5 ms·

I agree with this. I find it amazing that the world expects Israeli leadership to ignore the stated goal of Hamas is to eradicate Israel[1]. Sometimes I ask pe

I agree with this. I find it amazing that the world expects Israeli leadership to ignore the stated goal of Hamas is to eradicate Israel[1]. Sometimes I ask people to imagine what it would be like if the inhabitants of a large Native American reservation began shelling a nearby US city after openly stating they will not rest until the USA is wiped from the earth. I’m choosing the Native American hypothetical advisedly because I think there are some parallels in the displacement history. To further the analogy, imagine now that the USA is the size of New Jersey, surrounded by states that have attempted also to wipe them out, and that Americans have been enslaved, persecuted, and harried across the globe for thousands of years since leaving New Jersey under duress the most recent time. I’m not a Zionist per se but I get it, and yet I think the formation of modern Israel had a cardinal sin in it, and now Israel is in a bind - threats aside, assuming there was a miraculous peace, allowing Palestinians to participate in Israeli politics _as is in many senses right_ would likely result in a situation in which the Hebrew people lose self-determination and risk being eradicated once again. I think, in response to the most recent Jewish holocaust, the founding mentality of the modern state of Israel was ‘we don’t care what anyone thinks of our methods, we will never be without a land of our own again,’ and, as an American Jew, I hate the way it’s playing out, but I get it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

skinnymuch 5y ago
> Sometimes I ask people to imagine what it would be like if the inhabitants of a large Native American reservation began shelling a nearby US city after openly stating they will not rest until the USA is wiped from the earth. This is easy. They have some valid claims in principle. They also have essentially no power or weapons. After the initial surprise. They’d be able to do nothing. Or in effect nothing. If the US then removed autonomy from these Native Americans, kept them locked in, and gave them electricity equivalent for the average American (aka 1 person) for 70 of the Native Americans, and continued this for decades and decades. That would be awful and cruel from the get go. What is this example supposed to show? > To further the analogy, imagine now that the USA is the size of New Jersey, surrounded by states that have attempted also to wipe them out, and that Americans have been enslaved, persecuted, and harried across the globe for thousands of years since leaving New Jersey under duress the most recent time. To extend this. NJ has the backing of the most powerful country in the world and almost every first world country. NJ is also richer and more powerful than any of the neighbors except for the one farther away who coincidentally has their tragedy, that most powerful country ally screwed with their country. This doesn’t make what they country (Iran) does good. Just nuance. The saddest part of this example is leaving out the Palestine. It’s very sad that they don’t even get to be part of the example. Though perhaps it is fitting as the Gaza Strip barely does exist as is. —- Your Israel bind is flawed. Why can’t Israel leave Palestine alone? Why do they have to incorporate Palestine into Israel? Leave the Gaza Strip alone. The one thing that shouldn’t be done is cutting the grass as Israel does now. With that being the current Israel SOP now, it muddies the water because Israel actually benefits from Hamas by having an easy excuse to cut the grass every so often. Your last point is again flawed. As strategies like cutting the grass above, suffocating Gaza Strip, and pushing settlements further and further has nothing to do with that mentality. ———- Sometimes people confuse people like me and assume I have some sort of allegiance or motive. I want harmony as it is possible. Of course the Arab country leadership and unfortunately many of their uneducated and screwed over in their own right citizens have awful reactions and thinking toward Israel. That’s bad. So is the treatment of Gaza Strip or number of Palestinian children who have been causalities in a period of time like this century. Israel being able to remain their own country and be prepared and strong. Nothing wrong with that! Why would there be? There are people born in Israel now who are 3rd generation now. That’s their home. If I thought any differently, that would make no sense and mean I have something against Jewish people or Israel. When I love both as much as any other country or group of people.
- doctorhandshake 5y ago
  I think we're mostly in agreement here. > What is this example supposed to show? It's an analogy, not an example. It's meant to present a hypothetical, similar situation in another context in order to help people who can't relate to something happening across the world, in a place they've never been, see that situation in a way they can understand. > The saddest part of this example is leaving out the Palestine. It’s very sad that they don’t even get to be part of the example. It's an analogy. If Palestine were literally included, it would no longer be an analogy. > Why can’t Israel leave Palestine alone? Because of the rocket fire and bombings combined with the repeated public stating of a goal to exterminate the state and people of Israel. > Why do they have to incorporate Palestine into Israel? They don't. That just seems like it's one of the only outcomes that allows both groups to share the land they claim. > The one thing that shouldn’t be done is cutting the grass as Israel does now. That's for sure. It's indiscriminate and savage and on top of that counterproductive. Israel has shown time and again that they are capable of surgical military operations in the most hostile of territories. If their intent is truly to reduce the capability of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel, they are more than capable of doing that with minimal loss of life. Unfortunately, Israel has a similar problem to that in the US (another useful commonality in my analogy) in that there is a large hawkish segment of the population and political class who feel justified in punitive military violence. They are gratified in the overwhelmingly disproportionate response to the feeble rocket attacks coming out of Gaza. Again, the specifics of my analogy are chosen advisedly - what I meant to point out was what the world would expect to see if anyone at all fired rockets at Americans. They'd wipe those people off the map. I'm not endorsing that outcome, I'm just pointing out that when the US does it, it's considered de rigueur, but when Israel does it, it's considered barbaric. But can you think of another example, anywhere in the world, where a population are supposed to allow their cities to be literally shelled and attacked with rockets and, as you say, 'Leave the [attackers] alone?' That's not a practical solution. > Israel being able to remain their own country and be prepared and strong. Nothing wrong with that! Why would there be? Agreed. Unfortunately, Palestinian (and their backing Iranian) leadership does not agree.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Yeah you're right. We're essentially entirely in agreement. However, we both see the way Israel [and America and others] are able to use what makes them victims to their advantage. To the point where it is hard to parse through all the data and history of this century and not see it as Israel wants there to always be some one shooting [feeble] rockets into Israel. I didn't cite the "cutting the grass" quote. My bad. I don't want to pick a source that others will view as me being biased. I chose Daily Beast and News Week: "The operative metaphor is often described as “cutting the grass,” meaning a task that must be performed regularly and has no end. There is no solution to security challenges, officials here say, only delays and deterrence....What is "cutting the grass" if not a metaphor for unending conflict?" "Cutting the grass"—reducing or eliminating actual military threats as they emerge in real time—has been Israel's preferred method, and can be coupled with either of the two others." -- > I'm not endorsing that outcome, I'm just pointing out that when the US does it, it's considered de rigueur, but when Israel does it, it's considered barbaric. > barbaric Children keep getting killed :(. I bring up Yemen quite a bit with recent Russia Ukraine talks. You are right, people quickly overlook things like that. I think that's general tribalist behavior. Not because of the US specifically. -- Is this true? The only downvoted comments or attacks I've had on Reddit, HN, IG, & Twitter have all been the few times I've discussed the Palestine conflict. There's only one other instance on Twitter where there was enough attacking on me that I had to step back, which was about local US socioeconomic politics. I'm not active on any social media so the sample size is not big or even moderate, but stretches for a decade. I now never favorite/heart/star/bookmark any Palestinian or Israeli related content on any social media just as a rule of thumb. I had also made it a rule of thumb to never comment on it in public either. I forgot you can't delete HN comments after a short period of time. I co-founded a non-profit, organically growing, camaraderie driven online co-working community. Politics is no place for a community like that, but one off or short discussions can happen. The only topic I can think of that I would never touch with a 10 foot pole in any capacity is Israel/Palestine. AOC had to take back any thing she said about Israel. Ilhan Omar has been skewered so much by a large portion of people, even when Israeli and/or Jewish people defend her, it doesn't count or what have you. I heard of cutting the grass from Noam Chomsky who was citing it from the person who either coined it or coined it for middle eastern politics. It is not uncommon or strange these days that citing Chomsky's, who is Jewish, views on Israel/Palestine can be seen as indicative of being "anti-semitic". Which of course in my case is not true at all. As I've said, I support Israel and Israelis right to their current land. However this also shows why this is such a hard thing to ever bring up.
weatherlite 5y ago
> I’m not a Zionist per se but I get it Why not? I mean if you're not a Zionist you're basically pro Israel being dismantled, because Israel is a Zionist state. You can say you're a Zionist in the 67 borders, or anything of that sort, but I don't get what's so hard in acknowledging Israel's right to exist. I get that it pisses off many progressives, but still. They'll get over it.
- doctorhandshake 5y ago
  I think that's a reductionist viewpoint, both to say that if you're not a Zionist you're in favor of Israel being dismantled, and to imply that you can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist. There's more to Zionism than being for or against the existence of Israel. I'm a progressive. I have family in Israel. I would be very upset if Israel were to cease to exist. And yet I don't agree with all Zionist principles, eg I believe that a combination of a diaspora and a homeland makes our race more resilient to future pogroms defensively and more familiar and thus less easily Othered by other cultures, an idea more aligned with other schools of Jewish thought.
  - weatherlite 5y ago
    > I think that's a reductionist viewpoint, both to say that if you're not a Zionist you're in favor of Israel being dismantled, and to imply that you can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist. There's more to Zionism than being for or against the existence of Israel. You're really can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist though, Israel is a Zionist state. It's like being pro American but wishing for it to be returned to the Indians, I really don't see how this works.
    - doctorhandshake 5y ago
      I get your point but I'd like to be a little more optimistic and flexible about how I see the future playing out. I think at this point writing off Israel as being Zionist and never anything but is a bit like doing the same with the USA around the time of its inception, saying it'll never be anything but a slaveholding colonial fief to the British. I'd like to think there are possible futures where things change for the better, and those are the thoughts that give me hope for Israel and for Palestine as well.

skinnymuch 5y ago

> Sometimes I ask people to imagine what it would be like if the inhabitants of a large Native American reservation began shelling a nearby US city after openly stating they will not rest until the USA is wiped from the earth. This is easy. They have some valid claims in principle. They also have essentially no power or weapons. After the initial surprise. They’d be able to do nothing. Or in effect nothing. If the US then removed autonomy from these Native Americans, kept them locked in, and gave them electricity equivalent for the average American (aka 1 person) for 70 of the Native Americans, and continued this for decades and decades. That would be awful and cruel from the get go. What is this example supposed to show? > To further the analogy, imagine now that the USA is the size of New Jersey, surrounded by states that have attempted also to wipe them out, and that Americans have been enslaved, persecuted, and harried across the globe for thousands of years since leaving New Jersey under duress the most recent time. To extend this. NJ has the backing of the most powerful country in the world and almost every first world country. NJ is also richer and more powerful than any of the neighbors except for the one farther away who coincidentally has their tragedy, that most powerful country ally screwed with their country. This doesn’t make what they country (Iran) does good. Just nuance. The saddest part of this example is leaving out the Palestine. It’s very sad that they don’t even get to be part of the example. Though perhaps it is fitting as the Gaza Strip barely does exist as is. —- Your Israel bind is flawed. Why can’t Israel leave Palestine alone? Why do they have to incorporate Palestine into Israel? Leave the Gaza Strip alone. The one thing that shouldn’t be done is cutting the grass as Israel does now. With that being the current Israel SOP now, it muddies the water because Israel actually benefits from Hamas by having an easy excuse to cut the grass every so often. Your last point is again flawed. As strategies like cutting the grass above, suffocating Gaza Strip, and pushing settlements further and further has nothing to do with that mentality. ———- Sometimes people confuse people like me and assume I have some sort of allegiance or motive. I want harmony as it is possible. Of course the Arab country leadership and unfortunately many of their uneducated and screwed over in their own right citizens have awful reactions and thinking toward Israel. That’s bad. So is the treatment of Gaza Strip or number of Palestinian children who have been causalities in a period of time like this century. Israel being able to remain their own country and be prepared and strong. Nothing wrong with that! Why would there be? There are people born in Israel now who are 3rd generation now. That’s their home. If I thought any differently, that would make no sense and mean I have something against Jewish people or Israel. When I love both as much as any other country or group of people.

doctorhandshake 5y ago
I think we're mostly in agreement here. > What is this example supposed to show? It's an analogy, not an example. It's meant to present a hypothetical, similar situation in another context in order to help people who can't relate to something happening across the world, in a place they've never been, see that situation in a way they can understand. > The saddest part of this example is leaving out the Palestine. It’s very sad that they don’t even get to be part of the example. It's an analogy. If Palestine were literally included, it would no longer be an analogy. > Why can’t Israel leave Palestine alone? Because of the rocket fire and bombings combined with the repeated public stating of a goal to exterminate the state and people of Israel. > Why do they have to incorporate Palestine into Israel? They don't. That just seems like it's one of the only outcomes that allows both groups to share the land they claim. > The one thing that shouldn’t be done is cutting the grass as Israel does now. That's for sure. It's indiscriminate and savage and on top of that counterproductive. Israel has shown time and again that they are capable of surgical military operations in the most hostile of territories. If their intent is truly to reduce the capability of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel, they are more than capable of doing that with minimal loss of life. Unfortunately, Israel has a similar problem to that in the US (another useful commonality in my analogy) in that there is a large hawkish segment of the population and political class who feel justified in punitive military violence. They are gratified in the overwhelmingly disproportionate response to the feeble rocket attacks coming out of Gaza. Again, the specifics of my analogy are chosen advisedly - what I meant to point out was what the world would expect to see if anyone at all fired rockets at Americans. They'd wipe those people off the map. I'm not endorsing that outcome, I'm just pointing out that when the US does it, it's considered de rigueur, but when Israel does it, it's considered barbaric. But can you think of another example, anywhere in the world, where a population are supposed to allow their cities to be literally shelled and attacked with rockets and, as you say, 'Leave the [attackers] alone?' That's not a practical solution. > Israel being able to remain their own country and be prepared and strong. Nothing wrong with that! Why would there be? Agreed. Unfortunately, Palestinian (and their backing Iranian) leadership does not agree.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Yeah you're right. We're essentially entirely in agreement. However, we both see the way Israel [and America and others] are able to use what makes them victims to their advantage. To the point where it is hard to parse through all the data and history of this century and not see it as Israel wants there to always be some one shooting [feeble] rockets into Israel. I didn't cite the "cutting the grass" quote. My bad. I don't want to pick a source that others will view as me being biased. I chose Daily Beast and News Week: "The operative metaphor is often described as “cutting the grass,” meaning a task that must be performed regularly and has no end. There is no solution to security challenges, officials here say, only delays and deterrence....What is "cutting the grass" if not a metaphor for unending conflict?" "Cutting the grass"—reducing or eliminating actual military threats as they emerge in real time—has been Israel's preferred method, and can be coupled with either of the two others." -- > I'm not endorsing that outcome, I'm just pointing out that when the US does it, it's considered de rigueur, but when Israel does it, it's considered barbaric. > barbaric Children keep getting killed :(. I bring up Yemen quite a bit with recent Russia Ukraine talks. You are right, people quickly overlook things like that. I think that's general tribalist behavior. Not because of the US specifically. -- Is this true? The only downvoted comments or attacks I've had on Reddit, HN, IG, & Twitter have all been the few times I've discussed the Palestine conflict. There's only one other instance on Twitter where there was enough attacking on me that I had to step back, which was about local US socioeconomic politics. I'm not active on any social media so the sample size is not big or even moderate, but stretches for a decade. I now never favorite/heart/star/bookmark any Palestinian or Israeli related content on any social media just as a rule of thumb. I had also made it a rule of thumb to never comment on it in public either. I forgot you can't delete HN comments after a short period of time. I co-founded a non-profit, organically growing, camaraderie driven online co-working community. Politics is no place for a community like that, but one off or short discussions can happen. The only topic I can think of that I would never touch with a 10 foot pole in any capacity is Israel/Palestine. AOC had to take back any thing she said about Israel. Ilhan Omar has been skewered so much by a large portion of people, even when Israeli and/or Jewish people defend her, it doesn't count or what have you. I heard of cutting the grass from Noam Chomsky who was citing it from the person who either coined it or coined it for middle eastern politics. It is not uncommon or strange these days that citing Chomsky's, who is Jewish, views on Israel/Palestine can be seen as indicative of being "anti-semitic". Which of course in my case is not true at all. As I've said, I support Israel and Israelis right to their current land. However this also shows why this is such a hard thing to ever bring up.

weatherlite 5y ago

> I’m not a Zionist per se but I get it Why not? I mean if you're not a Zionist you're basically pro Israel being dismantled, because Israel is a Zionist state. You can say you're a Zionist in the 67 borders, or anything of that sort, but I don't get what's so hard in acknowledging Israel's right to exist. I get that it pisses off many progressives, but still. They'll get over it.

doctorhandshake 5y ago
I think that's a reductionist viewpoint, both to say that if you're not a Zionist you're in favor of Israel being dismantled, and to imply that you can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist. There's more to Zionism than being for or against the existence of Israel. I'm a progressive. I have family in Israel. I would be very upset if Israel were to cease to exist. And yet I don't agree with all Zionist principles, eg I believe that a combination of a diaspora and a homeland makes our race more resilient to future pogroms defensively and more familiar and thus less easily Othered by other cultures, an idea more aligned with other schools of Jewish thought.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  > I think that's a reductionist viewpoint, both to say that if you're not a Zionist you're in favor of Israel being dismantled, and to imply that you can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist. There's more to Zionism than being for or against the existence of Israel. You're really can't be pro-Israel without being a Zionist though, Israel is a Zionist state. It's like being pro American but wishing for it to be returned to the Indians, I really don't see how this works.
  - doctorhandshake 5y ago
    I get your point but I'd like to be a little more optimistic and flexible about how I see the future playing out. I think at this point writing off Israel as being Zionist and never anything but is a bit like doing the same with the USA around the time of its inception, saying it'll never be anything but a slaveholding colonial fief to the British. I'd like to think there are possible futures where things change for the better, and those are the thoughts that give me hope for Israel and for Palestine as well.