3 ms·

It's not technically occupied. Israel just controls their border with Gaza. And their coastline. And their airspace, also bombed their airport. Oh and the borde

It's not technically occupied. Israel just controls their border with Gaza. And their coastline. And their airspace, also bombed their airport. Oh and the border to Egypt as nobody can visit Gaza without Israels approval. Israels continued denial of a Palestinian state and the basic rights of statehood, like the control of their own borders, is what makes it an occupation. Netanyahu has supported Hamas long before 2005 as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The elections were pushed by Bush at a time when PA were seen as corrupt. When they lost Bush tried to get them to coup and Hamas took over and kicked them out as a reaction to that. >In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin" Should tell is everything we need to know about the people in power now. Maybe the Palestinians were not happy with the deal, them losing their land. Not to forget previous atrocities perpetrated by Jewish terrorists and the nakba.

saintkaye 2y ago
Israel does not control the Egypt border and almost all of this is opinion through implication not fact. This type of post does not belong on this message board.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing > Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
  - YZF 2y ago
    This is Egypt's choice. Egypt has the control. If they choose to let Israel have a say it's their choice. Their making an agreement with Israel != Israel controls the border. Plenty of tunnels too but that's besides the point.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      Are you even able to criticise Israel for anything?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Maintain civility.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > This is Egypt's choice. Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.
YZF 2y ago
[flagged]
- throw310822 2y ago
  I know it's pointless bickering but... > The Nakba was an outcome of Arabs deciding to attack Israel in 1948, they wanted to wipe it off the map, and they lost. They rejected the partition plan. The "partition plan" was a plan to give part of Palestine to Israel. It's pretty natural that one side refused and the other accepted- the action is the same but the outcome is the opposite for the two parties. Trying to spin it like "they both got the same generous offer" is propaganda. But even more important is that the partition plan assigned to a "Jewish state" a territory whose population was 45% Palestinian. This means that either a) they thought it was possible to create a Jewish democratic state with a 45% of the population non-Jewish, or b) the plan was to enforce apartheid from the beginning, or c) the plan was ethnic cleansing from the beginning. And- lo and behold- ethnic cleansing is exactly what happened one minute after the creation of Israel. How convenient that it was the Palestinian's fault.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    The problem trying to tie everything back to the Nakba is that the same thing happened in reverse in all the other MENA countries: they ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations in response, which emigrated wholesale to Israel.
    - rusk 2y ago
      This is the only reasonable point in support of Israel’s actions though it does not justify them
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I'm not supporting Israel's actions. I think Israel is justified in killing every Hamas member it can get a bead on, but not in inflicting mass civilian casualties on a population that is supermajority too young even to have voted for Hamas in the first place, at least not without extraordinarily clear military proportionality claims (arguably present early on, now clearly absent). But this "Nakba" stuff appears invariably to be coded appeals to a "one-state solution". Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the world's best trained military and a strong economy that, contrary to activist opinion, stands on its own two feet. There is only one outcome in a "one-state solution" and it's not the one you (or I) want. It's worth pushing back on existential arguments against Israel as it's currently construed. "Mass murder of Israeli civilians is unprovoked because Nakba" is one of those. The correct response is "no, things are much more complicated than that."

saintkaye 2y ago

Israel does not control the Egypt border and almost all of this is opinion through implication not fact. This type of post does not belong on this message board.

ceejayoz 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing > Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
- YZF 2y ago
  This is Egypt's choice. Egypt has the control. If they choose to let Israel have a say it's their choice. Their making an agreement with Israel != Israel controls the border. Plenty of tunnels too but that's besides the point.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Are you even able to criticise Israel for anything?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Maintain civility.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > This is Egypt's choice. Doubly untrue today; Israel took complete control of it on May 6.

YZF 2y ago

[flagged]

throw310822 2y ago
I know it's pointless bickering but... > The Nakba was an outcome of Arabs deciding to attack Israel in 1948, they wanted to wipe it off the map, and they lost. They rejected the partition plan. The "partition plan" was a plan to give part of Palestine to Israel. It's pretty natural that one side refused and the other accepted- the action is the same but the outcome is the opposite for the two parties. Trying to spin it like "they both got the same generous offer" is propaganda. But even more important is that the partition plan assigned to a "Jewish state" a territory whose population was 45% Palestinian. This means that either a) they thought it was possible to create a Jewish democratic state with a 45% of the population non-Jewish, or b) the plan was to enforce apartheid from the beginning, or c) the plan was ethnic cleansing from the beginning. And- lo and behold- ethnic cleansing is exactly what happened one minute after the creation of Israel. How convenient that it was the Palestinian's fault.
- tptacek 2y ago
  The problem trying to tie everything back to the Nakba is that the same thing happened in reverse in all the other MENA countries: they ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations in response, which emigrated wholesale to Israel.
  - rusk 2y ago
    This is the only reasonable point in support of Israel’s actions though it does not justify them
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I'm not supporting Israel's actions. I think Israel is justified in killing every Hamas member it can get a bead on, but not in inflicting mass civilian casualties on a population that is supermajority too young even to have voted for Hamas in the first place, at least not without extraordinarily clear military proportionality claims (arguably present early on, now clearly absent). But this "Nakba" stuff appears invariably to be coded appeals to a "one-state solution". Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the world's best trained military and a strong economy that, contrary to activist opinion, stands on its own two feet. There is only one outcome in a "one-state solution" and it's not the one you (or I) want. It's worth pushing back on existential arguments against Israel as it's currently construed. "Mass murder of Israeli civilians is unprovoked because Nakba" is one of those. The correct response is "no, things are much more complicated than that."