5 ms·

Palestinian flags: the article you showed was from the first demonstration (or one of the first). There were many more in future ones and no clashes. FWIW I per

by tasn 3y ago

Palestinian flags: the article you showed was from the first demonstration (or one of the first). There were many more in future ones and no clashes. FWIW I personally think raising the flag of an enemy state is distasteful, but Israel is a democracy. The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority. Politicians in Israel have called for ethnic cleansing, fringe crazy politicians. Marjorie Taylor green blamed California wildfires on Jewish space lasers. I hope you don't let that paint your views on the US legislative bodies. As for different laws about ethnicities (probably the source for calls of apartheid): it's very limited, the main thing is that diaspora Jews can get citizenship automatically. This law is to help Jews anywhere escape from antisemitism. If you're an Israeli citizen however (muslim, jewish, christian or whatever), you have equal rights under the law. It's easy to parrot things like apartheid, but it's more like 0.001% apartheid in the most technical sense, and not what people mean it when they say this word. As for the comparison to western democracies: I think Israel is doing very well, even compared to some of the world's oldest democracies (France/Swiss multiple Muslim related bans, US during the trump administration, etc.), but the people drawing this comparison usually advocate for replacing it with Hammas which is a proper terrorist organization that advocates for killing all non Muslims, killing lgbt, etc. It's a classic Utopia fallacy gone to the extreme.

true_religion 3y ago
> The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority. The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either. Some commenters use terminology like “apartheid” and “civil unrest” to describe this situation, so perhaps people in the UN also view this as a internal issue and they don’t want to comment on domestic terror?
- tasn 3y ago
  How is Hammas attacking Israel an internal issue? It's a foreign actor invading a country (literally taking down the border) and attacking Israel. Even if it was the case though, the UN has condemned Israel multiple times, why the difference? Shouldn't they avoid condemning Israel too as it's an internal dispute?
  - true_religion 3y ago
    Some people do not internalize the idea that Palestine is a sovereign nation. At best, they consider it an occupied territory thus any conflict they have with Mother Israel is couched in terms like apartheid, segregation, and colonization. For an examples, look at how many commenters on this thread are calling this an “internal dispute” even though they fully support Palestine. Some Palestinian supporters don’t even recognize Hamas as the government of the Gaza Strip. How can a country exist without a government? People are just in support of the people.
    - tasn 3y ago
      I'm not saying that they are or they aren't. I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. Either it's an internal conflict or not. Though you can't have a one-sided agenda like the UN, at least in response to the October 7th terrorist attacks.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        In an internal conflict the only side you can put political pressure on is the ruling government. Let’s take as a hypothetical, some Waco style paramilitary starts terrorist sticks in the US, and in response the US military begins shelling Chicago night and day killing thousands more civilians and the terrorists ever did. Should the UN come out and censure both sides? The terrorists are just domestic criminals, and the UN doesn’t have a particular interest in that. However turning your military against helpless civilians is something the UN does care about. I’m not sure this fits 100% but it’s the logic I’m following.
- jfengel 3y ago
  The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either. Unfortunately, that's kind of the point. The UN has issued twice as many condemnations of Israel as of the rest of the world combined. Some parts of the UN do important work -- UNESCO, WHO, FAO, etc. But they are unreliable when it comes to matters of justice. They had to retire the predecessor to the Human Rights Commission because it was dominated by countries who commit lots of abuses, and the new version isn't really any better. In particular the UN can't be trusted when it comes to Israel. There are a lot of Islamic countries, and they have made a lot of allies for the specific purpose of condemning Israel. And since Israel is a key ally of the US, it becomes the focus of anti-UN sentiment as well. That's not to justify everything Israel does. Far from it. It would be better if there were an organization capable of evaluating the situation objectively, to sort out the truth under a barrage of propaganda from all sides. Instead, we get the UN offering meaningless and predictable condemnations.
raincom 3y ago
Settlements in the West Bank are the culprit. When settlers settle in some area, they need protection. Barriers, permanent road closures, security gates, even welding the doors facing roads that are used exclusively by non-Palestinians, surveillance-these protective measures cause huge inconvenience to non-Jewish people (both Christians and Muslims) in the West Bank. Whether one calls it apartheid or not, Israelis and their government should find a way to resolve the problem of protecting settlers at the cost of others. Otherwise, it can create a huge backlash across the world: (a) Al Jazeera and social media have showed these to the outside world (b) support for Israel is waning in the West--especially among liberals (c) there is even less support for Israel among the younger generation in the West, so expect more backlash from the future policy makers.
- tasn 3y ago
  I hate the settlements as much (or more) as the next guy, but I respectfully disagree. West Bank is not Gaza. Israel FORCIBLY removed all of the settlements from Gaza in 2006, and look where this got us. There is nothing going on in Gaza, and that's still the source of the conflict, the West Bank is chill in comparison. Also, when Israel left the settlements in Gaza they left behind factories, crops, housing, everything. Did Palestinians move there? Use the resources? No, they turned them into terrorist training grounds. :| I think the settlements are terrible, and we should destroy all of them, but this is just classic PR switcheroo. As I said, West Bank is not Gaza, they have a different government, the West Bank is flourishing and the quality of life there is great. Leaving Gaza and removing all the Israeli forces from there ended up being worst, not better for the people of Gaza.
  - raincom 3y ago
    I am quite sympathetic to the view point that Arab countries don't want a Jewish state in the middle east, and that when Muslims become majority, they don't want to peacefully co-exist with Jews and others. I am not ignorant about Gaza and the West bank are different. There are so many people out there who explain Hamas' attack in terms of these: (a) Israel subverting two-state solution (b) apartheid in the West bank in order to protect settlers. This view point has many supporters even among non-Muslims in the West. What do you say about that to those who condemn Hamas' attack on Oct 7 and who also subscribe to the foregoing explanation?

by tasn 3y ago

true_religion 3y ago

> The UN still hasn't condemned the October 7th attack nor Hammas's use of civilians as human shields. Not sure about the rest. So I wouldn't call them an unbiased authority. The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either. Some commenters use terminology like “apartheid” and “civil unrest” to describe this situation, so perhaps people in the UN also view this as a internal issue and they don’t want to comment on domestic terror?

tasn 3y ago
How is Hammas attacking Israel an internal issue? It's a foreign actor invading a country (literally taking down the border) and attacking Israel. Even if it was the case though, the UN has condemned Israel multiple times, why the difference? Shouldn't they avoid condemning Israel too as it's an internal dispute?
- true_religion 3y ago
  Some people do not internalize the idea that Palestine is a sovereign nation. At best, they consider it an occupied territory thus any conflict they have with Mother Israel is couched in terms like apartheid, segregation, and colonization. For an examples, look at how many commenters on this thread are calling this an “internal dispute” even though they fully support Palestine. Some Palestinian supporters don’t even recognize Hamas as the government of the Gaza Strip. How can a country exist without a government? People are just in support of the people.
  - tasn 3y ago
    I'm not saying that they are or they aren't. I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways. Either it's an internal conflict or not. Though you can't have a one-sided agenda like the UN, at least in response to the October 7th terrorist attacks.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      In an internal conflict the only side you can put political pressure on is the ruling government. Let’s take as a hypothetical, some Waco style paramilitary starts terrorist sticks in the US, and in response the US military begins shelling Chicago night and day killing thousands more civilians and the terrorists ever did. Should the UN come out and censure both sides? The terrorists are just domestic criminals, and the UN doesn’t have a particular interest in that. However turning your military against helpless civilians is something the UN does care about. I’m not sure this fits 100% but it’s the logic I’m following.
jfengel 3y ago
The UN does not seem to have condemned many of the actions of the Irish Republicans Army either. Unfortunately, that's kind of the point. The UN has issued twice as many condemnations of Israel as of the rest of the world combined. Some parts of the UN do important work -- UNESCO, WHO, FAO, etc. But they are unreliable when it comes to matters of justice. They had to retire the predecessor to the Human Rights Commission because it was dominated by countries who commit lots of abuses, and the new version isn't really any better. In particular the UN can't be trusted when it comes to Israel. There are a lot of Islamic countries, and they have made a lot of allies for the specific purpose of condemning Israel. And since Israel is a key ally of the US, it becomes the focus of anti-UN sentiment as well. That's not to justify everything Israel does. Far from it. It would be better if there were an organization capable of evaluating the situation objectively, to sort out the truth under a barrage of propaganda from all sides. Instead, we get the UN offering meaningless and predictable condemnations.

raincom 3y ago

Settlements in the West Bank are the culprit. When settlers settle in some area, they need protection. Barriers, permanent road closures, security gates, even welding the doors facing roads that are used exclusively by non-Palestinians, surveillance-these protective measures cause huge inconvenience to non-Jewish people (both Christians and Muslims) in the West Bank. Whether one calls it apartheid or not, Israelis and their government should find a way to resolve the problem of protecting settlers at the cost of others. Otherwise, it can create a huge backlash across the world: (a) Al Jazeera and social media have showed these to the outside world (b) support for Israel is waning in the West--especially among liberals (c) there is even less support for Israel among the younger generation in the West, so expect more backlash from the future policy makers.

tasn 3y ago
I hate the settlements as much (or more) as the next guy, but I respectfully disagree. West Bank is not Gaza. Israel FORCIBLY removed all of the settlements from Gaza in 2006, and look where this got us. There is nothing going on in Gaza, and that's still the source of the conflict, the West Bank is chill in comparison. Also, when Israel left the settlements in Gaza they left behind factories, crops, housing, everything. Did Palestinians move there? Use the resources? No, they turned them into terrorist training grounds. :| I think the settlements are terrible, and we should destroy all of them, but this is just classic PR switcheroo. As I said, West Bank is not Gaza, they have a different government, the West Bank is flourishing and the quality of life there is great. Leaving Gaza and removing all the Israeli forces from there ended up being worst, not better for the people of Gaza.
- raincom 3y ago
  I am quite sympathetic to the view point that Arab countries don't want a Jewish state in the middle east, and that when Muslims become majority, they don't want to peacefully co-exist with Jews and others. I am not ignorant about Gaza and the West bank are different. There are so many people out there who explain Hamas' attack in terms of these: (a) Israel subverting two-state solution (b) apartheid in the West bank in order to protect settlers. This view point has many supporters even among non-Muslims in the West. What do you say about that to those who condemn Hamas' attack on Oct 7 and who also subscribe to the foregoing explanation?