Except you're plainly doing it. The above dude is framing Israel as a monster that is squeezing as much death as possible before the ceasefire. This narrative is broken when the other dude pointed out that Hamas was doing the same thing; meaning both sides were still fighting even when the ceasefire was approaching.
TLDR: it was a war. Not a morality tale.
But you don't care, reality doesn't matter, I guess.
framing Israel as a monster that is squeezing as much death as possible before the ceasefire
Except Israel has a track record of bombing the shit out of Gaza in the run-up to ceasefires - they've already killed loads of people in Gaza today.
How many Israeli civilians have been killed today by Hamas? 0
This week? 0
This month? 0
TLDR: it was a war. Not a morality tale.
No, it's ethnic cleansing and war crimes in which Israel indiscriminately bombed Gaza for over a year and 70% of the confirmed dead are women and children. Hence, Israel's leaders are wanted war criminals.
At least deal in facts, as much as they are anathema to you.
Yeah, and so do every other nation or organization at war. The difference is that Hamas has been battered down, so its capabilities have fallen significantly.
No, it's ethnic cleansing
The ICC already rejected this claim. This is copium on your part since Israel is not settling the lands and Israel itself is full of Palestinians. The only ethnic cleansing that occurred in the past few decades in that region was the one where Mizrahi Jews were ethnically cleaned across the entire Arab world. Or the one Tigrayans and Ukrainians suffered if you want to look outside of the MENA region.
Hence, Israel's leaders are wanted war criminals.
That really doesn't mean much. After all, its not like Syria's leaders are wanted war crminals, and they made mass graves of 500k+ Syrians in their time, or Ethiopia for 600k+ and mass rape in Tigray. The twisted hypocrisy of the international system has been made obvious when looking beyond Israe and Gaza.
At least deal in facts, as much as they are anathema to you.
I did. You just don't want to accept them because of a hate boner. You literally made a massive strawman just to refuse to acknowledge that the other dude blatantly lied.
Not true. The ICC did not reject this claim. Israel's leaders are wanted for the following crimes against humanity:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
Israel is not settling the lands and Israel itself is full of Palestinians.
Not true. Israel has expanded settlements in the West Bank in the last year.
Uh, you realize that you proved my point, right? None of those are ethnic cleansing. These are general war crimes.
Not true. Israel has expanded illegal settlements in the West Bank in the last year. Not to mention invaded two sovereign states (Lebanon and Syria).
I'm aware. But we're referring to Gaza, not the West Bank. And the invasion of Lebanon was lawful in accordance to international law, ditto with Gaza for that matter (they were attacked in both cases), while the one in Syria was not.
Okay? And? What does that have to do with this discussion? Israel is still full of Palestinians and while they face discrimination, they are not made to disappear or even face a fraction of the repression that minorities across the Arab world face (barring a few exceptions like Jordan).
Again, I know facts are anathema to you but I have limited patience for debunking the lies of those who support the mass murder of children.
You've literally done nothing to debunk my points. You've only deflected onto other points. I never claimed that Israel was some perfect egalitarian land for Palestinians, so idk why you think pointing out that Palestinians face discrimination in Israel is some sort of "gotcha!"
Stop making up strawmen for, like, 5 seconds please.
Uh, you realize that you proved my point, right? None of those are ethnic cleansing. These are general war crimes. At no point did the ICC claim that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing or genocide for that matter. Inb4 you say "Extermination and/or murder contrary" is some definitive proof when its a general statement. The ICC has a specific clause for ethnic cleansing, and it has not used it when described Israel's war crimes.
"Uuuhmhhjmhm, technically they're warcrimes not ethnic cleansing 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓👆". You know it's bad when even the genocide fanboys can't get around it and have to downplay them to warcrimes.
Not true. Israel has expanded illegal settlements in the West Bank in the last year. Not to mention invaded two sovereign states (Lebanon and Syria).
I'm aware. But we're referring to Gaza, not the West Bank. And the invasion of Lebanon was lawful in accordance to international law, ditto with Gaza for that matter (they were attacked in both cases), while the one in Syria was not.
NOOOO, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THOSE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!1!11! I love how you ignore the colonization in the West Bank.
Okay? And? What does that have to do with this discussion? Israel is still full of Palestinians and while they face discrimination, they are not made to disappear or even face a fraction of the repression that minorities across the Arab world face (barring a few exceptions like Jordan).
Again, I know facts are anathema to you but I have limited patience for debunking the lies of those who support the mass murder of children.
You've literally done nothing to debunk my points. You've only deflected onto other points. I never claimed that Israel was some perfect egalitarian land for Palestinians, so idk why you think pointing out that Palestinians face discrimination in Israel is some sort of "gotcha!"
Not discrimination, Apartheid.
Stop making up strawmen for, like, 5 seconds please.
You: Yes they did, here's their list of war crimes that does not include ethnic cleansing. And here's a politician saying so as well.
Me: ...So the ICC didn't find proof of ethnic cleansing, then?
So no, again, you did not disprove anything. The ICC is the voice who determines that, and they did not find proof. I don't give a shit what any other person or group says, and you should ask yourself why your or anyone else's opinion matters more than the International Court.
The only desperate one is you, who keeps deflecting by talking about what others say instead of the actual authority on the subject.
You don't give a shit about mass murder of kids, as I've already pointed out; you literally ignore the mass graves of 500k+ or 600k+ elsewhere where its convenient for you.
And you continue to lie and spread propaganda when the ICC does NOT find evidence of ethnic cleansing.
Keep supporting genocide and terrorism for your ideology. The rest of the world is growing wise to it.
No, you don't. Because looking through your feed, you only give a shit about Israel. Not any of the other hotspots that are far worse; your entire schtick about giving a shit about the loss of life disappears when it has nothing to do with Israel.
No, you don't. Because looking through your feed, you only give a shit about Israel. Not any of the other hotspots that are far worse; your entire schtick about giving a shit about the loss of life disappears when it has nothing to do with Israel.
"Why should we imprison mass murderer A? Mass murderer B has three more kills!"
No, I don't hate Jews and I condemn all forms of hatred and bigotry - that says more about your perspective and I will not abide allegations of false antisemitism.
I have many Jewish friends from Ireland, UK, US, New Zealand and Israel.
What Israel is doing are among the worse atrocities of the 21st century.
That you support the mass murder of children is something for your own conscience to wrestle with.
That's kinda why I called out your logic. You're like a right-winger trying to act like they care about women's rights when transwomen go into women's sports, but in reality you just hate trans people. Same deal here; you just hate the Jews.
If your "compassion" only appears when its against Israel, then its not compassion. Its hate. And spare me the "I have black friends" bullcrap.
You do, by actively ignoring it when it doesn't go against your ideology. You just allow the bodies of far more children to pile up. Inaction is an action in of itself.
Enjoy supporting genociding of children when its to your benefit.
Their claim is that Hezbollah stopped firing a day before the ceasefire. If that is so, how did a woman die from Hezbollah rockets hitting her home? According to you no rockets were being fired?
And you yourself didn't even make a claim, you're just arguing for the sake of it.
An elderly woman from Nahariyya recently succumbed to her wounds acquired when a rocket struck her home just a day before the Hezbollah ceasefire went into effect. Hezbollah continued firing rockets up until the very initiation of the ceasefire agreement.
This fact proves that the person I am responding to is at best mistaken, or at worst intentionally lying about Hezbollah not firing rockets.
Ok? Tens of thousands of women and children have died since last october. Every hospital and school in gaza has been destroyed. Food deliveries have been blocked by isreal. People are fucking starving. Palestinians get beaten and harrassed every day in isreal.
I think you're struggling with reading comprehension. The person you're replying to never defended Israel, but you seem intent on making it about that for some reason.
So every statement by anyone from now on needs to be qualified by first denouncing Israel’s acts in a war?
I didn’t see your denouncement of Hamas before you made your comment, at least be consistent with yourself before expecting others to follow your own rules of conversation.
So every statement by anyone from now on needs to be qualified by first denouncing Israel’s acts in a war?
If you're from Israel - absolutely. They've shown themselves far too eager to support the mass murder of children.
I don't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone on this issue until they state their position, especially not those from the side carrying out crimes against humanity.
I didn’t see your denouncement of Hamas before you made your comment, at least be consistent with yourself before expecting others to follow your own rules of conversation.
I'm not from Gaza or support Hamas. I'm not sure why I would bring up an event from 2023 as opposed to ongoing ethnic cleansing and war crimes lasting over a year,
The person I am responding to is talking about Israeli airstrikes prior to the ceasefire, which is how ceasefires are supposed to work, but they also make the verifiably false claim that Hezbollah ceased firing a day prior to the ceasefire going into effect.
Yes this one person is more relevant to the claim than your 20,000 children, unless Hezbollah killed 20,000 children in the last day before the ceasefire.
This is not a hierarchy of victims, the person made a verifiably false claim, I am going to call it out.
And what about the +40,000 Palestinians that died, not to mention that Palestine now holds the biggest amount of child amputees in the world ? All healthcare and education infrastructure has been destroyed. Mosques and churches have been bombed alongside refugees camps.
There’s a video of a US general meeting officials in Lebanon and being forced to listen to the sound of the Israel drone violating the ceasefire above the office they’re in.
They are still doing fly bys over my house in Central Lebanon as of yesterday. Drones over Beirut were reported the day we elected a President like 2 days ago.
The mind fuck is if they wanted Hezbollah to cease to exist why do they keep giving them a reason to exist? Just hard to comprehend.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll take for Hamas to attack Israel again? This deal doesn’t seem to solve any of the problems Israel was trying to solve in its invasion. Hamas still is in control of Gaza, Israel isn’t going to be able to make sure weapons aren’t smuggled into Gaza nor keep a closer eye on Gaza to make sure Hamas doesn’t get stronger again, and Hamas gets Israeli money to “rebuild Gaza” (rearm itself). I suppose the hostages are worth it for the Israelis, but we’ll see how long it takes for this deal to come back to bite them.
War is never going to solve the core issue Israel has with Palestinians. How many times do they have to level Gaza for people like you to stop defending them?
The core issue that Palestinians don’t believe that Israel has a right to exist and that they want all “their” land back and that they’ll somehow be able to militarily win against Israel and that they’ll be able to conquer all of Israel? I can see how Israel might not be able to get over that.
No, the core issue is that israel wants to maintain a never-ending occupation of the palestinians so that they can continue to steal their homes and push them out of region. Thier goal is to make the lives of palestinians so miserable that they will leave the region so that israel will be free to annex everything that belonged to them
Hamas did not even exist before the occupation. Its a byproduct of israel's treatmrnt of the palestinians. Palestinian suffering is the source of the terrorism and the hatred for israel
The pressure to end the occupation would increase immensely if it became unjust and there was no reason behind it, such as when the Palestinians give up violent resistance and earnestly pursue peace. Before that, though, it’ll never end most likely. There’s no reason for it to end. So, again, the core issue is that Palestinians aren’t willing to give up violent resistance. If they did, a whole lot less of them would be dying.
That's what the palestinians did for the oslo Accords. Israel responded by assassinating the PM who signed the accords, elected a government that opposed the accords, and then DOUBLED the size of the settlements in just 5 years. Netanyahu has even bragged about how he sabotaged the oslo accords and stopped the two state solution... in contrast, the oslo Accords actually had about 70% support from palestinians, and the support for Hamas was below 10% when the accords were signed
Israel has made it very clear that they have no intention of ending the occupation. They will not give up on pushing the palestinians out of the west bank so they can take it over. The palestininans wanted peace and freedom, but israel wanted to steal thier land and homes from them
They absolutely did not give up violence when they signed the Oslo accords. Arafat signed the accords and the Palestinians saw that as surrendering, so they threw their weight behind more violent terrorist ground, mainly Hamas but also PIJ. They wanted violent resistance, so they supported terrorists who were against peace.
Palestinians wanted peace and freedom at the expense of Israel. They have never given up on right of return, which is a total nonstarter for any peace process. They have never given up on one day reclaiming the land of Israel, which is of course also a nonstarter. The Israelis may have had a hand in making sure the peace process doesn’t work, but the Palestinians have never actually been interested in peace and share just as much, if not more, blame. Them refusing a deal in 2007 also is indicative of this attitude. It was a good deal, but they wanted all their land back, so they refused it. Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The reason hamas did not take part in palestinian in 1996 is because they knew they would have lost in a landslide. Arafat enjoyed overwhelming approval from the palestinians, and polls showed that only a small minority, less than 10%, preferred Hamas. The oslo Accords had built a road map for peace, and istael decided to tear it to shreds
I mean, it’s not like the militant groups didn’t have any part in them collapsing either. The militant groups attacked Israel, leading Israel to believe it needed stronger security and thus reneging on some of the agreements. And then Arafat’s popularity plummeted as well because Palestinians didn’t believe in peace.
The settlements have nothing to do with security. Destorying pakestinian homes and replacing them with israeli civilian homes in the west bank does not increase israel's security. They are also illegal
Netanyahu and his party were opposed to oslo Accords. He even lead a "death to rabin" rally before Rabin's assassination. Settlement expansion was about sabotaging the accords. Arafat's loss in support was tied directly to the expansion of the settlements. For the palestinians, the rapid settlement expansion proved tgat the oslo accords were a failure. All the terrorism and hatred for usrael always comes back to the settlements
My guess is that the settlements were directly tied to Hamas and PIJ suicide bombings, which had support from the majority of Palestinians. What’s Israel supposed to do there? Just let it slide?
How do the settlements address terrorist attacks? Settlements have nothing to do with security. It's just about illegally claiming ownership of land. If israel wanted to protect their people from terrorists they would be trying to keep them AWAY from the palestinians, not pushing them closer by moving them into palestinian terrorities.
And, once again, gamas did not have majority support. That's the reason they refused to take part in elections. In 1996, Polls had arafat at 70% and the leader of hamas at less than 10%. The oslo Accords was considered a major victory for palestinians
No, Netanyahu's goal for the settlement expansion after the oslo accords was to sabotage the accords. He knew that increased settlement expansion would antagonize the palestinians. He wanted to break any chance of peace between israel and the palestinians
How do terrorist attacks help Palestinians achieve peace? It’s retaliation from both sides. Why reward suicide bombings and terror attacks with dismantling the settlements?
Hamas had major support after they committed terror attacks after Oslo. They were seen as the best group to fight back against Israel, so Palestinians flocked to their banner.
What proof do you have of that? The Oslo accords broke down after the cave of the patriarchs massacre and Hamas and PIJ suicide bombings campaigns.
The Oslo accords was about Israel's gradual REMOVAL from the Palestinian territories. Israel was supposed to reduce their growth and stop, but instead they sped up. This had nothing to with security; again, Netanyahu wanted to sabotage the peace process
Here is the Election polling from 1997 showing Arafat with 62% support and Ahmed Yassin (leader of Hamas) with only 2%. The polls also show that from 1994 to 1997 Yassin's poll numbers dropping sharply, while Arafat's numbers increased greatly during that same period. 68% of Palestinians supported the peace process, and only 28% opposed it. Political affiliation with Hamas was only 12%... The poll even asked the reason WHY palestinians opposed the peace process, only 20% opposed it because of religious reasons; over 70% of those who opposed the peace process said they supported peace, but opposed the process because they either thought Palestinians gave up too much, or they were disappointed by the actual progress. Only 15% of the 28% of palestinians who opposed the peace process, supported Intifada... so 4% support for Intifada and about 7% for armed struggle
Now, Try finding any polls from the 1990's that shows this "majority" support for Hamas terrorist attacks as you claim
“support for suicide armed attacks has almost doubled in one year from 21% in March 1996 (see CPRS Poll #22) to 40% in April 1997.”
“This sharp decline in the level of support for the peace process in Gaza is even more serious because it is accompanied by a dramatic increase in the level of Gazan support for suicide attacks. The latest bombing attack in Tel Aviv received 44% support in the Gaza Strip (compared to 38% in the West Bank)”
“Another interesting finding from Gaza indicates that Hamas has gained more support there increasing its share in public support from 7% in March 1997 (CPRS Poll 26) to 11% in this poll. These findings, while inconclusive, may indicate that the trend in Gaza toward “moderation”, which started about 18 months ago, may be ending.”
I can pull info from the surveys too. Here’s the one:https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/544
Fine. Not the majority in the 90s, but a plurality. 40% is a lot of people. And note, the support for these attacks increased because of the peace process itself, not because of Israeli expansion.
no, 50% is half, a majority is more than half. You are also showing more and more time passing between the signing of the oslo accords in 1993, moving farther and farther away from the oslo accords. This would be AFTER the assassination of Rabin, AFTER the rise of the right wing Israeli government that opposed the Oslo accords, and AFTER the continued settler expansion in violation to the aims of the oslo accords. You actually DID provide proof of how the the increase in settlement activity actually led to an increase support for terrorism... The more the settlements expanded, the more support rose for terrorism
Also, if you read through those polls fully you would see that they ALSO show that even in 1998, 68% of of Palestinians supported the PEACE process, and that 60% supported Arafat in elections, vs only 2% for Yassin... so in the same polls you quoted, we see a clear majority of Palestinians supporting PEACE
Really, just contrast this with Israel. While Palestinians remained overwhelmingly supportive of Arafat, Rabin was assassinated and replaced with him with the guy who held a "death to Rabin" rally. While Yassin/Hamas only had 2% support for elections in Palestine, the opponents of the Olso accords were elected to be the majority government in israel. You provided the proof of how Netanyahu sabotaged the peace process by antagonizing the Palestinians to drive up the support for violence
Now you’re being pedantic. 50% is a plurality and basically a majority, especially since only 45% opposed violent resistance. And also, this is all AFTER Hamas and PIJ started their suicide bombings because they didn’t like the peace process. And got more support from the Palestinians because of their actions. What I also provided was support for violent resistance increased because of waning Palestinian support for the peace process, which seems largely spurred on by the fact that Palestinians thought they were giving up too much, which basically boils down to them not wanting to recognize Israel’s right to exist (just 10% supported teaching Israel had a right to exist in schools).
They supported the peace process as well as violent resistance because they figured violent resistance would help get what they wanted in the peace process. Contradictory, but that’s Palestinian logic for you. They supported peace by way of violence, figuring they could use violence to achieve peace. Look how well that worked out for them.
You are making assumptions on a lack of data. Find data for support for rabin and the subsequent elections in Israel, or just stick to the Palestinians, who we actually have data for.
And also, this is all AFTER Hamas and PIJ started their suicide bombings because they didn’t like the peace process. And got more support from the Palestinians because of their actions.
That is actually that is a false conclusion that is NOT supported by the polls you showed. You showed in increase support for violence, but that did NOT translate into a lot more support for Hamas. While support for violence got up to 50%, the highest numbers of support for Hamas was only 11%; a small minority. So no, there is no evidence that terrorism was winning Hamas popularity back then. While Palestinians were becoming more supportive of violence, the vast majority stayed on Arafat's side and the Oslo accords
The Support for violence came from the increased settlement activity, which in turn created hatred towards israel. The more israel violated the Oslo accords, the more Palestinians turned against the peace procress and supported violence.
which basically boils down to them not wanting to recognize Israel’s right to exist
None of your polls mention that. That seems to be an assumption you concluded on. One common demand of the Palestinians is the "right to return" or reparations for the homes lost during the Nakba. The Oslo accords did not give them either of those. They also may have opposed the idea of land swaps, and would have simply wanted the settlements removed entirely.
Find data for support for rabin and the subsequent elections in Israel, or just stick to the Palestinians, who we actually have data for.
What more Data do you need for Rabin and the elections? Rabin was Assassinated, and the Israeli's elected the party that was not only his opposition who publicly opposed the oslo accords, but lead by a guy who held a "death to Rabin" rally. Israel voting for Lukid right after the accords would have been like the Palestinians voting for Hamas; but the Palestinians were firmly on Arafat's side
The violence being committed by the terrorist ground got support from the Palestinians. That’s what the polls show. And, as we can clearly see later on, that translated into support for the groups themselves. Their violence got them popularity. Perhaps not immediately, but definitely as time went on. And 60% is not a vast majority. They were voting for PA Arafat because they didn’t see any other options politically, but they supported the violence, something that the political parties they supported did not support, because they saw violence as the answer to get them a better peace. That of course didn’t happen, but again, that’s Palestinian logic for you.
The suicide bombings happened before the increased settlement activity, and were in response to the peace process. Yeah support for the violence grew when Palestinians thought the peace process was costing them too much and figured that violence would get them what they wanted. It seems the establishment of a new settlement was also somewhat related, but the support for violence grew when satisfaction with the peace process decreased.
I saw it in one of the polls from 97. If it’s not in one of the ones I linked, it’s in one of the other ones. You can either take my word for it or find it yourself. The recognition of Israel seems to be the largest issue, but the other issues are also of course related. The right of return has always been a big one. Palestinians not getting that has definitely related to their support for violence.
How much was rabin supported, and how much did Netanyahu win by? It’s parliamentary elections, Likud could have gotten just 30% of the vote. That’s far from a majority. That’s why the data is important. How much did likud win by can prove more that settlements were the main problem, or whatever point you’re making.
They were voting for PA Arafat because they didn’t see any other options politically
As the polls showed, they REJECTED the other options. Palestinians were asked if they would prefer Yassin to Arafat, and the Palestinians overwhelmingly said "No". The reason why Hamas did not take part in elections in the 90's is because they knew they would lose by a landslide and did not want to give Arafat legitimacy.
The violence being committed by the terrorist ground got support from the Palestinians. That’s what the polls show. And, as we can clearly see later on, that translated into support for the groups themselves.
Again, this is not reflected in any of the polls you showed. The most you showed was an increase from 7% to 11% for Hamas... even if we fast forward to the 2005 election where Hamas run, that too was a very different situation. By that point that peace process was effectively dead along with Arafat. There wasn't really a viable peace process option anymore. Without a viable peace process, the rest of the Fatah party was seen by Palestinians as just being deeply corrupt. Hamas however, had actually spent the previous few years is putting money into building schools and hospitals. Hamas actually used CHARITY work to win the Palestinians over to their side, NOT terrorism. The 2005 election wasn't about destroying israel, it was about which party Palestinians believed would support their interests; The corrupt Fatah who has accomplished nothing, or infastructure building Hamas who did not tolerate israel's offenses against the Palestinians... when Hamas won the election, Netanyahu got the result he wanted and completed his 10 year long effort to kill the peace process.
It seems the establishment of a new settlement was also somewhat related, but the support for violence grew when satisfaction with the peace process decreased.
Increased settlement activity > Less support for the peace process > increase support for violence
Its a simple thread to follow
How much was rabin supported, and how much did Netanyahu win by?
1996 Election There was a separate vote for prime minster and the knessnet. Netanyahu won the PM seat with 50.5% of the vote. His party only won 25% of the seats, but he could still coalition with other smaller parties to make a right wing government that held a majority support in total. Between that election and the previous election, Rabin's party lost 10 seats, and their share of the votes dropped by 10 points.
Israel voted for the man who wanted Rabin dead. And we can compare this to Yassin, who only at 2% support in elections around the same time, and Arafat who had over 60%... Palestinians chose those who supported peace, while Israel chose those who opposed it.
The rejected the other options when it came to politics, but not approach. Why would you have faith in a militant organization to rule you? Of course the faith grew over time, but they were at first known best as a militant factions, which many Palestinians supported the actions of. They saw the PA as the best political option, but violence as the best option to get a better peace process.
The increase from 7 to 12% had the note of “this perhaps shows that the moderation in Gaza is decreasing” which we know absolutely was true, since Hamas support increased steadily from that point on.
No, more making more compromises > less support for the peace process > more violent resistance > more support for violence.
So out of all the parties Netanyahu got only 50.5% of the vote. That’s an extremely thin majority, much less than the overwhelming majority you said earlier. And his party getting only 25% of the votes shows that it wasn’t so much likud’s opposition to rabin that helped them win the elections, since they didn’t get a majority.
And again, no. Israel chose Netanyahu because he was strong against the violence being committed by Palestinians. Palestinians chose Arafat because he was the best political option, but supported the violence that was being carried out by Hamas.
I’d also just like to note that I’m appreciating us using data for this discussion. While we might be drawing vastly different conclusions from it, it’s nice to see actual numbers back up our points as opposed to unbacked claims being made.
You keep pulling data that comes later and later in the time line away from the oslo accords. My original point was about how Palestinians originally supported the peace procress, but Israel undermined the peace process by antagonizing the Palestinians, and the more Israel expanded the more they supported violence against israel. Bringing up polls from the 2000's only SUPPORTS that position.
By 2004, the peace process had completely broken down. By that point Arafat and many Palestinians had determined that Israel was no longer interested in the diplomatic peace effort. Israel had violated the spirit of the Oslo accords with their increased settlement construction. They also found the latest round of peace talks in the 2000's to be a complete joke, with the israeli's offering the palesitnians nothing but terrible deals. The Palestinians were basically stuck in a position where they either allow israel to keep expanding or they accept a terrible "peace" deal that would undermine them in the long run. Even those on israel's side of the negotiations have admitted that they themselves would NOT have accepted anything. Arafat was no longer dealing with Rabin who wanted peace. THIS is why palestinians ended up embracing terrorism and armed struggle. Israel rejected peace, and the palestinians followed suite.
In 1995, Palestinians support for the peace process was high. After a decade of israel's settlement construction, and electing leaders who OPPOSED the oslo accords and the peace procress, the Palesitnians lost support for the peace procress and the support for terorrism increase. your polls only show that Israel was responsible for Palesitnians moving AWAY from the peace procress and increasing support for terrorism
Again, in 1995, the Palesitnians chose Arafat and the Oslo Accords, while the Israeli's chose Netanyahu and OPPOSITION to the oslo accords. The 25% of seats doesn't mean much, because the votes went to other minor parties, some of which who ALSO opposed the oslo accords. Netanyahu built a majority government out of the oslo opposition. Israel chose the guy who wanted Rabin DEAD. It does not get simpler than that.
You made the claim that the people voted for Hamas because of their infrastructure stuff in 2005. The data seems to not support that claim. That’s why I looked at that data.
Israel became disinterested in the peace process because of the violent attacks against it and the support those attacks had from Palestinians. Don’t forget, the second intifada was from 2000-2005. The second intifada was marked by increasing amounts of violence, usually in the form of suicide attacks perpetrated by Hamas. Those suicide attacks, as we can see in the data, had widespread support among Palestinians. Why would Israel buy in to the peace process when the Palestinians saw violence as the answer to get a better peace? Why award such attitudes?
Palestinians approved of the violence that was carried out by Hamas. Hamas was the best representative of the Palestinians’ support for violence. They approved of what they were doing. This can also be seen by the clear rise in their popularity over the years. You can’t discount the violence being committed by Hamas as a reason why they gained popularity. Sure, they might have represented other things as well, but their main means of resistance and method of doing things was violence, which the people approved of. And you can easily say that the polls show that Israel’s is to blame because it’s a one sided poll. Of course it’s going to give off that impression. I’m sure if we only looked at Israeli polls about the same things we would come to the conclusion that it was all the Palestinians’ fault. But you have to keep in mind what the Palestinians were actually doing to understand why Israel was doing what it did. Again, carrying out and supporting suicide bombings. That’s not going to engender cooperation with people most of the time.
Tell me, did Netanyahu run on a platform of “no peace process”? You seem to be making big things out of small things. How do you know the Israelis absolutely did not what the peace process? Could they see the future? I’d say that the Palestinians didn’t want the peace process because they were willing to support violent resistance at the slightest provocation and didn’t like to compromise, which of course is how you get peace in the first place.
That’s rich coming from someone from the country that did the most land grabbing and ethnic cleansing in the history of humanity. Maybe you should give your country back.
Today I learned that simply existing is supporting land grabbing and ethnic cleansing. Well, good to see Zionists believe in judging people by where they're born, rather than by their actions.
You know, last time I checked, we aren't denying Native Americans the right to live in America as citizens and have homes in America, unlike Israel with the Palestinians.
Ah yes, in a conversation about Israel committing atrocities and engaging in land grabs, it's not relevant to speak about Israeli atrocities and land grabs. That makes sense.
Israel exists. That is fact. Yall all spew the same dumb ass talking points and word salad bullshit. The core issue is Israel wants to keep a Jewish minority and also continue to annex the West Bank and make Gaza unlivable. Maybe if they werent such abhorrent pieces of shit people wouldnt die to resisting them.
If Palestinians actually gave up violent resistance and renounced Hamas and etc., I doubt very much Israel would be able to withstand the pressure from within and without to stop annexing land in the WB and help Palestinians rebuild to pursue a two state solution. If the Palestinians were actually serious about a two state solution, and I mean the people, not the organizations they hate, it would be entirely on Israel’s shoulders to make the effort to pursue a two state solution, and nobody would be on their side if they didn’t try.
Hamas doing whatever it does is not a valid excuse to ethnically cleanse and land grab. The Palestinians living in the West Bank are not exclusively Hamas.
I don’t support what Israel is going in the WB. However, they have very little, it any, incentive to stop because the Palestinians are going to try and kill then no matter what. If the Palestinians actually were innocent and didn’t support violence, not only would the international pressure mount because Israel would have no reason to keep doing what it’s doing, but the internal pressure would mount as well because then finally the peace advocates would have a leg to stand on and pursuing peace couldn’t be seen as compromising national security.
Again the problem is conflating Hamas and their ideology with the greater populace of Palestine. The thousands of bakers, hairdressers, moms, kids lumped under the same banner of ostensibly wanting the annihilation of Israel just by virtue of ethnicity, when in reality most just want to live their lives.
Israel and its supporters in their unethical laziness conflate the two so that they don't have to put in the effort of flushing out and exterminating Hamas using less blanket destructive means.
Poll after poll shows that Palestinians, both in the WB and Gaza, support violent resistance, Hamas, armed struggle, and think Israel will cease to exist in the next 100 years. The inconvenient truth for people on the side of the Palestinians is that Palestinians at large do, in fact, want Israel destroyed and do, in fact, support violence and Hamas more than peace. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/991
If I'm a Palestinian at this point, with Gaza all but razed to the ground and my family members killed, and/or my land illegally taken away, I would likely have very similar sentiments.
But the sentiments of the populace measured through polls is not a yardstick for the obligation that the Israeli government has to exercise so much more prudence than they have, in taking away the threat to their country.
What’s Israel supposed to do? The support for Hamas indicates that even if Israel withdrew, it’d still be attacked from the WB and Gaza by Hamas. Israel was not occupying Gaza when Hamas struck on Oct 7th. Is the answer then to also relax on the WB so that attacks can come from there too? That makes no sense from an Israeli stand point. The Palestinians seem to hate Israel enough to always want to destroy them. If Israel is to defend itself from that, the answer is not to let up on the Palestinians.
Hamas wants a country where all religions are equal obviously not Israel but saying they call for its destruction is disingenuous. They call for the end of it being a racist supremacist state which seems beyond fair.
They still say stuff like that, but they also blatantly advocated for worldwide genocide of Jews in their founding charter, which they only changed recently. Which is about as laughable as the KKK changing their mission statement years after making their aims obvious.
This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
Now that seems disingenuous. An organization who now is willing to come to the table is not the same as one who was not willing to in 1988, and should be treated completely differently. Its new members also join under its current mission directives, not past ones.
How is that disingenuous? I don't think anyone should trust an organization that openly wanted genocide at any point. Besides, Hamas also went to the table in while they had that founding charter; did so many times.
And dude, Hamas changed their founding charter in 2017. Idk why you're acting like a century has passed.
The point is to find a way out of this hellhole of a situation. That requires practical compromise on both sides. If you're sincere about wanting a way out that protects the lives of both arabs and jews that then that requires being pragmatic and setting aside whatever true feelings Hamas has. It shouldn't matter what they want in their guts. What matters is that they're willing to be practical and have softened where two parties were previously irreconcilable. That's light at the end of the tunnel.
But if instead you just sit on your horse and condemn Hamas wholesale for all eternity based on past statements (regardless how recent) then you're the one who's keeping things from being able to move forward.
I agree, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Hamas as an organization is too heavily associated with fascist and genocidal beliefs to exist for peace to be maintained. Dealing with the PA would be a far better alternative. I'd be more willing to accept Hamas if they put their money where their mouth was and actively tried to rebuild Gaza into a vision of a better society, like HTS managed to do.
But if instead you just sit on your horse and condemn Hamas wholesale for all eternity based on past statements
That's absurd. Judging an organization based on their history is literally common sense. Why would anyone trust their future if they know about their very very recent past? Would you trust the KKK if they claimed to turn a new leaf tomorrow? No, right? Same deal here.
Compromise can exist, but groups that profess such feelings as they have cannot unless they work hard to rehabilitate their image. And so far, they have done the exact opposite.
They have put their money where their mouth is. Israel are the ones who have rejected the recent cease fires, and it looks like the jury is still out as to whether Israel accepts this one.
"too heavily associated with fascist and genocidal beliefs to exist for peace to be maintained" is subjective muddying that again has nothing to do with pragmatism. "Trust" is a wholly unpractical word and you can levy countless allegations against Israel for their past actions too. I'm sure Hamas doesn't like Netanyahu's "beliefs" either. Does that mean they should not consider negotiating with him until he changes those beliefs?
You cannot first demand a group to forget what was done to them and completely change who they are. Would that be a more preferable way forward for all involved? Sure? Is it realistic given all the history? No.
Hamas' literal mission statement was the complete genocide of all Jews everywhere. They only recently changed it. They also want Sharia law, which openly and horribly oppresses non-Muslims by default, and spits in the face of egalitarianism in all forms.
So, congrats on openly supporting a genocidal fascist organization. I guess?
In 1987–88, during the initial phase of the First Intifada, the 1988 Hamas Charter was written by one older Hamas leader and ratified by Hamas in a slight hurry, as instrument to "maintain the momentum" of the newly risen Palestinian "resistance generation", giving them broad strokes direction, partly expressed in religious Islamic and partly in political terminology; thus the explanation of the charter’s origins and purpose, given by Ahmed Yousef, former senior Political Adviser to Prime Minister Haniyeh, in 2011.^([20]) The charter, Yousef further added, in those early days reflected the views of the Elders in the face of a "relentless occupation". The details of its religious and political language had not been examined within the framework of international law, and an internal committee review to amend it was shelved out of concern not to offer concessions to Israel on a silver platter, as had Fatah in the Oslo Accords (1993–95)
Dutch researcher Floor Janssen compared the 1988 charter (and other documents from that period) to Hamas's documents dated 1994-2005. Janssen found a significant shift in Hamas positions from 1988 to 1994-2005:
In contrast to 1988, Hamas no longer referred to the enemy as "Jews"^([26])
Hamas began introducing its positions on a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (a likely consequence of the Oslo Accords)^([27])
Hamas retained its goal of "liberating" Palestine in its entirety^([28])
Imagine going so far as to defend an organization that ratified and does not change a fucking document calling for the complete genocide of all Jews.
You're making excuses for a genocidal fascist organization, and you'd never do it if it was aimed at you. Spare me the excuses. The later change was so "anti-imperialists" could pretend to be anti-imperialist in optics, when in reality everyone knows that they just want to see Jews hanged in the streets.
Do you have any idea how many people had died in the conflict between Israel and the PLO/Palestinian resistance before Hezbollah and especially Hamas? Somewhere around less than 10,000, total. Why do those organizations exist? Their origins are indeed from before Arafat sued for peace, but Hamas gained loads of popularity because Arafat wanted peace but the common Palestinian did not.
Check the flair? Hezbollah only exists because Israel invaded Lebanon.
Hamas only exists because the PLO/Fatah/PA capitulated. The PA is extremly unpopular, why? Because Israel still abuses Palestinians in the West Bank and steals land but now the Palestinian Authority clears the way for them an suppresses resistance to it.
The core issue is Israel. If you werent a bigot it would be easier for you to see that.
No I saw your flair. Doesn’t really matter. I’m well aware Hezbollah came into existence to fight the Israeli invasion. For whatever reason though it decided to take part in this fighting, much to its own detriment hilariously enough.
Yes. Palestinians seeing pursuing peace as surrender, so they support whatever faction is best at violent resistance, which is Hamas. See, Israel wasn’t doing all that much in the West Bank before the intifadas. Arafat was pursuing peace while the Palestinians still wanted all of “their” land back, so they turned to terrorists to keep on fighting, hoping they’d destroy Israel. Hamas exists because it wants to destroy Israel, a goal many Palestinians share. Israel is so hard in the WB and Gaza because of this support.
The core issue is the Palestinian desire to abolish all of Israel. If you weren’t so biased you could see it, as it is clear as day.
As long as there is occupation there will be resistance, if Israel doesn't want violence maybe they shouldn't occupy land that isn't theirs, but then they would have to abandon their lebensraum and they aren't willing to do that
In order for Palestinians to be satisfied and no longer violently resist Israel would have to dissolve itself, which is of course never going to happen. Israel as well can withstand the cycle of violence for decades, if not longer. Sure, it’ll hurt from time to time, but it’ll never be enough to conquer all of Israel and the Palestinians will always end up getting hurt more. Israel can withstand the cycle, but the Palestinians can’t. Each war is just them killing themselves more and more. If they ever want peace, they have to give up violent resistance. That’s the only way. If Israel ever wants peace, it can just wait until Palestinians kill themselves fighting Israel.
Or maybe withdraw from the west bank and gaza and allow for the creation of an independent palestinian state (if you control the borders you are still occupying so they never stopped occupying Gaza), but colonizers won't give them up willingly, just like France only gave up Algeria after they resisted in their independence war
Why would they do that when 1. A majority of Palestinians support violent resistance and Hamas, who’s goal is the destruction of Israel entirely and not just Israel withdrawing from WB and Gaza, and 2. They’d be making themselves more at risk of attacks from Gaza and the WB if they withdrew?
¿What do you expect when you occupy and kill for decades, hugs, kisses, prayers? Ask citizens of the 13 Colonies if they support violent resistance against the english, or italian partisans against the nazis, the vietnamese against the french, black south-africans against the afrikaner government etc.
Just like all other examples palestinians are well within their right to resist, and as Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Palestinians are never going to be able to defeat Israel, so comparisons between them and successful resistance movements are inaccurate. Once again, Israel is not a colonial government. The Jews have nowhere to go, so they’re never leaving just because they got tired of staying.
Palestinians have no right to commit terrorism against Israel, which is their primary method of “resistance” that’s used largely supported by the majority of the Palestinian population.
They don't have to leave, there are still white south africans that never left, it's enough with palestinians and israelis having equal rights, so either israelis stop the occupation and lets them have a state or they give equal rights to people under occupation, but they won't do neither because then their ethnostate will end
The Arabs in Israel have equal rights as the Jews in Israel.
There’s no reason for Israel to do anything before the Palestinians give up on violence because they’ve shown that they’ll take advantage of any Israeli lapses in security to attack Israel.
If they didn’t, it seems likely that Palestinians would attack Israel from that territory. I’ll freely admit the settlements are over the line, but again, Israel has no incentive to stop of those settlements increase their national security.
Not necessarily. If Palestinians give up violent resistance, then peace is much more likely. But if they want to kill themselves by attacking Israel and eventually go extinct because of it, that’s totally their choice. Both sides can have peace if Palestinians actually recognize Israel’s right to exist, but only one side will have peace if Palestinians keep fighting, and that side is Israel.
Well, Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel. They want “their” land back that they have no right to. If they give up violent resistance, peace will be achieved and a two state solution is realistic. But if Palestinians want to keep supporting violence and attacking Israel because they have the delusional thought that one day they’ll conquer Israel magically, no one can blame Israel for defending itself.
Tell me this, when the Arabs first moved into the land around 700 AD or so, did they automatically have a right to the land, more so than they people they had just killed and kicked out?
The Palestinians lost their land through a war they started. If they had won, they’d have killed and kicked out all the Jews. They’d be taking Jewish land. Would that have been ok? It would have been as ok as what the Jews did when they won.
If you disagree with one, you disagree with the other. If you agree with one, you’d agree with both. The answer to your question is the answer to mine.
Perfect, so whether or not territory changed hands between them, both have a valid claim to the land.
I've been following your logic but it's worth mentioning now, Palestinians have closer ancestry to Canaanites and Bronze Age Levantines than Jews in Israel on average, to the point where Israel banned people DNA testing for heritage and ancestry. Does a people with a longer ancestral claim to the land have more of a claim of less of one?
No, I’d say that the group who conquered it last has more of a right than the group who it was conquered from. They couldn’t hold on to the land themselves, after all.
Ancestral claim doesn’t matter. That’s not what modern nations have been built on.
Ukraine has no claim to Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk now either then?
Sounds like in your world ethnic cleansing is a great way to get claims on land. If only Yugo had finished off the Albanians and Bosnians, then they'd have claims over their land and all would be well.
I’m not saying ethnic cleaning is good, but things like ancestral claims to land are just total bogus. Right now Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine to take over all of it. If they do, people might not consider it right or just, but if they hold it for 100-200 years, people will stop caring and then suddenly if someone else invades that land, they’ll be invading rightful Russian land.
If you think conquest doesn’t mean rights to land, what’s your arbitrary time frame after conquest to when someone does have a right to the land? Should the Saxons give the land of Britain back to the angles? Should Italians give back land to the etruscans? What about the Arabs giving back land to the goths in North Africa? Or should the Magyars give back their land? What about the Russians in eastern Russia? Or the Han or Qing or Manchu? At what point in time does land become the rightful land of a conquering people?
I'll get onto the rest after but first the Angles and Saxons came over around the same time, I assume you mean give Britain back to the Celts?
You give no weight to claims based on the fact those people have lived there for 50+ generations, that's just strange to me, but not surprising for an American.
Most of your examples include people that either mixed with the new people or were wiped out, and also examples from over a century ago so they aren't really comparable when the displaced population is still here.
So what, we just wait until the Palestinians go extinct before giving Israel a right to the land? If Israel had exterminated all the Palestinians instead of letting them flee, the Jews would somehow have more of a right to the land they have now? And you do realize that there are Arabs living in Israel, right? Something like 20% of the total population. They’re there, they’re mingling. The standards seem to be completely arbitrary.
You've drawn your own conclusions there. You asked if we should give land back to cultures that no longer distinctly exist and used those examples to compare to a situation where the culture still distinctly exists, that's apples to oranges.
Well, Palestinians are Arabs and it’s somewhat hard to say they have their own, distinct culture as opposed to just a different flavor of Arab. But then should we just wait until Palestinian culture dies before we give Israel a right to the land? Again, this seems just like another arbitrary timeframe.
There are distinct similarities, but America is even more of a nation of immigrants, so the cultures are quite distinct. The Palestinians and the other Arabs are more or less distinct, but they certainly share a lot of similarities. Ethnically they’re the same, culturally they’re close. But again, does Israel have more of a right to the land in the future when Palestinian culture fades away?
Ethnically, they aren't the same that's my point. Palestinians share lots of DNA with pre-arabic levantine populations, same as other modern day populations living there, an Arab living in the Gulf is going to have distinctly different ancestry.
Why are you asking a question I've said no to multiple times? If you're waiting for me to change my answer you'll be waiting a while.
Because the answer is absolutely a yes. You’re putting an arbitrary timeline on who gets the rightfully claim to the land. If all it takes is the passage of time to give someone a claim to the land, then the Israelis will have a claim to the land in several hundred years by your standards and thus I don’t see why people don’t recognize that claim today. It’s not like Israel is going anywhere. There’s no one in the area that could conquer it and there’s no one outside the area that would care to. The Jews are going to stay in the land, they’ll probably mix more and more with the Arab population still there, and the Palestinian culture will fade over time, partially due to their suicidal attacks against Israel. So if the Jews will have a right to the land by your standards in a couple hundred years or so, why not say they have a right now?
"By my standards" no no no, by the standards you've placed on me. I haven't said that there's a time period to wait before a claim, just that your examples are so old and none of us could have a contemporary opinion on them it's not a fair comparison.
Nearly all of your examples didnt occur in the same millennium as the current situation and you want them to be treated the same? Not in my book.
Are you still proposing that all arabs are ethnically the same or have you dropped that bit now?
This shows if I'm understanding it correctly, that Palestinians have genetically in common with Bronze Age Levantine populations than Ashkenazi Jews by a fair way.
Ever read some history before giving your opinion on this matter? Peninsular Arabs didn't kick out the locals. Overwhelming majority of the Arab speakers in the entire Levant are Arabized Levantines. They DID NOT move there from Hejaz or anywhere else. They were Arabized during the Arab rule just like North Africa was.
Which is why even Ashkenazim (let alone Mizrahim and Sephardim) are among the closest genetic relatives to Palestinian Arabs and vice versa: because they're all the descendants of the indigenous population of the Levant, subjected to different admixtures as one group was displaced and the other assimilated.
With how much Israelis and Palestinians have in common, it's unfortunate how unwilling they are to share their common homeland peacefully and equally.
No they aren’t. Palestinians are more closely related with Jordanians, Syrians and Saudis. Jews are more closely related to Lebanese Christians and Druze, as well as Carmel Druze.
Arabs conquered all those lands when the Islamic conquests were going on. Did the Arab conquerors have a right to the land the moment they conquered it?
People moved there and conquered the area in 700 AD. Why should they get the land and not the people who they conquered or the people that conquered them?
They killed and kicked out the Byzantine Christians, not Jews, the Jews were finally allowed back into Jerusalem by the caliphate (https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period3-2.htm)
To add to this, the population of the Levant has a lot of genetic continuity, mostly consisting of local peoples that were there in the Neolithic era and peoples that migrated there from the area of what is now Iran during the Chalcolithic era (the period between the Neolithic and the bronze age, in the Levant and the Arabic Peninsula this occurred between 6,600 BCE and 3,550 BCE) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544389/)
Which, oddly enough, roughly coincides with the origins of Hebrew identity and history (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism)
It doesn’t really matter who they kicked out, just that they kicked out someone. Someone came into the land and conquered it for their own. What gives someone a right to the land but not someone else when they used the exact same methods to get that land?
That’s a whole different can of worms. What gave the natives more right to the land they conquered from other tribes than the Europeans who conquered it from them?
What is this question? Somehow Native Americans didn't deserve the land they'd been on for 10s of thousands of years, but Israel gets a pass because why? Why is Israel different?
Israel murdered all the Cannanites in the region, so they also took that land by conquest. Why do they deserve all of Israel anymore than the ones who conquered them?
What gives Israel the right to kick these people off their land?
I have a minor correction here, they didn't murder all the Canaanites, it's a fairly common idea with some pretty good evidence that Israelites are Canaanites. It was more so that some tribes/groups banded together to take control of the entire region, rather than an actual external force or group. At the very least it was at least partly made up of groups like that along with an external force/group.
You do realize that native Americans weren’t just one homogenous group, right? They were hundreds of different tribes that fought each other and took land from each other. The Europeans acted like how the natives did. If the natives suddenly have a right to the land but Europeans don’t, which natives have the right? The tribe that was conquered by the Europeans, or the tribe that was conquered by the tribe that was conquered by the Europeans, or further back still?
If you’re going by right to land, that right is always based on conquest. The Arabs in the area conquered the land. The Jews then did the same thing several hundred years later. So does time create a right? Why then don’t we just assume Israel will be on that land for the next several hundred years (because, let’s be honest, no Arab country will ever be able to conquer Israel and no one else will try), and say they have a right to the land now? Israel didn’t have a “right” to conquer the land, but neither did any other group before or after them. But they all did it anyway, and to recognize the rights of those conquerers today.
Most of the Arab speakers in Levant are Arabized Levantines. They didn't moved there from anywhere else. They were just Arabized during the Rab rule just like entire North Africa was.
There are lots of ethnic Arabs in that zone and they came there during that time. And even if there were no ethnic Arabs in the region, the fact they were Arabized renders any argument against Israel obsolete because it is the exact same situation
Those "lot of Arabs" are just few aristocrat families. An average Levantine is genetically much closer to a Mizrahim than he is to an Arab in Iraq or Saudi.
No it isn't the exact same situation because Israel isn't trying to assimilate the population. It's trying to annihilate them. There is a stark difference in both. In one case you lose your identity for another identity but in the other one you lose your life (identity too since you're not longer alive)
Well of course, just like a Moroccan Arab is closer to a Berber than a khaleeji, that doesn’t mean they’re not Arabs.
And also LMFAO. Yes, Israel is trying to annihilate the population and identity. Just like Muslims did during the expansion lmao it’s incredible you think they “assimilated”. They literally just imposed their own beliefs and rules, just like Israel
Nothing Israel evert did justifies what Hamas did on Oct 7th. If they had only attacked military targets on Oct 7th, their attack would have been a lot more justified and a legitimate act of resistance. But no, they specifically targeted civilians like they always do and killed and raped and kidnapped hundreds of all ages.
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
Oh no BBC editors are very biased. Their own writers had to come out to other news sources about how biased they were. heres a link to an article talking about how Gaza humanitarian zones were bombed a 100 times. You'll see Israel's name is never mentioned as the ones doing the bombing.
You're clearly pretty ignorant of the history of that area, or that Palestinians have occupied it as well for centuries. Or that the West Bank DID give up violent resistance in Oslo II but have had continued land theft, settler terrorism and violence backed by the state of Israel, apartheid justice systems and even control of water supplies, mass incarceration and surveillance.
No, West Bank didn’t give up violent resistance. They still support Hamas, still largely think they’ll get “their” land, still think Israel will cease to exist within 100 years, etc. That’s not giving up violence and negotiating in good faith.
The PA completely demilitarized and entered security agreements with Israel. Despite that, continued land theft, apartheid, murder, no pathway to separate state.
There are random resistance groups, but that's what happens in occupied territories where resistance is completely legal under international law and the occupation and oppression has only gotten worse over time.
And Israel also specifically targets civilians, and then blame specious tunnels or gunmen without proof. Just like when they killed American citizen Shireen Abu Akleh and then lied about it.
Laws stayed strict because of the presence of Hamas and the support of had in the West Bank. No pathway for a separate state existed because Palestinians don’t want a “separate” state, they want all the lands of Israel as their state.
Random resistance groups? You mean the terrorist government in Gaza and the main terrorist organizations in the West Bank? You do realize there was a civil war between the PA and Hamas after the elections, right? Elections which, I might add, many Palestinians voted for a terrorist organization to rule them. Terrorist organizations are also not legal under international law. They’d be resistance organizations if they just targeted Israeli military targets, but they intentionally try and kill as many civilians as possible every time they attack.
Israel makes mistakes, sure, but they don’t raid into Gaza to intentionally mass rape and kill and kidnap hundreds of Palestinians. That’s a whole different level.
No, the pager attack intentionally targeted Hezbollah members. It’s too bad like 5 kids were injured, but terrorists shouldn’t hang around civilians if they don’t what civilians to get hurt.
West Bank did not have a civil war with Hamas, FYI. And the PA acknowledged Israel's right to exist in Oslo, so your assertion that "Palestinians don't want a separate state" is absolute bullshit.
You're conflating Fatah and Hamas in Gaza with the West Bank, which speaks to your lack of knowledge on the issue as a whole.
>Israel makes mistakes, sure, but they don’t raid into Gaza to intentionally mass rape and kill and kidnap hundreds of Palestinians. That’s a whole different level.
"Israel’s military called the settler attack on this Palestinian town a ‘pogrom.’ Videos show soldiers did little to stop it"
One of many.
>No, the pager attack intentionally targeted Hezbollah members. It’s too bad like 5 kids were injured, but terrorists shouldn’t hang around civilians if they don’t what civilians to get hurt.
If you blow up devices in civilian areas to instill fear in a population and cause harm to civilians, you're a terrorist. No matter who you were "targeting." If Hamas said they were targeting IDF only on 10/7 and all the dead civilians were from Hannibal protocol would you simply accept that? If not, you're biased.
PA acknowledged it, and Israel respects the PA. Palestinians don’t, though. Poll after poll shows they don’t think the PA represents them, mainly because it’s pursuing peace with Israel. And Palestinians absolutely don’t want a separate state. Support for a two state solution is in the minority. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/991 Work you’re way through that. You’ll see not only that support for a two state solution is in the minority (though, admittedly, rising), but also that they support pretty much anyone but the PA to govern them.
The PA is currently attacking both hamas and PIJ right now.
Come back to me when there’s an incident where any group of Israelis raid into the West Bank or Gaza and kill, rape, and kidnap almost a thousand Palestinians, specifically targeting only civilians.
Israel blew up the pager to cripple Hezbollah, not to target civilians it cause fear among civilians. The results speak for themselves, where hundreds, if not thousands, of Hezbollah fighters were injured and crippled. The attack was a resounding success with minimal civilian casualties. Cope harder.
I absolutely would not accept that because the evidence says the exact opposite. If you actually believe that, you’re so far down the rabbit hole of Hamas propaganda you’re the king of wonderland.
It's very well documented that Israel continues to take land from Palestinians and give it to Israeli settlers. How do Palestinians have no right to that land?
They have rights to the land in the West Bank. Israel should not he annexing lands in the West Bank. Israel does not have a right to those lands. They have rights to the rest of the land of Israel, but not land in Gaza or the WB.
They want “their” land back that they have no right to.
THey're indigenous to the area and have been living on it continuously for almost 4000 years. How do they not have a right to it? Why is "their" in quotes? Why do they - an indigenous group that's been living there non-stop since before the pyramids in Egypt were built - have less rights to it than Israeli Jews - an indigenous group whose population are made primarily from people who spent thousands of years living somewhere else?
If they give up violent resistance, peace will be achieved and a two state solution is realistic.
You mean like the PLO? Then why is Israel continuing to steal their land and ethnically cleanse the west bank? Why does Israel continue to say they'll never under any circumstances accept a Palestinian state?
But if Palestinians want to keep supporting violence and attacking Israel because they have the delusional thought that one day they’ll conquer Israel magically, no one can blame Israel for defending itself.
Israel attacks and invades Palestine every single day and has been doing that for decades.
Except they are? Genetic analysis of Palestinians have shown that they've been living in the region for about 3700 years. The naturally reproduced with others who immigrated or just passed through the area, but that doesn't make them no longer indigenous. If mixing with other ethnic groups makes them no longer indigenous, the same would be true of Jews from Europe, no? Are you going to say most Israeli Jews aren't indigenous because they're part white European?
Again, over 80% of their ancestry is derived from Bronze-age Levanites. That makes them indigenous. You're hung up entirely on the word "Arab" and ignoring the actual ancestry. Arabs are not a monolith and there exists a lot of variation. In the case of Palestinians, despite the Arab label, they're mostly Levanite in ancestry.
And yes those Jews are not endemic either
So they don't have a right to the land, then? Israel thinks they do. Should they leave? Maybe give the land to the Palestinians who are objectively more tied to the land, both genetically and in recent history?
Neither side has a right to the land. That’s my stance. The ones that have a right to the land were killed by the caliphate, the Romans and the crusaders across multiple centuries.
They were living on that land and then forced out via ethnic cleansing. The people with a right to it weren't killed. Or are you saying literally everyone who was living there during the times of the caliphate, Romans and Crusades were dead with no one left to inherit it? Are you seriously arguing that the land should just be uninhabited?
Doesn’t mean they’re not Arabs
And them being Arab doesn't mean they're not indigenous. Again, genetically, they're primarily indigenous.
1 - no one said it should be inhabited. I said no one has a right to it because neither Arabs or Jews are indigenous to that place. Plus Arabs during the caliphate did exactly the same Israel is doing right now
2 - them being Arab means they’re not indigenous to a zone that’s not within the Arab indigenous land, such as the levant. even with mixed genetics
1 - no one said it should be inhabited. I said no one has a right to it because neither Arabs or Jews are indigenous to that place.
So you think it should be uninhabited, then?
Plus Arabs during the caliphate did exactly the same Israel is doing right now
Really? Then why is it that most of Palestinian ancestry is from Levantines who lived there long before the caliphate?
2 - them being Arab means they’re not indigenous to a zone that’s not within the Arab indigenous land, such as the levant. even with mixed genetics
Forget the word "Arab." Indigenousness doesn't depend on the name they call themselves. It depends on their ancestry. ANd their ancestry is >80% from the levant. This was confirmed by genetic analyses of modern Palestinians against ancient remains of Levantine peoples from nearly 4000 years ago. They are indigenous. A label was imposed on them by a foreign power and the name stuck, but that's it. They're mostly levantine by ancestry. They are indigenous.
Jfc bro. I’m not indigenously Chinese. That doesn’t mean I can’t live in china, it just means I’m not entitled to that land for historical reasons and genetic reasons. So what I’m saying is that neither Jews or Palestines have a “right” to the land because neither are indigenous to that place.
Yes, the caliphate did displace the ppl living there, ironically it was indigenous Jews and other tribes before the massive exodus towards europe, that’s what ‘conquest’ means
If modern day Palestines are “indigenous” to the levant which they’re not. Then a HUGE part of Jews are as well because, believe it or not, Hebrew tribes did originate from the levant.
And they ARE Arabs. That’s literally their whole identity. Like you said, they’re not a monolith but all share the same ethnic background that got convoluted with local tribes due to the imperialist expansion. That automatically discards them from being indigenous to the region
Jfc bro. I’m not indigenously Chinese. That doesn’t mean I can’t live in china, it just means I’m not entitled to that land for historical reasons and genetic reasons.
But the Palestinians were living there continuously for thousands of years. That's a fact. Are you denying it's a fact?
So what I’m saying is that neither Jews or Palestines have a “right” to the land because neither are indigenous to that place, not that they can’t or shouldn’t live there
Palestinians literally are.
Yes, the caliphate did displace the ppl living there, ironically it was indigenous Jews and other tribes before the massive exodus towards europe, that’s what ‘conquest’ means
Then how is it that the Palestinians have >80% of their ancestry attributed to ancient Levantine people that lived there long before the caliphate conquest? If they were all displaced then how is their population descended almost entirely from Levantine people?
If modern day Palestines are “indigenous” to the levant, which they’re not, a HUGE part of Jews are as well because, believe it or not, Hebrew tribes did originate from the levant.
Yes. I know. I literally said that they're both indigenous in my first comment.
And they ARE Arabs.
And they ARE Levantine. Those are not mutually-exclusive categories.
Like you said, they’re not a monolith but all share the same ethnic background that got convoluted with local tribes due to the imperialist expansion. That automatically discards them from being indigenous to the region
You know you're describing the one-drop rule, right?
No, levantines (including Hebrews) were living there. Modern day Palestines were not a thing and those levantines were the ones displaced by the caliphate. There obviously will be a large Levantine genetic footprint in ppl living there today because that’s common sense.
And you CAN’T be indigenous to a place if you’re ethnically mixed
Modern day Palestines were not a thing and those levantines were the ones displaced by the caliphate.
This is a long and dumb way of saying "time passed."
Not all Levantines were displaced. Obviously many stayed. Enough that their modern descendents are mostly Levantine by genetics. If it was mostly Arabs, then their genetics would be mostly Arab. Probably Iran, specifically.
I don’t abide by a rule imposed by an American because I’m not American and y’all are fucking stupid when it comes to race and ethic issues. I’m just stating a fact, mixed ppl CAN’T be indigenous because they’re mixed. There’s nothing wrong with that, but they’re mixed.
I don’t even know why you bring up Persians but whatever
Obviously not ALL levantines were displaced, thats impossible it should be common sense to know I never meant that. However their ancient culture and genetics are not there anymore
That “long and dumb” way of explaining time passed is just a reality. We’re talking about modern day Palestines here. Well back then they were not a thing so they can’t be indigenous by default
I don’t abide by a rule imposed by an American because I’m not American
Everything you say perfectly described the one-drop rule. One drop of non-indigenous ancestry = not indigenous.
The one-drop rule isn't only a law. While it was formalized in the law, over time it has come to mean that any mixing of any ethnicities undoes the primary ethnicity, even if it's a small amount. It's most commonly used by racists when discussing black people. For example, for many racist groups, they'd consider someone who is 90% European white and 10% subsaharan African to be black. The "purity" of their whiteness is tainted. Much like how the "purity" of the indigenous ancestry is gone according to you.
However their ancient culture and genetics are not there anymore
THEY OBJECTIVELY ARE! We've literally tested their genetics.
well back then they were not a thing so they can’t be indigenous by default
This is like saying Native Americans aren't indigenous because the identity of "Native American" didn't exist back then.
Man, I can’t believe you can read a well structured sentence and just understand something completely different. I’m tired of explaining myself over and over again and still get replies that have nothing to do with what I said. Let’s just agree to disagree on the ethnicity thing and call it a day
I don’t know if reading comprehension and critical thinking are like not normal anymore but here we are
It’s literally impossible to displace an entire ethnic group and even more so that you displace them without leaving a large genetic footprint behind. So miss me with your stupid argument
But they're >80% levantine. Do you think them being part Arab means the Levantine ancestry is gone? Do you think someone who is 85% Cree and 15% English and French is now no longer an Aboriginal Canadian?
You realize you're basically arguing the one-drop rule, right?
If you bothered to read you'd know. You're basically saying one drop of non-indigenous blood undoes all indigenous genetics. No matter what, any mixing overrides most of their ancestry.
It’s just a simple genetic fact
Agreed. The simple genetic fact that they're indigenous. Or aboriginal. Whichever term you prefer.
Never said that, reading comprehension is truly dead in this app.
An example: Mexicans. Most of them are mixed, some of us are entirely white, many are actually indigenous. For the mixed Mexicans, it doesn’t mean they’re don’t have indigenous genetics, of course they do, no one argued that. My point is, you’re no longer indigenous when you’re mixed because that’s the whole point, you’re no longer part of one group genetically, now you’re part of two or more. You can’t be considered indigenous to a region if your dna shares multiple origins, even if you are born in one of those regions
This is so dumb. Killing, kidnapping and raping bunch of kids enjoying a music festival is not "resistance" and not something anyone encourages Russians to do in their country. You are insane.
A legitimate resistance movement attacks the actual oppressors, not the first civilians they find upon entering enemy territory. At least Israel pretends to be going after military targets when they massacre civilians; Hamas couldn't be assed to do even that.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of actual Arab resistance groups that don't go around raping/kidnapping/killing the first civilians they see. Even the ex-al-Qaeda militants that recently helped oust Assad's regime know better than to pull that shit. There's nothing in Arab DNA that magically compels them to act like ISIS; it's entirely possible to focus on military targets instead of trying to race Israel to the bottom. Even in Gaza alone (let alone Palestine as a whole), there are resistance groups that ain't theocratic maniacs like Hamas and the PIJ. They deserve support and sympathy, as do the civilians suffering as a direct consequence of Hamas' demented notion of "resistance".
It’s not like the Palestinians are just fighting back because they don’t like Jews.
That's been the exact reason since the 1800's when Zionists first started pushing for immigration into Palestine. Israel probably wouldn't even exist if Palestine's Arab population chose to tolerate Jewish immigrants instead of persecute them; there would've been no need for a partition plan if Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully - and I firmly believe they can coexist peacefully if they stop demanding each others' expulsion and stop falling for the cyclical violence that has thrown Israel and Palestine for a loop.
(To be clear: this ain't a denial of Zionists pushing for Jewish immigration into Palestine being motivated by colonialist attitudes; even the left-leaning Labor Zionists had a "Jewish man's burden" attitude when it came to "civilizing" the existing Arab population, and such an attitude was uncalled for. Rather, it's an acknowledgment that most of the Jewish immigrants were simply looking to return to the one place they had any sort of historical ties, in the hopes of being safe from the rest of the world - especially in the wake of both the Holocaust and (upon Israel's founding) the purges of Jews from the rest of the MENA. That's also what makes Israel today so tragic: it's ridiculous that a nation populated primarily by Jewish refugees and the descendants thereof is so willing to turn around and create millions of Arab refugees by denying Palestinians' right to return to the lands now called "Israel". The perpetuation of separate Jewish and Arab states was, is, and always will be a mistake; neither side will be satisfied with anything short of full access to the entirety of the each others' territory, and the only pathway toward peace is either to accept this and merge the two into a single binational state or else deny this and wait for one to exterminate the other - and it is highly unlikely that Palestine will be the one to survive the latter.)
I have an easy time blaming people who choose to direct their violent "resistance" against the first civilians they find instead of their actual oppressors.
No amount of oppression compels the oppressed to turn around and be oppressors. That is a conscious, deliberate choice, just as it's a conscious, deliberate choice on Israel's part to bomb civilians in droves based on the mere suspicion of there maybe being terrorists among them.
Every Hamas/PIJ fighter and every IDF soldier has moral agency, and therefore can and should be blamed for one's own actions. "Just following orders" doesn't cut it. "But they did it to us" doesn't cut it. "But it's our land not theirs" doesn't cut it. There is no excuse.
When the PLO and Arafat actually set out to make peace with Israel in the 90s, things were getting done, such as the creation of the PA. But Hamas and most Palestinians didn’t want peace, which is why barely anything has been done since and peace is still miles away. Who’d have thought, when people want peace it can be achieved but when they don’t it isn’t achieved?
Well if their parents make dumb decisions, the kids suffer. German children suffered for their parents mistakes, but Germany still holds blame for the war
War is hell. I could bring up a same article of Palestinians murdering an Israeli family. War is terrible, it's monstrous and shouldn't happen. However if the Palestinians didn't want a war, they shouldn't commit acts that will start a war. German and Japanese families died in the wars, but ultimately they get the blame because their governments started those conflicts.
Why do you think that? If Hamas is preparing to attack Israel, and Israel knows about it, it’s entirely within its rights to preempt that strike as opposed to just letting it happen.
Lebanon. Israel and hezzbollah agreed to a ceasefire, and israel violated tgat ceasefire hundreds of times as they continued to attack, claiming the attacks were "defensive"
The agreement permitted Israel to retaliate against any ceasefire violations committed by Hezbollah, which includes Hezbollah moving military equipment and assets around in southern Lebanon. When Hezbollah does that, Israel bombs them. No violation of the agreement there.
Israeli settlers aren’t part of the Israeli government. Hamas is the Palestinian government. Big difference. It’s a shame that Israel isn’t doing more to stop this, but there’s a big difference between that and your government being a literal terrorist group committing terrorist attacks.
They are tacitly supported by the israeli government as an unofficial militia, as evidenced by the lack of real consequences for the vast majority of crimes committed by settlers, and the presence of idf soldiers who either aid or fail to prevent attacks.
Israel is also literally a state sponsor of terrorism. There's a Wikipedia page dedicated to it which you can use to begin your reading to educate yourself.
Tacitly supported is a big difference from being the literal government. Sorry man, but any way you slice this, what Hamas does, as the official government of Gaza, is way worse than anything the Israelis government has done, where it’s never committed literal terrorist attacks against Palestinians.
While you're right that the settlers are not a part of the government, the Israeli settlement expansion is effectively colonialism which is tacitly supported by the Israeli government.
That doesn't excuse the fact that Hamas must be completely destroyed for peace to come, but that also doesn't change the fact that Israel must suffer consequences to stop this ongoing expansion.
You're utterly deluded. The israeli government have massacred tens of thousands of innocent people. Raped prisoners to death. Starved two million people for over a year. Destroyed or damaged 90 percent of all reside tual structures, leaving the vast majority homeless. Polluted what limited farmland exists in gaza, leaving the people even more reliant on aid. Far worse than anything hamas has ever done, and anyone saying otherwise is deluded or a war crimes apologist.
I hope you’re rewording you last comment to make it be accepted by whatever auto mod deleted it the first time. You sure do make a lot of claims that still don’t make Israel as bad as having a literal genocidal terrorist grouping as you government.
If Hamas is preparing to attack Israel, and Israel knows about it, it’s entirely within its rights to preempt that strike as opposed to just letting it happen.
Hamas attacks first: Hamas violated the ceasefire!
Israel attacks first: Israel defended themselves from Hamas violating the ceasefire!
Hanas was attempting to stop the never ending settlement expansion that has been a source of suffering for countless palestinians. They were also trying to free thousands of palestinians tgat have been held in detention by israel without trial or charges
The West Bank expansion was slow but methodical, but also was not exactly hurting "countless Palestinians".
Also, there's the fact that Hamas' mission statement is the destruction of Israel, not to end Palestinian suffering. There is a difference, so that's more of a lie on your part.
And mass murdering civilians does not free prisoners.
In reality, Hamas did this to end the closer ties Israel was forging with other Arab states at the behest of Iranian mullahs. Intentionally using Palestinian bodies and lives as currency for this mission. You're defending one of the foremost genocidal terrorist organizations on the planet, dude. Hamas deserves complete and utter destruction, not defending.
In the west bank, hundreds of palestinians are murdered every year by settlers. Land and homes are often attacked and destoryed. The IDF has detained thousands of palestinians without trial or charges and can hold them in detention for years where they suffer abuse. This includes children
I vehemently stand against Israel's colonizing efforts in the West Bank, but that's not "countless". That's nowhere near large enough to justify war. The death toll for Palestinians in the West Bank is 1.8k or so since 2008. Also, again, Hamas' founding charter advocated for genocide. There is no coming back from that.
Israel deserves punishment, but Hamas will get nothing but complete destruction if peace is going to happen.
Israel's settler movement wants ALL of the palestinians removed from the pakestinian territories, and they also want usrael to expand into other countries. The settlers also received backing from the israeli government. Heck the IDF often stands and watches WHILE they terrorize palestinians. Israel's settlement policies impact hust about everyone living in the west bank. Zionism is pretty much based on ethnic cleansing because the expansion of israel requires the removal of everyone else
And keep in mind, that is has been israel who has been murdering tens of thousands of people for over a year now. The death toll in gaza is likey much higher than we know because of how much destruction israel caused to the infrastructure and the efforts to deny faza food and water. In one year, israel has killed FAR more people and caused far more destruction than Hamas has ever done throughout its entire history.
Well, if they do, they seem to be doing a terrible job at it. They are expanding in agonizingly slow fashion, and almost only in the West Bank. And they keep giving back land too, likely with the US twisting their arm; like when they gave up the Sinai to Egypt.
Zionism is pretty much based on ethnic cleansing because the expansion of israel requires the removal of everyone else
Except that Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, and all manner of minorities in Israel are far more protected than in all of their neighbors. How is Zionism based on ethnic cleansing when Israel itself is far more progressive in defending minority rights?
You can argue that Israel is imperialist, I'd agree with you. But ethnic cleansing makes far more sense for Hamas and their supporters when you look at their founding charter advocating for genocide and ethnic cleansing.
And keep in mind, that is has been israel who has been murdering tens of thousands of people for over a year now.
Yeah, that's kinda how war works. Is there are war you can point to that doesn't see tens of thousands of people dead?
In one year, israel has killed FAR more people and caused far more destruction than Hamas has ever done throughout its entire history.
That's like saying the every single nation on Earth is far worse than the KKK because every nation has killed far more people and caused far more destruction than the KKK has ever done in its entire history.
Like yeah, you'd be right, but it kinda ignores the reality of what they'd do if they ever had the power of a nation to enact on their agenda. Stop supporting genocidal fascists in Hamas, please. They told the world plainly what they want, and they'd be worse than Nazis if they ever had the opportunity.
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
Hamas is always preparing to attack Israel lmao, that’s always how it goes and I don’t agree Israel is within its rights to invade another country, but it won’t be new. Israel is known for violating rights lol
If you read some news articles for a change they you’ll find out they’ve been disproportionately bombing Gaza, cutting off electricity and supplies and collectively punished the entire region, which constitutes a war crime
What makes you think the bombing is disproportionate? Hamas hides among civilians, has been attacking from humanitarian zones, uses civilian infrastructure as military infrastructure, and smuggles weapons in whenever they get the chance, including in humanitarian supplies. Also, Israel has restored electricity and water, and has a massive campaign to get aid in. As for “collectively punishing”, what do you think happens to civilians when their government starts a war with a more powerful one and they get invaded in return? Civilians suffer in war, that doesn’t mean they’re getting collectively punished.
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
I can’t go into a discussion with you, because you’re just propagandanized and wrong. It’s like arguing with a flat earther. There is just no discussion honestly. I hope you can read some news articles that are not from US news sources
A Hamas supporter comparing anyone to a flat earther is the height of irony. Since you can’t give any counter points, I’m guessing you’re just informing yourself based on emotion and Hamas propaganda. Thanks for saving me from wasting my time, I suppose.
Again with the Israel propaganda. Everyone who is against Israel is a Hamas supporter according to you or apparently gets all its news from Hamas. Just please go read some news source other than American or Israeli or Gaza news. Like this is so stupid and I’d be worried if I was you. If this continues there will come a day when American rights and freedoms are going to be undermined in the interest of Israel and idk if you’re prepared for that day
In my experience, those that can’t defend their positions about this stuff but still hate Israel are Hamas supporters. It’s as simple as that. And nice to see your just pushing more anti-Israeli conspiracy theories. I’d be more worried about graduating high school, my guy. You might not make it.
What conspiracy theories? That Hamas uses human shields? That Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes? That Israel is running an aid campaign in Gaza? That Israel restored electricity? These are all easily looked up. Do you know how to use Google?
Hamas would probably have a harder time recruiting if Israeli military tactics didn't include bombing hospitals and refugee camps, kidnapping and torturing doctors, and the destruction of Gazan farmland and water supplies.
I mean, it’s not Israel’s fault Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, or that many officials in Gaza also have direct ties to Hamas.
Israel literally disguises their soldiers as medical personel so that they can sneak in and attack. Israel seems to believe they're safe from Hamas if they're dressed as medics. Medics don't believe they're safe from Israel if they're dressed as medics.
They allowed money in from Qatar because the whole world wanted them to and would have condemned them if they hadn’t. Now the world isn’t letting Israel fix its mistake.
Trump’s team was responsible for getting Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to for the Middle East, was just a NYC real estate developer and Trump’s friend. He had no foreign policy or governmental experience. He was merely Trump’s long-time friend, Jewish, and pro-Zionist
Yet, he got the ceasefire done by merely repeatedly insisting on talks with Netanyahu and Israel, along with Trump’s public threats of, “There will be hell to pay in the Middle East if the hostages aren’t released by my inauguration.” Note: Trump’s threat wasn’t directed to a specific party, implying that Israel might also receive “hell” if a ceasefire isn’t achieved.
Biden and Blinkens’ team didn’t even attempt to directly talk to Israel or Netanyahu about a ceasefire.
Oh boy they're not even prisoners cause they don't go through trial, they're in "administrative detention" in facilities where the rules and surveillance is much more lax.
Netanyahou thanked Trump "for his assistance in advancing the release of the hostages and for helping Israel bring an end to the suffering of dozens of hostages and their families."
This really just put on display the degree to which the Biden administration enabled this genocide, the second power begins to transfer to the Trump administration the cease fire deal happens.
I don't believe Trump is doing this for Palestine and almost certainly this will stop the violent genocide in Gaza so that the quiet ethnic cleansing that was going on already pre-October 7th can continue, probably concentrated in the West Bank, but stopping the psychotic violence is good.
All the people constantly shouting down protests against the Biden admin saying Trump will be worse, Trump will be worse, vote for the Biden Admin as they were GENOCIDING PALESTINIANS as if that would BENEFIT PALESTINE should take a second to think about their opinions and how fucking insane they were/are as Trump instantly stops the overt genocide Israel was using US weapons to commit and I hope those who identify as Democrats can muster up an ounce of self reflection about the idea that we can just sit there and support an administration that is knowingly sending weapons to a country committing a genocide when Biden could have stopped it any time he wanted.
Just think about how Trump is better than the Democrats on the issue of genocide. Never thought I'd see the day.
What on Earth are you taking about? This is not Trumps doing. Biden has been negotiating this deal for many months now. Without him there wouldn’t be a ceasefire. Trump wants to see the war prolongued.
You're spreading misinformation. Netanyahou thanked Trump "for his assistance in advancing the release of the hostages and for helping Israel bring an end to the suffering of dozens of hostages and their families."
It doesn't. The issue with Biden is he didn't do anything to pressure them to accept the deal. He only made empty threats about not giving money or ammo. While at home, he suppressed peaceful protests, and people got fired for supporting Palestinians. It empowered Isreal not to change course. Bibi was also very open about wanting Trump to win.
That's why this feels like the Iran hostage situation. Why does Israel feel now is the best time to accept this deal? Right before Donald Trump comes in? It's gives him an easy forieng policy win, and now Trump owes them.
If it was about making Trump look good then you'd think they'd wait until next week when Trump's actually in office.
Likewise, if this was about making Biden look good then the timing of this ceasefire is absolutely perfect, since it can be spun as Biden's last achievement / ending Biden's term on a high note.
I'm not gonna praise Biden because he could have done much more, but it's pretty obvious that Trump and Bibi agreed to keep the war going to help Trump's election chances. Democrats obviously should have done more and actually talked to Palestinians, but this isn't because Trump is better on genocide.
Unlike Biden, Trump would actually do a genocide. Not the "genocide" that people have been claiming for the past year unsuccessfully. But one that would see the Palestinian people outright destroyed entirely much as the Tigrayans and Ukrainians have/are facing.
It hasn't escalated that high yet. But it can, with the far-right ascendant in Israel and Iran pulling Hamas' strings.
Can't be help, Hamas only send the young and the stupid to fight.
While the old and the malicious hide inside bunker like rats.
They dont' even want to fight the war they start.
And now they are begging for permanent ceasefire? I bet IDF could continue until there is nothing left but dust and rubble. I guess they are not so brave now that Hezbollah and Assad has gone up in smoke.
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
ODHH@reddit
Israel was ramping up the bombing right to the final minute as they always do before a ceasefire is signed.
https://x.com/abubakerabedw/status/1879569821555372502
More_Net4011@reddit
They did this in Lebanon too. Killed a bunch of people the last night just for the fuck of it while HA had quit firing.
azure_beauty@reddit
Just yesterday an elderly woman in Israel succumbed to her wounds acquired from a Hezbollah rocket fired during the last day before the ceasefire.
Some "quit firing" you had right there, civilians died.
Get_on_base@reddit
They don’t care about that, it doesn’t fit their narrative.
Ala117@reddit
Just like zionists don't care about the thousands who suffered as much if not more because it doesn't fit their narrative?
azure_beauty@reddit
They made a claim. That claim was objectively, factually incorrect. That's all.
Ala117@reddit
And yours isn't?
azure_beauty@reddit
No, my claim is true, you can look it up yourself.
Ala117@reddit
So is theirs and mine, you can look it up yourself.
redelastic@reddit
We're supposed to care about their lives but not Palestinian lives. That's how dehumanisation works.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Except you're plainly doing it. The above dude is framing Israel as a monster that is squeezing as much death as possible before the ceasefire. This narrative is broken when the other dude pointed out that Hamas was doing the same thing; meaning both sides were still fighting even when the ceasefire was approaching.
TLDR: it was a war. Not a morality tale.
But you don't care, reality doesn't matter, I guess.
redelastic@reddit
Except Israel has a track record of bombing the shit out of Gaza in the run-up to ceasefires - they've already killed loads of people in Gaza today.
How many Israeli civilians have been killed today by Hamas? 0
This week? 0
This month? 0
No, it's ethnic cleansing and war crimes in which Israel indiscriminately bombed Gaza for over a year and 70% of the confirmed dead are women and children. Hence, Israel's leaders are wanted war criminals.
At least deal in facts, as much as they are anathema to you.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Yeah, and so do every other nation or organization at war. The difference is that Hamas has been battered down, so its capabilities have fallen significantly.
The ICC already rejected this claim. This is copium on your part since Israel is not settling the lands and Israel itself is full of Palestinians. The only ethnic cleansing that occurred in the past few decades in that region was the one where Mizrahi Jews were ethnically cleaned across the entire Arab world. Or the one Tigrayans and Ukrainians suffered if you want to look outside of the MENA region.
That really doesn't mean much. After all, its not like Syria's leaders are wanted war crminals, and they made mass graves of 500k+ Syrians in their time, or Ethiopia for 600k+ and mass rape in Tigray. The twisted hypocrisy of the international system has been made obvious when looking beyond Israe and Gaza.
I did. You just don't want to accept them because of a hate boner. You literally made a massive strawman just to refuse to acknowledge that the other dude blatantly lied.
redelastic@reddit
Not true. The ICC did not reject this claim. Israel's leaders are wanted for the following crimes against humanity:
Not true. Israel has expanded settlements in the West Bank in the last year.
Palestinians living in Israel are discriminated against by 65 different laws.
Again, I know facts are anathema to you but I have limited patience for debunking the lies of those who support the mass murder of children.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Uh, you realize that you proved my point, right? None of those are ethnic cleansing. These are general war crimes.
I'm aware. But we're referring to Gaza, not the West Bank. And the invasion of Lebanon was lawful in accordance to international law, ditto with Gaza for that matter (they were attacked in both cases), while the one in Syria was not.
Okay? And? What does that have to do with this discussion? Israel is still full of Palestinians and while they face discrimination, they are not made to disappear or even face a fraction of the repression that minorities across the Arab world face (barring a few exceptions like Jordan).
You've literally done nothing to debunk my points. You've only deflected onto other points. I never claimed that Israel was some perfect egalitarian land for Palestinians, so idk why you think pointing out that Palestinians face discrimination in Israel is some sort of "gotcha!"
Stop making up strawmen for, like, 5 seconds please.
robiinator@reddit
"Uuuhmhhjmhm, technically they're warcrimes not ethnic cleansing 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓👆". You know it's bad when even the genocide fanboys can't get around it and have to downplay them to warcrimes.
NOOOO, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THOSE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!1!11! I love how you ignore the colonization in the West Bank.
Not discrimination, Apartheid.
redelastic@reddit
I've disproven your false statements. If you prefer to listen to Israel's former defense minister who says they are committing ethnic cleansing.
You sound increasingly desperate to defend the indefensible.
As I say, I have limited patience for people who support the mass murder of children.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Me: ICC couldn't find proof of ethnic cleansing
You: Yes they did, here's their list of war crimes that does not include ethnic cleansing. And here's a politician saying so as well.
Me: ...So the ICC didn't find proof of ethnic cleansing, then?
So no, again, you did not disprove anything. The ICC is the voice who determines that, and they did not find proof. I don't give a shit what any other person or group says, and you should ask yourself why your or anyone else's opinion matters more than the International Court.
The only desperate one is you, who keeps deflecting by talking about what others say instead of the actual authority on the subject.
redelastic@reddit
Israel is the one mass murdering kids for over a year.
You support Israel.
Therefore, you support the mass murder of children.
Hope this helps with your non-existent moral compass.
Keep supporting war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
You don't give a shit about mass murder of kids, as I've already pointed out; you literally ignore the mass graves of 500k+ or 600k+ elsewhere where its convenient for you.
And you continue to lie and spread propaganda when the ICC does NOT find evidence of ethnic cleansing.
Keep supporting genocide and terrorism for your ideology. The rest of the world is growing wise to it.
redelastic@reddit
I do care about the tragic loss of life, that's why I'm so disgusted by Israel and anyone who supports their actions.
Sadly you have no compassion or humanity and don't even realise it.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
No, you don't. Because looking through your feed, you only give a shit about Israel. Not any of the other hotspots that are far worse; your entire schtick about giving a shit about the loss of life disappears when it has nothing to do with Israel.
That's kinda why I called out your logic.
robiinator@reddit
"Why should we imprison mass murderer A? Mass murderer B has three more kills!"
redelastic@reddit
No, I don't hate Jews and I condemn all forms of hatred and bigotry - that says more about your perspective and I will not abide allegations of false antisemitism.
I have many Jewish friends from Ireland, UK, US, New Zealand and Israel.
What Israel is doing are among the worse atrocities of the 21st century.
That you support the mass murder of children is something for your own conscience to wrestle with.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Let me reiterate;
If your "compassion" only appears when its against Israel, then its not compassion. Its hate. And spare me the "I have black friends" bullcrap.
redelastic@reddit
I'm not in your nonsensical logic and false accusations of antisemitism.
By all means if you wish to discuss Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing, war crimes and illegal occupation, feel free.
But I'm not interested in your distraction bullshit.
Sounds like you support the mass murder of children too.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Stop projecting, dude. You've been called out. Just walk away to stew with the hate in your heart.
redelastic@reddit
I'm not the one that supports the mass murder of children.
Enjoy supporting racist terrorism.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
You do, by actively ignoring it when it doesn't go against your ideology. You just allow the bodies of far more children to pile up. Inaction is an action in of itself.
Enjoy supporting genociding of children when its to your benefit.
redelastic@reddit
I don't support the murder of any civilians from anywhere - like you do.
Keep cheering on the killing of kids.
azure_beauty@reddit
Their claim is that Hezbollah stopped firing a day before the ceasefire. If that is so, how did a woman die from Hezbollah rockets hitting her home? According to you no rockets were being fired?
And you yourself didn't even make a claim, you're just arguing for the sake of it.
Ala117@reddit
Same can be said for you.
azure_beauty@reddit
Let me repeat.
An elderly woman from Nahariyya recently succumbed to her wounds acquired when a rocket struck her home just a day before the Hezbollah ceasefire went into effect. Hezbollah continued firing rockets up until the very initiation of the ceasefire agreement.
This fact proves that the person I am responding to is at best mistaken, or at worst intentionally lying about Hezbollah not firing rockets.
nw342@reddit
Ok? Tens of thousands of women and children have died since last october. Every hospital and school in gaza has been destroyed. Food deliveries have been blocked by isreal. People are fucking starving. Palestinians get beaten and harrassed every day in isreal.
azure_beauty@reddit
They made a claim which was false. I think verifiably false claims deserve to be called out. It has nothing to do with Gaza.
redelastic@reddit
Yes, never admit to your atrocities.
azure_beauty@reddit
What atrocity did I commit?
redelastic@reddit
*Israel's atrocities
azure_beauty@reddit
What do Israel's atrocities have to do with More_Net4011 lying about Hezbollah?
redelastic@reddit
I see you continue to deflect from Israel's atrocities.
OhJShrimpson@reddit
I think you're struggling with reading comprehension. The person you're replying to never defended Israel, but you seem intent on making it about that for some reason.
redelastic@reddit
Of course they're defending Israel. Not condemning atrocities is tacitly defending them.
SadCowboy-_-@reddit
So every statement by anyone from now on needs to be qualified by first denouncing Israel’s acts in a war?
I didn’t see your denouncement of Hamas before you made your comment, at least be consistent with yourself before expecting others to follow your own rules of conversation.
redelastic@reddit
If you're from Israel - absolutely. They've shown themselves far too eager to support the mass murder of children.
I don't give the benefit of the doubt to anyone on this issue until they state their position, especially not those from the side carrying out crimes against humanity.
I'm not from Gaza or support Hamas. I'm not sure why I would bring up an event from 2023 as opposed to ongoing ethnic cleansing and war crimes lasting over a year,
Your logic reminds me of this Onion story:
Dying Gazans Criticized For Not Using Last Words To Condemn Hamas
SadCowboy-_-@reddit
So, all Israelis are complicit while none of the Gazans are? Idk, seems like a double standard.
I know you Irish love your neutral high horse, but didn’t expect it to be so xenophobic up there.
redelastic@reddit
Except I didn't say that.
Israel's leaders have consistently said all civilians in Gaza are complicit. Perhaps you haven't been listening.
The majority of Israeli people support these war crimes, all polls show this.
Virtual-Pension-991@reddit
Give links to make them shut up if you have it.
IsoRhytmic@reddit
"during the last day before the ceasefire"
So not during the ceasefire then?
azure_beauty@reddit
The person I am responding to is talking about Israeli airstrikes prior to the ceasefire, which is how ceasefires are supposed to work, but they also make the verifiably false claim that Hezbollah ceased firing a day prior to the ceasefire going into effect.
cheeselouise00@reddit
I get you. Whatever sides people are on, we need to focus on facts.
cheeselouise00@reddit
I'm pro palastine and believe Israel is coming genocide.
But I do get your point. Facts are facts.
redelastic@reddit
One person? As opposed to 20,000 children, Your hierarchy of victims is a sight to behold.
azure_beauty@reddit
Yes this one person is more relevant to the claim than your 20,000 children, unless Hezbollah killed 20,000 children in the last day before the ceasefire.
This is not a hierarchy of victims, the person made a verifiably false claim, I am going to call it out.
redelastic@reddit
Keep denying Israel's atrocities and mass murder of children. Shame on you.
heartlessloft@reddit
And what about the +40,000 Palestinians that died, not to mention that Palestine now holds the biggest amount of child amputees in the world ? All healthcare and education infrastructure has been destroyed. Mosques and churches have been bombed alongside refugees camps.
azure_beauty@reddit
What about them? More_Net4011 made a false claim, I am calling out that lie.
AntifaAnita@reddit
They violated the ceasefire 200 times in Lebanon in the first week.
ODHH@reddit
There’s a video of a US general meeting officials in Lebanon and being forced to listen to the sound of the Israel drone violating the ceasefire above the office they’re in.
More_Net4011@reddit
They are still doing fly bys over my house in Central Lebanon as of yesterday. Drones over Beirut were reported the day we elected a President like 2 days ago.
The mind fuck is if they wanted Hezbollah to cease to exist why do they keep giving them a reason to exist? Just hard to comprehend.
HalfLeper@reddit
I think because Netanyahu doesn’t actually want them to cease to exist. He needs them to exist, so he can stay out of prison.
there_is_no_spoon1@reddit
"For you, a tragedy; for me, a Tuesday" that psycho guy from the thingy
SouLuz@reddit
The ceasefire is not in effect until Sunday.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Anyone want to take bets on how long it’ll take for Hamas to attack Israel again? This deal doesn’t seem to solve any of the problems Israel was trying to solve in its invasion. Hamas still is in control of Gaza, Israel isn’t going to be able to make sure weapons aren’t smuggled into Gaza nor keep a closer eye on Gaza to make sure Hamas doesn’t get stronger again, and Hamas gets Israeli money to “rebuild Gaza” (rearm itself). I suppose the hostages are worth it for the Israelis, but we’ll see how long it takes for this deal to come back to bite them.
More_Net4011@reddit
War is never going to solve the core issue Israel has with Palestinians. How many times do they have to level Gaza for people like you to stop defending them?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The core issue that Palestinians don’t believe that Israel has a right to exist and that they want all “their” land back and that they’ll somehow be able to militarily win against Israel and that they’ll be able to conquer all of Israel? I can see how Israel might not be able to get over that.
Monte924@reddit
No, the core issue is that israel wants to maintain a never-ending occupation of the palestinians so that they can continue to steal their homes and push them out of region. Thier goal is to make the lives of palestinians so miserable that they will leave the region so that israel will be free to annex everything that belonged to them
Hamas did not even exist before the occupation. Its a byproduct of israel's treatmrnt of the palestinians. Palestinian suffering is the source of the terrorism and the hatred for israel
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The pressure to end the occupation would increase immensely if it became unjust and there was no reason behind it, such as when the Palestinians give up violent resistance and earnestly pursue peace. Before that, though, it’ll never end most likely. There’s no reason for it to end. So, again, the core issue is that Palestinians aren’t willing to give up violent resistance. If they did, a whole lot less of them would be dying.
Monte924@reddit
That's what the palestinians did for the oslo Accords. Israel responded by assassinating the PM who signed the accords, elected a government that opposed the accords, and then DOUBLED the size of the settlements in just 5 years. Netanyahu has even bragged about how he sabotaged the oslo accords and stopped the two state solution... in contrast, the oslo Accords actually had about 70% support from palestinians, and the support for Hamas was below 10% when the accords were signed
Israel has made it very clear that they have no intention of ending the occupation. They will not give up on pushing the palestinians out of the west bank so they can take it over. The palestininans wanted peace and freedom, but israel wanted to steal thier land and homes from them
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
They absolutely did not give up violence when they signed the Oslo accords. Arafat signed the accords and the Palestinians saw that as surrendering, so they threw their weight behind more violent terrorist ground, mainly Hamas but also PIJ. They wanted violent resistance, so they supported terrorists who were against peace.
Palestinians wanted peace and freedom at the expense of Israel. They have never given up on right of return, which is a total nonstarter for any peace process. They have never given up on one day reclaiming the land of Israel, which is of course also a nonstarter. The Israelis may have had a hand in making sure the peace process doesn’t work, but the Palestinians have never actually been interested in peace and share just as much, if not more, blame. Them refusing a deal in 2007 also is indicative of this attitude. It was a good deal, but they wanted all their land back, so they refused it. Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Monte924@reddit
The reason hamas did not take part in palestinian in 1996 is because they knew they would have lost in a landslide. Arafat enjoyed overwhelming approval from the palestinians, and polls showed that only a small minority, less than 10%, preferred Hamas. The oslo Accords had built a road map for peace, and istael decided to tear it to shreds
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I mean, it’s not like the militant groups didn’t have any part in them collapsing either. The militant groups attacked Israel, leading Israel to believe it needed stronger security and thus reneging on some of the agreements. And then Arafat’s popularity plummeted as well because Palestinians didn’t believe in peace.
Monte924@reddit
The settlements have nothing to do with security. Destorying pakestinian homes and replacing them with israeli civilian homes in the west bank does not increase israel's security. They are also illegal
Netanyahu and his party were opposed to oslo Accords. He even lead a "death to rabin" rally before Rabin's assassination. Settlement expansion was about sabotaging the accords. Arafat's loss in support was tied directly to the expansion of the settlements. For the palestinians, the rapid settlement expansion proved tgat the oslo accords were a failure. All the terrorism and hatred for usrael always comes back to the settlements
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
My guess is that the settlements were directly tied to Hamas and PIJ suicide bombings, which had support from the majority of Palestinians. What’s Israel supposed to do there? Just let it slide?
Monte924@reddit
How do the settlements address terrorist attacks? Settlements have nothing to do with security. It's just about illegally claiming ownership of land. If israel wanted to protect their people from terrorists they would be trying to keep them AWAY from the palestinians, not pushing them closer by moving them into palestinian terrorities.
And, once again, gamas did not have majority support. That's the reason they refused to take part in elections. In 1996, Polls had arafat at 70% and the leader of hamas at less than 10%. The oslo Accords was considered a major victory for palestinians
No, Netanyahu's goal for the settlement expansion after the oslo accords was to sabotage the accords. He knew that increased settlement expansion would antagonize the palestinians. He wanted to break any chance of peace between israel and the palestinians
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
How do terrorist attacks help Palestinians achieve peace? It’s retaliation from both sides. Why reward suicide bombings and terror attacks with dismantling the settlements?
Hamas had major support after they committed terror attacks after Oslo. They were seen as the best group to fight back against Israel, so Palestinians flocked to their banner.
What proof do you have of that? The Oslo accords broke down after the cave of the patriarchs massacre and Hamas and PIJ suicide bombings campaigns.
Monte924@reddit
The Oslo accords was about Israel's gradual REMOVAL from the Palestinian territories. Israel was supposed to reduce their growth and stop, but instead they sped up. This had nothing to with security; again, Netanyahu wanted to sabotage the peace process
Here is the Election polling from 1997 showing Arafat with 62% support and Ahmed Yassin (leader of Hamas) with only 2%. The polls also show that from 1994 to 1997 Yassin's poll numbers dropping sharply, while Arafat's numbers increased greatly during that same period. 68% of Palestinians supported the peace process, and only 28% opposed it. Political affiliation with Hamas was only 12%... The poll even asked the reason WHY palestinians opposed the peace process, only 20% opposed it because of religious reasons; over 70% of those who opposed the peace process said they supported peace, but opposed the process because they either thought Palestinians gave up too much, or they were disappointed by the actual progress. Only 15% of the 28% of palestinians who opposed the peace process, supported Intifada... so 4% support for Intifada and about 7% for armed struggle
Now, Try finding any polls from the 1990's that shows this "majority" support for Hamas terrorist attacks as you claim
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
“support for suicide armed attacks has almost doubled in one year from 21% in March 1996 (see CPRS Poll #22) to 40% in April 1997.”
“This sharp decline in the level of support for the peace process in Gaza is even more serious because it is accompanied by a dramatic increase in the level of Gazan support for suicide attacks. The latest bombing attack in Tel Aviv received 44% support in the Gaza Strip (compared to 38% in the West Bank)”
“Another interesting finding from Gaza indicates that Hamas has gained more support there increasing its share in public support from 7% in March 1997 (CPRS Poll 26) to 11% in this poll. These findings, while inconclusive, may indicate that the trend in Gaza toward “moderation”, which started about 18 months ago, may be ending.”
I can pull info from the surveys too. Here’s the one:https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/544
Fine. Not the majority in the 90s, but a plurality. 40% is a lot of people. And note, the support for these attacks increased because of the peace process itself, not because of Israeli expansion.
Monte924@reddit
no, 50% is half, a majority is more than half. You are also showing more and more time passing between the signing of the oslo accords in 1993, moving farther and farther away from the oslo accords. This would be AFTER the assassination of Rabin, AFTER the rise of the right wing Israeli government that opposed the Oslo accords, and AFTER the continued settler expansion in violation to the aims of the oslo accords. You actually DID provide proof of how the the increase in settlement activity actually led to an increase support for terrorism... The more the settlements expanded, the more support rose for terrorism
Also, if you read through those polls fully you would see that they ALSO show that even in 1998, 68% of of Palestinians supported the PEACE process, and that 60% supported Arafat in elections, vs only 2% for Yassin... so in the same polls you quoted, we see a clear majority of Palestinians supporting PEACE
Really, just contrast this with Israel. While Palestinians remained overwhelmingly supportive of Arafat, Rabin was assassinated and replaced with him with the guy who held a "death to Rabin" rally. While Yassin/Hamas only had 2% support for elections in Palestine, the opponents of the Olso accords were elected to be the majority government in israel. You provided the proof of how Netanyahu sabotaged the peace process by antagonizing the Palestinians to drive up the support for violence
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Now you’re being pedantic. 50% is a plurality and basically a majority, especially since only 45% opposed violent resistance. And also, this is all AFTER Hamas and PIJ started their suicide bombings because they didn’t like the peace process. And got more support from the Palestinians because of their actions. What I also provided was support for violent resistance increased because of waning Palestinian support for the peace process, which seems largely spurred on by the fact that Palestinians thought they were giving up too much, which basically boils down to them not wanting to recognize Israel’s right to exist (just 10% supported teaching Israel had a right to exist in schools).
They supported the peace process as well as violent resistance because they figured violent resistance would help get what they wanted in the peace process. Contradictory, but that’s Palestinian logic for you. They supported peace by way of violence, figuring they could use violence to achieve peace. Look how well that worked out for them.
You are making assumptions on a lack of data. Find data for support for rabin and the subsequent elections in Israel, or just stick to the Palestinians, who we actually have data for.
Monte924@reddit
That is actually that is a false conclusion that is NOT supported by the polls you showed. You showed in increase support for violence, but that did NOT translate into a lot more support for Hamas. While support for violence got up to 50%, the highest numbers of support for Hamas was only 11%; a small minority. So no, there is no evidence that terrorism was winning Hamas popularity back then. While Palestinians were becoming more supportive of violence, the vast majority stayed on Arafat's side and the Oslo accords
The Support for violence came from the increased settlement activity, which in turn created hatred towards israel. The more israel violated the Oslo accords, the more Palestinians turned against the peace procress and supported violence.
None of your polls mention that. That seems to be an assumption you concluded on. One common demand of the Palestinians is the "right to return" or reparations for the homes lost during the Nakba. The Oslo accords did not give them either of those. They also may have opposed the idea of land swaps, and would have simply wanted the settlements removed entirely.
What more Data do you need for Rabin and the elections? Rabin was Assassinated, and the Israeli's elected the party that was not only his opposition who publicly opposed the oslo accords, but lead by a guy who held a "death to Rabin" rally. Israel voting for Lukid right after the accords would have been like the Palestinians voting for Hamas; but the Palestinians were firmly on Arafat's side
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The violence being committed by the terrorist ground got support from the Palestinians. That’s what the polls show. And, as we can clearly see later on, that translated into support for the groups themselves. Their violence got them popularity. Perhaps not immediately, but definitely as time went on. And 60% is not a vast majority. They were voting for PA Arafat because they didn’t see any other options politically, but they supported the violence, something that the political parties they supported did not support, because they saw violence as the answer to get them a better peace. That of course didn’t happen, but again, that’s Palestinian logic for you.
The suicide bombings happened before the increased settlement activity, and were in response to the peace process. Yeah support for the violence grew when Palestinians thought the peace process was costing them too much and figured that violence would get them what they wanted. It seems the establishment of a new settlement was also somewhat related, but the support for violence grew when satisfaction with the peace process decreased.
I saw it in one of the polls from 97. If it’s not in one of the ones I linked, it’s in one of the other ones. You can either take my word for it or find it yourself. The recognition of Israel seems to be the largest issue, but the other issues are also of course related. The right of return has always been a big one. Palestinians not getting that has definitely related to their support for violence.
How much was rabin supported, and how much did Netanyahu win by? It’s parliamentary elections, Likud could have gotten just 30% of the vote. That’s far from a majority. That’s why the data is important. How much did likud win by can prove more that settlements were the main problem, or whatever point you’re making.
Monte924@reddit
As the polls showed, they REJECTED the other options. Palestinians were asked if they would prefer Yassin to Arafat, and the Palestinians overwhelmingly said "No". The reason why Hamas did not take part in elections in the 90's is because they knew they would lose by a landslide and did not want to give Arafat legitimacy.
Again, this is not reflected in any of the polls you showed. The most you showed was an increase from 7% to 11% for Hamas... even if we fast forward to the 2005 election where Hamas run, that too was a very different situation. By that point that peace process was effectively dead along with Arafat. There wasn't really a viable peace process option anymore. Without a viable peace process, the rest of the Fatah party was seen by Palestinians as just being deeply corrupt. Hamas however, had actually spent the previous few years is putting money into building schools and hospitals. Hamas actually used CHARITY work to win the Palestinians over to their side, NOT terrorism. The 2005 election wasn't about destroying israel, it was about which party Palestinians believed would support their interests; The corrupt Fatah who has accomplished nothing, or infastructure building Hamas who did not tolerate israel's offenses against the Palestinians... when Hamas won the election, Netanyahu got the result he wanted and completed his 10 year long effort to kill the peace process.
Increased settlement activity > Less support for the peace process > increase support for violence
Its a simple thread to follow
1996 Election There was a separate vote for prime minster and the knessnet. Netanyahu won the PM seat with 50.5% of the vote. His party only won 25% of the seats, but he could still coalition with other smaller parties to make a right wing government that held a majority support in total. Between that election and the previous election, Rabin's party lost 10 seats, and their share of the votes dropped by 10 points.
Israel voted for the man who wanted Rabin dead. And we can compare this to Yassin, who only at 2% support in elections around the same time, and Arafat who had over 60%... Palestinians chose those who supported peace, while Israel chose those who opposed it.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The rejected the other options when it came to politics, but not approach. Why would you have faith in a militant organization to rule you? Of course the faith grew over time, but they were at first known best as a militant factions, which many Palestinians supported the actions of. They saw the PA as the best political option, but violence as the best option to get a better peace process.
The increase from 7 to 12% had the note of “this perhaps shows that the moderation in Gaza is decreasing” which we know absolutely was true, since Hamas support increased steadily from that point on.
You can’t at all say that the reason Hamas won the elections in 2005 was solely their infrastructure building and had nothing to do with the terrorism Hamas committed. In fact, here you go: “Nonetheless, 64% believe, and one third does not believe, that armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinians national rights in ways that negotiations could not.” Guess who was carrying out that violence? Hamas. Here’s another one from a few months earlier: “The percentage of those who view Sharon’s Plan as victory for armed struggle increased from 66% in March to 74% in this poll” The election was about who Palestinians thought could most effectively lead them and get a deal from Israel, which increasingly became who could best hit Israel to force them to make a deal. This was Hamas, and the elections showed this.
No, more making more compromises > less support for the peace process > more violent resistance > more support for violence.
So out of all the parties Netanyahu got only 50.5% of the vote. That’s an extremely thin majority, much less than the overwhelming majority you said earlier. And his party getting only 25% of the votes shows that it wasn’t so much likud’s opposition to rabin that helped them win the elections, since they didn’t get a majority.
And again, no. Israel chose Netanyahu because he was strong against the violence being committed by Palestinians. Palestinians chose Arafat because he was the best political option, but supported the violence that was being carried out by Hamas.
I’d also just like to note that I’m appreciating us using data for this discussion. While we might be drawing vastly different conclusions from it, it’s nice to see actual numbers back up our points as opposed to unbacked claims being made.
Monte924@reddit
You keep pulling data that comes later and later in the time line away from the oslo accords. My original point was about how Palestinians originally supported the peace procress, but Israel undermined the peace process by antagonizing the Palestinians, and the more Israel expanded the more they supported violence against israel. Bringing up polls from the 2000's only SUPPORTS that position.
By 2004, the peace process had completely broken down. By that point Arafat and many Palestinians had determined that Israel was no longer interested in the diplomatic peace effort. Israel had violated the spirit of the Oslo accords with their increased settlement construction. They also found the latest round of peace talks in the 2000's to be a complete joke, with the israeli's offering the palesitnians nothing but terrible deals. The Palestinians were basically stuck in a position where they either allow israel to keep expanding or they accept a terrible "peace" deal that would undermine them in the long run. Even those on israel's side of the negotiations have admitted that they themselves would NOT have accepted anything. Arafat was no longer dealing with Rabin who wanted peace. THIS is why palestinians ended up embracing terrorism and armed struggle. Israel rejected peace, and the palestinians followed suite.
In 1995, Palestinians support for the peace process was high. After a decade of israel's settlement construction, and electing leaders who OPPOSED the oslo accords and the peace procress, the Palesitnians lost support for the peace procress and the support for terorrism increase. your polls only show that Israel was responsible for Palesitnians moving AWAY from the peace procress and increasing support for terrorism
Again, in 1995, the Palesitnians chose Arafat and the Oslo Accords, while the Israeli's chose Netanyahu and OPPOSITION to the oslo accords. The 25% of seats doesn't mean much, because the votes went to other minor parties, some of which who ALSO opposed the oslo accords. Netanyahu built a majority government out of the oslo opposition. Israel chose the guy who wanted Rabin DEAD. It does not get simpler than that.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
You made the claim that the people voted for Hamas because of their infrastructure stuff in 2005. The data seems to not support that claim. That’s why I looked at that data.
Israel became disinterested in the peace process because of the violent attacks against it and the support those attacks had from Palestinians. Don’t forget, the second intifada was from 2000-2005. The second intifada was marked by increasing amounts of violence, usually in the form of suicide attacks perpetrated by Hamas. Those suicide attacks, as we can see in the data, had widespread support among Palestinians. Why would Israel buy in to the peace process when the Palestinians saw violence as the answer to get a better peace? Why award such attitudes?
Palestinians approved of the violence that was carried out by Hamas. Hamas was the best representative of the Palestinians’ support for violence. They approved of what they were doing. This can also be seen by the clear rise in their popularity over the years. You can’t discount the violence being committed by Hamas as a reason why they gained popularity. Sure, they might have represented other things as well, but their main means of resistance and method of doing things was violence, which the people approved of. And you can easily say that the polls show that Israel’s is to blame because it’s a one sided poll. Of course it’s going to give off that impression. I’m sure if we only looked at Israeli polls about the same things we would come to the conclusion that it was all the Palestinians’ fault. But you have to keep in mind what the Palestinians were actually doing to understand why Israel was doing what it did. Again, carrying out and supporting suicide bombings. That’s not going to engender cooperation with people most of the time.
Tell me, did Netanyahu run on a platform of “no peace process”? You seem to be making big things out of small things. How do you know the Israelis absolutely did not what the peace process? Could they see the future? I’d say that the Palestinians didn’t want the peace process because they were willing to support violent resistance at the slightest provocation and didn’t like to compromise, which of course is how you get peace in the first place.
Ropetrick6@reddit
Well, good to see you still endorse land grabbing and ethnic cleansing. You never change
bowsmountainer@reddit
That’s rich coming from someone from the country that did the most land grabbing and ethnic cleansing in the history of humanity. Maybe you should give your country back.
Ropetrick6@reddit
You seem to be under the misimpression that I support the USA in its land grabbing and ethnic cleansing.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Except you do; you're living on it.
Ropetrick6@reddit
Today I learned that simply existing is supporting land grabbing and ethnic cleansing. Well, good to see Zionists believe in judging people by where they're born, rather than by their actions.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Interesting strawman, but what else can you believe from a colonialist benefiting from colonialism?
Ropetrick6@reddit
Interesting lies, but what else can you expect from hateful Zionists?
ShowBoobsPls@reddit
Then uproot your life, give your property to native Americans
Ropetrick6@reddit
You know, last time I checked, we aren't denying Native Americans the right to live in America as citizens and have homes in America, unlike Israel with the Palestinians.
bowsmountainer@reddit
Then how about you return to Europe or Africa and give all of the US back to its original inhabitants?
Ropetrick6@reddit
How about you tell us what country you're from so we can judge you as you with to judge others, hmmm?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Way to just not make a relevant point at all. Par for the course.
Ropetrick6@reddit
Ah yes, in a conversation about Israel committing atrocities and engaging in land grabs, it's not relevant to speak about Israeli atrocities and land grabs. That makes sense.
More_Net4011@reddit
No country has a right to exist.
Israel exists. That is fact. Yall all spew the same dumb ass talking points and word salad bullshit. The core issue is Israel wants to keep a Jewish minority and also continue to annex the West Bank and make Gaza unlivable. Maybe if they werent such abhorrent pieces of shit people wouldnt die to resisting them.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
If Palestinians actually gave up violent resistance and renounced Hamas and etc., I doubt very much Israel would be able to withstand the pressure from within and without to stop annexing land in the WB and help Palestinians rebuild to pursue a two state solution. If the Palestinians were actually serious about a two state solution, and I mean the people, not the organizations they hate, it would be entirely on Israel’s shoulders to make the effort to pursue a two state solution, and nobody would be on their side if they didn’t try.
Zoetekauw@reddit
Hamas doing whatever it does is not a valid excuse to ethnically cleanse and land grab. The Palestinians living in the West Bank are not exclusively Hamas.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I don’t support what Israel is going in the WB. However, they have very little, it any, incentive to stop because the Palestinians are going to try and kill then no matter what. If the Palestinians actually were innocent and didn’t support violence, not only would the international pressure mount because Israel would have no reason to keep doing what it’s doing, but the internal pressure would mount as well because then finally the peace advocates would have a leg to stand on and pursuing peace couldn’t be seen as compromising national security.
Zoetekauw@reddit
Again the problem is conflating Hamas and their ideology with the greater populace of Palestine. The thousands of bakers, hairdressers, moms, kids lumped under the same banner of ostensibly wanting the annihilation of Israel just by virtue of ethnicity, when in reality most just want to live their lives.
Israel and its supporters in their unethical laziness conflate the two so that they don't have to put in the effort of flushing out and exterminating Hamas using less blanket destructive means.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Poll after poll shows that Palestinians, both in the WB and Gaza, support violent resistance, Hamas, armed struggle, and think Israel will cease to exist in the next 100 years. The inconvenient truth for people on the side of the Palestinians is that Palestinians at large do, in fact, want Israel destroyed and do, in fact, support violence and Hamas more than peace. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/991
Zoetekauw@reddit
If I'm a Palestinian at this point, with Gaza all but razed to the ground and my family members killed, and/or my land illegally taken away, I would likely have very similar sentiments.
But the sentiments of the populace measured through polls is not a yardstick for the obligation that the Israeli government has to exercise so much more prudence than they have, in taking away the threat to their country.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What’s Israel supposed to do? The support for Hamas indicates that even if Israel withdrew, it’d still be attacked from the WB and Gaza by Hamas. Israel was not occupying Gaza when Hamas struck on Oct 7th. Is the answer then to also relax on the WB so that attacks can come from there too? That makes no sense from an Israeli stand point. The Palestinians seem to hate Israel enough to always want to destroy them. If Israel is to defend itself from that, the answer is not to let up on the Palestinians.
More_Net4011@reddit
Hamas wants a country where all religions are equal obviously not Israel but saying they call for its destruction is disingenuous. They call for the end of it being a racist supremacist state which seems beyond fair.
Zoetekauw@reddit
Really? I don't have direct quotes from Hamas but I thought they wouldn't reset until Israel was destroyed.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
They still say stuff like that, but they also blatantly advocated for worldwide genocide of Jews in their founding charter, which they only changed recently. Which is about as laughable as the KKK changing their mission statement years after making their aims obvious.
The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988
So, yeah. Their aims are obvious.
Zoetekauw@reddit
Now that seems disingenuous. An organization who now is willing to come to the table is not the same as one who was not willing to in 1988, and should be treated completely differently. Its new members also join under its current mission directives, not past ones.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
How is that disingenuous? I don't think anyone should trust an organization that openly wanted genocide at any point. Besides, Hamas also went to the table in while they had that founding charter; did so many times.
And dude, Hamas changed their founding charter in 2017. Idk why you're acting like a century has passed.
Zoetekauw@reddit
The point is to find a way out of this hellhole of a situation. That requires practical compromise on both sides. If you're sincere about wanting a way out that protects the lives of both arabs and jews that then that requires being pragmatic and setting aside whatever true feelings Hamas has. It shouldn't matter what they want in their guts. What matters is that they're willing to be practical and have softened where two parties were previously irreconcilable. That's light at the end of the tunnel.
But if instead you just sit on your horse and condemn Hamas wholesale for all eternity based on past statements (regardless how recent) then you're the one who's keeping things from being able to move forward.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
I agree, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Hamas as an organization is too heavily associated with fascist and genocidal beliefs to exist for peace to be maintained. Dealing with the PA would be a far better alternative. I'd be more willing to accept Hamas if they put their money where their mouth was and actively tried to rebuild Gaza into a vision of a better society, like HTS managed to do.
That's absurd. Judging an organization based on their history is literally common sense. Why would anyone trust their future if they know about their very very recent past? Would you trust the KKK if they claimed to turn a new leaf tomorrow? No, right? Same deal here.
Compromise can exist, but groups that profess such feelings as they have cannot unless they work hard to rehabilitate their image. And so far, they have done the exact opposite.
Zoetekauw@reddit
They have put their money where their mouth is. Israel are the ones who have rejected the recent cease fires, and it looks like the jury is still out as to whether Israel accepts this one.
"too heavily associated with fascist and genocidal beliefs to exist for peace to be maintained" is subjective muddying that again has nothing to do with pragmatism. "Trust" is a wholly unpractical word and you can levy countless allegations against Israel for their past actions too. I'm sure Hamas doesn't like Netanyahu's "beliefs" either. Does that mean they should not consider negotiating with him until he changes those beliefs?
You cannot first demand a group to forget what was done to them and completely change who they are. Would that be a more preferable way forward for all involved? Sure? Is it realistic given all the history? No.
More_Net4011@reddit
On the other hand, Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, was quoted as saying that:
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Hamas' literal mission statement was the complete genocide of all Jews everywhere. They only recently changed it. They also want Sharia law, which openly and horribly oppresses non-Muslims by default, and spits in the face of egalitarianism in all forms.
So, congrats on openly supporting a genocidal fascist organization. I guess?
More_Net4011@reddit
In 1987–88, during the initial phase of the First Intifada, the 1988 Hamas Charter was written by one older Hamas leader and ratified by Hamas in a slight hurry, as instrument to "maintain the momentum" of the newly risen Palestinian "resistance generation", giving them broad strokes direction, partly expressed in religious Islamic and partly in political terminology; thus the explanation of the charter’s origins and purpose, given by Ahmed Yousef, former senior Political Adviser to Prime Minister Haniyeh, in 2011.^([20]) The charter, Yousef further added, in those early days reflected the views of the Elders in the face of a "relentless occupation". The details of its religious and political language had not been examined within the framework of international law, and an internal committee review to amend it was shelved out of concern not to offer concessions to Israel on a silver platter, as had Fatah in the Oslo Accords (1993–95)
Dutch researcher Floor Janssen compared the 1988 charter (and other documents from that period) to Hamas's documents dated 1994-2005. Janssen found a significant shift in Hamas positions from 1988 to 1994-2005:
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Imagine going so far as to defend an organization that ratified and does not change a fucking document calling for the complete genocide of all Jews.
You're making excuses for a genocidal fascist organization, and you'd never do it if it was aimed at you. Spare me the excuses. The later change was so "anti-imperialists" could pretend to be anti-imperialist in optics, when in reality everyone knows that they just want to see Jews hanged in the streets.
More_Net4011@reddit
What?
Hamas didnt exist until the 80s.
Hezbollah didnt exist until the 80s
Violent resistance after years of death and destruction is unavoidable when there are no other options. JFK said that.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Do you have any idea how many people had died in the conflict between Israel and the PLO/Palestinian resistance before Hezbollah and especially Hamas? Somewhere around less than 10,000, total. Why do those organizations exist? Their origins are indeed from before Arafat sued for peace, but Hamas gained loads of popularity because Arafat wanted peace but the common Palestinian did not.
More_Net4011@reddit
Check the flair? Hezbollah only exists because Israel invaded Lebanon.
Hamas only exists because the PLO/Fatah/PA capitulated. The PA is extremly unpopular, why? Because Israel still abuses Palestinians in the West Bank and steals land but now the Palestinian Authority clears the way for them an suppresses resistance to it.
The core issue is Israel. If you werent a bigot it would be easier for you to see that.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
No I saw your flair. Doesn’t really matter. I’m well aware Hezbollah came into existence to fight the Israeli invasion. For whatever reason though it decided to take part in this fighting, much to its own detriment hilariously enough.
Yes. Palestinians seeing pursuing peace as surrender, so they support whatever faction is best at violent resistance, which is Hamas. See, Israel wasn’t doing all that much in the West Bank before the intifadas. Arafat was pursuing peace while the Palestinians still wanted all of “their” land back, so they turned to terrorists to keep on fighting, hoping they’d destroy Israel. Hamas exists because it wants to destroy Israel, a goal many Palestinians share. Israel is so hard in the WB and Gaza because of this support.
The core issue is the Palestinian desire to abolish all of Israel. If you weren’t so biased you could see it, as it is clear as day.
NARVALhacker69@reddit
As long as there is occupation there will be resistance, if Israel doesn't want violence maybe they shouldn't occupy land that isn't theirs, but then they would have to abandon their lebensraum and they aren't willing to do that
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
In order for Palestinians to be satisfied and no longer violently resist Israel would have to dissolve itself, which is of course never going to happen. Israel as well can withstand the cycle of violence for decades, if not longer. Sure, it’ll hurt from time to time, but it’ll never be enough to conquer all of Israel and the Palestinians will always end up getting hurt more. Israel can withstand the cycle, but the Palestinians can’t. Each war is just them killing themselves more and more. If they ever want peace, they have to give up violent resistance. That’s the only way. If Israel ever wants peace, it can just wait until Palestinians kill themselves fighting Israel.
NARVALhacker69@reddit
Or maybe withdraw from the west bank and gaza and allow for the creation of an independent palestinian state (if you control the borders you are still occupying so they never stopped occupying Gaza), but colonizers won't give them up willingly, just like France only gave up Algeria after they resisted in their independence war
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Why would they do that when 1. A majority of Palestinians support violent resistance and Hamas, who’s goal is the destruction of Israel entirely and not just Israel withdrawing from WB and Gaza, and 2. They’d be making themselves more at risk of attacks from Gaza and the WB if they withdrew?
NARVALhacker69@reddit
¿What do you expect when you occupy and kill for decades, hugs, kisses, prayers? Ask citizens of the 13 Colonies if they support violent resistance against the english, or italian partisans against the nazis, the vietnamese against the french, black south-africans against the afrikaner government etc.
Just like all other examples palestinians are well within their right to resist, and as Kennedy said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Palestinians are never going to be able to defeat Israel, so comparisons between them and successful resistance movements are inaccurate. Once again, Israel is not a colonial government. The Jews have nowhere to go, so they’re never leaving just because they got tired of staying.
Palestinians have no right to commit terrorism against Israel, which is their primary method of “resistance” that’s used largely supported by the majority of the Palestinian population.
NARVALhacker69@reddit
They don't have to leave, there are still white south africans that never left, it's enough with palestinians and israelis having equal rights, so either israelis stop the occupation and lets them have a state or they give equal rights to people under occupation, but they won't do neither because then their ethnostate will end
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The Arabs in Israel have equal rights as the Jews in Israel.
There’s no reason for Israel to do anything before the Palestinians give up on violence because they’ve shown that they’ll take advantage of any Israeli lapses in security to attack Israel.
NARVALhacker69@reddit
¿And in the territory that Israel occupies and settles?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
If they didn’t, it seems likely that Palestinians would attack Israel from that territory. I’ll freely admit the settlements are over the line, but again, Israel has no incentive to stop of those settlements increase their national security.
Listen_Up_Children@reddit
They left Gaza willingly. Look what happened.
NARVALhacker69@reddit
They didn't, as the ICC said of you still have total control of the borders you are still the occupying force
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
This thing will never end until one of the two (or both) cease to exist
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Not necessarily. If Palestinians give up violent resistance, then peace is much more likely. But if they want to kill themselves by attacking Israel and eventually go extinct because of it, that’s totally their choice. Both sides can have peace if Palestinians actually recognize Israel’s right to exist, but only one side will have peace if Palestinians keep fighting, and that side is Israel.
SurfiNinja101@reddit
This is hilarious.
Americans love to preach about the right to violent resistance and are constantly blaming Russians, for example, for not standing up against tyranny.
But when the Arabs do it it’s bad.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Well, Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel. They want “their” land back that they have no right to. If they give up violent resistance, peace will be achieved and a two state solution is realistic. But if Palestinians want to keep supporting violence and attacking Israel because they have the delusional thought that one day they’ll conquer Israel magically, no one can blame Israel for defending itself.
SurfiNinja101@reddit
I would love, love to hear how Palestinians whose families have been living in that land for thousands of years have no claim to it.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Tell me this, when the Arabs first moved into the land around 700 AD or so, did they automatically have a right to the land, more so than they people they had just killed and kicked out?
The Palestinians lost their land through a war they started. If they had won, they’d have killed and kicked out all the Jews. They’d be taking Jewish land. Would that have been ok? It would have been as ok as what the Jews did when they won.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
When the Jews first moved there and killed and kicked out the previous tenants did they automatically have a right to the land?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Did the Arabs when they did that?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Answer my question then I'll answer yours.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
If you disagree with one, you disagree with the other. If you agree with one, you’d agree with both. The answer to your question is the answer to mine.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
So why aren't you willing to answer my question then? Stop beating around the bush.
Is it because your answer either way puts you in a difficult position?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Ok. The Arabs had a right to the land they conquered. So the Jews have a right to the land they conquered.
So what do you think? Did the Arabs have a right to the land they conquered?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Perfect, so whether or not territory changed hands between them, both have a valid claim to the land.
I've been following your logic but it's worth mentioning now, Palestinians have closer ancestry to Canaanites and Bronze Age Levantines than Jews in Israel on average, to the point where Israel banned people DNA testing for heritage and ancestry. Does a people with a longer ancestral claim to the land have more of a claim of less of one?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
No, I’d say that the group who conquered it last has more of a right than the group who it was conquered from. They couldn’t hold on to the land themselves, after all.
Ancestral claim doesn’t matter. That’s not what modern nations have been built on.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Ukraine has no claim to Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk now either then?
Sounds like in your world ethnic cleansing is a great way to get claims on land. If only Yugo had finished off the Albanians and Bosnians, then they'd have claims over their land and all would be well.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I’m not saying ethnic cleaning is good, but things like ancestral claims to land are just total bogus. Right now Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine to take over all of it. If they do, people might not consider it right or just, but if they hold it for 100-200 years, people will stop caring and then suddenly if someone else invades that land, they’ll be invading rightful Russian land.
If you think conquest doesn’t mean rights to land, what’s your arbitrary time frame after conquest to when someone does have a right to the land? Should the Saxons give the land of Britain back to the angles? Should Italians give back land to the etruscans? What about the Arabs giving back land to the goths in North Africa? Or should the Magyars give back their land? What about the Russians in eastern Russia? Or the Han or Qing or Manchu? At what point in time does land become the rightful land of a conquering people?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
I'll get onto the rest after but first the Angles and Saxons came over around the same time, I assume you mean give Britain back to the Celts?
You give no weight to claims based on the fact those people have lived there for 50+ generations, that's just strange to me, but not surprising for an American.
Most of your examples include people that either mixed with the new people or were wiped out, and also examples from over a century ago so they aren't really comparable when the displaced population is still here.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
So what, we just wait until the Palestinians go extinct before giving Israel a right to the land? If Israel had exterminated all the Palestinians instead of letting them flee, the Jews would somehow have more of a right to the land they have now? And you do realize that there are Arabs living in Israel, right? Something like 20% of the total population. They’re there, they’re mingling. The standards seem to be completely arbitrary.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
You've drawn your own conclusions there. You asked if we should give land back to cultures that no longer distinctly exist and used those examples to compare to a situation where the culture still distinctly exists, that's apples to oranges.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Well, Palestinians are Arabs and it’s somewhat hard to say they have their own, distinct culture as opposed to just a different flavor of Arab. But then should we just wait until Palestinian culture dies before we give Israel a right to the land? Again, this seems just like another arbitrary timeframe.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Are Americans just a different flavour of NA Europeans to Canadians or is there a distinct culture?
Again, you've drawn that conclusion yourself, all I am saying is that your comparison isn't fair.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
There are distinct similarities, but America is even more of a nation of immigrants, so the cultures are quite distinct. The Palestinians and the other Arabs are more or less distinct, but they certainly share a lot of similarities. Ethnically they’re the same, culturally they’re close. But again, does Israel have more of a right to the land in the future when Palestinian culture fades away?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Ethnically, they aren't the same that's my point. Palestinians share lots of DNA with pre-arabic levantine populations, same as other modern day populations living there, an Arab living in the Gulf is going to have distinctly different ancestry.
Why are you asking a question I've said no to multiple times? If you're waiting for me to change my answer you'll be waiting a while.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Because the answer is absolutely a yes. You’re putting an arbitrary timeline on who gets the rightfully claim to the land. If all it takes is the passage of time to give someone a claim to the land, then the Israelis will have a claim to the land in several hundred years by your standards and thus I don’t see why people don’t recognize that claim today. It’s not like Israel is going anywhere. There’s no one in the area that could conquer it and there’s no one outside the area that would care to. The Jews are going to stay in the land, they’ll probably mix more and more with the Arab population still there, and the Palestinian culture will fade over time, partially due to their suicidal attacks against Israel. So if the Jews will have a right to the land by your standards in a couple hundred years or so, why not say they have a right now?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
"By my standards" no no no, by the standards you've placed on me. I haven't said that there's a time period to wait before a claim, just that your examples are so old and none of us could have a contemporary opinion on them it's not a fair comparison.
Nearly all of your examples didnt occur in the same millennium as the current situation and you want them to be treated the same? Not in my book.
Are you still proposing that all arabs are ethnically the same or have you dropped that bit now?
Azurmuth@reddit
Jews didn’t move there. They are descendants of Canaanites.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, to a higher degree than Jews in Israel.
Azurmuth@reddit
Source?
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420304876%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
This shows if I'm understanding it correctly, that Palestinians have genetically in common with Bronze Age Levantine populations than Ashkenazi Jews by a fair way.
Azurmuth@reddit
That study only seems to compare the against Megiddo, Somali and European Bronze Age populations. Not other MENA populations.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
Why would Tunisian, for example, populations be relevant in this case?
Azurmuth@reddit
I meant other samples from the region, instead of just comparing it so European and Somali samples.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
It also compared it against Iranian.
It also compared other samples from the region against the same measurements, so not sure what you think is missing.
Azurmuth@reddit
The Iranian sample is not shown separately.
Sure_Fruit_8254@reddit
DNA testing for heritage absolutely is, as shown in your source.
Mystery-110@reddit
Ever read some history before giving your opinion on this matter? Peninsular Arabs didn't kick out the locals. Overwhelming majority of the Arab speakers in the entire Levant are Arabized Levantines. They DID NOT move there from Hejaz or anywhere else. They were Arabized during the Arab rule just like North Africa was.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
Which is why even Ashkenazim (let alone Mizrahim and Sephardim) are among the closest genetic relatives to Palestinian Arabs and vice versa: because they're all the descendants of the indigenous population of the Levant, subjected to different admixtures as one group was displaced and the other assimilated.
With how much Israelis and Palestinians have in common, it's unfortunate how unwilling they are to share their common homeland peacefully and equally.
Azurmuth@reddit
No they aren’t. Palestinians are more closely related with Jordanians, Syrians and Saudis. Jews are more closely related to Lebanese Christians and Druze, as well as Carmel Druze.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
Yes they are.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Arabs conquered all those lands when the Islamic conquests were going on. Did the Arab conquerors have a right to the land the moment they conquered it?
Mystery-110@reddit
Do you even read the reply? The Arabs living there(in Palestine) are Arabized Levantines. They didn't come from Hejaz.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Why were they Arabized? You do realize that Islam spread throughout that region through conquest, right?
Mystery-110@reddit
Do you even get the point?
The point is Palestinians didn't move there in 700 AD which you were falsely claiming.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
People moved there and conquered the area in 700 AD. Why should they get the land and not the people who they conquered or the people that conquered them?
TerayonIII@reddit
They killed and kicked out the Byzantine Christians, not Jews, the Jews were finally allowed back into Jerusalem by the caliphate (https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/p/period3-2.htm)
To add to this, the population of the Levant has a lot of genetic continuity, mostly consisting of local peoples that were there in the Neolithic era and peoples that migrated there from the area of what is now Iran during the Chalcolithic era (the period between the Neolithic and the bronze age, in the Levant and the Arabic Peninsula this occurred between 6,600 BCE and 3,550 BCE) (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544389/)
Which, oddly enough, roughly coincides with the origins of Hebrew identity and history (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism)
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
It doesn’t really matter who they kicked out, just that they kicked out someone. Someone came into the land and conquered it for their own. What gives someone a right to the land but not someone else when they used the exact same methods to get that land?
krulp@reddit
So by your own flawed logic, as Europeans first moved into North America in 1600s. They have no claim and should violently be removed.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
That’s a whole different can of worms. What gave the natives more right to the land they conquered from other tribes than the Europeans who conquered it from them?
valentc@reddit
What is this question? Somehow Native Americans didn't deserve the land they'd been on for 10s of thousands of years, but Israel gets a pass because why? Why is Israel different?
Israel murdered all the Cannanites in the region, so they also took that land by conquest. Why do they deserve all of Israel anymore than the ones who conquered them?
What gives Israel the right to kick these people off their land?
TerayonIII@reddit
I have a minor correction here, they didn't murder all the Canaanites, it's a fairly common idea with some pretty good evidence that Israelites are Canaanites. It was more so that some tribes/groups banded together to take control of the entire region, rather than an actual external force or group. At the very least it was at least partly made up of groups like that along with an external force/group.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
You do realize that native Americans weren’t just one homogenous group, right? They were hundreds of different tribes that fought each other and took land from each other. The Europeans acted like how the natives did. If the natives suddenly have a right to the land but Europeans don’t, which natives have the right? The tribe that was conquered by the Europeans, or the tribe that was conquered by the tribe that was conquered by the Europeans, or further back still?
If you’re going by right to land, that right is always based on conquest. The Arabs in the area conquered the land. The Jews then did the same thing several hundred years later. So does time create a right? Why then don’t we just assume Israel will be on that land for the next several hundred years (because, let’s be honest, no Arab country will ever be able to conquer Israel and no one else will try), and say they have a right to the land now? Israel didn’t have a “right” to conquer the land, but neither did any other group before or after them. But they all did it anyway, and to recognize the rights of those conquerers today.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
So white Americans have as much right to the land as native americans?
SurfiNinja101@reddit
You need to pick up a history book. It’s not even in the same realm.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Its exactly the same. Arabs got there thru caliphate expansionism, Imperialism as ppl like to call it
Mystery-110@reddit
Most of the Arab speakers in Levant are Arabized Levantines. They didn't moved there from anywhere else. They were just Arabized during the Rab rule just like entire North Africa was.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
There are lots of ethnic Arabs in that zone and they came there during that time. And even if there were no ethnic Arabs in the region, the fact they were Arabized renders any argument against Israel obsolete because it is the exact same situation
Mystery-110@reddit
Those "lot of Arabs" are just few aristocrat families. An average Levantine is genetically much closer to a Mizrahim than he is to an Arab in Iraq or Saudi.
No it isn't the exact same situation because Israel isn't trying to assimilate the population. It's trying to annihilate them. There is a stark difference in both. In one case you lose your identity for another identity but in the other one you lose your life (identity too since you're not longer alive)
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Well of course, just like a Moroccan Arab is closer to a Berber than a khaleeji, that doesn’t mean they’re not Arabs.
And also LMFAO. Yes, Israel is trying to annihilate the population and identity. Just like Muslims did during the expansion lmao it’s incredible you think they “assimilated”. They literally just imposed their own beliefs and rules, just like Israel
tinkertailormjollnir@reddit
Dang, that is a Contender for most dumbass comment of the entire war
best_uranium_box@reddit
The world started on Oct 7th. There is no history before Oct 7th. The Nakbah never happened or it was the Palestinians who did it or they deserved it.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Nothing Israel evert did justifies what Hamas did on Oct 7th. If they had only attacked military targets on Oct 7th, their attack would have been a lot more justified and a legitimate act of resistance. But no, they specifically targeted civilians like they always do and killed and raped and kidnapped hundreds of all ages.
soyyoo@reddit
What about 70+ years of r/isralecrimes horrific acts of genocide such as decapitating innocent children and raping hostages to death?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Israel’s mistakes are different than Hamas’ institutional policy of wanting the destruction of Israel.
soyyoo@reddit
But what’s r/israelcrimes doing on 🇵🇸 land for 70+ years?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What makes it Palestinian land? That they’re the last group that conquered it before the Jews?
soyyoo@reddit
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
best_uranium_box@reddit
Tell me you get all your news from the times of israel without telling me you get all your news from the times of israel
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I get my news from various sources on the internet, unlike many people who seem to get it directly from Hamas.
best_uranium_box@reddit
Various: JewishPost, TimesofIsrael, NYTimes, BBC, Fox
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Lol. Calling news outlets like BBC Jewish sites is the funniest thing. Everything’s a conspiracy, I guess.
best_uranium_box@reddit
Oh no BBC editors are very biased. Their own writers had to come out to other news sources about how biased they were. heres a link to an article talking about how Gaza humanitarian zones were bombed a 100 times. You'll see Israel's name is never mentioned as the ones doing the bombing.
tinkertailormjollnir@reddit
You're clearly pretty ignorant of the history of that area, or that Palestinians have occupied it as well for centuries. Or that the West Bank DID give up violent resistance in Oslo II but have had continued land theft, settler terrorism and violence backed by the state of Israel, apartheid justice systems and even control of water supplies, mass incarceration and surveillance.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
No, West Bank didn’t give up violent resistance. They still support Hamas, still largely think they’ll get “their” land, still think Israel will cease to exist within 100 years, etc. That’s not giving up violence and negotiating in good faith.
tinkertailormjollnir@reddit
The PA completely demilitarized and entered security agreements with Israel. Despite that, continued land theft, apartheid, murder, no pathway to separate state.
There are random resistance groups, but that's what happens in occupied territories where resistance is completely legal under international law and the occupation and oppression has only gotten worse over time.
And Israel also specifically targets civilians, and then blame specious tunnels or gunmen without proof. Just like when they killed American citizen Shireen Abu Akleh and then lied about it.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Laws stayed strict because of the presence of Hamas and the support of had in the West Bank. No pathway for a separate state existed because Palestinians don’t want a “separate” state, they want all the lands of Israel as their state.
Random resistance groups? You mean the terrorist government in Gaza and the main terrorist organizations in the West Bank? You do realize there was a civil war between the PA and Hamas after the elections, right? Elections which, I might add, many Palestinians voted for a terrorist organization to rule them. Terrorist organizations are also not legal under international law. They’d be resistance organizations if they just targeted Israeli military targets, but they intentionally try and kill as many civilians as possible every time they attack.
Israel makes mistakes, sure, but they don’t raid into Gaza to intentionally mass rape and kill and kidnap hundreds of Palestinians. That’s a whole different level.
No, the pager attack intentionally targeted Hezbollah members. It’s too bad like 5 kids were injured, but terrorists shouldn’t hang around civilians if they don’t what civilians to get hurt.
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Hamas exists because Palestinians don’t want peace.
soyyoo@reddit
But what’s r/israelcrimes doing on 🇵🇸 land for 70+ years?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What makes it Palestinian land? That they conquered it last before the Jews did?
tinkertailormjollnir@reddit
West Bank did not have a civil war with Hamas, FYI. And the PA acknowledged Israel's right to exist in Oslo, so your assertion that "Palestinians don't want a separate state" is absolute bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II_Accord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_Liberation_Organization_letters_of_recognition
You're conflating Fatah and Hamas in Gaza with the West Bank, which speaks to your lack of knowledge on the issue as a whole.
>Israel makes mistakes, sure, but they don’t raid into Gaza to intentionally mass rape and kill and kidnap hundreds of Palestinians. That’s a whole different level.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/middleeast/huwara-west-bank-settler-attack-cmd-intl/index.html
"Israel’s military called the settler attack on this Palestinian town a ‘pogrom.’ Videos show soldiers did little to stop it"
One of many.
>No, the pager attack intentionally targeted Hezbollah members. It’s too bad like 5 kids were injured, but terrorists shouldn’t hang around civilians if they don’t what civilians to get hurt.
If you blow up devices in civilian areas to instill fear in a population and cause harm to civilians, you're a terrorist. No matter who you were "targeting." If Hamas said they were targeting IDF only on 10/7 and all the dead civilians were from Hannibal protocol would you simply accept that? If not, you're biased.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
PA acknowledged it, and Israel respects the PA. Palestinians don’t, though. Poll after poll shows they don’t think the PA represents them, mainly because it’s pursuing peace with Israel. And Palestinians absolutely don’t want a separate state. Support for a two state solution is in the minority. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/991 Work you’re way through that. You’ll see not only that support for a two state solution is in the minority (though, admittedly, rising), but also that they support pretty much anyone but the PA to govern them.
The PA is currently attacking both hamas and PIJ right now.
Come back to me when there’s an incident where any group of Israelis raid into the West Bank or Gaza and kill, rape, and kidnap almost a thousand Palestinians, specifically targeting only civilians.
Israel blew up the pager to cripple Hezbollah, not to target civilians it cause fear among civilians. The results speak for themselves, where hundreds, if not thousands, of Hezbollah fighters were injured and crippled. The attack was a resounding success with minimal civilian casualties. Cope harder.
I absolutely would not accept that because the evidence says the exact opposite. If you actually believe that, you’re so far down the rabbit hole of Hamas propaganda you’re the king of wonderland.
Ropetrick6@reddit
Ah, gotta love how Zionists like yourself will make up whatever lies you can to try and justify atrocities.
krulp@reddit
It's very well documented that Israel continues to take land from Palestinians and give it to Israeli settlers. How do Palestinians have no right to that land?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
They have rights to the land in the West Bank. Israel should not he annexing lands in the West Bank. Israel does not have a right to those lands. They have rights to the rest of the land of Israel, but not land in Gaza or the WB.
Private_HughMan@reddit
THey're indigenous to the area and have been living on it continuously for almost 4000 years. How do they not have a right to it? Why is "their" in quotes? Why do they - an indigenous group that's been living there non-stop since before the pyramids in Egypt were built - have less rights to it than Israeli Jews - an indigenous group whose population are made primarily from people who spent thousands of years living somewhere else?
You mean like the PLO? Then why is Israel continuing to steal their land and ethnically cleanse the west bank? Why does Israel continue to say they'll never under any circumstances accept a Palestinian state?
Israel attacks and invades Palestine every single day and has been doing that for decades.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
They’re not indigenous to that area wtf. They’re literally Arabs bro do u even know how they got there
Private_HughMan@reddit
Except they are? Genetic analysis of Palestinians have shown that they've been living in the region for about 3700 years. The naturally reproduced with others who immigrated or just passed through the area, but that doesn't make them no longer indigenous. If mixing with other ethnic groups makes them no longer indigenous, the same would be true of Jews from Europe, no? Are you going to say most Israeli Jews aren't indigenous because they're part white European?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#Genetics
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
No they’re not. Arabs are not endemic to the levant. They got there through caliphate expansions
Private_HughMan@reddit
Again, over 80% of their ancestry is derived from Bronze-age Levanites. That makes them indigenous. You're hung up entirely on the word "Arab" and ignoring the actual ancestry. Arabs are not a monolith and there exists a lot of variation. In the case of Palestinians, despite the Arab label, they're mostly Levanite in ancestry.
So they don't have a right to the land, then? Israel thinks they do. Should they leave? Maybe give the land to the Palestinians who are objectively more tied to the land, both genetically and in recent history?
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Neither side has a right to the land. That’s my stance. The ones that have a right to the land were killed by the caliphate, the Romans and the crusaders across multiple centuries.
Private_HughMan@reddit
They were living on that land and then forced out via ethnic cleansing. The people with a right to it weren't killed. Or are you saying literally everyone who was living there during the times of the caliphate, Romans and Crusades were dead with no one left to inherit it? Are you seriously arguing that the land should just be uninhabited?
And them being Arab doesn't mean they're not indigenous. Again, genetically, they're primarily indigenous.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
1 - no one said it should be inhabited. I said no one has a right to it because neither Arabs or Jews are indigenous to that place. Plus Arabs during the caliphate did exactly the same Israel is doing right now
2 - them being Arab means they’re not indigenous to a zone that’s not within the Arab indigenous land, such as the levant. even with mixed genetics
Private_HughMan@reddit
So you think it should be uninhabited, then?
Really? Then why is it that most of Palestinian ancestry is from Levantines who lived there long before the caliphate?
Forget the word "Arab." Indigenousness doesn't depend on the name they call themselves. It depends on their ancestry. ANd their ancestry is >80% from the levant. This was confirmed by genetic analyses of modern Palestinians against ancient remains of Levantine peoples from nearly 4000 years ago. They are indigenous. A label was imposed on them by a foreign power and the name stuck, but that's it. They're mostly levantine by ancestry. They are indigenous.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Jfc bro. I’m not indigenously Chinese. That doesn’t mean I can’t live in china, it just means I’m not entitled to that land for historical reasons and genetic reasons. So what I’m saying is that neither Jews or Palestines have a “right” to the land because neither are indigenous to that place.
Yes, the caliphate did displace the ppl living there, ironically it was indigenous Jews and other tribes before the massive exodus towards europe, that’s what ‘conquest’ means
If modern day Palestines are “indigenous” to the levant which they’re not. Then a HUGE part of Jews are as well because, believe it or not, Hebrew tribes did originate from the levant.
And they ARE Arabs. That’s literally their whole identity. Like you said, they’re not a monolith but all share the same ethnic background that got convoluted with local tribes due to the imperialist expansion. That automatically discards them from being indigenous to the region
Private_HughMan@reddit
But the Palestinians were living there continuously for thousands of years. That's a fact. Are you denying it's a fact?
Palestinians literally are.
Then how is it that the Palestinians have >80% of their ancestry attributed to ancient Levantine people that lived there long before the caliphate conquest? If they were all displaced then how is their population descended almost entirely from Levantine people?
Yes. I know. I literally said that they're both indigenous in my first comment.
And they ARE Levantine. Those are not mutually-exclusive categories.
You know you're describing the one-drop rule, right?
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
No, levantines (including Hebrews) were living there. Modern day Palestines were not a thing and those levantines were the ones displaced by the caliphate. There obviously will be a large Levantine genetic footprint in ppl living there today because that’s common sense.
And you CAN’T be indigenous to a place if you’re ethnically mixed
Private_HughMan@reddit
This is a long and dumb way of saying "time passed."
Not all Levantines were displaced. Obviously many stayed. Enough that their modern descendents are mostly Levantine by genetics. If it was mostly Arabs, then their genetics would be mostly Arab. Probably Iran, specifically.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
I don’t abide by a rule imposed by an American because I’m not American and y’all are fucking stupid when it comes to race and ethic issues. I’m just stating a fact, mixed ppl CAN’T be indigenous because they’re mixed. There’s nothing wrong with that, but they’re mixed.
I don’t even know why you bring up Persians but whatever
Obviously not ALL levantines were displaced, thats impossible it should be common sense to know I never meant that. However their ancient culture and genetics are not there anymore
That “long and dumb” way of explaining time passed is just a reality. We’re talking about modern day Palestines here. Well back then they were not a thing so they can’t be indigenous by default
Private_HughMan@reddit
Everything you say perfectly described the one-drop rule. One drop of non-indigenous ancestry = not indigenous.
The one-drop rule isn't only a law. While it was formalized in the law, over time it has come to mean that any mixing of any ethnicities undoes the primary ethnicity, even if it's a small amount. It's most commonly used by racists when discussing black people. For example, for many racist groups, they'd consider someone who is 90% European white and 10% subsaharan African to be black. The "purity" of their whiteness is tainted. Much like how the "purity" of the indigenous ancestry is gone according to you.
THEY OBJECTIVELY ARE! We've literally tested their genetics.
This is like saying Native Americans aren't indigenous because the identity of "Native American" didn't exist back then.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Man, I can’t believe you can read a well structured sentence and just understand something completely different. I’m tired of explaining myself over and over again and still get replies that have nothing to do with what I said. Let’s just agree to disagree on the ethnicity thing and call it a day
IAMADon@reddit
So you think people who don't share DNA with the Levant kicked out the people who do, then somehow gained ancient Levantine DNA?
I don't think you know what common sense is.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
I don’t know if reading comprehension and critical thinking are like not normal anymore but here we are
It’s literally impossible to displace an entire ethnic group and even more so that you displace them without leaving a large genetic footprint behind. So miss me with your stupid argument
Ropetrick6@reddit
Palestinians are indigenous to it.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Arabs are not indigenous to the levant
Private_HughMan@reddit
You're really caught up on that word. Do you think that word undoes their genetics? They're indigenous.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Because they are literally Arabs lmao like I know how genetic works and they’re also genetically Arabs
Private_HughMan@reddit
But they're >80% levantine. Do you think them being part Arab means the Levantine ancestry is gone? Do you think someone who is 85% Cree and 15% English and French is now no longer an Aboriginal Canadian?
You realize you're basically arguing the one-drop rule, right?
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
It’s not gone but it doesn’t make them indigenous. It makes them RELATED to ancient indigenous inhabitants.
Let me ask you something, do you consider hebrews with little to no European ancestry indigenous to the levant?
Private_HughMan@reddit
Yes.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Tf does a law has to do with all of this? It’s just a simple genetic fact
Private_HughMan@reddit
If you bothered to read you'd know. You're basically saying one drop of non-indigenous blood undoes all indigenous genetics. No matter what, any mixing overrides most of their ancestry.
Agreed. The simple genetic fact that they're indigenous. Or aboriginal. Whichever term you prefer.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Never said that, reading comprehension is truly dead in this app.
An example: Mexicans. Most of them are mixed, some of us are entirely white, many are actually indigenous. For the mixed Mexicans, it doesn’t mean they’re don’t have indigenous genetics, of course they do, no one argued that. My point is, you’re no longer indigenous when you’re mixed because that’s the whole point, you’re no longer part of one group genetically, now you’re part of two or more. You can’t be considered indigenous to a region if your dna shares multiple origins, even if you are born in one of those regions
ShowBoobsPls@reddit
This is so dumb. Killing, kidnapping and raping bunch of kids enjoying a music festival is not "resistance" and not something anyone encourages Russians to do in their country. You are insane.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
A legitimate resistance movement attacks the actual oppressors, not the first civilians they find upon entering enemy territory. At least Israel pretends to be going after military targets when they massacre civilians; Hamas couldn't be assed to do even that.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of actual Arab resistance groups that don't go around raping/kidnapping/killing the first civilians they see. Even the ex-al-Qaeda militants that recently helped oust Assad's regime know better than to pull that shit. There's nothing in Arab DNA that magically compels them to act like ISIS; it's entirely possible to focus on military targets instead of trying to race Israel to the bottom. Even in Gaza alone (let alone Palestine as a whole), there are resistance groups that ain't theocratic maniacs like Hamas and the PIJ. They deserve support and sympathy, as do the civilians suffering as a direct consequence of Hamas' demented notion of "resistance".
That's been the exact reason since the 1800's when Zionists first started pushing for immigration into Palestine. Israel probably wouldn't even exist if Palestine's Arab population chose to tolerate Jewish immigrants instead of persecute them; there would've been no need for a partition plan if Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully - and I firmly believe they can coexist peacefully if they stop demanding each others' expulsion and stop falling for the cyclical violence that has thrown Israel and Palestine for a loop.
(To be clear: this ain't a denial of Zionists pushing for Jewish immigration into Palestine being motivated by colonialist attitudes; even the left-leaning Labor Zionists had a "Jewish man's burden" attitude when it came to "civilizing" the existing Arab population, and such an attitude was uncalled for. Rather, it's an acknowledgment that most of the Jewish immigrants were simply looking to return to the one place they had any sort of historical ties, in the hopes of being safe from the rest of the world - especially in the wake of both the Holocaust and (upon Israel's founding) the purges of Jews from the rest of the MENA. That's also what makes Israel today so tragic: it's ridiculous that a nation populated primarily by Jewish refugees and the descendants thereof is so willing to turn around and create millions of Arab refugees by denying Palestinians' right to return to the lands now called "Israel". The perpetuation of separate Jewish and Arab states was, is, and always will be a mistake; neither side will be satisfied with anything short of full access to the entirety of the each others' territory, and the only pathway toward peace is either to accept this and merge the two into a single binational state or else deny this and wait for one to exterminate the other - and it is highly unlikely that Palestine will be the one to survive the latter.)
Private_HughMan@reddit
The PLO are not resisting and let Israel do what they want. Has Israel stopped their ethnic cleansing? No? They keep accelerating?
The PLO has already done this and Israel has said they'll never accept the Palestinian peoples' rights to exist.
pants_mcgee@reddit
The West Bank isn’t a smoldering pile of rubble so they’ve got that going for them.
Palestine’s only chance is if the right wing in Israel loses power. Violent resistance only makes the Israeli hardliners more powerful.
Private_HughMan@reddit
You're not necessarily wrong but I have a hard time blaming those who chose violence, given their situation.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
I have an easy time blaming people who choose to direct their violent "resistance" against the first civilians they find instead of their actual oppressors.
No amount of oppression compels the oppressed to turn around and be oppressors. That is a conscious, deliberate choice, just as it's a conscious, deliberate choice on Israel's part to bomb civilians in droves based on the mere suspicion of there maybe being terrorists among them.
Every Hamas/PIJ fighter and every IDF soldier has moral agency, and therefore can and should be blamed for one's own actions. "Just following orders" doesn't cut it. "But they did it to us" doesn't cut it. "But it's our land not theirs" doesn't cut it. There is no excuse.
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
When the PLO and Arafat actually set out to make peace with Israel in the 90s, things were getting done, such as the creation of the PA. But Hamas and most Palestinians didn’t want peace, which is why barely anything has been done since and peace is still miles away. Who’d have thought, when people want peace it can be achieved but when they don’t it isn’t achieved?
Dull_Patient_5991@reddit
Classic Western colonial thinking.
Freedom and peace are not synonymous. Israel doesn't want peace. They want Palestine.
And when they're done, they'll want Lebanon and then Syria.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Palestines will never ever give up their fight. Like they’re stupid enough to fight now when they have 0 chances of winning
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Then I guess they’re just going to kill themselves against Israel. Entirely on them, now if only other people could actually recognize that.
Ropetrick6@reddit
Ah yes, it's the children's fault that Israel is bombing them. Mhm, that makes sense.
Sierra_12@reddit
Well if their parents make dumb decisions, the kids suffer. German children suffered for their parents mistakes, but Germany still holds blame for the war
Ala117@reddit
How 'bout you tell that to his face?
Sierra_12@reddit
War is hell. I could bring up a same article of Palestinians murdering an Israeli family. War is terrible, it's monstrous and shouldn't happen. However if the Palestinians didn't want a war, they shouldn't commit acts that will start a war. German and Japanese families died in the wars, but ultimately they get the blame because their governments started those conflicts.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
Ropetrick6@reddit
Have you considered maybe not shooting children with IDF snipers? Just a suggestion.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Honestly, yea
l339@reddit
I’d make a bet with you that Israel breaks the ceasefire before Hamas does lol
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Why do you think that? If Hamas is preparing to attack Israel, and Israel knows about it, it’s entirely within its rights to preempt that strike as opposed to just letting it happen.
Monte924@reddit
Lebanon. Israel and hezzbollah agreed to a ceasefire, and israel violated tgat ceasefire hundreds of times as they continued to attack, claiming the attacks were "defensive"
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
The agreement permitted Israel to retaliate against any ceasefire violations committed by Hezbollah, which includes Hezbollah moving military equipment and assets around in southern Lebanon. When Hezbollah does that, Israel bombs them. No violation of the agreement there.
Ala117@reddit
And Hamas can't do the same?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Israel doesn’t commit terror attacks against Palestinians. Israel responds, but it hardly ever starts.
soyyoo@reddit
Jajajajajajajajajajajajjajajaja joke of the century right here folks
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Typical Hamas supporter, denying reality.
soyyoo@reddit
But what’s r/israelcrimes doing on 🇵🇸 land for 70+ years?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/s/pVZEj6YutB
soyyoo@reddit
So you can’t dispute 70+ years of r/israelcrimes on 🇵🇸 land? Got it
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What makes it Palestinian land? It’s Israeli land now.
wewew47@reddit
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/sharpened-censure-us-calls-suspected-israeli-settler-attack-terrorism-2023-08-06/
Your own government has labelled attacks by israels as terrorism.
Settlers are encouraged by the israeli state to launch such attacks and extremely rarely face Amy substantial punishment
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Israeli settlers aren’t part of the Israeli government. Hamas is the Palestinian government. Big difference. It’s a shame that Israel isn’t doing more to stop this, but there’s a big difference between that and your government being a literal terrorist group committing terrorist attacks.
wewew47@reddit
They are tacitly supported by the israeli government as an unofficial militia, as evidenced by the lack of real consequences for the vast majority of crimes committed by settlers, and the presence of idf soldiers who either aid or fail to prevent attacks.
Israel is also literally a state sponsor of terrorism. There's a Wikipedia page dedicated to it which you can use to begin your reading to educate yourself.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Tacitly supported is a big difference from being the literal government. Sorry man, but any way you slice this, what Hamas does, as the official government of Gaza, is way worse than anything the Israelis government has done, where it’s never committed literal terrorist attacks against Palestinians.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
While you're right that the settlers are not a part of the government, the Israeli settlement expansion is effectively colonialism which is tacitly supported by the Israeli government.
That doesn't excuse the fact that Hamas must be completely destroyed for peace to come, but that also doesn't change the fact that Israel must suffer consequences to stop this ongoing expansion.
You can do both, you know?
wewew47@reddit
You're utterly deluded. The israeli government have massacred tens of thousands of innocent people. Raped prisoners to death. Starved two million people for over a year. Destroyed or damaged 90 percent of all reside tual structures, leaving the vast majority homeless. Polluted what limited farmland exists in gaza, leaving the people even more reliant on aid. Far worse than anything hamas has ever done, and anyone saying otherwise is deluded or a war crimes apologist.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I hope you’re rewording you last comment to make it be accepted by whatever auto mod deleted it the first time. You sure do make a lot of claims that still don’t make Israel as bad as having a literal genocidal terrorist grouping as you government.
wewew47@reddit
I haven't had a comment deleted by automod...
Nothing i said was a claim. It was factual. You're a genocide apologist. Fuck off
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Broke it, actually, since it doesn’t.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Lol. Living in fantasy land. Changing reality to fit your opinion. I applaud you for being so transparent.
Ala117@reddit
You've just described a zionist.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
*hamas supporter
FTFY
Ala117@reddit
*zionist
Ftfy
Private_HughMan@reddit
Hamas attacks first: Hamas violated the ceasefire!
Israel attacks first: Israel defended themselves from Hamas violating the ceasefire!
Makerel9@reddit
Because Hamas attacks are not meant to preempt but to instigate.
What attack was Hamas stopping when they massacred a music festival? Or October 7 in general?
Monte924@reddit
Hanas was attempting to stop the never ending settlement expansion that has been a source of suffering for countless palestinians. They were also trying to free thousands of palestinians tgat have been held in detention by israel without trial or charges
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
The West Bank expansion was slow but methodical, but also was not exactly hurting "countless Palestinians".
Also, there's the fact that Hamas' mission statement is the destruction of Israel, not to end Palestinian suffering. There is a difference, so that's more of a lie on your part.
And mass murdering civilians does not free prisoners.
In reality, Hamas did this to end the closer ties Israel was forging with other Arab states at the behest of Iranian mullahs. Intentionally using Palestinian bodies and lives as currency for this mission. You're defending one of the foremost genocidal terrorist organizations on the planet, dude. Hamas deserves complete and utter destruction, not defending.
Monte924@reddit
In the west bank, hundreds of palestinians are murdered every year by settlers. Land and homes are often attacked and destoryed. The IDF has detained thousands of palestinians without trial or charges and can hold them in detention for years where they suffer abuse. This includes children
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
I vehemently stand against Israel's colonizing efforts in the West Bank, but that's not "countless". That's nowhere near large enough to justify war. The death toll for Palestinians in the West Bank is 1.8k or so since 2008. Also, again, Hamas' founding charter advocated for genocide. There is no coming back from that.
Israel deserves punishment, but Hamas will get nothing but complete destruction if peace is going to happen.
Monte924@reddit
Israel's settler movement wants ALL of the palestinians removed from the pakestinian territories, and they also want usrael to expand into other countries. The settlers also received backing from the israeli government. Heck the IDF often stands and watches WHILE they terrorize palestinians. Israel's settlement policies impact hust about everyone living in the west bank. Zionism is pretty much based on ethnic cleansing because the expansion of israel requires the removal of everyone else
And keep in mind, that is has been israel who has been murdering tens of thousands of people for over a year now. The death toll in gaza is likey much higher than we know because of how much destruction israel caused to the infrastructure and the efforts to deny faza food and water. In one year, israel has killed FAR more people and caused far more destruction than Hamas has ever done throughout its entire history.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Well, if they do, they seem to be doing a terrible job at it. They are expanding in agonizingly slow fashion, and almost only in the West Bank. And they keep giving back land too, likely with the US twisting their arm; like when they gave up the Sinai to Egypt.
Except that Palestinians, Christians, Muslims, and all manner of minorities in Israel are far more protected than in all of their neighbors. How is Zionism based on ethnic cleansing when Israel itself is far more progressive in defending minority rights?
You can argue that Israel is imperialist, I'd agree with you. But ethnic cleansing makes far more sense for Hamas and their supporters when you look at their founding charter advocating for genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Yeah, that's kinda how war works. Is there are war you can point to that doesn't see tens of thousands of people dead?
That's like saying the every single nation on Earth is far worse than the KKK because every nation has killed far more people and caused far more destruction than the KKK has ever done in its entire history.
Like yeah, you'd be right, but it kinda ignores the reality of what they'd do if they ever had the power of a nation to enact on their agenda. Stop supporting genocidal fascists in Hamas, please. They told the world plainly what they want, and they'd be worse than Nazis if they ever had the opportunity.
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
Makerel9@reddit
Those criminal party goers, I guess they deserve it then?
soyyoo@reddit
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
l339@reddit
Hamas is always preparing to attack Israel lmao, that’s always how it goes and I don’t agree Israel is within its rights to invade another country, but it won’t be new. Israel is known for violating rights lol
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Israel has every right to invade Gaza after it gets attacked by Gaza.
l339@reddit
Definitely not the way they’ve been doing it though and if you can’t see that you’re just blind and stupid
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
How have they been “doing it” then?
l339@reddit
If you read some news articles for a change they you’ll find out they’ve been disproportionately bombing Gaza, cutting off electricity and supplies and collectively punished the entire region, which constitutes a war crime
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What makes you think the bombing is disproportionate? Hamas hides among civilians, has been attacking from humanitarian zones, uses civilian infrastructure as military infrastructure, and smuggles weapons in whenever they get the chance, including in humanitarian supplies. Also, Israel has restored electricity and water, and has a massive campaign to get aid in. As for “collectively punishing”, what do you think happens to civilians when their government starts a war with a more powerful one and they get invaded in return? Civilians suffer in war, that doesn’t mean they’re getting collectively punished.
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
No, Hamas exists because Palestinians don’t want peace, but rather the destruction of Israel.
soyyoo@reddit
Jews lived there thousands of years ago. So something that happened thousands of years ago dictates your support for israelcrimes current horrific genocide?
If so, brb! I need to get some European land! 🏃♀️ 💨
soyyoo@reddit
That’s r/israelcrimes so…
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Self defense is not a crime. Terrorism is a crime.
soyyoo@reddit
But what’s r/israelcrimes doing on 🇵🇸 land for 70+ years?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/s/pVZEj6YutB
soyyoo@reddit
So you can’t dispute 70+ years of r/israelcrimes on 🇵🇸 land? Got it
l339@reddit
I can’t go into a discussion with you, because you’re just propagandanized and wrong. It’s like arguing with a flat earther. There is just no discussion honestly. I hope you can read some news articles that are not from US news sources
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
A Hamas supporter comparing anyone to a flat earther is the height of irony. Since you can’t give any counter points, I’m guessing you’re just informing yourself based on emotion and Hamas propaganda. Thanks for saving me from wasting my time, I suppose.
l339@reddit
Again with the Israel propaganda. Everyone who is against Israel is a Hamas supporter according to you or apparently gets all its news from Hamas. Just please go read some news source other than American or Israeli or Gaza news. Like this is so stupid and I’d be worried if I was you. If this continues there will come a day when American rights and freedoms are going to be undermined in the interest of Israel and idk if you’re prepared for that day
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
In my experience, those that can’t defend their positions about this stuff but still hate Israel are Hamas supporters. It’s as simple as that. And nice to see your just pushing more anti-Israeli conspiracy theories. I’d be more worried about graduating high school, my guy. You might not make it.
l339@reddit
You’re defending Israel conspiracy theories lol, but yeah we’re done, I hope you get help some day
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
What conspiracy theories? That Hamas uses human shields? That Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes? That Israel is running an aid campaign in Gaza? That Israel restored electricity? These are all easily looked up. Do you know how to use Google?
soyyoo@reddit
Again, you’re describing 70+ years of r/israelcrimes on 🇵🇸 land so…
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
No. I’m describing Hamas’ apathy towards civilians.
idkwhotfmeiz@reddit
Honestly yea, randomly a couple months from now they’ll just start bombing again or something. Unless they get involved in the Syrian thing
Intense_Judgement@reddit
Hamas would probably have a harder time recruiting if Israeli military tactics didn't include bombing hospitals and refugee camps, kidnapping and torturing doctors, and the destruction of Gazan farmland and water supplies.
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
I mean, it’s not Israel’s fault Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, or that many officials in Gaza also have direct ties to Hamas.
Private_HughMan@reddit
Israel literally disguises their soldiers as medical personel so that they can sneak in and attack. Israel seems to believe they're safe from Hamas if they're dressed as medics. Medics don't believe they're safe from Israel if they're dressed as medics.
soyyoo@reddit
Facts ☝️
amineahd@reddit
What propaganda does to a mfer... all this killing of children and innocents is not enough for you huh?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
Talk about propaganda. How many women and children do you think have died in this conflict? Do you believe the official Hamas numbers?
RedstoneEnjoyer@reddit
This is something that Likud should thing about decades ago when they basicaly helped Hamas to survive
sar662@reddit
And therefore the current Israeli government should just shrug and accept that it is okay for Hamas to attack Israeli citizens when they feel like it?
Minimum-Enthusiasm14@reddit
They allowed money in from Qatar because the whole world wanted them to and would have condemned them if they hadn’t. Now the world isn’t letting Israel fix its mistake.
tallzmeister@reddit (OP)
$35m USD / month, smuggled in in suitcases
aznkor@reddit
Trump’s team was responsible for getting Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to for the Middle East, was just a NYC real estate developer and Trump’s friend. He had no foreign policy or governmental experience. He was merely Trump’s long-time friend, Jewish, and pro-Zionist
Yet, he got the ceasefire done by merely repeatedly insisting on talks with Netanyahu and Israel, along with Trump’s public threats of, “There will be hell to pay in the Middle East if the hostages aren’t released by my inauguration.” Note: Trump’s threat wasn’t directed to a specific party, implying that Israel might also receive “hell” if a ceasefire isn’t achieved.
Biden and Blinkens’ team didn’t even attempt to directly talk to Israel or Netanyahu about a ceasefire.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-official-trump-envoy-swayed-netanyahu-more-in-one-meeting-than-biden-did-all-year/
BengalsGonnaBungle@reddit
According to the MSM, Palestinians, even children, are "prisoners" when IOF militants kidnap them and hold them indefinitely without charge.
Yet IOF militants captured in battle are also "hostages" according to the MSM.
Very strange.
HalfLeper@reddit
What are the MSM and IOF?
best_uranium_box@reddit
Oh boy they're not even prisoners cause they don't go through trial, they're in "administrative detention" in facilities where the rules and surveillance is much more lax.
BengalsGonnaBungle@reddit
Yeah, I know. They're all hostages, but the MSM is too cowardly to call it what it is.
I'd love a downvoter to explain how holding children in Gitmo style conditions is actually right and good.
protobelta@reddit
lol, calling a 16 year old who’s been brainwashed to kill innocent people a child is what leads to your misunderstanding of these detentions
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
A 16 year old is still a child, no matter how much you want him tortured or raped in Israeli prisons.
best_uranium_box@reddit
Try 11 year olds
Ala117@reddit
Stop dehumanizing children with lies, zionist.
best_uranium_box@reddit
Pretty sure they know they're pro child kidnapping as long as the child is Arab/brown cause they're obviously a "lower civilization".
HugsForUpvotes@reddit
Most are PoWs. What hostage was captured in battle?
aznkor@reddit
Netanyahou thanked Trump "for his assistance in advancing the release of the hostages and for helping Israel bring an end to the suffering of dozens of hostages and their families."
https://x.com/israelipm/status/1879650206628839837?s=61
beefprime@reddit
This really just put on display the degree to which the Biden administration enabled this genocide, the second power begins to transfer to the Trump administration the cease fire deal happens.
I don't believe Trump is doing this for Palestine and almost certainly this will stop the violent genocide in Gaza so that the quiet ethnic cleansing that was going on already pre-October 7th can continue, probably concentrated in the West Bank, but stopping the psychotic violence is good.
All the people constantly shouting down protests against the Biden admin saying Trump will be worse, Trump will be worse, vote for the Biden Admin as they were GENOCIDING PALESTINIANS as if that would BENEFIT PALESTINE should take a second to think about their opinions and how fucking insane they were/are as Trump instantly stops the overt genocide Israel was using US weapons to commit and I hope those who identify as Democrats can muster up an ounce of self reflection about the idea that we can just sit there and support an administration that is knowingly sending weapons to a country committing a genocide when Biden could have stopped it any time he wanted.
Just think about how Trump is better than the Democrats on the issue of genocide. Never thought I'd see the day.
bowsmountainer@reddit
What on Earth are you taking about? This is not Trumps doing. Biden has been negotiating this deal for many months now. Without him there wouldn’t be a ceasefire. Trump wants to see the war prolongued.
aznkor@reddit
You're spreading misinformation. Netanyahou thanked Trump "for his assistance in advancing the release of the hostages and for helping Israel bring an end to the suffering of dozens of hostages and their families."
https://x.com/israelipm/status/1879650206628839837?s=61
dylphil@reddit
You dont think it’s possible Hamas was more willing to negotiate because they know Trump would be worse?
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
valentc@reddit
This is a similar ceasefire deal to the other ones Hamas agreed to, and Israel didn't.
Hamas has accepted most of the ceasefire deals while Israel has been against any deal.
It's way more likely that this is a repeat of the 1981 Iran hostage crisis.
dylphil@reddit
Isn’t Israel remaining in charge of the Egyptian border a pretty large concession
valentc@reddit
It doesn't. The issue with Biden is he didn't do anything to pressure them to accept the deal. He only made empty threats about not giving money or ammo. While at home, he suppressed peaceful protests, and people got fired for supporting Palestinians. It empowered Isreal not to change course. Bibi was also very open about wanting Trump to win.
That's why this feels like the Iran hostage situation. Why does Israel feel now is the best time to accept this deal? Right before Donald Trump comes in? It's gives him an easy forieng policy win, and now Trump owes them.
northrupthebandgeek@reddit
If it was about making Trump look good then you'd think they'd wait until next week when Trump's actually in office.
Likewise, if this was about making Biden look good then the timing of this ceasefire is absolutely perfect, since it can be spun as Biden's last achievement / ending Biden's term on a high note.
dylphil@reddit
This has nothing to do with the insane logic of the person I replied to. But I agree that this is Bibi handing Trump an easy win.
Private_HughMan@reddit
I'm not gonna praise Biden because he could have done much more, but it's pretty obvious that Trump and Bibi agreed to keep the war going to help Trump's election chances. Democrats obviously should have done more and actually talked to Palestinians, but this isn't because Trump is better on genocide.
Glum_Sentence972@reddit
Unlike Biden, Trump would actually do a genocide. Not the "genocide" that people have been claiming for the past year unsuccessfully. But one that would see the Palestinian people outright destroyed entirely much as the Tigrayans and Ukrainians have/are facing.
It hasn't escalated that high yet. But it can, with the far-right ascendant in Israel and Iran pulling Hamas' strings.
meowsydaisy@reddit
Recently a lot of Israel's soldiers have been refusing to fight. Killing humans is more tiring than they expected, it seems.
(Automod deleted my comment for being too short. Truth doesn't require a lot of explaining, little robot. Hope this is enough words now.)
redelastic@reddit
Shooting children in the head, torture and rape is hard work.
alwaysiamdead@reddit
And many showing severe PTSD after killing children and babies.
meowsydaisy@reddit
Their body can't keep up with their psychopathic ideology.
AntifaAnita@reddit
Turns out driving bulldozers over children is bad for your mental health.
heartlessloft@reddit
Turns out targeting schools and setting refugees camps on fire alongside destroying food sent by aids is bad for your mental health too. Who knew.
EmptyJackfruit9353@reddit
Can't be help, Hamas only send the young and the stupid to fight.
While the old and the malicious hide inside bunker like rats.
They dont' even want to fight the war they start.
And now they are begging for permanent ceasefire? I bet IDF could continue until there is nothing left but dust and rubble. I guess they are not so brave now that Hezbollah and Assad has gone up in smoke.
TheStoicNihilist@reddit
Some crazy mother fuckers out there.
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
More like EmptyBrain9353... Lazy-named alt fuckboi
N0riega_@reddit
Zionist project is a complete failure and hopefully more Israelis realize this because the Christian evangelicals definitely won’t.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.