112
267

Who are the good guys in the Israel/Palestine conflict?

1y 7mon ago by lemmy.world/u/Greyfoxsolid in asklemmy@lemmy.ml

I genuinely do not know who the bad guys are. S lot of my leftist friends are against Israel, but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.

Enlighten me. Am I wrong? Why am I wrong?

And dumb it down for me, because apparently I'm an idiot.

Up until 1967, the bad guys were Britain.

Britain seized Palestine from the Ottomans during WWI with the help of the local Palestinians, promising the Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for their help overthrowing the Ottomans.

At the same time, Britain promised to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine (in the Balfour Declaration), and Jewish refugees from Europe began settling in Palestine. Britain did this because they thought they might gain the support of Jewish financiers for their war efforts.

The Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague about whether Britain was giving all of the land to the Jews or just some of the land. It was vague because Britain wanted to appeal to Jewish Zionists (who wanted all of Palestine) while not alienating the Palestinians.

Britain never did divide the land, resulting in two different populations who felt they legally owned the land, one who had always been there, and one who mostly arrived as refugees.

When Britain left following WWII, a civil war broke out for control of the land. A border was eventually drawn at the line of control (which ran through the middle of Jerusalem), and Israelis declared the new State of Israel, while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states. That was in 1948.

So, up until then, it's a messy situation created by Britain, but one which eventually resulted in the land being split (albeit violently), with both Israelis and Palestinians having a state, and each having part of Jerusalem. The world accepted this as the new status quo and hoped it would be sustained peacefully.

That changed in 1967 when Israel annexed the Palestinian lands (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Days War. Since then, Palestinians have been living under a harsh Israeli occcupation as a stateless people (meaning no citizenship), with their rights and freedoms strictly curtailed. Palestinians have been resisting through a number of resistance movements, usually designated as terrorist groups in the Western media.

There was a political movement towards peace and repartitioning of the land that peaked in the 1990s, but since then it has been held up by a series of right-wing governments in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has been aggressively building Jewish neighbourhoods (called settlements) in the formerly Palestinian lands of the West Bank.

So since 1967, Israel has pretty clearly been the bad guy.

The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis was horrific, and we should all hope nothing like that ever happens again. But the root cause of the attack was Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The way to prevent future terror attacks is to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.

while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states.

Technically not incorrect, but too much passive voice. Palestinian refugees were expelled by Israel, either by being directly told to leave or die or through massacres.

The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis

Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians. Don't let Israel trick you into thinking Hamas just entered, killed a bunch of civilians and left, because that creates what they consider justification for their genocide.

Also do not forget that on 10/7 Israeli helicopters were firing on civilians and the state censors have been covering this up. There are attempts to ban Haaretz, a friendly mouthpiece for state interests, because they have been reporting on this.

Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians.

I never said they were civilians.

Yes but that's the implication when you say "the terririst attack that killed 1200 young Israelis".

I wasn't implying that.

I mean okay but that's how it reads like, especially because that myth is still alive and well.

They were young people who were gathered for a music concert.

Israel has compulsory military service for young people, so many of them were enlisted in the military. That doesn't change the fact that they were young.

If 66% of 1200 are civilians killed by Hamas then

Don't let Israel trick you into thinking Hamas just entered, killed a bunch of civilians and left

is false (they indeed came and killed a bunch of civilians).

I'm not a pro-Israel person, I hate Netanyahu with a passion but still Hamas killing innocent people is not deserving of compassion albeit I understand their reason.

is false.

How so? Hamas attacked a number of Israeli military bases and outposts on October 7th, which was along with taking hostages the goal of the attack. The Israeli narrative conveniently ignores that, painting the whole thing as one big act of barbarism.

still Hamas killing innocent people is not deserving of compassion albeit I understand their reason.

It's not about compassion. They definitely committed a bunch of atrocities on October 7th, and that very much deserves condemnation, but ignoring the very real military goals behind the attacks helps no one but Israel. Nobody really talks about that anymore, but if you remember before it was overshadowed by the genocide in Gaza things like how much of Israeli accusations against Hamas was true, how many casualties were Israeli friendly fire, what Hamas's goals behind the attack were, etc etc were still open questions. The world quite reasonably stopped focusing on these things because Israel kept one-upping themselves in genociding Gazans, but that had the side effect of cementing the Israeli narrative on them as reality in the minds of most pro-Palestinian Westerners. What I'm saying is: Condemning terror that happened during the attack and condemning the attack itself are a different things, and one of them invalidates many legitimate acts of resistance.

There's something else I want to mention.

In 1947, the UN attempted to sort out Britain's mess by creating a "partition plan" in which the land would be split between a state of Israel and a state of Palestine.

Though adopted as a UN resolution, it was never implemented, and the aforementioned civil war broke out instead.

I just mention this because I find a lot of people are under the misimpression that Israel was created by the UN in 1947 as some kind of compensation for the Holocaust, and that's not what happened.

That's a pretty good summary. I will add that the partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine. The alternative presented by Palestinian Representatives was a Unitary State for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Partition

The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.

  • Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine

On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.

  • Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine

:::

Ethnic Cleansing and Settler Colonialism

Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

This type of settlement, where the native population gets 'Transferred' to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.

The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:

Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:

While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements

The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

:::

Apartheid Evidence

Amnesty Report

Human Rights Watch Report

B'TSelem Report with quick Explainer

Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing

Peace Process and Solution

Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution

How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution

‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe

One State Solution, Foreign Affairs

Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.

:::

Historian Works on the History

:::

Concise, eloquent, and fair. I regret that I have but one upvote to give.

Israel started the six day war by striking its neighbors. It wanted that war, it knew it had dedicated sponsors that would back them up.

PS Israel, as an apartheid ethnostare premised on settler colonialism, should not exist. The "state" of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a non-apartheid, non-ethnostate that includes all of the people and guarantees a return of stolen homes and land.

Israel struck first in the Six Days War.

Over a shipping route.

The good guys are the humanitarian aid workers risking their lives bringing food and medical care into the region.

The same folks being killed by Israel? Those ones?

You know it!

The good guys are aid workers and Palestinian and Israeli civilians who do not like the conflict.

💯 this. The people doing the kidnapping, murdering, and genocide are the bad guys. The people trying to help are the good guys.

Can you please show me a single protest of an Israeli citizen against the war specifically because of the genocide?

The good guys are the citizens who want none of this.

The bad guys are the citizens who want all of this, and the military personal behind the weapons, and the generals calling the shots.

Same as it ever was.

Edit: Lemmy.ml disagreed and nobody was surprised 🙀

This simplistic one size fits all argument falls flat when one side is being occupied and ethnically cleansed by the other side. It implies that Hamas is the “bad guy” and all other occupied Palestinians are the “good guy,” and it implies that non-military Israeli settlers are the “‘good guy.” But the truth is that the great majority of adult Israelis are militant settler-colonizers; and that Palestinians have the legal right under UN law to struggle against their occupiers by any means necessary, including armed struggle; and that Israel, as an occupier, has no right to “self defense.”

sees lemmy.ml

Sees disagreeing with a very, very simple truth

Yeah, not surprised.

When you can't support your own arguments, you could of course just acknowledge this or even just not comment at all instead of lashing out at those who can.

It is particularly disgusting when your arguments serve to obscure genocide.

thank you for telling me I should block you.

That's your own mess lol

Can we please block .world already?

You want to defederate from the largest Lemmy instance, the poster child, and the mascot of Lemmy? Good luck. They are Lemmy now.

Don’t care. If I gave a shit about the biggest instance because it has the most users, then I would have stayed on Reddit which has orders of magnitudes more users and to put it in the linked comment's words, they still are link aggregators in the the commenter thinks .world "are" Lemmy. The whole damn point of federation is your instance is not locked into what the biggest instance wants to do.

The good guys are the citizens

I’m going to have to stop you right there, because the Palestinians are not the citizens of any state: they are a people being occupied, apatheided, and genocided by the state of Israel. So there’s a “very, very simple truth” for you.

Oh my goodness would you look at that it's lemmy.ml again

Bye 👋

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out 👋

What does your both-sidesing accomplish here? Are you trying to say that Palestine's resistance to colonialism isn't justified?

If so, then you're doing this gandhi quote, but for the palestinian resistance.

Okay:

In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn't want to deal with.

Palestine was not happy about this - the land was taken without their consent, a great chunk of their country just taken from them by decree, backed up by a still highly militarized Europe.

Over the following decades, Palestine tried several times to take their country back, and each time got slapped down (since Israel had vast backing from UK/USA/Europe, both from postwar guilt and because Israel had a lot of strategic value as a platform from which to project military power in the middle east).

Cut to today, and Israel has expanded to take virtually the entire area, apart from some tiny scattered patches of land, and the Gaza strip - a strip of land 40km by 10km, containing most of the Palestinian population, blockaded by sea and land by the Israeli military.

Israel also runs an apartheid regime very similar to the old South African one - Palestinians have very few human or civil rights, generally get no protection from the Israeli police or military, while being treated as hostile outsiders that can be assaulted or have their land 'settled' at will by Israelis.

It has been decades since Palestine has had any kind of organised military, and it's also not recognised as its own country by most of the world, so there's virtually no way for it to push back, or to call on assistance.

In a situation like that, the only recourse is guerilla warfare, which often descends into (and is exploited by bad actors as) terrorist attacks. It's a damn good way to farm martyrs, and this hugely serves Israel's ends, since it can keep pointing to terrorim as justification for their ongoing oppression. Israel in fact provided a great deal of ongoing funding for Hamas, while blocking more moderate groups.

Back in October, a small organised group raided across the border from Gaza into Israel, killing about 1200 people and taking a couple of hundred hostages.

In response, Israel has killed over 40,000 Palestinans in Gaza - mainly women and children - systematically destroying the city's infrastructure, water, power, food production and distribution, hospitals, universities and schools, bombing refugee camps and destroying the majority of all housing and shelter in the area. It's also bombing humanitarian aid convoys, preventing food and medicine from reaching the people there. The death toll is expected to reach many hundreds of thousands, since people are already starving and there is no medical care available.

The rest of the world is wringing their hands about the 'regrettable' loss of life, while continuing to sell Israel all the weapons and bombs it needs to continue the genocide.

Fuck Israel.

In 1948, just after WWII, the UK decided to carve a chunk out of Palestine and create a new state there, called Israel - as a Jewish homeland that would take all the refugees that the rest of Europe didn't want to deal with

That's not what happened.

Firstly, the Balfour Declaration was in 1917, during World War I. By 1948, the Jews were already living there, and fighting for the land.

Secondly, Britain never partitioned the land, and never announced any intention to partition the land. (Things might have been very different if they had.) I think you're getting confused with the UN's partition plan, which was never implemented.

Mandatory Palestine was long before 1948. Zionist settlers were doing terrorism on the indigenous Palestinians for decades by 1948. And with British support.

I just want to briefly make one point because I think most of the important points have been very well covered by others already.

What's terrorism and what's freedom fighters is determined by history. By the same standards that Hamas are being called terrorists, you could easily make an argument that 1910s Irish republicans, black South Africans under apartheid, and British suffragettes (not to be confused with suffragists) could easily be considered terrorists. Innocent civilians were killed by all these groups, but looking back on it today we almost universally say they were in the right, because they were fighting for their groups to receive rights denied to them by the ruling class. Their methods weren't always as perfectly clean as we might ideally want, but the primary target was always someone oppressing them in some way. And right now and for the last half century+, Israel have been oppressing the Palestinian people.

1910s Irish republicans,

Wait really? I thought terrorism was more of a Troubles tactic.

The brits set up a giant military garrison in northern Ireland called the Plantation of Ulster in the 1600s, and used it to turn nearly the entire population of Ireland into slaves, and project english military might onto Ireland and colonize it for hundreds of years. They have always labelled resistance to their imperialist project as "terrorism".

The british army should absolutely be the ones labelled as terrorists, not the ones opposing them.

I actually deliberately avoided mentioning the Troubles because I wanted to bring up cases where everyone today could fairly uniformly agree that we were discussing freedom fighters more than terrorists. Too many today would still say that the Provisional IRA were the bad guys (or at the very least that they were "as bad as" the other side). But the point I wanted to make was how given enough time, even terroristic actions can end up being viewed on the whole as coming from the "good guys", if their cause is viewed as just.

I could also have mentioned American revolutionaries.

There are no "good guys" in a conflict between religious people.

Read the excellent Decolonize Palestine website to learn about the vital context that makes Israel's claim of self defense deeply disingenuous, and to learn about some of the falsehoods about Israel and Palestine that are present in mainstream discourse.

There are no "good guys" in a conflict between religious people.

Religion does play a role in the conflict, particularly over the question of where the border between an Israeli and Palestian state should go (so that holy sites end up on the appropriate side), but I don't think it's very useful to understand this as a religious conflict.

The Jews who moved to Israel in the early 20th century weren't pilgrims. They were refugees fleeing political persecution. The founder of Zionism wasn't even religious.

And Israel didn't happen because religious Jews enthusiastically got behind the idea of Zionism. Israel happened because Britain got behind the idea of Zionism.

Because the Crusdaes of the 11th to 13th centuries still loom large in Western culture (Richard the Lionheart and all that), I think Westerners have a tendency to think that the situation in Israel/Palestine is a continuation of those conflicts. But it's really not. It's a 20th century creation.

Arabs leaders was also so stupid, they kicked most of the non zionist jews from Arabs lands in response to kicking out Palestinians after 48 loss instead of trying to make them allies

The largest armed force in the gaza strip is deeply religious and the entire reason the support they receive from their biggest ally, the IRR, is religion. If Hamas were Sunni muslims instead of Shia, Iran would remain silent. Just as they were, when their Shia allies in Syria and Yemen started to massacre non-Shia in the region.

If Hamas were Sunni muslims instead of Shia

Hamas are Sunni.

Hezbollah are Shia.

Where are the good guys in non-religious (scientific) leaders?

They are all scheming to gain more power and control.

Humans are just not emotionally ready to recognize where all this leads.

1000017851

oh right, totally forgot about those poor people who lived and partied next to the concentration camp and then got either kidnapped by people who wanted to break out of the concentration camp or were killed by the IDF. let's all show a bit more empathy! 😥

It's clear Judaism / Muslim conflicts have caused a lot more suffering to Muslims in Palestine for the last 100+ years. But the solution to this conflict will never be violence. Only diplomacy.

I'm arguing that such comments can generate hate and divide. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I at least hope you agree that the solution is not hate, but diplomacy.

When violence is acceptable the weak and marginalized are destroyed. I only wish the best for Gaza and Israel. And in my opinion the solution is empathy and diplomacy. It's obviously terribly hard to negotiate and empathize with your abuser. But in my opinion, if this sentiment doesn't start the conflict will only stop when the weaker side is destroyed. I hope we can respect each other. Bless you.

While you sound reasonable, your mistake seems to be to believie that Judaism is the same as Zionism. It is not. It is completely not. They are inherently incompatible. Learn about it or don't. I'm not some kind of theological scholar or history professor. Maybe ask your local Rabbi about it.

Anyway, sorry to sound like some kind of an extremist to you, but violence is (at the moment) 100% the only answer. Not against the Jewish people, but against the fascist, zionist apartheid regime, who is committing genocide, right now, right before your eyes. Every day, bless you too.

Replace US with Israel in this Stokely Carmichael Quote:

“Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.”

Israel, or any bully, will not be swayed by your appeals to their conscience, no matter how hard you try. Ruling classes intentionally spread pacifist propaganda becomes its completely unthreatening to them. Pacifism overall is a losing strategy with zero historical successes, as the article below gets into.

Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy's job for them. Youtube Audiobook

Dr. King also changed his opinion later on. People act like he was some lifelong pacifist without knowing his full history and what changes were caused by his pacifist actions and by other's more aggressive actions.

I'm extremely confused. The civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, led by MLK, had massive, sweeping success. Brown v. BOE, Loving v. Virginia, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968, etc. The non-violent strategy succeded in striking down segregation, Jim crow laws, and nearly all forms of legal racial discrimination within a couple decades.

Securing legal rights for minority groups to be treated equally under the law and courts is a losing strategy? What exactly is your objective if you see the civil rights movement as a loss?

I understand that you're probably not American so you may not have an extensive knowledge of American history. But this is pretty important stuff, and acting like MLK failed because of his non-violent strategy is 1,000,000% wrong. Literally could not be further from the truth.

What did the Black Panthers accomplish with their violent strategy? They committed a few terrorist acts and all ended up dead or in jail. They didn't secure any major, permanent victories for future generations.

Saying that MLK failed because of his non-violent approach is like saying Julius Caesar failed because he was an ineffective military commander. It's so incredibly incorrect that I don't understand how you could ever come to think that.

You did not read the linked article.

And also if you read Michelle Alexander's the new jim crow, you'll realize that even de-jure de-segregation has mostly been circumvented / nullified by drug laws. 1 in 5 black men will spend some time in prison in the US, and slavery is still legal in the US under the guise of drug-based imprisonment.

The article gets more into it, but the material wealth divide was completely unaffected by the civil rights "wins", and poverty is still growing along color lines. I'll post a few of these below:

  • The US currently operates a system of slave labor camps, including at least 54 prison farms involved in agricultural slave labor. Outside of agricultural slavery, Federal Prison Industries operates a multi-billion dollar industry with ~ 52 prison factories , where prisoners produce furniture, clothing, circuit boards, products for the military, computer aided design services, call center support for private companies. 1, 2, 3
  • The US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even individual US states outrank all other countries.
  • Ramping up since the 1980s, the term prison–industrial complex is used to attribute the rapid expansion of the US inmate population to the political influence of private prison companies and businesses that supply goods and services to government prison agencies. Such groups include corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance technology vendors, companies that operate prison food services and medical facilities, private probation companies, lawyers, and lobby groups that represent them. Activist groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) have argued that the prison-industrial complex is perpetuating a flawed belief that imprisonment is an effective solution to social problems such as homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy. 1
  • The War On Drugs, a policy of arrest and imprisonment targeting minorities, first initiated by Nixon, has over the years created a monstrous system of mass incarceration, resulting in the imprisonment of 1.5 million people each year, with the US having the most prisoners per capita of any nation. One in five black Americans will spend time behind bars due to drug laws. The war has created a permanent underclass of impoverished people who have few educational or job opportunities as a result of being punished for drug offenses, in a vicious cycle of oppression. 1, 2
  • In the present day, ICE (U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement), the police tasked with immigration enforcement, operates over 200 prison camps, housing over 31,000 undocumented people deemed "aliens", 20,000 of which have no criminal convictions, in the US system of immigration detention. The camps include forced labor (often with contracts from private companies), poor conditions, lack of rights (since the undocumented aren't considered citizens), and forced deportations, often splitting up families. Detainees are often held for a year without trial, with antiquated court procedures pushing back court dates for months, encouraging many to accept immediate deportation in the hopes of being able to return faster than the court can reach a decision, but forfeiting legal status, in a cruel system of coercion. 1, 2
  • The Obama era was one of the greatest decreases in working class and black wealth, 2 in history: home equity decreased by ~$17k between 2007 and 2016. His housing policies led to millions losing their homes. While Wall street banks recieved $29 Trillion in bailouts, $75 Billion in relief was set aside for housing foreclosures and mortgage assistance. Instead of being paid to families, this was paid to mortgage servicers, and the services found ways to pocket the money and continue foreclosures: by the end of the program, less than 20% of the funds were used, and most had dropped out of the program due to foreclosures. The Obama administration refused to prosecute the fraud, or any of those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.

Ok I still think it's wrong to criticize nonviolent resistance but I appreciate the data and links. It is true that I didn’t read the linked article at first.

No probs.

It's clear Judaism / Muslim conflicts have caused a lot more suffering to Muslims in Palestine for the last 100+ years.

This is a Zionism / Palestinian (and any other independence groups, really) "conflict", which is to say, occupation and rrsistance.

But the solution to this conflict will never be violence. Only diplomacy.

Diplomacy requires leverage and is not an inherent good on its own. Diplomacy can be a tool for delay, propaganda, and for achieving a lopsided deal with false representatives. All of these things have been done via US/Israeli "diplomacy" regarding Paleetine.

You see a people forced into a ghetto fighting back and say, "no that's not the way" as if you have any understanding and have earned an opinion. An important lesson to learn is when you should have no opinion until you become informed.

I'm arguing that such comments can generate hate and divide. You don't have to agree with me on this, but I at least hope you agree that the solution is not hate, but diplomacy.

The divide is already there. It is genocidal settler-colonial apartheid vs. freedom fighters. And the camps throwing in for each side of this. Personally, I don't find it difficult to place myself fully in the freedom fighter camp and against the genociders. Do you? And no, there is no third option because there is no third force with any leverage or will.

When violence is acceptable the weak and marginalized are destroyed.

The violence has already been here. What on earth are you talking about? What fantasy world do you live in where passive Palestinians are left alone? The Israeli project is premised on their oppression and expulsion.

And you are simply wrong in your generalization. Violence has been essential for virtually every liberation fight. This is not because the marginalized love violence, it is because the oppressor leaves no other options.

I only wish the best for Gaza and Israel.

Israel is an apartheid ethnostate doing a genocide. It is racist and horrible to wish the best for it.

And in my opinion the solution is empathy and diplomacy. It's obviously terribly hard to negotiate and empathize with your abuser. But in my opinion, if this sentiment doesn't start the conflict will only stop when the weaker side is destroyed. I hope we can respect each other. Bless you.

You don't deserve an opinion on this topic because you do not know anything about it. You do not get to set the terms of others' freedom. You should spend your time helping the resistance, not rationalizing a fairy tale about how to oppose settler-colonial genocide with "diplomacy" and no militarized resistance.

It’s clear Judaism / Muslim conflicts have caused a lot more suffering to Muslims in Palestine for the last 100+ years. But the solution to this conflict will never be violence. Only diplomacy.

The mental model here is "violence and diplomacy are mutually exclusive". In fact, they're very closely connected, almost synonymous.

I’m arguing that such comments can generate hate and divide. You don’t have to agree with me on this, but I at least hope you agree that the solution is not hate, but diplomacy.

Agree here. I grew up in violence and lived through the peace process. It starts out violent, and you win concessions by showing strength, and then negotiate peace. That worked in Ireland in 1998 and almost worked in Palestine in 2000. Violence is the first part of the diplomacy.

When violence is acceptable the weak and marginalized are destroyed.

You're saying that the weak should go to the negotiating table empty-handed, but that won't solve anything for them. They need to stop being weak and start being strong, then diplomacy can start to happen.

The solution to weakness is strength. How can the weak become strong without the Armalite?

The Catholics took up arms in 1968 and came to the negotiating table in 1998. We won some concessions because we showed strength for 31 years, not "empathy". Yasser Arafat understood this: he knew when to use violence and when to negotiate. If you defang yourself as Step One, you make diplomacy impossible.

I only wish the best for Gaza and Israel. And in my opinion the solution is empathy and diplomacy. It’s obviously terribly hard to negotiate and empathize with your abuser. But in my opinion, if this sentiment doesn’t start the conflict will only stop when the weaker side is destroyed. I hope we can respect each other. Bless you.

I admire your values, but you're incorrectly equating "empathy and diplomacy". Diplomacy is more a military matter; empathy has no place in realpolitik.

Just count the dead, injured, displaced, starved, and dehydrated on either side. You'll find pretty quickly the numbers are extremely disproportionate. If that's [not] a baseline consideration for your judgment then you should think on that.

[Edit in brackets]

I generally agree that the response seems lopsided. However, I also find it odd that Hamas simply hasn't returned the hostages. This to me signifies two possibilities- they are not actually interested in peace, or they don't believe that returning the hostages will stop Israel's destruction.

Would that appraisal of the situation seem reasonable?

There is a lot more to this way than just the hostage situation - Israel has been in control of Palestinian territory for a long time (they consider it theirs) and they have been fighting with the Hamas organization for years now. This is the single worst escalation of it.

Hamas doesn't want peace. The status quo is domination of Palestine under Israel government - erasure of Palestine effectively if they laid down arms and disbanded. They want liberty, and payback for hardships.

There isn't reason to believe Israel will stop the attacks on return of the hostages, as they have gone overwhelmingly above and beyond the total damage done by Hamas (even comparing women and children victims vs. the concert raid that started it all) and given Netanyahu's far right government is at the helm, so your second point has merit.

Not really. Israel has a vested interest in continuing this land grab. The hostages are a convenient excuse, but separate from the inciting event. Furthermore it's just as likely the hostages have been killed in israeli bombings.

I see. So you think Israel wants the hostages to be kept in order to give them a public excuse to continue their campaign?

No. I said they're a convenient excuse. If they were to return then a new excuse would be found. The impetus for this campaign started as "self defense" in response to the Oct 7 attack. Then when that was no longer sufficient to justify things they moved onto the hostages as a bargaining chip.

Hamas wants to trade those hostages for Palestinian hostages. Which have been imprisoned for decades.

It is a tale of "Israel started it" and the Palestinians have no other possible way to make demands from Israel than using the same tactics.

Israel openly says they will continue the destruction. Even if Hamas releases the hostages. Their government does not care about hostages. But the Israeli people do. Hamas would be giving up the only leverage they have against Israel by releasing the hostages.

This is absolutely false, hamas is not anti-semitic, they're anti-zionist. You're doing the british / murican tabloid thing of equating the two.

  1. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

Fine but why does one potential future genocide justify the realized genocide currently under way?

...it doesn’t?

I don't understand your response then. If it doesn't then why would it be a consideration here?

I've made no claims about the ethics of Hamas here. Simply put, genocide is not an act of strategy, and putting the ethics of retaliation aside, does nothing to further the security of your own citizens. Israel has not made its people safer, rather the opposite. It has paved the road to open war with other nations, and is walking it.

It's important to separate out the government from the people, especially as it pertains to governments that don't listen to their population and don't have overwhelming support. Neither government is good. Most of the civilians from both sides are perfectly decent, though a number of them are misguided.

It's really impossible to simplify it, but I'll give it a shot with a quick timeline:

  • ~1200 BCE: Several unrelated tribes of people group together to become what we now call Jews or Hebrews or ancient Israelites. How this happened and exactly when is disputed, and is significantly muddied by their own mythology.
  • ~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others.
  • ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time).
  • ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let's just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.
  • 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes "The Jewish State" and births the modern Zionist movement, claiming Jews have a right to Israel primarily on religious basis. He approaches world leaders saying as such and finds little traction.
  • 1920: Britain takes control of the area now called Mandatory Palestine.
  • 1941-1945: The Holocaust. I assume no additional information needed.
  • 1945-1948: The Holocaust gives significant weight to Zionists' arguments that Jewish people need their own country. As many Jews have already been emigrating there (known as "Aliyah" or Jewish emigration to the promised land) since Zionism took hold, the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
  • 1948: Israel is officially recognized by the United States, its primary backer today. As part of this recognition, Israel and its allies committed what is commonly known as "The Nakba." A huge number of Palestinians were killed, injured, jailed, or forcibly removed from the area.
  • 1948: Arab-Israeli War. The Arab countries unite to fight the new state of Israel. This, as with most wars, is primarily because of power. The don't want the West to be controlling the region. The Arabs lose, but nobody loses more than Palestine.
  • 1948: Palestinian attacks on Israel start. I don't have anywhere else to put this, but know that the end of the Arab-Israeli War didn't end Palestinians fighting for their land and independence. They will continue to do so by any means available to them.
  • 1956: Suez Crisis. Israel and its backers invade and militarily occupy part of Egypt and take control of the Suez canal because Egypt decided to nationalize it. This war is transparent in its goal for power.
  • 1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders, including land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Palestine would be listed as well if it were recognized as a state. They're successful in only six days. Notable areas you may have heard of that were militarily acquired by Israel at this time are the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Israel still retains control over these conquered areas.
  • 1973: Yom Kippur War. Arab states attack to try to get back the land lost in the Six Day War. Israeli victory.
  • 1978: Camp David Accords. Israel agrees to give some land back in return for being recognized by Egypt as a state. Sedat, the Egyptian leader, would be assassinated in part because of this action.
  • 1987–1993: First Intifada. More organized and wide-scale Palestinian insurgency than we've seen before. Palestinians are fighting for their independence and their land. The insurgency is suppressed.
  • 2000–2005: Second Intifada. Same reasons and result as the first.
  • 2006-current: Much like the intifadas, there's a lot to say here, but for the sake of brevity (lol too late) the Palestinian attacks that started in 1948 continue to this day. Israel intermittently declares various wars with the claim that they're rooting out terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more.

This leaves out a lot. It's just not possible to condense it. But (mostly) off the top of my head, that's what I'd consider most of the most important bits.

The way I see it, whether or not you think Israel is "the good guys" largely hinges on whether or not you think Jews have a right to the land of Israel, and whether or not you think that claim was executed in a humane way.

I would compare it to the Native Americans - were the Americans of that time period the "good guys"? In my opinion, absolutely not. Were the Native Americans wrong for defending their land? Again, absolutely not. Were they wrong for attacking innocent civilians in retribution (for their land being taken, their own innocent civilians being killed, a genocide in progress)? Maybe, but it's also understandable that when you're working from a position of basically zero power against a behemoth, you can't fight the way the behemoth fights, or you're going to lose.

The way I see it, the Palestinian people just want a place to live and develop, and nobody's giving them a way out, so they're trying anything and everything they can.

  • 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State”
  • 1897 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “Mauschel

Herzl believed that there were two types of Jews, Jiden (Yids) and Juden (Jews), and considered any Jew who openly opposed his proposals for a Zionist solution to the Jewish question to be a Mauschel. The article has often been taken, since its publication, to be emblematic of an antisemitic strain of thinking in Zionism, and has been described as an antisemitic rant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

Due to his Zionist work, he is known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה), lit. 'Visionary of the State'. He is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and is officially referred to as "the spiritual father of the Jewish State".

the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.

Israel wasn't created by the UK or the US (or the UN). Israelis declared the state of Israel themselves after seizing territory in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The UN did have a plan to create an Israel in 1947, but that didn't happen, because neither the Jews, the Arabs, nor the UK were on board.

I think this might be a semantic argument - it's not important to me if we use the words "give" or "create." Happy to use whatever words you prefer for allies having power and control of an area and ensuring that power and control is transferred to their chosen ally.

British Mandatory Palestine was officially ending May 15, 1948. Israel announced its independence on May 14, 1948. The United States officially recognized Israel as a state 11 minutes after it declared itself a sovereign state. It's strange to suggest these are coincidences rather than planned action with their allies, but there's plenty of evidence in addition to this to make it very clear that Israel wouldn't have stood a chance without the backing of their superpower friends.

You left out the protocol of the elders of zion and the backlash it caused against Jews. It's fairly important as a catalyst for some of the 20th century shit.

I'm actually okay with that not being included as a critical point in Israeli history. My understanding is it was one piece in a long line of antisemitism, and while it was known by the Nazi party, it was known by the leadership to be fictional and wasn't used seriously as propaganda by them. That's not to say it didn't have any effect, just that I'm not convinced it made much difference when it comes to the creation of Israel as a state.

I'm open to alternative viewpoints if you want to provide evidence or just offer some book titles that might change my mind.

One minor, but important detail: The First Aliyah began in the 1880s, a decade before Herzl's work. Land was purchased for settlements, and a few tens of thousands came, mostly from Eastern Europe. Within a couple decades the kibbutz system was established, small socialist communities where it was decided, unfortunately, to try to rely exclusively on Jewish labor and economy. This led to the first significant frictions between the settlers and the Palestinians, setting the stage for our situation today.

Very true! It's hard to imagine Israel would be the same today without the particular cultural choices those first immigrants made. Thanks for the addition.

Thank you for the detailed timeline. However, it raises a serious question for me. Am I misreading, or does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years? If so, wouldn't that make it understandable why they're so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?

Here's the issue: who's home is it? Is it the home of people who haven't lived there for hundreds of years or the home of the people who currently do? Neither of these two groups had anything to do with what happened previously.

Jews had lived in the area for a very long time even after most were expelled. This was relatively peaceful (though not perfect). The current issues started when settlers came, who were not from there, and purchased farms. They later decided they would only hire Jewish workers, despite Muslims traditionally tending it (which hurt production because the Jewish settlers had no idea how to do so, but production wasn't the goal). Muslims then fought back as their livelihood was being taken from them. The settlers used militias to attack back and used it as justification to take more.

Those militias became the IDF when Israel formed. Israel still uses this tactic of provoking an attack and then using that as an excuse to use more force to take more territory. This has happened many times now and the current fight is just the latest, but not a new event.

There are no "good guys" but there are victims. Anyone just trying to live their lives is a victim. The bad guys are the ones trying to take this away from others.

does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years?

That's one interpretation, though I'd disagree with it. I have Jewish heritage - enough that a significant portion of my ancestry was wiped out in the Holocaust, though obviously a few of them were lucky and escaped to the US with the help of a sponsor. I don't practice Judaism as a religion and don't really relate much to any of my heritage. Is Israel my homeland? Not at all. The United States is my homeland. Before that, Germany would be my homeland. Before that... well, I'm not sure, but history would suggest it's highly unlikely it was Israel. I have zero attachment to that land, much like I expect you have zero attachment to the land of your ancestors from millennia ago. (I also have zero attachment to the land of my non-Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what it is from thousands of years ago, but I wouldn't care if I did.)

Would I and other Jewish people be justified in kicking out Germans, because they spent hundreds of years there? What about the Russians? Poles? The Jewish diaspora has gone all over the place and made just about everything their home. Why should they have claim to land that their great great great great great ancestors once conquered and stole from somebody else?

If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?

I would argue Israel wasn't their home until they moved there over the last hundred or so years. Home isn't where some of your family lived 3000 years ago. The individuals in question never lived there. Their parents never lived there. Their grandparents never lived there. None of these people had any idea what Israel was even like. Today, there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel, and they're happy to call the United States home.

If we're going to make the argument that people should be allowed to lay claim to land their ancestry owned 3000 years ago, we open up a lot of questions.

First, it's worth noting that this is also the home of Palestinians. The origins of Palestinians are much less clear than the origins of Jewish people in large part because the Jews have been uniquely good at maintaining their culture, so we have a much better grasp on Jewish people throughout history than we do of Palestinians. But at its core, the fact is Palestinians haven't ever lived anywhere else. This means they're also "so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home."

Second, to be consistent, we'd have to revert a lot of borders to ancient times. Does that mean we should all revert borders to what they were 3000 years ago? Why 3000? Why not 2000? 4000? Regardless, you're uprooting a lot of people - and you'd have to provide a really good justification for that, and I don't see it.

Third, even if we agreed the Jews have a right to this land and we should revert to their ancient borders and give them control, that doesn't mean they have a right to attempt genocide on those living there. The moment they embarked on the Nakba, they should have lost their allies in their mission. Assuming they have a right to the land, they have to humanely displace the people there, ensure they have a new place to live, and give them adequate compensation for the land and the massive inconvenience you've caused by uprooting their entire lives. Sort of a "sorry we're doing this, but we're trying to make it right." Instead, they've killed millions of people over the decades.

I'm referring to this part of your timeline-

"~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others. ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time). ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let's just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were."

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems to imply that they were, as a people, born from that land, and systemically were persecuted through the course of around 2400 years.

I think there's a lot of fuzzyness around the idea of "born from that land." It's not like they sprouted out of the earth. As with just about any people, there was a lot of rape and murder of warring tribes until some combination of them stopped doing as much rape and as much murder and somewhat arbitrarily called themselves "one people." If you want to call that "born from that land," sure, but their ancestry goes back further than that. We're all just apes.

As you now know, the Zionist project is one by Europeans who colonized and ethnically cleansed large regions of Palestine in the last 120 years or so. Ethnic supremacist myths about stolen Palestinian homes being on Israeli homelands are unacceptable.

lmao 1200 BC

Buddy, Zionism is a European settler colonial project from the 1800s that emerged as a response to European antisemitism but is of course, itself, deeply ethnocentric and racist.

All resistance to the occupation, which has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleansing, is justified under international law. They have now, for a years engaged in a fast genocide, which makes choosing a side very easy so long as you aren't yourself deeply racist.

Also, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia, primarily as a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the establishment of the State of Israel.

True! That's a good one to point out. It's hard to overstate how significantly and suddenly the Arabs turned against the Jews. Plenty were understandably going to emigrate from Europe, but Israel made them very unwelcome in the Arab world, too. It's also another good example of how Israel couldn't have been established without their allies, since the US/UK were the primary providers of air travel for Jews seeking refuge from Arab states to Israel.

1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders

You've made a pretty good summary, but I have one quibble: Egypt, Syria and Jordan were planning to attack Israel. Israel launched pre-emptive strikes.

lmao imagine being this easy to fool

I find it very difficult to justify most historical claims of anticipatory self-defense - it usually looks to me that it's an aggressor using an excuse to justify their aggression. I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to suggest Israel wasn't the aggressor in the Six Day War. While the military mobilization of their neighbors certainly contributed toward Israel's mobilization, that alone isn't justification for invasion. Nasser thought Israel was preparing to invade Syria, but he didn't preemptively invade Israel, he lined up his troops on the Israel-Egypt border and waited. We know now that Israel was not mobilizing troops on Syria's border, but Nasser's choice to defend his border was reasonable and nonviolent, even with false information.

But aside from that, I think it's reasonable to suggest Israel would have attacked even had there been no mobilization of troops from the Arab states. We saw Israel attack Egypt during the Suez Crisis where they forcibly re-opened passage through the Straits of Tiran, their only shipping route to the south other than the also-Egyptian Suez Canal. Just prior to the Six Day War, Egypt cut off Israel from the Straits of Tiran again, something Israel publicly called an act of war. It's not a coincidence Israel went ahead and took Sinai (immediately adjacent to the Straits of Tiran) during this war and didn't give it back until the Camp David Accords. (It's worth noting that had Nasser not gotten the original false information, he wouldn't have done any of this, and it's entirely possible the entire thing would have been averted. But he did, and that was a huge blunder on his part. Still, I disagree with Israel that refusing them passage through shipping routes is an act of war.)

I would also suggest that Israel's behavior after the Six Day War doesn't seem like the actions of a country that was acting in self-defense. They conquered land during that war and continue to occupy most of it to this day. They've invaded other countries since, with stated reasons that are as believable as the United States' reasons for invading Iraq. They've continued to occupy additional land. These actions indicate a country interested in expansionism and power growth, not peaceful co-existence.

The humanitarian aide workers.

You should look into the history of WHY Hamas formed in the first place. Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and had their land taken since the 40's. I will say, is there any justification for the destruction and genocide Israel is committing? They've destroyed practically ALL infrastructure in Gaza including hospitals, they've got snipers shooting kids, targeting UN aid workers. Hamas and hostages are convenient excuses for them to keep doing what they started in the 40's - killing an entire native population and taking their land.

This is what Israel defending itself actually means

Israel does genocide. That’s it.

The palestinian people. Sure, they have done some horrible things but it's been mostly out of desperation for decades of abuse from Israel, who are actively invading their country.

Yeah the conflict started way before october the 7th.

Forget everything you know (or think you know) about the conflict for a second. Now look at what human rights groups, including the UN, have to say about what's happening in Gaza and Lebanon. It's called a genocide because it is; it's really that simple and there are mountains of evidence published by the likes of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, again the UN. Also to dispell that particular piece of propaganda: they're not trying to get the hostages back. If they were they'd turn the first ceasefire agreement into a "permanent" ceasefire (there are no permanent ceasefires in this conflict) and end the whole thing. They want to genocide and settle Gaza, so they're doing that while sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.

By the way if you're going to side with the side that has hostages, then you should read up on Palestinian detainees first. Long story short: Israel arrests Palestinians from the West Bank or (until 2005) Gaza for dubious or no charges—which they can do because these places are governed under Israeli military law rather than civil law—and sometimes torture them while stealing years of their life. Part of Palestinian resistance organizations' raison d'etre is to return those people to their homes, which requires constant action because Israel arrests more Palestinians every day. There were already thousands of those detainees before October 7th and thousands more have been arrested after. Note: We're not talking about Palestinians who are arrested for legitimate crimes doing their time here; these people were kidnapped as a punishment against Palestinians for existing. If this doesn't sound like hostages to you, you should do some soul searching and ask yourself if you're trying to learn or justify your beliefs.

This probably sounds biased to you, but I took care to only state verifiable, indisputably objective facts here Sometimes things are just that simple. That doesn't make Hamas good guys; they're more gray with some legitimate resistance actions and some straight up terrorism, and it's not always clear which is which.

Finally, if you want to learn more about the conflict in general and about the conditions that drove Hamas to launch the October 7th attack to begin with, you should see what Amnesty International and other human rights groups have to say on the topic. The long story short is that Israel subjects Palestinians to Apartheid conditions along with a slow-burn genocide to serve their long-term goal of colonizing the whole Palestine and (to their more extremist factions) expand beyond it.

In Western fiction, you are taught to support the scrappy underdogs facing oppression from a racist occupying force. You root for them and cheer when they blow up military facilities and you feel for them when they lose their compatriots to oppressor violence. You know very well who the good guys and bad guys are.

But then, in Western media, with a mere change of labeling and some paper-thin propaganda, they will have you believing the opposite. All they need to do is call the freedom fighter resistance "terrorists", say that the occupiers "have a right to defend themselves", and pretend the "conflict" is "complicated" and really about religion. And they will so this even when the occupier ramps up genocide to unignorable levels.

The good guys remain those fighting occupation. This is consistent with a basic understanding of liberation, with nearly everyone's stated beliefs about self-determination, and international law. The bad guys are the ethnic supremacist apartheid settler colonist occupiers doing a genocide as well as their supporters.

Question- isn't Hamas constantly attacking Israel with the stated goal to eradicate them?

Israel is a racist genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate. All good people wish for the destruction of such a thing just like all good people wished for the destruction of the apartheid South African ethnostate. If Hamas wishes this, they should be commended for it, don't you think? And anyone who disagrees called out for the racial supremacist that they are?

I've seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system. You're saying that's not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?

I don't have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you're justifying Israel's reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.

I think, from what I've learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.

I've seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system.

That is not a solution, it is bantustans.

You're saying that's not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?

The "state" of Israel should be destroyed thoroughly. The "state" of Israel is premised on ethnosuoremacist genocidal apartheid and colonization. Remove those things and the "state" of Israel will fundamentally no longer exist, both because injustice will have been addressed and also because a very large number of Israeli settlers will simply leave, as they only care about living in an ethnostate that serves them. Something similar happened with Boers.

I don't have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you're justifying Israel's reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.

Israel's political leadership have always understood their project as ethnosupremacist, of requiring stealing land from the natives, as requiring oppression of the larger population of Palestinians who will not tolerate these conditions. They correctly understand that this project will end if those conditions are addressed, if justice is done. That is not a reason to accept their justification, as no ethnkstate deserves to exist or "defend itself" against those it oppresses.

I think, from what I've learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.

A two-state solution is bantustans and not even taken seriously by the "Israelis" or their American sponsors. It is just a nice-sounding "compromise" they hold in front of liberals like a carrot so that they will accept their continued slow (or now fast) genocide and displacement of Palestinians. "Israel" prefers its slow and steady expulsion of Palestinians into smaller and smaller concentration camps, like districts from South Africa. Those could never be considered a "state" under any circumstances and "Israel" would never accept them as such, even in such a diajointed condition.

Justice requires an end to the ethnostate itself.

Thank you for such a detailed response. Considering your views that ethnostates should be done away with, an interesting question came up for me. Would you be in favor of forcefully going in and forcing regime change in Israel?

I think the latter is entirely unnecessary. The US and its co-sponsor lackeys could do plenty by simply withdrawing support. The Zionist project is 90% dependent on constant material aid from Western powers to prop up its regime and would be forced to concede to the larger and more committed Palestian liberation movement without it. If they were to do anything active that was helpful, it would be to denuclearize Israel first.

Both of this things would require significant changes, though. Israel is propped up because it's violence against its neighbors is useful for US domination of the region. But we can work for this in pieces by blocking arms exports, disrupting supply chains, and builsing leverage to demand that countries spend domestically instead of supporting genocide. Ironically in EU countries it is far-right electoral groups that have more steam for the latter due to the fact that liberals have made themselves the warmongers focused on increased militarization, but of course we cannot trust those right wingers to follow through.

Please understand the distinction between the destruction of the state of Israel and the destruction of the people of Israel. The example you were just given was the destruction of the state of South Africa.

a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable.

That sounds nice, but Israel wants no such thing and never has, despite its past claims to the contrary.

I think a Two-State Solution would be a good idea (and I have opinions on exactly where the border should go), but it will have to be imposed on Israel by the international community.

Israel has never been sincere about a Two-State solution, and their "offers" to Palestine have been inadequate and unworkable, and the Palestinians have been right to reject them because there's no point in accepting a deal that won't lead to peace. Only a fair and workable deal can lead to peace.

Israel has demonstrated that they are an illegitimate state, because legitimate states do not bomb the stateless people living within their borders. At this point we should be treating Israel like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. The Israeli military should be placed under foreign control, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza returned to the Palestinians.

So far, the only thing stopping this from happening has been the United States' support for Israel.

Israel needs to realize that the United States is rapidly declining in power, and if Israel doesn't voluntarily cede the Palestinian territories, Israel might not exist at all in the near future.

What does destruction of Israel as a genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate look like to you? Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel? Does it look like the massive bombing campaign, displacement, and destruction of capacity for civilians to live that Israel has perpetrated in Gaza?

The end of apartheid, the end of ethnosupremacy at both the state and societal level, land back for displaced Palestinians. But most importantly, self-determination for the people of Palestine. They decide what they need or want once they are in a position to liberate themselves, not you and not me.

The side you are carrying water for is an ethnosupremacy at apartheid settler colonial occupation. You don't get to hand wring about what you think the oppressed will do to their opprrssors.

First, I am not on Israel's side in this matter. I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned, dismantling apartheid and establishing self-determination for Palestinians. However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal. Just as I am in support of Ukraine's resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.

Sure, neither of us are directly affected won't be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.

First, I am not on Israel's side in this matter

And yet you used a tired Zionist talking point that amounts to, "what if the people we are oppressing do the same things to us if we stop the oppression?" It was also used for apartheid South Africa, incidentally. And we can see that the oppressed are far more humane than these ethnic supremacists.

But maybe you are anti-Zionist and just picked up this question from others.

I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned

The outcomes I mentioned are incompatible with a two-state solution. A two-state solution is bantustans and it was "agreed" to by compradors. It is not a serious proposal, which is why Israel/the US has never attempted to implement it and has instead further oppressed and fragmented Palestinians.

A two-state solution means no right of return, the continuation of the Israeli apartheid ethnostate, and the status quo for Gaza and The West Bank. There can be no state under occupation, with its orchards and homes stolen, with its towns disjointed, with a comprador government installed by Western interests. That is neither sovereignty nor justice and it would not be tolerated by the oppressed.

However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal.

Define atrocities. Israel will simply shoot and torture peaceful movements. It already has done so many times. Only armed resistance can defeat such an oppressor.

Just as I am in support of Ukraine's resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.

Just as the West labels all Palestinians freedom fighters, they will label actions far lesser than what Israel does on a daily basis "war crimes" when it suits them, just like the ICC seems to basically only go after black African war criminals (Bush and Cheney weren't tried at the Hague, hmm). Guerilla warfare against an oppressor will not be clean, this is impossible. Intelligence will fail and targets will be colocated, e.g. the IDF has part of its headquarters by a shopping mall. And individuals will do terrible and violent things. Also, Israelis and the West, including the US president, will simply lie, like with the "beheaded babies" narrative. So you will have to prepare yourself to question these narratives and accept a world where the freedom fighters will be accused of war crimes by the usual sources.

Though, if we are speaking of international law, occupied people are allowed to resist their occupiers by any means they deem fit.

Sure, neither of us are directly affected won't be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.

I use this platform for chatting and agitation. This convo is in the agitation category, of course. Generally speaking it is important to shout down pro-genocide narratives, whether it is Zionist propaganda or Dems trying to get their voters to tolerate genocide.

How did it look when south africans overthrew the apartheid regime? Didn't come anywhere near the racist nightmares of white supremacists, and there's no reason to believe the return of palestine will be any different.

Also it's up to Palestinians, and no one else to decide what to do with their land.

Because you’re unable to distinguish between a state and a people, you’re unable to imagine anything but the eradication of a people, even though the example of the state of South Africa was just given to you.

conflation of state and people that Hamas’s ideology clearly makes

A Document of General Principles and Policies

by largely targeting and slaughtering civilians in their homes

That is not what happened. That is what Western media said happened.

.

If Hamas wants to dismantle Israeli oppression through activism, negotiations, and political reform great.

  1. It has tried to do that for decades. The most recent significant attempt was Great March of Return, wherein the IDF slaughtered Gazans.
  2. Palestinians have the legal right under UN law to struggle against their occupiers by any means necessary, including armed struggle.
  3. Israel, as an occupier, has no right to “self defense.”

You can support Palestine as a people right to live, and condemn Israeli blanket bombing without supporting Hamas' shooting civilians.

Or did you also struggle with condemning British occupation of Ireland, whilst also disagreeing with the IRA bombing of civilian targets?

Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel?

Can't say they don't deserve it

Which is why Jews across the world have said Israel is genuinely the greatest source of danger to them in terms of antisemitism - because it has linked its atrocities to their identity, regardless of their personal support.

Just to be clear, Hamas does not want to eradicate the Jews. That is a myth propagated by Israel.

Hamas wants to eliminate Israel, by which they mean they want Israel replaced by an Arab-majority state in which both Jews and Arabs live. (Hamas want the return of 4 million Palestinian refugees to Israel/Palestine, which would make it an Arab-majority state.)

Furthermore, they have indicated they are open to negotiating a Two-State solution.

I don't think it makes any sense to portray Hamas as unreasonable for wanting Arabs to control the whole land (from the river to the sea) when Israel want the same thing for Jews.

Why does Hamas get to say they want to eradicate Israel as a state and have Arab-majority control over the region, but Israel doesn't get to say they want to control the entire region? What makes who correct to say that in either case?

but Israel doesn't get to say they want to control the entire region?

What do you mean Israel doesn't "get" to say that?

Israel does say that, and Israel does control the entire region, and almost every Western power allows them to.

I guess I meant to ask why is it morally okay for Palestinians to want to do that, but not morally ok for Israelis to want to do that. Is it because Israel is an apartheid, ethnostate?

Palestinians want the right to return from where they were ethnically cleansed, Israel wants to maintain a Jewish majority state.

Your confusing a state with a people.

Hama's want to stop Israel (the state) from existing as they occupy their territory, and make them live in internment camps.

Israel wants to stop the Palestinian people from existing, because they are an inconvenience.

Because Israel set up an apartheid state. If they had set about building a representative democracy that included a constitutional right of return for Jews nobody would have had a problem. Instead they want to own all this land and oppress the people who live there.

Either that's a legitimate goal or it isn't. I don't think it is.

Because Palestine is a multifaith, multicultural country and Israel is a colonial foothold & apartheid that is actively and systemically trying to erase both Palestine and Palestinians.

Resistance is justified, oppression is not.

Israel is saying they want to destroy Hamas which is the government of Gaza.

And they are saying they want to control the region. They call it Greater Israel.

Israel has been keeping Palestinians in a brutal and murderous apartheid state and brutalizing them for 80 years-- imprisoning them indefinitely without charges too. But you want to question what the oppressed do and why, as if it was mysterious. I'm having a hard time beleiving you when you say you want this explained to you, but I suppose I'll take it at face value and hope for the best.

If you truly want to understand this stuff, start with a deep dive-- several actually, into history. Start with the jewish-roman wars to understand the zionist/zealot motivations. At this point the original states of Israel were 1000 years gone, having weakened themselves with civil war over taxation, then plundered and abosrbed by the neo-babylonians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars

From there you'll want to look at the expansion of the ottoman empire and jewish place in it, and how they were governed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_EmpireThis overlapped with the crusades. I recommend "empires of the sea" by crowley. Crucial in there is how the Ottoman empire depended on slaves to function, but their religion only allowed them to get slaves by capturing them in battle, and it forbade muslims from trading in slaves thesmelves, but allowed buying them. Hence the birth of slave traders as a caste, who were foriegn, and became largely a jewish group. This understandably was not well received back in Europe, where the slaves came from. The ottomans almost totally depopulated the mediteranean coasts gathering slaves. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13260-5_14Toward the end of the ottoman empire (it was an 800 year empire), they officially tolerated muslims as slave traders. (Progress?)

You can also read up on how jews participated in and were persecuted in the crusades, and draw some conclusions as to why and how that played out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades#:~:text=In%20the%20First%20Crusade%2C%20Jewish,Jews%20in%20France%20suffered%20especially.

Then move on to jewish presence in the region during the ottoman empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey

Read up on how jewish expulsions from european countries came about because of christianities Vix pervenit. Theres a lot there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_pervenit

See how because of medeival views of usury, Jews were ejcted by monarchs in europe as a way to justify seizing their assets, only to allow them back a bit later and starting the process over https://humsci.stanford.edu/feature/stanford-historian-explores-how-expulsions-became-widespread-medieval-europe

From there you can end up in the start of WW2, the jewish holocaust, and then Haganah and Irgun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganahhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Partition, the UN creating a state of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Israel's leadership thoughts at the time: https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/

From there, the Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

The six day war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_WarThe USS liberty incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

The first and second intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifadahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

Oslo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord

The creation of hamas by Israel to thwart the PLO peace plans and two state solution https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

9/11 and Osama bin laden, and the use and weaponization of his logic by western powers https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/the-dangerous-logic-used-to-justify-killing-civilians/374886/

The rise of indefinite administrative detention https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinians-west-bank-793a3b2a1ce8439d08756da8c63e5435

https://apnews.com/article/prison-israel-palestinians-administrative-detention-e4ffd1744a9692c2539a78a8d916176e

Storming of al aqsa mosque on oct 4 2023 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/4/israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-mosque-complex-on-fifth-day-of-sukkot

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/08/1204545845/how-the-al-aqsa-mosque-became-a-flashpoint-in-the-israel-palestine-conflict

October 7 2023 attacks https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975

The use of the hannibal directive https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/

You can google and read a lot about the negoatiations and doubts for whether Netenyahu wanted to negotiate for the release of hostages at all, and the Israelis protesting his lack of interest in getting the hostages back. You can also look at settler groups auctioning off peices of gaza, and now lebanon.

That's fine. Some of my leftist friends feel the same way, like I'm not asking in good faith. I don't have any way to convince you that I am. I just feel like I'm not educated on the subject and that's why I'm looking for a wide array of facts and opinions.

Personally I think your perception is part of a larger problem of a breakdown in communication and education, where people automatically assume the worst of everyone's intentions because of either experience with other bad actors, or because you feel like since you have the knowledge you have and it feels intuitive to you, you feel like everyone else must also have that knowledge and anyone outside of that sphere is simply trying to be a disruptor.

Personally I think your perception is part of a larger problem of a breakdown in communication and education, where people automatically assume the worst of everyone’s intentions because of either experience with other bad actors

Thats a fair accusation. Theres often a lot of bad faith in these communications, so if you are coming from a place of good faith and are here to learn, I apologize, and I've added a bunch of history links to my original comment, so you can interpret the history yourself.

Thank you for adding all of that information to your original post. I will read through it!

Did you watch the video I linked you below?

I'm sorry, I don't see a video link.

The resistance including Hamas, Ansar Allah, Iraqi resistance, Hezbollah, etc.

but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.

lol what. You do realize gaza is a concentration camp right? That's like saying the Jews who fought back during the warsaw ghetto uprising were bad guys. Also they aren't trying to get their hostages back at all. On oct 7 the IDF was responsible for the MAJORITY of deaths. Look up hannibal directive.

The bad guys are Zionists. Simply put they think they are superior to anyone that's not Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.

I actually didn't realize Gaza was a concentration camp.

In 1948, during the Nakba, Israel ethnically cleansed much of Palestine. From that (and a good portion of the ethnic cleansing Israel has done since), many of the people were driven into Gaza.

In 2006, when Israel got kicked out of Gaza due to an uprising, they built a wall around it and restricted the amount of food, fuel, and other items, and banned the gazans from constructing wells, water containers, and other things that would allow the people in Gaza to stay alive longer if Israel cut off food/water supplies.

Thank you for the information. I did not know this.

We learned about the displacement of Palestinians in school and it made me so angry. Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then. Aren't the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this? Well, I suppose that's just what they want! (Please note that I am only criticizing the Israeli government, not Jews or Israel in general; you have to be very careful to not get accused of antisemitism where I live.)

P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.

Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel

Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.

I am only criticizing the Israeli government, [...] Israel in general

Israel is a settler colonial project, an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.

not Jews

Yes, we agree that it's antisemitic as fuck to associate Jewishness with Zionism. When Israel is murdering children in public view, implying that Israel represents Jews is just blood libel with extra steps.

Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.

But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that, and also take a nuanced look at the whole conflict. There is no single good or bad side.

Apart from innocent Palestinians and Israelis (good) there are the terrorists (a.k.a. Hamas) who killed and kidnapped hundreds of civilians (bad). Then there is are the settlers, occupying land and terrorizing Palestinians (bad) with the help of the IDF. The Israeli government either looks away or even encourages them (bad). The IDF imprisons children, willingly destroys houses and infrastructure in Gaza and the west bank and executes "precision strikes" in areas of high population while also blocking humanitarian aid (bad).

I support chief investigator Khan's arrest warrant for Netanjahu, Galant, Deif and Haniyya. Regarding the riots after trying to arrest nine IDF soldiers for abusing a Palestinian prisoner, it is obvious that Israel won't be interested in a trial or at least not able to arrange one.

[...] an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.

That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.

But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that

I am being clear.

Would you condemn the Polish resistance because they killed some of the German settlers who came to settle Poland during the 1940s? The South African anti-apartheid movement because they burned some Boers and their collaborators alive? Or would you say the oppressor doesn't get to judge the morality of the tactics the oppressed use?

Requiring every antizionist to constantly stop to condemn Hamas creates a false equivalency between the people who are inside a concentration camp and the people keeping them there.

That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.

This is what existed before Israel, and god willing, it's what we'll have after Israel.

I no longer see any point in this discussion. I will not argue with someone who sympathizes with the crimes of Hamas. Have a nice day.

Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then.

They are punished because they are Palestinian and Israelis are racist occupiers.

Aren't the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this?

Yes, of course. Israel has a long record of maximum escalation and starting wars and ethnic cleansing. They have official doctrines of killing as many civilians as possible in bombing campaigns rather than engaging with fighters directly.

Israelis are incredibly racist.

P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.

Good on you for having this position despite the racism of your government against solidarity with Palestine!

The working class in both nations. The people, divided and conquered.

If you would not have called Rhodesia or Apartheid South Africa the good guys then you should not consider Israel to be the good guys either.

I don't think a lot of westerners realize how highly propagandized and pro-colonialist their media is.

The US deemed the African National Congress (ANC, the main group resisting apartheid south africa) a terrorist group just like they do hamas now, and only removed Mandela from the US terrorist watchlist in 2008.

US media is saying all the same things about Palestine's resistance that they did in the 80s w/ to south african apartheid.

The amount of bias, propaganda, and straight-up misinformation from western media regarding this "conflict" (more like massacre) is truly outrageous.

Depends really. What do you value in your life? What ethical framework do you use? Do you value freedom and self determination, do you value people different from you as much as people of your nationality/race? Or perhaps do you value the Western stability, growth, dominance and wellbeing at the expense of the economic South more? There's no objective answer, it depends on you and your viewpoint.

If we do away with the propaganda and misinformation we are left with this question. Because the US and Europe would never support anyone for the sake of them being the only democracy in the middle east or fighting terrorists or whatever. If that were the case the US wouldn't have been complicit with the dictatorships of the gulf countries or any other of the innumerable dictatorships they have established throughout the years in the world. And they would also not be funding the ISIS or other terrorist groups in Columbia, Cuba, Nicaragua and so many other countries.

No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn't serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

So what do you value? Freedom and dignity for all, or more power for the Western states and corporations (- and whatever religious crap you want to excuse colonising and ethnically cleansing a nation)?

If you see this, it'd save you a lot of time from arguing about every single event of the conflict. If you see every human in the world as equal and deserving of freedom, then you'd see that Israel and the West is bringing these people at the brink of extinction, torturing, killing, humiliating, starving them, expelling them from their land, destroying their vital civil infrastructure, stealing their land and property for 75 years now. And when you see all this (not from Western mainstream media though), you'd recognise the right for armed struggle against a colonizing entity that Israel is. No civilian casualties are acceptable, but the ones affected in 7/10/23 would have to turn against their government for ethnically cleansing Palestinians, bringing them to that desperate point of retaliation, not Palestinians.

No dominant organisation in the world like the US state would give a significant amount of money(like it does for Israel) for something that doesn’t serve their material interests, namely the perpetuation and/or increase of their power and influence.

I disagree with the notion that dominant organizations would never give significant of money away in a manner contrary to their material interests. If anything, the opposite is true: if you are dominant, then you have more freedom to get away with acting against your material interests (intentionally or not).

I think that our treatment of Israel is an example of this. All of the money we have been throwing at them does not buy anything at all, since the Israeli government does not even seem to be that grateful for it but just expects it as a matter of course. They seem hell-bent on bringing the entire region into a war that would pull us in and cause a ton of damage to our material interests, and we have barely any ability to stop them from doing this. Worst, this situation is entirely avoidable because we could, at the very least, put strings on our military aid and then enforce them, rather than just giving Israel whatever it wants and ignoring whenever it crosses any of our supposed lines.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that our material interests are the only reason to care about what is happening or to criticize our government's actions, I am just saying that it makes no sense to just take as given that a dominant organization will always act in its own best material interests in this way.

Undermining of independent states in the middle east is in the material interest of the US empire. They just disagree internally about how to best go about doing this. A regional war is not directly against US ruling interests unless they think they would lose that fight or if it would shut down the Strait of Hormuz for a long time. The US has not exactly reined in its Israeli attack dog in any meaningful way, which us what they could do and would do if they wanted descalation.

It's not in the interests of the wider civilian population of the planet, or even just those in the US, but those things barely register for empire.

The problem with this reasoning is that instability, whether as the result of undermining governments or regional wars, has unpredictable outcomes. For example, overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran seemed like a great idea to those in power in the U.S. at the time when we disagreed with Iran's policies, but this decision turned around to bite us when that got overturned. So it is not in our material interests to promote instability, and I think that the current administration knows this, so to the extent it is supporting Israel with effectively no conditions on its actions I think that it is behaving irrationally rather than maliciously.

The US Empire barely cares about blowback, they subscribe for a maximalist foreign policy pressure ethos. Like in Domino Theory, they abhor independence lest it coherently spread, and act swiftly and decisively against it like playing whack-a-mole. The ethos doesn't have to deliver perfect results free of blowback, it just needs to be good enough for the interests it serves. Regarsing Iran, this is why it is co stantly threatened and sanctiobed by the US and its cronies. The blowback was too successful so they are still just doing a maximum pressure campaign and constantly threatening war. They take a similar approach against Syria and Yemen. They took a similar approach against Iraq and likely will again.

When speaking of material interest and the US state, using "our" can be ambiguous. I am not of the ruling class of the US, and certainly nowhere near the great financiers and imperialists whose interests are the real ones served by empire. So I would never say this serves "our" interests using this kind of logic. Are you of that class? Often actions are taken against the interests of the non-ruling classes and in favor of the ruling class.

One can make an argument that the citizen US working class is a beneficiary of imperialism, paying far below what they should for imports and having wages propped up by the petrodollar, buy this is challenging to rationalize with the idea that it is simply in their interest to, say, keep Iran subservient to US empire. The public are ignorant to these things and there is no mechanistic connection between their actions and these outcomes except the propaganda appaeatus that manufactures their consent, which is really a top-down monopoly on information that still does not inform them of how this might be in their interest. And even then, it is arguable whether this is more generally in their interest. Undermining the petrodollar might lead to their yolk being removed.

So it is not in our material interests to promote instability

When hasn't the US used the british strategy of balkanization, especially in the middle east? Divide and conquer a cornerstone of their strategy, in the ME, africa, south america, SE asia... literally everywhere.

Mossadegh's government was actively overthrown by the CIA, then the US supported the Shah and his son, and had strong relations with imperial Iran until they were overthrown in the Iranian revolution. The Iranian people refused to accept that right-wing US-puppet and his brutal regime any longer, and there was nothing the US could do about it.

US leaders repeatedly tell you why supporting Israel is in the US's interests: its a giant unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle east to project power on this resource rich region. The US would never support even another colonialist project with the same values, unless it was in its material interests.

on a scale from 1 to 10 how serious are you in asking this, I ask because I am genuinly unsure if you are confused and unaware of what is happening, or if you are trying to start some shit

I've answered this in the post to another commenter, but I am 100% serious.

Well for Decades the Irealies have both been genociding the Palistinians, and have been on a long push to try to conflait zionism, an origionaly anti-symetic idea in eurpope, that was even embraced by the Nazis, and quinticentialy jewish, so they could use anti-semitism to shield themselvs.

The good guys are the palistinians who where there before anyone else got there, and have been being genocided agian for decades on end, and are being genocided now.

I thought the Jewish heritage and population had been there just as long but were purged out from the area. And as part of the WWII agreements, land was set aside for them to reclaim what was theirs many centuries ago.

Palistinian Jews exist, and where not perged, the religion spread as religions do, after WW1 the area was given to the united kingdom, and after ww2 the UK and UN without concent of the Palistinians opened it up to (eruopean) jewish settlement. The issue is that they are not from the area, nor have any claim beyond zionism to the region

the Jewish diaspora started during the Roman period. dring any Muslim control of the land the Jewish people were more or less welcomed and had a good life there.

10 kids born 2 killed guess what population still grew by 8

Very few of Israeli Jews are actually Arabs. They are largely of European descent. So it is misinformation to characterize this as Arabs murdering Arabs. What this is is Western settler-colonialism.

Arabs have been murdering Arabs for hundreds of years. To say Israel started it is not only wrong but spreading misinformation.

"Israel" was internationally recognized as established in the 1940s based on a European movement from the 1800s to create a settler-colonial ethnostate. Israel did start it, it is an occupying force that displaced Palestinians from their lands in living memory, implemented violent apartheid conditions, and is currently doing a genocide.

Your "Arabs just kill each other this isn't different" is frankly just relying on racism to avoid actually addressing the real history.

Who started it is pointless at this point

No, it is very much an important point as it happened in recent history via occupation, terrorism, and forced immigration by European settlers backed by the British empire and then the US empire. You must ignore this in order to share the positions that you have.

but this anti Palestine sentiment from Israelis has been brewing for decades. For some context look up Arab-Israeli war of 1948

Anti-Palestinian sentiment has been a core part of the Zionist project since its inception. 1948 is when the largest expulsions happened, the war was a response to this occupation and aggression.

Like killing like isn't what's going on here, though. Unless I'm missing something.

Identify good and bad based on what people do. Not why they are doing it. Otherwise you're simply agreeing that the ends justify the means.

Someone kills a noncombatant? Bad. Doesn't matter why.

By that logic every single fight has been between bad guys. Abolitionists vs. slavers? Sorry buddy, they both killed noncombatants, they're both just bad guys. Nazis doing genocide vs. partisabs? Sorry buddy, they're both just bad guys.

There are no perfect fights, perfect armies, perfect struggles for liberation. You will have to accept what it takes to fight oppression or force yourself to a mealy-mouthed sidelines from which you declare everyone that isn't passive is always a villain.

I think I generally agree with your viewpoint here. This seems to be separate from the original conversation, and more about whether or not war is sometimes necessary, and if it is then you've got to step back and look at the larger picture and realize there's going to be a lot of pain on both sides, the good side and the bad side. I think it's ok to empathize with that, but probably not ok to say that fighting is never necessary. The same people will then go on to say it's ok to physically assault modern day Nazis.

I wouldn't mind punching a Nazi personally. But I also realize war sometimes is necessary, and that it will be a painful process.

Hell yeah normalize punching Nazis. Of course do so when you won't lose the fight.

Oppressed people are not generally warmongers. They are not whipped up into a frenzy of domination like Americans, Germans, or Nazis. Instead, they fight because they must either flee or resist, and they opt to resist.

One example is that for all the hand-wringing about Hamas, Israel is clearly far more bloodthirsty and accepting of civilian deaths, given how much they target children and hospitals. All the tut-tutting of Hamas comes from pro-Israeli propaganda that hopes the audience will forget these things and instead think about how much more "pure" the resistance should allegedly be. It is directed at those who reside in countries materially abettibg the occupation and genocide so that they do not demand better.

Not necessarily. If that were the case, then peaceful civil rights movements wouldn't be effective. We can point to things like women's right to vote to indicate that isn't the case though. While they're not as dramatic, peaceful reform movements have a reasonably high success rate, contrasted against all the uprisings and revolts which have been mercilessly crushed throughout history.

Your entire logic is that a side that kills a noncombatant it is bad. This simplistic logic would, necessarily, lead to the absurdities I listed.

Re: the Civil rights movements, they were not, overall, peaceful. There has been a whitewashing of them due to the (decades later) popularity of Dr. King and his compatriots, but the civil right movement spanned decades and included violent resistance.

While they're not as dramatic, peaceful reform movements have a reasonably high success rate, contrasted against all the uprisings and revolts which have been mercilessly crushed throughout history.

They have nearly always failed and have instead been used to demonstrate the necessity of armed resistance. You'll note that Dr. King was killed when he focused on what he viewed as the more encompassing injustice of poverty imposed on black people by capitalism.

Well, yes, killing a noncombatant is bad, no question about it. There are other ways to accomplish the goal, from peaceful ways to simply killing actual combatants instead. I know you're more of a revolutionary, so that kinda undermines your whole thing, but oh well.

Sure, but things like the riots, particularly around race, contributed to a great deal of backlash, and were not exactly the cause of things like the Civil Rights Act. In fact, I'd challenge you to provide historical cases of a leader caving to that sort of violence while they still had their military and police forces to protect them.

Yes, martyrdom is common, assassination is unquestionably a thing that happens in history. If you're saying his assassination was some conspiracy to preserve capitalism I'd like to see some actual evidence of that, though, from a respected historian.

Almost always fails, though? It's relatively rarely attempted in any seriousness, but let's see... Vietnam War, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights Act, Prohibition, and that's just examples from my country. And yes, I know, they were not all exclusively perfectly peaceful. Majority peaceful, though, I don't think you can logically just unilaterally declare all the positive results were due to the violent aspects, that makes no sense unless you can provide some evidence.

Well, yes, killing a noncombatant is bad, no question about it.

I think there are plenty of "noncombatants" that can be killed without it being bad. How about concentration camp guards? Or the wardens? How about a President guilty of war crimes and genocide? What about the person that shuts off the water supply to a vulnerable population, killing thousands? I will shed no tears for those people if those they oppressed rise up against them with decisive violence.

Or for one more controversial: what level of violence is acceptable against settlers? Their comfort and security on stolen land is the material basis for the settler project. Making them unsafe undermines this more thoroughly than most other violence. Several groups of native Americans recognized this while their people were genocided and it did have the intended impact right up until the genocidal US government deployed overwhelming forces. When the oppressor seeks genocide, what should really be off-limits? Why the tut-tutting of the oppressed when they face such inhumanity and existential threats?

There are other ways to accomplish the goal, from peaceful ways to simply killing actual combatants instead.

If there is a peaceful way, the Palestinians have already tried it. They tried it in a very obvious way just a few years ago with the Great March of Return. Did it work? What did Israel do in response? What impact did this have on the freedom fighters in the resistance?

Why are you trying to dictate the terms of others' freedom when they face genocide and occupation? Does your country materially support the occupation? Focus on disrupting that instead.

I know you're more of a revolutionary, so that kinda undermines your whole thing, but oh well.

Generally speaking it is a bad idea for liberals to guess what socialists want or think. I have yet to meet one that has guessed correctly with any consistency.

Sure, but things like the riots, particularly around race, contributed to a great deal of backlash, and were not exactly the cause of things like the Civil Rights Act.

First, peaceful marches got very similar backlash. Dr. King was criticized with the exact same milquetoast, "we agree with his ideas but not his methods" treatment by liberals and he was majority unpopular among white people for his entire life.

Second, violent actions, as defined by critics, formed the basis for much of the civil rights fight and forwarded it. The seizure and destruction of property, the vigilante justice against lynchers, the hounding of segregationist bosses, and riots were all highly influential. Thr best-organized groups carried rifles. Dr. King has been appropriated by liberals, particularly white liberals, in order to tell an ahistorical story about the importance of nonviooent resistance, that liberty can have its cake and eat it too, to be free of the blrmish of violence while securing its goals. Of course, they tend to stop telling the story when King began to focus on capitalism and its use of structural marginalization to induce poverty on black people and was killed shortly after. Nobody can seriously argue that the civil rights movement simply succeeded, no one can go to the black ghettos and say this with a straight face. It was mollified with partial legalization reforms while the major engine of oppression chugged right along, ensuring continued racialized poverty, policing, and society at large.

In fact, I'd challenge you to provide historical cases of a leader caving to that sort of violence while they still had their military and police forces to protect them.

Every revolution and, most closely ties to the topic of this post, the victory of the ANC guerillas over the apartheid South African government.

Yes, martyrdom is common, assassination is unquestionably a thing that happens in history. If you're saying his assassination was some conspiracy to preserve capitalism I'd like to see some actual evidence of that, though, from a respected historian.

It is well-known that black civil rights leaders were frequently assassinated and that the FBI led the charge in harassing and threatening them and certainly did not stop at Dr. King. Fred Hampton is a well-known example. Though government employees were hardly the only ones killing and they often worked with civilian assets or simply sat back and let white supremacists do the job. The interest of the state in doing so was to undermine the civil rights movement itself and to wrap it up in its red scare tactics, both in the service of capitalism, namely racialized capitalism. Though it is not only the state with such interests - businesses, particularly those owned by racist whites, have every incentive to support these violences, and had often been the sponsors of lynchings.

Re: Dr. King specifically, his family has always maintained that he was killed in a conspiratorial manner. There is doubt about this narrative, but it is useful to follow the logic and constellation of government infiltrators of King's organization and connections to organized crime. But even withiut that, the original confession of the officially accused and convicted was by someone looking to get paid a racist bounty that had been placed on King's head.

Almost always fails, though? It's relatively rarely attempted in any seriousness, but let's see... Vietnam War

Was ended primarily by the Vietnamese, namely by North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The US domestic side, which was not entirely nonviolent, just limited the capacity to wage war and was dramatically secondary.

Women's Suffrage

Notoriously involved violence.

Civil Rights Act

Already discussed. Incomplete and not separable from violent struggle.

Prohibition

Which part of it? Teatotalers were often violent leading up to it and the period of prohibition was characterized by violent organized crime. Prohibition was itself ended mostly because capitalists wanted to make money legally again and to crowd out the mob. The primary sponsors of repealing prohibition were the Rockefelllers and du Pont brothers, including various "grassroots" organizations. The whole thingis hardly a peaceful people's campaign against an oppressor.

A concentration camp guard is a combatant. They are armed and keeping you there with violence, right? Responding with violence to violence is pretty widely regarded as acceptable, outside of pacifist movements. Your more controversial question is what we're really talking about. I think your focus on the "material basis" for their actions is where this goes wrong, as it ignores their ideology, their psychology. This is why such resistance movements fail, humans are not fundamentally logical. Even a total undermining of their peace and security simply draws that overwhelming response you mentioned, as we are seeing evidence of right now. While the nonviolent methods were not working very well, they were working better than this. What works is what's most important, that's why I'm dictating right and wrong to others quest for freedom. Even a full cutoff of all foreign weapons to Israel would not resolve the famine.

Any actual sourcing for this primacy of violence in peaceful protest movements or King's assassination being to preserve capitalism? It seems to me you are simply trying to give all the credit to the few, while ignoring the contributions of the many, because it suits you.

"Every revolution" sure is convenient, when 99% fail. The ANC did not "defeat" South Africa, it was international pressure that ended Apartheid.

On the note of government surveillance and oppression of the civil rights movement, I agree.

Regarding Vietnam, the US could have kept fighting far longer if there was will for it. The reason there was not will for it was domestic opposition.

Again, you're simply giving all the credit to the violent while ignoring the hard work of the masses in these movements. This is disingenuous.

A concentration camp guard is a combatant. They are armed and keeping you there with violence, right?

Kibbutzim near Gaza are armed occupation groups set up for the long term. Violence against those in kibbutzim are the only credible accusations of violence against "civilians" on Oct 7. Is an open air prison guard less of one when they live nearby? What if they don't go in the prison but instead are there to shoot you if you break out? What if they knowingly live on your stolen land while you live in a ghetto?

Responding with violence to violence is pretty widely regarded as acceptable, outside of pacifist movements. Your more controversial question is what we're really talking about. I think your focus on the "material basis" for their actions is where this goes wrong, as it ignores their ideology, their psychology. This is why such resistance movements fail, humans are not fundamentally logical.

That's a lot of unjustified generalizations when we are talking about something specific.

Even a total undermining of their peace and security simply draws that overwhelming response you mentioned, as we are seeing evidence of right now.

And Israel is now likely the weakest it has ever been while the world has awoken to their crimes. A slow genocide is not better than a fast one, but actions one that draws the genocider into an existential crisis have strategic value.

While the nonviolent methods were not working very well, they were working better than this.

You are being vague again. Working well for what? What is the goal? What outcomes are on the table? Nonviolent methods achieved one thing: a recognition that they could not achieve their intended purpose of inciting international support for their cause and that the Zionist entity will not even tolerate peaceful marches, so militarized resistance is necessary. I would bet you did jack shit in response to the Great March of Return, whereas this at least has your attention.

What works is what's most important, that's why I'm dictating right and wrong to others quest for freedom. Even a full cutoff of all foreign weapons to Israel would not resolve the famine.

Yes it would because the blockade would collapse and so would the ability to target aid workers.

Any actual sourcing for this primacy of violence in peaceful protest movements or King's assassination being to preserve capitalism? It seems to me you are simply trying to give all the credit to the few, while ignoring the contributions of the many, because it suits you.

I have provided enough information for a curious person to inform themselves. I can't make you curious and I cannot read for you, nor will I be doing errands for you in that regard. You can thank me for giving you this information when you have clearly never made any attempts to learn this topic and continue to be resistant to self-education before sharing your opinions, which are really just the things you see on children's programming.

"Every revolution" sure is convenient, when 99% fail.

A statistic you pulled from your ass that does not address the fact that I accurately answered your question. Just a deflection. Do you see why I am not taking time to help you with reading materials? You are not acting in good faith.

The ANC did not "defeat" South Africa, it was international pressure that ended Apartheid.

Absolutely incorrect. Boycotts and sanctions helped but it was resistance like the ANC that led the charge and, for example, created the boycott movements in the first place. Rather than acknowledge basic facts you are now just making things up and asserting them to be true. It was black south Africans and their white allies engaging in direct action that brought the country to its knees and agitated for all of this. White South Africa was dependent on black South Afrucan labor.

Regarding Vietnam, the US could have kept fighting far longer if there was will for it. The reason there was not will for it was domestic opposition.

Because the imperialist war crybabies weren't winning and came home to get sympathy for their PTSD and war crimes. Vietnam set itself up for long-term guerilla warfare that they knew could outlast Americans' willpower. It is frankly disgusting to give Americans credit for the Vietnamese kicking their shit in. Give credit where credit is due and stop feeding this implicit racism that non-white resistance groups didn't achieve what they did.

Again, you're simply giving all the credit to the violent while ignoring the hard work of the masses in these movements.

Giving all credit to, say, the people successfully waging guerilla warfare to tire out their occupiers? In a war? Yes of course I will give them virtually all of the credit, as they did nearly all of the work to efficaciously achieve their desired ends.

You are simply incorrect in your understanding of history and believe in fairy takes that you refuse to question, even when presented with the obvious. You are not in a position to be correctly humble and actually learn this history, presumably because you just want to keep dictating the terms of others' freedom and wringing your hands like Dr. King's White moderate.

This is disingenuous.

This is an interesting accusation given your dithering and deflection around clear cut examples.

Kibbutzim near Gaza are armed occupation groups set up for the long term. Violence against those in kibbutzim are the only credible accusations of violence against “civilians” on Oct 7

That's absurd. Many of the residents of these kibbutz were pro-Palestinian activists doing charity and solidarity work with pro-Palestinian organizations, especially around Gaza.

Calling my criticism of your materialism statement "an unjustified generalization" is amusing, but you're the one that brought up material causes.

Does Israel look weak to you? Tens of thousands of Palestinians dead and settlers ready to move into Gaza is weak? Does Netanyahu look like he's failing? This is just idiocy to defend your ideology, no matter how much it appears to fail. Gaza was still there, Apartheid certainly, but it was there. It's not there anymore. That's not a generalization, it's a mammoth strategic blunder by hamas.

You think a blockade and targetting aid workers requires advanced munitions? This is ludicrous. It could be done with bullets, cheap drones. This is just wishful thinking.

You haven't provided any sources, and its on the person making the claim to support their arguments. "Do your own research" is not a legitimate defense, which is basically what you're trying to say.

Very conveniently omitting that the ANC was crushed and Mandela was imprisoned. Sure, there was some martyrdom there that inspired a broader global resistance, but it's that global resistance that got the results. Sorry if this runs counter to your ideology, though, but it's not "Absolutely incorrect." Your faith in your ideology is not the sole arbiter of factuality in the world.

Sorry for disgusting you, but the world is a complicated place. Not to say that the VC does not deserve credit for an effective guerilla campaign, but without widespread American resistance to the war, it would have certainly continued. You may like to simplify things down to winners and losers when convenient for you, but its just messier than that. The whys are important, and effective fighting by the VC is not the sole "why".

Yeeeaah, I'm not the one living in a fairy tale just because I look at all the causes for something, rather than simply focusing in on the ones that make me feel the best. If I am so incorrect, you are more than welcome to source your arguments, though I think we both know your sources are probably all political in nature instead of rigorously historic examinations of all the available evidence.

That’s absurd. Many of the residents of these kibbutz were pro-Palestinian activists doing charity and solidarity work with pro-Palestinian organizations, especially around Gaza.

It isn't absurd, it is the fundamental truth of how these places operate. They are militarized and on stolen land, populated by ex-IDF soldiers. A handful may participate in charities, but few do any real work to liberate Palestine, they believe in the basics of their ethnosupremacist project.

I have actually met such people. I know very well that you have not, armchair critic.

Calling my criticism of your materialism statement “an unjustified generalization” is amusing, but you’re the one that brought up material causes.

There was nothing to it. It was a vague unjustified generalization. It's difficult to even know what you really meant. You're really just talking to yourself with these things, moving away from the concrete - such as material causes - to whatever it is you thought you were communicating.

Does Israel look weak to you?

Yes. Israel itself is very weak. It is only its sponsor that is strong and that props it up.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians dead and settlers ready to move into Gaza is weak?

Yes, a campaign that targets masses of civilians for death from afar with bombs dropped by fighter jets is indeed exactly what a weak group does. It is telling that in actual ground combat, they wilt. They do not have any real staying power outside of this. Just like the Nazis, they crumble when their sense of invincibility is undermined. Israel's economy is currently in shambles, is scrambling to import displaced Palestinian labor, and they are lashing out trying to provoke a wider war that will draw in more direct participation from Western countries. They have made very little progress in Lebanon, again relying more on civilian bombing campaigns than any actual fighting, as they consistently lose against guerillas. The axis of resistance is larger than it has been in decades and has made gains that were inconceivable before. The US and Israel cannot even contain Yemen's solidarity against genocide-complicit shipping.

Does Netanyahu look like he’s failing?

I am not so wrapped up in a particular leader, that is a liberal false understanding of how political power works and usually comes in the form of thinking Netanyahu is somehow uniquely evil, when he is fairly average for an Israeli.

This is just idiocy to defend your ideology, no matter how much it appears to fail. Gaza was still there, Apartheid certainly, but it was there. It’s not there anymore.

Notice how you have changed the topic from Israel's (alleged lack of) weakness to the destruction of Gaza, implicitly conflating the two. You can, apparently, only measure a liberation fight by the numbers of dead, or perhaps, like a Nazi or Boer or imperialist American soldier, by a death ratio, though your thoughts are so muddled you cannot just directly state them. And yet, all of them were defeated. Knowing nothing about the strategic basis of armed resistance against a genocidal occupier, you fail to see what the path to victory must look like. And you certainly don't help with it, instead tut-tutting in favor of a relative passivity and a clean victimhood.

That’s not a generalization, it’s a mammoth strategic blunder by hamas.

You imagine yourself aware of the strategizing despite knowing nothing about it, lmao. Please understand, again, that your imagination and reactionary idealism is not the same as understanding or fact.

You think a blockade and targetting aid workers requires advanced munitions?

For Israelis? Yes. They can't do anything without complete air dominance. Do you know literally anything at all about war?

This is ludicrous. It could be done with bullets, cheap drones. This is just wishful thinking.

They will lose if they attempt a ground assault (bullets) and their cheap drones must be sourced from groups that would prevent their import. They also require an apparatus that is functional rather than one that has seen the workers that can operate and maintain them abandon the place in waves.

You haven’t provided any sources, and its on the person making the claim to support their arguments. “Do your own research” is not a legitimate defense, which is basically what you’re trying to say.

I am not your teacher, unless you want to pay me. This idea that you are simply owed hand-picked sources that you clearly have zero curiosity about and will not read is stupid and there is no rule that I must provide them for you. You can be a big ol' adult and become curious and humble on your own, I cannot do it for you.

Very conveniently omitting that the ANC was crushed and Mandela was imprisoned.

Mandela was imprisoned by the ANC was not crushed. The ANC continued its guerilla campaign and grew, becoming a powerful electoral party as well.

Incidentally, liberals such as yourself were tut-tutting Mandela as a terrorist during this time. If you actually read history out of curiosity rather than making things up and Googling for the first thing that sort-of confirms your bias, you might become an actually helpful person instead of feeding into this reactionary bigotry against armed resistance movements.

Sure, there was some martyrdom there that inspired a broader global resistance, but it’s that global resistance that got the results. Sorry if this runs counter to your ideology, though, but it’s not “Absolutely incorrect.” Your faith in your ideology is not the sole arbiter of factuality in the world.

Again you are simply making things up counter to the basic facts of the major and sustained direct action campaigns carried out by South Africans. You do not know anything about this topic. Please stop lying about it.

Sorry for disgusting you, but the world is a complicated place.

It is not that complicated, but you do have to actually take the time to learn about something before pretending you can have an opinion about it. That is the "complexity" that liberals hide behind, it is just a laziness and a desire to prop up their preconceived notions that were fed to them as propaganda, often as children. You must be willing to sit down and read or shut that mouth and stop typing on that keyboard, otherwise you will be correctly recognized as someone that plays with fairy tales and seems to even believe them!

Not to say that the VC does not deserve credit for an effective guerilla campaign, but without widespread American resistance to the war, it would have certainly continued.

I've already addressed this. You can respond to what I said or quietly disengage, having nothing to say in response.

You may like to simplify things down to winners and losers when convenient for you, but its just messier than that. The whys are important, and effective fighting by the VC is not the sole “why”.

As I said, Vietnamese fighting is the primary "why", as is obvious to anyone that studies this topic in any way. And I didn't say only the VC, did I? It is a typical ignorant Western confusion to think that the Viet Cong were the only Vietnamese national liberation fighters.

Yeeeaah, I’m not the one living in a fairy tale just because I look at all the causes for something, rather than simply focusing in on the ones that make me feel the best.

You don't look at the causes at all. You simply repeat the standard milquetoast propaganda line and make things up when convenient. And those milquetoast lines, as I mentioned, are implicitly racist. They are a chauvinistic view premised on not actually trying to learn anything about imperialist and racist aggression and saying, "well they stopped because they wanted to" and not because they were forced by circumstances imposed by the national liberation fighters and their constellation of movements taking direct action. I am certain you don't even know about what direct actions were taken, despite this false pretense of looking for "all causes", as you only ever look at one cause: whatever excuse was made by the imperialists themselves for their loss, which makes them feel like the victors and good fighters in their own way rather than the same people that would have supported the oppression, tacitly, tut-tutting the resistance fighters. Like, say, yourself.

If I am so incorrect, you are more than welcome to source your arguments, though I think we both know your sources are probably all political in nature instead of rigorously historic examinations of all the available evidence.

You would have to demonstrate some level of curiosity and humility rather than using this request as a rhetorical cudgel to excuse your own ignorance and fibbing.

You seem to like your "truths", but that just speaks to your deep and abiding faith. That's religious talk. I prefer hard evidence, and I don't trust internet anecdotes. The borders around Gaza have been set for decades, it isn't the West Bank. These aren't fresh settlements of right wing settlers that just moved in. There was no evidence of any sort of successful widescale resistance to the Oct 7th attack, which would not have been the case had the border kibbutz been camps of armed jailors, as you attempt to portray.

No more generalized than your sweeping assertion of material causes. Not everything is concrete, ultimately, humans do very stupid shit sometimes. Like I said, fundamentally illogical. Our decisions are based on the firing of neurons in our brains, which are not limited to solely material causes. If you weren't faith-blinded, you could see this. It's common sense, and very much an everyday occurrence.

The IDF is 400k strong by last estimate, who knows what it's up to now. This is more of your faith speaking, a blind trust that without advanced weaponry, Israel somehow falls apart. It makes no sense in the cold light of day. 400k soldiers is a lot. You can man a border and enforce a famine with that many.

Wow. I think Israel's early wars, where the entire Arab coalition was crushed without the aid of air power, speak to their history of infantry combat. Using advanced tools is a helpful, a convenience. Not a requirement.

Fine, allow me to clarify my question. Does Netanyahu's government look like it is failing in its current objectives?

Huh, so you're saying the destruction of Gaza was all part of the plan? An indication of weakness? That's a pretty twisted path to victory, you're just going to get them all killed. Unfortunately, far more genocides have succeeded through history than liberation battles. That's the sad reality of the world we live in, it's what we have to work with.

That's cute, but again, your path to victory is a farce. Israel is not losing, except in your fantasies. It's objectives move steadily closer and closer to success, hamas' do not.

No, air power is not necessary to man a border or keep checkpoints closed, that's silly. Okay, so what about the ground assaults the IDF has conducted into Gaza? Quite a large amount of footage came out from both hamas and IDF sources showing ground fighting. The IDF continued to advance. Israel has domestic manufacturing too, by the way, they produce their own tanks and small arms, drones are not difficult.

The ANC was driven underground, its leadership fled or arrested. That's crushed. Yes, it persisted underground, and eventually entered peaceful negotiations, this is true, but alone it would have never accomplished these goals. Mandela's imprisonment was a big deal in the west, despite governments labeling him as a terrorist, his story galvanized significant international support.

Cute that you accuse me of fairy tales while you're the one spouting all the messaging about a clearly losing party that could only win if only the air planes went away. I'm afraid complexity is real, though. Humans are a mess, and do things for all manner of reasons, despite our faiths trying to oversimplify everything into some imaginary god or single philosophy of materialism.

You may have addressed it, but you're simply nonsensical. All you have is "I'm offended, VC won, end story." That's cute, but a little simple.

Nitpicking pointless details. Fine, all fighters for the North Vietnamese were not the sole cause for victory. It takes two sides to end a war, a side has to accept its defeat. The US only accepted its defeat due to domestic factors, there were plenty of war hawks keen to keep going.

No, I am not the one looking at a sole cause. I acknowledged the efficacy of the guerilla campaign. The one looking at sole causes is you, pointing to that guerilla campaign. I am saying it alone is not enough, more factors were necessary.

Uh huh, shift all the blame to cover for yourself, very convenient. It's pretty clear to see a political agenda instead of an honest intellectual conversation though. Your whole thrust is in defense of hamas. Mine is not in support of Israel's genocide, though, just in an accurate understanding of what's going on, no matter who it reflects poorly upon. The real propagandist here is pretty clearly you, you are attempting to positively participate in an ongoing military conflict, and help one of the two sides. I understand, but don't throw stones when the real agent is yourself.

You seem to like your “truths”, but that just speaks to your deep and abiding faith. That’s religious talk.

Those are your words, not mine. You're just telling yourself stories and believing them again.

I prefer hard evidence, and I don’t trust internet anecdotes.

You clearly do not, you are not interested in investigating this topic whatsoever. You prefer to use requests for evidence to have other people fetch things for you and then use them purely rhetorically.

The borders around Gaza have been set for decades, it isn’t the West Bank. These aren’t fresh settlements of right wing settlers that just moved in.

Decades is not a very long time, per this topic. Refugees in Gaza exist who were kicked from their homes in the nearby area in living memory. If you actually stated your point, though, it might be easier to address it.

There was no evidence of any sort of successful widescale resistance to the Oct 7th attack, which would not have been the case had the border kibbutz been camps of armed jailors, as you attempt to portray.

So many qualifiers. The Kibbutzim did fire back, it is one of the reasons many were killed in the first place, per first hand accounts. Several articles have been written about Kibbutz Be’eri, presumably to provide the most favorable of narratives, and in dire need of a skeptical lens, but of course these articles tend to mention that the Kibbutz has an armory of M16 rifles that the settlers almost immediately ran to. This is standard in such locations, they are little walled, armed communities. You would know this if you were ever in any way curious about the topic instead of approaching what I say with ignorant contrarianism.

No more generalized than your sweeping assertion of material causes.

Hardly. My claims re: material basis is about actual settler-colonial bases, both current and historical, and this is an inarguable fact of settler-colonialism: it requires that the settlers feel reasonably safe and secure on their stolen lands. Israeli society makes much of this, they talk about their iron dome often and the necessity, but also success, of their high level of militarization against Palestinians. And when you look to polling, and the politics of Israel, you will find that they are outraged over a loss of status, of an inability to return the hostages, of being forced from the area around Gaza and from Northern Israel, and that in return they want military escalation and death. When the government launches new campaigns, when they bomb residential neighborhoods, their ratings go up.

If you deigned to read and engage with what I had said about this material basis, you would not be saying such silly things.

Not everything is concrete, ultimately, humans do very stupid shit sometimes. Like I said, fundamentally illogical. Our decisions are based on the firing of neurons in our brains, which are not limited to solely material causes. If you weren’t faith-blinded, you could see this. It’s common sense, and very much an everyday occurrence.

This sounds like the "deep" thoughts of an high mediocre college freshman. Who knows what your point is. Apparently you think your appeal to your belief in "illogic" is somehow comparable to the decades of settler colonialism and the psychology basis of settlers, long studied and described by the oppressed who wage resistance against them. You seem to think your imaginary vague idea of people "being illogical" is far more reliable analysis than, say, settlers needing to feel secure in their occupation, arming themselves, building up a series of racist oppressions to do so, etc. You have no real response to this, which is why you can barely string these thoughts together.

The IDF is 400k strong by last estimate, who knows what it’s up to now. This is more of your faith speaking

Again these are your words and then you say it is "more of my faith", lmao. You are deeply confused.

PS the IDF is mostly teenagers and young 20-somethings with inflated titles that fall apart in any real fight. The Zionist press is absolutely chock full of articles about how "the troops" lack capacity due to attrition (casualties and psychologically) and cannot fight in Lebanon.

a blind trust that without advanced weaponry, Israel somehow falls apart.

I actually already mentioned some specific examples of why their doctrine falls apart without constant supplies from the US. If only you had the courage of your convictions to directly address what I had said. Instead you play little games.

It makes no sense in the cold light of day. 400k soldiers is a lot. You can man a border and enforce a famine with that many.

These forces can't even push much more than a hair into Lebanon and that is with massive air support.

Wow. I think Israel’s early wars, where the entire Arab coalition was crushed without the aid of air power

Israel has never won a war without air power and full support of a major imperialist sponsor, whether it was the British or US. You are simply making things up again.

Fine, allow me to clarify my question.

It occurs to me that you don't know how to use the quote feature of Lemmy. Perhaps you are too proud to ask? It is not always clear what you are responding to.

Does Netanyahu’s government look like it is failing in its current objectives?

This question is too vague. An entire government has many objectives addressing different topics. Do you want me to list objectives for you? Or do you have some in mind to make your question more clear?

Huh, so you’re saying the destruction of Gaza was all part of the plan? An indication of weakness? That’s a pretty twisted path to victory, you’re just going to get them all killed. Unfortunately, far more genocides have succeeded through history than liberation battles. That’s the sad reality of the world we live in, it’s what we have to work with.

Every resistance fighter in Palestine knows that the Zionists will respond with incredible cruelty and a massively outsized response. The ratios of killed or wounded are typically 10:1 or more. These decisions are made with full eyes about what it means to provoke and escalate, but it is the same logic as those of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It is people who see a slow genocide and displacement as guaranteed from the status quo and from all other realistic paths provided. And they set out a plan to disrupt the Zionist entity, to agitate, which will, knowingly, create a disproportionate response, in order to forward their goals of resistance, to undermine Zionist security, to test their own capacity for war, to bleed their enemy through the tactics I have already mentioned.

If you actually cared to learn anything about this topic, you would already know this. They have repeatedly made public statements about this. There is a reason they call their fallen compatriots martyrs. There is a reason they place emphasis on mourning via righteousness and solidarity and not simply despair.

That’s cute, but again, your path to victory is a farce. Israel is not losing, except in your fantasies. It’s objectives move steadily closer and closer to success, hamas’ do not.

Israel is now well-known to be a genocidal ethnostate, a rogue state. The world stands against them. Again, something you would know if you weren't locked in a box of propaganda. Along with regional allies, Israel is in turmoil and on the brink of falling apart, with its credit ratings tanking every few months. It is a country dependent on finance capitalism, with related industries like tech, and those workers have largely fled. It is attempting to lash out and provoke further war, and it is succeeding only at, yet again, mass killing of civilians without actually addressing the fundamental collapse within.

If you cared about this topic you would already know these things.

No, air power is not necessary to man a border or keep checkpoints closed, that’s silly.

It is when you are a 19-year-old Israeli brigadier-general whose CO just got sniped in front of them. They can barely operate without overhwelming air support. This is their war doctrine, it is identical to the Americans'. You would already know this if you cared about this topic.

Okay, so what about the ground assaults the IDF has conducted into Gaza?

They only occur after massive civilian bombing campaigns and they routinely lose to guerillas. They declare an area cleared and then resistance fighters pop back up a few days later. Their allegedly new strategy in North Gaza is to begin more thoroughly razing it via bombings because they simply cannot win against the guerillas with their soldiers.

You would already know this if you cared about this topic. One wonders if you will someday acquire shame at this poor behavior.

Quite a large amount of footage came out from both hamas and IDF sources showing ground fighting. The IDF continued to advance.

All of this occurred under conditions of full air support and bombing campaigns. Did you forget what we were talking about? I think so.

Israel has domestic manufacturing too, by the way, they produce their own tanks and small arms, drones are not difficult.

Nowhere near enough. They are dependent on US weapons and materials and logistical support.

The ANC was driven underground, its leadership fled or arrested. That’s crushed.

The ANC, as well as the rest of the tripartite group, was underground for 3 decades during which it made nearly all of its major advances. "Crushed", lmao. Who do you think the apartheid government negotiated with? You know nothing about this topic.

Yes, it persisted underground, and eventually entered peaceful negotiations, this is true, but alone it would have never accomplished these goals.

Nobody ever said the ANC was alone. It had quite a substantial amount of support from the Soviets, for example, as well as the Cubans and the Palestinian resistance. You are simply ignorant of the history.

You yourself mentioned "fundamental truths", not me. It's not lies to call you out on it.

You don't know why I ask for them, you've failed to provide a single one. This is likely due to you knowing they're political in nature.

You know my point. Seeing the border kibbutz as armed jailors (and thus combatants) is ludicrous. While arms were certainly present, and local security forces certainly returned fire, a heavily armed, fortified camp would have provided heavy resistance. Instead, the attack swept through them quickly, killing many in their shelters. There is significant video evidence of this.

There you go again with "inarguable fact". No fact is inarguable, that's not how facts work. Proper intellectual rigor allows the challenging of even the most deeply-held belief, otherwise Einsteinian gravity would have never overtaken Newtonian gravity. In your case, you even misapply it, taking a very natural human reaction against security threats to an illogical conclusion that if those security threats escalate to a certain severity, then the Israelis will lose somehow. This makes no sense.

More cute deflections out of you. But no, again, your materialist philosophy does not actually provide for a concrete path to victory. Your long studies on the psychology of settlers is missing a whole bunch of psychology if all you can focus on is material security. Hate, for instance, is an emotion that can be taught generation to generation, and can motivate independently of material conditions.

Do you think 20somethings cannot be trained to be good soldiers? Do you think the IDF is smaller than 400k? Be clear. And no, you did not mentioned specific examples, except to repeat this claim that they "fall apart" in ground combat. That is not a specific example.

Has there been a widespread invasion into Lebanon that faltered? Or are you arguing they are too scared and weak to even try?

In the 1948 war, Israel had no air force. The Arab countries did. They still lost.

Quoting wastes space. I can recall our previous discussion, if you can't it's not hard to scroll back a little. Their goal of ethnic cleansing.

There's still no path to victory described here. Israel does not have the world against them, because genocide just isn't that big a deal across the world. You know India still trades with Israel, and has its navy active in the Red Sea area? Israel's credit rating is still in the A range, it's not being knocked down "every few months". I don't think you should be accusing me of being locked in a box of propaganda when your statements are this exaggerated and untrue.

So, you think Major Generals can frequently be found at checkpoints then...?

Routinely lose to the guerillas where? Using bombardment to prepare for an assault is nothing new, that's pretty standard going back centuries. Losing the ground assault is notable though. Guerillas popping back up is just guerillas fighting a guerilla campaign, I assume you understand how that's supposed to operate, and how it isn't reflecting the IDF being defeated in a pitched battle.

More nitpicking details. Being crushed does not have to mean no longer present. The point remains that the ANC would have never accomplished their goals without international pressure. Had the international community not cared about Apartheid, it would have continued despite ANC resistance, into the foreseeable future.

Actually you did, right here:

otherwise you will be correctly recognized as someone that plays with fairy tales and seems to even believe them!

You could have easily checked this, but I guess you're not putting much effort in.

You brought up materialism several paragraphs up, around 3 posts ago. You seem to want to give credit for expanding freedom movements solely to violent combatants, while saying nonviolent methods are ineffective. This is simplistic. You are ignoring other factors present.

I see, you cannot remember well. Sorry, but if I quote everything too, for your convenience since you are reluctant to reread I suppose, then these replies will simply get longer and longer as yours have. You're now up to two full size comments, all because you are wasting space quoting me when I can fully remember what I said. You don't have to. I won't start.

We were discussing whether American nonviolent protest was a significant factor in ending the war. I said yes, you said no.

Most of the rest of that looks like trolling and more nitpicking pointless details like me saying "hamas" instead of "Palestinian resistance". I suppose your rigid mind might actually lack the flexibility to bridge the two, though. You also seem to blame me for confusion when you cannot remember or reread and thus need me to provide quotes for your convenience.

No, not everyone engages in propaganda. It is possible to analyze factual events without applying value judgements, which are a necessary component of propaganda. We are engaged in a propagandistic discussion, certainly, that's unavoidable I think, but it is not some unavoidable thing.

At this point you are basically uncomprehensible because you aren't using the quote feature and your thoughts are disorganized, providing insufficient context for what point you are trying to make. Plus, I am getting very repetitive because the fundamental problem here is an intransigent combination of arrogance and ignorance - your defensiveness despite clearly knowing virtually nothing abiyt this topic and relying on deflection and invention to resist correction. A curious person would at least go read a bit to see if the things I'm referring to have grounding and develop their own education this way. Unfortunately you are against your own education on this topic and that is not something I can fix on your behalf. The lack of self-reflection to even make yourself comprehensible is an example of this, it has escalated to the point of communication itself being nearly impossible.

If you are at some point interested in a good faith discussion where you acknowledge what you do and do not know and what you will spend time learning, let me know.

Very convenient when you're the one making strong claims with no evidence or sourcing. I suppose I don't really expect you to do anything asides blame someone else for all your problems though. That's much easier.

Mandela’s imprisonment was a big deal in the west, despite governments labeling him as a terrorist, his story galvanized significant international support.

Oh, you mean a primary operative of the ANC that pushed hard to start their guerilla efforts? lmao

Cute that you accuse me of fairy tales while you’re the one spouting all the messaging about a clearly losing party that could only win if only the air planes went away.

I haven't said that, actually. You have confused yourself again.

I’m afraid complexity is real, though.

Complexity is real, but this topic is not. You are just incurious and, like other liberals, decide to whitewash that ignorance as a recognition of (unstated, unidentifiable) complexity. A cop-out, basically. Notice that you have basically nothing to say about the alleged complexity. Nothing that actually challenges anything I've said.

Humans are a mess, and do things for all manner of reasons, despite our faiths trying to oversimplify everything into some imaginary god or single philosophy of materialism.

Okay bro just one more toke bro. You are so confused, I don't even know where to begin. When did we begin discussing materialism or philosophy? Buddy, we are stuck at the basics of things like not lying and remembering what we are talking about and how you should read before sharing opinions.

You may have addressed it, but you’re simply nonsensical.

I don't know what you're referring to and I don't care to try to figure out out. Be clearer in your thoughts and words or use the quote feature.

Nitpicking pointless details. Fine, all fighters for the North Vietnamese were not the sole cause for victory.

I didn't say anything like that either lmao. You seem to have no idea what is happening most of the time, it's like you don't even read what I said.

It takes two sides to end a war, a side has to accept its defeat. The US only accepted its defeat due to domestic factors, there were plenty of war hawks keen to keep going.

I've already addressed this. I will wait for you to respond to what I said instead of endlessly repeating yourself.

No, I am not the one looking at a sole cause. I acknowledged the efficacy of the guerilla campaign. The one looking at sole causes is you, pointing to that guerilla campaign. I am saying it alone is not enough, more factors were necessary.

Same as before, I don't know what you're referring to and don't care to go and figure it out. Use the quote feature or organize your thoughts.

Uh huh, shift all the blame to cover for yourself, very convenient. It’s pretty clear to see a political agenda instead of an honest intellectual conversation though.

I am having a very honest conversation, but it is in no way intellectual. We are, as I said, stuck at very basic things like, "is it okay to lie?" and, "do I need to actually go and try to learn things before having and sharing my half-baked opinions?" and, "maybe what will help is a series of confused generalizations about faith and god and philosophy of materialism with no relation to what anyone else is talking about". We could only ever have an intellectual conversation if you were in any way interested in an intellectual topic. To be perfectly frank, this topic does not require much in the way of an intellectual discussion, it is mostly about establishing basic facts of which you are entirely ignorant and obstinately refuse to engage with our educate yourself about, but you do seem to think that I am at fault for not accepting your nonsense fabrications you offer as substitute.

Your whole thrust is in defense of hamas.

I'm not certain that I've even mentioned Hamas in this conversation. I certainly wouldn't reduce the Palestinian resistance to only Hamas. I think you are just projecting your own lightweight understanding of the topic onto me.

Mine is not in support of Israel’s genocide, though, just in an accurate understanding of what’s going on, no matter who it reflects poorly upon.

But you have no understanding of what is going on. Nearly everything is clearly a revelation to you. There is rarely anything concrete or specific in what you say and when there is it is usually wrong or misleading. When I provide concrete specifics you just make things up to be contrarian and rescue your prior fibbing. You are acting in the exact opposite way that you are currently claiming.

The real propagandist here is pretty clearly you, you are attempting to positively participate in an ongoing military conflict, and help one of the two sides. I understand, but don’t throw stones when the real agent is yourself.

Agent? What? I of course stand with the Palestinian resistance, this is obvious and I in no way hide it. And propaganda is just an attempt to convince others of political positions through argument and presentation. We all engage in it. But mine is accurate, informed, and just.

Unfortunately you have decided that the important thing here is your ego and not, say, the Palestinians themselves. God forbid you learn anything about them.

I can be glad that the Union won the U.S. Civil War and and ended slavery yet still consider it to be war crimes that they deliberately attacked civilians as part of Sherman's March; no logic had been violated there.

According to OP's logic that makes The Union bad guys, end of thought.

I mean the whole reason why you are confused is that this is the most complex conflict in the world and here (like everywhere else) you are going to get responses in both directions. I suggest you read what each side has to say for itself: for unconditional pro-Israeli propaganda I suggest https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/and for unconditional pro-Palestinian propaganda I suggest https://mondoweiss.net/– read both of these and decide for yourself what arguments on both sides you believe more.

I do not think there are any truly good guys in the conflict; but I do think that Israel is worse and tend to side with the Palestinians. This is mainly because Israel is the side with vastly more power and I think it's up to the powerful, the oppressor, to try to treat the people they have power over with dignity and try to give up the power they have.

Of course, even that argument of mine has a counter-argument! You can (and should!) read it here: https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-parameters-of-discussion-michael.html

Mondoweiss isn't unconditional pro-Palestine propaganda. It's a well-sourced pro-Palestinian news site.

Maybe provide examples? I see nothing that would prevent me from saying that with a straight face. There, lemme just...

Mondoweiss isn't unconditional pro-Palestine propaganda. It's a well-sourced pro-Palestinian news site.

So omission bias? All this fanfare for omission bias? Nobody is using Mondoweiss as their primary news source; they have no reason to report on everything, especially an event like Nova music festival was reported on by everyone and their mother.

Mondoweiss is using the same kind of euphemisms around the 7.10 that the rest of the press is using for Israels crimes.

It is not complex at all, it is just genocidal settler colonialism and resistance to it. "Complexity" is just a proxy for being uncomfortable acknowledging this, which is something you should do some introspection on as someone from a German instance. Ever hear of the Holocaust? Of Lebensraum?

Never again means never again for anyone.

The thing is that I actually mostly agree with you, but I do not think that the other side is entirely illegitimate.

What legitimacy do you see in Israeli Apartheid? Because, long story short, that's what the Israeli side is selling.

I'm not here for a drawn out debate. I think Israel's settlement program is a major reason why there is no peace and I would find Israel a lot easier to defend if they weren't doing it. It is only one piece of the puzzle though.

Which part of genocidal racist settler colonists is legitimate to you?

Israel and its settler garrison are carrying out the standard colonialist formula throughout history (epitomized by the US model in its conquest) : eviction and genocide of the indigenous inhabitants, and theft of their lands.

This is defended under many premises, a "religious" calling, a "civilizing" venture (with orientalist undertones), and many others, but the goal is the same as all imperialist ventures: theft of land, labor, and natural resources. People from around the world, no matter how rich or poor, are invited to join in this colonial project, and many do, because of the promise of cheap land.

Predictably, Israel calls anyone who opposes this genocide as "terrorists", even though by all reasonable definition of terrorism, its the settler garrison who are the real terrorists: murdering innocent civilians, stealing their towns, and erasing the old names. In Palestine, the largest of this event was called the Nakba, whereas in the US, the entire 1800s was a westward-expanding colonial war defeating hundreds of native tribes and killing anyone who resisted.

The US is the primary supporter of this project, because Israel is for them, a giant, unsinkable aircraft carrier / military base in the middle east, which can be used to project western military power on the resource-rich middle east. As Joe Biden said: "If Israel didn't exist, it would be necessary for the US to invent one herself."

I suggest watching this video, as its the best short introduction: How Palestine became Colonized.

Thanks for the info. I've saved this video to my watch later list, and I'll let you know what I think about it when I do.

👍

The volunteers that risk going to do stuff in either side. It’s crazy out there

They are the israeli and Palestinians civilians that just want peace. The majority of the people in these 2 countries just want peace. A year+ of war is not ez or good for anything.

It's not two countries and you have a delusional idea of what the average settler is like if you think they want peace. Crossing the line to nazi apologia.

Unless of course you're saying that the Muslim population, which is the suppressed majority under the evil apartheid state, want peace. Then and only then would you be correct.

We see the majority of israelis on TV as for this war. The reality is that most of them rather have peace. Its a few really bad apples that are pusing for this genocide. You really think an israel wants war on all their front? Bombs falling on their cities. War is always a few old men arguing and a shit load of young men dying. If we were just to get rid of the people pushing for this including US weapons manufacturers. This war would be over tomorrow!

Get out of your mind palace. What makes sense for you in abstract is not how things always are and certainly they are not in this instance. Look at the polling for how they see the genocide. They are overwhelmingly in support of it. Look at the dynamic of the West Bank. People move there specifically to steal land. This is a self selecting group of people. It is a nazi country.

I’m in no way supporting Israel on their genocide. I’m not in isreal and I have not seen pollings. I’m going by the conversation Ive had with jewish people here in the us and they tell me all the time. They are not in favor of the war and neither are their families in Israel. The settlers and the army don't represent most people in Israel thats all I’m saying.

Okay well I believe that but please please please don't conflate Jewish people and the fascist state of Israel again

Many civilians probably prefer peace, but it seems like each side wants peace on their own terms which seem at odds with the other sides terms.

I could be wrong.

I hope I am, and that the vast majority just want to settle everything peacefully.

The one who is colonizing the other. When Nate Turner killed children in his revolt it didn't make the slaves the bad guys and the slave owner the good guy. In the Indian Rebellion of 1857, resistance promised safety to British including kids and women but ended up attacking them, it didn't make the British empire the good guy and the Indian the bad guys

War rarely decides who's right, just who's left.

In the face of genocide, you chose to dodge the question.

I don't have any inherent support either side, and there's too much history along with bias, propaganda, and outright misinformation to make a determination of who the "good guys" are, if anyone.

However, in such cases I will support the underdog on the principle that you don't really want one side to have too much power over the other. That's how we end up with things like ethnic cleansing and genocide. If Palestine (and Lebanon) had powerful militaries, you wouldn't be seeing the mass devastation and huge loss of civilian lives. I'd prefer to see the sides more balanced so that they can keep each other in check.

Another angle to consider is that I consider the state of Israel to be actively harmful to Americans on the basis of:

  • using our tax dollars to commit mass murder against civilians, including a staggering death toll for children

  • infiltrating our government, interfering with our elections, and having an undue level of influence on American policy

  • corollary to the preceding point: they support getting Trump back into the White House

  • training American law enforcement, who then use their oppressive tactics on Americans

  • similarly, technology they develop for surveillance and other means of control being used on Americans

  • directly attacking our First Amendment rights

Bottom line is I'd say everyone sucks, but in different ways. But I am anti-Israel on the basis of them being way out of control (and without anyone to keep them in check) and due to the threat they pose to the American public.

Well obviously it's the Western powers that gave a bunch of displaced Jews land after WWII, despite no legitimate claim to the area, and then proceeded to keep meddling in Middle Eastern affairs so they could get cheap oil. And the biggest of those Western powers directly gives taxpayer money to war profiteers so there's a direct financial incentive to keep the genocide going.

Those are the goodest guys.

The Zionist project was going full steam ahead prior to WWII. Zionists collaborated with Nazis to get Jewish people to emigrate or get deported to Palestine. And Holocaust survivors were often looked down on there are Jews that had not done the "right" thing of abandoning their homes to steal someone else's in Palestine. Zionists spread some of the most antisemitix things you have ever heard when it comes to this topic.

The backer of Zionism simply switched hands after WWII. Before it was the British, then it was the US.

Where are you getting news, and how often?

Have you watched the Mandalorian? Palestinians are Grogu and the Mandalorian, Israel / US and Zionists are the Empire.

The guys doing the genocide and the guys fighting the genocide and for a secular democracy are the same actually /s

So many enlightened centrists both-sidesing in this thread.

The civilians.

The people who won't accept a two state solution are the bad guys, so much is clear.

To me that seems the most optimal and level headed solution, but as you can see many people disagree. A lot of people in this thread are calling for the elimination of Israel as a state, and that confuses me, because they're saying the things that Israel is SAYING that their enemies are saying, further justifying, in Israel's eyes, their own actions.

With this post, I guess I was looking for more historical facts and context on who is historically the bad guy in this situation. I've gotten some of that. I'll keep studying the situation and I think I'm going to actively try to avoid getting sucked into the idea that one side or the other should be completely eliminated. My gut just has a really negative reaction to that sort of talk.

Yeah, and the problem is that the history of the conflict didn't even start with the current state of Israel being established. There really is no simple good/bad narrative to be had. It's just a shitty situation for anyone who happens to live there.

"Why won't you accept our proposal of Bantustans, you ingrates!? You deserve genocide for this"

Let's just fight forever then. Endless hate. Only war. Is anyone who started this shit even alive anymore?

The attempt to "both sides" a genocuidal apartheid settler colonial ethnostate currently doing a genocide vs. the indigenous and regional people opposing them is disgusting. If you don't put in any work yo understand this topic, you do not need to have an opinion, let alone share it. Though it is important to be politically educated, so you should do the reading so that you can be helpful rather than counterproductive.

And re: people alive remembering how it "started", much of the leadership of the resistance are literal refugees driven from their homes in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s. And of course it does not take much work to inform yourself of the origins of Zionism in 1800s Europe and the antisemitism a collaborating Zionist movement that built ethnocentric colonies in Palestine and eventually formed organized terrorist groups to force conflicts with the indigenous population and receive military backing from the British.

Maybe try looking at it from the point of view of the individual people living there (and having been born there for generations) instead of whatever strategic/historical layer you're on. The state of Israel exists and won't be going away, that's a fact. You can hate the injustice if you want but it would still be better if they'd finally make peace and just live in the present instead of murdering each other over the past. But neither leadership is willing to do that.

Okay, now you can continue scolding me. Don't forget to link this to Russia's attack on Ukraine!

Like I said, you need to shed this idea that you are entitled to an opinion, and to share it, having done no investigation.

Maybe try looking at it from the point of view of the individual people living there (and having been born there for generations) instead of whatever strategic/historical layer you're on.

Which people and where? What do they think? Have you ever actually interacted with Israelis, Palestinians? Israelis are extremely racist and support their settler colonial project and the genocide.

The state of Israel exists and won't be going away, that's a fact.

Apartheid South Africa went away.

Also what happened to thinking about the individual people? You didn't talk about them.

You can hate the injustice if you want but it would still be better if they'd finally make peace and just live in the present instead of murdering each other over the past. But neither leadership is willing to do that.

You cannot live in peace under constant occupation, displacement, and genocide. "Just make peace" is a childish idealism that means you don't know anything about this topic.

But neither leadership is willing to do that.

One is a gemoxidal racist occupier and the other is an occupation resistance group. Don't give me this both sides bullshit.

Okay, now you can continue scolding me. Don't forget to link this to Russia's attack on Ukraine!

You should do the actual self-reflection required here. There is a genocide on. If you are going to share thoughts on this topic that defends the genociders in any way you better have spent at least a few houra educating yourself. Clearly you have not, and still have no humility about it.

You are really good at putting words in my mouth, that's been clear from your first reply.

So what's your great plan that isn't childish idealism?

Take as much time as you need to actually reply to my response.

I'm not entitled to an opinion, remember? So, please, enlighten me.

I guess you have nothing.

Same to you I guess. Oh well.

Nah I actually wrote a lengthy comment and you're chickening out lmao

Nah, I just don't want to engage with someone who started the conversation in bad faith and then never stopped. You know what you're doing, I know what you're doing, so let's just stop. I'll even let you have the last word.

Like I said, you have nothing to say in response. But you sure do want to make excuses.

You can't argue that in good faith when one military has so much more resources than the other.

It's like if a child hits you, then you beat the shit out of him and use the "he started it" excuse.

It's not just "hitting" when it's done with explosives and bullets, and the ones doing the killing aren't children. They're all bad and all need to be stopped from abusing and slaughtering noncombatants. If you think that's a hot take, hey congrats, you've discovered the thinking that perpetuates the violence.

The Middle East has been cooking for so long, it's impossible to point at a faction that is the "Good Guys". But right now, one faction is hell-bent on exterminating another nation's people, both military and civilian, so it should be pretty fucking obvious who the worst "Bad Guys" are. There are no good guys, only victims.

You should read Ramzi Yousef's statement at his 1998 trial. Terrorist factions like Hezbollah and Hamas exist only because Israel is consistently refusing to make peace through diplomacy.

How about not calling the municipal governments of populations targeted with genocide 'terrorists' unless you're one of the nazis trying to use that as an excuse to exterminate them?

Israel is using Palestinians as human shield. How do you expect Hamas to not be in civilians area in a highly populated 365 square kilometers area? Do you expect Hamas to kill themselves or to let Israel occupy land with no resistance at all? By resistance, I don't mean things like 7 of October but something like attacking military target

They used the population of the Gazastrip as human shields, building there bases in the City sometimes near hospitals. Using human shields is a war crime.

Correction: Israel claims they used (and still use) human shields. Those claims have not been proven in any way. You'll say they build their military bases and headquarters in cities, but literally every military in the world does that.

Hamas doesn't want a two state solution,

Look up the 2008 and 2012 ceasefires. Hamas isn't fundamentally opposed to a two-state solution. It's not their preferred result, but they've taken part in serious peace deals more than once only for Israel to destroy the whole thing.

If they do, they probably want revenge for the Nakba in 1948, in where Israel has systematically expulsed and cleansed Palestinians from their native soil.

The Nakba was really bad and heavily shapes modern Palestinian consciousness, but nobody is seeking revenge for the Nakba itself anymore. It's more about retaliating against much more recent and current offenses, mainly the Gaza blockade and settlements, resisting Israeli occupation and freeing Palestinian detainees.

I can see that, yeah

Hamas are the good guys

Stay away from humanity, please.

you would have condemned the jews in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, if you were alive in 1943

the ones staying out of it

Yes, we oppose Israel's genocide here.

Palestine / Hamas.

Every person I've talked to that had some real qualifications on that topic says that Israel are the good guys and the people of Palestine are caught in the crossfire of the war.

Every "qualified" person you talked to says the ethnic supremacist apartheid settler colonists are the good guys?

Which Nazi bars do you hang out in?

In US academia anyone who advocates for the Palestinian cause are regularly purged

Funny you call me "Nazi" when you're apparently the antisemite who wants to see the state of Israel destroyed.

The state of Israel is an apartheid ethnostate. No apartheid ethnostate should exist, just like it is good that apartheid South Africa no longer exists and was displaced through armed resistance, negotiations, and a plebiscite.

So, tell me which Nazi bars you hang out in where the only "qualified" people are pro-ethnostate.

Are the real qualifications a caliper set and an unwillingness to talk about what they used to do before they got a position in the west German military?

No, the qualifications are people who have studied that conflict for decades and journalists that have been to Gaza and Israel themselves.

I value their opinion significantly higher than the opinion of people on Lemmy that haven't taken 5 minutes out of their day to read up on the conflict.

And all these people think Israel are the good guys? I wonder what their opinions about apartheid South Africa were at the time.

Israel was explicitly founded as a settler-colonial project, you can look up quotes from famous founding zionists.

“You are being invited to help make history ... it doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen, but Jews ... How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.”

Theodore Herzl to a Rhodesian representative

So, because the foundations were colonial, we should ... kill everyone living in said country?

Is that a serious argument? Because then we have a lot of places to eradicate.

First off, the foundations remain the same, colonial.

Second off, is creating a secular democracy without an apartheid system, aka "destroying Israel" going to kill everyone? Did the collapse of apartheid South Africa kill all the white people there?

The collapse didn't. But the goal or "Mission" of the Hamas is to eradicate all jews.

So yes, Israel falling would result in the eradication of a vast majority of the Jewish people.

But the goal or “Mission” of the Hamas is to eradicate all jews.

Source that isn't from the 90s when they were a marginal fundamentalist group and not a leading member of a coalition fighting for a secular democracy?

Hama's fighting for democracy, ye.Just as the Taliban I guess. Iran also wants to support the Hamas in establishing democracy because Iran has a flourishing democracy and they want to spread it further. That's also why Russia and by extent north korea support the Iran and the "democracy coalition" of palestine, those are also big fans of democracies.

With all due respect, but if you want to believe the Hamas and other terrorist groups want to fight for "freedom" instead of eradicating the entire Jewish population, discussions with you on this topic are fruitless.

With all due respect, but if you want to believe the Hamas and other terrorist groups want to fight for “freedom” instead of eradicating the entire Jewish population, discussions with you on this topic are fruitless.

These people are a terrorist caricature one could find in a bad American bush era movie to you, aren't they?