Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were 10% as bad as their opposition Gaza would have been Arab-free for decades now.
Not sure why you were downvoted. Though it's a disgustingly poor excuse to say "at least we're not as bad as the Nazis" in justifying your own country's crimes against humanity, it also gives a bit of perspective when people do actually compare the modern Israeli state's violence with the savagery of the political system that provoked its formation.
‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
141–150 of 955 posts
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#142[flagged]
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
So to be clear because I want you to say it: There is a line at which you would tell the government to stop and let your children die and allow the rape and murder of your wife to go unpunished. Or is it safe to assume you are unmarried and have no children? If you do have kids then every time you look them in the eye you should acknowledge that you would let them die due to your morality. Which if true, that's fine.…
That's correct. I would not kill a million unarmed people and hundreds of thousands of children, or ask someone else to do it for me, to compel the return of my family.
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#144Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go back further and it is more of the same. They fight and lose. Rinse and repeat.
Yes, I am aware of the Nakba, and how Palestinians fight to keep their land and lose.
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#146https://www.democracynow.org/2025/7/29/headlines/palestinian...
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#147In ideal world international peacekeeping forces would be deployed in Gaza. The peace and two state solution could only be enforced by imposing severe sanctions on Israel including possibility of aerial NATO strikes like in the former Yugoslavia.
Isreal proposed international peacekeeping forces in Gaza, but Hamas has rejected it. If I may quote Izzat al-Rishq, a member of the Hamas political bureau, "We stress our people's rejection of the presence of any non-Palestinian actors on our land." [ https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2024/04/02/hamas-says-no-to-i... ]. They only accept aid organizations.
This is a bit misleading.
Israel proposed that it maintain absolute and total military control of Gaza, but that a "peacekeeping force" from three Arab nations, bizarrely to be controlled by the US, would "secure food distribution".
Israel has absolutely zero intention of handing over control of Gaza, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to vilify and delegitimize every international organization at every turn.
An actual peacekeeping force as described above would be about keeping Israel in check as much as ensuring Hamas doesn't re-appear.
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#148In ideal world international peacekeeping forces would be deployed in Gaza. The peace and two state solution could only be enforced by imposing severe sanctions on Israel including possibility of aerial NATO strikes like in the former Yugoslavia.
[flagged]
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel has both defended itself from literal invasions neighboring countries and violently seized ("colonized") land from people already living there. The two are not mutually incompatible.
What do you mean by "literal invasion"? It seems to imply that Israel would have been attacked without provocation. In 1948 the zionist paramilitaries had been at war with the indigenous population for quite some time, neighbouring states offering the palestinians military support once the british ended the mandate wasn't exactly out of the blue. The 1956 Suez crisis was an attack by Israel and some of its allies. Th…
> In 1948 the zionist paramilitaries had been at war with the indigenous population for quite some time
As of May 1948, these were not 'zionist paramiltaries', they were the Israeli army.
>The 1956 Suez crisis was an attack by Israel and some of its allies.
From 1949 Egypt had repeatedly blocked Israeli‐flagged vessels from the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran. State-enabled terrorists were also doing armed raids into southern Israel, killing and wounding civilians (over 200 casualties in 1955 alone)
> The 1967 Six-Day-war was an attack by Israel
In May 1967 Egypt expelled the UN Emergency Force from Sinai, massed tens of thousands of troops on Israel’s border, and formally closed the Straits of Tiran
> The 1973 Yom Kippur war was an attempt to retake syrian and egyptian territory
On 6 October 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated, surprise attack across the 1967 cease‑fire lines on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar (Yom Kippur)
> In 1982 Israel attacked Lebanon and invaded its southern parts
From 1968 onward the PLO used southern Lebanon as a base for rocket and commando raids into northern Israel.
Re: ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that until a few hundred years ago, you could stand your ground and either win or lose (happened a lot) or you sought uninhabited land elsewhere )or a weaker party to kick out) That also happened a lot. Back then borders were defined by what you could actively defend, though treaties also existed. That is the same situation that exists today. Might makes right is the only rule of nature. Treaties are…
Right. But before you could “run away” if you were willing to. Today you don’t have places to run to without running into other people willing to defend their places. In the past you had lots and lots of peoples who just got erased as modern concepts of fairness and justice didn’t work the same way. See the warring states period.
What that means is that all of the "run[ning] away" you are talking about is still violently displacing native peoples. So for example, when the Boers flee the Cape Colony to the Transvaal, they aren't moving to virgin, empty land, but rather land inhabited by native Africans (Zulu, I think), who needed to be dispossessed of their land. And such dispossession tends to require violence.