4 ms·

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel po

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel position in this context represents a very US centric view, which is not similarly echoed in the rest of the world.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
>The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine. History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  Can you define who the global ruling class is?
underdeserver 3y ago
No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg > The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries. Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847
  - underdeserver 3y ago
    The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel. Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
    - lossolo 3y ago
      > The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947. > The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel. I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused. > Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree? No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.
      - nostrebored 3y ago
        How do you propose to fight Hamas? In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt. But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so. Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?
strogonoff 3y ago
Last month UN appointed Iran to chair and guide its annual UNHRC (human rights council) meeting. The aforementioned organization in no way represents “the majority of the world” or “the rest of the world”; it makes a joke out of the values of freedom and human rights.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago

>The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine. History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.

nostrebored 3y ago
Can you define who the global ruling class is?

underdeserver 3y ago

No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.

lossolo 3y ago
> No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg > The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries. Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847
- underdeserver 3y ago
  The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel. Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947. > The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel. I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused. > Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree? No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.
    - nostrebored 3y ago
      How do you propose to fight Hamas? In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt. But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so. Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?

strogonoff 3y ago

Last month UN appointed Iran to chair and guide its annual UNHRC (human rights council) meeting. The aforementioned organization in no way represents “the majority of the world” or “the rest of the world”; it makes a joke out of the values of freedom and human rights.