3 ms·
That’s a lot less incendiary than your first example. As a simple point of fact, Israel is occupying territory whose inhabitants do not want them there and are
by acdha 3y ago
That’s a lot less incendiary than your first example. As a simple point of fact, Israel is occupying territory whose inhabitants do not want them there and are not given a right to vote. What term would you consider more accurate?
Your last point seems to be unawareness that the name given is Hamas’ official name for that operation. Using it in the quoted sentence seems very similar to, say, reporting that U.S forces attacked Houthi rebel positions in the sixth month of Operation Prosperity Guardian. Whether or not you like the term, it’s the official name and it’s reasonable to expect readers to be familiar with it.
- rendall 3y agoThe great thing about the pro-Palestinian position is that it's super easy to understand. Zionists settled land that wasn't theirs and stole it. Easy. Simple. Wrong. That it's wrong doesn't matter to most people. "Occupied land" has a specific, legal definition that in no way applies to Israel or Gaza, and probably does not apply to the West Bank. And, see, already I'm losing this discussion: with just a single misused word "occupation" you - perhaps unintentionally - sewed misinformation that needs to be unwound even assuming you have a good faith interest in doing that. Most anti Zionists are simply not interested. So, yes, words matter. If you repeat that Israel has "occupied" territory "illegally" long enough in the media, people like yourself will accept it as true without really understanding what it means. > That’s a lot less incendiary than your first example. I don't know what you're taking about. This is my first contribution to the thread.
- pydry 3y agoIt is true under international law though.
- candiodari 3y ago[flagged]
- selimthegrim 3y ago> We're talking about muslims here. EVERY SQUARE CM they inhabit is conquered land. Islam "was spread through the sword". Are you for real?
- rendall 3y agoEvery square cm is an exaggeration. Malaysia and Indonesia in my understanding accepted Islam largely through peaceful trading contacts. The Levant in particular, however, was conquered militarily and Arabized by a succession of Muslim conquests: Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) Ayyubid Dynasty (1174–1260) Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517) Ottoman Empire (1517–1918) Where there is overlap, they ruled different parts of the area. Personally, I think the idea of prior indigenous claim is counter productive, but since it has been introduced by Palestinians as a kind of volksgemeinschaft, blut und boden, Jews would have prior claim by that standard.
- selimthegrim 3y agoThere were local Palestinian magnates of sone authority in the 16th - 18th centuries CE
- selimthegrim 3y ago*some
- racional 3y agoI think the idea of prior indigenous claim is counter productive, but since it has been introduced by Palestinians as a kind of volksgemeinschaft, blut und boden, Jews would have prior claim by that standard. The folks who first brought up this "prior indigenous claim" business were the early Zionists of course. The pre-1897 inhabitants didn't have to "claim" any special rights because they were already there (give or take some forced migration within the Ottoman empire), and not trying to expand into any new territory they hadn't been occupying in living memory -- and so had nothing to justify or explain. Anyway it's all moot because the earliest known inhabitants in the region were not Jews in any recognizable sense, but predominantly the Canaanites and other bronze age cultures. Whose presence predates any traces of the Israelite culture by 2000+ years. And who were likely the primary genetic reservoir for both Palestinians and Jews as they are currently known, via significant mixtures with other groups from outside the region. The whole idea of attempting to adjudicate anything happening on the ground today on the basis of any of this history (or our current conception of it) is completely vacuous of course. As is this bizarre Blut und Boden reference that you're trying to asign to the Palestinians, of all people.
- acdha 3y agoYou saw that words matter, what term do you prefer? I asked for that but got three paragraphs of accusation of being “pro-Palestinian” and being told that I’m misusing a word but not what the correct term is. I suspect this is at least in part due to the conflation with the question illegality in your third paragraph: use of the term is well established but there’s considerable debate over whether it was ever legal or still is. Here, for example, note that use of the term occupied is established enough to be used in official UN documents: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/coiopt/2022-10-19/Report-COI-OPT-14Sept2022-EN.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies... Similarly, the ICRC uses presence rather than trying to make complex judgements about the relative merits: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc....
- selimthegrim 3y agoYou know, we had an interesting discussion about Land Day a while back when you were accusing me of being an Islamist. I am saddened to see this regression on the issue of occupation/“pending final status determination”
- rendall 3y agoI'm not really reading an actionable critique there.