6 ms·

> Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have. I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have differe

> Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have. I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights. > Whichever rights israel has, Palestine also has. If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments. > If israel claims a right to safety from Palestinian attacks, then Palestine has an exactly equal right to safety from israeli attacks. If israel has a right to control their borders, Palestine does too. If israel has a right to 100% control their own trade, then Palestine does, too. This isn't that complicated. It's unclear what you mean by this in practice, I would agree that if there was a peace agreement in place then this would be ideal, but there may be practical issues. For countries bordering Israel like Jordan/Egypt which have made peace agreements this is effectively the case so I don't see any reasons Israel would reject this outright. Keep in mind that since there is no peace agreement with Palestine creating established borders something like this isn't currently feasible. > There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here. > They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They also don't have clearly defined borders in general which is a big part of the problem(i.e. the lack of a peace agreement creating mutually recognized borders). > Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule. There are levels of rule below that of having a fully independent state. > Surprise surprise, israel is even less supportive, and "they did it first" isn't an excuse to deny a person or country their rights. Palestinians that are Israeli citizens have effectively all those rights. Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state due to a lack of a peace agreement, an actual peace agreement establishing a Palestinian state must be negotiated, unilateral disengagement(like Israel tried with Gaza in the past) does not work, likewise unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will also be unlikely to work, both sides must agree on terms to end the conflict. > Luckily, the relevant authorities (international courts, scholarly institutions) seem pretty confident that israeli electees are war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders, so you don't need to be. Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem, from their outright lies[0][1], to poorly supported reports which cherry-pick data to create a false narrative[2] one certainly can't blindly trust the UN to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias against Israel[3]. [0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-one-un-leaders-mistaken-timeline-caused-confusion-about-gaza-childrens-starvation-risk https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-one-un-leaders-mistak... [1] https://unwatch.org/francesca-albaneses-made-up-math-and-false-facts/ https://unwatch.org/francesca-albaneses-made-up-math-and-fal... [2] https://govextra.gov.il/media/orumgksl/politics-disguised-as-science_systematic-distortions-in-the-ipcs-gaza-report-of-august-2025.pdf https://govextra.gov.il/media/orumgksl/politics-disguised-as... [3] https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/ https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-...

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights. > If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments. Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect. > You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here. You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. > Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions. > Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land. > Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.
- jameshilliard 1y ago
  > Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect. That's very non-specific. > You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions(there may have been a blockade but that was imposed by multiple countries, both Egypt and Israel). The PA has some degree of authority the West Bank below that of "complete control". There is no universally agreed upon definition for what territory is Palestine since there is no peace treaty between the involved parties. Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs. So there it's not remotely clear what "rule over transit within Palestine" would actually mean. > rule over journalism Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control. > Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. You seem to be describing the ongoing war, and without a peace agreement that's generally just how wars work. In WW2 Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were heavily blockaded by the allies until they surrendered and stopped fighting. > It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions. Their own governments, ones they elected(Hamas) and would likely elect again(Hamas) if given the vote are some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world, Palestinians will never be free when the likes of Hamas(and to some degree the PA) are their leaders even if the occupation by Israel ended completely. > What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Palestine is not recognized as a state by the UN(since the US has veto power over recognition effectively). > Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land. The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state, the UN is not going to stop this conflict, in this region ending conflicts basically always happens via bilateral negotiations and peace deals(of which Israel has had many successful of course historically). Israel does not attack countries it has peace deals with. > Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Are you referring to the UN official that admitted he outright lied about starvation risks? > Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from. The "relevant" international bodies have basically no credibility when it comes to these issues, especially the UN, one reason is that they themselves have been directly involved in perpetuating the conflict(i.e. via UNRWA policies). > One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel. You can go through the sources in these reports and validate the facts yourself, on the other hand the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions and often ignores counterfactual data and cherry-picks data to fit a certain narrative.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights. > If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments. Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect. > You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here. You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. > Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions. > Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land. > Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.

jameshilliard 1y ago
> Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect. That's very non-specific. > You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions(there may have been a blockade but that was imposed by multiple countries, both Egypt and Israel). The PA has some degree of authority the West Bank below that of "complete control". There is no universally agreed upon definition for what territory is Palestine since there is no peace treaty between the involved parties. Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs. So there it's not remotely clear what "rule over transit within Palestine" would actually mean. > rule over journalism Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control. > Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule. You seem to be describing the ongoing war, and without a peace agreement that's generally just how wars work. In WW2 Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were heavily blockaded by the allies until they surrendered and stopped fighting. > It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions. Their own governments, ones they elected(Hamas) and would likely elect again(Hamas) if given the vote are some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world, Palestinians will never be free when the likes of Hamas(and to some degree the PA) are their leaders even if the occupation by Israel ended completely. > What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Palestine is not recognized as a state by the UN(since the US has veto power over recognition effectively). > Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land. The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state, the UN is not going to stop this conflict, in this region ending conflicts basically always happens via bilateral negotiations and peace deals(of which Israel has had many successful of course historically). Israel does not attack countries it has peace deals with. > Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Are you referring to the UN official that admitted he outright lied about starvation risks? > Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from. The "relevant" international bodies have basically no credibility when it comes to these issues, especially the UN, one reason is that they themselves have been directly involved in perpetuating the conflict(i.e. via UNRWA policies). > One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel. You can go through the sources in these reports and validate the facts yourself, on the other hand the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions and often ignores counterfactual data and cherry-picks data to fit a certain narrative.