Since we’re off HN topic anyways, can someone ELI5 why Israel blockades / occupies Palestinian territories? I would think given the treatment of Jews during WWII that there would be a special desire among Israelis not to treat a group of people poorly based on immutable facts like ethnicity. I understand the hatred of Hamas but don’t understand depriving Palestinian people of medicine and clean water and free movement.
For what it’s worth I have made a good faith attempt to answer this for myself and quickly got bogged down in information about the Ottoman Empire, etc etc which I can’t imagine is a real justification today.
It's not about ethnicity or religion per se. The land israel occupies was taken by force from palestinians. Gaza specifically is to a large extent simply a refugee camp for those displaced to create the state of israel, and their descendants.
Both groups have, from their own perspective, a valid and exclusive claim to the land there. If not prevented from doing so, palestinians would certainly reclaim the homes and farms of their grandparents. Israel has the political, economic, and military power to prevent this, and so they do.
Not true. Jews purchased many of the lands during British and Ottoman rule. When Israel was formed the Palestinians were given the majority of the territories. They attacked to get the rest and were defeated in a very bloody war.
As a result many fled. Many stayed and are a part of Israel to this day, they vote and have representatives in parliament, supreme court etc.
The Gaza strip and occupied territories were held by Egypt and Jordan. They were occupied in the 6 day war (1967) but Israel never annexed them. Some of the residence there are indeed refugees who prior to the formation of Israel, lived in a different region.
It's also not true that it's not about religion. This is 100% about religion. Jewish settlers are entirely motivated by religion. Hamas is an extremist religious group who believes in holy war and murder of its own people. While Israel is technically a secular country, the religious forces are strong and force us into situations like this.
> Not true. Jews purchased many of the lands during British and Ottoman rule. When Israel was formed the Palestinians were given the majority of the territories.
"The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...)
Notice that the areas allocated are not continuous most of the area is a desert (the entire southern region). It also doesn't mention who owned the rest of the land so the 7% number isn't valuable.
People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so. It has gone back and forward and there isn't really one correct owner.
However they want to do it, rolling into a music festival and shooting everyone really doesn't sound like the right way to fight injustice (perceived or real).
> People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so.
This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?
No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.
It is a lie that Israel was founded on an ethnic cleansing hiding the fact that the Arab league wanted to wipe out all Jewish settlements. Just like it happened in other Arab countries at that time and just how they want to do it today.
War erupted which Israel won and hence their claim to the land. They did not ethnically cleanse anyone, in many cases they even bought the land, which I have never seen in a similar conflict. Usually it is just taken.
Man what do you want to call the forced removal of an ethnic group from a geographic area so they can be replaced by another one? Ethnic cleansing has been the accepted term for this for a couple generations but I'm flexible on nomenclature here as long as we agree that the forced removal happened.
If we don't agree that it did then we literally cannot have a conversation across this boundary on this subject. I also don't see how you can adequately explain the current situation in the region when you deny this part of its history but that's your problem I guess.
Any admittance of fault would be abused and very one-sided, so we cannot have a discussion on this topic indeed. I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
If you only hold discussions where one party must confess to ethnic cleansing, conflict is inevitable.
No I hold plenty of discussions where no one has to confess to an ethnic cleansing. But only ones where neither participant has committed one.
> I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.
What does it mean "stand by" a statement that an assertion is a lie without attempting to refute the assertion? This is a nonsense action, it is nothing. I said I'm flexible about the vocabulary we use when we talk about what happened, so what happened? Why do so many palestinians live in gaza? How did they get there, under what conditions do they remain? Why aren't there more of them in other parts of israel?
I'm giving you an opportunity to describe it on your terms. So describe it.
I'm not making an argument, I'm making an assertion that you called a lie. So clearly you understood the point I'm making, I don't see that it requires further litigation on the details.
So, again, what happened? What is your description of the events that led to palestinians being so concentrated in gaza, and no longer living in the land they inhabited before.
Again I am giving you an opportunity to tell this story in the words you prefer. What, other than your cowardice, is preventing you from taking it?
That comparison doesn't fit because the Jews in Germany didn't want to exterminate Germans. That was Nazi propaganda. Perhaps that perspective survived from the closeness of Hitler with the Mufti.
The levels of hate have gone beyond reason and strategy and (it is hard to read my own words but because it's the truth I won't leave it implicit) reached ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. That is the only way to explain these events and what is openly planned.
The united states must stay out. Controlling a city sized pile of collapsed buildings is a nightmarish situation that I do not wish on Israeli conscripts but extraordinarily so not on our own volunteers. The prospect of a second major invasion of the middle east should give pause even in the event that a terrorist strike in the United States occurs. Second to that I hope that they can return to a peace process before the scale of the atrocities stain their (Israeli) flag forever and ours by abetting. (Hamas' flag has guns on it, it can't get a lot worse. Wishing anything from their own leadership is hopeless even surrender.)
The civilians will be given guns and told their life is already over. We will be told Hamas is using child soldiers.
In my opinion you shouldn't be worried about that possibility, the presence of the US in the middle east right now is probably just to deter other parties from escalating the conflict. The US has no interest and no intent for entering Gaza, Israel has the resources to deal with Hamas on it's own.
One of the most important parts of this conflict I think which most people here aren't talking about ia the geopolitics in the middle east. Most of this is still just a big old proxy war spear-headed by Iran. All the big terrorist groups and actors in the region wheather it be Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas or Lebanon's Hezbollah are funded and controlled by Iran.
Israel has bombed airports in Syria only a few days ago. They seem willing to strain the American protection and could little by little provoke an escalation involving regional powers, leading to our involvement. The one thing that could make this catastrophe worse is if America is drawn in.
Not only a few days ago, they do that on a regular basis by now because there are regular shipments of weapons by Iran. Syria in its state of civil war doesn't have much influence in the northern regions, where Iran tried to deploy the weapons against Israel.
One need not forget that Israel too has no interest in an all out conflict. Also the syrian attack iirc was to prevent Iran's foreign minister from landing there.
Everyone's (except maybe Iran's) hope is that this conflict does not escalate any more.
Ok I understand this but why prevent clean water and food and medicine from crossing the border? Why disallow them from trade while simultaneously not letting them into Israel?
Note: If you're referring to things that they've done within the last few days, disregard this comment as this comment was written regarding the way things were before the recent attacks
I think it's more nuanced than just them trying to "prevent clean water and food and medicine from crossing the border." In the region, water is scarce and important for both sides. Israel does allow "clean water" into the region, the complaint is that Israel government allows their own people take too much of it (from the perspective of Palestinian farmers). In the American west we have the exact same problem. Farmers higher upstream of the Colorado river want enough water for all their crops, but this would deprive the farmers further west from having enough. There are intense and heated (political) battles between the regions, with both regions feeling like they are getting shortchanged.
With food, medicine etc, there's concern that those supplies are going to enemy combatants/terrorists (from the Israeli perspective).
This is one of those situations where there aren't really any clear/easy answers.
So that what? They can become a thriving, economically powerful micronation on their doorstep? With better access to the political and military connections necessary to reclaim what they will always consider their land? Why would israel want that? Why would they allow it, if they have the power to prevent it.
Isn’t the deck tilted so much in Israel’s favour (economically and militarily) right now, that Palestine doesn’t need to be oppressed in the manner that it is? Isn’t oppressing the Palestinian people what allows groups like Hamas to thrive?
(These are honest questions, from someone with essentially no understanding of the current conflict but is trying desperately to make sense of it and is struggling with obviously biased reporting everywhere I look)
First of all, I am biased to my opinions so take everything I say eith a grain of salt.
Now, you need to divide your concept of thr Palestinian people to (at least) 2 groups or factions, those that live in Gaza and those that live in the west bank. The major difference between these groups is that Israel is the sovereign over the West Bank but disengaged from Gaza about 18 years ago and since it's disengagement, terrorist groups like Hamas have taken control of the Gaza strip[1]. One could have a long conversation about human rights issues in the West Bank but what is happening in Gaza right now isn't oppression, it's a war. You could point out Israel's blockade of Gaza as a form of oppression but it's just a way for Israel to prevent Hamas from accumulating massive amounts of weapons from certain foreign actors[2]. The really terrible thing ia that Hamas's infrastructure is so deeply linked and interleaved with civilian life it's impossible to fight them effectively without hurting civilians (Israel has some measures to attempt to do that[3] but everything has it's limits). Hamas isn't interested in peace and will slaighter their way to victory whatever happens, they are actively hurting both Gaza and Israeli civilians as we recently observed with the cruel massacre. The world will be better without Hamas, it's heartbreaking it has to happen this way.
If you are able to get a supply of rockets into your land, you can get anything that allows you to strive economically. Israel also granted them more autonomy which they repaid with terrorism. Do you just deny that fact?
The blind blame of Israel is just tiring. They still want all the land and drive out the Jews. That is no basis to found a prosperous nation.
It's not blind I'm not blaming israel for anything israel hasn't chosen to do. No one made them do an ethnic cleansing, no one made them keep its refugees in a blockaded prison city. No one makes them bomb palestinian children and assassinate palestinian journalists. These are their choices and they are responsible for them.
>Since we’re off HN topic anyways, can someone ELI5 why Israel blockades / occupies Palestinian territories?
No. There are things that you can reasonably expect to explain to an average five year old children. Humanitarian horror shows entangled into complex geo-political situations twisted with religious and ethnic matters is, to my mind, not one of them.
Sure one can always try to sketch some answers, but what is the purpose you are expecting to get out of it? If you want to build a solidly informed opinion, I’m afraid that there is no shortcut royal way.
I'm a liberal Israeli. The border used to be mostly open. With the Oslo accord the Hamas started bombing civilians (busses, coffee shops etc.).
The wall is a problem but it stopped this. Hamas did its best to destroy the peace that was forming. It found a collaborator in our PM (Netanyahu) who essentially supported them and elevated them so they will fight with the PLO.
The idea was that it would prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. That was always a stupid idea... Notice that this was never "official" policy, this is my interpretation based on his actions.
Right now the specific blockade is fulled by three things:
* Rage - this is something I feel personally as everyone lost someone they know there. It's a small country... When children are murdered it tends to bring out blind rage and indifference towards the other side.
* Fear - Israel survived in a very hostile environment thanks to its ability to instill fear in its enemies. This showed a weak underbelly and Israelis are rightly concerned that anything less than complete destruction of the enemy will trigger an all out war.
* Hostages - There are civilians and children held hostage. The minister responsible for infrastructure specifically said that electricity and water won't be restored until the hostages are returned.
I personally think the bombings are absolutely horrible. I know quite a few Palestinians and my heart goes out to them. There's a mob mentality on both sides and we both lack in leadership. It took 5 days for the MODERATE head of the PLO to issue a very weak condemnation of the attack. On our side Netanyahu is as corrupt as they come. A demagogue of the worst kind. He promised to "flatten Gaza" which is stupid. I don't want that.
The Hamas has been a cancer on the Palestinian people. It murdered more Palestinians than Israel ever did. They believe in holy war and that Palestinian dead will be rewarded in the afterlife. The death of a Palestinian child is just PR for these guys. They are as terrible as they come. Unfortunately, this cancer masticated through the population. I have no easy answered but one thing I think pretty much every Israeli agrees on, they MUST be destroyed completely. Not the Palestinian people, the Hamas. My main concern is the leadership vacuum. The PLO isn't great either and won't want to collaborate with Israel after everything it did... Going back to something resembling the Oslo accord will be hard on all fronts.
Israel isn't committing genocide in the Gaza strip. Lets not go there.
In fact, lets not blame the victims. Israel is defending themselves from aggressors and so I don't go far at all to consider their hasty response to the situation.
Next, "what palestinian territory?"
The british through blood, death and gore took that land. They formed Israel who has kept the land through blood, death and gore.
Did the palestianians take the land by force? Were they given land? Nope and Nope.
I’d prefer you set me straight so I can understand the context from your perspective. It seems like a uniquely biased “third rail” type topic and I cannot seem to get straight answers that make sense.
If there was a blockade - how so many weapons got in?
Guarding the borders is essential - we saw what they did in a few hours without them.
Burning women alive. Decapitating babies. Raping teenagers then shooting them.
Without a guarded border - they'll do a second holocaust.
That's not a speculation - that's a proven fact.
Its been widely reported without evidence existing, which should have been a redflag for anyone with brain. It was just "trust me bro" by the prime minister.
Everybody has been slowly backtracking on it over the last 2 days. Including Israel itself:
That's nonsense. I care a lot about Palestinian babies as an Israeli. The Hamas is the reason they are at risk.
Anyone who wants to support the Palestinian people needs to understand that the biggest obstacle to a Palestinian state and liberty is the Hamas who is conducting a Jihad. It doesn't care about Palestinian lives and considers them casualties in a holy war.
I think the bombings are terrible and don't help the Israeli cause one bit. But I can't really blame the leadership here. After watching the photos there's a rage going on here which is exactly what the Hamas wanted.
> I think the bombings are terrible and don't help the Israeli cause one bit. But I can't really blame the leadership here. After watching the photos there's a rage going on here which is exactly what the Hamas wanted.
Funny how I could use the same logic to defend Hamas.
I think the shootings at the music festival and attacks on other civilians by Hamas were terrible and don’t help the Palestinian cause one bit. But I can’t really blame the Hamas leadership here. After watching the violent dispossession of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and incursions into the al-Alqsa mosque there’s a rage going on here which is exactly what the IDF wanted.
But if anyone actually defended the attacks on Israeli civilians they would rightfully be called terrorist sympathizers.
So, I’ll hold you to the same standards. Do you stand by your words? Do you think that the Israeli leadership is not be blamed for the hundreds of dead infants and thousands of dead kids? Does the genocidal IDF have no responsibility for telling a million+ Gazans to leave their homes or be bombed to dead? Do you support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza?
> Funny how I could use the same logic to defend Hamas.
Nonsense. The difference of intentionally executing babies and children and kidnapping civilians should be stark. Shame on you.
Unlike the Hamas Israel tried to have a peaceful solution multiple times. Including a Palestinian state. They are not fighting for their people, they are fighting for their god, it's a war for the purpose of death not liberation.
> incursions into the al-Alqsa mosque there’s a rage going on here which is exactly what the IDF wanted.
Just like the Palestinian people are divided so are we. The IDF doesn't want anything, its an army. The current government includes people who are terrible racists and they did the al-Alqsa stuff. They are the Israeli counterparts of the Hamas.
I understand that rage and I honestly understood the recent incursions in Jenin, they made sense. They focused on settlers and on the military.
> Do you think that the Israeli leadership is not be blamed for the hundreds of dead infants and thousands of dead kids?
To some degree yes. I do. I think they will need to explain the justification to what they're doing. Unfortunately, Israel never recognized the authority of the Hague court. Also with the weakening democracy in Israel this is even more of a problem.
> Does the genocidal IDF have no responsibility for telling a million+ Gazans to leave their homes or be bombed to dead? Do you support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza?
The word genocide is problematic here. The IDF specifically issued a clearance warning indicating its targets in advance. That's not something you do if you plan to kill civilians.
Calling it ethnic cleansing is untrue at the moment. Even the inflated numbers published by the Hamas don't back that up. Notice that even now the Hamas is still firing missiles onto Israel and I just walked out of a shelter...
> The current government includes people who are terrible racists and they did the al-Alqsa stuff. They are the Israeli counterparts of the Hamas.
You say you see no paralells, and so, hypothetically speaking, you'd have no trouble if the Palestinians bombed the cities these law markers live in, who use the shield of democracy to hide behind a 10 million strong populace?
> They are not fighting for their people, they are fighting for their god, it's a war for the purpose of death not liberation.
The Palestinians don't desire death. I'm sure, they'd want to live as freely and as purposefully as folks on the other side of the fence in Ashkelon and Ashdod.
> The IDF specifically issued a clearance warning indicating its targets in advance. That's not something you do if you plan to kill civilians.
What about the seige? There have been reports of shelling without warning, too. I recall, that's how a journalist reporting from there died.
Surely, there is a way other than destruction at this scale to kill a handful of who, you claim, are suicidal folks fighting for God?
> Calling it ethnic cleansing is untrue at the moment. Even the inflated numbers published by the Hamas don't back that up. Notice that even now the Hamas is still firing missiles onto Israel and I just walked out of a shelter...
Surely, you can see that the refugee camps of the West Bank, the barriers in Jerusalem, the walls in Hebron, the crossings at Gaza pack a generation of humiliation which leads to desperation that results in nothing but more pain. Both sides have suffered enough. The problem I see is, one side (in particular, the terriblly racist but democratically-elected government you allude to above) thinks some more years of fierceful force, while they have the economic, political, and military backing of the Western world and while the Arab world is reeling from political and socio-economic turmoil, and it could all be finished soon.
> You say you see no paralells, and so, hypothetically speaking, you'd have no trouble if the Palestinians bombed the cities these law markers live in, who use the shield of democracy to hide behind a 10 million strong populace?
I understand the missiles. I think it hurts their own people more but I do understand that. The saying here is that if Hamas puts down its arms there will be peace. If Israel puts down its arms there will be no more Israelis. That isn't wrong although the reality is more nuanced.
E.g. the PLO did put down its arms and the result isn't stellar for them either. This is exactly due to those racist government elements. The racists on the Israeli side actually supported Hamas until last week. They did that in order to weaken the PLO and weaken the chance of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, they were very successful.
The PLO at its current state is so weak, the Palestinian people have no real leadership. Even if Israel is successful in destroying the Hamas there will be a huge vacuum and no one to run a Palestinian state.
> > They are not fighting for their people, they are fighting for their god, it's a war for the purpose of death not liberation.
> The Palestinians don't desire death. I'm sure, they'd want to live as freely and as purposefully as folks on the other side of the fence in Ashkelon and Ashdod.
I was writing about the Hamas not the Palestinian people. The Hamas wants death plain and simple. If you don't believe me I suggest reading up on them and their charter.
They consider any Palestinian civilian death as part of the holy war to be a blessing. They are unwilling to settle for a part of the land. They demand the entire state of Israel. There's no negotiating, no discussion and no compromise.
> What about the seige? There have been reports of shelling without warning, too.
I totally agree that this is horrible and isn't helpful to Israel or its cause. Unfortunately, there's a thirst for blood on the Israeli side. You need to understand the scale of this thing. It's a small country. It's as if 9/11 had 40,000 casualties adjusted to population size. Everyone knows someone who was there and probably at least one casualty.
Hamas new exactly what they were doing. That's why they kidnapped children. That's a trigger at a level and scale we've never seen. They know how to push the buttons and are doing it to trigger the government with the express intention for Israel to murder as many Palestinians as possible. They hope this will enrage the surrounding Arab countries enough to trigger an all out regional holy war for the destruction of Israel.
Israeli bombing civilians is something Israel is doing as part of a Hamas strategy. It's stupid and plain evil.
> I recall, that's how a journalist reporting from there died.
There were several journalist deaths but only one from Lebanon was reported here recently so I might have missed one. Israel said it is investigating it but honestly, they don't do a great job with that. To be fair, plenty of journalists died in US wars too.
But again. I think the bombings are terrible and mostly help the cause of the Hamas.
> Surely, there is a way other than destruction at this scale to kill a handful of who, you claim, are suicidal folks fighting for God?
I would surely hope so but there will be many casualties either way. Ground forces will go in and those will increase dramatically. This is warfare in neighborhoods. That's hard and deadly. Even a tank becomes vulnerable and often can't move. Finding the enemy in these situations is nearly impossible.
The logistic concept of destroying the buildings is removing places to hide when the ground forces move through the streets.
> Surely, you can see that the refugee camps of the West Bank, the barriers in Jerusalem, the walls in Hebron, the crossings at Gaza pack a generation of humiliation which leads to desperation that results in nothing but more pain.
I agree. This situation includes a lot of fault for Israel and its leadership. Unfortunately, I don't see things improving. Even if Bibi is finally held accountable for this debacle the question is who will replace him.
People write about these things a lot in the local papers. There are many organizations that try to fight for the Palestinian people and try to restore faith in a two country solution. But so much poison was thrown in the well that the majority of people around here refuse to see the other side.
Major claims are here are:
* Hamas was voted into power - they chose the Hamas.
* When the attack happened last week people were celebrating in the streets in Gaza.
They aren't wrong. For more than a decade Hamas controlled the narrative in the west bank and brainwashed a generation. They all believe that we're all murderers and must all be killed. How do you unwind that and make peace?
Since the Palestinian leadership was decimated who do you even make peace with?
As a very far left liberal humanist I'm at a loss here. I don't know how anyone can fix the current situation.
Thank you, you're so thoughtful and graceful despite being a victim of this conflict.
> ...the PLO did put down its arms and the result isn't stellar for them either.
Expulsion, ironically, is already what's happening there, and eventually, they might just get brushed out to Syria and Jordan in another 50 years or so (as the relatively richer Jewish diaspora continues to "buy" Palestinian land). See also: the expulsion of Indians from Burma, Uganda, Tanzania.
> There's no negotiating, no discussion and no compromise.
Hopefully, the Arab League can convince them one way or the other. I believe, by simply accepting the Israeli citizenship, ALL Palestinians stand a chance to fight it out politically, as otherwise, they're anyway "second-rate citizens", regardless of whether they're militant (Gaza) or not (the West Bank).
> They hope this will enrage the surrounding Arab countries enough to trigger an all out regional holy war for the destruction of Israel.
The powers-that-be, surely aren't that naive given the unconditional support Israel has always had from Europe and the Americas. ALL of their Arab neighbors are in no economic position to wage a war, even if there's political will. But they still went ahead with this despicable plan anyway... I am lost, really.
> Israeli bombing civilians is something Israel is doing as part of a Hamas strategy. It's stupid and plain evil.
Some would say (ex: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide ... I don't), it is even more sinister to strike down / criminalize any and all forms of protests as antisemitism and pro-genocide, and then cancel the hell out of those who are filmed or photographed. Wonder if this arrogance will be the eventual undoing for the grand designs of the ruling Israeli conservatives.
> Israel said it is investigating it but honestly, they don't do a great job with that.
Not terrorism when people in uniform do it ;)
> Finding the enemy in these situations is nearly impossible.
From Israeli (tech) twitter, the sentiment I get is... all of Gaza is enemy, and couldn't care less if IDF nakba'd them a bit more in to Sinai.
> ...restore faith in a two country solution
If the Palestinians have any sense, they'd fight to get equal rights as citizens of the State of Israel, though I imagine even that would be a long struggle (but if Israel remains a democracy, they stand a real chance to affect governance and bring about meaningful change for their people). I don't think a 2 state solution is viable for the improvised Palestinians with all the fragmentation of villages and cities in Judea and Samaria (unless the settlers pull out; unlikely) and the geographical isolation and irrelevance of Gaza.
> The logistic concept of destroying the buildings is removing places to hide when the ground forces move through the streets.
Looks like this will happen, but I am unsure what the end game for IDF is? Hamas have estimated 40K "fighters" (but lets face it, they're not really a match, they'll be slaughtered if not by the Army, by the Air force; it isn't a fair fight even if its urban war-fare), unless it involves murdering every male Gazan (because of course they're all Hamas) or force them into Egypt? The latter might come to pass if Israel doesn't back down from this war and the West continues to support it. May be that's one part of the answer to the Palestine question.
> How do you unwind that and make peace?
Tear up the farce that was the US-brokered Oslo Accords and the UK-brokered Mandate, and undo the partition. Offer a life of dignity, peace, prosperity, and purpose to peoples who are refugees in their own homeland. Making the Palestinians accept citizenship can be forced by the Arab League. Easier said than done, of course (:
Another way is to disperse the Arabs in to neighboring countries, which Israel is in a position to do (slowly with the West Bank, and swiftly with Gaza). Once that happens, it'll be interesting to watch just how long the Israeli right and far-right can continue to rely on antisemitism (https://www.972mag.com/antisemitism-israel-jews-ihra/) and the dreadful Holocaust to champion their causes (like building the Third Temple, for example). We at least know that the Germans would never ever question anything and can count on the French as well, but can we say the same for other nation states?
"...the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
> Hopefully, the Arab League can convince them one way or the other. I believe, by simply accepting the Israeli citizenship, ALL Palestinians stand a chance to fight it out politically, as otherwise, they're anyway "second-rate citizens", regardless of whether they're militant (Gaza) or not (the West Bank).
Israeli citizenship is the crux of the issue. Much of when we consider as the borders of Israel was annexed. That means the people who were there before got full citizenship and rights.
In 1967 when Israel occupied these additional territories they came with a vast number of Palestinians in them. Egypt didn't want Gaza back when a peace treaty was finally signed. Even now they won't let anyone in from Gaza. Jordan didn't want the west bank either.
Israel chose to form settlements to slowly grab land. This was in-part a strategic decision, especially in the west bank where the border is very narrow. This was a poor mistake that was actually started by Nobel Peace prize winner for the Oslo accord Shimon Peres. Yes. The liberals started the settlements.
This was criticized by some smart people at the time such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz who was a fascinating man that saw how occupying another people would destroy the country from within.
Israel specifically chose not to annex the west bank and gaza to avoid citizenship for millions of additional Palestinians. That would completely offset the balance of power in the country. It's just a fucked up scenario. The extreme right parts of the current government have an annexation plan that would not grant citizenship to the Palestinian people effectively becoming an apartheid state officially. Most of the country is against it but I think a lot of the current events are part of their plan.
> > They hope this will enrage the surrounding Arab countries enough to trigger an all out regional holy war for the destruction of Israel.
>
> The powers-that-be, surely aren't that naive given the unconditional support Israel has always had from Europe and the Americas. ALL of their Arab neighbors are in no economic position to wage a war, even if there's political will. But they still went ahead with this despicable plan anyway... I am lost, really.
They did that in the past. In 1973 they nearly wiped out Israel and no one sent troops. Arguably Nixon saved Israel through weapon shipments. But up until now it was one of the deadliest wars in our history. Israel survived by dumb luck to a remarkable extent.
Looking at Ukraine, you fight your wars alone. Support is all good but despite the attack western countries kept buying Russian gas. That fear is very real. Imagine countries cutting off oil to the west if they help Israel...
> Not terrorism when people in uniform do it ;)
Yes. But to be fair Israel does have some cases where investigation resulted in surprising outcomes. E.g. a couple of years ago a terrorist (real one) was shot while trying to stab a soldier. He wasn't dead, just lying down neutralized. A soldier took his weapon and killed him.
That soldier stood trial and went to jail despite the right-wing going apeshit over this...
> From Israeli (tech) twitter, the sentiment I get is... all of Gaza is enemy, and couldn't care less if IDF nakba'd them a bit more in to Sinai.
Yes. I'm afraid this is pretty terrible in the news comment section too.
A lot of this is due to a misconception about the Palestinians and gaza residents. During the day of the attack one of my spouses students was in a safe root with her kids corresponding with us. Amazingly they all survived (house burned down but considering literally half of their village died... that's good). There was no news so we went on Instagram and looked at their hashtags. The videos published and cheered by the Hamas supporters were just horrible. It's hard to think about the human side.
We all know people and lost people. I was looking at John Oliver today and he showed a clip I didn't see here about a young guy who lost his brother. He was specifically talking about how his brother wouldn't want innocent Palestinians hurt.
The problem is we don't see those things here... When I was a kid they took us to a holocaust museum and showed us what people wrote on the walls in death camps. That fucks up kids minds. It's all cries for vengeance. Right now the media is pumping out every demonstration and every anti-semantic sentiment, this creates a "we don't have anywhere else to go" mentality. A persecution complex that weighs heavily on everyone here. All of these things come together. Even when we see the innocent victims, the blame goes to the Hamas. That's partially true (obviously), but it's disheartening.
Another thing that wasn't really reported here is the low support for the Hamas. People think that the Hamas won an election. They got 40% of the votes and even then the vast majority were in favor of peace. Yet, that latter part is missed. People justify violence because there's an assumption that the majority in Gaza chose violence and then celebrated in the streets when it happened.
> if Israel remains a democracy
I doubt it will still be a democracy even for us when the dust settles...
> Hamas have estimated 40K "fighters" (but lets face it, they're not really a match, they'll be slaughtered if not by the Army
If you have no morals and 2M human shields to hide behind this can stretch for years. Look at the much larger US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Finding them is a needle in a haystack.
> Tear up the farce that was the US-brokered Oslo Accords and the UK-brokered Mandate, and undo the partition. Offer a life of dignity, peace, prosperity, and purpose to peoples who consider themselves refugees in their own homeland. Making the Palestinians accept citizenship can be forced by the Arab League. Easier said than done, of course (:
That is something no one wants. It will be a disaster.
Israel is a liberal democracy. We have things such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. Even with our religious factions this is sometimes a problem. Unfortunately, there's a lot in common between religions in that sense. It will send us back to a point we can't get beyond.
That's if we're actually able to stop the terrorists. To do this we would need to remove the walls. That means we will go back to suicide bomber of the week. Three busses exploded in the street where I lived right next to my building. A coffee shop I was in was blown up. We can't go back to that, we need a border.
Thanks for your response. I am an arm-chair observer; I can only make broad-ranging assumptions. You know best.
> That means the people who were there before got full citizenship and rights.
Most left but some were forcefully expelled. Then, not allowed to return (like the people of Al-Majdal (Ashkelon), a holy place for Shia' muslims, as one example).
> ...how occupying another people would destroy the country from within.
Speaking as a non-Israeli, the only destruction I see is that of the Palestinians. tbh, the Oslo Accords and the Mandate is destroying Palestinians more than it is destroying the idea of Zion... so if I was a Zionist, I'd say things are working as planned.
> That would completely offset the balance of power in the country. It's just a fucked up scenario.
To me, the constant oppression from one side and the retaliatory and heinous struggle from the other side is even more fucked up. There must be a path to assimilation, because how long does Israel otherwise continue to supress 5 million strong populace without having an eventual intention of removing them for their lands/islands (or worse, this Earth)? Painting such broad strokes (all Palestinians want is to exterminate Jews) is part of the problem (may be the Gazan kids, if given a choice, would aspire to study at Technion, participate in the booming Israeli cybersecurity scene in Herzlia... over being under constant surveillance of Israeli drones and pray that autonomous weapons don't misfire every time they're at a crossing).
> They did that in the past. In 1973 they nearly wiped out Israel and no one sent troops... Imagine countries cutting off oil to the west if they help Israel...
In all honesty, most Arab countries that matter have been run in to the ground by Dictators (Egypt) or solely serve their Emirs (UAE, Saudia, Qatar). Some only have a puppet military (Kuwait, Bahrain). I don't expect it to happen again. The wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan reaffirmed that there's no such thing as ummah, that these multiple countries are not a single military bloc. Hamas should know that no one's coming for them when US gets involved (which it did, as expected): and especially after what happened in 2014.
> It's hard to think about the human side.
True. Entire generations lost to this. Like the Atheist he was, Moshe Dayan thought collective punishment was an effective way to tame the Fidayeen (terrorists, as one might call them today), and the Israelis, it seems, have never come out of that mode, but in fact have doubled down on it. And the cycle keeps repeating. The nakba, the Oslo Accords, the Gazan disengagement didn't break it. If it continues, there's never going to come a time this human side emerges, on either side of the fence, until there's fence no more (or no Palestines any more).
I just happen to read first-hand account of an Afghani-British author traveling around in Gaza in 2008 (https://twitter.com/nadeneghouri/status/1713120289213845671), and she says PTSD, low life expectancy, and poverty is rife through the populace. They deserve better than this (unless of course one thinks that Nadene is spreading propaganda for Hamas).
> Right now the media is pumping out every demonstration and every anti-semantic sentiment, this creates a "we don't have anywhere else to go" mentality.
Consent must be manufactured some how. All too predictable, but disheartening to see many of my heroes go genocidal on (tech) twitter. As a Shia' (Palestine is Sunni), I couldn't hold my tears reading the tweets they liked or reposted. As an aside, some of these same folks are working towards building an AGI.
> I doubt it will still be a democracy even for us when the dust settles...
Why do you say so? Or, you mean the far-right will gather more support?
> 2M human shields to hide behind this can stretch for years...
Sucks for the Gazans, most of whom are kids (a million of them displaced in a week already), and if Hamas proactively gives up arms without getting anything substantial in return (not mockery-making lip-service like the Accords; but something like ending apartheid and going back to the 1948/67 borders or grant the right to citizenship).
> Israel is a liberal democracy. We have things such as gay rights, women's rights, etc.
It is liberal except for when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians, it'd seem? I think this is a secondary concern, because it doesn't excuse the existence of an apartheid state in its lieu. Almost as if Israel wants to have the cake and eat it too.
> Even with our religious factions this is sometimes a problem.
Palestinians or not, as has happened with other Islamic states, in the long run, I can see Israel struggling to hold on to its liberal values for this very reason. I am not a prophet, but there exist folks who believe in such prophecies.
> It will send us back to a point we can't get beyond.
I agree it is a pandora's box, but 75 years of hurt must be enough to try and open it? EU emerged from a heinous war in less than 50 years by tearing down borders. If I was an Israeli, and I see that Palestine will always be at a disadvantage, I would rather we continued to invest in lasers, and robots, and other utopian defense systems to permanently trap these people over trusting them. And that sucks, but I guess it keeps the Holy Land and its LGBTQ+ supporting democracy mostly "untouched", for the time being.
> Most left but some were forcefully expelled. Then, not allowed to return (like the people of Al-Majdal (Ashkelon), a holy place for Shia' muslims, as one example).
Yes. On the other hand there's the story of the residence of Haifa where the local Jews begged the local Arabs to stay. To this day it's an integrated city.
I was mostly talking about the annexation of the territories. Israel did annex the Golan Heights after the 67 war since its population is relatively small.
> Speaking as a non-Israeli, the only destruction I see is that of the Palestinians. tbh, the Oslo Accords and the Mandate is destroying Palestinians more than it is destroying the idea of Zion... so if I was a Zionist, I'd say things are working as planned.
I think the original Oslo accord was planned to work for both sides. What exists now is a corruption of the original idea meant to "keep the peace".
> To me, the constant oppression from one side and the retaliatory and heinous struggle from the other side is even more fucked up.
I agree and many of the Palestinians I know are in the tech industry. I think education and a booming middle class will help.
Unfortunately, as they are now this is too far off. In terms of values the median Palestinian is FAR more religious and conservative. There's a lot of seriously crazy people there. That's the main reason Egypt refuses to let anyone in. It isn't something that can be realistically assimilated.
> > I doubt it will still be a democracy even for us when the dust settles...
> Why do you say so? Or, you mean the far-right will gather more support?
The prime minister has been under indictment for a while now. He is a terrible demagogue. The worst kind. He used the extreme far right to take over the government and is slowly dismantling the checks and balances over the democracy.
This caught him in the middle of that. I do believe he actually planned for this to happen, he just didn't realize how terrible it would be. Typically, right-wing leaders use strife to strengthen their position and attack dissent. It's already something his people are doing by blaming the people who demonstrated against him, claiming we weakened the country...
I think he will assume emergency powers and will use them to circumvent democracy. There are already signs e.g. a recent attempt to curtail free speech etc.
> > 2M human shields to hide behind this can stretch for years...
> Sucks for the Gazans, most of whom are kids
Yes. One positive note that came out the other day was that the military showed off its situation room where they showed a system that helps them track the population via cell phone broadcasts. Not accurate but that gives them a sense of where the population is. They apparently use this to aim bombings into areas that aren't populated.
It's still horrible, but at least some effort is going into minimizing civilian impact.
> It is liberal except for when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians, it'd seem?
The Palestinians aren't a part of Israel. So yes.
> Almost as if Israel wants to have the cake and eat it too.
This is the exact problem. Israeli governments wanted the control but didn't want the annexation which would reduce the Jewish majority.
To be fair, it's hard to know what needs to be done here. There was no prior country that can be rebuilt. Since Arafat there has been no singular leader who can demonstrate control/unity. Even he was pretty problematic.
Most Israelis look at this as: we tried to give them a country and they kept sending suicide bombers/rockets. This is a bit distorted since it looks at the Palestinian people as a single mass. The problem is their lack of leadership. The reason they have weak leadership is due to the Israeli right wing which sabotaged that leadership.
> EU emerged from a heinous war in less than 50 years by tearing down borders.
The differences between the countries in the EU are relatively small. They are all of the same religion and were all liberal democracies before seeking unity.
I don't think we can culturally assimilate. Even within the current Arab population in Israel we see things like violence towards women (honor killings) etc. It might go away as our society becomes more homogeneous but it will take a generational shift.
> I see that Palestine will always be at a disadvantage
I think the right thing is separate states. Historically, forcing unification created strife and violence. But I do think Israel has a duty and an interest in the success of the Palestinian people.
If they will have a thriving middle class and good education they will be less likely to seek violence. I hope the US will demand something like the Marshal plan, to rebuild Gaza but also help structure it. I don't know if this will work though. They failed pretty badly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> What exists now is a corruption of the original idea meant to "keep the peace".
True. I imagine Israeli making a farce of this well-meaning peace treaty (more so in Hebron and Jerusalem) is why it is hard for Palestine to trust Israel on any more peace-keeping measures.
> ...local Jews begged the local Arabs to stay.
I think Israelis should work towards a policy that, for once, favours the Palestines (but unfortunately, the incentives have never been there as Israel effectively has won every battle and war).
> In terms of values the median Palestinian is FAR more religious and conservative.
I live in a country where conservatives and liberals co-exist just fine. Israel's biggest ally is a country that has survived just fine. I understand the fear however.
> There's a lot of seriously crazy people there.
The Oleh doesn't discriminate between orthodox and non-observing Jews? Not saying the Orthodox are "crazy", but unlikely they support, for instance, a yearly pride parade at the Western Wall.
> That's the main reason Egypt refuses to let anyone in. It isn't something that can be realistically assimilated.
I believe, they just don't trust Israel. There are scores of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan who aren't allowed to return. Israel is as much Levantine as Jordan and Lebanon, while I'd argue, Egypt isn't.
> To be fair, it's hard to know what needs to be done here. There was no prior country that can be rebuilt.
Yep: So, just Israel, and the Israeli citizens of Palestine. Or: A federal government can be worked out? But there's nothing I feel (other than the situation like in 1973) that would bring the Israeli government to this compromise.
> The reason they have weak leadership is due to the Israeli right wing which sabotaged that leadership.
What's their end-goal, though? imo, this goal should inform the International support (for or against) Israeli aggression (wars, settlements, discrimination, barriers, etc) against these stateless people. And if this goal is henious, then it behooves Israeli liberals to speak up, because right now, everyone else who does is being cancelled in the name of crimes the Axis power were party to.
> It's still horrible, but at least some effort is going into minimizing civilian impact.
I can see why that is okay with the Israelis (large-scale surveillance, using autonomous weapons are also okay when it comes to Palestinians), but I also see de-humanization, which is what worries me more than anything else.
> The differences between the countries in the EU are relatively small. They are all of the same religion and were all liberal democracies before seeking unity.
Point.
> I don't think we can culturally assimilate.
btw, I don't see any resemblance between the Turkic and the Celtic peoples, or the Iberian and the Slavic peoples, or the Scandinavians and the Greeks. So differences do need to be put aside (:
> It might go away as our society becomes more homogeneous but it will take a generational shift.
Another reason why I think that assimilation instead of alienation with Israelis is the best way forward for the Palestine people.
> They failed pretty badly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Those are massive territories unlike Gaza and WB. Hopefully, long-term view prevails, despite the designs of the military (or, if one prefers: terrorists) on both sides. You pointed out that PLO already gave up arms in good faith... and it is most likely the militant wing of Hamas wouldn't exist post this war... A chance (again) for Israel to be as benevolent as it can muster up to be and take drastic (not comprised) measures towards peace. A man can dream.
> I live in a country where conservatives and liberals co-exist just fine. Israel's biggest ally is a country that has survived just fine. I understand the fear however.
There used to be consensus here too. After the 6 day war the heads of local Arab municipalities wrote letters to the president congratulating Israel on its victory. The concept of co-existence was something that was promoted and people believed in it.
Unfortunately, this eroded away with the occupation. Most of us don't remember a time of co-existence.
Looking at countries like the USA it seems that the far right has gone completely haywire thanks in large part to social media that pushes to the extremes.
> > The reason they have weak leadership is due to the Israeli right wing which sabotaged that leadership.
>
> What's their end-goal, though?
This varies based on the group. A lot of this is just reactionary. There's an attack on Israeli settlements, so we'll build even more settlements to "show them"... That's insane and dates back to the father of Israels right wing Jabotinsky who said that the conflict can only be resolved when Israel is so strong that no thought of taking it down can ever cross the minds of its enemies. He defined it as a wall of strength if I remember correctly.
That's nonsense obviously. People aren't homogeneous and empires fall. But that dogma still exists in the right.
The settlers are 90% religious. Heavily so. They are the crux of the problem here. Before these attacks an internal conflict was brewing in Israel where the three factions of Israeli life were coming undone. We have many factions but the 3 I'm talking about are:
* Secular - Israel is one of the most secular countries on earth
* Religious right - typically settlers but they live all over
* Hasidic jews - they are tribal and don't really care about any of this. But they have a long standing deal with the right and use it to extort government funds.
The moderate/liberal element has grown tired by the robbery conducted by the hasidic jews and the fact that religious settlers are forcing us into redundant conflicts with the Palestinians. Many said they will refuse to serve in the territories if they're called to duty. Pilots in the IDF resigned from active duty etc.
Palestinian leaders used to joke in the past that the conflict is the only thing keeping Israel together. If they left the Jews alone they would kill each other. This seems pretty accurate. Once this happened everyone who quit showed up in bases and signed up. Even if they disagree with the cause nothing unifies more than a common enemy.
This is all about religion in both sides. Jews wouldn't live in Hebron without being religious extremists. There's no "end game" because they are just f*ing crazy.
Notice that there are the crazier Nazi level players. Historically, these parties were illegal in Israel because they were considered racist. In the last election Bibi made sure they get legalized to leverage their power. I hope a lot of the people who voted for them don't really realize what they are. They don't yell "death to Arabs" or anything like that publicly, so people can delude themselves. But the history of these parties and the subtext is clear to those who pay attention.
> then it behooves Israeli liberals to speak up
Israeli liberals speak up a lot. There are amazing organizations like Betselem (in image) or brothers in arms. They provide testimonials and visual evidence of the crimes in occupation. In Israeli society they are viewed as bleeding heart liberals who are disconnected from the reality of "our enemy".
Organizations like BDS which tries to blacklist Israel end up even worse. It feeds into the "everyone is against us" mentality. The fact that the organization includes key members with terrorism association further cements that notion.
> btw, I don't see any resemblance between the Turkic and the Celtic peoples,
Cypress is an example of such friction. There are many cultural clashes through
Europe between immigrants and whites. This triggered a rise in white nationalism and triggered things like Brexit (also partially against Polish immigration).
We haven't assimilated the current Arab population. There are many problems across the board. There aren't many things on which we have a wide consensus here across the board but this is one them. Both Palestinians and Israelis aren't for this in very large numbers.
> > They failed pretty badly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> Those are massive territories unlike Gaza and WB.
Yes. That does give me a bit of hope. But the problem is more cultural, not just peacemaking. There's deep rooted religion and also historic corruption. Getting the communities to "buy into" a cultural shift would be hard.
> Unfortunately, this eroded away with the occupation. Most of us don't remember a time of co-existence.
Hebron has proven that much.
> The moderate/liberal element has grown tired by the robbery conducted by the hasidic jews and the fact that religious settlers are forcing us into redundant conflicts with the Palestinians
Sad that this in turn seeds more divide.
> There's an attack on Israeli settlements, so we'll build even more settlements to "show them"
I saw on Israeli twitter (https://twitter.com/EliramE/status/1711747425398919667) from someone claiming to be "friends with many Arabs" that the Palestine people wouldn't sell their land even when offered millions of dollars (I presume, such deals are the norm for East Jerusalem?). That's a level of resolve I have not known. So, I can see where the "teach them" part comes from: displacement as a means of shame for the Palestine people seems like a valid view.
> Jews wouldn't live in Hebron without being religious extremists.
Just them wouldn't be so bad, but from what I read, the IDF is on the act, too?
> They don't yell "death to Arabs" or anything like that publicly
After the deplorable massacre on 7th, it seems like (from observing Israeli tech twitter) that there is prevalence of Islamophobia (ex: https://archive.is/9PV2e) possibly amongst moderates (and liberals alike)? All in the open, for now at least, while emotions run high (of course, antisemitism is rife within Muslims when it comes to this conflict, but even folks who aren't, are generally very angry at Israel continuing to move the Immovable Ladder in Jerusalem, in Hebron, in Judea, in Samaria with every passing day).
> Notice that there are the crazier Nazi level players.
Sigh. Such irony just writes itself.
> Israeli liberals speak up a lot.
Glad. I sincerely hope they haven't changed their views post Oct 7, and continue to take a long-term non-violent view.
> Organizations like BDS which tries to blacklist Israel end up even worse.
Social Media is making it even more worse. In fact, I am terrified of liking a wrong tweet, or writing something stupid here... What a time to be alive where anyone can get cancelled.
> Both Palestinians and Israelis aren't for this in very large numbers.
This makes the situation in the West Bank even more idiotic from the Israeli PoV. I read that if Israel orders evacuation, settlers are not entitled to compensation (like Gaza and Sinai settlers were)? So, this can still be undone, though, I suspect armed-settlers would to make this a riot-free affair.
> Getting the communities to "buy into" a cultural shift would be hard.
I guess, the current brouhaha in the Arab world rallying around (dubious) hospital bombing (most likely planted by Hamas) should inform Israel that a majority of the 2b muslims are watching and they won't like war because in this charged conflict it doesn't matter who's righteous / evil anymore (given years of misgivings and mutual distrust). Manufacturing consent from the West matters not if there is no appetite for a multi-front war.
Gone are the days when celebrities and prominent political figure heads would "sign a document" in show of support and everyone in their sphere of influence would rally behind them. With the rise of influencers (and disinformation factories), this tactic is done for, for worse or for good. I think had the Israelis waged a "smaller war" (like in 2014), they'd not have triggered such attention. And they can count on getting away with displacement, discrimination, and siege too, like forever. In which case, they'd have to continue to perfect the Iron Wall and continue to work towards fully-autonomous weapons and war machines as deterrence. This outcome would of course suck for Palestine.
> > Jews wouldn't live in Hebron without being religious extremists.
> Just them wouldn't be so bad, but from what I read, the IDF is on the act, too?
This is problematic. Over the past couple of decades the religious right became more dominant in Israeli society. We call them the knitted yamaka's since that's their signature head wear.
They slowly worked their way into the IDF as liberals were growing tired and reduced their service due to the long occupation which is abhorrent to most of us.
Still, it's an Army. You can't choose your deployment and you can get placed in Hebron even if you think Jews have no right to be there. You must follow these orders since they aren't illegal. That's where the gray area comes in. Technically, the army is there to keep the peace. Realistically I've seen videos where settlers purposely taunt Palestinians next to soldiers knowing that if push comes to shove a soldier will ultimately pick their side. This is even more pronounced with the religious right soldiers which can be easily identifiable.
> that there is prevalence of Islamophobia
Yes. The Hamas is calling for a common uprising. Arab citizens have many fair grievances but most of them don't want violence. OTOH there are terrible cases there. An Arab bicycle shop owner donated bicycles for Jewish children who survived that massacre. His reward was that his neighbor torched his store...
So there's a lot of hate and a lot of it is hyped which makes people cautious and distrustful.
> Glad. I sincerely hope they haven't changed their views post Oct 7, and continue to take a long-term non-violent view.
It's not a non-violent view for most. There are pacifists but they are rare. It's about a separation between the actual enemy and the people who might not like Israel, but aren't an enemy.
> This makes the situation in the West Bank even more idiotic from the Israeli PoV. I read that if Israel orders evacuation, settlers are not entitled to compensation (like Gaza and Sinai settlers were)? So, this can still be undone, though, I suspect armed-settlers would to make this a riot-free affair.
Every time settlements were cleared it turned into a clusterfuck. Soldiers were attacked violently etc. I get the trauma of being ripped from your home... But you can't attack your own army.
The supreme court provided increased compensation in the case of settlers who were removed from Gaza. But it's not about the money for these people. It's an ideal and that's something far more scary.
> inform Israel that a majority of the 2b muslims are watching and they won't like war because in this charged conflict
This feeds into the "we're alone in this" mentality and the need to "show strength". I don't think there's a logical and sensible argument to be made. I read a great piece in the local paper where the author analyzed the problematic nature of "the day after Hamas". The comments were mostly insulting to him and very militant.
I find that when I talk to people individually most of them have the capacity to understand the nuance of the situation. But a mob mentality and siloed communities create a more violent outcome.
> In which case, they'd have to continue to perfect the Iron Wall and continue to work towards fully-autonomous weapons and war machines as deterrence. This outcome would of course suck for Palestine.
This is a scary dystopian future. You asked about what "their" end goal is, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like that. I hope we can avoid that by kicking out Netanyahu and his cronies but this has proven more difficult than one would imagine.
It beehoves the Palestines to build a strong military (which they can't without a State) and not hide like cowards lacking any code of ethics or morality. Is it correct to say Israel won't like that, because they prefer Hamas/Hizb-style millitia and collective punishment over a recognised military (and not a puppet "security force" like the NSF)? If true, do Israelis realise this and despite the government for it?
> This is even more pronounced with the religious right soldiers which can be easily identifiable.
I've seen videos, yeah. Not pretty at all. The Iron Wall is a great deterrence, but rebels would always want to overcome it in an act of defiance, no matter the cost. And when they do, the terror they unleash is not justifiable by any means, but all too predictable, nevertheless. That the rebels who are (or consider themselves) victims of "slow terror" (of racist elements of the IDF) would inflict more terror is so ironic, that I feel I can almost understand why the Israeli appartus acts ruthlessly (some might say, maniacal) like it does in face of whatever it perceives to be antisemitism (given the woe it wrought on them at the hands of the Europeans; though, now the wrath has been successfully teleported onto the muslims of the Levant).
> So there's a lot of hate and a lot of it is hyped which makes people cautious and distrustful.
Normalisation efforts are a great starting point. I'm surprised Saudia is so further ahead in that process. That is a watershed moment regardless of the plight of Palestine. Hopefully, we see more of it. Though, I think the US military's overbearing reach in the region (in Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt) is doing more harm than good, since as far as the Palestine is concerned, it is a religious issue that will not go away, even if Palestine goes away. Speaking as a Muslim, Al Quds (Old Jerusalem), Al Majdal (in Ashkelon), and Hebron will always remind us of what once was. Time will tell. May be time will heal all wounds. There just so much agony here for what's a small parcel of land. Albeit, important land to both the peoples. Thank Abraham's God, unlike Jesus (SA), Muhammad (SA) wasn't born in that same parcel of land.
> There are pacifists but they are rare.
Norman Finkelstein, a very controversial figure, said in a talk at University of Waterloo (2008) that the issue of Palestine is a simple one but that the US had made it complicated for whatever it stands to gain (I wonder what that is, I have no clue). Finkelstein says, most of the world (via UN) agrees that Israel should rapidly work towards as 2 state solution, when only US doesn't and it consistently vetos most resolutions (some 280+ that have been brought against Israel, which is an astoundingly high number). What do you make of this stance (which comes from someone who's considered 'an enemy of Israel').
> It's an ideal and that's something far more scary.
Well, Israel eventually split from Judea... Is that the kind of ideal settlers harbour long term?
> But a mob mentality and siloed communities create a more violent outcome.
The doxxing of people and getting them fired for what they consider to be antisemitism or Nazi-like behaviour makes me so fearful. I can almost describe as being terrorized to even talk about this topic, lest I say something stupid (I'm being very careful what I'm writing here, but I know I might have slipped, because it is possible to bad faith argue everything one doesn't agree with). These initiatives, from what I can tell, have backing from some very influential, well connected, and wealthy people.
Another theme I see on the Israeli tech Twitter, is the insistence on convincing the American public about the war. Not sure if propoganda is the right term, but it is pretty close to it. The constant messaging around "the West is next", "our 9/11", "Hamas is ISIS" (which aren't wrong), and the subtle flaring up of Islamophobia ("jihadi death cult", "culture of darkness", "barbaric people"), or the exploitation of Western guilt ("more Jews killed since the Shoah", "never again", "free Palestine = extermination of Jews") is a bit unnerving to watch. I'm sure the Jewish people think it is fully warranted (I wouldn't know, not many groups were subject to 2000 years of persecution), but it is a bit jarring (and at times seems hysterical) when you're in their cross hairs. This time, it is the entire muslim population that is, apparently.
Also, some folks on the Israeli tech Twitter are quite simply and incomprehensibly incapable of viewing the conditions in Gaza without any semblance of empathy or sympathy. I consider tech to be fairly liberal and left leaning and so this totally caught me totally off-guard the first few days. I understand the rage, but I'm mostly shocked by the kind of views they ascribe to in light of extracting vengeance.
> This is a scary dystopian future.
If so, I wonder why the US supports such a future unconditionally? On the other hand, the political and civil unrest in the Middle East for what happens if they pull support, is also quite unimaginable. May be China can step in with fresh ideas (though, Israel might say they're antisemites).
> It beehoves the Palestines to build a strong military (which they can't without a State) and not hide like cowards lacking any code of ethics or morality. Is it correct to say Israel won't like that, because they prefer Hamas/Hizb-style millitia and collective punishment over a recognised military (and not a puppet "security force" like the NSF)? If true, do Israelis realise this and despite the government for it?
Since the entire region is very small there is a concern about a standing army literally at the doorstep. I don't think there's a preference for millitia but one of the rallying cries of the right is: "why did you give them guns". This refers to the fact that the Oslo accord provided the Palestinian police with guns. Then when things soured these weapons were used against Israelis.
They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here.
> Normalisation efforts are a great starting point.
The right was trying to push for peace with Saudi Arabia as a way to pressure the Palestinian leadership into a deal on Israels terms. I don't think that would have worked. Ideally, these holy areas should be open to everyone. Israels tourism numbers are amazingly low considering everything it has to offer. I know there's tourism from Jordan, UAE, etc.
But this will require a tectonic shift in mindset. The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists.
> Norman Finkelstein, a very controversial figure, said in a talk at University of Waterloo (2008) that the issue of Palestine is a simple one but that the US had made it complicated for whatever it stands to gain (I wonder what that is, I have no clue). Finkelstein says, most of the world (via UN) agrees that Israel should rapidly work towards as 2 state solution, when only US doesn't and it consistently vetos most resolutions (some 280+ that have been brought against Israel, which is an astoundingly high number). What do you make of this stance (which comes from someone who's considered 'an enemy of Israel').
I 100% agree with the two state solution as did most Israelis in the past when it was surveyed. Not sure if this is still true. I think the solution is simple, but there's a lot of nuance which is where the main problems occur. There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc.
The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers. This is mostly the US defending Israel against a stacked playing field. Some of that is enablement but if it wasn't for the US there would be no moderation. A lot of the deals and holding back is due to US pressure.
> Well, Israel eventually split from Judea... Is that the kind of ideal settlers harbour long term?
A lot of people are talking about this since the split between right and left seems to be very clear here. E.g. Tel Aviv is as liberal as can be... It's often referred to as Tel Aviv state because it is so different in its views. Realistically, this is probably not doable.
> Another theme I see on the Israeli tech Twitter, is the insistence on convincing the American public about the war. Not sure if propoganda is the right term, but it is pretty close to it.
A recent set of letters from Harvard and other universities student bodies really shook up the local press. I Get that. They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary.
There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide.
> at times seems hysterical
I was reading about a family of 3. The father and mother were unarmed and shot as part of the attack. The Hamas kidnapped the 3 year old to Gaza and the two other kids survived by hiding under their mothers body for 7 hours. Children hiding under bodies to survive is very reminiscent of the holocaust survivor stories. It's about as triggering as can be.
The Hamas reminded Israelis just how vulnerable Israel is. I think the hysteria is partially warranted.
> conditions in Gaza without any semblance of empathy or sympathy
This is "what aboutism" at its worse. I think they are doing a disservice to their country.
> > This is a scary dystopian future.
>
> If so, I wonder why the US supports such a future unconditionally?
They don't. Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule. That's smart, we're lucky that he's in-charge and not Trump or someone else. He understands the nuances of this situation better than most.
China is terrible, it made the worst communication mistakes with Israel when this whole thing started. They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has.
> They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here.
If I am being Machiavellian, I can see why ethnic cleansing might be an eventual option when push comes to shove, while morphing the well-meaning Oslo Accords into apartheid (some object to use of this term, I am none the wiser) is the ongoing preference.
> I don't think there's a preference for millitia ... There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc.
This then seems like a federated government with two sets of laws and two power centers (like the one proposed to prevent the partition of British India) might be probable after a sustained period of peace, with free movement of goods and people; especially since going back to 1967 borders is non-workable to make way for a 2-state solution, on top of the already non-negotiable (from Israel's pov) Right to Return for the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.
> The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists.
Such tragic events are as much a chance for the centre / left to root out far-right and far-left as they're for them to cement their political ideology. I genuinely hope the US and the UK push the Israeli Government to abandon this concept of "security state" (as some put it) and work towards equal rights of the Palestine people (ie, make it part of the constitution). Some might say that it is an unfair outcome for Israel, but frankly, there's nothing that's been fair in this overwhelmingly one-sided conflict. Hopefully, the Arab League can offer wholesale normalization in exchange (not sure about Syria re: Golan Heights and other proxies of Iran). It'll be nice to see what peaceful Middle East looks like, for once.
> The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers.
Geo-politics is one way to look at it; another way is the human rights violations as reported by independent bodies (Amnesty, HRW, and even B'Tselem) which can't be merely dismissed as agenda of the Arab states? As one example: The 2006 Lebanon War, in particular, had heavy Lebanese civilian casualties (2 town centers leveled, for all intents and purposes, which still don't show much signs of infrastructure recovery), and another report claiming that Israel launched 5million mortars into Southern Lebanon after a cease fire was agreed (and 1 million of it remained unexploded). I am in the camp that believes that this recklessness is due to the impunity US affords Israel, which invariably, makes me very apprehensive of the US policing the region in general, even though, I genuinely think the US has much better ideals than most other Arab countries (not a high bar).
> They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary.
The critics (not me) come from a place where they say though Hamas violently lashes out for the sole purpose of spreading terror, their previous offers for a long truce (hudna; apparently accepted by the IDF but denied by the Israeli Government) and attempt at non-violent protests (The Great March of 2018) against the siege hasn't worked, as reportedly IDF maimed and killed 200+ Gazans.
Norman Finkelstein says that as the reports of 7 Oct were coming out, it wasn't clear just what had happened, and that the left were wrong to put out statements in support of them.
Then, he posits the notorious Mandela quip ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; I don't ascribe to it, because I haven't personally been subject to apartheid, but my community, not too dissimilar to the Druze, has been in 12th to 17th centuries in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Yemen; and thereafter across most of the British Empire) applies to Hamas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); and that while their terrorist acts are reprehensible as a matter of fact (innocent lives lost), the moral judgement is however harder to pass (ex: Nat Turner's rebellion against slavery in the US), given Israel's role in inciting / incentivizing such a response (again, not my view).
> There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide.
Understandable, but their response has been, from what I can tell, to incite Islamophobia. Remind the West that this is "a clash of civilizations". I'd rather relinquish all of Levant to Israel to have it stopped, because the previous wave wasn't at all easy.
> It's about as triggering as can be.
Sigh. Not to downplay or compare, but such triggers (Shoah v Nakba) exist on both sides, and it seems limitless, this cycle of anguish.
> Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule.
I predict a month or two from now, there will come a point when other (uninvolved) populace (in the West, even if not in the Arab world) will simply exhaust their emotional capacity to follow the conflict. It'll be interesting to see how things proceed then. I instead hope for war/crime trials (of those responsible on both sides), long-term truce, and expediting a 2-state plan (either Palestine as a protectorate / federate (without 1967 borders) enshrined in the Israeli constitution, or a sovereign republic (w/ 1967).
> They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has.
Don't think the Arab states trust the US... and I'd argue that indulging the nuances has what's led us to a complicated situation. I am not an expert, but in my own naive way, I think some hefty compromises are a way forward unless Israel believes it can remain a "security state" forever, and wait out a total Palestine defeat (as in Arabs leaving voluntarily).
(ps sincere apologies if any of my replies have been inconsiderate / tone-deaf)
spare me the propaganda please, the same line has been repeated since Iraq war. And here we are 30 years later, were Biden says that he saw pictures of kids decapitated and hours later refuted by his own staff. There's pictures upon pictures of Gazan kids and infants being pulled out of rubble and not much acknowledgement of it.
> [...] and kidnapping civilians should be stark. Shame on you.
Don't mistake my comment for me actually defending Hamas and the atrocities last weekend. It was to point out that the IDF/Israeli govt didn't exactly descend from heaven and they are just as horrific morally.
> Unlike the Hamas Israel tried to have a peaceful solution multiple times. Including a Palestinian state.
Hamas is around 20 years old. Please take a look as to what has happened during the same period to the West Bank which is controlled by non-violent PLO. Armed settlers have taken over neighborhoods and Palestinians are left with no recourse.
> I understand that rage and I honestly understood the recent incursions in Jenin, they made sense. They focused on settlers and on the military.
The 2023 incursions in Jenin were offensives by the IDF and the Israeli Border Police. Unless you are talking about something else, please link it here as I wasn't able to find any Hamas or other Palestinian offensives this year in Jenin.
> The word genocide is problematic here. The IDF specifically issued a clearance warning indicating its targets in advance. That's not something you do if you plan to kill civilians.
No, you put them in a medieval style siege by cutting of water, electricity, food and any external aid. There's that interview with ex PM of Israel, Naftali Bennett, where he was asked about the Gazan kids in incubators and his reply was "Are you seriously asking me about Palestinian Civilians? What is wrong with you?" So, when Israeli officials ask for _half_ of Gaza to evacuate to the south, these 1.1 million people have nowhere to go. Atm, ~400k Gazans are displaced from their homes, how many of these were Hamas?
> Calling it ethnic cleansing is untrue at the moment. Even the inflated numbers published by the Hamas don't back that up.
Roughly 50% of Gaza's population is under 18. Its the result of decades of indiscriminate killing by the IDF. I wonder at what point of this conflict Israeli's realize that they are fighting a force of kids who grew up in the constant shelling of their homes. And this weeks bombing on civilian infrastructure in Gaza is only going to result in another battalion for Hamas in a decades time.
> Notice that even now the Hamas is still firing missiles onto Israel and I just walked out of a shelter...
I hope you and your loved ones are safe and make it out of this mess. I just want everyone to understand that on the other side of the wall there are families that are sitting in their apartments without protection from an American funded Iron Dome or bomb shelters, waiting to die out of no fault of their own. And for whatever reason people (politicians / journalists of countries that I am a citizen / generally a supporter of) think that Israel in its right to defend itself is justified in leveling Gaza.
> spare me the propaganda please, the same line has been repeated since Iraq war. And here we are 30 years later, were Biden says that he saw pictures of kids decapitated and hours later refuted by his own staff. There's pictures upon pictures of Gazan kids and infants being pulled out of rubble and not much acknowledgement of it.
There's plenty of acknowledgement of that. Notice that Israel threw more bombs than anyone ever did in a matter of days. Thousands of bombs. The Hamas historically always inflated numbers (as the Nazis did in Dresden by adding a zero). Even if you take their number as of yesterday of 1,500 for 6,000 bombs. That number shows a remarkable effort to avoid hitting civilians.
There are also many stories of staging photos on the Hamas side, putting a child within the rubble so you can pull them out later. I don't doubt kids were hurt and it's terrible, but children dying from bombing is something that happened in every war since the cannon. It isn't news and it isn't intentional.
> The 2023 incursions in Jenin were offensives by the IDF and the Israeli Border Police.
Yes. I think what Israel did in the territories is terrible. There's an uprising there that has left quite a few Israelis dead. Again, terrible. Lots of shootings at settlers. But I think that's a legitimate struggle.
> There's that interview with ex PM of Israel, Naftali Bennett
I didn't vote for him. I agree, and his comparison to Dresden is just stupid. Again, I think the bombings aren't doing Israel any good and aren't REALLY damaging to the Hamas. In fact, I think they wanted Israel to bomb them as it changes public opinion against Israel and forces the Palestinians in the street to side with Hamas.
I think PM Netanyahu is a useful idiot in service of Hamas.
People losing their home (temporarily) isn't genocide. It's a tragedy but it isn't genocide.
But the core of the issue is how the hell do you fight an enemy that intentionally hides within civilian population and sees it as his god given duty to sacrifice these civilians. This isn't hyperbole, they actually believe that by killing their own people as pawns they will guarantee them a place in heaven!
> Roughly 50% of Gaza's population is under 18. Its the result of decades of indiscriminate killing by the IDF.
That isn't true. It's a result of a fantastically high birthrate and disregard for life by the Hamas.
> I hope you and your loved ones are safe and make it out of this mess. I just want everyone to understand that on the other side of the wall there are families that are sitting in their apartments without protection from an American funded Iron Dome or bomb shelters, waiting to die out of no fault of their own. And for whatever reason people (politicians / journalists of countries that I am a citizen / generally a supporter of) think that Israel in its right to defend itself is justified in leveling Gaza.
I have friends on the other side of that wall. I care for them and don't want them to get hurt either. As I said, the mob mentality on both sides is high and that is the thing that has me stressed about this the most.
I'm old enough to remember a time before the Intefada in the 80s where we used to live side by side with Palestinians from the territories. I used to work side by side with a young Palestinian, a great guy. Younger Israelis and immigrants (who are many) don't have that experience because of the Intefada and the wall. Both sides only see each other through a barrel of a gun and have a problem of disassociation, they think of the other side as "them" instead of as people. Events like these further strengthen that terrible disconnect.
The people on the other side of the wall need help, we need to stop the Hamas who is killing them. But instead of doing that the Israeli government funded Hamas for years because our PM is a moron. We've demonstrated repeatedly trying to get him removed (he's also a criminal under multiple trials). But he won't budge. I think he knew this attack was coming and might be using it as an excuse to further subvert democracy.
That is not a straw man argument. If anything you seem to be conducting one by focusing on a single detail to discredit a narrative. Children were executed in cold blood. That's a fact. The method of execution is really irrelevant here.
It is a textbook example of a strawman. He is putting words in my mouth that I never said to debunk my post. That is exactly what strawman fallacy means. Lmao.
>If anything you seem to be conducting one by focusing on a single detail to discredit a narrative
Another strawman. I merely pointed out it was a hoax, as briefly and straightforwardly as possible. I didnt say anything about any "narrative" at all.
>The method of execution is really irrelevant here.
It is very relevant when it was explicitely stated. Falsehoods must be pointed out. Relentlessly.
>They published verified photos of dead and burnt babies.
This is irrelevant to the topic discussed which is "validity of the Israel's claim of decapitated babies". You entered this specific topic and keep derailing it with these claims that are unrelated to the original statement.
>You're grasping on literal straws.
Literal straws is what grows behind your house. Perhaps you meant figurative straws.
This is exactly my point. You're being purposely petty as if decapitation of a baby or mutilation with a knife are different. There are many lies perpetrated in the fog of war. But your choose to focus on the methodology of baby execution as the "hill to die on" in terms of "truth" is pretty f*ed up.
I think it is absolutely grotesque and distasteful to hold pro rallies for Palestine and Hamas right now, but I would not stop them. They should be free to protest and speak.
I am not saying that every protestor there was pro hamas. There is video. It did happen and the group wasn't 3 people. I am providing recently information to the OP to directly answer their point.
I do not know if anyone is protesting the civilian deaths due to retaliation but that would be a worthwhile reason to hold a candlelight vigil or demonstrative march in support of the inevitable bystander victims and their families here.
If we were spiritually sound we would be holding mass gatherings in remembrance of all victims and in support of all innocent survivors. But that does not draw enough attention for us to have heard about one if it took place.
That is a good point, and that is probably the one time I would say that they should not be allowed. Openly threatening people, even a broad group, with violence is absolutely wrong. I could see that being the case where I would say no, those protests need to stop.
There's also some sort of ban in place in my home country of Germany. I think there's technically no ban, but people keep getting arrested for protesting regardless.
Germany has very strict laws against hate-speech and incitement of hatred ("Volkzverhetzung"), that would probably be the reason for people being arrested. For historic reasons.
Germany has a great deal to answer for the fate of modern day Palestinians. The most decisive factor next to Sykes Picot. They naturally have no interest in that debate.
No constituional protection is absolute, as they usually contradict each other to at least some extend. The difference where different societies place the focus - the US is strongly in favor of freedom of speech, whereas European states usually are less absolutist about speech.
One significant difference is the US constitutional assertion that "certain inalienable rights" (notably the freedom to speak) are "endowed by our creator". In practice, this places such rights outside the authority of governments.
In most other countries, rights are constructed and granted at the pleasure of the government currently in power.
It's easy to overlook this philosophical difference as pedantic, but the ramifications are profound.
Censorship is rearing its ugly head again. Can't have the wrong opinions. I feel like this really took off with the Corona virus pandemic, again with the Ukraine invasion, and now this.
Yes, all the people who couldn't imagine the censorship being used against "their team," here it is. It always happens. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. Fight it in every form.
Well. My team doesn't hold rallys where people yell to gas the jews after a major terrorist attack. So... It's not that I can't imagine it being used against me it's just that I don't do that anyway so not being allowed to do it isn't a loss.
> Well. My team doesn't hold rallys where people yell to gas the jews
No your team hold rallies where people chants death to Arabs (even before the recent attacks)
i.e. Just this last march, in Jerusalem under the protection of Israeli soldiers thousands of Israelis chanted "Death to Arabs" [1]. The term "Death to Arabs" is very famous in rallies and context of Israeli extremists, where some of the current Israeli government are members of their groups (i.e [2]).
Will this change anything to you? I doubt but let's just say you are not being honest.
There is violent rhetoric at all rallies related to this war, pro-Israel rallies included. Most people do not say such terrible things, some people do say them, and the opposition paints the whole rally as endorsing that stance. That’s the way it goes.
That is not what they banned, I strongly suspect that is already illegal.
Also, your "my team" take is bordering on, if not racist. There is no "other team", they are diverse individuals who have opinions that differ from yours.
In an ideal world we would not have censorship, but people would be punished for death threats and violent action. However, most governments do not have the resources needed to enforce such punishment in the scale necessary (in these cases). When the need for that supercedes the capacity of the state to control it, the devil's bargain to censor speech instead.
I really doubt any pro-palestine activists were surprised by this one?
The tactic of contacting our employers expecting them to fire us is a couple decades old at least. We are routinely called anti-semites for condemning treatment of palestinians.
And in the US currently the right is the one with the book-banning campaign? Again idk really how you can paint this as a surprising twist lol. We all saw it coming.
No, democracies have to have limits what they tolerate. Killing civilians just because they have a certain religion is incompatible with western values. The limit should be too not be tolerant with people that are not willing to provide the same tolerance. By that standard celebrating the killing of civilians we shouldn't tolerate.
The problems were not the demonstrations, it was the barrage of death threats against Jews (inside France). Which were linked and exacerbated because of the demonstrations.
The demonstrations themselves are acceptable - but the linked death threats definitely aren't, and unfortunately the state apparatus is not set up to deal adequately with the latter.
Look at January 6th. Many people came to "peacefully protest" the election and got swept up in doing something they didn't expect to do.
I don't know if you can conclusively prove they were directly linked, but we've seen how online people get radicalized by finding a community that espouses abhorrent ideas and then go on to commit crimes in service of that community. Real life gatherings and protests can have the same radicalizing effect in certain cases. That's not to say all of them do - the ideology behind the protest matters.
I agree that focusing on death threats would be a better approach - the problem is that it's very hard to find perpetrators and very easy to commit. Deterrence doesn't scale in that case.
Multiple governments have already come to feel that the sort of rhetoric that appears at these demonstrations, like chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, crosses the line into advocacy of genocide and are not mere opinions. Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.
It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often err on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.
>It’s important to remember that after the Holocaust, European nations have a special responsibility to the Jewish people, and therefore they often errs on the side of caution in preventing that people from being targets of potentially genocidal rhetoric.
Oh bloody fucking rubbish. French courts let a guy off on murdering a French Jew, in France, because he had smoked marijuana beforehand.
Not exactly. The ruling is that he was mentally incapacitated and is now in a closed psychiatric hospital (from which he won't leave for a good amount of time).
You may like out not the idea of not putting in prison people who were not save at the moment of the event, or the way the qualifications are made but it has nothing to do with Jews in the case you mention.
> Advocacy of genocide has been forbidden since long before COVID happened.
Really? Cause I remember post-9/11 it was a pretty mainstream opinion that America should go glass the middle east. And then, you know, America went and actually did start an awful, bloody war in the middle east that lasted for 20+ years. It was the anti-war people who were getting censored and accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
This censorship is in a capital of a western power. We can condemn Hamas AND condemn failing democratic society by not upholding basic freedoms that built it.
The censorship is likely an uncomfortable trade-off. In an ideal world, we would allow speech and carefully police when that speech turns into death threats or violent action.
However, state capabilities and surveillance capabilities are not sufficient in the west for the second part of that. So the devil's compromise is to restrict the former (because people who would be motivated to issue death threats or commit violent actions are frequently encouraged by the former actions of free speech).
We could ask what Hamas would do if the power imbalance was the other way.
We both know that you know the answer to that.
Right now no one that's anyone cares about what Israel is going to do to Hamas. Hamas is now like ISIS, the shining path, the red brigades, the Khmer Rouge. Their non existence is a priority.
Who cares what hypothetical situation you can make up to try and justify these atrocities. The reality is that Israel is intentionally bombing innocent civilians, hospitals, cutting power, and depriving people of water. All of this in the open air prison that is Gaza, one of the most densely packed areas in the world.
France essentially has inquisition courts, which for example Houellebecq [1] (a prominent author) and Zemmour [2] (a former presidential candidate) had to suffer through.
I've commented about this overall situation in France a few times, and yes, they've gone after fundamental rights also before. Which is kind of weird given their history.
EDIT: Over again, some Americans seem to think that this is about the "freedom of speech", whereas, in reality, it is about the freedom of assembly. That said, the situation seems pretty dire, with organizations classified as terrorists on the streets.
I think this is mostly about searching for the solutions that would prevent people from abusing the fundamental rights to advance their anti-democracy agenda.
That's not how fundamental rights are meant to work. I'm not a monarchist, but I'm happy to allow monarchists (or communists, or Sharia folk, or Baptists) to push for that form of government.
Democracy is a durable form of government unless it's systemically broken.
The 18th-century revolutions that were centered around fundamental rights of man, were pretty hostile to monarchy. France famously guillotined supporters of the monarchy. Even the USA tarred and feathered loyalists or drove them into exile in Canada or the Caribbean. It was only years later, once monarchy wasn’t a realistic possibility any more (or, in France, the public mood had come around to monarchy again) that such advocacy was permitted again. And then later movements for instituting a non-democratic regime, namely fascism or communism, got various degrees of prohibition. So, I’d say it’s pretty normal even for successful democracies to interpret fundamental rights in that light.
I am happy to allow for any state transition that allows for a peaceful reversal of the event (i.e. an undo button). If it's a monarchy, it should be a monarchy with guardrails (i.e. could be deposed by a snap popular vote with 2/3 majority or something)
If the plan of the people, once in power, is to prevent any challenges to their power, we should not run such experiments, and those people do not deserve free speech rights.
Free speech has that paradox unfortunately built into it (see Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance). Universal free speech is a pipe dream you wouldn't enjoy living under.
Don't even attempt to muddy the waters like this. Zemmour has been sued many times, yes, but only convicted twice. The first time, for example, for saying "businesses should discriminate against blacks and Arabs". He was convicted for incitement to discrimination, an offense in many countries. In fact: he was sued for several things he said, like "traffickers are all black and muslim" which he was acquitted for, as while reproachable falls within freedom of expression. Again: only convicted for things which directly contravene specific laws, such as non-discrimination in hiring.
Why are people calling them hate rallies? Because their immediate response to an unprecedented atrocity was to spontaneously organize a public celebration.
It's like organizing a "pro-German but not pro-Nazi" march the day after Kristallnacht, with banners and chants glorifying the violence.
Nobody is fooled and every normal person with a shred of empathy is disgusted.
Watch a crowd cheer for a speaker who says that every Israeli man, woman and child is a valid military target.
And of course people legitimately holding a vigil for peace and supporting the human rights of Palestinian civilians are not guilty of hate, so long as they don't justify or downplay the crimes of Hamas. But many of the rallies were absolutely something else that has no place in a free or decent society.
I've seen plenty of Palestinians interviewed on TV who said "I'm disgusted by the attacks of Hamas. All I want is peace for our people." Everyone can support a statement like that, and if the organizers of these rallies cared they could have thrown out anyone who didn't.
> Why are people calling them hate rallies? Because their immediate response to an unprecedented atrocity was to spontaneously organize a public celebration.
Yeah, and? I want these people to go mask-off. Silencing them just gives them plausible deniability, and that's what we can't afford to let them have if we really want to fight and defeat them politically. Did we do a better job fighting the American far-right before or after Charlottesville?
But there's a risk like: "look eu is allowing terrorist cheering events!" But imo eu failed in this direction too bc most countries lack a proper integration program so that ppl either adapt to live in a democracy or gtfo of the eu if they don't like it
>Supporting civilians in Gaza is not going “mask off”.
The great thing about free speech is that if French demonstrators just support the humanitarian needs and basic rights and freedoms of Gazan civilians, then we'll see that when they demonstrate freely. And if they do like the demonstrators in Sydney and yell, "gas the Jews!", we'll see that too.
The good news is that these people are so committed to their cause that they're willing to go to jail for it. From that perspective, it's a win-win. Everyone gets to see them show the world what they are, and then to see them disavowed by society.
Which is why facism in america completely died out after Charlottesville and the completely mask off "blood and soil" march? No? There are still honest to god nazis, swastika and all, protesting in Florida. Supporters of what happened in Charlottesville still have millions of causal followers, and militias are probably having no issue recruiting.
This is why the ACLU stopped carrying water for facists: The "marketplace of ideas" has not seemed to work, and in general, globally, desire for authoritarianism is increasing as people feel squeezed and stressed and scared, basically the same as it always happens.
So we espoused this pro-speech plan, and then spent decades educating on the values of democracy and how obviously better it is than facism or other forms of authoritarianism, and then the second things get a little scary people turned to easy solutions of "Just hate that out group" like they always do.
It's like humans mostly work on emotions and aren't perfectly logical creatures or something, and addictive emotional stuff is just better at spreading than the nuance of reality.
For what it’s worth I have made a good faith attempt to answer this for myself and quickly got bogged down in information about the Ottoman Empire, etc etc which I can’t imagine is a real justification today.