24 ms·

All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? Spend tons of money on iron dome to shoot down the rockets and hope that Hamas

All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? Spend tons of money on iron dome to shoot down the rockets and hope that Hamas won't manage to conduct another massacre, even if "only" half the scope of October 7? This mess features not one but two parties who currently reject the concept of a cease fire.

hypeit 3y ago
Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.
- golergka 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      Hamas controls Gaza, where Israel withdrew nearly 20 years ago. First thing Hamas did: destroy all the infrastructure set up by Israelis. Or maybe Hamas murdered the Fatah officials first. In any case, there was little Israeli left in all that time, and there's a border with a supposedly friendly neighbor, tons of money and expertise by the global community invested in that area, and they squandered it all in favor of raping and pillaging the hippie communities of the Israeli peace movement.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        There was also a near-complete blockade.
        golergka 3y ago
        It was implemented as a response to indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. > like apartheid South Africa was dismantled South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1]. To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted. There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser. [1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot+Sayeret+Duchifat,+Jerusalem/ https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...
    - YZF 3y ago
      I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here. Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). "often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).
- jjcon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hypeit 3y ago
    It's not "hate speech" to call to the end of an apartheid government.
    - jjcon 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is hate speech I’m generally pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with this at all. Israel is a theocracy, and an increasingly right-wing one at that. Arguing against even theocracies in principal would technically argue for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state; I would hardly call that hate speech.
        jjcon 3y ago
        Huh? Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. It is more irreligious than USA/Canada and plenty of Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irrelig...
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        There are at least 5 parties in the ruling coalition that have specific religious orthodoxy as primary parts of their platform. I agree that the traditional definition of theocracy is probably overkill when describing the Israeli government but specific religious beliefs drive politics there well out of proportion to the beliefs of the constituents. In a way that feels out of line with secular western democracy at times.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
- lacker 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare. It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.
  - hypeit 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea This is presumably a one-state solution? The problem here being the Jews would be a minority in this state. Which leads to existential concerns regarding their survival. That can’t be easily brushed aside. Particularly when members of Iran’s Axis sport “death to Israel, a curse upon Jews” [1]. (Hamas and the Houthis sharing a backer isn’t insignificant.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movemen...
    - YZF 3y ago
      I feel that's an extremely naive view. How many Jews live peacefully and enjoy human rights under Arab rule in the middle east? Zero. How many in Gaza under Hamas? Zero. How many live in the west bank in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Zero. So "Hamas" only wants Tel-Aviv "returned", Jersualem "returned", Haifa "returned", from the river to the sea, but somehow in that vision all the Jewish population lives peacefully and enjoys human rights that don't exist anywhere in the middle east?
      - 3y ago
- w0mbat 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - runarberg 3y ago
    So are there 6 million Stateside Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 United States who have equal rights to other US citizens. Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States. Mind you that the Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico have infinitely more rights then Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or occupied East Jerusalem.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    Well they are not not indigenous. But calling them "the indigenous" is not correct. DNA studies done by Israeli scientists on Palestinian subjects show that they descend from indigenous groups including Judea.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    Actually, if you believe that the bible is true, they killed the indigenous people there first More historically certain is that there was a stream of people living and moving through that area during waves of human immigration outside of Africa (look up the Sahara pump theory).
  - int_19h 3y ago
    "Everybody else in the region" is mostly descendants of various Semitic peoples who lived in that area for just as long. Palestinians in particular seem to be related to Canaanites, which - if you take the Torah at face value - would actually make them the indigenous people that were a target of genocidal conquest by the original Jewish settlers in the area (although archeologists say that this was more likely intra-ethnic warfare between different groups, and the whole notion of Canaanites as distinct peoples was created to justify the conquest of neighbors).
- collegeburner 3y ago
  apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate. israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine. legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    All metaphors are wrong, some metaphors are useful. The word "burn" applies to both first and third degree burns. Characteristics of apartheid can exist even if it is not at the severity experienced by black south Africans. The analogy here has utility, and racism towards Palestinians is unfortunately a huge problem in Israeli society.
    - collegeburner 3y ago
      "burn" is commonly applied to a range of conditions. "apartheid" is applied with exceptional rarity, and in common parlance, people associate it with the south african regime. in your analogy, this is equivalent to calling a first-degree burn third-degree
- mrangle 3y ago
  This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison. The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy. Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse. So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.
locallost 3y ago
If I knew the answer to that question I would be a high ranked politician. But for me it's important to keep in mind what he is saying here and also in another part explicitly: a diplomatic solution is possible and history proves that. So what I can do is reject the notion that what is happening is unavoidable.
- noqc 3y ago
  How does history prove any such thing? That's neither how history or proof work. Most of the wars that have been resolved to everyone's benefit have done so by the unconditional surrender of the aggressors, followed by amicable reconstruction.
  - shakow 3y ago
    > How does history prove any such thing? Because there are Jews living in Germany nowadays?
    - sgift 3y ago
      ... after Germany was bombed to the ground and occupied for years. Only after that came the diplomatic efforts.
      - shakow 3y ago
        > after Germany was bombed to the ground and occupied for years Well, looks like that box is checked for Gaza; can we jump to diplomacy now?
        avmich 3y ago
        Box is not checked yet, otherwise IDF wouldn't have any resistance. We should try diplomacy all the time, but right now the offer of Israel is unconditional surrender or continuation of hostilities. Maybe - maybe - less atrocious to civilians than what it was during March 1945 in Germany. Diplomats will keep their work; of course everybody's abilities are limited.
anon84873628 3y ago
>All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? And then everyone who wants peace invests lots of money and expertise over a long time to build a modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society, despite whatever setbacks, attacks, and sabotage occur from within and without. The only way to have peace is to give people a better option than becoming terrorists.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- throwwar 3y ago
  [flagged]
- mderazon 3y ago
  This is looking at the conflict from western eyes. Religious fundamentalists don't think like that
  - nojvek 3y ago
    We could have said this about Germany and Japan after WWII. Every human no matter their race and religion cares about having food, water, safety, opportunity, live in a law abiding society where their rights are respected and they get “some” choice to vote for their future.
    - bitcurious 3y ago
      Germany and Japan were conquered and unconditionally surrendered, after massive civilian casualties. Nazis were tried and executed. If Israel is should model itself on those examples, it's doing the right and moral thing in waging war until Hamas is destroyed, or unconditionally surrenders.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Yes, that is exactly what Israel should do. The "dont let gazans interact with Israelis" strategy was icnredibly effective until Israel got soft on border security. Israel easily is capable of ensuring no Gazans ever escape again. The iron dome is largely succesful at keeping Israelis safe, certainly more so than a long term gazan invasion which would open up the Israelis in gaza to terrorist attacks.
- mderazon 3y ago
  I think you have a slight misconception about living under Iron Dome. It's not 100% effective and you still have to run to the nearest shelter. In some areas close to Gaza, you have less than 10 seconds to run to the shelter. So I wouldn't consider that "normal life" by any standards
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    There are no 100% effective solutions here. Ive spent a considerable amount of time in Israeli and realize living under the iron dome isnt ideal, but it is the best Israel can do. Long term occupation would lead to more Israeli deaths than a return to the pre october 7th status quo. The only other solution for israel is a legitimate genocide of all Palestinians, and I just dont see that happening in the next century.
    - smoothjazz 3y ago
      > The only other solution for israel is a legitimate genocide of all Palestinians, and I just dont see that happening in the next century. Or giving Palestinians full rights and reparations for the land they stole, that is a valid and quite frankly, the best option.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Israel will never give Palestinians full rights, theyre too scared of palestinian terrorism. And for good reason, there is every reason to believe that palestinians will never accept peace with israel. And thats before we even get to the Israeli government believing they have a god given right to the west bank. Israel stole almost all of the palestinians land. I just cant believe palestinians would ever forget that, I know that I sure wouldnt.
ajross 3y ago
> All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? It remains a mess, but less of a mess? Look, it's all bad guys running the show in that hell hole of a desert. There are no trusted entities anywhere able to run a government that isn't somewhere between actively antagonistic and actively genocidal toward half the local population. Nonetheless a status quo with less shooting and death is better than a status quo with more. Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is, so... yeah, I guess. An occasional October 7th is a better choice than levelling Gaza is. Incrementally. But none of this is going to get better, likely within our lifetimes.
- aurelien_gasser 3y ago
  > Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is That's an understatement, Hamas killed less than 1,000 civilians, Israel killed 20,000+
  - ajross 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      I think you are reading mmuch more into that reply than is warranted. It’s simple fact more people have now died due to Israel’s actions. That doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be punished for it. The international community doesn’t really need to. If this is anything like the other 10 times Israel did one of their “Let’s provision some extra terrorists” exercises, they’ve already guaranteed that they’ll deal with two or three more decades of the palestinian population hating their guts.
    - aurelien_gasser 3y ago
      Not picking a side or trying to punish anyone, I'm just highlighting that the difference in the number of victims is quite significant. It would be quite a different situation if Israel had killed only sightly more Palestinian civilians than Hamas' did in their attack. Actually, I suspect that this ICJ order would not have occurred, and that there wouldn't be such widespread accusations of genocide.
Aeolun 3y ago
> All correct and yet, what should happen? Happy, fed, employed people do not become terrorists. They have too much to lose.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Too bad gaza has no land or economy to feed and employ themselves.
  - avmich 3y ago
    Doesn't mean they can't build it.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Building land is quite difficult. Building an economy is almost impossible when under a blockade, and Israel has no reason to end it.
      - avmich 3y ago
        Israel is the one who's going to build it. See, the approach is the following: eliminate Hamas, then start a sort of deprogramming the society, similar to what was happening in Germany, with local specifics of course. Such an approach will take years, but the goal is to have the same effects as in Germany. It's possible to provide food, water, services while keeping a close eye on the Gaza population and ensuring the idea of peaceful cohabitation is dominant. The economy will slowly - or even not so slowly - rebuild, and that's a part of the demonstration of possible and beneficial, from some positions, approach.
        Sabinus 3y ago
        The Israelis might not have the appetite to administer Gaza themselves. They would want an Arab state to take it but no one wants that headache and they prefer using the Palestinian issue to bash Israel. UN, maybe?
skybrian 3y ago
While I'm not a military expert, I think it would be reasonable to rule out the possibility of a similar massacre any time soon, for decades at least. It seems unlikely that Hamas would get away with it a second time? They put everything into a one-day surprise attack. The Israeli defense was caught unprepared despite being warned, but they have much more power and they can learn. What happens in the wider conflict (with other Iran-backed militias) is another question.
- avmich 3y ago
  Hamas doesn't get away from it this time already.
  - amluto 3y ago
    Hamas has quite a bit of leadership outside Gaza, and as far as I know, most of them are doing fine. They may even have more political capital than before the attacks. I’m not convinced they didn’t get away with it.
    - avmich 3y ago
      The plan right now could be to deny any remaining Hamas influence to anything in Gaza. Yes, some Hamas members may survive, even politically, outside, but they aren't going to affect anybody in Gaza.
- weatherlite 3y ago
  > While I'm not a military expert, I think it would be reasonable to rule out the possibility of a similar massacre any time soon I'm not sure its reasonable. No one in Israel is thinking that way at least, and for good reason imo. The motivation to kill is there, so you have to assume there's a lack of ability. OK maybe for a couple of years Hamas will have to regroup, but how much time does it take to get a couple thousands more guns and grenades and bombs when Iran is giving them for free? It doesn't have to be another attack of this magnitude, even killing "only" 100 Israelis would be a huge blow. You prevent this type of shit from happening again by being dead serious about countering terror, about deploying sufficient defense and not assuming too much about what the enemy can do because you might not have an accurate picture. Israel has been doing none of that in Gaza in the last decade or more.
peterashford 3y ago
People said Apartheid South Africa couldn't end without a bloodbath. People said peace in Northern Ireland was impossible. People thought the Cold War would never end. Impossible things are impossible until they aren't. I'm not saying that any of these things are easy - they clearly are not. But history shows us again and again that change is possible when people work towards it in good faith. From a practical point of view, I think that the international community needs to be allowed to help - both to maintain the peace and broker a way forward. The status quo will not reach peace. Israel will never have peace and security until Palestine has peace and security.
- irishloop 3y ago
  The Palestine/Israel conflict is significantly longer than any of the examples you gave. Which is not to say that its impossible. But the older I get, the less hope I have.
  - ajb 3y ago
    Ethic conflicts all end eventually. A historian: https://archive.is/zADeF https://archive.is/zADeF TLDR: the ways they end are: - partition - equal representation - one side driving out/murdering the other It does seem like a lot of people have given up on the first two, but if it's not one of those then it's the third one. So we have to work towards making it one of the first two.
    - peterashford 3y ago
      I think that's the head of the nail firmly hit. Succinct summary :o)
  - Thedarkb 3y ago
    The ethno-religious conflict in Northern Ireland dates back to the seventeenth century and the question of Irish sovereignty dates all the way back to the twelfth century!
  - pms 3y ago
imtringued 3y ago
You need an anti Hamas Palestinian force that credibly fights against Hamas and has the support of the Palestinians but it is too late for that now.

hypeit 3y ago

Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.

golergka 3y ago
[flagged]
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    Hamas controls Gaza, where Israel withdrew nearly 20 years ago. First thing Hamas did: destroy all the infrastructure set up by Israelis. Or maybe Hamas murdered the Fatah officials first. In any case, there was little Israeli left in all that time, and there's a border with a supposedly friendly neighbor, tons of money and expertise by the global community invested in that area, and they squandered it all in favor of raping and pillaging the hippie communities of the Israeli peace movement.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      There was also a near-complete blockade.
      - golergka 3y ago
        It was implemented as a response to indiscriminate rocket fire at civilians.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme. > like apartheid South Africa was dismantled South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)
- pphysch 3y ago
  Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1]. To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted. There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser. [1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot+Sayeret+Duchifat,+Jerusalem/ https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...
  - YZF 3y ago
    I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here. Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little). "often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).
jjcon 3y ago
[flagged]
- hypeit 3y ago
  It's not "hate speech" to call to the end of an apartheid government.
  - jjcon 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state is hate speech I’m generally pro-Israel, but I don’t agree with this at all. Israel is a theocracy, and an increasingly right-wing one at that. Arguing against even theocracies in principal would technically argue for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state; I would hardly call that hate speech.
      - jjcon 3y ago
        Huh? Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. It is more irreligious than USA/Canada and plenty of Europe: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irrelig...
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        There are at least 5 parties in the ruling coalition that have specific religious orthodoxy as primary parts of their platform. I agree that the traditional definition of theocracy is probably overkill when describing the Israeli government but specific religious beliefs drive politics there well out of proportion to the beliefs of the constituents. In a way that feels out of line with secular western democracy at times.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
lacker 3y ago
Isn't that exactly the view of reality that the Israeli right wing holds? They would agree that the choices are either dismantling the state of Israel, or eternal warfare. Since they don't want to dismantle the state of Israel, they elect for eternal warfare. It's funny how on some questions, the most extreme people on both sides agree on the answer. Hamas and the Israeli right wing both agree that the only viable solution is for one ethnic group to control all the land from the river to the sea.
- hypeit 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > They just want Palestinians to have full human rights on their land, from the river to the sea This is presumably a one-state solution? The problem here being the Jews would be a minority in this state. Which leads to existential concerns regarding their survival. That can’t be easily brushed aside. Particularly when members of Iran’s Axis sport “death to Israel, a curse upon Jews” [1]. (Hamas and the Houthis sharing a backer isn’t insignificant.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movemen...
  - YZF 3y ago
    I feel that's an extremely naive view. How many Jews live peacefully and enjoy human rights under Arab rule in the middle east? Zero. How many in Gaza under Hamas? Zero. How many live in the west bank in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Zero. So "Hamas" only wants Tel-Aviv "returned", Jersualem "returned", Haifa "returned", from the river to the sea, but somehow in that vision all the Jewish population lives peacefully and enjoys human rights that don't exist anywhere in the middle east?
    - 3y ago
w0mbat 3y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 3y ago
  So are there 6 million Stateside Puerto Ricans living in one of the 50 United States who have equal rights to other US citizens. Puerto Rico is still a colony of the United States. Mind you that the Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico have infinitely more rights then Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or occupied East Jerusalem.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  Well they are not not indigenous. But calling them "the indigenous" is not correct. DNA studies done by Israeli scientists on Palestinian subjects show that they descend from indigenous groups including Judea.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  Actually, if you believe that the bible is true, they killed the indigenous people there first More historically certain is that there was a stream of people living and moving through that area during waves of human immigration outside of Africa (look up the Sahara pump theory).
- int_19h 3y ago
  "Everybody else in the region" is mostly descendants of various Semitic peoples who lived in that area for just as long. Palestinians in particular seem to be related to Canaanites, which - if you take the Torah at face value - would actually make them the indigenous people that were a target of genocidal conquest by the original Jewish settlers in the area (although archeologists say that this was more likely intra-ethnic warfare between different groups, and the whole notion of Canaanites as distinct peoples was created to justify the conquest of neighbors).
collegeburner 3y ago
apartheid is a loaded term of opinion, not of fact. comparing israel to other true apartheid regimes, such as south africa, is hyperbolic. there exist discriminatory policies that ought to be reformed but i do not believe that word is appropriate. israel does, in fact, exist on some occupied land that she should return, including many west bank settlements. however, there is something to be said for keeping parts as a bargaining chip against those motivated largely by religious and nationalistic fervor mixed with some basic hatred. other parts of her land were obtained legitimately, going all the way back to the first aliyah after the kiev pogroms in which tens of thousands of jews were massacred. many immigrated legally, though the ottoman empire later threw up some barriers to immigration with hopes to limit their numbers. many were later moved legitimately under the authority of the british in mandatory palestine. legal immigrants are not necessarily "occupiers". there is also a period past which land becomes naturalized, just like most of the world has been taken and settled by force at some point or another. most of the people who are descendants of those ancient conquerors are just as indigenous as those who were there before. i'd venture to say much of israel, while it ought to be shared better, is populated with naturalized inhabitants.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  All metaphors are wrong, some metaphors are useful. The word "burn" applies to both first and third degree burns. Characteristics of apartheid can exist even if it is not at the severity experienced by black south Africans. The analogy here has utility, and racism towards Palestinians is unfortunately a huge problem in Israeli society.
  - collegeburner 3y ago
    "burn" is commonly applied to a range of conditions. "apartheid" is applied with exceptional rarity, and in common parlance, people associate it with the south african regime. in your analogy, this is equivalent to calling a first-degree burn third-degree
mrangle 3y ago
This is a good summary of Islamic radicalization propaganda that seeks to use Palestinian civilians as pawns, with no regard for them. It is this narrative that keeps the Palestinains in prison. The counterpoint is that you "must" face the reality that this is never going to happen, and that asserting that it will or should is equivalent to damning the Palestinians to the existence that they currently occupy. Greater Islam does not have an army that can stand against the West, let alone do the Palestinians. All that they have are manipulated terrorists whose actions always cause much more destruction on their side than the inverse. So I say again, the only realistic and humane view is to take your oppopsite position, recognize the immovable force, and actually attempt to save Palestinian lives via deradicalization and a relocation campaign.

locallost 3y ago

If I knew the answer to that question I would be a high ranked politician. But for me it's important to keep in mind what he is saying here and also in another part explicitly: a diplomatic solution is possible and history proves that. So what I can do is reject the notion that what is happening is unavoidable.

noqc 3y ago
How does history prove any such thing? That's neither how history or proof work. Most of the wars that have been resolved to everyone's benefit have done so by the unconditional surrender of the aggressors, followed by amicable reconstruction.
- shakow 3y ago
  > How does history prove any such thing? Because there are Jews living in Germany nowadays?
  - sgift 3y ago
    ... after Germany was bombed to the ground and occupied for years. Only after that came the diplomatic efforts.
    - shakow 3y ago
      > after Germany was bombed to the ground and occupied for years Well, looks like that box is checked for Gaza; can we jump to diplomacy now?
      - avmich 3y ago
        Box is not checked yet, otherwise IDF wouldn't have any resistance. We should try diplomacy all the time, but right now the offer of Israel is unconditional surrender or continuation of hostilities. Maybe - maybe - less atrocious to civilians than what it was during March 1945 in Germany. Diplomats will keep their work; of course everybody's abilities are limited.

anon84873628 3y ago

>All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? And then everyone who wants peace invests lots of money and expertise over a long time to build a modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society, despite whatever setbacks, attacks, and sabotage occur from within and without. The only way to have peace is to give people a better option than becoming terrorists.

pgeorgi 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwwar 3y ago
[flagged]
mderazon 3y ago
This is looking at the conflict from western eyes. Religious fundamentalists don't think like that
- nojvek 3y ago
  We could have said this about Germany and Japan after WWII. Every human no matter their race and religion cares about having food, water, safety, opportunity, live in a law abiding society where their rights are respected and they get “some” choice to vote for their future.
  - bitcurious 3y ago
    Germany and Japan were conquered and unconditionally surrendered, after massive civilian casualties. Nazis were tried and executed. If Israel is should model itself on those examples, it's doing the right and moral thing in waging war until Hamas is destroyed, or unconditionally surrenders.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Yes, that is exactly what Israel should do. The "dont let gazans interact with Israelis" strategy was icnredibly effective until Israel got soft on border security. Israel easily is capable of ensuring no Gazans ever escape again. The iron dome is largely succesful at keeping Israelis safe, certainly more so than a long term gazan invasion which would open up the Israelis in gaza to terrorist attacks.

mderazon 3y ago
I think you have a slight misconception about living under Iron Dome. It's not 100% effective and you still have to run to the nearest shelter. In some areas close to Gaza, you have less than 10 seconds to run to the shelter. So I wouldn't consider that "normal life" by any standards
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  There are no 100% effective solutions here. Ive spent a considerable amount of time in Israeli and realize living under the iron dome isnt ideal, but it is the best Israel can do. Long term occupation would lead to more Israeli deaths than a return to the pre october 7th status quo. The only other solution for israel is a legitimate genocide of all Palestinians, and I just dont see that happening in the next century.
  - smoothjazz 3y ago
    > The only other solution for israel is a legitimate genocide of all Palestinians, and I just dont see that happening in the next century. Or giving Palestinians full rights and reparations for the land they stole, that is a valid and quite frankly, the best option.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Israel will never give Palestinians full rights, theyre too scared of palestinian terrorism. And for good reason, there is every reason to believe that palestinians will never accept peace with israel. And thats before we even get to the Israeli government believing they have a god given right to the west bank. Israel stole almost all of the palestinians land. I just cant believe palestinians would ever forget that, I know that I sure wouldnt.

ajross 3y ago

> All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? It remains a mess, but less of a mess? Look, it's all bad guys running the show in that hell hole of a desert. There are no trusted entities anywhere able to run a government that isn't somewhere between actively antagonistic and actively genocidal toward half the local population. Nonetheless a status quo with less shooting and death is better than a status quo with more. Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is, so... yeah, I guess. An occasional October 7th is a better choice than levelling Gaza is. Incrementally. But none of this is going to get better, likely within our lifetimes.

aurelien_gasser 3y ago
> Hamas killed fewer people than Israel did/is That's an understatement, Hamas killed less than 1,000 civilians, Israel killed 20,000+
- ajross 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I think you are reading mmuch more into that reply than is warranted. It’s simple fact more people have now died due to Israel’s actions. That doesn’t mean they necessarily need to be punished for it. The international community doesn’t really need to. If this is anything like the other 10 times Israel did one of their “Let’s provision some extra terrorists” exercises, they’ve already guaranteed that they’ll deal with two or three more decades of the palestinian population hating their guts.
  - aurelien_gasser 3y ago
    Not picking a side or trying to punish anyone, I'm just highlighting that the difference in the number of victims is quite significant. It would be quite a different situation if Israel had killed only sightly more Palestinian civilians than Hamas' did in their attack. Actually, I suspect that this ICJ order would not have occurred, and that there wouldn't be such widespread accusations of genocide.

Aeolun 3y ago

> All correct and yet, what should happen? Happy, fed, employed people do not become terrorists. They have too much to lose.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Too bad gaza has no land or economy to feed and employ themselves.
- avmich 3y ago
  Doesn't mean they can't build it.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Building land is quite difficult. Building an economy is almost impossible when under a blockade, and Israel has no reason to end it.
    - avmich 3y ago
      Israel is the one who's going to build it. See, the approach is the following: eliminate Hamas, then start a sort of deprogramming the society, similar to what was happening in Germany, with local specifics of course. Such an approach will take years, but the goal is to have the same effects as in Germany. It's possible to provide food, water, services while keeping a close eye on the Gaza population and ensuring the idea of peaceful cohabitation is dominant. The economy will slowly - or even not so slowly - rebuild, and that's a part of the demonstration of possible and beneficial, from some positions, approach.
      - Sabinus 3y ago
        The Israelis might not have the appetite to administer Gaza themselves. They would want an Arab state to take it but no one wants that headache and they prefer using the Palestinian issue to bash Israel. UN, maybe?

skybrian 3y ago

While I'm not a military expert, I think it would be reasonable to rule out the possibility of a similar massacre any time soon, for decades at least. It seems unlikely that Hamas would get away with it a second time? They put everything into a one-day surprise attack. The Israeli defense was caught unprepared despite being warned, but they have much more power and they can learn. What happens in the wider conflict (with other Iran-backed militias) is another question.

avmich 3y ago
Hamas doesn't get away from it this time already.
- amluto 3y ago
  Hamas has quite a bit of leadership outside Gaza, and as far as I know, most of them are doing fine. They may even have more political capital than before the attacks. I’m not convinced they didn’t get away with it.
  - avmich 3y ago
    The plan right now could be to deny any remaining Hamas influence to anything in Gaza. Yes, some Hamas members may survive, even politically, outside, but they aren't going to affect anybody in Gaza.
weatherlite 3y ago
> While I'm not a military expert, I think it would be reasonable to rule out the possibility of a similar massacre any time soon I'm not sure its reasonable. No one in Israel is thinking that way at least, and for good reason imo. The motivation to kill is there, so you have to assume there's a lack of ability. OK maybe for a couple of years Hamas will have to regroup, but how much time does it take to get a couple thousands more guns and grenades and bombs when Iran is giving them for free? It doesn't have to be another attack of this magnitude, even killing "only" 100 Israelis would be a huge blow. You prevent this type of shit from happening again by being dead serious about countering terror, about deploying sufficient defense and not assuming too much about what the enemy can do because you might not have an accurate picture. Israel has been doing none of that in Gaza in the last decade or more.

peterashford 3y ago

People said Apartheid South Africa couldn't end without a bloodbath. People said peace in Northern Ireland was impossible. People thought the Cold War would never end. Impossible things are impossible until they aren't. I'm not saying that any of these things are easy - they clearly are not. But history shows us again and again that change is possible when people work towards it in good faith. From a practical point of view, I think that the international community needs to be allowed to help - both to maintain the peace and broker a way forward. The status quo will not reach peace. Israel will never have peace and security until Palestine has peace and security.

irishloop 3y ago
The Palestine/Israel conflict is significantly longer than any of the examples you gave. Which is not to say that its impossible. But the older I get, the less hope I have.
- ajb 3y ago
  Ethic conflicts all end eventually. A historian: https://archive.is/zADeF https://archive.is/zADeF TLDR: the ways they end are: - partition - equal representation - one side driving out/murdering the other It does seem like a lot of people have given up on the first two, but if it's not one of those then it's the third one. So we have to work towards making it one of the first two.
  - peterashford 3y ago
    I think that's the head of the nail firmly hit. Succinct summary :o)
- Thedarkb 3y ago
  The ethno-religious conflict in Northern Ireland dates back to the seventeenth century and the question of Irish sovereignty dates all the way back to the twelfth century!
- pms 3y ago

imtringued 3y ago

You need an anti Hamas Palestinian force that credibly fights against Hamas and has the support of the Palestinians but it is too late for that now.