3 ms·

Oh, mere existence. :) Sorry, this will not work anymore. More and more people now are learning about the massacres in '47/'48, Nakba, ethnic cleansing, viola

by megous 3y ago

Oh, mere existence. :) Sorry, this will not work anymore. More and more people now are learning about the massacres in '47/'48, Nakba, ethnic cleansing, violations of UN resolutions, or even the original partition plan, war crimes, constant illegal settler harrasment and land grabs, and the disgusting nature of the oppression, political machinations of the Israel's ruling class, etc. Ivoking morality or rights when the occupier doesn't respect either, will just keep working only on the most gullible. Israel is powerful, and has well established PR machine and lobbying, but the tide of public opinion can turn against it eventually, if it will push too hard.

YZF 3y ago
Arabs massacred Jews as well. More and more people are learning nothing and are just repeating propaganda and promoting hate. I'm not denying there was violence against Arabs by Jews. I'm not denying there's settler harassment and land grabs. That does not justify the violence from the Arab side. It is not right but it also does not justify. If you're going to be stuck in 1947/1948 (and the picture isn't as simple as you're trying to paint it, conveniently forgetting the surrounding counties attacking Israel or the attacks of Arabs against Jews) then this is not going to get resolved. If the dialogue from the Palestinian side is stuck on their historic injustices, some of them are true, some of them maybe less true (to put mildly), without acknowledging the other side and without looking at how they might have contributed to where we stand they are going to lose more. Israel's PR sucks and it's not that powerful. Public opinion changes on a dime. EDIT: I just want to address a few more points: - "Ivoking morality or rights when the occupier doesn't respect either". There is no equivalency here and there are important details that are intentionally left fuzzy in this statement. The morality of building a settlement on occupied territory (from Jordan) is not equivalent to the morality of shooting a baby in the head in front of their parents. There is no piece of land on this earth that is not built on "occupied" territory. What is different about the west bank is that its status has never been resolved after it was won from Jordan in 1967. Some refer to the entirety of Israel + West bank + Gaza as occupied territory which is factually wrong. The fuzziness here is not random, it is intentional. - "original partition plan". Can you be more specific on the partition plan? It's generally the Arab side who avoids mentioning it and avoids mentioning that the Arabs rejected it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_... "Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition". - "war crimes". Generally speaking Israel is not committing war crimes. There is a vast legal apparatus in the IDF that advises on the legality of various actions. You may not like those those actions, and it's true that the Palestinians and some others label them as war crimes, but technically they are not. This is just more demonizing rhetoric justifying violence. It's basically blood libel. What most Arab PR calls a war crime is allowed under law of war. I'm sure there are some exceptions. The Israel-Arab situation is somewhat unique but if you compare to many other wars the Israelis are fighting relatively within the allowed legal frameworks. I think if you point out to specific actions, that are clearly war crimes, that's fine. If you just say "war crimes" that's propaganda.
- megous 3y ago
  > Israel's PR sucks and it's not that powerful. Public opinion changes on a dime. Not really. It's pretty rabidly pro genocide and pro Israel in my country. I don't know what would have to happen for this to change. Minister of defense even suggested leaving UN after the last UN GA vote. > I'm not denying there was violence against Arabs by Jews. I'm not denying there's settler harassment and land grabs. That does not justify the violence from the Arab side. So the violence of one side doesn't justify the violence on the other side? Then we agree. > The morality of building a settlement on occupied territory (from Jordan) is not equivalent to the morality of shooting a baby in the head in front of their parents. That's just some cherry-picked example. I can just as well tell you that shooting children into knees or heads over the fence is not equivalent to throwing some rocks, etc. This random cherry picking will lead nowhere. Anyway, this is just a mirror argument to the one above. Either rights apply to both side, or to none of them. Current example of a war crimes would be usage of starvation of civilian population as a means of warfare. Or attacking hospitals - eg. current attack on Al-Quds hospital https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1718660055883514087 https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1718660055883514087 making it barely inhabitable, and endangering patients there, just because Israel wants the people there to leave.
  - YZF 3y ago
    I'm curious what country you're from and what's your connection to the conflict if any. For what it's worth I live in Canada (you might call me a refugee from this conflict which isn't far from the truth) and I have family in that region. I agree random cherry picking leads nowhere. Violence on one side doesn't justify the violence on the other is a bit of a tricky statement. Sometimes violence is justified so context matters. What Hamas did on Oct 7th is never justified. There are possibly (EDIT: actually likely) some examples of Israeli violence that is also unjustified. Rocks kill by the way. What would be your proposal of how Israel should respond to Hamas's attack? If such an attack was conducted on your community, how do you think your country would/should respond? Under international law hospitals cease to be protected if they are used by enemy combatants and if ample warning is given (which Israel has definitely given, the combatant use I'm not sure). The population of Gaza is also not starving. If Israel were to attack hospitals that are not involved or used in any way by enemy combatants or if the population of Gaza indeed ends up starving then those would be war crimes. There is still food in Gaza. I've heard there is agreement to increase the amount of aid flowing into Gaza significantly. At the same time Israel isn't responsible for feeding Hamas fighters or for how Hamas distribute their provisions in Gaza or does not. I don't think Israel benefits from violating international law (many other countries don't even blink at doing that, but that's beside the point) and should not. I also disagree that either rights apply to both sides or apply to none. Right always apply to both sides. I find everything going on right now very deeply disturbing on many levels. Whenever there's any glimmer of hope that something better can happen in the middle east there's always some player that's going to literally blow everything up. I do think the truth matters (vs. the untruthful narratives from almost everyone) as there's no path forward on top of lies. Too many people are just brainwashed. So yes, the truthful events of 1948 (mostly discussed by Israeli historians that Palestinians are happy to quote) are important but so is the Jewish history of the region in modern and ancient times. EDIT: btw I watched the images on that Twitter video. There is war going on outside and so yes- there is very likely some impact on the hospital. At least the video itself seems to show that it's not a place I'd want to be but also people are still alive and uninjured there.

by megous 3y ago

YZF 3y ago

Arabs massacred Jews as well. More and more people are learning nothing and are just repeating propaganda and promoting hate. I'm not denying there was violence against Arabs by Jews. I'm not denying there's settler harassment and land grabs. That does not justify the violence from the Arab side. It is not right but it also does not justify. If you're going to be stuck in 1947/1948 (and the picture isn't as simple as you're trying to paint it, conveniently forgetting the surrounding counties attacking Israel or the attacks of Arabs against Jews) then this is not going to get resolved. If the dialogue from the Palestinian side is stuck on their historic injustices, some of them are true, some of them maybe less true (to put mildly), without acknowledging the other side and without looking at how they might have contributed to where we stand they are going to lose more. Israel's PR sucks and it's not that powerful. Public opinion changes on a dime. EDIT: I just want to address a few more points: - "Ivoking morality or rights when the occupier doesn't respect either". There is no equivalency here and there are important details that are intentionally left fuzzy in this statement. The morality of building a settlement on occupied territory (from Jordan) is not equivalent to the morality of shooting a baby in the head in front of their parents. There is no piece of land on this earth that is not built on "occupied" territory. What is different about the west bank is that its status has never been resolved after it was won from Jordan in 1967. Some refer to the entirety of Israel + West bank + Gaza as occupied territory which is factually wrong. The fuzziness here is not random, it is intentional. - "original partition plan". Can you be more specific on the partition plan? It's generally the Arab side who avoids mentioning it and avoids mentioning that the Arabs rejected it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_... "Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition". - "war crimes". Generally speaking Israel is not committing war crimes. There is a vast legal apparatus in the IDF that advises on the legality of various actions. You may not like those those actions, and it's true that the Palestinians and some others label them as war crimes, but technically they are not. This is just more demonizing rhetoric justifying violence. It's basically blood libel. What most Arab PR calls a war crime is allowed under law of war. I'm sure there are some exceptions. The Israel-Arab situation is somewhat unique but if you compare to many other wars the Israelis are fighting relatively within the allowed legal frameworks. I think if you point out to specific actions, that are clearly war crimes, that's fine. If you just say "war crimes" that's propaganda.

megous 3y ago
> Israel's PR sucks and it's not that powerful. Public opinion changes on a dime. Not really. It's pretty rabidly pro genocide and pro Israel in my country. I don't know what would have to happen for this to change. Minister of defense even suggested leaving UN after the last UN GA vote. > I'm not denying there was violence against Arabs by Jews. I'm not denying there's settler harassment and land grabs. That does not justify the violence from the Arab side. So the violence of one side doesn't justify the violence on the other side? Then we agree. > The morality of building a settlement on occupied territory (from Jordan) is not equivalent to the morality of shooting a baby in the head in front of their parents. That's just some cherry-picked example. I can just as well tell you that shooting children into knees or heads over the fence is not equivalent to throwing some rocks, etc. This random cherry picking will lead nowhere. Anyway, this is just a mirror argument to the one above. Either rights apply to both side, or to none of them. Current example of a war crimes would be usage of starvation of civilian population as a means of warfare. Or attacking hospitals - eg. current attack on Al-Quds hospital https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1718660055883514087 https://twitter.com/PalestineRCS/status/1718660055883514087 making it barely inhabitable, and endangering patients there, just because Israel wants the people there to leave.
- YZF 3y ago
  I'm curious what country you're from and what's your connection to the conflict if any. For what it's worth I live in Canada (you might call me a refugee from this conflict which isn't far from the truth) and I have family in that region. I agree random cherry picking leads nowhere. Violence on one side doesn't justify the violence on the other is a bit of a tricky statement. Sometimes violence is justified so context matters. What Hamas did on Oct 7th is never justified. There are possibly (EDIT: actually likely) some examples of Israeli violence that is also unjustified. Rocks kill by the way. What would be your proposal of how Israel should respond to Hamas's attack? If such an attack was conducted on your community, how do you think your country would/should respond? Under international law hospitals cease to be protected if they are used by enemy combatants and if ample warning is given (which Israel has definitely given, the combatant use I'm not sure). The population of Gaza is also not starving. If Israel were to attack hospitals that are not involved or used in any way by enemy combatants or if the population of Gaza indeed ends up starving then those would be war crimes. There is still food in Gaza. I've heard there is agreement to increase the amount of aid flowing into Gaza significantly. At the same time Israel isn't responsible for feeding Hamas fighters or for how Hamas distribute their provisions in Gaza or does not. I don't think Israel benefits from violating international law (many other countries don't even blink at doing that, but that's beside the point) and should not. I also disagree that either rights apply to both sides or apply to none. Right always apply to both sides. I find everything going on right now very deeply disturbing on many levels. Whenever there's any glimmer of hope that something better can happen in the middle east there's always some player that's going to literally blow everything up. I do think the truth matters (vs. the untruthful narratives from almost everyone) as there's no path forward on top of lies. Too many people are just brainwashed. So yes, the truthful events of 1948 (mostly discussed by Israeli historians that Palestinians are happy to quote) are important but so is the Jewish history of the region in modern and ancient times. EDIT: btw I watched the images on that Twitter video. There is war going on outside and so yes- there is very likely some impact on the hospital. At least the video itself seems to show that it's not a place I'd want to be but also people are still alive and uninjured there.