3 ms·

> A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. You mention a list of reasons, but you f

> A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel. Just want an accurate depiction of the real reasons, so people are also able to kind of understand (tho not necessarily condone) the Palestinian response. I have a lot of Israeli coworkers who I like working with, and would never wish them harm. Instead of taking sides, I really wish people understood how we got here, and what we can do to go forward from here. I think a fair path forward would be for both the west and Israel to pay massive reparations of some kind to Palestine, and just slightly re-visit the current drawing of the Israel/Palestine borders. Chances of this happening are slim tho, with western media portraying Palestinians as mindless Hamas terrorists.

weatherlite 2y ago
> You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel Right, so because 700k Palestinians were displaced 75 years ago (due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations) the just thing to do is to violently displace 7 million Jews now (?). Sounds simplistic maybe but what I described is the 'solution' Hamas says it wants and there's a huge support for this among Palestinians and Muslims in general. I wonder if all other nations who had a history of displacement are going to follow suit and voluntarily dismantle themselves to try to create justice for events whose participators are mostly not alive anymore.
- runarberg 2y ago
  > due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations I’m not super well versed in the specifics of this history, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t these things happen during and after the Nakba? Reading the timeline of Wikipedia it seems as though expulsion had already started and was well on it way before the Arab League’s armies entered Palestine in May 1948. Likewise reading about the history of Jewish people in Iraq[1] it seems that the persecution was very much a reaction to Zionist conduct in Palestine. As in most of the anti-jewish laws were passed between July and December 1948, which is several months to over a year into the Nakba. These actions were certainly unjust and should be condemned, but to me it seems wildly ahistorical to blame the Nakba on them. Plan Dalet started in April 1948 before the Arab league invasion, and certainly before anti-jewish laws in Iraq. And Plan Dalet was not the first instance of ethnic cleansing by Zionsits in Palestine, but rather followed several months of escalations which included depopulating villages as early as November 1947. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Modern_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Mo... EDIT: I also feel like it needs stated how weird of a justification that is. The Palestinians who were displaced during the Nakba had nothing to do with the Arab invasion and certainly not the discriminatory anti-jewish legislation in neighboring country. These refugees and their descendants are still to this day refugees now three to four generations later. It seems odd to continue to punish them with Apartheid and genocide to this day because of actions they had nothing to do with. Most other groups who have suffered similar and much smaller injustice have gotten apologies and even reparations for (a noticeable example are Japanese Americans after E.O. 9066). Palestinians however still get blamed for crimes they had nothing to do with, except having been victims.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    I didn't say the displacement of Palestinians was because Jews were displaced from the Arab world. What I am saying is if we're going to try to bring "justice" to things long past the plight of Jews in the Arab world should definitely be mentioned. I do think the Arab conduct before the invasion and the war mongering statements made by the Arab League threatening invasion and genocide planted the idea that this is a fight to the death (which I think it was) in the hearts of the Jews. The Farhud massacre happened in 1941. I don't know if you can blame the whole thing on Zionism, I don't think most Iraqi Jews were Zionist at all - so looks more like Anti Semitism to me. You can say Zionism created the general hatred of Jews among Muslims, even Jews who weren't much into Zionism at all like Iraqi Jews back then. But even if that is the case, that's not really excusing anything. I also suspect for the population to turn against Jews so quickly there must have been seeds of hatred already planted long before, maybe due to culture and religion. Anyway It's quite complex and not something you can summarize in 3 sentences.
  - thisiszilff 2y ago
    Tbh starting the history doesn't at 1948 doesn't really help much. Around 1948 is when the Jewish and Palestinian narratives are already in full swing and have some of the strongest evidence for each side. On the Jewish side you'd have their invasion by the broader Arab world and their subsequent mentality that they have to defend themselves at all costs. On the Palestinian side you have the Nakba and the resulting trauma that forms their identity. If you go back earlier you start to see the roots of the conflict more clearly. From Russian Jews being expelled out of Russia and looking towards the Ottoman empire and historic Judea as a place from their home, Ottoman policies around 1900s when they are hyper paranoid about quashing nationalism in their multi-ethnic empire and how that plays into their treatment of Jews they allow to immigrate into their lands, then the British control over Ottoman lands and how they tried to administer to it and designated Judea as a vague "Jewish National Home" which gave neither Jews nor Arabs clarity on the political reality of the region. Then there was the early immigration of Jews to Israel in the 1910s and 1920s which meets some Arab resistance and sparks violence, but the migration stops in the mid 1920s, so tensions cool a bit. Then in the 1930s the Nazis rise to power and immigration of Jews to Palestine _really_ starts. At this point the US has imposed strict quotas on Jews immigrating to the US (in around 1924), so for many Jews Palestine isn't their first choice, but it is a choice for them and the British seem serious about this "Jewish National Home" thing, so they go for it. Then comes the great Arab revolt in 1936 where Arabs in Palestine respond to the large influx of Jewish migrants, demand independence from Britain, and seek to end the Jewish National Home project. Somewhere around the early 1940s WW2 is in swing and the Nazis invade Egypt and establish a SS unit there whose purpose is the genocide the Jews in Palestine. This was a pretty close call, if it wasn't for a British victory in Egypt that held the Nazi's back, odds are the Middle East would look very different today. And that brings us to 1948 when the British withdraw and the stage is set for the resulting chaos. So there you have it. On one side a population struggling to determine their national identity after the fall of a 600 year old empire and dealing with a large influx of immigrants that they don't want to their lands (and also still struggling to figure out what "their" means). On the other hand you have a group of people trying to flee their home country and having no option but this weird "Jewish National Home" that totally isn't a state according to the British despite it being maybe possible a state for Jews? Then in the middle of a clearly bad situation, Britain withdraws and the Jews and Palestinians have been dealing with the situation sense. None of this is to say that one side is right or wrong. Rather, if you look around 1948 you're already missing a lot of the buildup to the conflict and the reason there is no trust between the two groups in 1948.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- catlover76 2y ago
  [dead]
yterdy 2y ago
We should also mention why the chances are slim. There are several components to this, with regard to the West's role in the matter: the role of the military-industrial complex, the ramifications for further reparations to other groups, and the ramifications for elections in the US. Point-by-point, very briefly: 1) Israel is an important intelligence ally, military foothold in the region, and both source and buyer of military research and applications. Anything that disrupts this arrangement risks hundreds of billions of dollars and the perceived national security interests of multiple countries. 2) Reparations to Palestinians would not only be extremely expensive, it would also raise questions of potential reparations to other victims of Western imperialism and apartheid, including to Native Americans, Native Austronesians, and much of the African continent and diaspora. 3) Securing the existence of Israel as an ethnostate drives political support from Western Zionists and Evangelical Christians. Even a change to a more stable, secular, multi-ethnic Israel would see not only the revocation of support but also active retaliation that, at best, would get your a chapter in a Profiles in Courage reboot.
- jhallenworld 2y ago
  3 is my desire, but sadly you are right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

weatherlite 2y ago

> You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel Right, so because 700k Palestinians were displaced 75 years ago (due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations) the just thing to do is to violently displace 7 million Jews now (?). Sounds simplistic maybe but what I described is the 'solution' Hamas says it wants and there's a huge support for this among Palestinians and Muslims in general. I wonder if all other nations who had a history of displacement are going to follow suit and voluntarily dismantle themselves to try to create justice for events whose participators are mostly not alive anymore.

runarberg 2y ago
> due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations I’m not super well versed in the specifics of this history, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t these things happen during and after the Nakba? Reading the timeline of Wikipedia it seems as though expulsion had already started and was well on it way before the Arab League’s armies entered Palestine in May 1948. Likewise reading about the history of Jewish people in Iraq[1] it seems that the persecution was very much a reaction to Zionist conduct in Palestine. As in most of the anti-jewish laws were passed between July and December 1948, which is several months to over a year into the Nakba. These actions were certainly unjust and should be condemned, but to me it seems wildly ahistorical to blame the Nakba on them. Plan Dalet started in April 1948 before the Arab league invasion, and certainly before anti-jewish laws in Iraq. And Plan Dalet was not the first instance of ethnic cleansing by Zionsits in Palestine, but rather followed several months of escalations which included depopulating villages as early as November 1947. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Modern_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Mo... EDIT: I also feel like it needs stated how weird of a justification that is. The Palestinians who were displaced during the Nakba had nothing to do with the Arab invasion and certainly not the discriminatory anti-jewish legislation in neighboring country. These refugees and their descendants are still to this day refugees now three to four generations later. It seems odd to continue to punish them with Apartheid and genocide to this day because of actions they had nothing to do with. Most other groups who have suffered similar and much smaller injustice have gotten apologies and even reparations for (a noticeable example are Japanese Americans after E.O. 9066). Palestinians however still get blamed for crimes they had nothing to do with, except having been victims.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  I didn't say the displacement of Palestinians was because Jews were displaced from the Arab world. What I am saying is if we're going to try to bring "justice" to things long past the plight of Jews in the Arab world should definitely be mentioned. I do think the Arab conduct before the invasion and the war mongering statements made by the Arab League threatening invasion and genocide planted the idea that this is a fight to the death (which I think it was) in the hearts of the Jews. The Farhud massacre happened in 1941. I don't know if you can blame the whole thing on Zionism, I don't think most Iraqi Jews were Zionist at all - so looks more like Anti Semitism to me. You can say Zionism created the general hatred of Jews among Muslims, even Jews who weren't much into Zionism at all like Iraqi Jews back then. But even if that is the case, that's not really excusing anything. I also suspect for the population to turn against Jews so quickly there must have been seeds of hatred already planted long before, maybe due to culture and religion. Anyway It's quite complex and not something you can summarize in 3 sentences.
- thisiszilff 2y ago
  Tbh starting the history doesn't at 1948 doesn't really help much. Around 1948 is when the Jewish and Palestinian narratives are already in full swing and have some of the strongest evidence for each side. On the Jewish side you'd have their invasion by the broader Arab world and their subsequent mentality that they have to defend themselves at all costs. On the Palestinian side you have the Nakba and the resulting trauma that forms their identity. If you go back earlier you start to see the roots of the conflict more clearly. From Russian Jews being expelled out of Russia and looking towards the Ottoman empire and historic Judea as a place from their home, Ottoman policies around 1900s when they are hyper paranoid about quashing nationalism in their multi-ethnic empire and how that plays into their treatment of Jews they allow to immigrate into their lands, then the British control over Ottoman lands and how they tried to administer to it and designated Judea as a vague "Jewish National Home" which gave neither Jews nor Arabs clarity on the political reality of the region. Then there was the early immigration of Jews to Israel in the 1910s and 1920s which meets some Arab resistance and sparks violence, but the migration stops in the mid 1920s, so tensions cool a bit. Then in the 1930s the Nazis rise to power and immigration of Jews to Palestine _really_ starts. At this point the US has imposed strict quotas on Jews immigrating to the US (in around 1924), so for many Jews Palestine isn't their first choice, but it is a choice for them and the British seem serious about this "Jewish National Home" thing, so they go for it. Then comes the great Arab revolt in 1936 where Arabs in Palestine respond to the large influx of Jewish migrants, demand independence from Britain, and seek to end the Jewish National Home project. Somewhere around the early 1940s WW2 is in swing and the Nazis invade Egypt and establish a SS unit there whose purpose is the genocide the Jews in Palestine. This was a pretty close call, if it wasn't for a British victory in Egypt that held the Nazi's back, odds are the Middle East would look very different today. And that brings us to 1948 when the British withdraw and the stage is set for the resulting chaos. So there you have it. On one side a population struggling to determine their national identity after the fall of a 600 year old empire and dealing with a large influx of immigrants that they don't want to their lands (and also still struggling to figure out what "their" means). On the other hand you have a group of people trying to flee their home country and having no option but this weird "Jewish National Home" that totally isn't a state according to the British despite it being maybe possible a state for Jews? Then in the middle of a clearly bad situation, Britain withdraws and the Jews and Palestinians have been dealing with the situation sense. None of this is to say that one side is right or wrong. Rather, if you look around 1948 you're already missing a lot of the buildup to the conflict and the reason there is no trust between the two groups in 1948.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
catlover76 2y ago
[dead]

yterdy 2y ago

We should also mention why the chances are slim. There are several components to this, with regard to the West's role in the matter: the role of the military-industrial complex, the ramifications for further reparations to other groups, and the ramifications for elections in the US. Point-by-point, very briefly: 1) Israel is an important intelligence ally, military foothold in the region, and both source and buyer of military research and applications. Anything that disrupts this arrangement risks hundreds of billions of dollars and the perceived national security interests of multiple countries. 2) Reparations to Palestinians would not only be extremely expensive, it would also raise questions of potential reparations to other victims of Western imperialism and apartheid, including to Native Americans, Native Austronesians, and much of the African continent and diaspora. 3) Securing the existence of Israel as an ethnostate drives political support from Western Zionists and Evangelical Christians. Even a change to a more stable, secular, multi-ethnic Israel would see not only the revocation of support but also active retaliation that, at best, would get your a chapter in a Profiles in Courage reboot.

jhallenworld 2y ago
3 is my desire, but sadly you are right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin