Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

Pot calling the kettle black.

Of course.

Projection.

Be the content of the twitts true or not (partially highly streched and dichotomic), he isn't better by any mean than the relatively deep Right Wing Israeli sector he addresses.

Edited Friday at 10:07 PM by Nivsch

[royce]

Regarding the political assassinations carried out by Israel, which it has placed at the top of its priorities, I’d like to remind everyone of a few points:

- Sameh Asker

Firstly, World War I was sparked by a political assassination—the assassination of the Archduke of Austria. This destructive war claimed the lives of tens of millions and didn’t lead to a decisive and clear victory for any party. It weakened all sides involved—Russia among the Allies, and Turkey and Austria from the Central Powers. It also weakened Britain and France, leading to successive declarations of independence from their colonies, including Egypt, which witnessed the revolution of 1919 and achieved independence in 1922.

Secondly, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 during the peak of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This did not harm the U.S. in any significant way, as he was promptly replaced by another president.

Thirdly, history has witnessed the emergence of religious extremist groups specializing in political assassinations, such as the Kharijites and Assassins (Hashashin) in Islam, and the Zealots and Sicarii in Judaism. However, these groups failed to establish a powerful state or to create any intellectual movement or renaissance of any kind.

Fourthly, numerous political assassinations did not drive countries or groups to change their policies or weaken them. The assassination of Gandhi did not put an end to the Indian-Pakistani peace project, the assassination of Sadat did not halt the Egyptian-Israeli peace process, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. did not end the struggle against white racism. In most cases, such political assassinations lead to a firmer adherence to the principles of the victim and a moral challenge to ensure their mission succeeds.

Fifthly, in recent history in the Middle East, dozens of leaders of the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements have been assassinated. However, these movements remain strong and well-rooted, connected on the ground, and continue to fight against the Zionist enemy in various ways, receiving support through different channels.

Sixthly, in Egypt, thousands of leaders and soldiers from the Egyptian police and military have been assassinated in a series of terrorist acts that have spanned from the 1970s to the present day. Despite this, these acts did not weaken the strength, unity, or support of the security forces. Instead, they gained deep expertise in dealing with such incidents and developed an understanding of the psychology of terrorism, enabling them to respond to it appropriately.

Philosophically, political assassination raises questions about the morals and values that drive perpetrators to commit such acts. Despite the brutality of war, there remains a glimmer of light or a window for political dialogue and peace. Political assassination breeds inherited hatred across generations, making peace elusive, and raises generations in a spirit of revolutionary revenge. This reality is evident in Palestine, where one of the reasons for the continued violence and war is the ongoing political assassinations that have occurred since the establishment of the State of Israel up to today.

Political assassination neither creates victory nor peace; it spreads fear and distrust, serving as a prelude to revolutionary acts of revenge. Fear is not exclusive to the weak but also to the strong, as a driving force behind their oppression is often a deep sense of fear.

Moreover, the strength of a resistance movement is not built by a single individual but is rather the product of a complex and diverse network of emotions, beliefs, ideologies, and convictions that generate military, human, and material power. The assassination of a single individual—whether a member or a leader—does not alter the core functioning of this network, which requires intellectual responses, moral projects, and peace and tolerance to properly absorb.

Israel’s overarching policy of political assassinations since its establishment has not brought it power. Rather, its strength is derived from just two factors: (1) American and Western support and (2) the internal religious and national conflicts among Arabs and Muslims. Beyond these, Israel is quite a fragile state with significant social weaknesses, especially due to its colonial nature. A detailed discussion on this would be extensive.

In general, wars are not won without good planning, military capability, adaptability, intelligent strategies that avoid creating excessive enemies or underestimating opponents, as well as social cohesion and a moral and ethical project to sustain oneself. Israel lacks most of these conditions. It consistently creates new enemies out of thin air, underestimates its opponents, and lacks a moral project that could prevent it from transgressing basic human norms and laws—such as killing children and women or committing acts of genocide.

In short: The Zionist policy of political assassination is not only morally and humanly flawed but also politically and militarily flawed. It represents one of the significant weaknesses of this entity and will eventually lead to its demise—whether by ending the occupation and achieving Palestinian independence, or by resulting in the destruction of the Israeli state itself through horrific massacres. Personally, I do not support the latter model, as I do not advocate massacres against civilians. The end of the occupation would suffice as a result of this Zionist recklessness, allowing for peace that we have been denied for the 76 years of Israel's existence.

-----

There's an additional model I'd like to bring to your attention: the case of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was assassinated in 2020.

Practically speaking, the Revolutionary Guard struck Israel twice after the man's assassination, and the transfer of lethal missiles to Yemen and Iraq also occurred after his death, not during his lifetime.

In essence, Soleimani's assassination did not weaken the Revolutionary Guard.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:00 AM by royce

[Nivsch]

30 minutes ago, royce said:

In short: The Zionist policy of political assassination is not only morally and humanly flawed but also politically and militarily flawed.

The thing is that when a murdering is done in the opposite direction those people would justify it as a natural way of resistance, but at the same time they fail to see the survival situation of the side they don't like, and they just choose to see everything it does as 'artificial', manipulative or evil, but this is a psychological bias that stems from their prejudices on it and the fact this side feels very stranger to them, and not from reality.

Edited yesterday at 12:04 AM by Nivsch

[Bufo Alvarius]

This was spot on:

 

[zazen]

23 hours ago, Nivsch said:

The issue IS complex. You just see the West as a spirit-less unauthentic unnatural entity (whereas the Palestinians and Arabs as the only natural, organic, wisdom based...) and this subconscious view is projected now on every little thing Israel does or did. But this by itself is an artifical and biased view of course.

It’s complex in that it’s hard to resolve due to geopolitics, logistics and power interests. But it’s simple in terms of moral clarity.

You can have moral clarity on a issue while acknowledging its broader geopolitical and logistical complexity.

Take the following:

“Imagine if in America, Native Americans were not integrated into the country’s democracy but were sidelined instead. Then, when they demanded a state of their own due to being unwanted, they were denied even that possibility. When they resisted, they were labeled and gaslit as terrorists.”

Is there any moral complexity in this? In denying people entry into your state but also keeping them from having their own with the use of violence?

Most societies agree that theft is wrong (moral clarity) whether it’s small scale (personal goods) or large scale (land and property). But we can also recognise the complexity in solving those issues like addressing inequality and increasing opportunities.

I’m not anti-West, I’m an anti-naughtiness.

[PurpleTree]

27 minutes ago, zazen said:

It’s complex in that it’s hard to resolve due to geopolitics, logistics and power interests. But it’s simple in terms of moral clarity.

You can have moral clarity on a issue while acknowledging its broader geopolitical and logistical complexity.

Take the following:

“Imagine if in America, Native Americans were not integrated into the country’s democracy but were sidelined instead. Then, when they demanded a state of their own due to being unwanted, they were denied even that possibility. When they resisted, they were labeled and gaslit as terrorists.”

Is there any moral complexity in this? In denying people entry into your state but also keeping them from having their own with the use of violence?

Most societies agree that theft is wrong (moral clarity) whether it’s small scale (personal goods) or large scale (land and property). But we can also recognise the complexity in solving those issues like addressing inequality and increasing opportunities.

I’m not anti-West, I’m an anti-naughtiness.

Nice try but not a very great comparison.

Because around Palestine are countries with 100 of Millions of Muslims and Arabs. While in your example of America it’s the opposite. And many Israelis fear that Palestine as a state would eventually become dangerous to them with support of Iran etc. 

There are almost 20 % Muslims living in Israel. Imagine if the US had 20% American Indians. And countries with Billions of Americas Indians around them. They would have never allowed that or integrated them.
 
 

Edited yesterday at 08:12 AM by PurpleTree

[PurpleTree]

 

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

It’s complex in that it’s hard to resolve due to geopolitics, logistics and power interests. But it’s simple in terms of moral clarity.

You can have moral clarity on a issue while acknowledging its broader geopolitical and logistical complexity.

Take the following:

“Imagine if in America, Native Americans were not integrated into the country’s democracy but were sidelined instead. Then, when they demanded a state of their own due to being unwanted, they were denied even that possibility. When they resisted, they were labeled and gaslit as terrorists.”

Is there any moral complexity in this? In denying people entry into your state but also keeping them from having their own with the use of violence?

Most societies agree that theft is wrong (moral clarity) whether it’s small scale (personal goods) or large scale (land and property). But we can also recognise the complexity in solving those issues like addressing inequality and increasing opportunities.

I’m not anti-West, I’m an anti-naughtiness.

But the distinction in our situation between the more native ones and the 'colonizers' is a false distinction to begin with since both sides are euqally native to this land if you zoom out enough and examine the real larger context and how the dots are connected very well when you see the great timeline and how the national karma works.

Edited yesterday at 08:58 AM by Nivsch

[zazen]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

Nice try but not a very great comparison.

Because around Palestine are countries with 100 of Millions of Muslims and Arabs. While in your example of America it’s the opposite. And many Israelis fear that Palestine as a state would eventually become dangerous to them with support of Iran etc. 

There are 20-40 % Muslims living in Israel ( too lazy to look up the numbers) imagine if the US had 30% American Indians. They would have never allowed that or integrated them.
 
 

That’s exactly the point - these demographic and security issues are where the geopolitical/logistical complexity come from. But that doesn’t negate the underlying moral injustice at the core - which is to deny a people inclusion into your state or exclude them from having their own if you don’t want them to be a majority demographically in your own.

Israel’s constant refrain about security threats from neighboring countries while valid to an extent, doesn’t make it special. Every country lives with the reality of potential conflict. India and Pakistan, China and India, even Germany and France - all of them have histories of violence, yet they coexist as sovereign nations.

What makes Israel different? It’s not security, it’s entitlement. The idea that Israel alone gets to deny an entire people their right to self-determination because they might be dangerous in the future is pure hypocrisy.

We face risks every time we walk out the door, but we don’t lock up or strip away the rights of everyone just because danger might exist. So why should Israel be any different? The moral clarity here is simple: denying people their freedom and using fear as an excuse to do it is unjust, no matter how complex the geopolitical web gets.

Edited yesterday at 09:02 AM by zazen

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But the distinction in our situation between the more native ones and the 'colonizers' is a false distinction to begin with since both sides are euqally native to this land if you zoom out enough and examine the real larger context and how the dots are connected and the national karma works.

It's valid to acknowledge that Jews have a historical connection to Palestine.

But that doesn't give them the right to kick everyone else off the land.

Jews purchased about 11% of the Palestinian land when they arrived. That's legit and fine. No one disputes that. But that's a far cry from the 80%+ of the land which they now own and the remaining 20% which they de facto militarily govern.

One possible solution to this whole crisis would be if Jews offered to buy out Palestinians handsomely. At least then Palestinians could move elsewhere and not live in abject poverty.

Edited yesterday at 09:10 AM by Leo Gura

[zazen]

12 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But the distinction in our situation between the more native ones and the 'colonizers' is a false distinction to begin with since both sides are euqally native to this land if you zoom out enough and examine the real larger context and how the dots are connected very well when you see the great timeline and how the national karma works.

Even if we put aside the debate on who’s native or not, that’s exactly the point - if both sides are equally native then both have equal claim to rights and dignity within that territory. If they don’t want to live together and want to slice up their own states that’s fine too - just don’t try to justify denying the other natives what’s theirs and morally grandstand about it which is what really rubs people the wrong way and what the West excel at.

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, zazen said:

What makes Israel different? It’s not security, it’s entitlement. The idea that Israel alone gets to deny an entire people their right to self-determination because they might be dangerous in the future is pure hypocrisy.

I say it’s because it’s pretty new and chose to be in a "bad" neighbourhood.

It is just different times after WW2. And then especially with all the movements in the latter half of the century. Hippie, civil rights, geneva convention and so on

Both sides are entitled and stubborn and quote their silly books and history, which obviously doesn’t help. 

[Nivsch]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's valid to acknowledge that Jews have a historical connection to Palestine.

But that doesn't give them the right to kick everyone else off the land.

Jews purchased about 11% of the Palestinian land when they first arrived. That's legit and fine. No one disputed that. But that's a far cry from the 80%+ of the land which they now own and the remaining 20% which they de facto militarily govern.

I understand this is unequal and unfair, and this is why I think for now that a demiltarized Palestinian state aside to Israel is the right thing to try.

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

One possible solution to his whole crisis would be if Jews agreed to buy out Palestinians handsomely. At least then Palestinians could move elsewhere and not live in abject poverty.

All of them to leave?

I assume some of them will agree but some will want to stay since they feel connection to here what its ok and this solution seems good as it will also help to improve how they see the Jews.

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But that's a far cry from the 80%+ of the land which they now own and the remaining 20% which they de facto militarily govern.

Physically I am not sure these are the correct numbers because West Bank is as big as the entire inhabited area of Israel (minus West Bank) especially when you add to that the fact this is a completely mountainous area what increases dramatically its surface area. Still not symmetric because Jews inhabitate part of it.

But in terms of sovereignty the distribution is unequal and unfair of course.

Edited yesterday at 09:41 AM by Nivsch

[PurpleTree]

But i do "think" that in a way Israel as a project is really bad for the west consciously und subconsciously.

Because other countries like Russia, China, Islamic world can always point out the hypocrisy and they are right. It’s like human rights go out the door.

Also these "should" be more peaceful times especially for the "west" but were stuck in these endless conflicts.

Which is a pity because Israel is a nice country.

[Rafael Thundercat]

I am following some instagramers who deal with the topic of descolonization and is interrestesting to see how controvertial this topic and the people talking about it is. For example in this insta reel about the assasination of Hezbollah Leader.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAi2bN-yY2w/?igsh=MmthaHJ6N2dqbzN6

 

[zazen]

30 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I say it’s because it’s pretty new and chose to be in a "bad" neighbourhood.

It is just different times after WW2. And then especially with all the movements in the latter half of the century. Hippie, civil rights, geneva convention and so on

Both sides are entitled and stubborn and quote their silly books and history, which obviously doesn’t help. 

India can make the same case that its in a bad neighbourhood, flanked by two nuclear countries, or South Korea by one. We don’t see India or the Koreas acting the way Israel does - they navigate those tensions like every other country. Israel is unique in its disregard for International law and Geneva convention violations in how they commit them so brazenly with arrogance. Just see Israel’s UN speech and Irans - and they see who is the one speaking of peace and who of war, and who speaks with such arrogance and mocks the UN.

Israel officially isn’t nuclear yet have the Samson option that threatens nuclear strikes as a last resort - no other country would be allowed to exist with such nuclear ambiguity.

If someone wins a lottery worth a million dollars, are denied those millions dollar, then go on to pursue it - are they entitled or just obtaining what’s rightfully theirs? If we don’t want Palestinians to so fervently pursue statehood, we shouldn’t have made it their right enshrined in international law - that’s not entitlement, that’s just them pushing their legal right.

Edited yesterday at 09:46 AM by zazen

[PurpleTree]

9 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

But i do "think" that in a way Israel as a project is really bad for the west consciously und subconsciously.

Because other countries like Russia, China, Islamic world can always point out the hypocrisy and they are right. It’s like human rights go out the door.

Also these "should" be more peaceful times especially for the "west" but were stuck in these endless conflicts.

Which is a pity because Israel is a nice country.

It also causes division inside of the West. Some countries supporting, some countries speaking out. But also inside countries, campuses etc.

[Hatfort]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's valid to acknowledge that Jews have a historical connection to Palestine.

But that doesn't give them the right to kick everyone else off the land.

Jews purchased about 11% of the Palestinian land when they arrived. That's legit and fine. No one disputes that. But that's a far cry from the 80%+ of the land which they now own and the remaining 20% which they de facto militarily govern.

One possible solution to this whole crisis would be if Jews offered to buy out Palestinians handsomely. At least then Palestinians could move elsewhere and not live in abject poverty.

Purchasing lands in a foreign country may give you some rights as a private owner, but not the right to make your own country. If a big group of Chinese people bought a significant part of Namibia, they wouldn't get the right to their own state, that's not how it works. At most they could get to live there as immigrants and abide by the laws there.

Zionists may have purchased a part of Palestine while it was the British Empire, but that doesn't make it less Palestine either. If a group of Japanese had bought 10% of Chad from the French Empire, once decolonized, they wouldn't have the right to establish their colony there showing legal papers of their purchase.

Palestine wasn't empty, it had to be ethnically cleansed with violence so people from foreign countries could establish in there. Israel is a colony, an ethnostate created by and for foreign people without any consideration for the natives that have been relegated to a minority in some places as best, an apartheid system livelihood the second best, an open-air prison life the third, and being massacred at last, and like that for decades, not only now. It's not acceptable, the international community has and is failing. It's only possible because the USA enables it with its money and weapons. In Biden's words, if there wasn't an Israel they would have to invent it, it's unfortunately a strategically valuable point for them in economic geopolitics for many reasons, so there is that too. This is what's happening.

[Nivsch]

@Hatfort The language and terminology the anti Israeli groups use just make it impossible for the brain to break it down to undistorted components. I do not know how to even answer to that and from where to start because the problematic ties inherent in it are so many and vast.

Edited yesterday at 10:41 AM by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Purchasing lands in a foreign country may give you some rights as a private owner, but not the right to make your own country. If a big group of Chinese people bought a significant part of Namibia, they wouldn't get the right to their own state, that's not how it works.

Of course, but there could be a negotiation to make it so that Israel could buy land to annex to its state in exchange for something good for the Palestinians.