New War In Israel / Gaza

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Alex M said:

I guess the same could be said for many of the now defunct islamic militant organisations.

Sure. How could you destroy an idea? Just with better ideas 

[Lila9]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Palestinian terrorism is morally justified as their only defense for all the Muslims and many of westerns.

It isn't justified. Nothing justify killing people for the sake of killing. If you can't see Hamas for what it is, I feel sorry for you.

28 minutes ago, Nabd said:

Hamas is an Islamic resistance movement funded by Israel and Iran. They don't care about Palestinians.

This is a conspiracy.

[PurpleTree]

@Lila9 thoughts on the settler issue?

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Nabd said:

It's true though. They funded Hamas to counter balance Arafat which was a nightmare for Israel because the PLO were secular.

Ilan Pappé, an Israeli historian wrote about it.

Check this video which sum it up: 

 

Well if that’s true then palestinians should see that and bring plo back to power. Why do you think you can see it but palestinians can’t. I call bs

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

isn't justified. Nothing justify killing people for the sake of killing. If you can't see Hamas for what it is, I feel sorry for you.

I'm not saying that I personally justify it, I'm saying that it is morally justified from the point of view of being legitimate defense for millons of people. It is what they think, for them Israel is attacking them and since they do not have the capacity for a direct confrontation, they resort to terrorism. Israel, seeing itself attacked, bombs Gaza and also kills.

Hamas' way of killing is cruel and horrible, but bombing a city is also cruel, or cutting off electricity in hospitals. Everyone thinks their actions are legitimate and necessary.

The point is that Israel cannot continue expanding without consequences, nor have a fanatical religious ideology with fanatics more radical than the Islamists and consider itself the moral and good part.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Lila9]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

And what about the settlers, they aren‘t a problem?

It's not ok either. They don't respect the agreement, they are extremities and very ideological but at least they don't perform what Hamas does.

 

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

9 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

It's not ok either. They don't respect the agreement, they are extremities and very ideological but at least they don't perform what Hamas does.

 

 

 

The settlements are aggression and a mockery. In Israel there is more and more extremism, politicians who openly talk about expansion, the other day it was said that this fight is against human animals.

Where is the side of justice here? The murderers of child rapists are not on that side. Are those who bomb a city and cut off electricity to hospitals? Who has the theft of land from another country in their program? Who allowed the terrorist to get in to have a reason to destroy? I don't think things are clear at all.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, but the Palestinians could say that they have to attack to prevent Israel's expansion. Israel does not attack, it expands, and that for the Palestinians is an attack. The solution begins by dismantling the colonies in the West Bank. If they did that, they would have the morality in their side, but as long as they continue to spread in the West Bank and vote for governments that have expansion in their program, Palestinian terrorism is morally justified as their only defense for all the Muslims and many of westerns.

You can make an argument that some forms of terrorism or military action against your oppressors is justified, but certainly not what Hamas did. We also know that Hamas is not interested in the emancipation of the palestinian people.

When the poles were genocided by the germans, violent resistance was justified. What was not justified was to go around to intentionally kill german civilians, including targetting infants, to provoke some sort of holy a war. If the polish resistance had acted that way, they would have rightfully been called out for losing their humanity, and therefore having lost any moral ground they stood on.

 

Be careful that in the process of fighting monsters, you yourself do not become one too.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Scholar

[Lila9]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I'm not saying that I personally justify it, I'm saying that it is morally justified from the point of view of being legitimate defense for millons of people. It is what they think, for them Israel is attacking them and since they do not have the capacity for a direct confrontation, they resort to terrorism. Israel, seeing itself attacked, bombs Gaza and also kills.

Hamas' way of killing is cruel and horrible, but bombing a city is also cruel, or cutting off electricity in hospitals. Everyone thinks their actions are legitimate and necessary.

The point is that Israel cannot continue expanding without consequences, nor have a fanatical religious ideology with fanatics more radical than the Islamists and consider itself the moral and good part.

Yes but Hamas' goal is not to defend Palestinians but sacrifice Palestinians and kill Jews for the sake of their Islamic ideology. There is a difference between defending when attacked and between killing innocent people for the sake of making some ideology come true. Hamas are like the Israeli settlers but much more extreme and dangerous. Israeli settlers are innocent children near Hamas.

History shows that Israel doesn't attack Palestine out of no where. And when Israel attacks it's because it gets attacked by Palestine. Hamas knows very well that when it attacks Israel, Israel attacks it in return. Hamas are not an innocent army defending their nation, they are cynically using their nation as a human sheild for the sake of their ideology. And if they deliberately put their people as sheild, it's not Israel's problem. Israel is already do it's best to make sure that innocent civilians wouldn't suffer.

If Israel was the one initiating attacks on innocent Palestinians, making suicidal terror in Palestine while Palestine have an army that do everything to defend it's nation, like the IDF, that was another story but it's not the case. 

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

If Israel was the one initiating attacks on innocent Palestinians, making suicidal terror in Palestine while Palestine have an army that do everything to defend it's nation, like the IDF, that was another story but it's not the case

Yes, All of this is perfect if you leave the illegal settlements, stop expanding and prohibit expasionist ideologies within the government. If you don't do that, you are also an aggressor. 

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

When the poles were genocided by the germans, violent resistance was justified. What was not justified was to go around to intentionally kill german civilians, including targetting infants, to provoke some sort of holy a war.

They do this because they do not have the capacity to attack military targets and their intention is to cause as much damage as possible, because they want a total conflict, killing and dying because for them an intolerable abuse is being committed towards their nation and they don't want to curl up in bed crying calling for mom, I'm not saying that it justifies it, but that's how they see it. It seems absolutely disgusting and horrible to me, but cutting off water and electricity and bombing a city is just as disgusting.

The Israelis will say: yes, of course, but if we go directly to fight in the streets, many soldiers will die. so we bombed and cut off electricity in hospitals. Ok, perfect, then we burn children alive because if we go with the paragliders against a military barracks we make a fool of ourselves. party of inhumanity without barriers. The only barrier Israel has is public opinion. without this barrier, genocide and expulsion of all Palestinians and creation of the great Israel, without the slightest doubt

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

They do this because they do not have the capacity to attack military targets and their intention is to cause as much damage as possible, because they want a total conflict, killing and dying because for them an intolerable abuse is being committed towards their nation and they don't want to curl up in bed crying calling for mom, I'm not saying that it justifies it, but that's how they see it. It seems absolutely disgusting and horrible to me, but cutting off water and electricity and bombing a city is just as disgusting.

The Israelis will say: yes, of course, but if we go directly to fight in the streets, many soldiers will die. so we bombed and cut off electricity in hospitals. Ok, perfect, then we burn children alive because if we go with the paragliders against a military barracks we make a fool of ourselves. party of inhumanity without barriers. The only barrier Israel has is public opinion. without this barrier, genocide and expulsion of all Palestinians and creation of the great Israel, without the slightest doubt

This is a good example of people being completely captured by the narrative of Hamas being some sort of authentic expression of palestinian resistance. Which is precisely what they want so they can continue to use Palestinians as cannon-fodder for their holy war.

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This is a good example of people being completely captured by the narrative of Hamas being some sort of authentic expression of palestinian resistance. Which is precisely what they want so they can continue to use Palestinians as cannon-fodder for their holy war.

You haven't understood me, I'm not saying that that is my opinion, I am saying that that is the Palestinian point of view and that of millions of Muslims around the world. If Israel wants to be the reasonable part with justice on its side, it has it very easy: abandon illegal settlements, prohibit expansionist doctrine, promote the two-nation solution. then there will be a civilized side and a barbaric side. but right now it's not like that

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You haven't understood me, I'm not saying that that is my opinion, I am saying that that is the Palestinian point of view and that of millions of Muslims around the world. If Israel wants to be the reasonable part with justice on its side, it has it very easy: abandon illegal settlements, prohibit expansionist doctrine, promote the two-nation solution. then there will be a civilized side and a barbaric side. but right now it's not like that

Muslims around the world don't give a shit about the palestinians. None of them will accept them in their own countries, and when they did they expelled them because the palestinians started biting the hand that fed them. The only reason why muslims care about this issue is because it is the jews who are committing the atrocities, not any other reason.

I just can't engage with you people anymore. Your brains are basically just a social media trained outrage-blame machines. There is no conversation to even be had.

You lost the plot. Your only priority is to put all blame on Israel, and if you have to frame Hamas and their terrorist attack as some sort of outburst of the palestinian people and conflate the Gazans with these barbarians, you will do so. You will encourage the palestinians to fight this senseless war, just like Hamas wants, and rather than doing what will lead to peace, you will do what you believe to be righteous. And of course, the palestinians are going to be the ones who suffer primarily as a result. Netanyahu would be proud that you basically do exactly what he would have wanted you to.

You are actually not that different from Hamas, this is just an ideological war for you.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Scholar

[Breakingthewall]

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Muslims around the world don't give a shit about the palestinians. None of them will accept them in their own countries, and when they did they expelled them because the palestinians started biting the hand that fed them. The only reason why muslims care about this issue is because it is the jews who are committing the atrocities, not any other reason.

I just can't engage with you people anymore. Your brains are basically just a social media trained outrage-blame machines. There is no conversation to even be had.

You lost the plot. Your only priority is to put all blame on Israel, and if you have to frame Hamas and their terrorist attack as some sort of outburst of the palestinian people and conflate the Gazans with these barbarians, you will do so. You will encourage the palestinians to fight this senseless war, just like Hamas wants, and rather than doing what will lead to peace, you will do what you believe to be righteous. And of course, the palestinians are going to be the ones who suffer primarily as a result. Netanyahu would be proud that you basically do exactly what he would have wanted you to.

You are actually not that different from Hamas, this is just an ideological war for you.

I'm just trying to understand a conflict by putting myself in the shoes of both sides. To think that one is completely right in this case is unrealistic. I repeat the obvious: the illegal settlements, the expansionist ideology, the fanaticism of the ultra-Orthodox who look to the Bible to draw borders. Israel must erase all that to be the civilized part, now it is not. having fanatics who look at the borders in Torah in the government is not civilized, it is irrational and creates religious war. one of the sides must be civilized, fair, humane. If not, it's a war between barbarians with only one reason: who is stronger. One side is less barbarian, ok, but with fanatics that want expansion for biblic reasons. Craziness. deny Palestinian statehood. what reason for this?

Edited October 16, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Scholar]

Excellent journalism from germany:

https://zeitung.faz.net/faz/feuilleton/2023-10-14/0480b6c57ef295b7a009bda12056a47d/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-de-de

Quote

The recent Hamas massacres in Israel have been a painful reminder of the destructive power that jihadist violence can unleash. But not all arguments used to legitimize hatred of Israel come from religious thought. The accusation of “apartheid” has been a favorite of left-wing enemies of the Jewish state for decades. Not only, but especially those forces that have legitimized Hamas's genocidal violence in recent days as an alleged “liberation struggle” are resorting to it. This article aims to clarify and historically classify the obfuscating accusation of “apartheid”.

There is a conflict in Israel/Palestine that has been going on for a hundred years and has not yet found a solution. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was the result of Israeli-Arab wars that posed existential threats to Israel. Israel's main interest is security, and for the political right, territorial expansion in the West Bank. The Palestinian population is seen as a security risk and disruptive factor for the Jewish character of the country, not as a subject of exploitation based on “racial segregation”. The Palestinian Authority exists in the West Bank, which was intended as a step on the path to independence. The failure of this process has led to the current nature of the occupation.

The accusation of apartheid comes from the rhetoric of the Cold War. In the age of decolonization, the accusation of “apartheid” became a catchphrase for the supposedly purely Western phenomenon of racist caste societies. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Third World ideologues and Palestinian intellectuals labeled Israel, along with South Africa, an “apartheid state” and a “settler colony.” The terms were deliberately used to link Israel with South Africa as the beacon of a Western colonial crime. This is how talk of Israel's apartheid reached the “anti-imperialist” Western left as an article of faith.

First Jewish, then democratic

The accusation of apartheid within Israel's international borders is an absurd exaggeration. The political scientist Samy Smooha classifies Israel as an “ethnic democracy”. The Israeli constitutional lawyer Suzie Navot defines: “Israel is first a Jewish state, then a democratic state. And that is the right order.” The political supremacy of the Jewish people is an integral part of Israel’s constitutional reality. At the same time, in Israel, equal individual rights apply to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity and religion. The rights of the Arab minority are not at the level that they demand (for example, the Arab education system is massively disadvantaged compared to the Hebrew one).

But elsewhere the reality is often complex. The catastrophic infrastructure in annexed East Jerusalem has to do with local politics' open bias against the Arab population there, but also with the unresolved status of the city: To this day it is unclear which parts will permanently belong to Israel. In addition, the Arab population of East Jerusalem rarely exercises Israel's right to vote, which limits their ability to exert influence. In fact, electoral politics has often been a weakness of the Jewish state in relation to its minorities: ultra-right governments such as that under Menachem Begin in the 1980s and Netanyahu's coalition with the extremist fringe, which was formed in 2023, have often caused concrete deterioration in the political situation of non-Jewish people Israel and the occupied territories means.

Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the Arab minority that stemmed from Israel's uncertain early days have largely disappeared over time. After the founding of the state, the Arab population of Israel was under military administration and enjoyed only limited freedom of the press and voting rights. Equality has existed since the end of military administration in 1968, and the tolerance of Israeli democracy towards anti-Zionist Arab parties is considerable.

“Domination by one racial group over another”

The apartheid accusation mostly focuses on the occupied West Bank. The conditions there are called “one-state reality”: the West Bank is effectively annexed by Israel. Military law that restricts basic rights still applies to Palestinians, and Israeli civil law applies to settlers. The occupation is therefore a system of “domination by one racial group over another” and apartheid according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The BDS movement puts them at the center of their calls for a boycott. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Israeli B'Tselem also share this view.

Nevertheless, it remains problematic. There is no agreement about what exactly constitutes “apartheid”. The conditions in the occupied West Bank? That's not enough for many people. Across Israel, according to Amnesty International? Or is it the mere existence of a Jewish state, as Arab nationalism has claimed, to deny Judaism its status as a nation? Above all, however, security interests remain a dominant criterion in Israeli politics to this day, as recent events undoubtedly show. The “one-state reality” thesis assumes that there is a plan for the permanent oppression of the Palestinians. But the current situation can also be traced back to the failure of Israel's serious peace efforts. If these had been successful, the question of “apartheid” would no longer arise.

The only apartheid state

Racism and discrimination exist in many countries. The term “apartheid” could also be applied to the situation of guest workers in some Gulf states or Palestinians in Lebanon. But that almost never happens. Israel is virtually the only state that is accused of “apartheid”. The accusation is almost always aimed at branding Israel as a “settler-colonial foreign body”. The milieus of “Palestine solidarity” around the BDS movement unanimously move from accusations of apartheid to calls for the disappearance of the state of Israel “from the river to the sea”. The fact that this means a secular Palestine “for everyone” is exposed when the same milieu justifies or applauds the atrocities of Hamas. The words of those who delegitimize Israel as an apartheid state are also followed by actions. As long as that is the case, there will and must be little openness to compromise in Israel.

Ideology makes the difference. The more interesting comparison between the Israel/Palestine conflict and the history of South Africa is therefore that between the African National Congress (ANC) and Hamas. The former and their allies committed a series of attacks against the white ruling class during the thirty years of illegality between 1960 and 1990. The total number of deaths is estimated at under 200. Most of the attacks were directed against material targets. Violence against people was never legitimized in the ANC's statutes. White South Africans remained welcome as members. Nelson Mandela became a global icon of non-violent resistance.

The hatred runs deep

The incomparable ideology of Hamas, on the other hand, is currently visible in all its horror. It is understandable that generations of Palestinians raised in poverty and with minimal political rights are vulnerable to radicalization. But that doesn't necessarily lead to brutal crimes. The ANC carried civilization through the fight against an uncivilized system through loyalty to a humanistic worldview. In contrast, the lowest instincts (murderous desire, contempt for humanity, demonization) are not contained in the Islamist ideology of Hamas, but are intensified.

The ideology of the unconditional fight against “the Jews” has its roots as early as 1920, but has become particularly deeply embedded in Palestinian political identity in modern Islamism. The secular PLO, which had moved closer to the idea of coexistence between 1973 and the negotiations with Israel in 1991, also lost its power because of the religious extremist wave in the Arab world from the 1980s onwards. Recent events clearly show that no Jewish Israeli is safe from the death cult of jihadism.

Tom Dürremann is a Middle East scholar at the Heidelberg Center for Transcultural Studies

 

[zazen]

@Nabd This video corroborates your points on how industry and the private sector perpetuates chaos and profits. His videos are growing popular as snippets are being shared around social media recently.

 

 

[Scholar]

Reading some sane articles makes you realize just how far removed from reality the twitter discourse is, especially this delusional notion that palestinians don't have any other choice but to basically slaughter Israeli infants "for freedom". It's just so utterly ahistorical and ignorant of how actual emancipation movements have occured that you might as well dismiss anyone who continues to spout these nonsense talking points.

[Breakingthewall]

@Scholar  

that article devotes only two words to expansionism, none to the rejection of the two-nation solution, and none to the inclusion of religious fanatics in the Israeli government.

The thing is very obvious, Israel denies the existence of the Palestinian state and refuses to commit to stopping expansionism for biblical reasons. With that philosophy, war is assured. 

Maybe even admitting the state of Palestine and returning to legal borders, violence would continue, then Palestine would be completely responsible. now it's not, because expansionism is violence

Edited October 16, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Scholar]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Scholar  

that article devotes only two words to expansionism, none to the rejection of the two-nation solution, and none to the inclusion of religious fanatics in the Israeli government.

The thing is very obvious, Israel denies the existence of the Palestinian state and refuses to commit to stopping expansionism for biblical reasons. With that philosophy, war is assured. 

Maybe even admitting the state of Palestine and returning to legal borders, violence would continue, then Palestine would be completely responsible. now it's not, because expansionism is violence

Blame blame blame!

[Lila9]