yes:

The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen, and gained wide usage, because, in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria or open fires.
Click to expand...

The word Olah can also mean to ascend or to go up in Hebrew.

Think the modern Hebrew term.for the Holocaust is Shoah. Which is catstrophe or disaster.
 
africanspur said:
Totally agree with this.

I think there are very legitimate arguments to be made for ethnic cleansing and apartheid but genocide and holocaust in particular is not accurate and in my opinion is almost always just used to get a rise/emotional reaction.

If the Israelis wanted to commit a genocide, there'd be a lot more dead Palestinians.

That isn't to take away from the horrific attacks and daily aggressions of the Israeli state towards Palestinians.

But people need to stop using this offensive comparison. It doesn't help.
Click to expand...

I think you may have a point with the word holocaust, albeit I have offered why some folk use it and not in the way you have described, whilst acknowledging your point maybe valid with some peoples usage.

The word genocide is a little more complicated IMHO and I think it does apply depending on which definition you adopt. General you here not you specifically.
 
@Amir - how are you? Hope you’re safe. Is there any opposition to what the Israelis are doing from the left within Israel? Not so much from any political figures but more the people.

@IhabX7 - haven't heard from you for a couple of days. Are you ok and safe?
 
Drifter said:
Velshi On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Right To Exist Goes Both Ways


Click to expand...


I feel like key issues keep getting glossed over in this whole situation.

Israeli land grabbing is a serious moral and legal wrong and the International community really must step in to say okay no more of this.

But when it comes to questions of apartheid and the blockade of Gaza, I feel the conversation is skewed because people tend to underrate the presence of Hamas and the wide acceptance of its ideology as being a major reason why Israel may act in this way.

If Hamas and its backers such as Iran, as well as everyday Palestinians, generally desire to see Israel wiped off the map so that they can reclaim what they see as the rightful Palestinian heritage, how does Israel approach the tricky question of integrating Palestinians into Israel, knowing that Hamas could very easily infiltrate them in this way? It makes little sense to create a welcoming environment for an enemy within.

Secondly, it has to be pointed out that Gaza is not completely surrounded by Israel. It does have a border with Egypt, which has been closed for as long as Israel has closed its border with Gaza. The reasons on both sides are the same: the destructive inclination of Hamas.

Again, looking at the current conflict, Hamas plays a central role but eludes the limelight. In International Humanitarian Law, you must not situate military sites within the civilian population and must take care to distinguish your combatants from your civilian population. Hamas has always done this in a bid to weaponize human sympathy.

Take Hamas out of the equation, force Israel to stop grabbing land, recognize Palestine as a State in practice, and we'll be one or two real steps closer to lasting peace. The hardest part is taking out Hamas.
 
The Original said:
I feel like key issues keep getting glossed over in this whole situation.

Israeli land grabbing is a serious moral and legal wrong and the International community really must step in to say okay no more of this.

But when it comes to questions of apartheid and the blockade of Gaza, I feel the conversation is skewed because people tend to underrate the presence of Hamas and the wide acceptance of its ideology as being a major reason why Israel may act in this way.

If Hamas and its backers such as Iran, as well as everyday Palestinians, generally desire to see Israel wiped off the map so that they can reclaim what they see as the rightful Palestinian heritage, how does Israel approach the tricky question of integrating Palestinians into Israel, knowing that Hamas could very easily infiltrate them in this way? It makes little sense to create a welcoming environment for an enemy within.

Secondly, it has to be pointed out that Gaza is not completely surrounded by Israel. It does have a border with Egypt, which has been closed for as long as Israel has closed its border with Gaza. The reasons on both sides are the same: the destructive inclination of Hamas.

Again, looking at the current conflict, Hamas plays a central role but eludes the limelight. In International Humanitarian Law, you must not situate military sites within the civilian population and must take care to distinguish your combatants from your civilian population. Hamas has always done this in a bid to weaponize human sympathy.

Take Hamas out of the equation, force Israel to stop grabbing land, recognize Palestine as a State in practice, and we'll be one or two real steps closer to lasting peace. The hardest part is taking out Hamas.
Click to expand...
Interestingly Israel helped creating Hamas to counter the more secular PLO.
 


Zionists aren’t racists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.