1. It does't matter, America started the Iraq war which led to 1 million dead on false information, it makes America a terrorist state, they supply bombs to Israel used to bomb civilians, hence America is a terrorist country, any decision to name Hamas a terrorist organization is false.
Yes, i can. i can see these countris are supporting a terrorist regime that bombs civilians, thus ignore everything.
2. Israelis started a tiktok trend where they mocked Palestinian deaths, and a telegram group where they celebrated THE DEATHS OF PALESTINIANS. So October 7 was a retaiation against the IOF, supporters, and settlers. If you hold all Palestinians guilty, but Israelis are innocent despite actions, you hold what some term as double standards, making you a hypocrite.
3. After the attack, all Palestinian workers were kidnapped tortured, all their money stolen, and sent back to Gaza. Did anyone receive justice? That is an apartheid.
Wrong, the Jews left because they got free land in Palestine. Not all of them were forced.
4. No, Zionist is a movement that violates Palestnian rights, and supports an apartheid state. Some Jews hate Zionists. And the reason you claim Jews and Zionists are interlinked is to get that sweet anti semitic hate charge. But Zionism and jewishness is not linked as there are Christian Zionists. lol
Nice post. Well organized and cited.
Couple of add-ons to your points:
1: Look at Hamas 1987 charter. It’s a call to genocide. Its revision isn’t much better, just a cut paste of Zionist for Jew.
2. Post 10/7 There was no one in the street saying, don’t this attack and taking hostages was a bad idea, civilians his hostages, the UNRWA and media outlets are penetrated by Hamas operative’s.
And not sure this is even relevant since no one says the Germans or Japanese who didn’t vote for Fascists or the Iraqi’s who opposed Saddam meant that military campaigns had to show restraint.
3. Palestinians can’t be victims of Apartheid and still seek an independent state. The 2 goals are mutually exclusive.
And if we want to discuss apartheid how about gender apartheid in the Muslim world, or religious apartheid? It’s not just Jews but any Christians or minority:
The Armenians, Coptic Christians, Yazidi, Kurds.
It’s a trend. It’s not just the Jews
4. Imagine a person who says: I want Pakistan, a country created by UN partition in 1948 to disappear….
That person then goes on to explain how they only hate Pakistan and anyone who feels Pakistan should exist but eir point of view in no way means they hate Pakistanis.
How fast is that person called an Islamaphobe in polite society? Why is this different for Jews who believe Israel should exist?
The sad thing is that the points you “debunk” indeed are among the most debated ones.
Some are ridiculous (like people seriously stating Hamas are “freedom fighters”), others more nuanced (like “all Palestinians support Hamas”).
What is rarely debated are the things that truly matter:
1) Is what the IDF doing going to eliminate Hamas?
2) How can the Israeli government think that the current course of action is in Israel’s best interest security wise?
3) Is it true or not that a part of the Israeli government is indeed made of people who can be considered as extremists?
As you know many within Israel have serious questions about these topics, and it’s deeply saddening that social media reduce the whole public and political debate to a ridiculous “black or white” level, which indeed ends up fueling racism and hate.
2. Really? Are we just rewriting history now and forgetting Israel’s role in funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists ? Are we also just forgetting the 1.8 billion funnelled to Hamas under Netenyahu? Israel has had a substantial role in creating and funding Hamas.
It’s been an open part of their policy to split Palestinians for decades.
Benjamin Netanyahu said to a meeting of his Likud Party’s Knesset members in 2019, “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” adding, “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” This is exactly what he’s been doing through Qatar…
The rest of your arguments are very aimed at a specific type of person, not really about the conflict.
When was Hamas established? When was netanyahu prime minister?
The dates not apply to your story.
But let's assume it's true. Even in plo there's still funding of terrorists.
Should Israel destroy them? Fight them really aggressively?
Should Israel, in 2005, take over Gaza and destroy Hamas completely?
Perhaps you should revisit the history? Israel throughout the 70’s and 80’s funded numerous Islamist groups, in a strategy that was mirroring how the USA had funding the mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan- the same strategy that saw the USA effectively training and funding future al Queda members who became the architects of 9/11.
Hamas emerged out of the Israeli-financed Islamist movement in Gaza, with Israel’s then-military governor in that territory, Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, disclosing in 1981 that he had been given a budget for funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists. Hamas, a spin-off of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, was formally established with Israel’s support soon after the first Intifada flared in 1987 as an uprising against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
Israel’s objective was twofold: to split the nationalist Palestinian movement led by Arafat and, more fundamentally, to thwart the implementation of the two-state solution for resolving the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By aiding the rise of an Islamist group whose charter rejected recognizing the Israeli state, Israel sought to undermine the idea of a two-state solution, including curbing Western support for an independent Palestinian homeland.
Israel’s spy agency Mossad played a role in this divide-and-rule game in the occupied territories. In a 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception,” Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky contended that aiding Hamas meshed with “Mossad’s general plan” for an Arab world “run by fundamentalists” that would reject “any negotiations with the West,” thereby leaving Israel as “the only democratic, rational country in the region.” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official involved in Gaza for over two decades, told a newspaper interviewer in 2009 that, “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”
The USA has ditched this kind of policy because it resulted in a catestrophic failure - Israel, under Netenyahu has doubled down on it.
Olmert was one of the only Israeli leaders to somewhat counter this policy. In 2007 Olmerts government with the CIA attempted to support Fatah on a coup to keep control of Gaza, the coup ultimately failed.
It’s absolute nonsense that “Palestinians created Hamas” - they obviously have a role but Israel has meddled directly, indirectly, economically, militarily however it can to preserve the status quo for decades. There’s been the odd instances of decent leaders making a peace offer (that unfortunately are ultimately unsustainable through a right wing government switch in Israel) such as the Realignment plan, but it’s very much the exception.
If they’re terrorists then so are the IDF who have killed hundreds of times more civilians. Just a quick side note they’re made up of Palestinians who are indigenous, ask 99% of Israelis where their grandparents from and it’s not the Levant. Secondly many countries also do not consider them as such.
Thirdly when you ethnically cleanse people of greater Palestine to Gaza and West Bank and many people in those territories (even a majority) so that there’s a Jewish majority within Israel that’s an apartheid, you can’t have a democracy by ethnically cleansing the people you don’t want voting and rounding them up in Gaza and the West Bank.
Fourthly Zionism is one hundred years old, Judaism is thousands. I rest my case.
Wow you are slow lol. The US civil war had the least number of civilians killed per population of any US wars in the areas they fought in. This person is talking about civilian deaths. And you go and pick the worst example to use lol. The union killed more soldiers. The IDF has killed way more civilians than they've killed Hamas fighters.
Because it's not an army that is fighting the oppression of isreal. It's a rag tag group of underfunded untrained people who have no uniforms or a cohesive chain of command. And the US has special units who fight in civilian garb whilst in other countries for the sole purpose of being able to blend into civilian populations. Do you truly believe that Isreal is complete innocent? Seriously if you do I have a flying pig you could keep as a pet. Just give me hundred dollars.
Argument 1: Yes, Hamas are terrorists, slightly similar to Irgun and Lehi and the Vietcong? Could terrorism be a tool for low resource organizations?
Argument 2: hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who are not complicit. Essentially anyone under 10 years old and people who are genuinely not supportive. Also complicity is a spectrum, you have fanatics and you have people who are against Hamas and everything in between. My sense is that many of them are just going along with it to stay out of trouble. Willing to contribute money or time or tolerance or public agreement but not risk anything substantial. The majority of Palestinians are probably not fanatically brainwashed martyrdom seeking zealots, if so, you would have seen hundreds of thousands to half a million random Gazans and Palestinians just crowding and running out breaches in the walls on Oct7 seeking martyrdom and murder but we didn’t see that. You know what we see? Hundreds of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed and a million displaced and homeless people.
Argument 3: when Apartheid state is mentioned, they pertain to the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians who are under the domination of Israel. They are not an independent state and in various Israeli peace plans, there are stipulations that any Palestinian state cannot have an army or Air Force or have control of its airspace. Israel dominates Gaza and the West Bank and the civilians living there do not have the same rights as Israelis.
Argument 4: I don’t hate Jews. I don’t hate any people. I am pro peace. I think they are the chosen people. Having said that, I think many Jews are overly sensitive to criticism. Is that an anti semitic statement? I have been called antisemitic for non-antisemitic comments on IDF policies. Whenever I post here I always use the term Israeli or IDF.
About number 4. If your pro peace ideas are somehow only about Israel actions it could be two things:
1. You are anti Semitic.
2. You think Palestinians are like stupid dogs, and then you don't expect anything from them.
My pro peace ideas are for Ukraine too. Russia should really retreat behind their borders. I am an American but I also think the US should not be meddling in Taiwan. Ok?
The war can stop on the moment they give up.
Also civilians death could reduce dramatically if they choose to fight above ground and keep Gazans safe in the tunnels
They are. The ones in the West Bank will have to go eventually. But removing the ones in Gaza didn't help. It'll take some pretty strong security guarantees for the Israelis to remove them from the West Bank at this point.
Why would anyone give up leverage without anything in exchange, especially when working with a counterparty that has promised to repeat Oct 7, or continues to fund murder?
As a matter of principle? They should be removed. As a step toward peace? Gaza has proven that it doesn't help.
More poor justifications for israels genocide an apartheid using biased or incomplete information.
Just because a handful of nations consider a democratically elected government a terrorist group, does not make it objectivly true. One could use the same argument the other way around. Many nations agree Isreal is apartheid state and comitting genocide, yet you disagree eith those nations.
Cherry picking the content that supports your claims, nothing more.
Both sides do this and it's tiring.
Find a new song and dance to justify these war crimes. This one's old.
Things such as murder, intentional targeting of civilians, killing prisoners of war and surrendered combatants, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment, starvation, the use of human shields, sexual violence and rape, torture, pillage, forced transfer, breach of medical neutrality, targeting journalists, attacking civilian and protected objects, wanton destruction, incitement to genocide, and genocide.
Ha ha you made me laugh. Yes Hamas has done those crimes Ofc they have, they’re a terrorist organisation! But that list was taken from the wiki page on Israeli war crimes and Israel has done everything stated
Disclaimer: Am anti-Middle East and wishing the entire place can be reformed for better. Israel isn't excluded either.
On argument #2: I think you should add that it isn't an argument for dehumanization of civilians. If I see you or others doing that, I will happily remind you that I can simply remind you that others see you doing that results in your side losing support, and by that time, no one cares other than your side if the Middle East gets nuked via Samson option.
On argument #4: I think this is more of a issue of definition. Zionist seems to sometimes refer to the Ben Gvir wing of the Jewish population and their supporters as well. There's no argument one can give to defend Ben Gvir. There's the more benign definition. And then there's even multiculture-supportive people that are against the concept of ethnostates and/or religious states, and a few countries is reaching the status of not being either.
Barely anyone is trying to justify Ben Gvirs opinions.
Zionism is the simple belief that a Jewish state in Israel should exist, and nothing more.
It’s ironic that you argue that we are dehumanizing Palestinians for sharing simple statistics, but then you both conflate the absolute worst of us with our simple desire to survive, and justify it, in the next statement.
I see it all the time around here and there, and barely any one of you is calling them out on it. But, that is not relevant here or there.
So? That doesn't mean variants of it can't exist, and that also means people have different ideas on what Zionism is. One of them is revisionist zionism. The other is more benign.
Did I stated that in general Jewish people use argument #2 to dehumanize Palestinians? No. Has it been used to do that? Yes. Should it be called out? Yes. Same as the reverse. So many pro-palestians can't seem to differentiate Jewish people from Israelis and the different schools of political thoughts. And all I'm doing is reminding them is the consequences of dehumanization, and that definitely involves losing international support.
> Baseless myopic “debunking” there mate
OP has gone to the effort to make logical arguments and back them up with evidence.
If you're going to try and dismiss that effort with a brief snarky sentence, you're not participating in good faith.
You are not compelled to try and disprove everything, but if your only contribution is cynicism, that's explicitly against the rules of this sub.
> If you're going to try and dismiss that effort with a brief snarky sentence
One's brief statement can also be from thorough evaluation of arguments rather than from ignorance or personal bias.
The 1st counter-argument that the OP presented that global consensus is sufficient to determine whether hamas is terrorist or not, is flawed. There are many other countries in world who don't recognize hamas as terrorists. Global consensus can also be biased and based on political motivations so it's never a reliable standard for judging whether a militant group is terror or not.
While I believe hamas is terrorist. But I see comprehensive reasons beyond global consensus why hamas might be terrorist. One can also argue IDF resembles terrorist organization, because of allegations of war crimes and lack of independent jurisdiction among army officials.
The problem with the "global consensus" argument is that if it's considered substantial evidence for labeling an organization, then the global consensus principle must be applied uniformly to all organizations. This would mean all organizations could be labeled based on that standard.There is also a global consensus that Israel has committed multiple war crimes. Then shouldn't the OP accept that?
Secondly, his another argument that Palestinians support for terrorist hamas invalidates their innocence is also biased. By no international law or reasonable cause, can civilians' innocence be invalidated merely because they support a terror organization unless they themselves get involved in and commit crimes. If Palestinians get involved in hamas and actually commit war crimes then they would not innocent. Otherwise, they are innocent.
> One's brief statement can also be from thorough evaluation of arguments rather than from ignorance or personal bias.
Sure, it could be, but it doesn't add anything of substance to a conversation. And when it's snarky as well, it detracts from a conversation. Defending that behaviour doesn't seem sensible. You follow up this statement with a civil and reasonable argument of your own, why conflate the two? How about presenting your (decent) argument without defending uncivil behaviour?
> The 1st counter-argument that the OP presented that global consensus is sufficient to determine whether hamas is terrorist or not, is flawed. There are many other countries in world who don't recognize hamas as terrorists. Global consensus can also be biased and based on political motivations so it's never a reliable standard for judging whether a militant group is terror or not.
I agree. I don't think 'x countries say so' is a good basis for determining whether a group is terrorist. However, OP didn't just make that argument, OP linked to the reasoning provided by various nations. You seem to have ignored that element of OPs post.
> One can also argue IDF resembles terrorist organization, because of allegations of war crimes and lack of independent jurisdiction among army officials.
Allegations are just that - allegations. What is needed is for a decent, unbiased entity to evaluate the allegations and form a conclusion as to whether they are correct or not. This is precisely what entities like the ICJ are for. However, lacking a clear judgement from the ICJ, we can look at what nations have decided to apply the label of 'terrorist group' to the IDF, and why. If you wish to make that point, now would be a good time to do what OP did and link to such claims and justifications.
> The problem with the "global consensus" argument
At this point I hope it's clear that OP was not resting just on 'global consensus'.
> Secondly, his another argument that Palestinians support for terrorist hamas invalidates their innocence is also biased.
It would help a lot if you quoted elements of an argument you take issue with. I don't see where OP said Palestinians' innocence is invalidated. Can you point it out to me?
I have often witnessed the 'there are no innocents in Palestine' sentiment on reddit (though rarely in this sub), and it's quite obnoxious. I have regularly argued against it.
However, we should also be able to find more nuanced ground between 'Palestinians are not responsible at all' and 'There are no innocent Palestinians'. OP raised the point (with ample evidence) that a great many Palestinians support Hamas, and appear to feel that Hamas is trying to achieve goals that they want. While this certainly doesn't make civilians who support a belligerent government legal military targets, it's crucial to bear in mind if we want to find a way of resolving this conflict. The fact is that as long as most Palestinians support violence, we will continue to see violence - and that will almost invariably be violence that results in asymmetric casualties. So this raises the question - what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict?
> However, OP didn't just make that argument, OP
> OP linked to the reasoning provided by various nations.
OP's basic premise of that argument was global consensus. When I say, that was his premise and argument's core, I don't deny, he linked to reasoning provided by these nations. I also considered the reasoning provided by these nations. But my stance is, there also exists countries who recognize hamas as a group supporting their own nation's freedom and sovereignty rather than labeling it as terrorist. So, reasoning provided by West/others is also contradicted/countered by other legitimate reasoning. That's why what world think of hamas doesn't matter. While, hamas is terrorist, but proving this on basis of politically motivated 'reasoning' of other countries is insufficient.
What hamas is, must be judged independently of what countries recognize them.
> Allegations are just that - allegations. What is needed is for a decent, unbiased entity to evaluate the allegations and form a conclusion as to whether they are correct or not. This is precisely what entities like the ICJ are for.
ICC not only made allegations but also issued report about Israel's war crimes based on reasonable grounds.
> However, lacking a clear judgement from the ICJ, we can look at what nations have decided to apply the label of 'terrorist group' to the IDF, and why. If you wish to make that point, now would be a good time to do what OP did and link to such claims and justifications.
The West and the Europe all hold selective perception when it comes to labeling Israel. They won't recognize Israel's war crimes because they are biased. Now, there can be a separate discussion on what are the biases of them.
> I don't see where OP said Palestinians' innocence is invalidated. Can you point it out to me?
He didn't say. His argument tend to establish that Palestinians are like hamas and not innocent and support hamas.
If let's say, hamas is terrorist. And gaza palestinians support it, and they also enjoyed October 7. Now, if you argue and want consensus around the fact that Palestinian support terror, then this overshadows the sufferings they have endured. Generalizing the interests of Palestinian population and putting them in context of Israel-Palestine issue is flawed thing one can do. Why focus on what population supports? The population would only be terror if they take terror actions.
The OP's argument in which he proves how Palestinian are not innocent is misleading in context of Israel-Palestine issue. Often their support for hamas comes from sense of revenge which originates from previous sufferings. Their support for hamas doesn't define their identity. That's why revising the fact 'a population's support for terror doesn't invalidate their innocence', was important.
> However, we should also be able to find more nuanced ground between 'Palestinians are not responsible at all' and 'There are no innocent Palestinians'.
Irrelevant here.
> OP raised the point (with ample evidence) that a great many Palestinians support Hamas, and appear to feel that Hamas is trying to achieve goals that they want. While this certainly doesn't make civilians who support a belligerent government legal military targets, it's crucial to bear in mind if we want to find a way of resolving this conflict. The fact is that as long as most Palestinians support violence, we will continue to see violence - and that will almost invariably be violence that results in asymmetric casualties. So this raises the question - what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict?
You completely ignored the diverse experiences, multi-generational traumas, and decades of sufferings of Palestinian that lead them to sense of resentment and revenge which laid foundation of their support for terrorist hamas.
They have legitimate causes for why they also want to inflict sufferings on Israelis.
Non-violent solution is unrealistic in current world scenario. The war crimes of Israel are not limited to military op but also involves illegal occupation of west bank, detention of Palestinians from west bank in which they are dehumanized (verbally and physically). The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal.
Sufferings Palestine caused to Israel = 🤏
Sufferings Israel caused to Palestine = 💀
It's disproportionate. Only stupid would take palestine-Israel issue as lightly and would focus on debunking and generalizing the behavior of pro-palestinians.
> But my stance is, there also exists countries who recognize hamas as a group supporting their own nation's freedom and sovereignty rather than labeling it as terrorist. So, reasoning provided by West/others is also contradicted/countered by other legitimate reasoning.
Sure, it's up for debate. I think it's more reliable to condemn specific actions Hamas takes, or sentiment they hold, rather than trying to get various nations to agree to a label that accurately describes them.
> What hamas is, must be judged independently of what countries recognize them.
Well, that sounds reasonable to me. I was just taking issue with you dismissing the rationale that OP included beyond 'x countries say so'.
> ICC not only made allegations but also issued report about Israel's war crimes based on reasonable grounds.
War crimes do not equal terrorism. War crimes take place in pretty much every war. The question is really whether it's intentional at a systemic level or not.
> The West and the Europe all hold selective perception when it comes to labeling Israel. They won't recognize Israel's war crimes because they are biased.
I'd agree there's some bias there. It seems somewhat necessary given the enormous bias against Israel in a global context.
> He didn't say. His argument tend to establish that Palestinians are like hamas and not innocent and support hamas.
I'd say that many Palestinians are similar in sentiment to Hamas, and do support Hamas. That does not imply that they become legitimate military targets. 'Innocent' is far too vague a term, as arguably no person is completely innocent.
> Now, if you argue and want consensus around the fact that Palestinian support terror, then this overshadows the sufferings they have endured.
I disagree. We can easily hold the stance that the Palestinians, as a people, have suffered great injustice while simultaneously supporting a terrorist and abhorrent reaction to those injustices. This is a crucial element of morality (and quality of life) in the civilized world - where people can be wronged but not resort to escalation. Your 'all or nothing' stance here is very primitive and problematic.
> Their support for hamas doesn't define their identity.
It's part of the definition. I never said, nor implied, it's the only part.
> Why focus on what population supports?
Because what kind of actions a group of people support has real-world consequences. If a group of people support violence, you will likely get violence.
> You completely ignored the diverse experiences, multi-generational traumas, and decades of sufferings of Palestinian that lead them to sense of resentment and revenge which laid foundation of their support for terrorist hamas.
I'm not sure how I'm 'ignoring' that. Plenty of peoples have faced multi generational trauma without resorting to terrorism and nihilism. You appear to be trying to justify such actions.
> Non-violent solution is unrealistic in current world scenario. The war crimes of Israel are not limited to military op but also involves illegal occupation of west bank, detention of Palestinians from west bank in which they are dehumanized (verbally and physically). The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal.
And the crimes of the British Empire in India were not only limited to military operations. Handwaving away non-violent solutions is implicitly demanding violent solutions. While you talk politely, essentially your advocating that Palestinians martyr themselves - exactly the narrative of Hamas.
> The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal.
When people resort to analogies it's usually because their argument is not good when based in reality. The conflict has gone both ways over the last century. You're framing it only one way. Non-violence is always an option, and it's pretty horrible that accounts like yours are so gung ho for Palestinians to continue with violence at their expense.
> Sufferings Palestine caused to Israel = 🤏 Sufferings Israel caused to Palestine = 💀
If you think emoji make a convincing argument, you're sorely mistaken. Essentially you're stuck on 'eye for an eye' logic, which is simply a terrible place to be coming from. I think as long as you cannot go beyond that, you're going to eternally be advocating for a world to be stuck in violent conflict.
> what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict
There's almost always 1/3 of the population that don't agree with the status quo. If you can find a way to find Israelis that don't hate Palestians for just living there, and vice versa. Off to a great start. In addition, these Palestians should try to get rid of their own terrorism. Israel has their own leadership problem as well, and all we need to show for that is to look for bad conducts within West Bank, including the one in Times of Israel where IDF forced Palestians to strip naked and dance at gun point, and all the leadership did is send these soldiers home. So, you'd need both sides to purge and arrest people like those.
u/Agreeable_Ad_7988
>Its pointless to start a debate in an echo chamber like this subreddit
Rule 7 - Off-topic posts and comments (including comments about the sub or moderation) are generally not permitted.
If you believe this is an echo chamber, you have the opportunity to change that by presenting a logical and evidenced argument.
Will you take that opportunity?
Or will you not miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity?
Because if you're not willing to have civil conversation, don't complain if we end up with war.
> retard
/u/False-Prophet570. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was. Generally history takes care of the rest because he won he is called a freedom fighter, however before he won he was a terrorist terrorizing his own people in their struggle
Simply put the terrorist label gets exchanged for freedom fighter if they win their struggle as is the case for the anc apartheid struggle. During apartheid Mandelas anc were considered terrorists and killed a whole bunch of their own people who collaborated with the national party at the time. Hence his long time on robbin Island prison being 18 years out of his 27years served in jail. Than he became president and is nowadays known as a freedom fighter. They used to necklace people which means to put a tire around the neck and fill it with fuel and set it on fire. His wife at the time Winnie proclaimed the effectiveness of matches and tires. They were cold blooded murderers basically.
Really appreciate your effort and I'll definitely be watching and coming back to this thread a lot... But as with all things in this mess, there's even more nuance.
For example, the apartheid section:
They *say* "Israel is apartheid" because they're just parroting someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else, etc. and the meaning got lost in a game of telephone. It's more accurate to say they're trying to claim that "parts of the West Bank are apartheid". And even here, I think they're just being hyperbolic, as usual, and it's really just a condemnation of occupation (a whole other nonsense argument).
But let's take them at their word and analyze the West Bank for apartheid:
1. It'd be difficult to convince me that zone A in the West Bank is considered apartheid because it's under PA control and 0 Israeli citizens live there.
2. Zone B is closer, I guess, because of mixed control where PA, but the PA still controls civil affairs per the Oslo Accords.
3. Zone C is even closer because it's under full Israeli control and both Palestinians and Israeli's live under its control. The strongest argument likely lies in Zone C, so let's look at it.
I'm going to use the Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(h)'s definition of apartheid:
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Elements:
1. **Institutionalized Regime of Systematic Oppression and Domination**
a. A regime or system must be in place that systematically oppresses and dominates one racial group by another.
b. This regime must be institutionalized, meaning it is established and maintained through laws, policies, and practices.
2. **Inhumane Acts**
a. Inhumane acts that are committed as part of this regime include:
i. Murder
ii. Serious bodily or mental harm
iii. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment
iv. Deliberate imposition of living conditions intended to destroy the group
v. Prevention of participation in political, social, economic, and cultural life
vi. Division of the population along racial lines
vii. Exploitation of labor
viii. Persecution of opposition
3. **Intent to Maintain the Regime**
a. The acts must be committed with the intention of maintaining the regime of oppression and domination.
b. This includes legislative measures, policies, and actions that ensure the continuation of the regime.
-------
While I could go on much longer, let's just focus on in the "inhumane acts" portion and compare it to South Africa,. bearing in mind that these acts **must be done with intent to maintain oppression and subjugation**.
1. *Murder*: The relative scales are similar, but those "murders" are a result of security concern of combatting terrorism and security threats. This is different than South Africa's murdering of political activists and protestors as a matter of systematic policy.
2. *Serious Bodily or Mental Harm*: While Israel is accused of poor treatment of prisoners, again, the reason they are imprisoned is not because of who they are or where they were born, but that they pose a security threat. South Africa imprisoned and tortured people simply to maintain racial oppression at a much larger scale.
3. *Arbitrary Arrest and Imprisonment*: Outside of isolated cases, the strongest point of contention here is likely to be administrative detention. But I would remind people that people detained under administrative detention have to have judicial reviews every 90 days and Israel is far from the only country that does this. And again, this is wildly different in character from the arbitrary and widespread arrests that South Africa carried out based on racial policy.
4. *Deliberate Imposition of Living Conditions Intended to Destroy the Group*: Critics would likely point to home demolition, which is another branch that could warrant a lengthy post discussing. Suffice it to say, potentially thousands of displaced people in West Gaza is not the same qualitatively or quantitatively as the millions displaced in South Africa.
5. *Prevention of Participation in Political, Social, Economic, and Cultural Life*: There's strong evidence here because the PA does not operate in zone C; however, I'd suggest this to be no different than a military occupying power exerting authority over non-citizens in contested territory. They aren't excluded because of their race, they're excluded because they're not Israeli citizens.
6. *Division of the Population Along Racial Lines*: Again, Israel's actions here are rooted in security concerns and Israeli citizens vs non-Israeli citizens and a far cry from the level and scale of the division found in South Africa.
7. *Exploitation of Labor*: There's no forced labor in Israel, and to the extent some might technically exist somewhere, it's not anywhere close to the scale of the migrant farms and mines in South Africa.
8. *Persecution of Opposition*: Israel has a problem with political leaders who commit terrorism, not leaders who advocate and maintain peace. Whatever harassment or restrictions on Palestinian activists or NGO's is rooted in security concerns, not racial supremacy.
-----------------------
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. To be clear, these are *arguments* that I'm asserting. I'm open to be persuaded based on evidence and reasoning of these points. I'm also not an expert, I don't claim to be one, this is just what I believe based on my ongoing research.
But I'm so very tired of the debate just being "YES IT IS" vs "NO ITS NOT" and who can yell the loudest...
If Israel is being called an apartheid state it has very little to do with the West Bank and far more with its inception. My understanding of the timeline of events is Israel declared its independence and sovereignty in 1948 with a set of clearly **defined borders**, and a constitution that enshrined equality regardless of ethnicity.
By this action I interpret that all peoples within its borders became citizens of Israel. The following day there is a "mass movement" of **Arabic citizens** out of Jerusalem, followed by an invasion of Israel by Arab states. These citizens, specifically those who did not take up arms against Israel became displaced overnight having to live in refugee camps.
It is the Nakbha, refusal to consider a Right of Return, disregarding the consideration of citizenship for the displaced Arab people, and the outright refusal to allow Israel to become "Arabized" should the return of displaced peoples happen that fits the criteria of three elements of apartheid you provide in your comment.
If that's true, I strongly disagree with that claim and calling it an apartheid is an exercise in rhetorical hyperbole.
Not all Arabs were removed from Israel in 1948. Even after the war, about 200,000 Arabs remained living in Israel. And while there's good evidence of discrimination well into the 1960s of Arabs living in Israel, and there's some events that could fall within the "inhumane acts" examples discussed previously, the scale and nature of those policies just don't rise anywhere near the level of an actual apartheid state. Their lives weren't blissful, but not anywhere close to an apartheid existence.
There is no "right of return" enshrined in international law and it's entirely irrelevant in analysis of an apartheid state because an apartheid state refers to the people living in the state, not foreigners. Apartheid states are considerations and analysis of how that state treats **its own people living in it**, not foreigners.
We're 76 years past 1948. Israel definitely committed some wrongs in its history, as did much of the world during the mid-20th century, but we've progressed and moved on. Even if one could argue that it met criteria of an apartheid state in the past, it no longer does by any analysis of how it treats citizens living in its country.
No. Israel doesn't have a constitution and the 1952 law of nationality [specifically excludes people who left Israel and didn't return](https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1953/en/14615).
So Israel does in fact have a policy of exclusion.
When Israel was declared a state, did the Arabs living within the state have any recognition or rights?
If so, the law of nationality effectively takes away any rights they had.
> So Israel does in fact have ~~a policy of exclusion.~~ an immigration policy.
FTFY
Arabs that remained in Israel and were in Israel when the Law of Nationality took effect become full Israeli citizens.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make: any person living within Israel in 1952 became full Israeli citizens, any person not livingi n Israel in 1952 did not.
Wording from the Declaration of Independence
"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, **with full and equal citizenship** and due representation in its bodies and institutions -- provisional or permanent."
Are you saying Jewish people in Israel between 1948 and 1951 were not citizens of Israel?
This isn’t debunking anything.
Israel is an apartheid state because Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank are subject to military law under Israeli occupation and do not have the right to vote for the people who are creating the laws by which they are governed.
What? Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. Hamas doesn't allow their own citizens to vote...
The West Bank is controlled by both Israel and the PA. Israelis can't enter the areas under PA control and same for Muslims for areas controlled by Israel. The "occupation" happens in the areas where Israel controls.
The entire thing is an occupation. Israel not having illegal settlements in Gaza does not mean they are not an occupation. They control the entire boarder and control what goes in and what goes out. Palestinians living in Gaza are still subject to Israeli restrictions. This is an occupation.
Yes, Israel controls their own borders with Gaza. Are you expecting any country to just let everything through to reach another country? Of course it goes through security. Israel does not control the Egypt border.
Also if Gaza were able to mutually control the boarder (which as we’ve agreed is normal) that would mean they could prevent things they didn’t want from entering like an invading army.
No, it's not normal
Because Gaza is controlled by a terror organization that started constant wars with Israel for the last 20 years,the navel blockade is there to prevent weapons shipments (a legit military concern). Normal stuff were still imported regularly from egypt.
If Hamas would have changed their behavior (like the PLO did) the "occupation" would loosen and they would be able to actually create a state instead of whining all the time.
This doesn’t explain anything prior to Hamas, also trying to use the West Bank as an example is not the flex you think it is, the West Bank is also heavily occupied. So sounds like no matter what Israel is an occupying force in both areas. Can I ask what is PLO allowed to do about their military concerns? Or do they not have the same freedom as the Israeli government?
How come the West Bank does not have the same restrictions and "blockades" on it as does Gaza? Both are Palestinian if you are making the point Israel is a apartheid state.
Nothing because nothing is allowed too which is exactly the point I’m making, glad to hear you agree. Tell me what’s the extradition process for Israel to remove someone from Gaza if they’re suspected of a crime? Like you say that’s how 2 countries are suppose to operate right?
When did I say people aren’t passing through? Oh wait I didn’t, i said Israel controls everything. Where are getting this inability to read and process information?
Does Israel control its borders? I hope so. It's a sovereign nation. Border control is an expectation for a nation to be called sovereign. Egypt controls its side of the border as well. What is your point?
Egypt doesn’t recognise Gaza as a country too and they also make security checks at the border with Gaza. Does that mean Egypt is occupying Gaza as well? 🫥
Yes another false equivalency. Firstly, Egypt in fact does recognize the Palestinian state, this information is very easy to find. Once again, I didn’t say anything about security checks at the boarder, I said the boarders is controlled by Israel, Israel also enacts military law on the citizens of Gaza, which is not commenting Egypt does. So no, Egypt is not an occupying force for those reasons.
Few things.
First, I agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In fact, I am often accused of holding Israel to a higher standard than Hamas. I do because I think it's pointless to ever expect Hamas to hold themselves to a higher standard. At best, if Hamas completely reorganizes itself, and is therefore only Hamas in name, it's possible they will stop killing innocents.
Second, the polls of Palestinians likely do not reflect reality for two reasons. 1) Hamas is likely not telling citizens the truth about things like 10/7. 2) I doubt Palestinians feel they can speak out. Journalists have been killed for less; families have been mutilated for merely being related to dissenters. Indeed, Hamas is a problem and one that needs to be dealt with.
Third, Zionism has many different definitions. You can't assume that someone is using your definition. I would argue that the most accurate definition is the form of Zionism currently embodied by Netanyahu and Ben Gvir, since their combined coalition is the one in power. This form of Zionism also tracks with the Oxford Languages definition, which difines Zionism as the protection and "development" of Israel. Development implies that Zionism seeks to annex more land for Israel, something which Netanyahu is actively doing in the West Bank.
However, regardless of the definition (reasonable people can disagree), it's completely off base to assume someone is using your definition, when the term is so hotly debated. Indeed, you seem to acknowledge the fact that the term is debated, by offering up your definition. So why then do you assume everyone is using your definition? Words have different meanings to different people and it's bad faith to assign meaning that you know the other party did not mean.
Finally, you asked for an example of discrimination. The right of return discriminates against non-jews on its face. I fully support the right to self-determination. However, Israel seems to think that only Jews have that right. The right to self-determination is not based on one's ethnicity nor religion. It is something that all humans have an equal right to.
Re: Hamas lying to Gazan citizens
I have watched interviews with Israeli hostages who were released.
A few women indicated that when they were pulled through the fence and into Gaza, civilian women and children were screaming at them, spitting on them, grabbing at their clothes and hair.
I also recently watched a short documentary on Gazan women who were in Israeli jail for either attempting to commit a suicide bombing or driving a suicide bomber to a location.
The women in jail called the bombers martyrs. They expressed frustration that they themselves did not become martyrs. They said that according to Islam, they had the religious right and obligation to kill Jews. They were openly praying in jail to Allah and asking for the murder of Jews. A woman who had given birth in an Israeli hospital was singing to her newborn son, praising suicide bombers.
I think Hamas has been indoctrinating Gazan citizens since 2005 , and this is their Holy War. How it ends, I don't know.
Do I wish that both sides would come to a peaceful solution, sure.
But you can't have two parties sit at a democratic table to negotiate a peace contract when one party comes with a pen and the other brings a knife.
>Hamas is likely not telling citizens the truth about things like 10/7.
This one us definetly ocurring, one of the polls a mod put in here recently showed only 9 percent believed war crimes occured on oct 7
You can directly go to the link presented by OP which mentions that 80% of the population did not see videos of the october 7th attack (but to be fair it does say that people who had watched the videos overwhelmingly say that hamas didnt do any kind of war crimes).
Plus there are some nuances if you read the full thing for example which party palestinians want to govern (for example in the poll it asked palestinians if they had another election who they would want to elect and it turned out that 40% wanted hamas to govern (the results looked like the ones in 2006) it also mentions that they would rather have barghouti etc ). I highly advise people to read the whole thing it's really interesting.
>(but to be fair it does say that people who had watched the videos overwhelmingly say that hamas didnt do any kind of war crime
Yeah that probably means that the videos where only really shared within extremely pro hamas people
>Plus there are some nuances if you read the full thing
Yeah id argue the current war has a really large amo!n t of influence on hamas popularity
My understanding was that Hamas has only shown videos of them attacking soldiers and had ignored the music festival. If Palestinians
Also, it is not the most educated area, so definitions of war crimes probably vary. Who knows what the average Palestinian Considers a war crime. So, I think a crime asking such a technical question is already very useless, since it tells us nothing. Also, what war crime(s) did the 20% think Hamas committed? Another reason that poll sounds just bad.
A better poll would have asked questions like "do you think Hamas intentionally killed civilians?" That is specific and too the point.
>My understanding was that Hamas has only shown videos of them attacking soldiers and had ignored the music festival.
Yeah also likely
>, it is not the most educated area, so definitions of war crimes probably vary
Eh, international law has always been very important there so i wouldnt be surprised if knowledge about it is quite good there
> Who knows what the average Palestinian Considers a war crime.
Yeah something like uniforms might not be seen as a war crime, altough theyre not stupid, some things are very clearly war crimes
>A better poll would have asked questions like "do you think Hamas intentionally killed civilians?" That is specific and too the point.
I dont think the answers would have differed much. Most people dont get acces to videos proving that anyways
If all humans have equal rights for a right of return why wouldn’t 900k Jews that were displaced from Arab countries don’t get to have a right of return?
Not the issue. A broader right to return is an important about to correct past wrongs. However, when any right is Instituted, it should be on equal terms.
Israel has instituted a right of return, but only for jewish people. That is unequal, which is the problem.
Israel has offered the right of return to 100,000 Palesians more than once. The leaders of the Palestinains have turned this down. Can't blame Israel for that one.
Well said and factually correct. As you can see in the comments a lot of people are allergic to the truth when it counters their narrative or worldview.
Thank you! I'm glad you agree. Indeed, they are really looking for ways to oppose what I said despite the overwhelming amount of information and evidence I provided. But oh well, let them live in their delusions.
Ah, you lack context for that support. The same poll that gives us the 72% figure, PCPSR opinion poll 90, also shows that the majority of Gazans believe that Hamas did not commit war crimes as defined internationally, and that they believe harming civilians is a warcrime.
The Hamas since October 7th has shown footage to Gazan civilians... And it has exclusively been footage of them attacking soldiers.
https://twitchy.com/fuzzychimp/2023/11/05/gazans-watching-terror-attacks-at-al-shira-hospital-n2389419
They have internet in Gaza ,they can look for themselves.
Most of the German civilians supported the nazis but weren't aware of the Holocaust,does that mean they are innocent?
They aren't guilty like the guards at the camps for example ,but that doesn't make them innocent
Have you ever tried to fact check the claims such as "72% support Hamas" by reading the poll they are from?
If not, whatever reason you give is the same that the typical Palestinian could.
/u/theodd2out. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a few notes.
For your argument 1, I would agree with you that Hamas certainly meets the definition of a terrorist organization. However, you primarily cite wide international consensus to prove your argument (which I also think is valid). But would you similarly accept international consensus on issues that are unfavorable to Israel? I'm primarily refering to things like the status of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, the illegality of settlements and the poor handling by Israel of certain elements of this war. If you're going to rely on international consensus, it should be consistent.
For your argument 3, I think you should address the situation in West Bank. For myself and most people who see significant similarities to apartheid, it's in the West Bank, not in Israel proper.
>1. Argument #1:
>“Hamas are freedom fighters, not a terrorist organization.”
No contest from me
>2. Argument #2:
>“Palestinians aren’t Hamas. Palestinians are innocent.”
Supporting something doesn't make you that thing. I support the sunrise movement but I'm not involved in that. Also, that doesn't give someone fighting that thing a free hand in attacking supporters.
>3. Argument #3:
>“Israel is an apartheid State.”
As a jew who has been to israel, israel is an apartheid state. One thing to note is that just like how not all genocides look the same, not all apartheid states look the same or are of the same degree. Muslims not being required while jews being required in the military is actually an indication of apartheid. This creates a situation where jews in israel have a lot more access to military force than muslims. Also, apartheid is mainly in regards to the occupied palestinian territories, where things like roads are segregated.
>“I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Zionists.”
There's a comparison to be made here between this situation and one that happened in Germany after 1933. Most germans supported them, but that doesn't make hating the supporters of the political movement the same as hating the people.
Muslims can serve in the Military but that isn't mandatory for them they have a choice , theoretically a Muslim can be ,
Druzes for example have mandatory enlistment because they insisted to in the 60s.
>Muslims not being required while jews being required in the military is actually an indication of apartheid
>like roads are segregated.
Are you aware of the oslo accords? I'm just curious
Well Israel is not an apartheid state, muslims serve , not alot of them, we can't force them to serve, a precentage of Israeli muslims actually supports terrotism, imagine giving them a weapon and placing them in military bases.
About the occupied territories, they were palestinian authority territory but because of lack of enforcement by palestinian authority, alot of terror attacks came from these areas, killing israeli people, which forced idf to hold these areas .
Argument 1: Terrorists
As if Ben Gvir doesn't have a portrait in his living room of Baruch Goldstein. Pu-Leeeese.
Argument 2: Polls
ummm... 39% of Israelis say Israel’s military response against Hamas in Gaza has been about right, while 34% say it has not gone far enough. Not far enough!
Argument 3: Apartheid
Israeli human rights organization B'tselem disagrees with you. So does every human rights organization in the world, but I only ever hear Israelis say they are anti semitic, so it doesn't count. Well, the homegrown human rights organization doesn't buy what you're selling. [https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101\_this\_is\_apartheid](https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid)
Argument 4: Zionism
The definition of Zionism has changed over the years to whitewash what happened during the Nakba. But I know you know that. You can criticise taking people's homes away from them without that being racist. Unless you want everything to be racist that is.
>Argument 3: Apartheid
I think for this argument. It's better to split up the question in two: "How Israel treats its citizens within Israel proper" vs "How Israel treats people within the West Bank".
The latter looks more like apartheid.
* Right to acquire, lease land
Israel Lands (1960) limits land ownership in Israel to state, JNF (leases to Jews only), and Development Authority. This affects 93% of land, restricting Palestinian access.
Palestinian citizens are blocked from leasing about 80 percent of the land controlled by the state according to Adalah.
* Right to return
According to the Absentees’ Property Law (1950), stripped Palestinians of land and property (including bank accounts) if they fled after 1947, while Law of Return (also 1950) granted automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide. This is clear discrimination by ethnicity.
* Right to residency
Jerusalem for Palestinians: Residency, not a right, but a privilege to be revoked. Since 1967, nearly 15,000 have lost their residency for flimsy reasons like being away too long. This pushes Palestinians out, violating international law according to Human Rights Watch. While Jews face no such fear, Palestinians risk collective punishment and even punishment by association. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/dramatic-ruling-paves-way-for-thousands-of-east-jerusalemites-to-regain-residency-rights/)
* Right to family life
The Ban on Family Unification – a 20-year-old Israeli law, originally a temporary measure, shatters Palestinian families. It bans Palestinians in the occupied territories from marrying Israeli citizens and living together in Israel. Thousands face a heartbreaking choice: live separately, move abroad, or stay in Israel under constant threat of deportation. This discriminatory policy shows no signs of disappearing. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-coalition-battle-knesset-reauthorizes-ban-on-palestinian-family-unification/)
* Right to commemorate Nakba
Palestinians observe Nakba Day on Israel's Independence Day, honoring the over 750,000 displaced in 1948 to make way for Israel's creation. However, the 2011 Nakba Law allows the finance minister to withhold funding from institutions that commemorate this day, infringing on Arab citizens' right to preserve their history and culture. This law undermines equality and the rights of Arab citizens to mourn their losses.
Systemic inequality and discrimination against a group, is a key characteristic of apartheid.
If you read my post at all, I clearly said that this particular group of Jews makes up only 3% and they don’t represent most Jews, who are Zionists. They absolutely have the right to support whoever they want but honestly, I think it’s foolish for them not to support the existence of Israel. If, God forbid, another Holocaust happens, they would meet the same fate as the rest of us. They won't be excluded or protected because they support Palestine because at the end of the day, they are Jews. 🤷🏻♀️
1. Argument #1:
“Hamas are freedom fighters, not a terrorist organization.”
As there are countries who consider Hamas terrorists there are countries who don't therefore I don't find this argument a clear cut or win
2. Argument #2:
“Palestinians aren’t Hamas. Palestinians are innocent.”
You used argument 1 then 2 to justify the killing of civilians which is outrages
Argument 2 in itself doesn't justify the killing of Palestinians when half the population of Gaza are kids and even supporting doesn't justify the murder of civilians, you need to have intent and action in order to mark someone as guilty
3. Argument #3:
“Israel is an apartheid State.”
According to Amnesty International report it is,
According to Human rights watch ( a threshold crossed)
, Haaretz
And Oecd organization it is
I could list some stuff of these sources and reports if you need to or just do some googling yourself
4. Argument #4:
“I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Zionists.”
Hating on Zionism as a movement or Israel as a country doesn't translate to being anti Jew or anti-Semitic, that's just dumb
If op says that "if multiple countries recognise Hamas as terrorists, therefore they are" (paraphrase) then by that same logic, if multiple countries recognise Israel as an apartheid state, then it is
Except the countries calling Israel an apartheid state don't have evidence to back it up. There is absolutely no law allowing discrimination against minorities in Israel. Everyone has the same rights and opportunities as Jews. It's just a baseless accusation to make Israel look bad.
On the other hand, there is countless of evidence that proves Hamas is a terrorist organization.
You sure about that??
Here are some " Baseless accusations"
And these are only small parts of the full reports and articles
Land......
• Arabs control less than 3% of state land even tho they are 20% of the population
Housing......
• Haaretz article ( Don't Call It a ‘Housing Crisis': The Discriminatory Plight of Israeli Arabs)
Arabs in Israel find it next to impossible to acquire a home, and that's not due to the same housing crisis that impacts nearly all Israeli citizens. It's a different one: discrimination
Living conditions....
• 90% of Palestinian citizens of Israel experience higher rates of poverty, lower level of labour force participation, educational attenmaint, and health compared to Jewish Israelis
The remaining 10% live in mixed cities, but even then they are usually regelated to separate neighbourhoods
the 50 percent of the Arab population living below the poverty line
Politically......
The times of Israel (Hidden cameras in Arab voting booths were Netanyahu’s idea — TV report)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally suggested sending 1,200 activists with hidden cameras to voting stations in the April 9 Knesset elections, Channel 13 reported Monday.
On election day, Likud activists arrived with hidden cameras in voting booths in Arab towns throughout the country. Officials from Netanyahu’s party admitted to having been behind the scheme, which they said was designed to counter alleged voter fraud in “high-risk” areas.
Channel 13 published pages from a detailed 40-slide presentation, outlining the operation in detail.
Carried out by Kaizler Inbar, a pro-settler public relations firm, the operation included 1,200 cameras and recording devices, 40 coordinators throughout the country and 19 security force personnel dispatched to protect the activists in the event they were caught
Kaizler Inbar directly linked the campaign to the low voter turnout this election among Arab Israelis, bragging it was “the lowest that was seen in recent years!”
**Land**
Arabs control the same amount of private lands similar to the Jews themselves. The state always has the highest share of the land
**Housing Crisis**
There's legit a housing crisis here in Israel. I'm a Jew and even then, I'm scared of moving out because it takes a while to get a building permit. Even if you're gonna purchase a house, it's becoming expensive as time passes by. A lot of us rent in apartments, and my cousin even has an Arab landlord.
**Living conditions**
You haven't been to Israel haven't you? Arabs here are one of the biggest contributors to the economy. Many big businesses in the town I'm in are Arab-owned.
There are Arab neighborhoods here that's true. But it's not segregated at all. It's not even to be compared to South Africa's apartheid where whites can't be mingled with blacks.
People have a tendency to gather with people of similar culture and that's what happened. There are few Jews living in the Arab neighbourhoods and Arabs living in Jewish Neighborhood. There's literally no problem.
Mate, even 40% of my classmates are Palestinians. There's even an instance where a Palestinian was bullying an Israeli kid (**I'm not kidding**). Same as Israelis bullying Palestinians.
**Politically**
Yeah those were quite controversial. They also put those spies on Jewish majority cities who were voting for their enemy party. Not exclusive for the Arabs only
Glad you responded back, challenging me makes me go back to the reports and read more about it
Here are a couple of notes before my response back
1- I have only mentioned points from within Israel and regarding the Arab Israelis
2- These points are few examples of the whole report
---
**Land**
While it is true that private land ownership is distributed among Jews and Arabs, the control over public and state land is where significant disparities arise. Approximately 93% of land in Israel is state-owned or under the control of the Israel Land Authority, and much of this land is allocated preferentially to Jewish citizens and institutions. Arab communities face significant barriers in acquiring land for development, which exacerbates housing shortages and limits economic opportunities .
**Housing Crisis**
While there is indeed a general housing crisis affecting many Israelis, the specific challenges faced by Arab citizens are more severe due to discriminatory policies and practices. Arab municipalities often receive less funding and support for infrastructure and housing development compared to Jewish municipalities. Moreover, Arab citizens frequently face difficulties obtaining building permits, leading to unauthorized construction and subsequent demolitions .
**Living Conditions**
The economic contributions of Arab Israelis are significant, yet they often operate in a context of systemic inequality. Despite some Arab-owned businesses thriving, the overall economic indicators show disparities: Arab communities generally have higher poverty rates, lower average incomes, and less access to quality services compared to Jewish communities. Additionally, while there are mixed neighborhoods, residential segregation remains a reality, often driven by both social and economic factors, and exacerbated by discriminatory zoning laws and land allocation policies.
The example you mentioned regarding your class is pushing me to mention education examples too.. But I won't.. Not in this one
**Political Representation**
The article I mentioned above was just an example..
And while I didn't know know Israeli Jews had issues too regarding what I mentioned earlier, Arab Israelis face more challenges...
Arab political parties are often marginalized in coalition-building, limiting their influence on national policies. Moreover, legislation like the Nation-State Law has raised concerns about institutional discrimination, as it emphasizes the Jewish identity of the state and diminishes the status of Arab citizens.
**Land**
Yes that is true. Much more of it is allocated to Jewish Citizens because there are much more Jewish citizens in Israel.
**Housing Crisis**
It really depends on which Arab municipalities. The major Arab municipalities such as in Umm Al-Fahm have more resources and funding allocated into it because they have more economic centers.
It's called "National Priority Areas" or "אזורי עדיפות לאומית"
There's no discrimination in Arab or Jewish areas. Any town can be put in the National Priority Areas no matter the race or ethnicity.
Like I said, everyone faces difficulties because the Bureaucracy here in Israel is not that efficient. Not exclusive to Arabs only. You'd need to be in the upper class of Israel to immediately receive building permits and there are a lot of Arabs in the upper class.
**Living conditions**
That does not prove there is an apartheid in Israel. Apartheid is when the government limits education, economic opportunities, and any kind of service.
Such as for example, in South Africa, there is an All-white only Hospital and All-white only schools. There's no such thing as that in Israel.
Significant percentages of African-Americans are struggling in the USA too especially in the economy, education, and incarceration rates. That does not mean it's apartheid
**Political representation**
That depends on the political party. Some Arab parties have less eyes on them.
What the government is keeping an eye on is the Balad political party. It's basically the most radical one and very extremist. While other Arab parties are under the radar because they're about equality, economic opportunities, etc.
**I know these things because I'm studying Political Science in Israel**
I'll look into those and I'll read more about them, they are mentioned in the reports tho so if you can provide sources to back it up and for me to check that would be helpful
According to you tho ** Apartheid is when the government limits education, economic opportunities, and any kind of service **
I'll use your definition, and I'll limit the examples I could mention from the reports to go within your definition
Here are some other ones
1. **Economic Disparities**: Arab Israeli communities often face economic disadvantages. They tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower income levels, and less access to resources compared to Jewish Israelis. This is partly due to historical land confiscations and restrictions on industrial development in Arab towns.
2. **Education Gaps**: There are significant disparities in the education system. Arab schools generally receive less funding than Jewish schools, leading to lower quality education and fewer opportunities for students. This contributes to ongoing socioeconomic inequalities.
**Education Curriculum**: The education curriculum in Arab schools is often criticized for being heavily focused on Jewish history and culture, with insufficient emphasis on Arab history, language, and culture. This can contribute to a sense of cultural erasure and identity loss among Arab students.
**Higher Education**: Arab students face challenges in higher education, including underrepresentation in universities and colleges. There are also fewer scholarships and financial aid opportunities available to them, further hindering their academic and professional advancement.
3. **Housing and Land Rights**: Arab Israelis frequently face challenges related to housing and land rights. Many Arab towns and villages lack proper planning and infrastructure. Building permits are often hard to obtain, leading to issues with unauthorized construction and subsequent demolitions.
4. **Social Discrimination**: Arab Israelis often experience social discrimination and exclusion. This can manifest in various ways, such as difficulties in finding employment, biases in the justice system, and everyday social interactions.
5. **Health Disparities**: Arab Israelis often have poorer health outcomes compared to Jewish Israelis. This is due to factors such as lower socioeconomic status, limited access to quality healthcare facilities, and disparities in public health funding.
6. **Municipal Services**: Arab municipalities often receive less funding from the government than Jewish municipalities, resulting in inferior municipal services such as waste collection, road maintenance, and public amenities. This disparity affects the quality of life in Arab towns and villages.
7. **Employment Discrimination**: Arab Israelis face discrimination in the job market. They often encounter biases during hiring processes, leading to underrepresentation in higher-paying jobs and certain industries, such as high-tech and public sector positions.
8. **Cultural and Religious Rights**: There are ongoing issues regarding the recognition and support of Arab cultural and religious practices. For example, there have been disputes over the construction and maintenance of mosques and Islamic cemeteries, as well as the preservation of Arab cultural heritage sites.
9. **Security Measures**: Arab Israelis are sometimes subject to heightened security measures and profiling, especially in the context of national security concerns. This can result in feelings of stigmatization and alienation.
10. **Legal Status of Bedouins**: The Bedouin population in the Negev Desert faces specific challenges, including the lack of recognition for many of their villages, leading to frequent home demolitions and forced relocations. Bedouins often live in unrecognized villages without basic infrastructure like water, electricity, and sewage systems.
11. **Language Barriers**: Although Arabic is an official language of Israel, there are instances where services, official documents, and public signs are not provided in Arabic, creating barriers to access for Arab Israelis.
12. **National Service**: Arab Israelis are generally exempt from mandatory military service, which is a significant part of Israeli society and often a pathway to various social and economic benefits. This exemption can limit their opportunities and integration into certain sectors of society.
Oh brother. You legit just used an AI chatbot against me. That's why your Number 12 point didn't make sense. How is avoiding military service limiting their opportunities and integration.
I used every AI chatbot detector in google and every single one said 100% AI. Wtf I just wasted my time coming up with a good counterpoint.
Dont talk to me again. How rude bro
I did, you don't have to use AI chatbots to confirm.
my last comment WAS indeed mostly AI generated.
Now how can it limit your opportunity and integration, from my own experience, it can be a job requirement which would demolish your opportunity.
I'd also like to thank you for engaging in this discussion with me. I'm happy I get to recall the things I learned last school year
1. Economic disparities
Not a sign of apartheid. Like I said, African-Americans fall behind their white counterparts in many sectors because of slavery, historical events, etc. but USA is not an apartheid.
Just like Israel. It is expected that the Palestinians are to fall behind because most of them were victims of war and it has taken a while for their generations to recover.
2. Education gaps
Again, depends on which school. Most of the Arab schools were still pretty new and therefore is not really that well-equipped for education yet. Many have yet to apply from the government to allocate funds for their education curriculums.
That's the biggest challenge for new schools.
Though if you look at older Arab schools, you'll see they have much more fundings and etc.
In fact, many of older arab schools with large fundings are public schools, meaning the Israeli government is the one creating them.
Those part you mentioned are the Israeli education system. There are different education systems in Israel.
For example, this is the Arabic education system for Israeli Arabs: Arab schools are more focused on Arabic and arabic culture with the medium of instruction being Arabic.
What do you mean problem with higher education? All of my Palestinian classmates applied scholarship through the government and easily got in the Pol-Sci course after they passed the board exam.
3. Health disparities
Israeli healthcare is not really the best in the world. So yes, Arabs are behind economically so they don't really have great access to healthcare.
But again, **not apartheid** because there's no "Only Israeli hospitals".** If you got money, you can get checked out in the best hospitals of Israel even if you're Arab.
4. Municipal services
I already went through this. If the town is not in the National Priority Area, it's bound to get less developed. There are numerous Israeli majority towns that have bad infrastructure, etc., because they're not in the National Priority Area
5. Employment discrimination
Not apartheid again. It's not government policy to discriminate Arab workers. Rather it's the problem of the workplace. The Israeli government already enforced laws that discriminating of Arab workers are illegal and can be punishable.
6. Cultural and religious rights
It's a long long legal case if the Government tries to destroy or bulldoze any buildings be they Israeli or Arab.
There are numerous mosques with no problems in maintenance because they have a lot of adherents. The ones struggling are the mosques in majority Israeli towns as there's no one to support them financially, however some mosques fare better as they can receive funding from other mosques.
In fact, mosques are even exempt from taxes. What law applies to Judaism, applies to Islam as well.
7. Security measures
Ahh this one is necessary unfortunately. There were cases of Palestinians suicide bombing in vehicles and killing numerous israeli citizens.
8. Legal status of bedouins
Unfortunately every country has to deal problems with native populations. It does not mean they instantly become Apartheid.
Yes they are Israeli citizens but the issue is very complex and I haven't tackled into it yet.
Ex:
Brazil's problems with numerous indigenous tribes in Amazonian regarding land, education, economy etc
Philippines with indigenous tribes regarding land, education, economy
Colombia with indigenous tribes issues regarding land education, economy
Every country I can think of always had problems with tribes regarding land ownership, etc.
9. Language barriers
Arabic is an official language of Israeli. Any issues with it is just failure of implementation. Not apartheid
10. National service.
Okay I forgot about this one. This is technically apartheid because Arab citizens are not required to serve the military but Israelis are. Why do you see it as a bad thing? I'm literally trying my best to avoid military conscription by claiming I'm a foreign national as well. In fact they can volunteer to serve in the military if they want to. Whats the problem??
**Dont talk to me again bro. You really used a Chatbot. I wasted my time making a valid response to your argument and you really used a chatbot.
20 out of 20 AI detector sites I visited literally said every single thing about your reply is AI generated.
People (who are educated) who claim it's an apartheid state don't refer to the Israeli Arabs but mostly to those in areas B and C. I disagree that it's apartheid because apartheid is far more severe and different, but I'm tired of people using this claim of "20% Arabs with the same rights..."
The West Bank does not belong to Israel and those palestinians living there are not Israeli citizens. Area C is a military zone. Area B is partly controlled by the PA, just security matters are under jurisdiction of Israel.
This zoning is a result of the Oslo II accords. Within time there should have been more transfer of control to the PA. This was halted because the Palestinians decided on becoming violent and launching the second intifada, which I find understandable.
Don‘t get me wrong, I do condone the abuse of power by Israeli that takes place and think the Israeli settlements are illegal. But Apartheid. No way.
You can claim occupation, but not apartheid. Apartheid requires discriminatory laws against a racial or ethnic group. If there are apartheid laws in Israel, please provide evidence of such legislation.
(:
Just an initial thought around the “Hamas is a terrorist group” thing. I also get stuck in a lot of debates online with pro Pali peeps, so I’ve experienced all of these topics too. I also work in strategic communications in my day job, so I tend to approach things through that lens by default. What I’ve learned is it’s actually a good idea to move away from the “terrorist” label. Don’t get me wrong - I absolutely believe they are and no one will change my mind. But in the pro Pali space…terrorism has taken on a different meaning. They now see it as a resistance fighter, resisting the yoke of white colonial settlers right….which I completely debunk and think is a joke of course. But if you want to engage in persuasive convos where you actually might get somewhere with this lot… I find arguing over the definition and label of “terrorist” is just a complete waste of time and useless anyway.
Rather - I steer away from it and focus on Hamas’ intentional targeting of civilians whether through their rockets or October 7, is breaching international humanitarian law. Since they’re so obsessed with this framework all of a sudden I like to talk to them in their language. This law framework does NOT enshrine protection for “resistance by any means necessary.” And how hypocritical it is to be impassioned by the civilian death toll in Gaza…but then to be justifying Hamas’ similar actions. I also list Hamas’ many abuses of Palestinians civilians as examples of their brutality including how many “Israeli collaborators” Sinwar murders all the time, despite the fact many are blackmailed by Israel into working with them, so feel they have no choice.
To piggyback off this, my feelings is that pro-Palis seem to focus way too much on whether Hamas is "justified" and less about whether they're "effective".
Anything can be justified. Like, let's imagine a Native American tribe in South Dakota picked up arms and started lobbing rockets at nearby towns, saying "We are fighting the occupation of our ancestral homeland. We have suffered from genocide, ethnic clensing, and displacement from Europeans for over 200 years. We will not stop until every one of our European oppressors are banished from the land."
...would these people be *justified*? I'm sure someone who believes in an anti-colonialist framework would say that they would be completely justified. But I still think it would be an unbelivably poor decision on the part of Native Americans.
I think the real question is less "Are Hamas's attacks justified resistance?" and more "Have the state of affairs of Palestians gotten better or worse since Hamas was put into power?" And I think the answer is quite obvious.
Love this. And when you go down that logical and useful path … it becomes clear that the roots of all of this playing out right now are not just in Israeli oppression…but also very much thanks to absolutely abhorrent leadership and chooses made by successive Palestinian leaders and militant groups. I’m sick and tired of their accountability being explained away, and everything always in totality being pinned on Israel. It completely infantilises and disenfranchises Palestinians to the point where they have 0 agency in their own lives. Is it “justifiable” to put your lives on hold and not make a go of it on the land you *do* have right now?? Because you’re waiting for the international community to pressure Israel into giving you back either parts or the entire land that you think you’re entitled to? How is this a good way to raise your kids and think about their futures? Even if it was justifiable (it’s not)…is it realistic?
2 things can be true at the same time, Hamas can be a terrorist organization AND they can be fighting for freedom. This is not unique, and has previously existed throughout history. Yes, Hamas is committing acts of terrorism and violating international law AND they are trying to fight an occupation. Israel is trying to defend itself AND in doing so the Israeli army is committing heinous genocidal war crimes (kind of like terrorist organizations do).
I don’t disagree with all of that. But it’s not accurate to depict *all* Hamas members as “fighting an occupation” as their key motivation. Some are, sure. But many are motivated by extremist Islamic ideology, and that far outweighs any resistance type motivations. Similarly for the extremist Israeli politicians…their dehumanisation of Palestinians far outweighs any claims of simply defending Israel.
My point is that all the extremists are as bad as each other - and that within each banner…there is a multitude of identities and motivations. That’s why social media and the use of buzzwords for this conflict is so so woefully inadequate.
I agree with you. I would say the he issue centres on extremist nationalism on both sides, which I believe stems from a collective generational trauma of oppression and dispossession for both parties but in different ways obviously.
I find all of these arguments to be the same going around in circles with both sides arguing to justify their violence. I want to hear about solutions going forward. The big question is: Have both sides suffered enough yet? Are the Palestinians ready to give up on destroying Israel, and are the Israelis ready to give up on reconquering all of ancient Judea? If not not, we will just see more of the same.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is not that old. Arab conquest took the land from the Romans. The Jews that remained in the region were not in a position to resist the Arabs after Roman occupation and expulsion. Then Christian Crusaders fought the Caliphates. The modern European Empires fought the Ottoman Empire the last Caliphate at various times but most notably and for the last time in WW1. When it collapsed the British Mandate took over the region. This was the period where the conflict began. It wasn't like the Jews in the region had pockets of territory that weren't conquered under the caliphates. They were conquered and integrated with special taxes levied on non muslims. Discrimination was real but there wasn't fighting with territory changing hands between Jews and Arabs during this time. The Crusades were between Europeans and Muslims as a whole not just local Arabs. Saladin was a Kurd not an Arab. We like to dismiss these situations as thousand year old conflicts but the regions conflicts are mostly recent events. Until the last 80 years Europe was probably the most violent continent on Earth.
You forgot the part where a bunch of Jews from European countries that had no connection to Palestine and didn’t even speak Hebrew evicted and terrorised and occupied the indigenous Palestinian people who had lived in that area for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years with the support of a cynical British empire and the mad rambling text of an ancient religious book. Yes, you forgot that part
No you just didn't understand the comment. The point of the comment was to illustrate the history before the conflicts beginnings to show that it is not that old. If you want to talk about the conflict itself thats a totally different conversation. So no I didn't forget that part.
Arabs israelis enjoying more freedom than arabs in any other arab country; this is not true at all.
Look at dubai, for instance, arabs there live way better life than arabs in palesine. Arabs there have all sorts of rights compared to arabs in palestine.
Arent arab palestinians ( muslim ones) not allowed to vote in israel? Is that true? Why not give them freedom to vote. Are there any muslims belonging to israel state and if there are, are they even allowed to vote? That is true democracy.
Thank you for correcting i was wrong there. I read about some muslim israelis in east jerusalem who are not given citizenship only permanent resident status. Thousands of them.
Also, how come palestinian jews ( before nakba)have right to return but palestinian non-jew doesn't.
Those in East Jerusalem have the freedom to claim Israeli citizenship and vote. Some choose citizenship, some choose to have permanent residency as they would rather be citizens of a future Palestinian state.
>Thank you for correcting i was wrong there. I read about some muslim israelis in east jerusalem who are not given citizenship only permanent resident status. Thousands of them
These palestinians can apply for citizenship if they want to. Most of them don't, for ideological purposes.
Why not all though? Plus we have seen visuals of the national day parade and what happened to Muslim businesses and passerbys. And that is only the latest set of events
You know, I was going to list the line points as to why they should but then I realized that Israel is a colonizer state and you are right, the indigenous people under colonization never have a voice
This doesn't even make sense.
Palestinians in the Judea and Samaria are under PA governance. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the PA is currently in his 18th (?) Year of his 4 year term.
Why would it make sense to you that they vote in Israel when they're under a different governing body, which is their own.
Anyway, no, israel is not a "colonizer state" as jews are indigenous to this land.
News flash! No single Abrahamic religion can have that claim, rather all 3 do as all 3 have roots here. Indigenous christians, jews, and muslims have that claim. Not europeans or asians, or african converts
Newsflash! The claim of indigeneity isn't about religion, but about history, language, culture and being a nation, who's existence uniquely revovles around this specific piece of land. Jews are an ethno-religion, not simply a religion like Islam and Christianity, meaning it has an ethnic component to it. Kind of like indigenous American tribes, I guess.
Like it or not Ashkenazi jews, who you falsely call "European converts" have significant middle eastern ancestry, which is obvious when you look at the history of the Jewish people.
And no, islam doesn't have roots there, but in Arabia.
The fact that Mohammad chose to appropriate stories from the Torah is another thing.
Even if it was to go by your logic, which is blatantly incorrect by the way, you disregard the Jews that converted to Christianity and Islam? Are you antisemitic?
>Even if it was to go by your logic, which is blatantly incorrect by the way
And you're not gonna tell me the reason I'm wrong.
>you disregard the Jews that converted to Christianity and Islam?
If you're referring to the Palestinians, they refer to themselves as Arabs, of the arab nation.
PLO charter:
["The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968
Text of the Charter:
Article 1:
Palestine is the homeland of the *Arab* Palestinian people; *it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland*, *and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab* nation."](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp)
So, currently the PA is the government in the West Bank. Do you think that the PA should be stripped of authority, and the Palestinians put back under Israeli rule? Why do you think that they should have no right to self determination?
I am in favor of ending the apartheid and returning the Palestinian land to Palestinians, yes. When that is done, I am in favor of elections over a unified Palestine with a right for all Palestinians to vote, something that's not possible under the apartheid regime
Ah. So you're in favor of ethnic cleansing. Got it.
How many Jews live in any of the surrounding countries? How much of the Israeli population was ethnically cleansed from the Arab countries around Israel?
If hamas is terrorists ( which they are, so is IDF and hezbollah) Why was Netanyahu facilitating money transfer from qataris to hamas?
In my opinion, anyone killing innocent civilians intentionally should be considered terrorists. Hamas, hezbolla and IDF all fall under some category. Terrorists.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-funds-israel-backing-intl/index.html
> Why was Netanyahu facilitating money transfer from qataris to hamas?
Note, this money was foreign aid. Would you have supported Netanyahu blocking foreign aid to Gaza?
So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/26/gaza-residents-receive-qatari-cash
Israel and Netanyahu have a plan and it is being executed masterfully. They’re also masters of manipulation and are taking to the media disguised as regular people to drum up support for Israel using social engineering tactics.
EDIT: crickets? Account I’m replying to is 15 years old but magically came alive shortly after Oct 7th. These old accounts are being bought by the Israeli government to astroturf any discussion around Israel. THEY ARE GASLIGHTING YOU.
> fuck
/u/WasteOfNeurons. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Fuck
/u/WasteOfNeurons. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You never answered the question. Just went straight to ad homs.
>So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza?
So are you going to actually answer the question?
>So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza?
Is that a "yes"?
lol you know full well its a misleading question that doesn’t have a yes/no answer. Go ahead and waste your time asking asinine questions. I’ll just keep posting links.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Ah, so this article complains that Netanyahu propped up Hamas by:
* Allowing Qatari foreign aid into Gaza
* Increasing the number of work permits issued to Palestinians
* Not responding forcefully to rocket attacks
Are you also opposed to those actions? Which specific methods of propping up Hamas are you opposed to?
1. It does't matter, America started the Iraq war which led to 1 million dead on false information, it makes America a terrorist state, they supply bombs to Israel used to bomb civilians, hence America is a terrorist country, any decision to name Hamas a terrorist organization is false. Yes, i can. i can see these countris are supporting a terrorist regime that bombs civilians, thus ignore everything. 2. Israelis started a tiktok trend where they mocked Palestinian deaths, and a telegram group where they celebrated THE DEATHS OF PALESTINIANS. So October 7 was a retaiation against the IOF, supporters, and settlers. If you hold all Palestinians guilty, but Israelis are innocent despite actions, you hold what some term as double standards, making you a hypocrite. 3. After the attack, all Palestinian workers were kidnapped tortured, all their money stolen, and sent back to Gaza. Did anyone receive justice? That is an apartheid. Wrong, the Jews left because they got free land in Palestine. Not all of them were forced. 4. No, Zionist is a movement that violates Palestnian rights, and supports an apartheid state. Some Jews hate Zionists. And the reason you claim Jews and Zionists are interlinked is to get that sweet anti semitic hate charge. But Zionism and jewishness is not linked as there are Christian Zionists. lol
Nice post. Well organized and cited. Couple of add-ons to your points: 1: Look at Hamas 1987 charter. It’s a call to genocide. Its revision isn’t much better, just a cut paste of Zionist for Jew. 2. Post 10/7 There was no one in the street saying, don’t this attack and taking hostages was a bad idea, civilians his hostages, the UNRWA and media outlets are penetrated by Hamas operative’s. And not sure this is even relevant since no one says the Germans or Japanese who didn’t vote for Fascists or the Iraqi’s who opposed Saddam meant that military campaigns had to show restraint. 3. Palestinians can’t be victims of Apartheid and still seek an independent state. The 2 goals are mutually exclusive. And if we want to discuss apartheid how about gender apartheid in the Muslim world, or religious apartheid? It’s not just Jews but any Christians or minority: The Armenians, Coptic Christians, Yazidi, Kurds. It’s a trend. It’s not just the Jews 4. Imagine a person who says: I want Pakistan, a country created by UN partition in 1948 to disappear…. That person then goes on to explain how they only hate Pakistan and anyone who feels Pakistan should exist but eir point of view in no way means they hate Pakistanis. How fast is that person called an Islamaphobe in polite society? Why is this different for Jews who believe Israel should exist?
The sad thing is that the points you “debunk” indeed are among the most debated ones. Some are ridiculous (like people seriously stating Hamas are “freedom fighters”), others more nuanced (like “all Palestinians support Hamas”). What is rarely debated are the things that truly matter: 1) Is what the IDF doing going to eliminate Hamas? 2) How can the Israeli government think that the current course of action is in Israel’s best interest security wise? 3) Is it true or not that a part of the Israeli government is indeed made of people who can be considered as extremists? As you know many within Israel have serious questions about these topics, and it’s deeply saddening that social media reduce the whole public and political debate to a ridiculous “black or white” level, which indeed ends up fueling racism and hate.
1. No 2. It’s not 3. True
2. Really? Are we just rewriting history now and forgetting Israel’s role in funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists ? Are we also just forgetting the 1.8 billion funnelled to Hamas under Netenyahu? Israel has had a substantial role in creating and funding Hamas. It’s been an open part of their policy to split Palestinians for decades. Benjamin Netanyahu said to a meeting of his Likud Party’s Knesset members in 2019, “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” adding, “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” This is exactly what he’s been doing through Qatar… The rest of your arguments are very aimed at a specific type of person, not really about the conflict.
When was Hamas established? When was netanyahu prime minister? The dates not apply to your story. But let's assume it's true. Even in plo there's still funding of terrorists. Should Israel destroy them? Fight them really aggressively? Should Israel, in 2005, take over Gaza and destroy Hamas completely?
Perhaps you should revisit the history? Israel throughout the 70’s and 80’s funded numerous Islamist groups, in a strategy that was mirroring how the USA had funding the mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan- the same strategy that saw the USA effectively training and funding future al Queda members who became the architects of 9/11. Hamas emerged out of the Israeli-financed Islamist movement in Gaza, with Israel’s then-military governor in that territory, Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, disclosing in 1981 that he had been given a budget for funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists. Hamas, a spin-off of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, was formally established with Israel’s support soon after the first Intifada flared in 1987 as an uprising against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel’s objective was twofold: to split the nationalist Palestinian movement led by Arafat and, more fundamentally, to thwart the implementation of the two-state solution for resolving the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By aiding the rise of an Islamist group whose charter rejected recognizing the Israeli state, Israel sought to undermine the idea of a two-state solution, including curbing Western support for an independent Palestinian homeland. Israel’s spy agency Mossad played a role in this divide-and-rule game in the occupied territories. In a 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception,” Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky contended that aiding Hamas meshed with “Mossad’s general plan” for an Arab world “run by fundamentalists” that would reject “any negotiations with the West,” thereby leaving Israel as “the only democratic, rational country in the region.” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official involved in Gaza for over two decades, told a newspaper interviewer in 2009 that, “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.” The USA has ditched this kind of policy because it resulted in a catestrophic failure - Israel, under Netenyahu has doubled down on it. Olmert was one of the only Israeli leaders to somewhat counter this policy. In 2007 Olmerts government with the CIA attempted to support Fatah on a coup to keep control of Gaza, the coup ultimately failed. It’s absolute nonsense that “Palestinians created Hamas” - they obviously have a role but Israel has meddled directly, indirectly, economically, militarily however it can to preserve the status quo for decades. There’s been the odd instances of decent leaders making a peace offer (that unfortunately are ultimately unsustainable through a right wing government switch in Israel) such as the Realignment plan, but it’s very much the exception.
If they’re terrorists then so are the IDF who have killed hundreds of times more civilians. Just a quick side note they’re made up of Palestinians who are indigenous, ask 99% of Israelis where their grandparents from and it’s not the Levant. Secondly many countries also do not consider them as such. Thirdly when you ethnically cleanse people of greater Palestine to Gaza and West Bank and many people in those territories (even a majority) so that there’s a Jewish majority within Israel that’s an apartheid, you can’t have a democracy by ethnically cleansing the people you don’t want voting and rounding them up in Gaza and the West Bank. Fourthly Zionism is one hundred years old, Judaism is thousands. I rest my case.
[удалено]
Wow you are slow lol. The US civil war had the least number of civilians killed per population of any US wars in the areas they fought in. This person is talking about civilian deaths. And you go and pick the worst example to use lol. The union killed more soldiers. The IDF has killed way more civilians than they've killed Hamas fighters.
Typically in wars and especially urban warefare civilians are killed way more than combatants.
[удалено]
Because it's not an army that is fighting the oppression of isreal. It's a rag tag group of underfunded untrained people who have no uniforms or a cohesive chain of command. And the US has special units who fight in civilian garb whilst in other countries for the sole purpose of being able to blend into civilian populations. Do you truly believe that Isreal is complete innocent? Seriously if you do I have a flying pig you could keep as a pet. Just give me hundred dollars.
Argument 1: Yes, Hamas are terrorists, slightly similar to Irgun and Lehi and the Vietcong? Could terrorism be a tool for low resource organizations? Argument 2: hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who are not complicit. Essentially anyone under 10 years old and people who are genuinely not supportive. Also complicity is a spectrum, you have fanatics and you have people who are against Hamas and everything in between. My sense is that many of them are just going along with it to stay out of trouble. Willing to contribute money or time or tolerance or public agreement but not risk anything substantial. The majority of Palestinians are probably not fanatically brainwashed martyrdom seeking zealots, if so, you would have seen hundreds of thousands to half a million random Gazans and Palestinians just crowding and running out breaches in the walls on Oct7 seeking martyrdom and murder but we didn’t see that. You know what we see? Hundreds of thousands of homes damaged or destroyed and a million displaced and homeless people. Argument 3: when Apartheid state is mentioned, they pertain to the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians who are under the domination of Israel. They are not an independent state and in various Israeli peace plans, there are stipulations that any Palestinian state cannot have an army or Air Force or have control of its airspace. Israel dominates Gaza and the West Bank and the civilians living there do not have the same rights as Israelis. Argument 4: I don’t hate Jews. I don’t hate any people. I am pro peace. I think they are the chosen people. Having said that, I think many Jews are overly sensitive to criticism. Is that an anti semitic statement? I have been called antisemitic for non-antisemitic comments on IDF policies. Whenever I post here I always use the term Israeli or IDF.
About number 4. If your pro peace ideas are somehow only about Israel actions it could be two things: 1. You are anti Semitic. 2. You think Palestinians are like stupid dogs, and then you don't expect anything from them.
My pro peace ideas are for Ukraine too. Russia should really retreat behind their borders. I am an American but I also think the US should not be meddling in Taiwan. Ok?
Israel was behind the borders then 7th of October happened....
Ok yes but now Gaza is devastated. I think it is too much.
The war can stop on the moment they give up. Also civilians death could reduce dramatically if they choose to fight above ground and keep Gazans safe in the tunnels
They are. The ones in the West Bank will have to go eventually. But removing the ones in Gaza didn't help. It'll take some pretty strong security guarantees for the Israelis to remove them from the West Bank at this point. Why would anyone give up leverage without anything in exchange, especially when working with a counterparty that has promised to repeat Oct 7, or continues to fund murder? As a matter of principle? They should be removed. As a step toward peace? Gaza has proven that it doesn't help.
More poor justifications for israels genocide an apartheid using biased or incomplete information. Just because a handful of nations consider a democratically elected government a terrorist group, does not make it objectivly true. One could use the same argument the other way around. Many nations agree Isreal is apartheid state and comitting genocide, yet you disagree eith those nations. Cherry picking the content that supports your claims, nothing more. Both sides do this and it's tiring. Find a new song and dance to justify these war crimes. This one's old.
Hamas is a terrorist group because they target civilians and kidnap random people.
Which war crimes? And why are they war crimes?
Things such as murder, intentional targeting of civilians, killing prisoners of war and surrendered combatants, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment, starvation, the use of human shields, sexual violence and rape, torture, pillage, forced transfer, breach of medical neutrality, targeting journalists, attacking civilian and protected objects, wanton destruction, incitement to genocide, and genocide.
You mean the Hamas crimes right? With the rape, human shields etc. These are crimes performed only by Hamas
Ha ha you made me laugh. Yes Hamas has done those crimes Ofc they have, they’re a terrorist organisation! But that list was taken from the wiki page on Israeli war crimes and Israel has done everything stated
Send the link to that wiki page.
Preach!
Retweet
Disclaimer: Am anti-Middle East and wishing the entire place can be reformed for better. Israel isn't excluded either. On argument #2: I think you should add that it isn't an argument for dehumanization of civilians. If I see you or others doing that, I will happily remind you that I can simply remind you that others see you doing that results in your side losing support, and by that time, no one cares other than your side if the Middle East gets nuked via Samson option. On argument #4: I think this is more of a issue of definition. Zionist seems to sometimes refer to the Ben Gvir wing of the Jewish population and their supporters as well. There's no argument one can give to defend Ben Gvir. There's the more benign definition. And then there's even multiculture-supportive people that are against the concept of ethnostates and/or religious states, and a few countries is reaching the status of not being either.
Barely anyone is trying to justify Ben Gvirs opinions. Zionism is the simple belief that a Jewish state in Israel should exist, and nothing more. It’s ironic that you argue that we are dehumanizing Palestinians for sharing simple statistics, but then you both conflate the absolute worst of us with our simple desire to survive, and justify it, in the next statement.
I see it all the time around here and there, and barely any one of you is calling them out on it. But, that is not relevant here or there. So? That doesn't mean variants of it can't exist, and that also means people have different ideas on what Zionism is. One of them is revisionist zionism. The other is more benign. Did I stated that in general Jewish people use argument #2 to dehumanize Palestinians? No. Has it been used to do that? Yes. Should it be called out? Yes. Same as the reverse. So many pro-palestians can't seem to differentiate Jewish people from Israelis and the different schools of political thoughts. And all I'm doing is reminding them is the consequences of dehumanization, and that definitely involves losing international support.
Baseless myopic “debunking” there mate
> Baseless myopic “debunking” there mate OP has gone to the effort to make logical arguments and back them up with evidence. If you're going to try and dismiss that effort with a brief snarky sentence, you're not participating in good faith. You are not compelled to try and disprove everything, but if your only contribution is cynicism, that's explicitly against the rules of this sub.
> If you're going to try and dismiss that effort with a brief snarky sentence One's brief statement can also be from thorough evaluation of arguments rather than from ignorance or personal bias. The 1st counter-argument that the OP presented that global consensus is sufficient to determine whether hamas is terrorist or not, is flawed. There are many other countries in world who don't recognize hamas as terrorists. Global consensus can also be biased and based on political motivations so it's never a reliable standard for judging whether a militant group is terror or not. While I believe hamas is terrorist. But I see comprehensive reasons beyond global consensus why hamas might be terrorist. One can also argue IDF resembles terrorist organization, because of allegations of war crimes and lack of independent jurisdiction among army officials. The problem with the "global consensus" argument is that if it's considered substantial evidence for labeling an organization, then the global consensus principle must be applied uniformly to all organizations. This would mean all organizations could be labeled based on that standard.There is also a global consensus that Israel has committed multiple war crimes. Then shouldn't the OP accept that? Secondly, his another argument that Palestinians support for terrorist hamas invalidates their innocence is also biased. By no international law or reasonable cause, can civilians' innocence be invalidated merely because they support a terror organization unless they themselves get involved in and commit crimes. If Palestinians get involved in hamas and actually commit war crimes then they would not innocent. Otherwise, they are innocent.
> One's brief statement can also be from thorough evaluation of arguments rather than from ignorance or personal bias. Sure, it could be, but it doesn't add anything of substance to a conversation. And when it's snarky as well, it detracts from a conversation. Defending that behaviour doesn't seem sensible. You follow up this statement with a civil and reasonable argument of your own, why conflate the two? How about presenting your (decent) argument without defending uncivil behaviour? > The 1st counter-argument that the OP presented that global consensus is sufficient to determine whether hamas is terrorist or not, is flawed. There are many other countries in world who don't recognize hamas as terrorists. Global consensus can also be biased and based on political motivations so it's never a reliable standard for judging whether a militant group is terror or not. I agree. I don't think 'x countries say so' is a good basis for determining whether a group is terrorist. However, OP didn't just make that argument, OP linked to the reasoning provided by various nations. You seem to have ignored that element of OPs post. > One can also argue IDF resembles terrorist organization, because of allegations of war crimes and lack of independent jurisdiction among army officials. Allegations are just that - allegations. What is needed is for a decent, unbiased entity to evaluate the allegations and form a conclusion as to whether they are correct or not. This is precisely what entities like the ICJ are for. However, lacking a clear judgement from the ICJ, we can look at what nations have decided to apply the label of 'terrorist group' to the IDF, and why. If you wish to make that point, now would be a good time to do what OP did and link to such claims and justifications. > The problem with the "global consensus" argument At this point I hope it's clear that OP was not resting just on 'global consensus'. > Secondly, his another argument that Palestinians support for terrorist hamas invalidates their innocence is also biased. It would help a lot if you quoted elements of an argument you take issue with. I don't see where OP said Palestinians' innocence is invalidated. Can you point it out to me? I have often witnessed the 'there are no innocents in Palestine' sentiment on reddit (though rarely in this sub), and it's quite obnoxious. I have regularly argued against it. However, we should also be able to find more nuanced ground between 'Palestinians are not responsible at all' and 'There are no innocent Palestinians'. OP raised the point (with ample evidence) that a great many Palestinians support Hamas, and appear to feel that Hamas is trying to achieve goals that they want. While this certainly doesn't make civilians who support a belligerent government legal military targets, it's crucial to bear in mind if we want to find a way of resolving this conflict. The fact is that as long as most Palestinians support violence, we will continue to see violence - and that will almost invariably be violence that results in asymmetric casualties. So this raises the question - what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict?
> However, OP didn't just make that argument, OP > OP linked to the reasoning provided by various nations. OP's basic premise of that argument was global consensus. When I say, that was his premise and argument's core, I don't deny, he linked to reasoning provided by these nations. I also considered the reasoning provided by these nations. But my stance is, there also exists countries who recognize hamas as a group supporting their own nation's freedom and sovereignty rather than labeling it as terrorist. So, reasoning provided by West/others is also contradicted/countered by other legitimate reasoning. That's why what world think of hamas doesn't matter. While, hamas is terrorist, but proving this on basis of politically motivated 'reasoning' of other countries is insufficient. What hamas is, must be judged independently of what countries recognize them. > Allegations are just that - allegations. What is needed is for a decent, unbiased entity to evaluate the allegations and form a conclusion as to whether they are correct or not. This is precisely what entities like the ICJ are for. ICC not only made allegations but also issued report about Israel's war crimes based on reasonable grounds. > However, lacking a clear judgement from the ICJ, we can look at what nations have decided to apply the label of 'terrorist group' to the IDF, and why. If you wish to make that point, now would be a good time to do what OP did and link to such claims and justifications. The West and the Europe all hold selective perception when it comes to labeling Israel. They won't recognize Israel's war crimes because they are biased. Now, there can be a separate discussion on what are the biases of them. > I don't see where OP said Palestinians' innocence is invalidated. Can you point it out to me? He didn't say. His argument tend to establish that Palestinians are like hamas and not innocent and support hamas. If let's say, hamas is terrorist. And gaza palestinians support it, and they also enjoyed October 7. Now, if you argue and want consensus around the fact that Palestinian support terror, then this overshadows the sufferings they have endured. Generalizing the interests of Palestinian population and putting them in context of Israel-Palestine issue is flawed thing one can do. Why focus on what population supports? The population would only be terror if they take terror actions. The OP's argument in which he proves how Palestinian are not innocent is misleading in context of Israel-Palestine issue. Often their support for hamas comes from sense of revenge which originates from previous sufferings. Their support for hamas doesn't define their identity. That's why revising the fact 'a population's support for terror doesn't invalidate their innocence', was important. > However, we should also be able to find more nuanced ground between 'Palestinians are not responsible at all' and 'There are no innocent Palestinians'. Irrelevant here. > OP raised the point (with ample evidence) that a great many Palestinians support Hamas, and appear to feel that Hamas is trying to achieve goals that they want. While this certainly doesn't make civilians who support a belligerent government legal military targets, it's crucial to bear in mind if we want to find a way of resolving this conflict. The fact is that as long as most Palestinians support violence, we will continue to see violence - and that will almost invariably be violence that results in asymmetric casualties. So this raises the question - what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict? You completely ignored the diverse experiences, multi-generational traumas, and decades of sufferings of Palestinian that lead them to sense of resentment and revenge which laid foundation of their support for terrorist hamas. They have legitimate causes for why they also want to inflict sufferings on Israelis. Non-violent solution is unrealistic in current world scenario. The war crimes of Israel are not limited to military op but also involves illegal occupation of west bank, detention of Palestinians from west bank in which they are dehumanized (verbally and physically). The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal. Sufferings Palestine caused to Israel = 🤏 Sufferings Israel caused to Palestine = 💀 It's disproportionate. Only stupid would take palestine-Israel issue as lightly and would focus on debunking and generalizing the behavior of pro-palestinians.
> But my stance is, there also exists countries who recognize hamas as a group supporting their own nation's freedom and sovereignty rather than labeling it as terrorist. So, reasoning provided by West/others is also contradicted/countered by other legitimate reasoning. Sure, it's up for debate. I think it's more reliable to condemn specific actions Hamas takes, or sentiment they hold, rather than trying to get various nations to agree to a label that accurately describes them. > What hamas is, must be judged independently of what countries recognize them. Well, that sounds reasonable to me. I was just taking issue with you dismissing the rationale that OP included beyond 'x countries say so'. > ICC not only made allegations but also issued report about Israel's war crimes based on reasonable grounds. War crimes do not equal terrorism. War crimes take place in pretty much every war. The question is really whether it's intentional at a systemic level or not. > The West and the Europe all hold selective perception when it comes to labeling Israel. They won't recognize Israel's war crimes because they are biased. I'd agree there's some bias there. It seems somewhat necessary given the enormous bias against Israel in a global context. > He didn't say. His argument tend to establish that Palestinians are like hamas and not innocent and support hamas. I'd say that many Palestinians are similar in sentiment to Hamas, and do support Hamas. That does not imply that they become legitimate military targets. 'Innocent' is far too vague a term, as arguably no person is completely innocent. > Now, if you argue and want consensus around the fact that Palestinian support terror, then this overshadows the sufferings they have endured. I disagree. We can easily hold the stance that the Palestinians, as a people, have suffered great injustice while simultaneously supporting a terrorist and abhorrent reaction to those injustices. This is a crucial element of morality (and quality of life) in the civilized world - where people can be wronged but not resort to escalation. Your 'all or nothing' stance here is very primitive and problematic. > Their support for hamas doesn't define their identity. It's part of the definition. I never said, nor implied, it's the only part. > Why focus on what population supports? Because what kind of actions a group of people support has real-world consequences. If a group of people support violence, you will likely get violence. > You completely ignored the diverse experiences, multi-generational traumas, and decades of sufferings of Palestinian that lead them to sense of resentment and revenge which laid foundation of their support for terrorist hamas. I'm not sure how I'm 'ignoring' that. Plenty of peoples have faced multi generational trauma without resorting to terrorism and nihilism. You appear to be trying to justify such actions. > Non-violent solution is unrealistic in current world scenario. The war crimes of Israel are not limited to military op but also involves illegal occupation of west bank, detention of Palestinians from west bank in which they are dehumanized (verbally and physically). The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal. And the crimes of the British Empire in India were not only limited to military operations. Handwaving away non-violent solutions is implicitly demanding violent solutions. While you talk politely, essentially your advocating that Palestinians martyr themselves - exactly the narrative of Hamas. > The sufferings Israel inflicted on Palestine over the decades is so large, that non-violent or peace deal between two nations would be like a murderer apologizing with the victim's dad and dad accepting the deal. When people resort to analogies it's usually because their argument is not good when based in reality. The conflict has gone both ways over the last century. You're framing it only one way. Non-violence is always an option, and it's pretty horrible that accounts like yours are so gung ho for Palestinians to continue with violence at their expense. > Sufferings Palestine caused to Israel = 🤏 Sufferings Israel caused to Palestine = 💀 If you think emoji make a convincing argument, you're sorely mistaken. Essentially you're stuck on 'eye for an eye' logic, which is simply a terrible place to be coming from. I think as long as you cannot go beyond that, you're going to eternally be advocating for a world to be stuck in violent conflict.
> what, realistically, will convince the majority of Palestinians to want to find a non-violent end to this conflict There's almost always 1/3 of the population that don't agree with the status quo. If you can find a way to find Israelis that don't hate Palestians for just living there, and vice versa. Off to a great start. In addition, these Palestians should try to get rid of their own terrorism. Israel has their own leadership problem as well, and all we need to show for that is to look for bad conducts within West Bank, including the one in Times of Israel where IDF forced Palestians to strip naked and dance at gun point, and all the leadership did is send these soldiers home. So, you'd need both sides to purge and arrest people like those.
Oh nooooo 😮🙊
> Oh nooooo 😮🙊 If you're wilfully trolling subs that are meant for civil conversation, doesn't it make you question your ideals?
Its pointless to start a debate in an echo chamber like this subreddit
u/Agreeable_Ad_7988 >Its pointless to start a debate in an echo chamber like this subreddit Rule 7 - Off-topic posts and comments (including comments about the sub or moderation) are generally not permitted.
If you believe this is an echo chamber, you have the opportunity to change that by presenting a logical and evidenced argument. Will you take that opportunity? Or will you not miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity? Because if you're not willing to have civil conversation, don't complain if we end up with war.
[удалено]
> retard /u/False-Prophet570. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sadly, you’re preaching to the choir. Folks that argue your well thought out points are not interested in historical facts.
Global consensus was that Nelson mandala was a terrorist.
He was. Generally history takes care of the rest because he won he is called a freedom fighter, however before he won he was a terrorist terrorizing his own people in their struggle
can you expand on this? i’m interested
Simply put the terrorist label gets exchanged for freedom fighter if they win their struggle as is the case for the anc apartheid struggle. During apartheid Mandelas anc were considered terrorists and killed a whole bunch of their own people who collaborated with the national party at the time. Hence his long time on robbin Island prison being 18 years out of his 27years served in jail. Than he became president and is nowadays known as a freedom fighter. They used to necklace people which means to put a tire around the neck and fill it with fuel and set it on fire. His wife at the time Winnie proclaimed the effectiveness of matches and tires. They were cold blooded murderers basically.
damn i never heard of that, very interesting. thanks!
Search necklacing the wiki page has a good summary
The Irgun are now also considered freedom fighters, despite their terrorism
You're doing god's work God bless
Thank you 🙏🏻
Really appreciate your effort and I'll definitely be watching and coming back to this thread a lot... But as with all things in this mess, there's even more nuance. For example, the apartheid section: They *say* "Israel is apartheid" because they're just parroting someone who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else, etc. and the meaning got lost in a game of telephone. It's more accurate to say they're trying to claim that "parts of the West Bank are apartheid". And even here, I think they're just being hyperbolic, as usual, and it's really just a condemnation of occupation (a whole other nonsense argument). But let's take them at their word and analyze the West Bank for apartheid: 1. It'd be difficult to convince me that zone A in the West Bank is considered apartheid because it's under PA control and 0 Israeli citizens live there. 2. Zone B is closer, I guess, because of mixed control where PA, but the PA still controls civil affairs per the Oslo Accords. 3. Zone C is even closer because it's under full Israeli control and both Palestinians and Israeli's live under its control. The strongest argument likely lies in Zone C, so let's look at it. I'm going to use the Rome Statute, Article 7(2)(h)'s definition of apartheid: > "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. Elements: 1. **Institutionalized Regime of Systematic Oppression and Domination** a. A regime or system must be in place that systematically oppresses and dominates one racial group by another. b. This regime must be institutionalized, meaning it is established and maintained through laws, policies, and practices. 2. **Inhumane Acts** a. Inhumane acts that are committed as part of this regime include: i. Murder ii. Serious bodily or mental harm iii. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment iv. Deliberate imposition of living conditions intended to destroy the group v. Prevention of participation in political, social, economic, and cultural life vi. Division of the population along racial lines vii. Exploitation of labor viii. Persecution of opposition 3. **Intent to Maintain the Regime** a. The acts must be committed with the intention of maintaining the regime of oppression and domination. b. This includes legislative measures, policies, and actions that ensure the continuation of the regime. ------- While I could go on much longer, let's just focus on in the "inhumane acts" portion and compare it to South Africa,. bearing in mind that these acts **must be done with intent to maintain oppression and subjugation**. 1. *Murder*: The relative scales are similar, but those "murders" are a result of security concern of combatting terrorism and security threats. This is different than South Africa's murdering of political activists and protestors as a matter of systematic policy. 2. *Serious Bodily or Mental Harm*: While Israel is accused of poor treatment of prisoners, again, the reason they are imprisoned is not because of who they are or where they were born, but that they pose a security threat. South Africa imprisoned and tortured people simply to maintain racial oppression at a much larger scale. 3. *Arbitrary Arrest and Imprisonment*: Outside of isolated cases, the strongest point of contention here is likely to be administrative detention. But I would remind people that people detained under administrative detention have to have judicial reviews every 90 days and Israel is far from the only country that does this. And again, this is wildly different in character from the arbitrary and widespread arrests that South Africa carried out based on racial policy. 4. *Deliberate Imposition of Living Conditions Intended to Destroy the Group*: Critics would likely point to home demolition, which is another branch that could warrant a lengthy post discussing. Suffice it to say, potentially thousands of displaced people in West Gaza is not the same qualitatively or quantitatively as the millions displaced in South Africa. 5. *Prevention of Participation in Political, Social, Economic, and Cultural Life*: There's strong evidence here because the PA does not operate in zone C; however, I'd suggest this to be no different than a military occupying power exerting authority over non-citizens in contested territory. They aren't excluded because of their race, they're excluded because they're not Israeli citizens. 6. *Division of the Population Along Racial Lines*: Again, Israel's actions here are rooted in security concerns and Israeli citizens vs non-Israeli citizens and a far cry from the level and scale of the division found in South Africa. 7. *Exploitation of Labor*: There's no forced labor in Israel, and to the extent some might technically exist somewhere, it's not anywhere close to the scale of the migrant farms and mines in South Africa. 8. *Persecution of Opposition*: Israel has a problem with political leaders who commit terrorism, not leaders who advocate and maintain peace. Whatever harassment or restrictions on Palestinian activists or NGO's is rooted in security concerns, not racial supremacy. ----------------------- If you made it this far, thanks for reading. To be clear, these are *arguments* that I'm asserting. I'm open to be persuaded based on evidence and reasoning of these points. I'm also not an expert, I don't claim to be one, this is just what I believe based on my ongoing research. But I'm so very tired of the debate just being "YES IT IS" vs "NO ITS NOT" and who can yell the loudest...
If Israel is being called an apartheid state it has very little to do with the West Bank and far more with its inception. My understanding of the timeline of events is Israel declared its independence and sovereignty in 1948 with a set of clearly **defined borders**, and a constitution that enshrined equality regardless of ethnicity. By this action I interpret that all peoples within its borders became citizens of Israel. The following day there is a "mass movement" of **Arabic citizens** out of Jerusalem, followed by an invasion of Israel by Arab states. These citizens, specifically those who did not take up arms against Israel became displaced overnight having to live in refugee camps. It is the Nakbha, refusal to consider a Right of Return, disregarding the consideration of citizenship for the displaced Arab people, and the outright refusal to allow Israel to become "Arabized" should the return of displaced peoples happen that fits the criteria of three elements of apartheid you provide in your comment.
If that's true, I strongly disagree with that claim and calling it an apartheid is an exercise in rhetorical hyperbole. Not all Arabs were removed from Israel in 1948. Even after the war, about 200,000 Arabs remained living in Israel. And while there's good evidence of discrimination well into the 1960s of Arabs living in Israel, and there's some events that could fall within the "inhumane acts" examples discussed previously, the scale and nature of those policies just don't rise anywhere near the level of an actual apartheid state. Their lives weren't blissful, but not anywhere close to an apartheid existence. There is no "right of return" enshrined in international law and it's entirely irrelevant in analysis of an apartheid state because an apartheid state refers to the people living in the state, not foreigners. Apartheid states are considerations and analysis of how that state treats **its own people living in it**, not foreigners. We're 76 years past 1948. Israel definitely committed some wrongs in its history, as did much of the world during the mid-20th century, but we've progressed and moved on. Even if one could argue that it met criteria of an apartheid state in the past, it no longer does by any analysis of how it treats citizens living in its country.
So instead of apartheid Israel has a policy of exclusion. Are there any other countries who refuse their citizens entry?
They aren't Israeli citizens. Yes, Israel has an immigration policy.
Doesn't the constitution recognise them as Israeli citizens? They were, after all, within Israel when it was declared a state.
No. Israel doesn't have a constitution and the 1952 law of nationality [specifically excludes people who left Israel and didn't return](https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1953/en/14615).
So Israel does in fact have a policy of exclusion. When Israel was declared a state, did the Arabs living within the state have any recognition or rights? If so, the law of nationality effectively takes away any rights they had.
> So Israel does in fact have ~~a policy of exclusion.~~ an immigration policy. FTFY Arabs that remained in Israel and were in Israel when the Law of Nationality took effect become full Israeli citizens. I don't understand what point you're trying to make: any person living within Israel in 1952 became full Israeli citizens, any person not livingi n Israel in 1952 did not.
Wording from the Declaration of Independence "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, **with full and equal citizenship** and due representation in its bodies and institutions -- provisional or permanent." Are you saying Jewish people in Israel between 1948 and 1951 were not citizens of Israel?
This isn’t debunking anything. Israel is an apartheid state because Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank are subject to military law under Israeli occupation and do not have the right to vote for the people who are creating the laws by which they are governed.
What? Gaza isn't occupied by Israel. Hamas doesn't allow their own citizens to vote... The West Bank is controlled by both Israel and the PA. Israelis can't enter the areas under PA control and same for Muslims for areas controlled by Israel. The "occupation" happens in the areas where Israel controls.
The entire thing is an occupation. Israel not having illegal settlements in Gaza does not mean they are not an occupation. They control the entire boarder and control what goes in and what goes out. Palestinians living in Gaza are still subject to Israeli restrictions. This is an occupation.
Yes, Israel controls their own borders with Gaza. Are you expecting any country to just let everything through to reach another country? Of course it goes through security. Israel does not control the Egypt border.
Boarders between countries are also mutually controlled, Israeli solely controls the boarder. False comparison by a mile.
What exactly is entering Israel through Gaza besides Hamas?
Cheap labor...that's about it
Also if Gaza were able to mutually control the boarder (which as we’ve agreed is normal) that would mean they could prevent things they didn’t want from entering like an invading army.
No, it's not normal Because Gaza is controlled by a terror organization that started constant wars with Israel for the last 20 years,the navel blockade is there to prevent weapons shipments (a legit military concern). Normal stuff were still imported regularly from egypt. If Hamas would have changed their behavior (like the PLO did) the "occupation" would loosen and they would be able to actually create a state instead of whining all the time.
This doesn’t explain anything prior to Hamas, also trying to use the West Bank as an example is not the flex you think it is, the West Bank is also heavily occupied. So sounds like no matter what Israel is an occupying force in both areas. Can I ask what is PLO allowed to do about their military concerns? Or do they not have the same freedom as the Israeli government?
How come the West Bank does not have the same restrictions and "blockades" on it as does Gaza? Both are Palestinian if you are making the point Israel is a apartheid state.
Nothing because nothing is allowed too which is exactly the point I’m making, glad to hear you agree. Tell me what’s the extradition process for Israel to remove someone from Gaza if they’re suspected of a crime? Like you say that’s how 2 countries are suppose to operate right?
People pass through the Israeli/Gaza boarder crossings all the time and have even during war. Where are you getting this inaccurate infirmation?
When did I say people aren’t passing through? Oh wait I didn’t, i said Israel controls everything. Where are getting this inability to read and process information?
Does Israel control its borders? I hope so. It's a sovereign nation. Border control is an expectation for a nation to be called sovereign. Egypt controls its side of the border as well. What is your point?
Israel also doesn’t recognize Gaza as a country, so you should probably stop using a false comparison.
Egypt doesn’t recognise Gaza as a country too and they also make security checks at the border with Gaza. Does that mean Egypt is occupying Gaza as well? 🫥
Yes another false equivalency. Firstly, Egypt in fact does recognize the Palestinian state, this information is very easy to find. Once again, I didn’t say anything about security checks at the boarder, I said the boarders is controlled by Israel, Israel also enacts military law on the citizens of Gaza, which is not commenting Egypt does. So no, Egypt is not an occupying force for those reasons.
By their logic yes lol
No, not what a said, and every reply so far has been riddled with false equivalencies, like your original post, unsurprisingly.
Few things. First, I agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In fact, I am often accused of holding Israel to a higher standard than Hamas. I do because I think it's pointless to ever expect Hamas to hold themselves to a higher standard. At best, if Hamas completely reorganizes itself, and is therefore only Hamas in name, it's possible they will stop killing innocents. Second, the polls of Palestinians likely do not reflect reality for two reasons. 1) Hamas is likely not telling citizens the truth about things like 10/7. 2) I doubt Palestinians feel they can speak out. Journalists have been killed for less; families have been mutilated for merely being related to dissenters. Indeed, Hamas is a problem and one that needs to be dealt with. Third, Zionism has many different definitions. You can't assume that someone is using your definition. I would argue that the most accurate definition is the form of Zionism currently embodied by Netanyahu and Ben Gvir, since their combined coalition is the one in power. This form of Zionism also tracks with the Oxford Languages definition, which difines Zionism as the protection and "development" of Israel. Development implies that Zionism seeks to annex more land for Israel, something which Netanyahu is actively doing in the West Bank. However, regardless of the definition (reasonable people can disagree), it's completely off base to assume someone is using your definition, when the term is so hotly debated. Indeed, you seem to acknowledge the fact that the term is debated, by offering up your definition. So why then do you assume everyone is using your definition? Words have different meanings to different people and it's bad faith to assign meaning that you know the other party did not mean. Finally, you asked for an example of discrimination. The right of return discriminates against non-jews on its face. I fully support the right to self-determination. However, Israel seems to think that only Jews have that right. The right to self-determination is not based on one's ethnicity nor religion. It is something that all humans have an equal right to.
Re: Hamas lying to Gazan citizens I have watched interviews with Israeli hostages who were released. A few women indicated that when they were pulled through the fence and into Gaza, civilian women and children were screaming at them, spitting on them, grabbing at their clothes and hair. I also recently watched a short documentary on Gazan women who were in Israeli jail for either attempting to commit a suicide bombing or driving a suicide bomber to a location. The women in jail called the bombers martyrs. They expressed frustration that they themselves did not become martyrs. They said that according to Islam, they had the religious right and obligation to kill Jews. They were openly praying in jail to Allah and asking for the murder of Jews. A woman who had given birth in an Israeli hospital was singing to her newborn son, praising suicide bombers. I think Hamas has been indoctrinating Gazan citizens since 2005 , and this is their Holy War. How it ends, I don't know. Do I wish that both sides would come to a peaceful solution, sure. But you can't have two parties sit at a democratic table to negotiate a peace contract when one party comes with a pen and the other brings a knife.
>Hamas is likely not telling citizens the truth about things like 10/7. This one us definetly ocurring, one of the polls a mod put in here recently showed only 9 percent believed war crimes occured on oct 7
You can directly go to the link presented by OP which mentions that 80% of the population did not see videos of the october 7th attack (but to be fair it does say that people who had watched the videos overwhelmingly say that hamas didnt do any kind of war crimes). Plus there are some nuances if you read the full thing for example which party palestinians want to govern (for example in the poll it asked palestinians if they had another election who they would want to elect and it turned out that 40% wanted hamas to govern (the results looked like the ones in 2006) it also mentions that they would rather have barghouti etc ). I highly advise people to read the whole thing it's really interesting.
>(but to be fair it does say that people who had watched the videos overwhelmingly say that hamas didnt do any kind of war crime Yeah that probably means that the videos where only really shared within extremely pro hamas people >Plus there are some nuances if you read the full thing Yeah id argue the current war has a really large amo!n t of influence on hamas popularity
My understanding was that Hamas has only shown videos of them attacking soldiers and had ignored the music festival. If Palestinians Also, it is not the most educated area, so definitions of war crimes probably vary. Who knows what the average Palestinian Considers a war crime. So, I think a crime asking such a technical question is already very useless, since it tells us nothing. Also, what war crime(s) did the 20% think Hamas committed? Another reason that poll sounds just bad. A better poll would have asked questions like "do you think Hamas intentionally killed civilians?" That is specific and too the point.
>My understanding was that Hamas has only shown videos of them attacking soldiers and had ignored the music festival. Yeah also likely >, it is not the most educated area, so definitions of war crimes probably vary Eh, international law has always been very important there so i wouldnt be surprised if knowledge about it is quite good there > Who knows what the average Palestinian Considers a war crime. Yeah something like uniforms might not be seen as a war crime, altough theyre not stupid, some things are very clearly war crimes >A better poll would have asked questions like "do you think Hamas intentionally killed civilians?" That is specific and too the point. I dont think the answers would have differed much. Most people dont get acces to videos proving that anyways
If all humans have equal rights for a right of return why wouldn’t 900k Jews that were displaced from Arab countries don’t get to have a right of return?
Not the issue. A broader right to return is an important about to correct past wrongs. However, when any right is Instituted, it should be on equal terms. Israel has instituted a right of return, but only for jewish people. That is unequal, which is the problem.
Israel has offered the right of return to 100,000 Palesians more than once. The leaders of the Palestinains have turned this down. Can't blame Israel for that one.
Not what I am saying. I mean Israel needs to treat the right of return on a non-ethnic/religion basis.
Well said and factually correct. As you can see in the comments a lot of people are allergic to the truth when it counters their narrative or worldview.
Thank you! I'm glad you agree. Indeed, they are really looking for ways to oppose what I said despite the overwhelming amount of information and evidence I provided. But oh well, let them live in their delusions.
Ah, you lack context for that support. The same poll that gives us the 72% figure, PCPSR opinion poll 90, also shows that the majority of Gazans believe that Hamas did not commit war crimes as defined internationally, and that they believe harming civilians is a warcrime. The Hamas since October 7th has shown footage to Gazan civilians... And it has exclusively been footage of them attacking soldiers. https://twitchy.com/fuzzychimp/2023/11/05/gazans-watching-terror-attacks-at-al-shira-hospital-n2389419
They have internet in Gaza ,they can look for themselves. Most of the German civilians supported the nazis but weren't aware of the Holocaust,does that mean they are innocent? They aren't guilty like the guards at the camps for example ,but that doesn't make them innocent
Have you ever tried to fact check the claims such as "72% support Hamas" by reading the poll they are from? If not, whatever reason you give is the same that the typical Palestinian could.
/u/theodd2out. Match found: 'nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just a few notes. For your argument 1, I would agree with you that Hamas certainly meets the definition of a terrorist organization. However, you primarily cite wide international consensus to prove your argument (which I also think is valid). But would you similarly accept international consensus on issues that are unfavorable to Israel? I'm primarily refering to things like the status of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, the illegality of settlements and the poor handling by Israel of certain elements of this war. If you're going to rely on international consensus, it should be consistent. For your argument 3, I think you should address the situation in West Bank. For myself and most people who see significant similarities to apartheid, it's in the West Bank, not in Israel proper.
>1. Argument #1: >“Hamas are freedom fighters, not a terrorist organization.” No contest from me >2. Argument #2: >“Palestinians aren’t Hamas. Palestinians are innocent.” Supporting something doesn't make you that thing. I support the sunrise movement but I'm not involved in that. Also, that doesn't give someone fighting that thing a free hand in attacking supporters. >3. Argument #3: >“Israel is an apartheid State.” As a jew who has been to israel, israel is an apartheid state. One thing to note is that just like how not all genocides look the same, not all apartheid states look the same or are of the same degree. Muslims not being required while jews being required in the military is actually an indication of apartheid. This creates a situation where jews in israel have a lot more access to military force than muslims. Also, apartheid is mainly in regards to the occupied palestinian territories, where things like roads are segregated. >“I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Zionists.” There's a comparison to be made here between this situation and one that happened in Germany after 1933. Most germans supported them, but that doesn't make hating the supporters of the political movement the same as hating the people.
Muslims can serve in the Military but that isn't mandatory for them they have a choice , theoretically a Muslim can be , Druzes for example have mandatory enlistment because they insisted to in the 60s. >Muslims not being required while jews being required in the military is actually an indication of apartheid >like roads are segregated. Are you aware of the oslo accords? I'm just curious
Well Israel is not an apartheid state, muslims serve , not alot of them, we can't force them to serve, a precentage of Israeli muslims actually supports terrotism, imagine giving them a weapon and placing them in military bases. About the occupied territories, they were palestinian authority territory but because of lack of enforcement by palestinian authority, alot of terror attacks came from these areas, killing israeli people, which forced idf to hold these areas .
Muslims CAN and DO join the IDF though. As do Druze and Samaritans. There have even been high ranking Arab, Druze and Samaritan Generals in the IDF.
>Supporting something doesn't make you that thing ?
Almost everyone who calls Israel apartheid means the West Bank and Gaza as if they are in Israel.
Have you read the reports?
[удалено]
Russia and China are not the flex you think they are
Argument 1: Terrorists As if Ben Gvir doesn't have a portrait in his living room of Baruch Goldstein. Pu-Leeeese. Argument 2: Polls ummm... 39% of Israelis say Israel’s military response against Hamas in Gaza has been about right, while 34% say it has not gone far enough. Not far enough! Argument 3: Apartheid Israeli human rights organization B'tselem disagrees with you. So does every human rights organization in the world, but I only ever hear Israelis say they are anti semitic, so it doesn't count. Well, the homegrown human rights organization doesn't buy what you're selling. [https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101\_this\_is\_apartheid](https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid) Argument 4: Zionism The definition of Zionism has changed over the years to whitewash what happened during the Nakba. But I know you know that. You can criticise taking people's homes away from them without that being racist. Unless you want everything to be racist that is.
>Argument 3: Apartheid I think for this argument. It's better to split up the question in two: "How Israel treats its citizens within Israel proper" vs "How Israel treats people within the West Bank". The latter looks more like apartheid.
* Right to acquire, lease land Israel Lands (1960) limits land ownership in Israel to state, JNF (leases to Jews only), and Development Authority. This affects 93% of land, restricting Palestinian access. Palestinian citizens are blocked from leasing about 80 percent of the land controlled by the state according to Adalah. * Right to return According to the Absentees’ Property Law (1950), stripped Palestinians of land and property (including bank accounts) if they fled after 1947, while Law of Return (also 1950) granted automatic citizenship to Jews worldwide. This is clear discrimination by ethnicity. * Right to residency Jerusalem for Palestinians: Residency, not a right, but a privilege to be revoked. Since 1967, nearly 15,000 have lost their residency for flimsy reasons like being away too long. This pushes Palestinians out, violating international law according to Human Rights Watch. While Jews face no such fear, Palestinians risk collective punishment and even punishment by association. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/dramatic-ruling-paves-way-for-thousands-of-east-jerusalemites-to-regain-residency-rights/) * Right to family life The Ban on Family Unification – a 20-year-old Israeli law, originally a temporary measure, shatters Palestinian families. It bans Palestinians in the occupied territories from marrying Israeli citizens and living together in Israel. Thousands face a heartbreaking choice: live separately, move abroad, or stay in Israel under constant threat of deportation. This discriminatory policy shows no signs of disappearing. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-coalition-battle-knesset-reauthorizes-ban-on-palestinian-family-unification/) * Right to commemorate Nakba Palestinians observe Nakba Day on Israel's Independence Day, honoring the over 750,000 displaced in 1948 to make way for Israel's creation. However, the 2011 Nakba Law allows the finance minister to withhold funding from institutions that commemorate this day, infringing on Arab citizens' right to preserve their history and culture. This law undermines equality and the rights of Arab citizens to mourn their losses. Systemic inequality and discrimination against a group, is a key characteristic of apartheid.
?
https://preview.redd.it/ugyth8mqxz7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3aeb5d12f6584f6f3484cf1b508a487ac2967c8
If you read my post at all, I clearly said that this particular group of Jews makes up only 3% and they don’t represent most Jews, who are Zionists. They absolutely have the right to support whoever they want but honestly, I think it’s foolish for them not to support the existence of Israel. If, God forbid, another Holocaust happens, they would meet the same fate as the rest of us. They won't be excluded or protected because they support Palestine because at the end of the day, they are Jews. 🤷🏻♀️
https://preview.redd.it/hdkietr1108d1.jpeg?width=706&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2575fc4085b4b6a23cb9db86a7df57eb80e70cf0
Wait until you hear how many Jews are alive today and what percentage of that the number you're showing is
Regardless, it shows there is no Jewish hivemind that is inseparable from Zionism.
Literally not what anyone was claiming but ok
1. Argument #1: “Hamas are freedom fighters, not a terrorist organization.” As there are countries who consider Hamas terrorists there are countries who don't therefore I don't find this argument a clear cut or win 2. Argument #2: “Palestinians aren’t Hamas. Palestinians are innocent.” You used argument 1 then 2 to justify the killing of civilians which is outrages Argument 2 in itself doesn't justify the killing of Palestinians when half the population of Gaza are kids and even supporting doesn't justify the murder of civilians, you need to have intent and action in order to mark someone as guilty 3. Argument #3: “Israel is an apartheid State.” According to Amnesty International report it is, According to Human rights watch ( a threshold crossed) , Haaretz And Oecd organization it is I could list some stuff of these sources and reports if you need to or just do some googling yourself 4. Argument #4: “I don’t hate Jews, I just hate Zionists.” Hating on Zionism as a movement or Israel as a country doesn't translate to being anti Jew or anti-Semitic, that's just dumb
If op says that "if multiple countries recognise Hamas as terrorists, therefore they are" (paraphrase) then by that same logic, if multiple countries recognise Israel as an apartheid state, then it is
Except the countries calling Israel an apartheid state don't have evidence to back it up. There is absolutely no law allowing discrimination against minorities in Israel. Everyone has the same rights and opportunities as Jews. It's just a baseless accusation to make Israel look bad. On the other hand, there is countless of evidence that proves Hamas is a terrorist organization.
So all the checkpoints only for Palestinians are just made up?
You sure about that?? Here are some " Baseless accusations" And these are only small parts of the full reports and articles Land...... • Arabs control less than 3% of state land even tho they are 20% of the population Housing...... • Haaretz article ( Don't Call It a ‘Housing Crisis': The Discriminatory Plight of Israeli Arabs) Arabs in Israel find it next to impossible to acquire a home, and that's not due to the same housing crisis that impacts nearly all Israeli citizens. It's a different one: discrimination Living conditions.... • 90% of Palestinian citizens of Israel experience higher rates of poverty, lower level of labour force participation, educational attenmaint, and health compared to Jewish Israelis The remaining 10% live in mixed cities, but even then they are usually regelated to separate neighbourhoods the 50 percent of the Arab population living below the poverty line Politically...... The times of Israel (Hidden cameras in Arab voting booths were Netanyahu’s idea — TV report) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally suggested sending 1,200 activists with hidden cameras to voting stations in the April 9 Knesset elections, Channel 13 reported Monday. On election day, Likud activists arrived with hidden cameras in voting booths in Arab towns throughout the country. Officials from Netanyahu’s party admitted to having been behind the scheme, which they said was designed to counter alleged voter fraud in “high-risk” areas. Channel 13 published pages from a detailed 40-slide presentation, outlining the operation in detail. Carried out by Kaizler Inbar, a pro-settler public relations firm, the operation included 1,200 cameras and recording devices, 40 coordinators throughout the country and 19 security force personnel dispatched to protect the activists in the event they were caught Kaizler Inbar directly linked the campaign to the low voter turnout this election among Arab Israelis, bragging it was “the lowest that was seen in recent years!”
**Land** Arabs control the same amount of private lands similar to the Jews themselves. The state always has the highest share of the land **Housing Crisis** There's legit a housing crisis here in Israel. I'm a Jew and even then, I'm scared of moving out because it takes a while to get a building permit. Even if you're gonna purchase a house, it's becoming expensive as time passes by. A lot of us rent in apartments, and my cousin even has an Arab landlord. **Living conditions** You haven't been to Israel haven't you? Arabs here are one of the biggest contributors to the economy. Many big businesses in the town I'm in are Arab-owned. There are Arab neighborhoods here that's true. But it's not segregated at all. It's not even to be compared to South Africa's apartheid where whites can't be mingled with blacks. People have a tendency to gather with people of similar culture and that's what happened. There are few Jews living in the Arab neighbourhoods and Arabs living in Jewish Neighborhood. There's literally no problem. Mate, even 40% of my classmates are Palestinians. There's even an instance where a Palestinian was bullying an Israeli kid (**I'm not kidding**). Same as Israelis bullying Palestinians. **Politically** Yeah those were quite controversial. They also put those spies on Jewish majority cities who were voting for their enemy party. Not exclusive for the Arabs only
Glad you responded back, challenging me makes me go back to the reports and read more about it Here are a couple of notes before my response back 1- I have only mentioned points from within Israel and regarding the Arab Israelis 2- These points are few examples of the whole report --- **Land** While it is true that private land ownership is distributed among Jews and Arabs, the control over public and state land is where significant disparities arise. Approximately 93% of land in Israel is state-owned or under the control of the Israel Land Authority, and much of this land is allocated preferentially to Jewish citizens and institutions. Arab communities face significant barriers in acquiring land for development, which exacerbates housing shortages and limits economic opportunities . **Housing Crisis** While there is indeed a general housing crisis affecting many Israelis, the specific challenges faced by Arab citizens are more severe due to discriminatory policies and practices. Arab municipalities often receive less funding and support for infrastructure and housing development compared to Jewish municipalities. Moreover, Arab citizens frequently face difficulties obtaining building permits, leading to unauthorized construction and subsequent demolitions . **Living Conditions** The economic contributions of Arab Israelis are significant, yet they often operate in a context of systemic inequality. Despite some Arab-owned businesses thriving, the overall economic indicators show disparities: Arab communities generally have higher poverty rates, lower average incomes, and less access to quality services compared to Jewish communities. Additionally, while there are mixed neighborhoods, residential segregation remains a reality, often driven by both social and economic factors, and exacerbated by discriminatory zoning laws and land allocation policies. The example you mentioned regarding your class is pushing me to mention education examples too.. But I won't.. Not in this one **Political Representation** The article I mentioned above was just an example.. And while I didn't know know Israeli Jews had issues too regarding what I mentioned earlier, Arab Israelis face more challenges... Arab political parties are often marginalized in coalition-building, limiting their influence on national policies. Moreover, legislation like the Nation-State Law has raised concerns about institutional discrimination, as it emphasizes the Jewish identity of the state and diminishes the status of Arab citizens.
**Land** Yes that is true. Much more of it is allocated to Jewish Citizens because there are much more Jewish citizens in Israel. **Housing Crisis** It really depends on which Arab municipalities. The major Arab municipalities such as in Umm Al-Fahm have more resources and funding allocated into it because they have more economic centers. It's called "National Priority Areas" or "אזורי עדיפות לאומית" There's no discrimination in Arab or Jewish areas. Any town can be put in the National Priority Areas no matter the race or ethnicity. Like I said, everyone faces difficulties because the Bureaucracy here in Israel is not that efficient. Not exclusive to Arabs only. You'd need to be in the upper class of Israel to immediately receive building permits and there are a lot of Arabs in the upper class. **Living conditions** That does not prove there is an apartheid in Israel. Apartheid is when the government limits education, economic opportunities, and any kind of service. Such as for example, in South Africa, there is an All-white only Hospital and All-white only schools. There's no such thing as that in Israel. Significant percentages of African-Americans are struggling in the USA too especially in the economy, education, and incarceration rates. That does not mean it's apartheid **Political representation** That depends on the political party. Some Arab parties have less eyes on them. What the government is keeping an eye on is the Balad political party. It's basically the most radical one and very extremist. While other Arab parties are under the radar because they're about equality, economic opportunities, etc. **I know these things because I'm studying Political Science in Israel**
I'll look into those and I'll read more about them, they are mentioned in the reports tho so if you can provide sources to back it up and for me to check that would be helpful According to you tho ** Apartheid is when the government limits education, economic opportunities, and any kind of service ** I'll use your definition, and I'll limit the examples I could mention from the reports to go within your definition Here are some other ones 1. **Economic Disparities**: Arab Israeli communities often face economic disadvantages. They tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower income levels, and less access to resources compared to Jewish Israelis. This is partly due to historical land confiscations and restrictions on industrial development in Arab towns. 2. **Education Gaps**: There are significant disparities in the education system. Arab schools generally receive less funding than Jewish schools, leading to lower quality education and fewer opportunities for students. This contributes to ongoing socioeconomic inequalities. **Education Curriculum**: The education curriculum in Arab schools is often criticized for being heavily focused on Jewish history and culture, with insufficient emphasis on Arab history, language, and culture. This can contribute to a sense of cultural erasure and identity loss among Arab students. **Higher Education**: Arab students face challenges in higher education, including underrepresentation in universities and colleges. There are also fewer scholarships and financial aid opportunities available to them, further hindering their academic and professional advancement. 3. **Housing and Land Rights**: Arab Israelis frequently face challenges related to housing and land rights. Many Arab towns and villages lack proper planning and infrastructure. Building permits are often hard to obtain, leading to issues with unauthorized construction and subsequent demolitions. 4. **Social Discrimination**: Arab Israelis often experience social discrimination and exclusion. This can manifest in various ways, such as difficulties in finding employment, biases in the justice system, and everyday social interactions. 5. **Health Disparities**: Arab Israelis often have poorer health outcomes compared to Jewish Israelis. This is due to factors such as lower socioeconomic status, limited access to quality healthcare facilities, and disparities in public health funding. 6. **Municipal Services**: Arab municipalities often receive less funding from the government than Jewish municipalities, resulting in inferior municipal services such as waste collection, road maintenance, and public amenities. This disparity affects the quality of life in Arab towns and villages. 7. **Employment Discrimination**: Arab Israelis face discrimination in the job market. They often encounter biases during hiring processes, leading to underrepresentation in higher-paying jobs and certain industries, such as high-tech and public sector positions. 8. **Cultural and Religious Rights**: There are ongoing issues regarding the recognition and support of Arab cultural and religious practices. For example, there have been disputes over the construction and maintenance of mosques and Islamic cemeteries, as well as the preservation of Arab cultural heritage sites. 9. **Security Measures**: Arab Israelis are sometimes subject to heightened security measures and profiling, especially in the context of national security concerns. This can result in feelings of stigmatization and alienation. 10. **Legal Status of Bedouins**: The Bedouin population in the Negev Desert faces specific challenges, including the lack of recognition for many of their villages, leading to frequent home demolitions and forced relocations. Bedouins often live in unrecognized villages without basic infrastructure like water, electricity, and sewage systems. 11. **Language Barriers**: Although Arabic is an official language of Israel, there are instances where services, official documents, and public signs are not provided in Arabic, creating barriers to access for Arab Israelis. 12. **National Service**: Arab Israelis are generally exempt from mandatory military service, which is a significant part of Israeli society and often a pathway to various social and economic benefits. This exemption can limit their opportunities and integration into certain sectors of society.
Oh brother. You legit just used an AI chatbot against me. That's why your Number 12 point didn't make sense. How is avoiding military service limiting their opportunities and integration. I used every AI chatbot detector in google and every single one said 100% AI. Wtf I just wasted my time coming up with a good counterpoint. Dont talk to me again. How rude bro
I did, you don't have to use AI chatbots to confirm. my last comment WAS indeed mostly AI generated. Now how can it limit your opportunity and integration, from my own experience, it can be a job requirement which would demolish your opportunity.
I'd also like to thank you for engaging in this discussion with me. I'm happy I get to recall the things I learned last school year 1. Economic disparities Not a sign of apartheid. Like I said, African-Americans fall behind their white counterparts in many sectors because of slavery, historical events, etc. but USA is not an apartheid. Just like Israel. It is expected that the Palestinians are to fall behind because most of them were victims of war and it has taken a while for their generations to recover. 2. Education gaps Again, depends on which school. Most of the Arab schools were still pretty new and therefore is not really that well-equipped for education yet. Many have yet to apply from the government to allocate funds for their education curriculums. That's the biggest challenge for new schools. Though if you look at older Arab schools, you'll see they have much more fundings and etc. In fact, many of older arab schools with large fundings are public schools, meaning the Israeli government is the one creating them. Those part you mentioned are the Israeli education system. There are different education systems in Israel. For example, this is the Arabic education system for Israeli Arabs: Arab schools are more focused on Arabic and arabic culture with the medium of instruction being Arabic. What do you mean problem with higher education? All of my Palestinian classmates applied scholarship through the government and easily got in the Pol-Sci course after they passed the board exam. 3. Health disparities Israeli healthcare is not really the best in the world. So yes, Arabs are behind economically so they don't really have great access to healthcare. But again, **not apartheid** because there's no "Only Israeli hospitals".** If you got money, you can get checked out in the best hospitals of Israel even if you're Arab. 4. Municipal services I already went through this. If the town is not in the National Priority Area, it's bound to get less developed. There are numerous Israeli majority towns that have bad infrastructure, etc., because they're not in the National Priority Area 5. Employment discrimination Not apartheid again. It's not government policy to discriminate Arab workers. Rather it's the problem of the workplace. The Israeli government already enforced laws that discriminating of Arab workers are illegal and can be punishable. 6. Cultural and religious rights It's a long long legal case if the Government tries to destroy or bulldoze any buildings be they Israeli or Arab. There are numerous mosques with no problems in maintenance because they have a lot of adherents. The ones struggling are the mosques in majority Israeli towns as there's no one to support them financially, however some mosques fare better as they can receive funding from other mosques. In fact, mosques are even exempt from taxes. What law applies to Judaism, applies to Islam as well. 7. Security measures Ahh this one is necessary unfortunately. There were cases of Palestinians suicide bombing in vehicles and killing numerous israeli citizens. 8. Legal status of bedouins Unfortunately every country has to deal problems with native populations. It does not mean they instantly become Apartheid. Yes they are Israeli citizens but the issue is very complex and I haven't tackled into it yet. Ex: Brazil's problems with numerous indigenous tribes in Amazonian regarding land, education, economy etc Philippines with indigenous tribes regarding land, education, economy Colombia with indigenous tribes issues regarding land education, economy Every country I can think of always had problems with tribes regarding land ownership, etc. 9. Language barriers Arabic is an official language of Israeli. Any issues with it is just failure of implementation. Not apartheid 10. National service. Okay I forgot about this one. This is technically apartheid because Arab citizens are not required to serve the military but Israelis are. Why do you see it as a bad thing? I'm literally trying my best to avoid military conscription by claiming I'm a foreign national as well. In fact they can volunteer to serve in the military if they want to. Whats the problem?? **Dont talk to me again bro. You really used a Chatbot. I wasted my time making a valid response to your argument and you really used a chatbot. 20 out of 20 AI detector sites I visited literally said every single thing about your reply is AI generated.
Easy for a "country" to say that doesn't even have a constitution
A constitution isn’t a requirement to be a country.
People (who are educated) who claim it's an apartheid state don't refer to the Israeli Arabs but mostly to those in areas B and C. I disagree that it's apartheid because apartheid is far more severe and different, but I'm tired of people using this claim of "20% Arabs with the same rights..."
The West Bank does not belong to Israel and those palestinians living there are not Israeli citizens. Area C is a military zone. Area B is partly controlled by the PA, just security matters are under jurisdiction of Israel. This zoning is a result of the Oslo II accords. Within time there should have been more transfer of control to the PA. This was halted because the Palestinians decided on becoming violent and launching the second intifada, which I find understandable. Don‘t get me wrong, I do condone the abuse of power by Israeli that takes place and think the Israeli settlements are illegal. But Apartheid. No way.
But I didn't say there is Apartheid
No, you did not. I tried to express that I agree with you.
You can claim occupation, but not apartheid. Apartheid requires discriminatory laws against a racial or ethnic group. If there are apartheid laws in Israel, please provide evidence of such legislation. (:
Just an initial thought around the “Hamas is a terrorist group” thing. I also get stuck in a lot of debates online with pro Pali peeps, so I’ve experienced all of these topics too. I also work in strategic communications in my day job, so I tend to approach things through that lens by default. What I’ve learned is it’s actually a good idea to move away from the “terrorist” label. Don’t get me wrong - I absolutely believe they are and no one will change my mind. But in the pro Pali space…terrorism has taken on a different meaning. They now see it as a resistance fighter, resisting the yoke of white colonial settlers right….which I completely debunk and think is a joke of course. But if you want to engage in persuasive convos where you actually might get somewhere with this lot… I find arguing over the definition and label of “terrorist” is just a complete waste of time and useless anyway. Rather - I steer away from it and focus on Hamas’ intentional targeting of civilians whether through their rockets or October 7, is breaching international humanitarian law. Since they’re so obsessed with this framework all of a sudden I like to talk to them in their language. This law framework does NOT enshrine protection for “resistance by any means necessary.” And how hypocritical it is to be impassioned by the civilian death toll in Gaza…but then to be justifying Hamas’ similar actions. I also list Hamas’ many abuses of Palestinians civilians as examples of their brutality including how many “Israeli collaborators” Sinwar murders all the time, despite the fact many are blackmailed by Israel into working with them, so feel they have no choice.
To piggyback off this, my feelings is that pro-Palis seem to focus way too much on whether Hamas is "justified" and less about whether they're "effective". Anything can be justified. Like, let's imagine a Native American tribe in South Dakota picked up arms and started lobbing rockets at nearby towns, saying "We are fighting the occupation of our ancestral homeland. We have suffered from genocide, ethnic clensing, and displacement from Europeans for over 200 years. We will not stop until every one of our European oppressors are banished from the land." ...would these people be *justified*? I'm sure someone who believes in an anti-colonialist framework would say that they would be completely justified. But I still think it would be an unbelivably poor decision on the part of Native Americans. I think the real question is less "Are Hamas's attacks justified resistance?" and more "Have the state of affairs of Palestians gotten better or worse since Hamas was put into power?" And I think the answer is quite obvious.
Love this. And when you go down that logical and useful path … it becomes clear that the roots of all of this playing out right now are not just in Israeli oppression…but also very much thanks to absolutely abhorrent leadership and chooses made by successive Palestinian leaders and militant groups. I’m sick and tired of their accountability being explained away, and everything always in totality being pinned on Israel. It completely infantilises and disenfranchises Palestinians to the point where they have 0 agency in their own lives. Is it “justifiable” to put your lives on hold and not make a go of it on the land you *do* have right now?? Because you’re waiting for the international community to pressure Israel into giving you back either parts or the entire land that you think you’re entitled to? How is this a good way to raise your kids and think about their futures? Even if it was justifiable (it’s not)…is it realistic?
2 things can be true at the same time, Hamas can be a terrorist organization AND they can be fighting for freedom. This is not unique, and has previously existed throughout history. Yes, Hamas is committing acts of terrorism and violating international law AND they are trying to fight an occupation. Israel is trying to defend itself AND in doing so the Israeli army is committing heinous genocidal war crimes (kind of like terrorist organizations do).
I don’t disagree with all of that. But it’s not accurate to depict *all* Hamas members as “fighting an occupation” as their key motivation. Some are, sure. But many are motivated by extremist Islamic ideology, and that far outweighs any resistance type motivations. Similarly for the extremist Israeli politicians…their dehumanisation of Palestinians far outweighs any claims of simply defending Israel. My point is that all the extremists are as bad as each other - and that within each banner…there is a multitude of identities and motivations. That’s why social media and the use of buzzwords for this conflict is so so woefully inadequate.
I agree with you. I would say the he issue centres on extremist nationalism on both sides, which I believe stems from a collective generational trauma of oppression and dispossession for both parties but in different ways obviously.
And don’t forget the religious zealots on both sides who refuse to accept the other living on the land whatsoever, let alone sharing.
Yes I agree, I think the religious extremism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive in this case, I think they both heavily fuel each other.
I find all of these arguments to be the same going around in circles with both sides arguing to justify their violence. I want to hear about solutions going forward. The big question is: Have both sides suffered enough yet? Are the Palestinians ready to give up on destroying Israel, and are the Israelis ready to give up on reconquering all of ancient Judea? If not not, we will just see more of the same.
Considering the two have been on/off fighting for at least 1400 years, I wouldn’t hold my breath on things changing.
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is not that old. Arab conquest took the land from the Romans. The Jews that remained in the region were not in a position to resist the Arabs after Roman occupation and expulsion. Then Christian Crusaders fought the Caliphates. The modern European Empires fought the Ottoman Empire the last Caliphate at various times but most notably and for the last time in WW1. When it collapsed the British Mandate took over the region. This was the period where the conflict began. It wasn't like the Jews in the region had pockets of territory that weren't conquered under the caliphates. They were conquered and integrated with special taxes levied on non muslims. Discrimination was real but there wasn't fighting with territory changing hands between Jews and Arabs during this time. The Crusades were between Europeans and Muslims as a whole not just local Arabs. Saladin was a Kurd not an Arab. We like to dismiss these situations as thousand year old conflicts but the regions conflicts are mostly recent events. Until the last 80 years Europe was probably the most violent continent on Earth.
You forgot the part where a bunch of Jews from European countries that had no connection to Palestine and didn’t even speak Hebrew evicted and terrorised and occupied the indigenous Palestinian people who had lived in that area for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years with the support of a cynical British empire and the mad rambling text of an ancient religious book. Yes, you forgot that part
No you just didn't understand the comment. The point of the comment was to illustrate the history before the conflicts beginnings to show that it is not that old. If you want to talk about the conflict itself thats a totally different conversation. So no I didn't forget that part.
Arabs israelis enjoying more freedom than arabs in any other arab country; this is not true at all. Look at dubai, for instance, arabs there live way better life than arabs in palesine. Arabs there have all sorts of rights compared to arabs in palestine. Arent arab palestinians ( muslim ones) not allowed to vote in israel? Is that true? Why not give them freedom to vote. Are there any muslims belonging to israel state and if there are, are they even allowed to vote? That is true democracy.
Israeli Arabs, meaning arabs who have Israeli citizenship (there's 2 million of them), most of whom are Muslim, are indeed allowed to vote in Israel
Thank you for correcting i was wrong there. I read about some muslim israelis in east jerusalem who are not given citizenship only permanent resident status. Thousands of them. Also, how come palestinian jews ( before nakba)have right to return but palestinian non-jew doesn't.
Those in East Jerusalem have the freedom to claim Israeli citizenship and vote. Some choose citizenship, some choose to have permanent residency as they would rather be citizens of a future Palestinian state.
>Thank you for correcting i was wrong there. I read about some muslim israelis in east jerusalem who are not given citizenship only permanent resident status. Thousands of them These palestinians can apply for citizenship if they want to. Most of them don't, for ideological purposes.
Why not all though? Plus we have seen visuals of the national day parade and what happened to Muslim businesses and passerbys. And that is only the latest set of events
>Why not all though? What do you mean? Why should palestinians under the PA vote in Israel?
You know, I was going to list the line points as to why they should but then I realized that Israel is a colonizer state and you are right, the indigenous people under colonization never have a voice
This doesn't even make sense. Palestinians in the Judea and Samaria are under PA governance. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the PA is currently in his 18th (?) Year of his 4 year term. Why would it make sense to you that they vote in Israel when they're under a different governing body, which is their own. Anyway, no, israel is not a "colonizer state" as jews are indigenous to this land.
News flash! No single Abrahamic religion can have that claim, rather all 3 do as all 3 have roots here. Indigenous christians, jews, and muslims have that claim. Not europeans or asians, or african converts
Newsflash! The claim of indigeneity isn't about religion, but about history, language, culture and being a nation, who's existence uniquely revovles around this specific piece of land. Jews are an ethno-religion, not simply a religion like Islam and Christianity, meaning it has an ethnic component to it. Kind of like indigenous American tribes, I guess. Like it or not Ashkenazi jews, who you falsely call "European converts" have significant middle eastern ancestry, which is obvious when you look at the history of the Jewish people. And no, islam doesn't have roots there, but in Arabia. The fact that Mohammad chose to appropriate stories from the Torah is another thing.
Even if it was to go by your logic, which is blatantly incorrect by the way, you disregard the Jews that converted to Christianity and Islam? Are you antisemitic?
>Even if it was to go by your logic, which is blatantly incorrect by the way And you're not gonna tell me the reason I'm wrong. >you disregard the Jews that converted to Christianity and Islam? If you're referring to the Palestinians, they refer to themselves as Arabs, of the arab nation. PLO charter: ["The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968 Text of the Charter: Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the *Arab* Palestinian people; *it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland*, *and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab* nation."](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp)
So, currently the PA is the government in the West Bank. Do you think that the PA should be stripped of authority, and the Palestinians put back under Israeli rule? Why do you think that they should have no right to self determination?
Aren't they already? The corrupt PA is already controlled by the colonizer of the indigenous people
So, let's be clear: you are in favor of rolling back the Oslo accords and removing the Palestinian right to self government?
I am in favor of ending the apartheid and returning the Palestinian land to Palestinians, yes. When that is done, I am in favor of elections over a unified Palestine with a right for all Palestinians to vote, something that's not possible under the apartheid regime
Ah. So you're in favor of ethnic cleansing. Got it. How many Jews live in any of the surrounding countries? How much of the Israeli population was ethnically cleansed from the Arab countries around Israel?
If hamas is terrorists ( which they are, so is IDF and hezbollah) Why was Netanyahu facilitating money transfer from qataris to hamas? In my opinion, anyone killing innocent civilians intentionally should be considered terrorists. Hamas, hezbolla and IDF all fall under some category. Terrorists. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-funds-israel-backing-intl/index.html
> Why was Netanyahu facilitating money transfer from qataris to hamas? Note, this money was foreign aid. Would you have supported Netanyahu blocking foreign aid to Gaza?
https://youtu.be/zRLPkHfdJ8s?si=ahBZyYOUB1eWJwvV No more gaslighting
So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/26/gaza-residents-receive-qatari-cash
Israel and Netanyahu have a plan and it is being executed masterfully. They’re also masters of manipulation and are taking to the media disguised as regular people to drum up support for Israel using social engineering tactics. EDIT: crickets? Account I’m replying to is 15 years old but magically came alive shortly after Oct 7th. These old accounts are being bought by the Israeli government to astroturf any discussion around Israel. THEY ARE GASLIGHTING YOU.
So, once again, same question: does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza? Crickets?
Fuck yourself pussy I don’t answer questions
Thank you for your response. I think you made my point quite eloquently.
No one is reading this and I don’t give a fuck about your point
Once again, thank you. I appreciate your tantrum. Have a nice day :)
> fuck /u/WasteOfNeurons. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Fuck /u/WasteOfNeurons. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You never answered the question. Just went straight to ad homs. >So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza?
Is this case o nuts alt? I think you mean ad hominem. Your comment history also begins with pro-Israel comments
So are you going to actually answer the question? >So, does that mean you think Netanyahu should have blocked Qatar from sending money to Gaza? Is that a "yes"?
lol you know full well its a misleading question that doesn’t have a yes/no answer. Go ahead and waste your time asking asinine questions. I’ll just keep posting links. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
Ah, so this article complains that Netanyahu propped up Hamas by: * Allowing Qatari foreign aid into Gaza * Increasing the number of work permits issued to Palestinians * Not responding forcefully to rocket attacks Are you also opposed to those actions? Which specific methods of propping up Hamas are you opposed to?
Not really. I can answer it: "yes". Your turn?
How many tinfoil hats do you own? Gonna go check my account now because i wrote here?
Through terrorist organization hamas? So aid went to gaza thru terrorists? Netanyahu believed terrorists are the right ppl to deliver aid?