DawnC

Unfortunately Iran is not a liberal democracy. And I'm not in the business of interfering with their domestic decisions. I'm in the business of being aware that some nations/regimes can be hostile, harbor bad intentions, and may be willing to act against other countries. The spectrum of options available to nations includes these choices as well.

This is not an Israeli perspective, but rather a historical and scientific viewpoint. This individual is one of the experts on this issue. If you are genuinely interested, I believe this provides a solid historical background on the Palestinian refugees. It's not the complete story, but it offers enough to grasp the complexity of the situation and the harsh realities of war that manifest in this conflict. If I see more I will share it.

Keep in mind that the terms need to be handled carefully. For example, when this text discusses the Arabs, it refers to a larger group that also includes Syria, Lebanon, and I believe even Egypt and Iraq. The Arab national movement encompassed those areas as well. Anyway, it all took place around 1916 (while Zionism had formed a bit earlier). Another thing to consider is the term "Palestinian". Keep in mind that it was just a name given to that piece of land in the same manner that Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan were separated. It's not as if there was an actual concept of a 'Lebanese nationality' in the same way that there wasn't a Palestinian one. I never said they weren't. But it's important to consider the historical context. The lands (West Bank and Gaza) were occupied by Israel in 1967 from Jordan and Egypt, not directly from the Palestinians. Additionally, neither Jordan nor Egypt sought to reclaim these territories when they signed peace agreements. This action was taken in response to the mobilization of Arab countries under the leadership of Nasser, who were preparing for an attack against Israel. Since then, Israel has made three peace initiatives. The first attempt was disrupted when the Palestinians initiated an intifada and deaths of hundreds of Israelis, many of them in suicide bombings. The second and third initiatives (led by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert) were rejected. Anyway, my point was this: Hamas is not solely the responsibility of Israel.I never said that the Israelis were angels. But they did express a desire for peace and historically showed a greater willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs among the Palestinians suggests that they are incapable of establishing a stable, non-violent regime. What can be done? I'm not sure. I do believe that some of the settlements exacerbate the situation, particularly those that disrupt predominantly Palestinian populated areas. But I'm not convinced that the Palestinians are currently capable of reaching a historical compromise. I used to think that the Israeli policy of withdrawing from Gaza without an agreement with the Palestinians (2005) was a smart move, but now I am not sure. Perhaps a similar approach could be taken, but without allowing militarization in the West Bank, as has occurred in Gaza. The way I see it, it was. It was a tragedy nonetheless. But if you attempt to resolve things through force and you end up losing, you can't claim victimhood. This doesn't diminish the tragic nature of what happened to you. Btw it's worth noting that most Palestinians who lost their homes did not necessarily get forcibly expelled, but rather chose to flee. It's important to recognize that this conflict wasn't just an army-vs-army war, there were also instances of civil conflict in areas where both Arabs and Jews resided. It's also worth mentioning that many Jews from Arab countries also lost their homes (hundreds of thousands) in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and more. Keep in mind that this conflict occurred in 1948, in close proximity to WW2 and prior to the establishment of the Geneva Conventions. In comparison to other conflicts of that era, the Israelis' moral standards were satisfactory.

We did stray from the original discussion. But you did decide to start a thread stating that a genocide is being perpetrated. And you had your own perception in mind regarding what was going on that led to that. Don't you think that realizing you were wrong, if you were, is important? Is a discussion about genocide just another distraction like spending too much time on social media?

The more the situation involves content that is emotionally difficult, the harder it's going to be for everyone to respond maturely. I appreciated you being conscious about it and your intention to improve the discussion. We can only control our side of the discussion and strive to approach it with honesty, an open mind, love and respect.

Yes, this is one of the arguments that people who empathize more with the Palestinian aspiration in the early days are making. On the other hand, those weren't immigrants who chose that piece of land out of the blue, and when they initiated their national aspiration, there was no actual Palestinian nationality but scattered tribes. That was a point made by people who sympathize more with the Israelis. Please read what I have written again, Does any of that make my point any less relevant?

If you are truly interested, you can put a little more effort into this research. Clearly, the Palestinian Arab leadership, opposed the establishment of a Jewish state and they viewed the partition plan as unfair and illegitimate. And clearly, they were concerned about displacement. Does that imply they were responsible people? Does that mean their intentions were not hostile? Does that make them a victim? The thing is, during the time of the partition plan, there were two distinct national aspirations for the same piece of land (we can delve even further back if you're interested, this issue is more nuanced). The jews had some agenda about their historical connection to the land and the Palestinians had their own. You can empathize with whichever side you choose. However, would you support a violent solution for one side? Would you recommend the side you sympathize with to initiate a war in order to suppress the aspirations of the other side? What was the Palestinian leadership's decision at that time? A mature, responsible, and peace-oriented approach from the Palestinian side, even if they found it unfair, would have been to renegotiate the terms or even present a militant threat to do so, in order to maximize their share. This didn't happen, and it wasn't by chance. It was a result of the Palestinians' choice of leaders. I suggest you read about Amin el-Husseini and the Arab Higher Committee. They were interested in eradicating Jewish aspirations altogether. Even if you consider war to be a legitimate measure in those circumstances, you have to consider the fact that wars can be lost. And the Palestinians lost. Even the support of four surrounding countries and a numerical advantage over Israelis didn't help them. Initiating war and losing bears consequences. This is why responsibility is important. Should someone be allowed to dictate terms when instead of negotiating things without violence they initiate a war and lose? Is that the way consequences and justice work? Does victimizing someone because of the consequences of a war they started constitute a wise approach to eradicating violent means? Even from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians were under Jordanian control in the West Bank and Egyptian control in Gaza. Their aspirations for a Palestinian state were barely acknowledged under Jordan and Egypt. This was not a coincidence. It reflects their focus that is not on nation building, but on an unattainable historical justice. This type of thinking is irresponsible and immature. The Palestinian leadership not only opposed the specific partition plan, but also struggles with the ability to engage in any form of compromise and to accept the reality of a Jewish entity to this day.

There is a huge difference between having a desire to live peacefully with your neighbors and caring for them the same way you care about your own people. The Gulf countries, Middle Eastern nations, stability in the region, Ukraine, the US and Europe, along with Iran's secular and moderate populations—essentially, the Iranian regime poses a threat to the civilized world. Their entire belief system is built on opposing America and the West, and they are determined to gain control over their entire region. Ask yourself what made the Abraham Accords possible. The moderate Gulf countries understand this threat better than any of us.

Unfortunately for me, since I'm interested in geopolitics and international relations, and I understand a little bit of Arabic, I was connected to Telegram channels before 7/10. I was exposed to original videos by Hamas in Telegram channels on 7/10. I saw kidnappings in brutal ways, executions, burned bodies, and body parts torn off. I saw a body torn apart from a brutal, ongoing beating. I saw naked women's bodies on a truck. I saw two burned bodies that were tied to a burning bed. There are evidence of body parts being cut off and brutal rapes, which I intentionally avoided. I think I'm emotionally stable, but this is just too much.

If you dig far enough, you'll find the horrifying videos. To my understanding, it's quite the contrary. The Israeli government doesn't post those videos because they are aware of their responsibility. They understand that the Israeli public would be completely shocked and traumatized, and they want to prevent the public from calling for irresponsible and extreme measures due to strong emotions. The question is, what do you need to see to believe? Don't succumb to conspiracy-like thinking. There are videos and photos out there if you so desire.

So the Israelis should treat their own civilians the same way they treat Palestinian civilians? Don't you see the absurdity of that expectation? When has that kind of thinking ever been present in the decision-making of any country in any conflict in world history? You can have criticism about a military tactic, but this expectation is just absurd. This is exactly the immature perspective I was talking about. Iran poses a significant danger to freedom, democracy, and humanity, actually. You may have different ways to address this, but the danger is very clear.

@Something Funny Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of criticism for Israel and large parts of their society, especially concerning the way they address this conflict. The thing is, it's very easy to get lost in the details of this criticism and miss the larger picture. I mentioned WW2 to emphasize the point that you can criticize the US for Dresden and Hiroshima all you want, but it's a mistake to conflate that with the larger overall picture. Yes, Hamas is not Nazi Germany, but Israel is far from Dresden as well. The accusations are also exaggerated. And the bigger picture is very clear.

1. If Hamas were indeed more militarily capable, the Israelis would miss the aesthetics of the gas chambers. So will the Israeli Arabs btw, they were butchered in the same manner. 2. Hamas is part of a global threat that is heavily supported by Iran, which includes Hezbollah, large parts of Syria, the Houthis, and other militant groups. These are not kids in a playground. This is a real threat. I don't think Nazi Germany and Hamas pose the same danger to the world at all. But the moral stance is not that far off in terms of clarity.

Thank goodness that WW2 didn't occur in today's political landscape. People might draw comparisons between the US and the Nazis based on the higher number of German civilian casualties. A profoundly immature and distorted moral compass.

Israel does bear some responsibility. But the major part of it lies with the Palestinian society. If you trace back to the beginning of this conflict and examine the leadership their society supported (it begins with Amin al Husseini) and their irresponsible decisions, it becomes evident. Take a look also at their educational system. Don't solely base your judgment on the current power imbalance.

It's good to have compassion for suffering, but a moral stance should be grounded in a realistic understanding of what is going on.

I don't think you misunderstand what genocide is. It is your perception of what is really going on that is distorted. I will give you just a few examples: The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children casualties possible and doesn't place much value on children's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily. You totally misunderstand Israeli society, academia, and the like, which would never allow for such a thing to happen. Basically, although they might be less careful about civilian casualties than in the past or as you would want them to be, Israel doesn't target civilians for the sole purpose of intentionally killing them. Definitely not systematically.

Israelis aren't perfect. Can't you see the distinction between a place where such an organization, like the one responsible for this video, can actually exist and a place where it can't? It is a fundamental difference. There are intolerant people everywhere. The difference lies in the overall state of affairs.

An absurd notion. Repeating a word with bold and underline doesn't make it better in describing reality. What's going on with everyone? Aren't you even concerned with finding out what is really going on? The UN is an insult to civilized society. It is a place where countries like Syria and Iran get to vote on matters of human rights. Due to the states that constitute it, any vote or document they bring cannot be taken seriously. Do you think that Iranian/Russian officials would hesitate to say that Israel is committing genocide even when it is absurd?

Agreed But I think we do need to seriously consider the claim that a significant portion of Palestinian society (and others) finds it difficult to come to terms with the mere existence of a Jewish entity. I believe this is what people are addressing when they express frustration about others not acknowledging their right to exist. Ignoring this issue without consideration is not wise. It actually has a major impact on current events and can shed light on understanding historical events regarding the choices made by the Palestinians.

Do you think that is a mature perspective? This is actually akin to an Israel supporter saying: 'Didn't the Arab Palestinians conduct riots and terror attacks on jews before Israel was established? Didn't they do the same thing today? Is that righteous?' And actually believing this sums it up. These are simplistic and shallow moral statements that are based on a simplistic and shallow understanding of history and the current situation.

I believe that the 'solution' mindset contributes to the problem. The West should give up. This could be the only way forward towards a more mature and responsible approach to this conflict. In a sense, the sooner the West gives up on the Palestinians, the sooner a solution may become possible. By 'giving up,' I don't mean not caring, but rather not fixating on achieving a historical compromise and treating them as victims. The key to improving the situation may lie in imposing a solution on the Palestinians while taking their interests into consideration. This approach would be similar to Israel's actions when they left Gaza without a formal agreement (but with the aim of preventing a situation like what happened with Hamas). The second step is to intervene in the Palestinian educational system. This approach might actually make the evacuation of the most problematic settlements possible.

That would imply the death of Israel and the death of democracy in the region. A classical 'la la land' solution.

I was talking about a realistic approach. Not some moral detached criterion that was never met in the history of warfare. 1. The expectation that Israel would provide their enemies' civilians with supplies is a very high moral stance to hold. Their actions might not be noble, but please, provide me an example in history where what you are suggesting happened. By the way, humanitarian aid did enter Gaza, and electricity is still running to some extent. It is clear that Hamas will use any aid they receive for militant activities, which is exactly what the Israelis are trying to prevent by insisting on limiting and controlling those supplies. 2. 'not carpet bombing' - the situation in Gaza is such that there are Hamas exit tunnels inside many houses, with numerous buildings rigged with mines and held by militants, sometimes entire areas. While this may not seem reasonable to you, this is how Hamas operates. For the most part, Israelis announce warnings to civilians before bombing these buildings. It's a military tactic that can be debated, but it falls within the spectrum of reasonable approaches considering Hamas's hold in those areas. 3. 'Hunt down and kill Hamas leaders using joined forced of the best intelligence agencies in the world??' - why do you think this is not happening? 4. 'They could establish good faith by ending restrictions and restarting the peace process.' - Good luck making peace with an organization like Hamas. This is not a reasonable thing to expect a nation to do after enduring such an attack, and in this case, it would be a naive and irresponsible move on Israel's part, considering what Hamas is and the regional state of affairs.

I genuinely wonder what all of you would have done if 7/10 event happened in your country from a neighboring state with Hamas type regime still holding 240 hostages. I still haven't heard any realistic course of action, besides a somewhat obsessive approach towards calling out immoral deeds done by Israel.