5 ms·

Was it clear? Did we always ignore it? Not convinced at all. All was and is not well in Palestine, but one thing I know, it ain't cut-and-dry, and Israel goi

Was it clear? Did we always ignore it? Not convinced at all. All was and is not well in Palestine, but one thing I know, it ain't cut-and-dry, and Israel going all Hamas on Palestine doesn't make it so either.

throw310822 1y ago
Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civilian population there, ethnically cleansing the natives, enforcing apartheid against those who remain, using its soldiers to protect its citizens when they engage in pogroms against the natives, periodically bombing them, stealing their water, destroying their crops- all while enjoying full diplomatic and military support from the West. Those who resist are deemed "terrorists", condemned and vilified, and are "eliminated", together with any civilians, women and children who happen to be in the way. This has been going on for decades while the Western media ignores most of it, reporting acts of resistance and terrorism from the oppressed side as if they were motivated by ideological hatred, and in general depicting the situation as "complicated"- a position you're now repeating without a second thought.
- pegasus 1y ago
  That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.
  - netsharc 1y ago
    You write as if you really really don't want to see that side of the story.
    - pegasus 1y ago
      ...because it's always the ones who only look onto one side of the story who conclude things are not cut and dry.
    - tdeck 1y ago
      What's more interesting to me is that folks who support Israel often act as though their audience hasn't heard all these arguments before, and have't been passively absorbing pro-Israel propaganda for most of their lives. At least for those of us in the US, almost all we heard growing up about Israel was couched in sympathetic and positive terms. It's not as though there's a lack of Zionist perspective in a country where all the recent heads of state and political party leaders have been ideological Zionists.
      - cmilton 1y ago
        How can we ever have a good faith argument if you believe anyone that says something supportive of Israel has been indoctrinated to do so "most of their lives"?
        throwawaybob420 1y ago
        A good faith argument? Brother who is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
        cmilton 1y ago
        If you would kindly provide your definition of genocide, I will happily engage.
        netsharc 1y ago
        Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night. Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal. Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?
        cmilton 1y ago
        This is going to be difficult if we just assume my positions before allowing me the opportunity. What would be an acceptable number to you?
  - throw310822 1y ago
    "That one side of the story" are the facts on the ground. - One side is occupying the other's lands, not the other way around. - One side has killed most people, not the other way around. - One side has illegally annexed the other's territory, not the other way around. - One side enforces apartheid, not the other way around. - One side regularly destroys the other's villages, not the other way around. - One side steals water, destroys greenhouses and olive groves, imposes blockades- not the other way around. - One side is rich, organised, well armed, and has the full support of the West, not the other way around.
    - throwaway_fjmr 1y ago
      [dead]
    - pegasus 1y ago
      There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the other has refused it. Or that one side is much more democratic than the other. That one side has been openly and proudly promoting exterminating the other side wholesale for much longer, and much more vocally than the other side. You could use an LLM to come up with more examples, then verify accuracy yourself. But then what would be left of your comfortable illusions of clarity?
      - tdeck 1y ago
        > Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...
pluto_modadic 1y ago
given that Israel expanded their borders repeatedly, poisoned village wells, and considers the genocidal periods of the Nakba (their "independence holiday") something that's illegal to mourn... yes. yes it was always clear. the playbook has been the same since 1948.
- BigJ1211 1y ago
  If that's your criteria this is equally true on the other side of this conflict. Even predating the Jewish exodus from many Arabic nations. The primary difference between them is that the side which openly shouts for genocide doesn't have the means that the side that at least doesn't openly shout for genocide has. (By openly I mean the majority of the people, not select extreme individuals. Some of whom are in positions of power.) I'm not going the route that it's okay to want to genocide a peoples because of things that were done to them by another group of people. Because if that's your way of viewing this conflict, then Israel has more than enough to point at to 'justify' their genocide. And I'm not going to excuse calls for genocide with "well, they don't have the power to, so who cares". Because all these routes lead straight to hell. You can't even begin to resolve the conflicts between these peoples. This conflict isn't nearly as cut-and-dry as say Russia-Ukraine, and it benefits no one to pretend it is. Ukraine never invaded Russia, nor did it commit any terrorism against them. This isn't the case between Israel and the Palestinians. Between 1968-2023 over 3500 acts of terrorism were committed by the Palestinians against Israel. Of which the vast majority (Between 70-78% depending on if you count purely civilian targets), targeted civilians. You can argue for a long time which side committed the most heinous acts, but neither side is anywhere close to "clean".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
bjoli 1y ago
On October 9, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: “We are imposing a complete siege on [Gaza]. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we must act accordingly.” If that was not clear, Netanyahu said "remember what amalek did to you". If you know anything of what was done to the amalekites, you know this is a genocidal statement. The statements of ministers in netanyahus cabinet and generals showed very well the intent going into this conflict. They are still adhering to it.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  That was shortly after the Oct 7 massacres, and the total blockade was lifted shortly after. "Remember what amalek did to you" is about remembering evil. The same statement appears at Yad Vashem, for example, yet no one has accused the Holocaust museum of calling for a genocide of the German people.
  - bjoli 1y ago
    Except for under the ceasefire there has been no point in the conflict where enough supplies and food has gotten in. There is an acronym, SWEAT-MSO, Sewage, Water, electricity, academics, trash, medical, safety and other. It is a framework to assess the needs of the civilian population to, among other things, avoid having them join a resistance. Israel has bombed all those things. Your statement of Amalek is disingenuous. Netanyahu would not say anything that does not have plausible deniability. I think it is important to look at how his words were interpreted. Shortly afterwards there were at least two clips (one of which was use by south Africa in their ICJ deposition ) of Israeli soldiers (lots of them!) going to Gaza singing about destroying the seed of Amalek and "there are no uninvolved civilians". The thing about genocidal statements is that most people committing genocide are not at outspoken av Gallant and Ben-Gvir.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Occam’s razor suggests that he probably just meant what he said: that Israelis should remember the atrocities committed by Hamas and other attackers. There was nothing in Netanyahu’s speech, or even the Torah’s passages about Amalek, about “no uninvolved civilians”, so it seems like a stretch to say that Netanyahu deliberately conveyed that message as a subtext. You say the chants occurred “shortly afterwards”, but wasn’t that in December? Whereas the speech you’re drawing a connection to was in October. If we’re going to accuse people of the most heinous crimes, we should have much more solid evidence.
beAbU 1y ago
"free palestine" has been a refrain in my country at least the last 20 years as far as I remember. I guess this has been less obvious for those living or growing up in a country that closely allied to israel.
stanfordkid 1y ago
Umm... it absolutely was cut and dry. 75 years ago a set of westerners came and occupied another country through massive, brutal and widespread violence all under the approval of western govt's that themselves felt massive guilt about the holocaust. The Israeli gov't pretended to give Palestinians rights all while calculatedly trying to suppress any legitimate form of gov't (read about Israels massive support of Hamas starting in the 80s because they believed they would have a tougher "negotiating position" against extremists... guess that backfired. They enforced apartheid, blockades, mass surveillance etc. naturally that resulted in resistance. Is resistance justified? Who cares. Is it a natural consequence of material conditions? Absolutely. I have a friend who would say anytime someone brings up that "it's a complex issue": "They should just stop stealing peoples houses dude". This pretty much sums it up. Maybe if they stopped that a few decades ago this wouldn't have happened.

throw310822 1y ago

Yes, it's perfectly clear and always was. One country is illegally occupying territories outside its borders, illegally annexing them, transferring their civilian population there, ethnically cleansing the natives, enforcing apartheid against those who remain, using its soldiers to protect its citizens when they engage in pogroms against the natives, periodically bombing them, stealing their water, destroying their crops- all while enjoying full diplomatic and military support from the West. Those who resist are deemed "terrorists", condemned and vilified, and are "eliminated", together with any civilians, women and children who happen to be in the way. This has been going on for decades while the Western media ignores most of it, reporting acts of resistance and terrorism from the oppressed side as if they were motivated by ideological hatred, and in general depicting the situation as "complicated"- a position you're now repeating without a second thought.

pegasus 1y ago
That's because you choose to look to only that one side of the story. Keeps things nice and tidy, it's true.
- netsharc 1y ago
  You write as if you really really don't want to see that side of the story.
  - pegasus 1y ago
    ...because it's always the ones who only look onto one side of the story who conclude things are not cut and dry.
  - tdeck 1y ago
    What's more interesting to me is that folks who support Israel often act as though their audience hasn't heard all these arguments before, and have't been passively absorbing pro-Israel propaganda for most of their lives. At least for those of us in the US, almost all we heard growing up about Israel was couched in sympathetic and positive terms. It's not as though there's a lack of Zionist perspective in a country where all the recent heads of state and political party leaders have been ideological Zionists.
    - cmilton 1y ago
      How can we ever have a good faith argument if you believe anyone that says something supportive of Israel has been indoctrinated to do so "most of their lives"?
      - throwawaybob420 1y ago
        A good faith argument? Brother who is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
        cmilton 1y ago
        If you would kindly provide your definition of genocide, I will happily engage.
        netsharc 1y ago
        Ah, diverting the argument whether killing innocents (hundreds of thousands and counting) is fine or not to an argument about what a word means... whatever helps you sleep at night. Next you can argue that this number is wrong, and since you believe the number is lower, then... it's not a big deal. Ironically, who introduced the phrase "good faith argument" in this yelling-at-each-other?
        cmilton 1y ago
        This is going to be difficult if we just assume my positions before allowing me the opportunity. What would be an acceptable number to you?
- throw310822 1y ago
  "That one side of the story" are the facts on the ground. - One side is occupying the other's lands, not the other way around. - One side has killed most people, not the other way around. - One side has illegally annexed the other's territory, not the other way around. - One side enforces apartheid, not the other way around. - One side regularly destroys the other's villages, not the other way around. - One side steals water, destroys greenhouses and olive groves, imposes blockades- not the other way around. - One side is rich, organised, well armed, and has the full support of the West, not the other way around.
  - throwaway_fjmr 1y ago
    [dead]
  - pegasus 1y ago
    There are other facts on the ground which go the other way, you just choose to ignore them. Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, the other has refused it. Or that one side is much more democratic than the other. That one side has been openly and proudly promoting exterminating the other side wholesale for much longer, and much more vocally than the other side. You could use an LLM to come up with more examples, then verify accuracy yourself. But then what would be left of your comfortable illusions of clarity?
    - tdeck 1y ago
      > Like the fact that one side has offered a two-state solution, True. Hamas has offered this since 2017 [1] but Israel has never honestly offered it. And it's practically impossible anyway at this point with all the illegal (under international law) settlements in the west bank, supported by the IDF. Something you wouldn't do if you were trying to move toward a "two state solution", but something you would do if that was just talk intended to delay any implementation of Palestinian human rights in Israeli occupied territory while finalizing a drawn out campaign of ethnic cleansing as fast as you think the US will allow. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...

pluto_modadic 1y ago

given that Israel expanded their borders repeatedly, poisoned village wells, and considers the genocidal periods of the Nakba (their "independence holiday") something that's illegal to mourn... yes. yes it was always clear. the playbook has been the same since 1948.

BigJ1211 1y ago
If that's your criteria this is equally true on the other side of this conflict. Even predating the Jewish exodus from many Arabic nations. The primary difference between them is that the side which openly shouts for genocide doesn't have the means that the side that at least doesn't openly shout for genocide has. (By openly I mean the majority of the people, not select extreme individuals. Some of whom are in positions of power.) I'm not going the route that it's okay to want to genocide a peoples because of things that were done to them by another group of people. Because if that's your way of viewing this conflict, then Israel has more than enough to point at to 'justify' their genocide. And I'm not going to excuse calls for genocide with "well, they don't have the power to, so who cares". Because all these routes lead straight to hell. You can't even begin to resolve the conflicts between these peoples. This conflict isn't nearly as cut-and-dry as say Russia-Ukraine, and it benefits no one to pretend it is. Ukraine never invaded Russia, nor did it commit any terrorism against them. This isn't the case between Israel and the Palestinians. Between 1968-2023 over 3500 acts of terrorism were committed by the Palestinians against Israel. Of which the vast majority (Between 70-78% depending on if you count purely civilian targets), targeted civilians. You can argue for a long time which side committed the most heinous acts, but neither side is anywhere close to "clean".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

bjoli 1y ago

On October 9, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said: “We are imposing a complete siege on [Gaza]. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we must act accordingly.” If that was not clear, Netanyahu said "remember what amalek did to you". If you know anything of what was done to the amalekites, you know this is a genocidal statement. The statements of ministers in netanyahus cabinet and generals showed very well the intent going into this conflict. They are still adhering to it.

dlubarov 1y ago
That was shortly after the Oct 7 massacres, and the total blockade was lifted shortly after. "Remember what amalek did to you" is about remembering evil. The same statement appears at Yad Vashem, for example, yet no one has accused the Holocaust museum of calling for a genocide of the German people.
- bjoli 1y ago
  Except for under the ceasefire there has been no point in the conflict where enough supplies and food has gotten in. There is an acronym, SWEAT-MSO, Sewage, Water, electricity, academics, trash, medical, safety and other. It is a framework to assess the needs of the civilian population to, among other things, avoid having them join a resistance. Israel has bombed all those things. Your statement of Amalek is disingenuous. Netanyahu would not say anything that does not have plausible deniability. I think it is important to look at how his words were interpreted. Shortly afterwards there were at least two clips (one of which was use by south Africa in their ICJ deposition ) of Israeli soldiers (lots of them!) going to Gaza singing about destroying the seed of Amalek and "there are no uninvolved civilians". The thing about genocidal statements is that most people committing genocide are not at outspoken av Gallant and Ben-Gvir.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    Occam’s razor suggests that he probably just meant what he said: that Israelis should remember the atrocities committed by Hamas and other attackers. There was nothing in Netanyahu’s speech, or even the Torah’s passages about Amalek, about “no uninvolved civilians”, so it seems like a stretch to say that Netanyahu deliberately conveyed that message as a subtext. You say the chants occurred “shortly afterwards”, but wasn’t that in December? Whereas the speech you’re drawing a connection to was in October. If we’re going to accuse people of the most heinous crimes, we should have much more solid evidence.

beAbU 1y ago

"free palestine" has been a refrain in my country at least the last 20 years as far as I remember. I guess this has been less obvious for those living or growing up in a country that closely allied to israel.

stanfordkid 1y ago

Umm... it absolutely was cut and dry. 75 years ago a set of westerners came and occupied another country through massive, brutal and widespread violence all under the approval of western govt's that themselves felt massive guilt about the holocaust. The Israeli gov't pretended to give Palestinians rights all while calculatedly trying to suppress any legitimate form of gov't (read about Israels massive support of Hamas starting in the 80s because they believed they would have a tougher "negotiating position" against extremists... guess that backfired. They enforced apartheid, blockades, mass surveillance etc. naturally that resulted in resistance. Is resistance justified? Who cares. Is it a natural consequence of material conditions? Absolutely. I have a friend who would say anytime someone brings up that "it's a complex issue": "They should just stop stealing peoples houses dude". This pretty much sums it up. Maybe if they stopped that a few decades ago this wouldn't have happened.