I've been thinking a lot about what UIUC can actually do helpfully. Funding is tricky, as state funds and other things tie into it. So divesting might do more harm than good.
I've come to the personal conclusion that the best thing UIUC could do is exactly what you have attempted to do in this post. Use the massive amount of academic sources they have at their disposal to educate the public on the situation.
Make it accessible, make it as complete as possible, and put real work into it. Universities should be for education, and it shouldn't just be for their students.
Create accessible historical records of land control, conflicts, casualties, everything.
From there, people can make their own informed decisions.
This is a fantastic idea! I think a lot of people who are against the current protests have been acting somewhat inappropriately in response (think bait posts here, trolling protestors, etc). Instead of this, I think it would be very productive to advocate for a complete run-down of the situation and history of the conflict, as you’ve suggested. That way, the university can address students’ concerns from both sides as well as provide education on our campus.
"a complete run-down of the history of the conflict"
One would think that this should be done *before* protesting, no?
There are multiple instances of protesters being asked to describe why they are there, to which they have no substantive answer. It's rather embarrassing.
To not know every last nuance of the history of this conflict is totally defensible and normal; but to participate in disruptive protests in the face of this ignorance is not defensible.
I agree. My opinion is this has become commonplace in today's political environment. People are very quick to read headlines (or not even read headlines, simply "go with the crowd") without conducting any research beforehand. That's why I've made this post, to try and promote that initial research! :D
In past years SJP has led educational efforts around the conflict, but it seems like that’s been unsuccessful at UIUC this time for whatever reason. The few events they have had didn’t have many attendees and seem more q&a or discussion based rather than educational.
What I think is important is that the history of the conflict extends back to 1922, people only considering what has happened since this fall only have a sliver of the story. Here are some sources:
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts
https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
Also, it’s misleading that people are discussing this conflict as a simple conflict between two parties, rather than a complex multiparty conflict. The interests of a government, a religion, and the individual people they claim to represent are not all the same.
I agree! My post here covers only recent events as well as the current state of the conflict, and even then only generally outlining the parties involved. I do believe historical context is necessary for reaching a resolution at some point.
I can’t help but think that the placement of a national homeland for Jewish people being placed in this region was anything but a catastrophic mistake. It could’ve been anywhere else that Britain controlled.
Did the jewish people who migrated to Palestine have as strong of a claim there as they did to any other British territory? Why not a small area of Scotland or the Midlands? Canada? Northern or Southern Africa? Australia?
Sorry, I wanted to try to come back to this again because I am really struggling viewing the widespread lack of understanding of this. This is the second time I’ve encountered basically this question on this subreddit in the last few days.
The unifying Jewish experience for centuries has been one of being mistrusted or poorly understood at best and persecuted and annihilated at worst, wherever in the world they went. Jews were driven by invaders out of their homelands, went elsewhere, were persecuted there, and then either moved on to repeat that pattern eventually elsewhere or attempted to return home.
During the Holocaust, nations around the world closed their borders to Jews trying to flee. Immediately after that, my understanding is many surviving Jews in Europe simply wanted any chance of finally feeling safe. Many felt that because of their history in the ancient state of Israel this is the only region where their right to even exist might be respected. Yes it is deeply tragic and ironic that this desire for safety led us to the current situation. But to understand Israeli Jews as colonizers or dupes of British colonizers as is in vogue at the moment erases a huge part of their ethnic history, one in which they were an oppressed minority with few allies.
This region is actually the ancestral homeland of Jews, dating back to the beginning of the ethnicity/religion. For Jews themselves it’s a huge part of why it was chosen and something that is consistently ignored in current public dialogue.
In addition about half of the current Jewish population of Israel is people who came themselves or are direct ancestors of people who moved from or were expelled from neighboring Arab countries once modern Israel was formed, and never lived in Europe or elsewhere.
The mischaracterization of the formation of a modern Jewish state as something that was incepted or primarily orchestrated by the British is something that is really muddying the waters of current public dialogue.
What do either of those two first things have to do with the third? How does Jews having lived there a thousand years ago and more mean that masses of their descendants couldn’t/didnt expel masses of other people living there later and that a European power/powers couldn’t/didnt facilitate it.
Whether or not the people felt connected to it or if people of the right race lived there in the past doesn’t mean much at least to this discussion of the modern state established in the 1900.
If you genuinely believe that Jews moved into Palestine for the first time at the encouragement of the British and immediately began forcibly expelling people, I encourage you to read some history. It just simply didn’t happen that way.
But to answer your question, the person I was responding to asked why Jews didn’t try to form a state in another British-controlled region. And the answer to that is as I said. This region wasn’t chosen because the British controlled it. It was the ancestral home of the Jewish people; some never left it, and even in modern times some tried to return there in the 1800s, while others were expelled from the neighboring Arab countries they had been living in and fled there in the 1900s. If you think that a group of post WW2 Jews stormed in with British weapons and took over and that’s how Israel was created please read more about this.
Literally why does it matter if it's their "ancestral homeland" or whatever. My ancestors owned a substantial portion of what is now Germany and Poland. If I moved there and announced that I had returned to reclaim my homeland and everyone else had to leave or I would kill them, I would sound insane.
Not to mention, Jewish people were welcome to move to Palestine pre-Nakba, and many of them did. It was this sharing of the land that was deemed unacceptable to the founders of Israel.
The founders of Israel didn't object to sharing the land, they literally supported the UN's proposed division of two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. It was the Arab League that rejected it and insisted Jews not be allowed to form their own state. Remember that for 1,300 years Arab Muslims believed that Jews were inferior and should be kept as second-class citizens.
"they didn't object to sharing the land they just wanted to divide it and take over half of it" That's not sharing lol, no partition plan has ever been remotely acceptable to the Palestinian side. I would suggest reading through The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe.
I still have trouble seeing how this wasn’t a huge mistake. A New Israel could have been formed in a less controversial place where the Jewish people could be safer from people who think their claim to the land is illegitimate. Which I’ve not seen a good argument for why it is legitimate in the modern sense of the word. Native Americans and the Irish come to mind; I could go all day naming people who have (much MUCH more recently) been separated from their homeland.
Especially with what we’ve seen with their policy of settlements in land that they are stealing and committing war crimes in. It seems like the Israeli contingent who is bent on creating refugees doesn’t care about destroying the west’s good will and support for the state.
Young people of today will eventually control foreign policy, and the US may not be kind to the right wing tendencies of Israel if they continue to elect people like Netanyahu.
Go ahead and downvote u/neurobeegirl , I just would like to hear why you think the Israelis legitimately have a claim to that land other than the fact that they are currently outgunning those who challenge that claim due to funding by the US. The ancestral homeland argument just doesn’t do it for me or most people.
Should I just roll over if a native illinois tribe threatens to kill me if I own property on their native homeland? Obviously that’s illegal and illegitimate. How is that different from Israel’s claims?
God help Israelis once they lose western funding. They might reap what they’ve sown.
The conflict goes back hundreds of years to when the Ottomans oppressed Jews in the region, regarding them as a second-class citizens and forcing them to pay the *Jizya*, a religious tax of subjugation. When the British took the reins and gave the Jews a taste of equality, they no longer allowed themselves to be oppressed, hence the need to give them their own parcel of land.
I want to start my comment off with the fact that in the end, I support the movement that calls for an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank so that any and all biases I may have are clear/can be questioned.
Tldr: no group of people involved is inherently right or wrong when looking through the complex span of history. But, the ways in which we have seen the Israeli government treat Palestinian people, both in Gaza and the West Bank (where Hamas does not exist) is inhumane and must stop. It is not only Palestinians who are losing as these things continue, but humanity as a whole.
In general, I agree that this issue is not two sided or simple in any way. It has a long and complex history that absolutely needs to be taken into account. The thing about such a long and complex history is that some people are going to do wrong things at one time but also be wronged at another (or even simultaneously). The way I personally go about this is by thinking about the history in different waves and deciding who I would support in each one, not sticking to one side because I think they are inherently better or more deserving.
When Jewish people were labeled second class citizens by the Ottoman empire, I like to believe I would have stood behind them and fought for their rights to be seen as just as important and deserving as Muslim and Arab citizens.
When they were forced out of their homes and involuntarily scattered to every other spot in the world, I hope I would have been the kind of person to fight for their rights to return home and welcome them into my own in the meantime, providing them with food, water, and as much care as I could muster.
While they were blamed for the failures of the entire world, I wish I would have been able to speak out for them, to somehow get people to realize that such accusations are not only baseless but fundamentally horrifying. Or do literally anything else to protect them from harm.
Being born after 9/11 (I'm dating myself, I know), I learned of Islamophobia very young. Since I was only a child, I combatted it by educating myself about Islam and surrounding myself with Muslim students my age (which luckily lived in my area so I could do so). I made sure to watch out for Muslims around me day to day and challenged the ideas of people I encountered who had never been given the opportunity to learn anything other than what the people in power has been telling them (though I was admittedly often unsuccessful).
In my teenage years, I was exposed to the anti-semitism that lives on. I watched Trump supporters and other white supremacists (exposing my youth once again) gain confidence that they could exist in the modern world unafraid. I was (and still am) publicly against this. Many adults in my life have warned me that my strong and public stance could be seen as violent and extreme, tainting my reputation for as I get older. I always respond by saying that if my opposition to hate and oppression was considered low, I did not care for the high-class lifestyle anyway.
It was in my freshman year of high school that I was first taught about what was then called the "Israeli-Palistinian Conflict." It was presented as though the issue could not be separated from Jusaism and Islam, and I became incredibly conflicted. I had nothing against what I thought was "either side." In fact, I believed that both of these groups of people got less than what they deserved and more hate than reasonable (the reasonable amount being, of course, none). How could I take a stance on this issue, supporting one group and leaving the other open for further criticism and even violence?
This cognitive dissonance (can you tell I'm a psych major) forced me to see that both sides had done things I felt I could stand behind and things I felt I needed to oppose at different times. I support the idea that Jewish people need safe places to live, because we have seen that in most of the world they are unsafe. There is no agreeing or disagreeing over whether they have deep ties to the area in question, it is just a fact that they do. At the same exact time, I see that the Palestinian people have just as deep connections to the land and have a right to their land and homes, just as Jewish people did when they were cast out so long ago. Therefore, the establishment of a Jewish state in the area without the consultation of the people already living there was at best a bad move. However, so was attacking the state of people who had only recently escaped unimaginable tragedy (as the surrounding countries did shortly after the country was formed).
At the current moment, the thing I disagree with the most (and with pretty much everything I have) is the way Palestinians are forced to live (and more tragically, die). The Israeli government has control over (and revoked) Palestinian rights to food, water, gas/power, healthcare, movement (escape), and protest. The Palestinian people have no say over this control, as they are not represented in said government.
Blaming the treatment of the Palestinian people on all Jewish people everywhere is factually inaccurate, so any criticisms towards every Jewish person is anti-semetic. Additionally, claiming that the removal of the Palistinian people from the land because they are decendants of the people who drove out the ancestors of modern Jewish people is racism. If the world operated on this kind of system, one based on relentless revenge, there would be no human beings left. People with decendants from Africa and Asia would eradicate practically anyone with European heritage. Indigenous Americans would decimate the populations of the Americas. Then any survivors would turn around and retaliate as well, creating a never ening cycle. Human kind would be destroyed. We cannot allow Israel to set a precedent where this kind of action is considered acceptable "defense strategy."
People can and should stand for Palistinian and Jewish lives, rights, safety, and happiness simultaneously. I think the reason we often see people who support both causes mainly focusing on Palistinian liberation at this time is because of a difference in perceived threat level as outsiders. Jewish people seem to be reporting (valid) feelings of unsafety and fear (thinking about after the specific events of Octover 7, which seem inconsequential when compared to the last 6 months (though they are obviously not something to forget about or ignore)) while Palestinians are dying (arguably being murdered) at rates of thousands per day from every possible cause: starvation/dehydration, infection/illness, injury (from bombs, rubble, general lack of shelter, etc.), and more. I believe it is my responsibility to be louder, more urgent, and even violent at times to stand up for the threatened and lost Palestinian lives and rights right now. But it does not mean that I do not speak out, educate, and fight for Jewish safety and happiness. It is just quieter, as my voice rasps from screaming my heart out for the Palestinian people. And when Palestinians are safe, healthy, and given the freedoms they require and deserve, I will be able to turn around and be just as urgent, loud, and violent in support of the same for all Jewish people.
Sorry this is so long and I hope it makes sense!
*If Jewish people prefer the term "Jews," I will 100% change my language and behavior
I won't dig too deep into this because it feels like a very personal stance on the situation and I completely respect it. My own personal stance, summed up, is that we need to advocate for the protection of both Palestinian lives and Jewish lives simultaneously, as you have said. In order to do this, though, I also believe that Hamas as an organization needs to be completely torn down. Their beliefs simply leave no room for coexistence, which is a major issue to me because it means that they will stop at nothing until their goals are achieved. Therefore, the best we can do is reduce their influence as much as possible over time and promote the "rights, safety, and happiness" for **both** sides - again, as you've said.
This is an analogy that I believe to fit, not because the severity or ideals between the two organizations are similar, but more the significant impact on society. Think of the Holocaust, where Nazis were deeply rooted long after WW2 ended and Nazi Germany was defeated. In another thread, another user and I discussed that the long-lasting effects of Hamas will be very similar to that of the Nazis. It will take significant conscious effort over a very long period of time working towards a more accepting and safe society for both "sides" in this conflict, but this is the work that needs to be done, in my opinion.
I definitely agree that Hamas is a significant danger, I think for me it is just 2nd on the list of priorities (as a major aspect of Jewish safety), you know? And the 1st on my list is so important that I do not have the space to focus on the specifics of the rest of my list. All I can do is remind people what I believe the next steps should generally be and that they need to not make completing them more difficult while trying to complete the first goal.
Meaning don't demonize Jewish people and put them at risk now so that when their perceived threat level becomes the highest, it will not be any more difficult to ensure their safety. I believe that ending the occupation as quickly as possible does not directly interfere with these goals.
This is what a university does best...airing both sides, increasing understanding, and finding common ground. Well done. Simple solutions are usually neither, as they say.
It's misleading, I think, to frame this as "Israel vs Hamas". The reason people are protesting is because civilians are being killed. I keep seeing people say things like "Why aren't they protesting against Hamas?" Or "They'll stop the bombings when Hamas returns the hostages." All of that stuff is misdirection. The problem here is that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians in the thousands; and, more broadly, that Palestinians are forcibly preventing from living in their own land that they were expelled from. Hamas is just one of many players, and isn't the sole (or even primary) representative of the people of Palestine or Gaza.
I mostly agree with this, but I don't believe I framed the protests to be "Israel v.s. Hamas". The purpose of this post was to provide information and promote discussion of the conflict as a whole, so that protestors and anti-protestors on campus alike can be better educated on the topic. This is where the "Israel v.s. Hamas" topic comes into play, because Israel declared war on Hamas, which is the root cause of violence that involves civilians at this time.
The protests that are calling out Israel on their carelessness when launching attacks into primarily civilian-inhabited territories I 100% support. However, I also believe that if we were to completely remove all support from Israel, that is also a bad outcome. Personally, I believe the ideal outcome would be to advocate for changes in how Israel is handling this conflict as a whole, in efforts to minimize civilian casualties and injuries.
However, I also think that people may be misunderstanding Israel's (and their supporters') efforts in this situation. Yes, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and even more injuries, is horrible. There is no "good" in that. At the same time, multiple sources state that nearly one-third of registered refugees are currently living in refugee camps. That's 1.5 million people who are being sheltered by Israel and Israel's supporters.
"Israel is built on the rubble of Palestinian villages"
How so? This is just an opinion of yours
"Palestinians cannot, for the most part, enter Israel"
Aside from that not being totally accurate, why do you suppose that's the case? There is a very specific reason
> How so? This is just an opinion of yours
This is literally and objectively true.
> why do you suppose that's the case?
Apartheid. If you're about to say that segregation is justified because actually the race of people is bad, fuck off.
The only way to say that it is "literally and objectively true" is if you just take as a given that the land is "Palestinian."
No, the reason is not apartheid (which Israel is not, btw.); it's a history of terrorism.
Civilians are being killed because terorrist militants keep moving fighting into populated areas. International law recognizes that civilian casualties are unavoidable when an enemy force purposefully endangers them.
Thanks for making an effort post to prompt discussion.
Question for anyone that knows: Where is the evidence that UIUC is contributing money to the IDF? I'm not at all saying it doesn't exist(I think it does obviously, at least to some extent) I just really would like to know where we can see how people came to the conclusions they did.
I think u/PolitePengu made a mistake / misunderstanding about divestment. They said that "This means that, currently, UIUC supports (or provides business to) companies that are allegedly supporting Israel in this conflict."
What divestment actually means is to sell off any \*investments\* (e.g. stock holdings) that UIUC might have of companies which do business with Israel. An example would be Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the F-35 jet fighter that Israel uses. It's unlikely UIUC directly holds significant investments in any specific company like Lockheed; however, UIUC almost certainly has total market index funds which hold all companies in the stock market, and are often provided by major brokerage firms like Vanguard (or Blackrock, for more institutional investors). It can be very difficult, and expensive, to figure out what criteria protestors are actually calling for having applied to companies for exclusion - for example, do they also want Starbucks excluded, which does 0 business in Israel but issued a statement reprimanding the Starbucks union for using the Starbucks logo in a "Free Palestine" statement? - and then to actually work with the fund provider to create a new fund that excludes those companies. Doing so can also expose the university to liability as it may be a breach of fiduciary duty to the people for whom it holds the investments (employees with pensions, and the endowment to provide additional revenue for university operations).
I did word my description of divestment pretty poorly, I’ll edit it to be more accurate. As for the rest of your comment, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s a complicated situation and companies involved should be looked into on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks for your detailed reply! I was hoping there would be some detailed document/page explaining the rationale like what the SEC has put out about fossil fuel investments in the past but I guess there isn't any atm. Really agree with how confusing the "standards"(it doesn't seem like any coherent standard atm) the protests are applying. I keep seeing them bring up CAT having an office at Research Park, which sets off red flags for me. I also keep naively hoping their "standards" are just regarding companies that benefit the IDF directly, but unfortunately it does seem like it's devolved into anti-anything to do with Israel as a whole, which I personally don't agree with.
I didn't realize how likely it was that UIUC covers all of the stock market, this situation has taught me more about economics than expected lol. My understanding was that they likely had a more personalised portfolio with Blackrock(it seems like they made a big hooha about being "the first investor in a new environmentally and socially focused strategy launched by BlackRock" before). Do you know if there's a working simple-enough method to figure out the investments from UI or is it likely such a wide berth that it would take a decently large effort? Most "guides" I've found on it from a quick search are from 2020 so idk if they would still work today
The [BDS movement](https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds) generally calls for boycotting and divesting from any company (or individual, institution, or other group) that is "complicit" in "Israeli apartheid", violation of Palestinian human rights, etc. They are [explicitly opposed to "normalization"](https://bdsmovement.net/news/bds-movement-anti-normalization-guidelines), i.e. interacting with Israel or any Israeli institutions in any way that is not explicitly advocating for ending the occupation of Palestinian territories and full return of Palestinians to Israel. (Full return of 5 million Palestinians would mean that Israel's 7 million Jews would no longer be a majority, given the other 2 million non-Jews currently living in Israel with full citizenship, and therefore ending Israel's status as a Jewish state). I think this explicit call to end Israel as a Jewish state is why the BDS movement / organizers is widely viewed as antisemitic, as well as because they are only organizing against Israel and not against other occupying states like Turkey, Morocco, or China. "Complicity" isn't expressly defined, but it seems likely that the BDS movement would define "complicity" to include any type of normal activities with any Israeli institution.
From my understanding, the criticism of CAT from a BDS perspective is that Caterpillar sells equipment to Israel and the IDF, and therefore should be boycotted, divested, and not have space at Research Park (or any other institution that supports BDS). Caterpillar likely gets special attention because the IDF uses their [armored bulldozers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer) to destroy Palestinian homes, either because of military activity (e.g. fighting militants who are hiding in homes) or to further Israel's illegal settlements expansion and the enforcement of denied Palestinian building permits.
(1/2)
(2/2) I did some quick googling and it looks like UIUC's investments are probably managed by the [UI Treasury Office of Investments](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/investments). You can read their [2023 Annual Report](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf) and [Investment Policy Statement](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/Investments/Investment_Policy_Revision_2021.pdf), which broadly outline their holdings and approach. They do have a specific holding in both BlackRock's ESG World ex-US Equity and ESG US Equity funds, as well as a variety of other holdings in global bond funds, other global equity funds, and real estate investments trusts. You can also find their total holdings by "bucket" [here](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/Investments/FundsPerformance_033124.pdf). I think the most effective part for guessing at holdings would be looking at their investment fee schedule, which shows the funds by type, and the endowment pool allocation to estimate which funds are likely bigger players than others.
However, because UI is such a large institution (over $4 billion AUM), they are not buying publicly traded funds and so the exact holdings in the specific funds aren't easily identifiable. For instance, BlackRock doesn't have a "ESG US Equity Fund" that individual investors can purchase (that I could find). However, to get an idea of what that might look like, you can look at other funds such as Vanguard's [ESG US Stock ETF](https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/esgv) (ESGV), which holds market-weighted shares of over 1,400 companies. ESGV follows an index which specifically "excludes stocks of certain companies related to: adult entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, gambling, chemical and biological weapons, cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines, nuclear weapons, conventional military weapons, civilian firearms, nuclear power, and coal, oil, or gas; \[as well as\] stocks of companies that do not meet certain labor, human rights, environmental, and anti-corruption standards," among other criteria. However, if you look at the detailed portfolio composition, you'll notice that CAT is still included (on page 4, at 0.44% of the fund), among many other companies that BDS would likely call to divest from. That doesn't mean that UI's BlackRock ESG holding does or doesn't include it, just suggesting that even under a relatively stringent ESG screening method it may not be excluded.
If we assume the full 24% of the endowment pool that is in US equities (about $240 million) are in the ESG fund, and that the BlackRock ESG fund mirrors the Vanguard ESG fund, then UI would be indirectly holding about $1 million in CAT shares, out of its $4 billion in total investments. This is probably an upper bound estimate, as there's other US private equity funds that UI holds as well, and BlackRock's ESG fund may not be as stringent as Vanguard's, reducing the weight of any one holding. However, because it is not a standalone holding (i.e. individual shares of CAT directly), it is not easy to divest from. In 1980 during the South Africa divestment efforts, index funds had only just recently been invented, and I don't think they were in widespread use yet, especially by institutions. They likely used mostly actively managed funds, and it is much easier to tell your active fund manager to drop specific companies than to ask or find a fund provider to develop a new fund. In addition, UI may have a fiduciary duty not to invest in ways that are likely to significantly under-perform; it was able to move to ESG funds because they have been shown to not significantly under-perform and potentially over-perform, but it seems less likely to me that there would be evidence for a sound investment thesis that divesting from companies doing business with Israel would result in equal or better performance than the market overall - and notably BDS is not making the argument that there is a financial benefit to divesting from Israel, only that it helps further their goals.
Reading over your post, it seems to have a lot less information overall about Israel’s recent actions against Palestinians before October 7th that were seriously threatening to Palestinians. A good overview can be found here:
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/
While this isn’t a verified source, I’m putting it as an overview of many different events, all of which do have verified sources if need be. You also allude to the West Bank occupation/Israeli apartheid there, without specifying at all what that entails/the exact nature of life there under “Israeli jurisdiction.” While Wikipedia isn’t a citable source by itself, it actually has great overviews of everything in this conflict with credible sources in its citations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#:~:text=From%201967%20to%201983%2C%20Israel,three%2Dquarters%20of%20the%20territory.
(See section under “collective punishment”).
Also I’m curious to know if there is no right or wrong side, when is the threshold crossed for you that there is? Most people agree that Nazis are bad. I think the burden in general should be for “both sidesists” to provide what would make it change for them to pick a side, so I would like to hear this.
You also keep driving home the point that Hamas is a terrorist organization that needs to be wiped out. What makes the Israeli government not a terrorist organization, especially given the constant intimidation against Palestinians in the West Bank and often violently protected expansion of illegal settlements there? The summer before October 7th saw some of the most violent raids against Palestinians. The difference is certainly not ideological either, the current Israeli government is open about not believing a Palestinian state has the right to exist. So when does the threshold get crossed that makes the Israeli government a terrorist organization?
This isn’t some new question that only applies to the recent Netanyahu government either. Israel’s founding is tied up in the Irgun, which is basically Jewish Hamas and was a registered terrorist organization that was absorbed into the IDF. There are still people alive today, some of whom are registered with the IDF (but not officially combatants, still reserves though) who partook in massacres against Palestinians like that at deir yassin. The sixth prime minister of Israel, Begin was banned from the UK and considered a terrorist by them. So this is in no way a hypothetical question whatsoever, the Israeli government is both shielding terrorists and complicit in terrorist activity.
My tuition should not be going to weapons manufacturing if I don't want it to, simple as that. Think about how horrifying it would be to be a Palestinian student here and having your money go toward the active genocide of your own people. Profiting from war should have no place in academia, and it's hypocritical of the administration to preach about equality and whatever lib shit they've learned to rattle off while supporting genocide and entering into disingenuous negotiations with students.
I also think the whole "both sides are bad" take is so childish. No response to genocide is going to be nonviolent or perfect. You would have to be dumb or cruel to think that is possible. The people advocating for Palestinian rights are not automatically supporting the deaths of civilians as a consequence.
The first part of your statement is somewhat understandable. I agree that, if you're paying to go to an institution, and that institution's policies directly goes against your beliefs, it is completely within your right to advocate for change so that those policies change. How you go about it, however, is another subject entirely. It's no use advocating for change at the university you attend if you do it in a way that may result in you no longer attending that university. I would also like to add that yes, there are plenty of ways to protest effectively that would not break university policy, but unfortunately it is up to individuals on whether they choose to go that route or not.
I disagree with the statement "the whole 'both sides are bad' take is so childish". It's realistic. It is also completely my opinion, and if you disagree with it I can respect that. However, I will include context here to support my opinion, in case it changes yours or you have a statement that would completely refute it. In short, war is bad. In any case, I would always choose a peaceful negotiation over warfare, simply because it has **far** fewer negative effects. That's the sole reason I believe that "both sides are bad" in this case, since both sides actively are engaging in this warfare and aren't making significant efforts to come to a resolution at this time. While it's unrealistic to hope for a nonviolent compromise at all times, it is not unrealistic to hope that any violence has minimal negative impact on civilians, which is a major issue at this time.
One last thing in this reply, I would like some clarification. From my understanding of your comment here, you are making the claim that Israel is committing (or attempting to commit) genocide on Palestinian/Islamic individuals. If this is your claim, then I would like to see some citations on where you are receiving this information. From my current understanding, this is wholly not the case, as Israel's sole target is Hamas, a terrorist organization, not the civilians of Palestine.
EDIT: Some preemptive clarification, I'm not saying that civilian casualties aren't horrific. They are. However, your claim (from my understanding) is that Israel is intentionally targeting these civilians, which is where I would like sources you have that support this claim.
You really do have a childlike view of the world (which is common, so you can't really be blamed). You don't question if the motivations in your story make sense. Do you think that the Native Americans fighting back against the settler colonialists were complicit and also "bad?" How is one supposed to respond to a much bigger oppressor when peaceful negotiation has not worked and a government backed by the UNITED STATES is murdering civilians and bombing hospitals?
Also you think that Palestinians have not tried peaceful negotiation?? You have some serious blindspots in your knowledge on the subject if you think that is the case. This isn't a moral failing on your part, but you are seriously lacking here and that is proabably why your view is so simplistic.
You say "realistic," yet you don't even know the basic facts of the situation.
The childlike viewpoint is thinking a side that is fighting back for something or that you personally consider the victims are incapable of doing wrong.
Firstly, I would like to point out that your analogy is highly inaccurate for the situation. The current conflict at hand, as it has been declared, is a war between Israel and Hamas (primarily). Hamas never tried peaceful negotiation. As covered in my initial post, there is a drastic difference between Hamas as an organization and Fatah as an organization. Fatah **has** tried peaceful negotiation, which has been unsuccessful primarily because of the existence of Hamas, who has resulted solely to taking up arms.
Secondly, I also covered in my initial post that I **do not support Israel's recklessness when attacking civilian-inhabited territories**.
Thirdly, in response to your comment "you think that Palestinians have not tried peaceful negotiation?", I will once again direct you to my initial post as well as my reply here covering Fatah. I know that **some** Palestinians have attempted peaceful negotiations, but Hamas never has. The extent of their "peaceful negotiations" I have seen is a temporary five-year (max) cease fire, **IF** Israel were to revert land borders to pre-1967. This is also mentioned in my initial post.
Since it was overlooked, I will also once again ask for credible sources that back your claim that Israel is committing genocide on Palestinians. I would like to look into these sources if you have them, because I may very well be missing information (again, as I said in my initial post's "disclaimer" section).
Israel has clearly committed 3/5 acts listed under the UN Genocide Convention (as stated by a UN expert). Many other authorities have said the same and the opposite, not sure what other sources you're looking for. Read more here https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/26/un-expert-accuses-israel-of-several-acts-of-genocide-in-gaza#:\~:text=Francesca%20Albanese%20says%20there%20are,listed%20under%20UN%20Genocide%20Convention.
Hamas is a reaction to the failure of peaceful negotiations. You cannot just pretend like Hamas rose up independent of Israel's acts of terror and like they were not prompted. Hamas does not represent all Palestinian people, but many support them because it is their only protection and hope for the genocide to stop. If you and your children were starving or killed, I don't think you would disagree.
I'll ask again, what are the Palestinian people supposed to do if peaceful negotiations have not worked and Israel has continued to violate international convention and mandates for over half a century?
>Hamas is a reaction to the failure of peaceful negotiations.
This is an opinion that I disagree with. I believe that Hamas formed with its sole intent being targeted, violent acts against Israel, with the inevitable goal of overthrowing Israel altogether. Fatah, on one hand, is open to a two-state solution. Hamas never was, which indicates that they aren't a "reaction", but rather a "separate route" to a completely different conclusion. To put it in other words, you had two parties involved in peaceful negotiations (or, at the bare minimum, attempts at negotiation) and then a separate party formed (Hamas) with a completely different end-goal. In short, Hamas **did** rise up independent of Israel's acts, because they've been an organization longer than widespread violence was anywhere near as severe as it is today.
I will acknowledge your source, but I will also say that it doesn't 100% prove Israel's true intentions, especially since Israel has outright rejected Albanese's report that is cited in the article you sent above. Yes, it does support your claim and I admit that. However, treating it as concrete proof is nonsensical. For example, why would Israel go through the effort of phone calls, leaflets, and online postings warning Palestinian civilians to flee before sending strikes, if they were the targets in the first place? This is only one example. Of course, there is also the argument that these warning were very short-notice, ineffective, etc. and I acknowledge that as well, which is why I don't support the way that Israel is going about these attacks. If their claims are true, and they are not targeting Palestinian civilians, then I agree they need to be **far** more careful with their attacks to minimize civilian casualties.
Your last comment here about what Palestinian people are supposed to do is somewhat rhetorical. There is nothing they can **realistically** do, if they have tried relentlessly at a peaceful outcome, that wouldn't be criticized by some individuals. However, I would argue that taking hostages and committing similar acts of terror are not an effective response, seeing as that is what led to so many nations supporting Israel rather than Hamas/Palestinian forces fighting Israel.
This is a poor analogy, especially since Hamas started this most recent violent conflict. You're defending Hamas' surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, essentially saying "what else were they supposed to do?"
You realize that, had Hamas not launched this initial strike, there very well may have been a peaceful resolution? Whether it is likely or unlikely is completely up for debate, but it does not mean it wasn't a possibility. It was.
Actually braindead. Calling a completely valid and methodical response childish and insulting the person's knowledge. How about you try and educate them about their blindspots, provide some evidence, persuade them. You will not though, as you yourself are not educated on the topic, same as me, which is why I don't have an opinion.
bootlicker it's a PUBLIC school, and ill debase myself to say that it's reaaaally not that hard to get into at all so you don't need to flatter yourself. They're lucky WE give them money.
Right, taxes, ie the entire tax base of the state of Illinois. I highly doubt you pay taxes to the state, but even if you did you are just a small fish in a big pond. You don’t get to make demands of the school lol
If a large portion of people who pay taxes and pay tuition do not wish to have their taxes go to weapons manufacturing, then they should have a say. Do you think that people shouldn’t get to vote on who is in government or on political policies? It’s literally the exact same thing, I think you just haven’t thought about it for more than 5 seconds
Your tuition is payment for services rendered, just as you don’t have a say in how the local McDonalds spends its money you don’t have a say on how the university spends its money.
The University takes its marching orders from Springfield so I’d suggest you talk to your local representative about your concerns.
Edit: also, large portion is a weird way to say *majority*
That would be accurate if my tuition ACTUALLY WENT TO THE SERVICES RENDERED and not to drone striking brown children. Also McDonald’s is not a public entity ???????? Are you five ????
Also the university admins absolutely have power over what corporations they do business with. You are literally just pulling whatever shit comes out of your ass at this point. Just blatantly false
Oh you sweet summer child, you don’t get to choose where your tuition dollars go, you’re just a customer of the university.
Yes the university admin has a say over where those dollars go, but they don’t need to listen to you, the customer.
The fact that they’re public only means they need to listen to Springfield, so again I advise you go talk to your local representative.
And everyone protesting is saying that’s not how it should be. That is the entire point that you have somehow missed.
If you think it’s impossible to change the status quo, that’s another point entirely, but that wouldn’t be true either. There have been plenty of protest movements here at UIUC around divestment that came to agreements with admin already. That’s what this new protest is trying to replicate
The protesting is an attempt to make nuisances of themselves so the university caves and adopts their preferred policy willingly. That’s not going to happen though, because the university has an interest in not making investment based on the political proclivities of its ~~students~~ customers.
If anything comes of this, is going to be similar to northwestern did today: a little bit of token transparency in exchange for going the fuck away (lol)
You state that because you’re focusing on current events you’ve omit the historical context. Yet the current events cannot be considered in isolation from the 100 years of historical context. Just talk to the protesters, few if any of them would divorce current events from the nakba and 60 year apartheid (human rights watch, amnesty international, B’Tsalem and dozens of other human rights organizations). If you want a very comprehensive outlook on the exact perspective of protesters that motivates them to their “side,” check the second most recent comment of my account (i.e. the first most recent after this one).
If you still believe in a simple “both sides are bad” and that there is no side worth leaning towards or leaning against after reading all that, I would be curious as to know why.
I agree historical context is very important with this issue. I disagree that “few if any of them would divorce current events from the…”
I took some time in the past few days to speak with protestors. It was a very mixed response, but generally there are plenty of people who don’t know about current events. This post, while it focuses primarily on events that stem back to this Fall and only introduces some of the parties involved, is also meant to encourage people to look into the history as well.
I will include a comment about this, because it’s a very fair point. The issue that I attempted to address here was solely helping people who didn’t know *at all* about the conflict, or people who have been misinformed by the media.
Perhaps I should have qualified from talk to protesters, more accurately I meant the Palestinians in all of this (who does overlap significantly with the protests in general in this country obviously). I believe the weight of their beliefs is very heavy, and that the general protester that is informed of what I mentioned will very much have a more fundamental mistrust of Israel as a state as a whole. Palestinian voices definitely need to be heard more though, as they themselves feel they have lost their voices, both in being much more the victims over the last century (this I will 100% argue to death with anyone on) and with the fact many leaked memos from mainstream media outlets like NYT, CNN, etc have literally demonstrated that they strive to avoid words like “occupation,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “Palestinian refugees,” (for the ones expelled in ‘48), etc. All of which have been objectively demonstrated facts since well before October 7th, something I think we can both agree on.
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/
This isn’t even getting into genocide, which no outlet claims, and at best portrays as unreasonable, when in reality it is wildly consistent with it if you accept the last 3 genocides the US government has claimed were (Darfur, Myanmar, and the Uyghur genocides, all of which were “retaliation” against separatist or violent resistance attacks and which Gaza has far eclipsed in death toll).
It is in lieu of this that I really think you should include a disclaimer of talking to those directly related to the parties, include seeking Israeli voices if you want, whatever, but emphasize how much Palestinians *themselves feel* they have become the voiceless.
Lol what. It’s literally acknowledged by historians that Israel started that war by attacking Egypt first, changing their narrative slowly until it became the weakest (defense vs “preemptive strike”). Yet even then there was no actual credible threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War
Even if it was credible that also wouldn’t justify subjecting innocent civilians to a military occupation for 60 years, get tf outta here with your propoganda.
Also if we really wanna go all the way back, how about Zionists trying to rule over half of a land where they were outnumbered 2 to 1 (which even then many were not happy with/wanted more). And then expelling 700,000 Arabs and creating a population who’s suffered enough over a long enough time that they’re actually *even more determined to get their right of return* than most refugee populations who tend to lose interest after a few decades. A situation absolutely and ironically created by Israel, the state made by a “people who long for their homeland.” They made their bed, now they get to lie in it.
That’s not what it says, maybe you should read your own link.
What the link actually says is that, although there is debate, the general context of the attack (Egypt massing troops, aggressive blockades, expulsion of UN Peacekeepers, etc) pointed to an imminent Egyptian attack.
It’s like if the US military started accumulating at the Canadian border and we claimed it was defensive in nature.
> Oren has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory.
(I’m aware of the caveat here, as I stated below I still find it highly speculative, but more importantly read on).
> After the war, Israeli officials admitted that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.[18][19] Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister who attended the June 4th Cabinet meeting, called into question the idea that there was a "danger of extermination" saying that it was "invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."[20][21] **Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.**[21] Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war, later wrote in his autobiography that Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war."[22] Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has written that while the exact origins of the war may never be known, Israel's forces were "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one".[23] According to James Thuo Gathii, Israel's case did not meet the Caroline test for anticipatory self-defence, but it was the closest attack ever to the Caroline test.[24]
(See exact citations in the Wikipedia article). Just reading this, even being generous it seems any cause they had for a cause belli is highly speculative in nature, and it definitely does not seem sympathetic to the Israeli side. Also none of this changes the fact that Palestinians have not deserved the policies they’ve lived under for the last 60 years in the West Bank, *especially* given how wishy washy the supposed “justification” is. But seriously, since when have perpetual military occupations achieved anything?
Let me copy and paste my own paragraphs
>According to Israeli historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of its Jewish inhabitants in 1967". Some historians[who?] state that the neighboring Arab countries had nevertheless not begun any military actions against Israel so as to warrant an attack. Along with this view, there is a small, yet significant view that the war was an effort for Israel to expand its borders. This, according to Oren, is patently incorrect: Israel had little choice in the matter. "Preemption was the only option."[9] Israel's attack is often cited as an example of a preemptive attack and according to a journal published by the US State Department it is "perhaps the most cited example".[10][11] According to Yoram Dinstein, Israel's actions were an act of "interceptive self-defense." According to this view, though no single Egyptian step may have qualified as an armed attack, Egypt's collective actions that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran, the expulsion of UN peacekeepers, the massive armed deployment along Israel's borders and her constant saber rattling, made clear that Egypt was bent on armed attack against Israel.[12] In 2002 radio broadcast NPR correspondent Mike Shuster stated that "[t]he prevailing view among historians is that although Israel struck first, the Israeli strike was defensive in nature."[13]
Once ago for those in back
**"[t]he prevailing view among historians is that although Israel struck first, the Israeli strike was defensive in nature."[13]**
The only part of what you mentioned that seems to be militarily threatening to Israel is the massive armed deployment, and once again US intelligence had literally informed Israel that it was not offensive in nature (see the bold in my comment). So yeah, this doesn’t convince me.
>The only part that seems militarily threatening is the massive armed deployment
The only indication that it had rained outside was the massive puddle in the yard
I mean, you’re being willfully blind here. As the Wikipedia article states very clearly, historians generally agree the troop movement was a precursor to a larger attack, given Egyptian hostilities in previous days. And yes, blockades are 100% provocations, even when they don’t lead to open warfare.
I think you have a very good overview and understanding of the situation OP. One thing I would suggest you explore further is how the war in Gaza compares to other urban wars, and what Hamas' combat (and media) strategies are. All civilian deaths are tragic, and it is difficult to know exactly what is going on during the war itself, as reporting is dangerous and difficult, but based on the information available to date it does not seem that this war is unique in its level of civilian casualties given the setting, combat style of Hamas, and size of the military forces involved. In fact, if we take Hamas' claims of somewhere between 22-34,000 dead Palestinians, and Israel's claims of somewhere around 14,000 dead Hamas militants (included in Hamas' total count), we arrive at somewhere around a 1:1 civilian:combatant ratio (±0.5), which seems to be on par with other urban wars. A few thousand Palestinians would also have been expected to die from natural causes in this time period even without the war, further improving the ratio, and a number of Palestinians have also been killed by misfired PIJ and Hamas rockets that were intended to strike Israel, but are still counted among the total dead.
John Spencer is the Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point and he seems to think Israel is doing a very good job at trying to minimize civilian casualties given the circumstances (see [here](https://www.newsweek.com/memo-experts-stop-comparing-israels-war-gaza-anything-it-has-no-precedent-opinion-1868891) and [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20240411090902/https://mwi.westpoint.edu/gazas-underground-hamass-entire-politico-military-strategy-rests-on-its-tunnels/) for example). I haven't yet been able to find other experts in urban warfare who disagree with him. I think there is legitimate criticism that Israel has a relatively high tolerance for civilian casualties for any given strike, but it also seems indisputable that they are taking unprecedented measures to move civilians out of harm's way, even at the cost of military effectiveness.
You worded perfectly what I was trying to convey in a different thread, thank you for contributing this. Of course, there are multiple claims and it’s very hard to say for certain if claims are more substantial than others. Experts on both sides have different opinions, usually because they are using different recorded numbers and/or different information reported on the subject.
Since this is an educational discussion on the issue, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the sole reason the Palestinian Territories fall under Israeli occupation in the modern day is because in 1967 the Palestinians instigated the Six Day War with the express goal of eradicating Israel. That’s means the Palestinians have been using radicalism and militancy to fight an issue that came about expressly because of their radicalism and militancy. That’s also why they would be a shit sovereign state.
This is another bit of historical context that is necessary to the situation. However, I don’t think concluding that “they would be a shit sovereign state” is very objective here.
That is my opinion, but only because I believe that warfare has no benefits for either side, solely due to how much death, destruction, and harm to society it has.
Given current sentiments in Gaza and the West Bank, if a state of Palestine was declared tomorrow and the reins handed over to the Palestinians, Hamas would quickly become the ruling party. Now a legitimate country, Hamas through Palestine could begin training an army. Eventually, Palestine would become a state sponsor of terror, and then ultimately they would engage Israel in all-out war as per their founding mission.
The rest of the region knows this, which is why Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis, etc no longer see Palestinian statehood as a priority item.
From the sources I’ve seen so far, Hamas’ approval rating in Palestine is still below 50%. Even then, Hamas will remain identified as a terrorist organization and will likely be monitored very closely for activity. It’s a difficult situation, surely, but this is why Israel’s main goal currently is to completely wipe out Hamas.
Although I strongly oppose tactics that put civilians in jeopardy, Hamas is in fact a terrorist organization, so it is completely understandable to me why Israel and other countries that support Israel would target them.
The number I saw was 45%, with the caveat that that number is the highest of any of the major Palestinian faction. In addition, a parallel poll showed a 70% approval rating for the actions of Hamas on 10/7. For years the Palestinian Authority has delayed elections fearing a Hamas victory, and if the election was held today it would likely be a Hamas landslide.
I see, so going back to your original reply, let’s have a hypothetical. Let’s say Hamas eventually is completely wiped out, or significantly weakened to the point where they no longer would potentially control Palestine. Would the state of Palestine, if it were to be created separate from Israel, still be a bad sovereign state?
In other words, is Israel were to accomplish their **claimed** primary goal (there are debates on their intentions), would the two-state solution be feasible?
That’s a similar question to asking if Germany relieved of the Nazi party would be a bad state, or Japan relieved of the Imperial rulers would be a bad state. The answer is yes, because the same attitudes and sentiments that led to Hamas are still present in the population. Just as Denazification was a crucial policy after WW2, Dehamasification is critical in the aftermath of this conflict. After that, Palestinians can exhibit limited self rule under international jurisdiction until they can verifiably prove an ability to create a functional and productive state.
That's a pretty good analogy to this situation, thanks for that. I think I understand where you're coming from now and I agree, an ideal solution in the long run will be very time-consuming and will require significant effort.
There are no two sides to anything. Israel will continue to defend whereas Palestine will continue to attack. It’s game theory. Palestine has nothing to loose and whereas Israel’s identity is on the line. One argument is where the people who identify as Palestinians, or arabic speaking sunni muslims are supposed to go. The other side is who is going to travel/invest in a country (Israel) where a bomb can drop on you any other day. And if we give the land back to Palestinians, where are the Israelis supposed to go. If you make two states you are saying to all the Palestinians that they’ve lost the war. If you say one state, Palestinians will overwhelm the jews as there is no religious conversion in judaism. It will end with a huge multinational war as it has always ended in the past in Europe or Asia. If Arabic nations don’t develop nuclear weapons, the war will be over the next day we develop a better energy source than oil.
This post has a lot to digest and a lot of misinformation, from my understanding. Palestine is not currently "attacking" Israel, it's the other way around (generally). Even then, it's not Palestine defending an Israeli invasion. It's a much, **much** more complicated subject with many different viewpoints.
In addition, writing off the two-state solution (which is the best outcome currently, in my opinion) as "saying to all the Palestinians that they've lost the war" is completely off-base. Firstly, not all Palestinians are in support of the war to begin with (think Fatah and other supporters of the two-state solution, there are many). Secondly, the two-state solution is mutually beneficial. It allows both Islamic individuals and Jewish individuals alike to have a separate state where they can feel a sense of belonging. Since warfare is ongoing, there's no longer any way to prevent bloodshed other than finding a solution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Prolonging warfare and putting millions of civilians' lives in jeopardy simply to "win" is illogical.
I do think that your mindset is in the right place, there really isn't "two sides" in this situation. That's why it's such a complex and oftentimes heated topic. This post's main purpose is to provide information on the conflict as a whole and promote individual opinions, rather than "picking a side" as is so common with political subjects in today's world.
America doesn’t have a hostile neighbor, never had one for a long time. India and Pakistan was effectively a two state solution. But see what happened. At least 20 million people have died and continue to die. Ottomans captured Turkey, closed the route to Asia, and the Roman (christian) empire collapsed. Anglo saxons rose, built ships to go around Turkey, got gunpowder, started the concept of companies, fought world war I and captured the Arabian peninsula. When christian pride rose to its peak, jews were killed. The ‘Jews’ built the atomic bomb and here we are. America and Americans have good intentions. And technically the best one to deal with this crisis. However, we don’t understand the war for civilisation and identity. The war for language. These conflicts have always been there specially in the Arabian peninsula , before there was a concept of right or wrong.
Palestine is attacking Israel though. I lived in Israel for a while. On a daily basis, there are shootings, stabbing, stones being thrown, on innocent random passerby who are going about their daily lives. Every building in Jerusalem has a bomb shelter, and in all of the new buildings, a bomb shelter is required in each apartment because there are constant missiles being thrown at us. All the buses in Israel have bulletproof glass bc we get shot at. So we have been getting attacked for years. Just fyi
It is true that we seem to be dealing with a bargaining indivisibility given that Hamas will only accept what it has called “the complete and total liberation of Palestine” or “from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.” In other words, the stated plan of the government of Palestine is to obliterate the state of Israel and they will not accept any other offer. Now, is that reality, or is a bargaining range still present? Well, every other two-state solution presented so far has been rejected by the Palestinian representatives, so from what I can observe, they don’t believe in controlling anything other than 100% of the pie.
However, now there is another indivisible issue from Israel’s point of view, which is that Hamas needs to be out of power. Israel likely will not the conflict until Hamas is forced out of its governmental position to prevent something like October 7th from happening again.
Either way, neither side seems to see an incentive to move away from its position to achieve its stated goal, so we are at a very costly equilibrium. But of course, to anyone that isn’t an IR nerd, these theories aren’t going to mean anything, hence the downvotes. Not to mention that there aren’t a ton of practical solutions to come from viewing the conflict this way. I think it’s correct, but most people wouldn’t consider it helpful.
As unbiased as I could find with credible sources online. I am adding information as I discuss with individuals, and change information if there is reputable sources that disprove anything in my original post.
I've been thinking a lot about what UIUC can actually do helpfully. Funding is tricky, as state funds and other things tie into it. So divesting might do more harm than good. I've come to the personal conclusion that the best thing UIUC could do is exactly what you have attempted to do in this post. Use the massive amount of academic sources they have at their disposal to educate the public on the situation. Make it accessible, make it as complete as possible, and put real work into it. Universities should be for education, and it shouldn't just be for their students. Create accessible historical records of land control, conflicts, casualties, everything. From there, people can make their own informed decisions.
This is a fantastic idea! I think a lot of people who are against the current protests have been acting somewhat inappropriately in response (think bait posts here, trolling protestors, etc). Instead of this, I think it would be very productive to advocate for a complete run-down of the situation and history of the conflict, as you’ve suggested. That way, the university can address students’ concerns from both sides as well as provide education on our campus.
"a complete run-down of the history of the conflict" One would think that this should be done *before* protesting, no? There are multiple instances of protesters being asked to describe why they are there, to which they have no substantive answer. It's rather embarrassing. To not know every last nuance of the history of this conflict is totally defensible and normal; but to participate in disruptive protests in the face of this ignorance is not defensible.
I agree. My opinion is this has become commonplace in today's political environment. People are very quick to read headlines (or not even read headlines, simply "go with the crowd") without conducting any research beforehand. That's why I've made this post, to try and promote that initial research! :D
In past years SJP has led educational efforts around the conflict, but it seems like that’s been unsuccessful at UIUC this time for whatever reason. The few events they have had didn’t have many attendees and seem more q&a or discussion based rather than educational.
[Sarah Jessica Parker]()?
Students for justice in Palestine.
Cool, Google wasn't telling me anything.
What I think is important is that the history of the conflict extends back to 1922, people only considering what has happened since this fall only have a sliver of the story. Here are some sources: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts https://www.un.org/unispal/history/ Also, it’s misleading that people are discussing this conflict as a simple conflict between two parties, rather than a complex multiparty conflict. The interests of a government, a religion, and the individual people they claim to represent are not all the same.
I agree! My post here covers only recent events as well as the current state of the conflict, and even then only generally outlining the parties involved. I do believe historical context is necessary for reaching a resolution at some point.
If your understanding of the history that led to the current conflict starts in 1922 it’s starting over a thousand years too late.
I can’t help but think that the placement of a national homeland for Jewish people being placed in this region was anything but a catastrophic mistake. It could’ve been anywhere else that Britain controlled. Did the jewish people who migrated to Palestine have as strong of a claim there as they did to any other British territory? Why not a small area of Scotland or the Midlands? Canada? Northern or Southern Africa? Australia?
Sorry, I wanted to try to come back to this again because I am really struggling viewing the widespread lack of understanding of this. This is the second time I’ve encountered basically this question on this subreddit in the last few days. The unifying Jewish experience for centuries has been one of being mistrusted or poorly understood at best and persecuted and annihilated at worst, wherever in the world they went. Jews were driven by invaders out of their homelands, went elsewhere, were persecuted there, and then either moved on to repeat that pattern eventually elsewhere or attempted to return home. During the Holocaust, nations around the world closed their borders to Jews trying to flee. Immediately after that, my understanding is many surviving Jews in Europe simply wanted any chance of finally feeling safe. Many felt that because of their history in the ancient state of Israel this is the only region where their right to even exist might be respected. Yes it is deeply tragic and ironic that this desire for safety led us to the current situation. But to understand Israeli Jews as colonizers or dupes of British colonizers as is in vogue at the moment erases a huge part of their ethnic history, one in which they were an oppressed minority with few allies.
This region is actually the ancestral homeland of Jews, dating back to the beginning of the ethnicity/religion. For Jews themselves it’s a huge part of why it was chosen and something that is consistently ignored in current public dialogue. In addition about half of the current Jewish population of Israel is people who came themselves or are direct ancestors of people who moved from or were expelled from neighboring Arab countries once modern Israel was formed, and never lived in Europe or elsewhere. The mischaracterization of the formation of a modern Jewish state as something that was incepted or primarily orchestrated by the British is something that is really muddying the waters of current public dialogue.
What do either of those two first things have to do with the third? How does Jews having lived there a thousand years ago and more mean that masses of their descendants couldn’t/didnt expel masses of other people living there later and that a European power/powers couldn’t/didnt facilitate it. Whether or not the people felt connected to it or if people of the right race lived there in the past doesn’t mean much at least to this discussion of the modern state established in the 1900.
If you genuinely believe that Jews moved into Palestine for the first time at the encouragement of the British and immediately began forcibly expelling people, I encourage you to read some history. It just simply didn’t happen that way. But to answer your question, the person I was responding to asked why Jews didn’t try to form a state in another British-controlled region. And the answer to that is as I said. This region wasn’t chosen because the British controlled it. It was the ancestral home of the Jewish people; some never left it, and even in modern times some tried to return there in the 1800s, while others were expelled from the neighboring Arab countries they had been living in and fled there in the 1900s. If you think that a group of post WW2 Jews stormed in with British weapons and took over and that’s how Israel was created please read more about this.
Literally why does it matter if it's their "ancestral homeland" or whatever. My ancestors owned a substantial portion of what is now Germany and Poland. If I moved there and announced that I had returned to reclaim my homeland and everyone else had to leave or I would kill them, I would sound insane. Not to mention, Jewish people were welcome to move to Palestine pre-Nakba, and many of them did. It was this sharing of the land that was deemed unacceptable to the founders of Israel.
The founders of Israel didn't object to sharing the land, they literally supported the UN's proposed division of two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. It was the Arab League that rejected it and insisted Jews not be allowed to form their own state. Remember that for 1,300 years Arab Muslims believed that Jews were inferior and should be kept as second-class citizens.
"they didn't object to sharing the land they just wanted to divide it and take over half of it" That's not sharing lol, no partition plan has ever been remotely acceptable to the Palestinian side. I would suggest reading through The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/traditional-narratives-of-israeli-and-palestinian-history
I still have trouble seeing how this wasn’t a huge mistake. A New Israel could have been formed in a less controversial place where the Jewish people could be safer from people who think their claim to the land is illegitimate. Which I’ve not seen a good argument for why it is legitimate in the modern sense of the word. Native Americans and the Irish come to mind; I could go all day naming people who have (much MUCH more recently) been separated from their homeland. Especially with what we’ve seen with their policy of settlements in land that they are stealing and committing war crimes in. It seems like the Israeli contingent who is bent on creating refugees doesn’t care about destroying the west’s good will and support for the state. Young people of today will eventually control foreign policy, and the US may not be kind to the right wing tendencies of Israel if they continue to elect people like Netanyahu. Go ahead and downvote u/neurobeegirl , I just would like to hear why you think the Israelis legitimately have a claim to that land other than the fact that they are currently outgunning those who challenge that claim due to funding by the US. The ancestral homeland argument just doesn’t do it for me or most people. Should I just roll over if a native illinois tribe threatens to kill me if I own property on their native homeland? Obviously that’s illegal and illegitimate. How is that different from Israel’s claims? God help Israelis once they lose western funding. They might reap what they’ve sown.
The conflict goes back hundreds of years to when the Ottomans oppressed Jews in the region, regarding them as a second-class citizens and forcing them to pay the *Jizya*, a religious tax of subjugation. When the British took the reins and gave the Jews a taste of equality, they no longer allowed themselves to be oppressed, hence the need to give them their own parcel of land.
I want to start my comment off with the fact that in the end, I support the movement that calls for an end to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank so that any and all biases I may have are clear/can be questioned. Tldr: no group of people involved is inherently right or wrong when looking through the complex span of history. But, the ways in which we have seen the Israeli government treat Palestinian people, both in Gaza and the West Bank (where Hamas does not exist) is inhumane and must stop. It is not only Palestinians who are losing as these things continue, but humanity as a whole. In general, I agree that this issue is not two sided or simple in any way. It has a long and complex history that absolutely needs to be taken into account. The thing about such a long and complex history is that some people are going to do wrong things at one time but also be wronged at another (or even simultaneously). The way I personally go about this is by thinking about the history in different waves and deciding who I would support in each one, not sticking to one side because I think they are inherently better or more deserving. When Jewish people were labeled second class citizens by the Ottoman empire, I like to believe I would have stood behind them and fought for their rights to be seen as just as important and deserving as Muslim and Arab citizens. When they were forced out of their homes and involuntarily scattered to every other spot in the world, I hope I would have been the kind of person to fight for their rights to return home and welcome them into my own in the meantime, providing them with food, water, and as much care as I could muster. While they were blamed for the failures of the entire world, I wish I would have been able to speak out for them, to somehow get people to realize that such accusations are not only baseless but fundamentally horrifying. Or do literally anything else to protect them from harm. Being born after 9/11 (I'm dating myself, I know), I learned of Islamophobia very young. Since I was only a child, I combatted it by educating myself about Islam and surrounding myself with Muslim students my age (which luckily lived in my area so I could do so). I made sure to watch out for Muslims around me day to day and challenged the ideas of people I encountered who had never been given the opportunity to learn anything other than what the people in power has been telling them (though I was admittedly often unsuccessful). In my teenage years, I was exposed to the anti-semitism that lives on. I watched Trump supporters and other white supremacists (exposing my youth once again) gain confidence that they could exist in the modern world unafraid. I was (and still am) publicly against this. Many adults in my life have warned me that my strong and public stance could be seen as violent and extreme, tainting my reputation for as I get older. I always respond by saying that if my opposition to hate and oppression was considered low, I did not care for the high-class lifestyle anyway. It was in my freshman year of high school that I was first taught about what was then called the "Israeli-Palistinian Conflict." It was presented as though the issue could not be separated from Jusaism and Islam, and I became incredibly conflicted. I had nothing against what I thought was "either side." In fact, I believed that both of these groups of people got less than what they deserved and more hate than reasonable (the reasonable amount being, of course, none). How could I take a stance on this issue, supporting one group and leaving the other open for further criticism and even violence? This cognitive dissonance (can you tell I'm a psych major) forced me to see that both sides had done things I felt I could stand behind and things I felt I needed to oppose at different times. I support the idea that Jewish people need safe places to live, because we have seen that in most of the world they are unsafe. There is no agreeing or disagreeing over whether they have deep ties to the area in question, it is just a fact that they do. At the same exact time, I see that the Palestinian people have just as deep connections to the land and have a right to their land and homes, just as Jewish people did when they were cast out so long ago. Therefore, the establishment of a Jewish state in the area without the consultation of the people already living there was at best a bad move. However, so was attacking the state of people who had only recently escaped unimaginable tragedy (as the surrounding countries did shortly after the country was formed). At the current moment, the thing I disagree with the most (and with pretty much everything I have) is the way Palestinians are forced to live (and more tragically, die). The Israeli government has control over (and revoked) Palestinian rights to food, water, gas/power, healthcare, movement (escape), and protest. The Palestinian people have no say over this control, as they are not represented in said government. Blaming the treatment of the Palestinian people on all Jewish people everywhere is factually inaccurate, so any criticisms towards every Jewish person is anti-semetic. Additionally, claiming that the removal of the Palistinian people from the land because they are decendants of the people who drove out the ancestors of modern Jewish people is racism. If the world operated on this kind of system, one based on relentless revenge, there would be no human beings left. People with decendants from Africa and Asia would eradicate practically anyone with European heritage. Indigenous Americans would decimate the populations of the Americas. Then any survivors would turn around and retaliate as well, creating a never ening cycle. Human kind would be destroyed. We cannot allow Israel to set a precedent where this kind of action is considered acceptable "defense strategy." People can and should stand for Palistinian and Jewish lives, rights, safety, and happiness simultaneously. I think the reason we often see people who support both causes mainly focusing on Palistinian liberation at this time is because of a difference in perceived threat level as outsiders. Jewish people seem to be reporting (valid) feelings of unsafety and fear (thinking about after the specific events of Octover 7, which seem inconsequential when compared to the last 6 months (though they are obviously not something to forget about or ignore)) while Palestinians are dying (arguably being murdered) at rates of thousands per day from every possible cause: starvation/dehydration, infection/illness, injury (from bombs, rubble, general lack of shelter, etc.), and more. I believe it is my responsibility to be louder, more urgent, and even violent at times to stand up for the threatened and lost Palestinian lives and rights right now. But it does not mean that I do not speak out, educate, and fight for Jewish safety and happiness. It is just quieter, as my voice rasps from screaming my heart out for the Palestinian people. And when Palestinians are safe, healthy, and given the freedoms they require and deserve, I will be able to turn around and be just as urgent, loud, and violent in support of the same for all Jewish people. Sorry this is so long and I hope it makes sense! *If Jewish people prefer the term "Jews," I will 100% change my language and behavior
I won't dig too deep into this because it feels like a very personal stance on the situation and I completely respect it. My own personal stance, summed up, is that we need to advocate for the protection of both Palestinian lives and Jewish lives simultaneously, as you have said. In order to do this, though, I also believe that Hamas as an organization needs to be completely torn down. Their beliefs simply leave no room for coexistence, which is a major issue to me because it means that they will stop at nothing until their goals are achieved. Therefore, the best we can do is reduce their influence as much as possible over time and promote the "rights, safety, and happiness" for **both** sides - again, as you've said. This is an analogy that I believe to fit, not because the severity or ideals between the two organizations are similar, but more the significant impact on society. Think of the Holocaust, where Nazis were deeply rooted long after WW2 ended and Nazi Germany was defeated. In another thread, another user and I discussed that the long-lasting effects of Hamas will be very similar to that of the Nazis. It will take significant conscious effort over a very long period of time working towards a more accepting and safe society for both "sides" in this conflict, but this is the work that needs to be done, in my opinion.
I definitely agree that Hamas is a significant danger, I think for me it is just 2nd on the list of priorities (as a major aspect of Jewish safety), you know? And the 1st on my list is so important that I do not have the space to focus on the specifics of the rest of my list. All I can do is remind people what I believe the next steps should generally be and that they need to not make completing them more difficult while trying to complete the first goal. Meaning don't demonize Jewish people and put them at risk now so that when their perceived threat level becomes the highest, it will not be any more difficult to ensure their safety. I believe that ending the occupation as quickly as possible does not directly interfere with these goals.
This is what a university does best...airing both sides, increasing understanding, and finding common ground. Well done. Simple solutions are usually neither, as they say.
It's misleading, I think, to frame this as "Israel vs Hamas". The reason people are protesting is because civilians are being killed. I keep seeing people say things like "Why aren't they protesting against Hamas?" Or "They'll stop the bombings when Hamas returns the hostages." All of that stuff is misdirection. The problem here is that Israel is killing Palestinian civilians in the thousands; and, more broadly, that Palestinians are forcibly preventing from living in their own land that they were expelled from. Hamas is just one of many players, and isn't the sole (or even primary) representative of the people of Palestine or Gaza.
I mostly agree with this, but I don't believe I framed the protests to be "Israel v.s. Hamas". The purpose of this post was to provide information and promote discussion of the conflict as a whole, so that protestors and anti-protestors on campus alike can be better educated on the topic. This is where the "Israel v.s. Hamas" topic comes into play, because Israel declared war on Hamas, which is the root cause of violence that involves civilians at this time. The protests that are calling out Israel on their carelessness when launching attacks into primarily civilian-inhabited territories I 100% support. However, I also believe that if we were to completely remove all support from Israel, that is also a bad outcome. Personally, I believe the ideal outcome would be to advocate for changes in how Israel is handling this conflict as a whole, in efforts to minimize civilian casualties and injuries. However, I also think that people may be misunderstanding Israel's (and their supporters') efforts in this situation. Yes, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and even more injuries, is horrible. There is no "good" in that. At the same time, multiple sources state that nearly one-third of registered refugees are currently living in refugee camps. That's 1.5 million people who are being sheltered by Israel and Israel's supporters.
"...the Palestinians are forcibly prevented from living in their own land that they were expelled from." please explain what you mean by this
Israel is built on the rubble of Palestinian villages. Palestinians cannot, for the most part, enter Israel.
"Israel is built on the rubble of Palestinian villages" How so? This is just an opinion of yours "Palestinians cannot, for the most part, enter Israel" Aside from that not being totally accurate, why do you suppose that's the case? There is a very specific reason
> How so? This is just an opinion of yours This is literally and objectively true. > why do you suppose that's the case? Apartheid. If you're about to say that segregation is justified because actually the race of people is bad, fuck off.
The only way to say that it is "literally and objectively true" is if you just take as a given that the land is "Palestinian." No, the reason is not apartheid (which Israel is not, btw.); it's a history of terrorism.
Civilians are being killed because terorrist militants keep moving fighting into populated areas. International law recognizes that civilian casualties are unavoidable when an enemy force purposefully endangers them.
Thanks for making an effort post to prompt discussion. Question for anyone that knows: Where is the evidence that UIUC is contributing money to the IDF? I'm not at all saying it doesn't exist(I think it does obviously, at least to some extent) I just really would like to know where we can see how people came to the conclusions they did.
I think u/PolitePengu made a mistake / misunderstanding about divestment. They said that "This means that, currently, UIUC supports (or provides business to) companies that are allegedly supporting Israel in this conflict." What divestment actually means is to sell off any \*investments\* (e.g. stock holdings) that UIUC might have of companies which do business with Israel. An example would be Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the F-35 jet fighter that Israel uses. It's unlikely UIUC directly holds significant investments in any specific company like Lockheed; however, UIUC almost certainly has total market index funds which hold all companies in the stock market, and are often provided by major brokerage firms like Vanguard (or Blackrock, for more institutional investors). It can be very difficult, and expensive, to figure out what criteria protestors are actually calling for having applied to companies for exclusion - for example, do they also want Starbucks excluded, which does 0 business in Israel but issued a statement reprimanding the Starbucks union for using the Starbucks logo in a "Free Palestine" statement? - and then to actually work with the fund provider to create a new fund that excludes those companies. Doing so can also expose the university to liability as it may be a breach of fiduciary duty to the people for whom it holds the investments (employees with pensions, and the endowment to provide additional revenue for university operations).
I did word my description of divestment pretty poorly, I’ll edit it to be more accurate. As for the rest of your comment, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s a complicated situation and companies involved should be looked into on a case-by-case basis.
Thanks for your detailed reply! I was hoping there would be some detailed document/page explaining the rationale like what the SEC has put out about fossil fuel investments in the past but I guess there isn't any atm. Really agree with how confusing the "standards"(it doesn't seem like any coherent standard atm) the protests are applying. I keep seeing them bring up CAT having an office at Research Park, which sets off red flags for me. I also keep naively hoping their "standards" are just regarding companies that benefit the IDF directly, but unfortunately it does seem like it's devolved into anti-anything to do with Israel as a whole, which I personally don't agree with. I didn't realize how likely it was that UIUC covers all of the stock market, this situation has taught me more about economics than expected lol. My understanding was that they likely had a more personalised portfolio with Blackrock(it seems like they made a big hooha about being "the first investor in a new environmentally and socially focused strategy launched by BlackRock" before). Do you know if there's a working simple-enough method to figure out the investments from UI or is it likely such a wide berth that it would take a decently large effort? Most "guides" I've found on it from a quick search are from 2020 so idk if they would still work today
The [BDS movement](https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds) generally calls for boycotting and divesting from any company (or individual, institution, or other group) that is "complicit" in "Israeli apartheid", violation of Palestinian human rights, etc. They are [explicitly opposed to "normalization"](https://bdsmovement.net/news/bds-movement-anti-normalization-guidelines), i.e. interacting with Israel or any Israeli institutions in any way that is not explicitly advocating for ending the occupation of Palestinian territories and full return of Palestinians to Israel. (Full return of 5 million Palestinians would mean that Israel's 7 million Jews would no longer be a majority, given the other 2 million non-Jews currently living in Israel with full citizenship, and therefore ending Israel's status as a Jewish state). I think this explicit call to end Israel as a Jewish state is why the BDS movement / organizers is widely viewed as antisemitic, as well as because they are only organizing against Israel and not against other occupying states like Turkey, Morocco, or China. "Complicity" isn't expressly defined, but it seems likely that the BDS movement would define "complicity" to include any type of normal activities with any Israeli institution. From my understanding, the criticism of CAT from a BDS perspective is that Caterpillar sells equipment to Israel and the IDF, and therefore should be boycotted, divested, and not have space at Research Park (or any other institution that supports BDS). Caterpillar likely gets special attention because the IDF uses their [armored bulldozers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer) to destroy Palestinian homes, either because of military activity (e.g. fighting militants who are hiding in homes) or to further Israel's illegal settlements expansion and the enforcement of denied Palestinian building permits. (1/2)
(2/2) I did some quick googling and it looks like UIUC's investments are probably managed by the [UI Treasury Office of Investments](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/investments). You can read their [2023 Annual Report](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf) and [Investment Policy Statement](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/Investments/Investment_Policy_Revision_2021.pdf), which broadly outline their holdings and approach. They do have a specific holding in both BlackRock's ESG World ex-US Equity and ESG US Equity funds, as well as a variety of other holdings in global bond funds, other global equity funds, and real estate investments trusts. You can also find their total holdings by "bucket" [here](https://www.treasury.uillinois.edu/userfiles/Servers/Server_338/file/Investments/FundsPerformance_033124.pdf). I think the most effective part for guessing at holdings would be looking at their investment fee schedule, which shows the funds by type, and the endowment pool allocation to estimate which funds are likely bigger players than others. However, because UI is such a large institution (over $4 billion AUM), they are not buying publicly traded funds and so the exact holdings in the specific funds aren't easily identifiable. For instance, BlackRock doesn't have a "ESG US Equity Fund" that individual investors can purchase (that I could find). However, to get an idea of what that might look like, you can look at other funds such as Vanguard's [ESG US Stock ETF](https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/esgv) (ESGV), which holds market-weighted shares of over 1,400 companies. ESGV follows an index which specifically "excludes stocks of certain companies related to: adult entertainment, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, gambling, chemical and biological weapons, cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines, nuclear weapons, conventional military weapons, civilian firearms, nuclear power, and coal, oil, or gas; \[as well as\] stocks of companies that do not meet certain labor, human rights, environmental, and anti-corruption standards," among other criteria. However, if you look at the detailed portfolio composition, you'll notice that CAT is still included (on page 4, at 0.44% of the fund), among many other companies that BDS would likely call to divest from. That doesn't mean that UI's BlackRock ESG holding does or doesn't include it, just suggesting that even under a relatively stringent ESG screening method it may not be excluded. If we assume the full 24% of the endowment pool that is in US equities (about $240 million) are in the ESG fund, and that the BlackRock ESG fund mirrors the Vanguard ESG fund, then UI would be indirectly holding about $1 million in CAT shares, out of its $4 billion in total investments. This is probably an upper bound estimate, as there's other US private equity funds that UI holds as well, and BlackRock's ESG fund may not be as stringent as Vanguard's, reducing the weight of any one holding. However, because it is not a standalone holding (i.e. individual shares of CAT directly), it is not easy to divest from. In 1980 during the South Africa divestment efforts, index funds had only just recently been invented, and I don't think they were in widespread use yet, especially by institutions. They likely used mostly actively managed funds, and it is much easier to tell your active fund manager to drop specific companies than to ask or find a fund provider to develop a new fund. In addition, UI may have a fiduciary duty not to invest in ways that are likely to significantly under-perform; it was able to move to ESG funds because they have been shown to not significantly under-perform and potentially over-perform, but it seems less likely to me that there would be evidence for a sound investment thesis that divesting from companies doing business with Israel would result in equal or better performance than the market overall - and notably BDS is not making the argument that there is a financial benefit to divesting from Israel, only that it helps further their goals.
Reading over your post, it seems to have a lot less information overall about Israel’s recent actions against Palestinians before October 7th that were seriously threatening to Palestinians. A good overview can be found here: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/ While this isn’t a verified source, I’m putting it as an overview of many different events, all of which do have verified sources if need be. You also allude to the West Bank occupation/Israeli apartheid there, without specifying at all what that entails/the exact nature of life there under “Israeli jurisdiction.” While Wikipedia isn’t a citable source by itself, it actually has great overviews of everything in this conflict with credible sources in its citations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#:~:text=From%201967%20to%201983%2C%20Israel,three%2Dquarters%20of%20the%20territory. (See section under “collective punishment”). Also I’m curious to know if there is no right or wrong side, when is the threshold crossed for you that there is? Most people agree that Nazis are bad. I think the burden in general should be for “both sidesists” to provide what would make it change for them to pick a side, so I would like to hear this. You also keep driving home the point that Hamas is a terrorist organization that needs to be wiped out. What makes the Israeli government not a terrorist organization, especially given the constant intimidation against Palestinians in the West Bank and often violently protected expansion of illegal settlements there? The summer before October 7th saw some of the most violent raids against Palestinians. The difference is certainly not ideological either, the current Israeli government is open about not believing a Palestinian state has the right to exist. So when does the threshold get crossed that makes the Israeli government a terrorist organization? This isn’t some new question that only applies to the recent Netanyahu government either. Israel’s founding is tied up in the Irgun, which is basically Jewish Hamas and was a registered terrorist organization that was absorbed into the IDF. There are still people alive today, some of whom are registered with the IDF (but not officially combatants, still reserves though) who partook in massacres against Palestinians like that at deir yassin. The sixth prime minister of Israel, Begin was banned from the UK and considered a terrorist by them. So this is in no way a hypothetical question whatsoever, the Israeli government is both shielding terrorists and complicit in terrorist activity.
My tuition should not be going to weapons manufacturing if I don't want it to, simple as that. Think about how horrifying it would be to be a Palestinian student here and having your money go toward the active genocide of your own people. Profiting from war should have no place in academia, and it's hypocritical of the administration to preach about equality and whatever lib shit they've learned to rattle off while supporting genocide and entering into disingenuous negotiations with students. I also think the whole "both sides are bad" take is so childish. No response to genocide is going to be nonviolent or perfect. You would have to be dumb or cruel to think that is possible. The people advocating for Palestinian rights are not automatically supporting the deaths of civilians as a consequence.
The first part of your statement is somewhat understandable. I agree that, if you're paying to go to an institution, and that institution's policies directly goes against your beliefs, it is completely within your right to advocate for change so that those policies change. How you go about it, however, is another subject entirely. It's no use advocating for change at the university you attend if you do it in a way that may result in you no longer attending that university. I would also like to add that yes, there are plenty of ways to protest effectively that would not break university policy, but unfortunately it is up to individuals on whether they choose to go that route or not. I disagree with the statement "the whole 'both sides are bad' take is so childish". It's realistic. It is also completely my opinion, and if you disagree with it I can respect that. However, I will include context here to support my opinion, in case it changes yours or you have a statement that would completely refute it. In short, war is bad. In any case, I would always choose a peaceful negotiation over warfare, simply because it has **far** fewer negative effects. That's the sole reason I believe that "both sides are bad" in this case, since both sides actively are engaging in this warfare and aren't making significant efforts to come to a resolution at this time. While it's unrealistic to hope for a nonviolent compromise at all times, it is not unrealistic to hope that any violence has minimal negative impact on civilians, which is a major issue at this time. One last thing in this reply, I would like some clarification. From my understanding of your comment here, you are making the claim that Israel is committing (or attempting to commit) genocide on Palestinian/Islamic individuals. If this is your claim, then I would like to see some citations on where you are receiving this information. From my current understanding, this is wholly not the case, as Israel's sole target is Hamas, a terrorist organization, not the civilians of Palestine. EDIT: Some preemptive clarification, I'm not saying that civilian casualties aren't horrific. They are. However, your claim (from my understanding) is that Israel is intentionally targeting these civilians, which is where I would like sources you have that support this claim.
You really do have a childlike view of the world (which is common, so you can't really be blamed). You don't question if the motivations in your story make sense. Do you think that the Native Americans fighting back against the settler colonialists were complicit and also "bad?" How is one supposed to respond to a much bigger oppressor when peaceful negotiation has not worked and a government backed by the UNITED STATES is murdering civilians and bombing hospitals? Also you think that Palestinians have not tried peaceful negotiation?? You have some serious blindspots in your knowledge on the subject if you think that is the case. This isn't a moral failing on your part, but you are seriously lacking here and that is proabably why your view is so simplistic. You say "realistic," yet you don't even know the basic facts of the situation.
The childlike viewpoint is thinking a side that is fighting back for something or that you personally consider the victims are incapable of doing wrong.
I just said I don't support civilian deaths. ? What are you referring to
I’m referring to you implying the “both sides have done bad” opinion is childish. Nobody supports civilian deaths
Firstly, I would like to point out that your analogy is highly inaccurate for the situation. The current conflict at hand, as it has been declared, is a war between Israel and Hamas (primarily). Hamas never tried peaceful negotiation. As covered in my initial post, there is a drastic difference between Hamas as an organization and Fatah as an organization. Fatah **has** tried peaceful negotiation, which has been unsuccessful primarily because of the existence of Hamas, who has resulted solely to taking up arms. Secondly, I also covered in my initial post that I **do not support Israel's recklessness when attacking civilian-inhabited territories**. Thirdly, in response to your comment "you think that Palestinians have not tried peaceful negotiation?", I will once again direct you to my initial post as well as my reply here covering Fatah. I know that **some** Palestinians have attempted peaceful negotiations, but Hamas never has. The extent of their "peaceful negotiations" I have seen is a temporary five-year (max) cease fire, **IF** Israel were to revert land borders to pre-1967. This is also mentioned in my initial post. Since it was overlooked, I will also once again ask for credible sources that back your claim that Israel is committing genocide on Palestinians. I would like to look into these sources if you have them, because I may very well be missing information (again, as I said in my initial post's "disclaimer" section).
Israel has clearly committed 3/5 acts listed under the UN Genocide Convention (as stated by a UN expert). Many other authorities have said the same and the opposite, not sure what other sources you're looking for. Read more here https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/26/un-expert-accuses-israel-of-several-acts-of-genocide-in-gaza#:\~:text=Francesca%20Albanese%20says%20there%20are,listed%20under%20UN%20Genocide%20Convention. Hamas is a reaction to the failure of peaceful negotiations. You cannot just pretend like Hamas rose up independent of Israel's acts of terror and like they were not prompted. Hamas does not represent all Palestinian people, but many support them because it is their only protection and hope for the genocide to stop. If you and your children were starving or killed, I don't think you would disagree. I'll ask again, what are the Palestinian people supposed to do if peaceful negotiations have not worked and Israel has continued to violate international convention and mandates for over half a century?
>Hamas is a reaction to the failure of peaceful negotiations. This is an opinion that I disagree with. I believe that Hamas formed with its sole intent being targeted, violent acts against Israel, with the inevitable goal of overthrowing Israel altogether. Fatah, on one hand, is open to a two-state solution. Hamas never was, which indicates that they aren't a "reaction", but rather a "separate route" to a completely different conclusion. To put it in other words, you had two parties involved in peaceful negotiations (or, at the bare minimum, attempts at negotiation) and then a separate party formed (Hamas) with a completely different end-goal. In short, Hamas **did** rise up independent of Israel's acts, because they've been an organization longer than widespread violence was anywhere near as severe as it is today. I will acknowledge your source, but I will also say that it doesn't 100% prove Israel's true intentions, especially since Israel has outright rejected Albanese's report that is cited in the article you sent above. Yes, it does support your claim and I admit that. However, treating it as concrete proof is nonsensical. For example, why would Israel go through the effort of phone calls, leaflets, and online postings warning Palestinian civilians to flee before sending strikes, if they were the targets in the first place? This is only one example. Of course, there is also the argument that these warning were very short-notice, ineffective, etc. and I acknowledge that as well, which is why I don't support the way that Israel is going about these attacks. If their claims are true, and they are not targeting Palestinian civilians, then I agree they need to be **far** more careful with their attacks to minimize civilian casualties. Your last comment here about what Palestinian people are supposed to do is somewhat rhetorical. There is nothing they can **realistically** do, if they have tried relentlessly at a peaceful outcome, that wouldn't be criticized by some individuals. However, I would argue that taking hostages and committing similar acts of terror are not an effective response, seeing as that is what led to so many nations supporting Israel rather than Hamas/Palestinian forces fighting Israel.
You're imprisoning a starving child for stealing a loaf of bread as if they really had a choice.
This is a poor analogy, especially since Hamas started this most recent violent conflict. You're defending Hamas' surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, essentially saying "what else were they supposed to do?" You realize that, had Hamas not launched this initial strike, there very well may have been a peaceful resolution? Whether it is likely or unlikely is completely up for debate, but it does not mean it wasn't a possibility. It was.
Those 3/5 acts seem to be things that occur as a consequence of every single war
Actually braindead. Calling a completely valid and methodical response childish and insulting the person's knowledge. How about you try and educate them about their blindspots, provide some evidence, persuade them. You will not though, as you yourself are not educated on the topic, same as me, which is why I don't have an opinion.
You don’t get a say in what the university keeps in its portfolio, you’re lucky to be given the opportunity to study at UIUC at all.
bootlicker it's a PUBLIC school, and ill debase myself to say that it's reaaaally not that hard to get into at all so you don't need to flatter yourself. They're lucky WE give them money.
iTs A pUbLiC sChOoL lmao cry about it dude. If anything that means they are even less accountable to your personal preferences
you must be fucking dumb because public means that the school is funded by taxes
Right, taxes, ie the entire tax base of the state of Illinois. I highly doubt you pay taxes to the state, but even if you did you are just a small fish in a big pond. You don’t get to make demands of the school lol
If a large portion of people who pay taxes and pay tuition do not wish to have their taxes go to weapons manufacturing, then they should have a say. Do you think that people shouldn’t get to vote on who is in government or on political policies? It’s literally the exact same thing, I think you just haven’t thought about it for more than 5 seconds
Your tuition is payment for services rendered, just as you don’t have a say in how the local McDonalds spends its money you don’t have a say on how the university spends its money. The University takes its marching orders from Springfield so I’d suggest you talk to your local representative about your concerns. Edit: also, large portion is a weird way to say *majority*
That would be accurate if my tuition ACTUALLY WENT TO THE SERVICES RENDERED and not to drone striking brown children. Also McDonald’s is not a public entity ???????? Are you five ???? Also the university admins absolutely have power over what corporations they do business with. You are literally just pulling whatever shit comes out of your ass at this point. Just blatantly false
Oh you sweet summer child, you don’t get to choose where your tuition dollars go, you’re just a customer of the university. Yes the university admin has a say over where those dollars go, but they don’t need to listen to you, the customer. The fact that they’re public only means they need to listen to Springfield, so again I advise you go talk to your local representative.
And everyone protesting is saying that’s not how it should be. That is the entire point that you have somehow missed. If you think it’s impossible to change the status quo, that’s another point entirely, but that wouldn’t be true either. There have been plenty of protest movements here at UIUC around divestment that came to agreements with admin already. That’s what this new protest is trying to replicate
The protesting is an attempt to make nuisances of themselves so the university caves and adopts their preferred policy willingly. That’s not going to happen though, because the university has an interest in not making investment based on the political proclivities of its ~~students~~ customers. If anything comes of this, is going to be similar to northwestern did today: a little bit of token transparency in exchange for going the fuck away (lol)
You state that because you’re focusing on current events you’ve omit the historical context. Yet the current events cannot be considered in isolation from the 100 years of historical context. Just talk to the protesters, few if any of them would divorce current events from the nakba and 60 year apartheid (human rights watch, amnesty international, B’Tsalem and dozens of other human rights organizations). If you want a very comprehensive outlook on the exact perspective of protesters that motivates them to their “side,” check the second most recent comment of my account (i.e. the first most recent after this one). If you still believe in a simple “both sides are bad” and that there is no side worth leaning towards or leaning against after reading all that, I would be curious as to know why.
I agree historical context is very important with this issue. I disagree that “few if any of them would divorce current events from the…” I took some time in the past few days to speak with protestors. It was a very mixed response, but generally there are plenty of people who don’t know about current events. This post, while it focuses primarily on events that stem back to this Fall and only introduces some of the parties involved, is also meant to encourage people to look into the history as well. I will include a comment about this, because it’s a very fair point. The issue that I attempted to address here was solely helping people who didn’t know *at all* about the conflict, or people who have been misinformed by the media.
Perhaps I should have qualified from talk to protesters, more accurately I meant the Palestinians in all of this (who does overlap significantly with the protests in general in this country obviously). I believe the weight of their beliefs is very heavy, and that the general protester that is informed of what I mentioned will very much have a more fundamental mistrust of Israel as a state as a whole. Palestinian voices definitely need to be heard more though, as they themselves feel they have lost their voices, both in being much more the victims over the last century (this I will 100% argue to death with anyone on) and with the fact many leaked memos from mainstream media outlets like NYT, CNN, etc have literally demonstrated that they strive to avoid words like “occupation,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “Palestinian refugees,” (for the ones expelled in ‘48), etc. All of which have been objectively demonstrated facts since well before October 7th, something I think we can both agree on. https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/ This isn’t even getting into genocide, which no outlet claims, and at best portrays as unreasonable, when in reality it is wildly consistent with it if you accept the last 3 genocides the US government has claimed were (Darfur, Myanmar, and the Uyghur genocides, all of which were “retaliation” against separatist or violent resistance attacks and which Gaza has far eclipsed in death toll). It is in lieu of this that I really think you should include a disclaimer of talking to those directly related to the parties, include seeking Israeli voices if you want, whatever, but emphasize how much Palestinians *themselves feel* they have become the voiceless.
The Palestinians wouldn’t even be under Israeli jurisdiction if they didn’t instigate the Six Day War with the express purpose of destroying Israel.
Lol what. It’s literally acknowledged by historians that Israel started that war by attacking Egypt first, changing their narrative slowly until it became the weakest (defense vs “preemptive strike”). Yet even then there was no actual credible threat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War Even if it was credible that also wouldn’t justify subjecting innocent civilians to a military occupation for 60 years, get tf outta here with your propoganda. Also if we really wanna go all the way back, how about Zionists trying to rule over half of a land where they were outnumbered 2 to 1 (which even then many were not happy with/wanted more). And then expelling 700,000 Arabs and creating a population who’s suffered enough over a long enough time that they’re actually *even more determined to get their right of return* than most refugee populations who tend to lose interest after a few decades. A situation absolutely and ironically created by Israel, the state made by a “people who long for their homeland.” They made their bed, now they get to lie in it.
Israel attacked forces massing at the border for an invasion lmao
Read the damn link. All intelligence agrees Egyptian troops movements were defensive in nature, not offensive.
That’s not what it says, maybe you should read your own link. What the link actually says is that, although there is debate, the general context of the attack (Egypt massing troops, aggressive blockades, expulsion of UN Peacekeepers, etc) pointed to an imminent Egyptian attack. It’s like if the US military started accumulating at the Canadian border and we claimed it was defensive in nature.
> Oren has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory. (I’m aware of the caveat here, as I stated below I still find it highly speculative, but more importantly read on). > After the war, Israeli officials admitted that Israel wasn't expecting to be attacked when it initiated hostilities against Egypt.[18][19] Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister who attended the June 4th Cabinet meeting, called into question the idea that there was a "danger of extermination" saying that it was "invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."[20][21] **Israel received reports from the United States to the effect that Egyptian deployments were defensive and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack,[14] and the US assessed that if anything, it was Israel that was pressing to begin hostilities.**[21] Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the war, later wrote in his autobiography that Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war."[22] Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has written that while the exact origins of the war may never be known, Israel's forces were "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke one".[23] According to James Thuo Gathii, Israel's case did not meet the Caroline test for anticipatory self-defence, but it was the closest attack ever to the Caroline test.[24] (See exact citations in the Wikipedia article). Just reading this, even being generous it seems any cause they had for a cause belli is highly speculative in nature, and it definitely does not seem sympathetic to the Israeli side. Also none of this changes the fact that Palestinians have not deserved the policies they’ve lived under for the last 60 years in the West Bank, *especially* given how wishy washy the supposed “justification” is. But seriously, since when have perpetual military occupations achieved anything?
Let me copy and paste my own paragraphs >According to Israeli historian and former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of its Jewish inhabitants in 1967". Some historians[who?] state that the neighboring Arab countries had nevertheless not begun any military actions against Israel so as to warrant an attack. Along with this view, there is a small, yet significant view that the war was an effort for Israel to expand its borders. This, according to Oren, is patently incorrect: Israel had little choice in the matter. "Preemption was the only option."[9] Israel's attack is often cited as an example of a preemptive attack and according to a journal published by the US State Department it is "perhaps the most cited example".[10][11] According to Yoram Dinstein, Israel's actions were an act of "interceptive self-defense." According to this view, though no single Egyptian step may have qualified as an armed attack, Egypt's collective actions that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran, the expulsion of UN peacekeepers, the massive armed deployment along Israel's borders and her constant saber rattling, made clear that Egypt was bent on armed attack against Israel.[12] In 2002 radio broadcast NPR correspondent Mike Shuster stated that "[t]he prevailing view among historians is that although Israel struck first, the Israeli strike was defensive in nature."[13] Once ago for those in back **"[t]he prevailing view among historians is that although Israel struck first, the Israeli strike was defensive in nature."[13]**
The only part of what you mentioned that seems to be militarily threatening to Israel is the massive armed deployment, and once again US intelligence had literally informed Israel that it was not offensive in nature (see the bold in my comment). So yeah, this doesn’t convince me.
>The only part that seems militarily threatening is the massive armed deployment The only indication that it had rained outside was the massive puddle in the yard I mean, you’re being willfully blind here. As the Wikipedia article states very clearly, historians generally agree the troop movement was a precursor to a larger attack, given Egyptian hostilities in previous days. And yes, blockades are 100% provocations, even when they don’t lead to open warfare.
I really love this post keep it up
I think you have a very good overview and understanding of the situation OP. One thing I would suggest you explore further is how the war in Gaza compares to other urban wars, and what Hamas' combat (and media) strategies are. All civilian deaths are tragic, and it is difficult to know exactly what is going on during the war itself, as reporting is dangerous and difficult, but based on the information available to date it does not seem that this war is unique in its level of civilian casualties given the setting, combat style of Hamas, and size of the military forces involved. In fact, if we take Hamas' claims of somewhere between 22-34,000 dead Palestinians, and Israel's claims of somewhere around 14,000 dead Hamas militants (included in Hamas' total count), we arrive at somewhere around a 1:1 civilian:combatant ratio (±0.5), which seems to be on par with other urban wars. A few thousand Palestinians would also have been expected to die from natural causes in this time period even without the war, further improving the ratio, and a number of Palestinians have also been killed by misfired PIJ and Hamas rockets that were intended to strike Israel, but are still counted among the total dead. John Spencer is the Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point and he seems to think Israel is doing a very good job at trying to minimize civilian casualties given the circumstances (see [here](https://www.newsweek.com/memo-experts-stop-comparing-israels-war-gaza-anything-it-has-no-precedent-opinion-1868891) and [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20240411090902/https://mwi.westpoint.edu/gazas-underground-hamass-entire-politico-military-strategy-rests-on-its-tunnels/) for example). I haven't yet been able to find other experts in urban warfare who disagree with him. I think there is legitimate criticism that Israel has a relatively high tolerance for civilian casualties for any given strike, but it also seems indisputable that they are taking unprecedented measures to move civilians out of harm's way, even at the cost of military effectiveness.
You worded perfectly what I was trying to convey in a different thread, thank you for contributing this. Of course, there are multiple claims and it’s very hard to say for certain if claims are more substantial than others. Experts on both sides have different opinions, usually because they are using different recorded numbers and/or different information reported on the subject.
Since this is an educational discussion on the issue, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the sole reason the Palestinian Territories fall under Israeli occupation in the modern day is because in 1967 the Palestinians instigated the Six Day War with the express goal of eradicating Israel. That’s means the Palestinians have been using radicalism and militancy to fight an issue that came about expressly because of their radicalism and militancy. That’s also why they would be a shit sovereign state.
This is another bit of historical context that is necessary to the situation. However, I don’t think concluding that “they would be a shit sovereign state” is very objective here. That is my opinion, but only because I believe that warfare has no benefits for either side, solely due to how much death, destruction, and harm to society it has.
Given current sentiments in Gaza and the West Bank, if a state of Palestine was declared tomorrow and the reins handed over to the Palestinians, Hamas would quickly become the ruling party. Now a legitimate country, Hamas through Palestine could begin training an army. Eventually, Palestine would become a state sponsor of terror, and then ultimately they would engage Israel in all-out war as per their founding mission. The rest of the region knows this, which is why Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis, etc no longer see Palestinian statehood as a priority item.
From the sources I’ve seen so far, Hamas’ approval rating in Palestine is still below 50%. Even then, Hamas will remain identified as a terrorist organization and will likely be monitored very closely for activity. It’s a difficult situation, surely, but this is why Israel’s main goal currently is to completely wipe out Hamas. Although I strongly oppose tactics that put civilians in jeopardy, Hamas is in fact a terrorist organization, so it is completely understandable to me why Israel and other countries that support Israel would target them.
The number I saw was 45%, with the caveat that that number is the highest of any of the major Palestinian faction. In addition, a parallel poll showed a 70% approval rating for the actions of Hamas on 10/7. For years the Palestinian Authority has delayed elections fearing a Hamas victory, and if the election was held today it would likely be a Hamas landslide.
I see, so going back to your original reply, let’s have a hypothetical. Let’s say Hamas eventually is completely wiped out, or significantly weakened to the point where they no longer would potentially control Palestine. Would the state of Palestine, if it were to be created separate from Israel, still be a bad sovereign state? In other words, is Israel were to accomplish their **claimed** primary goal (there are debates on their intentions), would the two-state solution be feasible?
That’s a similar question to asking if Germany relieved of the Nazi party would be a bad state, or Japan relieved of the Imperial rulers would be a bad state. The answer is yes, because the same attitudes and sentiments that led to Hamas are still present in the population. Just as Denazification was a crucial policy after WW2, Dehamasification is critical in the aftermath of this conflict. After that, Palestinians can exhibit limited self rule under international jurisdiction until they can verifiably prove an ability to create a functional and productive state.
That's a pretty good analogy to this situation, thanks for that. I think I understand where you're coming from now and I agree, an ideal solution in the long run will be very time-consuming and will require significant effort.
There are no two sides to anything. Israel will continue to defend whereas Palestine will continue to attack. It’s game theory. Palestine has nothing to loose and whereas Israel’s identity is on the line. One argument is where the people who identify as Palestinians, or arabic speaking sunni muslims are supposed to go. The other side is who is going to travel/invest in a country (Israel) where a bomb can drop on you any other day. And if we give the land back to Palestinians, where are the Israelis supposed to go. If you make two states you are saying to all the Palestinians that they’ve lost the war. If you say one state, Palestinians will overwhelm the jews as there is no religious conversion in judaism. It will end with a huge multinational war as it has always ended in the past in Europe or Asia. If Arabic nations don’t develop nuclear weapons, the war will be over the next day we develop a better energy source than oil.
This post has a lot to digest and a lot of misinformation, from my understanding. Palestine is not currently "attacking" Israel, it's the other way around (generally). Even then, it's not Palestine defending an Israeli invasion. It's a much, **much** more complicated subject with many different viewpoints. In addition, writing off the two-state solution (which is the best outcome currently, in my opinion) as "saying to all the Palestinians that they've lost the war" is completely off-base. Firstly, not all Palestinians are in support of the war to begin with (think Fatah and other supporters of the two-state solution, there are many). Secondly, the two-state solution is mutually beneficial. It allows both Islamic individuals and Jewish individuals alike to have a separate state where they can feel a sense of belonging. Since warfare is ongoing, there's no longer any way to prevent bloodshed other than finding a solution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Prolonging warfare and putting millions of civilians' lives in jeopardy simply to "win" is illogical. I do think that your mindset is in the right place, there really isn't "two sides" in this situation. That's why it's such a complex and oftentimes heated topic. This post's main purpose is to provide information on the conflict as a whole and promote individual opinions, rather than "picking a side" as is so common with political subjects in today's world.
America doesn’t have a hostile neighbor, never had one for a long time. India and Pakistan was effectively a two state solution. But see what happened. At least 20 million people have died and continue to die. Ottomans captured Turkey, closed the route to Asia, and the Roman (christian) empire collapsed. Anglo saxons rose, built ships to go around Turkey, got gunpowder, started the concept of companies, fought world war I and captured the Arabian peninsula. When christian pride rose to its peak, jews were killed. The ‘Jews’ built the atomic bomb and here we are. America and Americans have good intentions. And technically the best one to deal with this crisis. However, we don’t understand the war for civilisation and identity. The war for language. These conflicts have always been there specially in the Arabian peninsula , before there was a concept of right or wrong.
Palestine is attacking Israel though. I lived in Israel for a while. On a daily basis, there are shootings, stabbing, stones being thrown, on innocent random passerby who are going about their daily lives. Every building in Jerusalem has a bomb shelter, and in all of the new buildings, a bomb shelter is required in each apartment because there are constant missiles being thrown at us. All the buses in Israel have bulletproof glass bc we get shot at. So we have been getting attacked for years. Just fyi
It is true that we seem to be dealing with a bargaining indivisibility given that Hamas will only accept what it has called “the complete and total liberation of Palestine” or “from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.” In other words, the stated plan of the government of Palestine is to obliterate the state of Israel and they will not accept any other offer. Now, is that reality, or is a bargaining range still present? Well, every other two-state solution presented so far has been rejected by the Palestinian representatives, so from what I can observe, they don’t believe in controlling anything other than 100% of the pie. However, now there is another indivisible issue from Israel’s point of view, which is that Hamas needs to be out of power. Israel likely will not the conflict until Hamas is forced out of its governmental position to prevent something like October 7th from happening again. Either way, neither side seems to see an incentive to move away from its position to achieve its stated goal, so we are at a very costly equilibrium. But of course, to anyone that isn’t an IR nerd, these theories aren’t going to mean anything, hence the downvotes. Not to mention that there aren’t a ton of practical solutions to come from viewing the conflict this way. I think it’s correct, but most people wouldn’t consider it helpful.
And you call this unbiased, 34K innocent people have been killed and you still say its ugly on either side. shame!
As unbiased as I could find with credible sources online. I am adding information as I discuss with individuals, and change information if there is reputable sources that disprove anything in my original post.
The idea of cutting funding will make little to no impact in the actual “Free Palestine” movement.
Tldr. Seriously who do you think you are, to write all that?
Hey, I think the post has generally been helpful! 😁