441–450 of 1001 posts
I'm not trying to deflect, but I do find it interesting that just 2 months ago, >100K Armenians were permanently displaced from their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh where they've lived for literally millenia, and I saw essentially no coverage of this in Western media (in contrast, it was all over Russian media, possibly because Armenia is a historical ally of Russia and a lot of Russians are frustrated that Russia and the…
I have no skin in this game. What I have seen is a confusion (perhaps intentional) between anti-semitism, and protesting Israel’s behavior since the Hamas attack in October. Criticizing Israel’s response is not anti-Semitism- it is literally just criticizing the response.
While that is definitely true and an important distinction, I will say that unfortunately all too often as discussions on the topic deepen there's a troubling correlation between the most vocal voices engaged in criticizing Israel and legit antisemitism views creeping in. Which isn't a one sided phenomenon. The reverse is true as well, where often the most vocal voices rationalizing Israel's actions and behavior arou…
Some of this information war seems to be intended from keeping the US from considering a third option - sitting this one out. One U.S. State Department official resigned over this when he saw Israel's weapons shopping list.[1] The US could provide humanitarian aid, but not military aid. Cut military aid to Israel. Maybe still provide Iron Dome reloads, but that's about it. Bring in a hospital ship off Gaza, to care f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actions of Western democracies are usually subject to greater scrutiny. Indeed, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism allowed for this: it says that it is antisemitism to hold Israel to a higher standard than other democracies - not than other nations altogether.
ISIS was defeated by a coalition including western democracies. Well over a thousand civilians died by US bombs alone.
I'm not trying to deflect, but I do find it interesting that just 2 months ago, >100K Armenians were permanently displaced from their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh where they've lived for literally millenia, and I saw essentially no coverage of this in Western media (in contrast, it was all over Russian media, possibly because Armenia is a historical ally of Russia and a lot of Russians are frustrated that Russia and the…
Strange, I saw a lot of coverage of it in Western media when it happened (and a kot today, because of an apparent diolomatic breakthrough.)
Its true that a lot of the coverage during the event was colored by relating it to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, Armenia’s status as a CSTO ally of Russia.
> So my question is, given that ethnic cleansings are not uncommon in the recent past, and that the Palestinian Nakba is not even close to the worst case, why is it basically the only one that anyone seems to care about?
In the West and the US specifically, the role of Israel and the local governments degree of positiive engagement with Israel creates a rather different context to most ethnic cleansings elsewhere in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good. > saying Isra…
For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without com…
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
And from p.2, where 'Palestine' is defined geographically, which seems to include much or all of Israel (including Israel in a two-state solution). However, a quick search did not turn up Ras Al-Naqurah or Umm Al-Rashrash.
The Land of Palestine:
2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
-------------
Second, though I think it obviously weighs significantly on the question, I'll point out some considerations:
* Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians generally. What does the Palestinian Authority say? Optimally, we'd need information on the Palestinian public now or before Oct 7, when the issue was less politicized and information more reliable.
* Again, the document is significant, but generally, something in a document doesn't reliably tell us the beliefs of the public. Even scripture won't tell you what people are doing or thinking (even the leaders - compare some of their ideas with scripture).
* It's from 2017; I wonder how old the phrase is.
Anyway, hardly criticism; thanks for contributing. It's not an easy question.
> calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives
Warfare, including as currently conducted by Israel, is not the only means of Israel defending itself. IMHO elliding the two seems like an obviously disingenous attack, and it undermines all supporters of Israel by making their other claims equally suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the nature of the violence. It's generally acceptable to show shots of bombed-out buildings and the like, or even display injured or dead bodies. The footage we and Israel have from Hamas depicts first-hand murder, rape and torture - all things which are going to violate TOS.
[flagged]
And another: https://oct7map.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years).…
Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking, let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter. Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel…
Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?
> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!
But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?
> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.
I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.
> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?
I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?