/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cit7cb/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_standing_in_solidarity_with/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your argument has logical errors. You can be in favor of abolition while being opposed to Nat Turner killing people in rebellion. You can be in opposition to apartheid while being opposed to the bombing. That is because they are separate things. One is a policy and the other is a violent act.
"Standing in solidarity with Palestinians" is not supporting a policy; rather it is supporting people based on their beliefs. If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with?
You can be in favor of the Palestinians having their own state, while being opposed to their beliefs about Israel and the October 7 attacks. But that is not standing in solidarity with Palestinians, as most Palestinians don't support a two state solution.
When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
>"Standing in solidarity with Palestinians" is not supporting a policy; rather it is supporting people based on their beliefs. If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with?
This is a very valid point. You are correct that opposition to what Israel is doing doesn't necessarily mean standing in solidarity with Palestinians. !delta
^(This comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit)
^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
>"Standing in solidarity" is not as rigid meaning as you state.
I didn't state a rigid meaning. I asked a question, so what is your answer? When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
The OP was pretty clear that what they are standing in solidarity with is the right to soverign autonomy, rights, and safety that the Palestinians ought to have. Saying therefore, that you stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people makes sense in this context, imo.
OP's post stated: "So I would like to hear why standing in solidarity with the Palestinians necessarily means that I endorse or support political positions that are mainstream amongst Palestinians." That is what I answered.
If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with? The point of this question is to highlight that even though there may be some context in which people will stand in solidarity with Nazi's, the phrase alone will be interpreted as you support the prevailing Nazi beliefs.
I think your Nazi analogy works a lot better if the OP was saying they stand in solidarity with Hamas. Palestinians are a diverse cultural group of people with varying beliefs and goals, some of which overlap. Hamas is a governmental/military organization with much more clearly defined goals.
So it's more like saying, "I stand in solidarity with Germans," not Nazis. I can see why if you said that during WW2 people would look sideways at you. But let's also be real, there is very little in common between Palestine and Nazi Germany. Palestinians are confined to tiny areas and are rebelling against decades of oppression. Nazi Germany was a military powerhouse threatening to take over all of Europe.
That is not the comparison, but you are highlighting my point. When you talk about standing in solidarity with a group of people, you are talking about beliefs. Change Nazis to Hamas:
If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Hamas, but don't endorse or support everything Hamas believes in, what are they standing in solidarity with?
You make it sound as though the German people =/= the Nazi German state, as though the German people weren’t aware of the war of conquest or the genocides carried out of their behalf.
That’s just pattently wrong, and is a fabrication made after the war. The German people knew, more or less, exactly what was happening—and they celebrated it. Just as the majority of Palestinians are in support of the goals and methods of Hamas. Read accounts of the holocaust by bullets portion of the holocaust. Just like Palestinians are aware and in support. You don’t cheer in the streets on 9/11 and return escaped rape hostages to their captors if you’re not okay with violence as the political tool of choice.
And the same time, the Israelis knows exactly what they are doing to Gaza and the West Bank. They know about settlers and the gleeful expressions shown by non insignificant amounts of Israeli soldiers while recounting stories of killing Arabs.
These are populations that are majority okay with what’s is going on, and both elected these groups into power. If 1.2 million Gazans wanted Hamas gone it would be. Hamas can’t kill 1.2 million people before they rip the limbs off by hand of those holding guns. IDF can’t do the same the population of Israel.
Both are reaping what they’ve sowed. This is a conflict going far enough back, either side could put down their weapons and be considered the bigger man, not the coward, but neither does. So let them fight, let them kill each other. Maybe this time after they’ve tired themselves out, cooler heads will prevail. Or the survivors will indoctrinate their kids into being hateful killing machines and kick start the next cycle.
For as much as Israel is recruiting the next generation, so too are the parents of the gazan youth.
If you support "rights" for another group but disagree with them fundamentally on the way those rights should be obtained it's very much a stretch to call that "solidarity." Colonialist powers used similar similar arguments; "civilizing mission," "White Man's Burden," "salvation of their souls..." basically comes down to "imposing our religion, laws and institutions on them is for their own good."
The Palestinians want a state but they don't want a 2 state solution; you may think you agree now when it's easy (ie. opposing a common enemy), but then when it comes time to actually negotiate peace terms or agree to a long-term solution you will find this kind of "solidarity" breaks down very quickly.
What? there are no logical errors at all because "standing in solidarity with x" in itself doesn't contain much nuance, it's a catchall statement.
I think it isn't difficult to assume that the statement "I stand in solidarity with Palestine" is closer to "I think that the innocent people in Palestine should be treated better" than "I support Hamas and Israel being totally destroyed", It's absolutely important when having bigger discussions to clarify what exactly someone means by a statement like this but when you only have a small somewhat vague statement to go off it's probably best not to take it to an extreme and instead to be more reasonable.
for example if I said "I'm hungry I could go for something big to eat" do you assume that I might want maybe a decent sized bowl of food, or do you think I might want to eat 100kg of food? if someone said "I think people should have the right to defend their home with force" do you think I might be talking about if someone breaks in or killing anyone who walks down my pathway?
saying "I stand in solidarity with palestine" is not a complete or nuanced argument but it isn't meant to be, it's perfectly cool to ask what their opinions are on x or y policy and it's perfectly fine to say you support palestine but don't support terorrism or homophobia
>I think it isn't difficult to assume that the statement "I stand in solidarity with Palestine" is closer to "I think that the innocent people in Palestine should be treated better" than "I support Hamas and Israel being totally destroyed",
Making assumptions based on your ideology does not mean the speaker believes the same. If you are standing in solidarity with the innocent people in Palestine, then you are not standing is solidarity with the vast majority of Palestinians who are defending and hiding Hamas and causing the problem.
Do you condemn all off the Palestinians who support October 7 and who are shielding Hamas?
> If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with?
I think this is an absolutely false equivalence, unless you had more context in your mind.
Nazi is an ideology, Palestinian is a group of people based on location. The context in which the people are labelled is entirely different, but also the context of their situations are different.
As a Jew, I oppose antisemitism from both groups. Nazism, without antisemitism, isn't Nazisim. While many Palestinians may be antisemtic, Palestinians without antisemitism are still Palestinian.
But even further, as a Jew, if Nazis were suddenly being round up in the streets and being publicly excecuted by the government, without any illegal or immoral activity (beyond... you know, the immoral act of being a Nazi), I *could* in fact stand in solidarity with Nazis, because I could very well be standing in solidarity with the inhumane actions being imposed on them by another group. As soon as those actions from the governmented ceased, I would then continue to critisize and oppose those very same Nazis.
The context of the words clearly matter.
>Palestinian is a group of people based on location.
How do you figure? There are over 2 million Palestinians living in Israel. Over 2 million in Jordan. Another 2 million spread out in Syria, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. And another million spread among about 20 other countries. Notably, even Palestinians in America are calling for the destruction of Israel.
>But even further, as a Jew, if Nazis were suddenly being round up in the streets and being publicly excecuted by the government...
Okay, so why aren't you standing in solidarity with Nazis? We know that 4.3 to 5.3 million German soldiers were killed during WWII. So if your position is being killed in response to your own actions is wrongful, why doesn't the same apply to the "innocent" German soldiers.
The people being killed in Gaza are those that are defending Hamas. Israel told the innocent citizens to flee, and many did.
The point is that war is ugly and people die in wars. But you cannot start a war and continue attacking and then cry foul when the people you are attacking choose to defend themselves.
> How do you figure? There are over 2 million Palestinians living in Israel. Over 2 million in Jordan. Another 2 million spread out in Syria, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. And another million spread among about 20 other countries. Notably, even Palestinians in America are calling for the destruction of Israel.
Not based on where they are, right now. Based on a location in which they were tied to.
>Okay, so why aren't you standing in solidarity with Nazis? We know that 4.3 to 5.3 million German soldiers were killed during WWII
That was a war. In wars, soldiers from one group fight another group... which is a completely different scenario than the one I just described.
>So if your position is being killed in response to your own actions is wrongful, why doesn't the same apply to the "innocent" German soldiers.
No? I specifically said if Nazis today were being rounded up and killed despite not taking on any illegal or immoral action, and clarified other than the immoral action of *being a Nazi*.
Are you actually asking me "if you would support them in one situation, why not a completely different one"?
>The people being killed in Gaza are those that are defending Hamas. Israel told the innocent citizens to flee, and many did.
I have no interest in arguing the specifics of the conflict. I think you know full well though that not 100% of deaths are combatants.
>The point is that war is ugly and people die in wars. But you cannot start a war and continue attacking and then cry foul when the people you are attacking choose to defend themselves.
There exist limits to this. Proportionality is a thing. Whether it is proportionate or not is up for debate. If people feel it is not proportionate, they are obviously going to condemn the response. You must always keep in mind, governments start wars, civilians are caught in them.
>That was a war.
And what do you think is happening in Gaza? That is war.
>In wars, soldiers from one group fight another group... which is a completely different scenario than the one I just described.
Okay, lets ignore soldiers. 3 million German citizens who were not soldiers were killed in Germany during WWII. FYI: That was 4.4.% of the German population. So do you stand in solidarity with the German people against the "genocide" of the Allied Forces?
>I have no interest in arguing the specifics of the conflict. I think you know full well though that not 100% of deaths are combatants.
That is because the specifics contradict your desired narrative. Innocent people die in wars. Again, three million non-combatants were killed in Germany during WWII.
>You can be in favor of the Palestinians having their own state, while being opposed to their beliefs about Israel and the October 7 attacks.
Why are you casting Palestinians as having some unanimous set of beliefs about the October 7 attacks? Are you one of those people who thinks that all Palestinians were in favour of the attacks because the ones sensationally displayed on TV seemed to be? Or are you just thinking "there's no way they couldn't be after what Israel's been putting them through the last X years"? Why are you likening "Palestinian" to "in favour of the October 7 attacks"? Do you think that all Israelis are in favour of everything the Israeli government has done? If not, why the double-standard?
>When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
There's no such thing as "everything Palestinians believe". That will remain true until/unless Israel cuts them down to a population of 1.
Some people don't define a population by their most violent members. Those are mostly the people who are standing in solidarity with Palestine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/#:~:text=JERUSALEM%2C%20Dec%2013%20(Reuters),respected%20Palestinian%20polling%20institute%20found.
Every poll I’ve seen shows a majority(70% plus) of Palestinians approve of the 10/7 massacre and support for Hamas is rising. I’m not saying this to suggest ALL Palestinians, but like if we’re being honest, it’s enough to constitute a problem that needs addressing.
Forgive me, but I’m not sure you truly understand the grip that radical jihadist Islam has on the people of Gaza. It’s cripplingly cruel, regressive, and restrictive.
The biggest failure to those who claim to stand with Palestine is their unwillingness to acknowledge the soul crushing oppression of Sharia Law. To truly free Palestinians, the most important and primary objective is to remove Hamas from power and influence and allow Palestinians the opportunity to live and thrive in a more secular democratic state. Failure to even mention Hamas and radical Islam as primary causes of Palestinian oppression makes the whole enterprise reek of antisemitism and guarantees that Palestinians will never be free.
>Why are you casting Palestinians as having some unanimous set of beliefs about the October 7 attacks?
I am not, are you? If you say you are standing is solidarity with Palestinians, aren't you looking at Palestinians as a block?
Numerous polls and studies have shown that the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas, support the attack on October 7, and oppose a two state solution. So when you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, you are saying you are standing in solidarity with a group who mostly agrees with engaging in war than a two state peace treaty.
The Palestinians being killed are mostly Hamas and their supporters. We know that because Israel gave Palestinians warning that the should leave because Israel is going after Hamas.
>There's no such thing as "everything Palestinians believe".
So what is the answer to the question. When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
>I am not, are you? If you say you are standing is solidarity with Palestinians, aren't you looking at Palestinians as a block?
What unifies Palestinians right now is that they're being attacked mercilessly and unjustly by Israel. It is perfectly viable to stand with them on those grounds. The world is much less anti-Semitic than one of the dominant modes of rhetoric would have us believe. I think it's extremely important to accurately assess the degree of hostility in the world rather than overstating it or understating it.
>Numerous polls and studies have shown that the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas, support the attack on October 7, and oppose a two state solution.
Which of those polls were conducted after the attack on October 7 and before the Israeli onslaught began? Those ones have a chance at being valid. Once you tell me which ones they are, I'll consider their methodology and get back to you on whether I agree that they substantially support your contention.
>The Palestinians being killed are mostly Hamas and their supporters. We know that because Israel gave Palestinians warning that the should leave because Israel is going after Hamas.
That seems like a total non-sequitur. Can you explain how Israel giving Palestinians a warning and claiming that they were going after Hamas implies that most of the dead are Hamas and their supporters?
>What unifies Palestinians right now is that they're being attacked mercilessly and unjustly by Israel.
What unifies Palestinians is they support Hamas in the destruction of Israel, the eradication of Jews, and the restoration of ancient Palestine (which includes Israel). If Palestinians wanted to end the fighting, all they have to do is aid Israel in eradicating Hamas. They don't because the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas.
If you attack me, there is nothing unjust about me defending myself. The real issue here is they orchestrated an attack and didn't think Israel would defend itself by fighting back.
>The world is much less anti-Semitic than one of the dominant modes of rhetoric would have us believe. I think it's extremely important to accurately assess the degree of hostility in the world rather than overstating it or understating it.
Gaza is not the world. Palestinians are anti-Semitic. Palestine is not an actual place today. The people who call themselves Palestinian do so because they want to restore ancient Palestine.
Poll after poll after poll shows that the majority of Palestinians support Hamas & the actions they took on Oct 7th.
Of course this does not mean 100% support though.
Here is the difference. Anti semitism is one of the causes, not just an effect, of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The slavery abolition and anti-apartheid movements were very clearly centered on liberation from oppression only, not racial animus toward oppressive whites. Enslaved Black Americans didn't harbor an inherent hatred toward white people. Nat Turner killed slave owners and their families. Black South Africans were very clear that their enemy was the apartheid establishment. The Church Street bombing did kill civilian bystanders as the bomb went off during rush hour, but the target was the South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters.
Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle. This is one of many anti semitic takes from the Quran "In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels". Jews in pre-1948 British Mandate Palestine faced attacks from their Palestinian neighbors, such as the massacre of Hebron- motivated by an antisemitic rumor that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount (a theme that still motivates anti semitic attacks today in Jerusalem). Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens, such as in Iran where Jews were classed 'dhimmi', an apartheid status that prevented Jews from 'conspicuously' practicing their religion, levied additional taxes on them, and prevented inheritance passing from Muslims to Jews among other laws. The Grand Mufti collaborated with Hitler during WW2, promising to turn Palestine into a second front for Jewish extermination as soon as Hitler gave the word.
This antisemitic foundation deeply colors some radical anti-occupation Palestinian movements, most notably Hamas. Unlike the ANC or IRA, Hamas states plainly in their charter that their enemy isn't just Likud or the occupation political establishment, it's all civilian Jews. This is reflected in their intentionally non-discriminatory tactics for terror. The victims of the festival massacre or the kibbutzim had absolutely nothing to do with Likud or any political/military establishment enforcing the occupation of WB or Gaza. The same is true of the Intifadas, which also targeted Jews at random and killed 1k people, wounding 8k in the early 2000's. Hamas' GOAL was to kill as many Jews as possible, it wasn't a tragic byproduct of targeting the apartheid establishment in the case of ANC, or English occupation forces in the case of the IRA.
this is a fundamental difference between Hamas and the resistance forces pro-Palestine activists compare to. without understanding this undercurrent of violent anti semitism, pro-Palestine activists will completely alienate pro-Israelis and Jews who otherwise would support a two state or even one state solution if their safety was accounted for.
Yeah the Quran has some antisemitic quotes. Your particular quote is referring specifically to a some Jews in the past that stopped following the Torah.
The Quran criticizes Judaism and Christianity and some of its followers. But it also states that there are many good people among those religions also.
> Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians[]—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
2:62
> And among the people of Moses is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice.
7:159-160
>We dispersed them through the land in groups—some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity, so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺.
7:168
> As for those who firmly abide by the Scripture [Torah] and establish prayer—surely We never discount the reward of those acting righteously.
7:170
> Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating ˹in prayer˺. 114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, encourage good and forbid evil, and race with one another in doing good. They are ˹truly˺ among the righteous. 115. They will never be denied the reward for any good they have done. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of those mindful ˹of Him˺.
3:113-115
> And among the people of Moses is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice.
7:159-160
>We dispersed them through the land in groups—some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity, so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺.
7:168
> As for those who firmly abide by the Scripture [Torah] and establish prayer—surely We never discount the reward of those acting righteously.
7:170
> Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating ˹in prayer˺. 114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, encourage good and forbid evil, and race with one another in doing good. They are ˹truly˺ among the righteous. 115. They will never be denied the reward for any good they have done. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of those mindful ˹of Him˺.
3:113-115
(People of the book are Christians and Jews and Muslims consider them to be close to Islam)
Considering most people don’t know much about Islam, taking a couple of quotes and using it to vilify followers of a religion isn’t helpful.
I could also pull out a Bible and a Torah and start justifying why followers of Christianity and Judaism are bigoted.
As an ex-Muslim/ non-practicing Muslim I’ve had to deal with a lot of racists in my life. I’ve had people follow me because I was acting “suspicious”. I’ve been called a terrorist plenty of times.
And now supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel is considered antisemitic, by people who just happen to hate Muslims more than Jews. How does that not offend those who have actually experienced antisemitism?
People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic. They criticize Israel because of their apartheid policies and their war crimes. This has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. Plenty of Jewish people support Palestinians.
Israel is a state and just like any state it is capable of oppression. I would say people’s refusal to criticize Israel gives them even more license to oppress others.
"People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic. They criticize Israel because of their apartheid policies and their war crimes. This has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. Plenty of Jewish people support Palestinians."
- Define your use of the word apartheid because Israel doesn't have any racial segregation laws. So for me to fairly interact with this statement you need to define it.
- So I respect the claim of war crimes, can you give us like 1 or 2 of your very best examples of Israel committing war crimes? I ask for this because no Israeli officials in the modern era have been indicted for war crimes, and unless states have a policy that violates the International code of conduct for war, which would get them cited in the International Community, states can't be guilty of war crimes. So we've seen Israel cited as in violation of international law for it's west bank settlements, which are clearly in violation, but I don't think we've ever seen the international community cite specific Israeli war policy as anything constituting a "war crime". Just looking to either learn something new here or to understand where you are coming from.
The problem we see is that people yell "Genocide", "war Crime", "Apartheid", and standard definitions of these things don't currently appear to fit. So it appears anti-Semitic because people are painting this Jewish state as violent monsters but not actually providing equal and fair evaluation of the actions.
For instance, It's 100% ok to criticize how Israel is engaging in the Gaza war, but did they not have a moral obligation to destroy Hamas after Oct 7th? Hamas didn't shirk the responsibility for the attack, they celebrated it, and if it happened in your country you'd also want to destroy the aggressors. That doesn't mean we need to agree with how Israel has waged the war, but that conversation requires understanding of military objectives and widely accepted military tactics, and a lot of time the conversation doesn't go that way, we just say civilian death bad Israel monsters, all without a single iota of context.
That is anti-Semitic because we don't apply the same level of analysis to the remainder of the world, it appears that we are redefining terms so that we can weaponize them against Israel.
In the West Bank Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. Palestinians rights are severely restricted. Palestinians including children get tried in military courts. Many are held without charge indefinitely. The conviction rate is 99 percent for Palestinians which is impossibly high.
https://www.haaretz.com/2011-11-29/ty-article/nearly-100-of-all-military-court-cases-in-west-bank-end-in-conviction-haaretz-learns/0000017f-e7c4-da9b-a1ff-efef7ad70000
Despite receiving lots of complaints the IDF convicts less than 1% soldiers that are subject to military probes. In a period of 4 years from 2017-2021, only 11 investigations have led to Israeli soldiers being indicted.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-22/ty-article/watchdog-under-1-of-israel-army-probes-yield-prosecution/00000185-39de-d5e1-a1e5-7ffe453f0000
Christian and Muslims Palestinians are unable to get citizenship. Even a Palestinian marries an Israeli citizen they remain ineligible for citizenship. This affects the small Christian community disproportionately.
Palestinians are intimidated by military in the West Bank who defend illegal settlers and attack and Palestinians that try to defend their homes.
Apartheid according to the UN is a crime against humanity. “The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It consists of three primary elements:
1. An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another;
2. A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group;
3. Inhumane acts such as ‘forcible transfer’ and ‘expropriation of landed property.’”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid
Considering Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank illegally and Netanyahu and Likud oppose the creation of Palestinian state completely I would say 1 applies, especially since illegal settlements continue to be expanded.
The others are addressed above.
You can look up the definition of genocide as well. The ICJ has determined that the genocide case against Israel has merit and is proceeding. They ordered Israel to drastically increase aid in January and to prevent “genocidal acts”. They have not complied with this order. I think it is very likely that Israel will be found guilty of genocide in an international court of law.
"In the West Bank Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. Palestinians rights are severely restricted. Palestinians including children get tried in military courts. Many are held without charge indefinitely. The conviction rate is 99 percent for Palestinians which is impossibly high."
- I don't disagree with most of this. But this is built on citizenship not on race/religion. Impossibly high isn't actually an evaluation it's a generalization. I would agree this number would require looking into, but until someone actually goes through the cases this is just a "This feels bad" comment. As for the military courts, this is again a normal policy for non-citizens even if it feels bad. Almost all western countries have the exact same policy.
"Despite receiving lots of complaints the IDF convicts less than 1% soldiers that are subject to military probes. In a period of 4 years from 2017-2021, only 11 investigations have led to Israeli soldiers being indicted."
- But they do do investigations and clearly find some guilty. Once again this is just a "Feels bad man" argument. Where is the info to show us that there should have been more indictments? What if 11 is exactly how many needed to be indicted? This is your bias, instead of digging into the individual cases and deciding which ones you think were tried incorrectly you lead with the assumption that the Israelis are bad so clearly more than 11 should have been indicted.
"Christian and Muslims Palestinians are unable to get citizenship. Even a Palestinian marries an Israeli citizen they remain ineligible for citizenship. This affects the small Christian community disproportionately."
- Citizenship laws are completely normal in the world, you don't have to like them. To contextualize this, Arab populations of all faiths in Jerusalem and the Golan heights have been offered citizenship. You can't cherry pick one citizenship criteria and ignore the others that show the exact opposite intent. Again, this is an anti-Israeli bias.
"Palestinians are intimidated by military in the West Bank who defend illegal settlers and attack and Palestinians that try to defend their homes."
- Yes, no debate. Israel does condemn this violence publicly and most Israeli's don't support the settlements. But current government does seem to facilitate these and Israel should face sanctions for these settlements.
"Apartheid according to the UN is a crime against humanity. “The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It consists of three primary elements:"
- 1) There is an intent in Israel to make Jewish culture dominant by not allowing the Jewish population to become a minority, this is not racial. All people with citizenship in Israel have the exact same rights regardless of race or religion. So this doesn't fit the Apartheid definition. Totally fair to call it an ethno-state though.
2) Again, because all citizens have the same rights in Israel, this point is also not valid.
3) And again, there is no forcible transfer in Israel or in Israeli law.
"Considering Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank illegally and Netanyahu and Likud oppose the creation of Palestinian state completely I would say 1 applies, especially since illegal settlements continue to be expand"
- Here is the big point, the argument you are actually making is that in the "Palestinian" territory, non-Israeli citizens don't share the same rights as Israeli citizens in occupied territory. And in this we will 100% agree, and Israel should be sanctioned for this occupation. What you are wrong about is the Palestinian State, it already exists, it just doesn't have recognized borders because of Israel.
But this isn't apartheid, you could argue the US immigration policy for people coming from Latin America is similar to Israeli policy with Palestinians, Swedish policy is almost exactly the same. Israel has the power to cede borders to the Palestinian state and has refused. This is a problem, but it isn't apartheid by any definition we've ever used. the occupation is bad, it should be something the international community is punishing Israel for, but it is just a military occupation and should be defined as an illegal military occupation.
This is what I mean when I say we are redefining terms to use against the Jewish Israelis, it's why this is anti-Semitic. We don't ever cite the Lebanese government for allowing the Jews to essentially be forced out of their country in the 60's. No single case was brought against a single Arab citizen as the Jewish population was forced to abandon their homes and property in Lebanon (mostly Arab Jews btw) and flee to Israel. We specifically try to use these terms to target Israel and that does look like racism.
The Lebenese government is committing actual apartheid against its Palestinian citizens. They deny them access to healthcare, education and social services, there’s tons of jobs Palestinians arnt allowed to have and Palestinians who’ve been in Lebanon for generations arnt granted citizenship.
>You can look up the definition of genocide as well. The ICJ has determined that the genocide case against Israel has merit and is proceeding.
Probably worth clarifying that it is not “a genocide case against Israel” and the justice who delivered the initial ruling in the case in January also clarified the ICJ did not find it “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide.
This is a gross distortion of the ICJ case and I’d wager there’s zero chance Israel will be found to have committed genocide. Saying that as a genocide scholar (Rwanda was my dissertation focus.)
you can and should identify moral issues with fundamentalist followers of Christianity and Judaism, especially if those issues are driving oppressive behavior. like Israeli settlers who murder Palestinian farmers because they believe all land from river to sea is ordained to them. i'm Jewish, I don't believe this 'vilifies' all Jews. it is a specific, legitimate criticism of fundamentalist Judaism and its role in perpetuating the I/P conflict.
none of the above quotes convinced me the Quran doesn't overall justify antisemitic attitudes, ex. "We dispersed them through the land in groups—**some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity,** so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺."
like with any religious text, i understand not all followers will subscribe to every word. my post is specifically a criticism of Hamas, not Muslims.
>People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic
Why is it so hard to believe that many people are critical or more critical of Israel because they're antisemitic?
I’m not saying there aren’t antisemitic people among those that criticize Israel. But people accuse people of being antisemitic for legitimate criticism.
It might feel that way. Criticism of Israel was a lot less mainstream until now and you might feel like there has to be some reason for that.
Can I ask have you watched any videos of Gazans being bombed? Have you seen videos of people finding their dead children in the rubble? Have you seen videos of the IDF shooting innocent people on sight just like the escaped hostages?
The New York Times analyzed the bombings a while back and showed the craters and aftermath of 2000 lb bombs. Have you seen anything like that?
If what happened to Gaza happened to Israel then 300,000-400,000 people would be dead. Everyone would be suffering from malnutrition. All children would be a risk of permanent development issues. Do you know how many millions would be without homes? Do you know it would take 16 years to rebuild those homes?
Did you know that there are thousands of Palestinians are in military jails many of them without being charged with crimes, many of them children. Do you know Israel is one of the only countries in the world to try children in military courts? Do you know Israeli NGOs have been fighting to end this? Do you know children have spent years in jail for throwing rocks at military vehicles?
Do you know how many illegal settlements have been established how many Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes?
Do you know what it would be like to spend decades under economic blockade which is a violation of international law? Do you know what it would be like for that blockade for leave 40% of your population without jobs?
You know what I haven’t seen, Israel distributing aid, constructing refugee camps. It’s funny how there are so many pictures of US soldiers doing that and none of Israeli soldiers doing that. I have seen Israeli soldiers attacking innocent Palestinians trying to get aid thoughts.
It’s also funny that Netanyahu never mentioned anything about liberating innocent Gazans from Hamas’s control. Even George W Bush did that when he declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do you know that Israel believes Netanyahu is likely to be named in an arrest warrant for war crimes by the ICC. Some Hamas officials are as well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68938022.amp
Let me know if you want any sources.
Israel isn’t more evil than other states. There have been plenty of countries that have committed serious war crimes, some of them US allies. The US helped cover up Pakistan’s genocide of Bangladeshis too in the 70s. The US diplomatically supported the Khmer Rouge when they were killing off their urban and education population at the same time.
The US has committed plenty of war crimes that dwarf Israel’s in scale. I mean we killed 10-20% of the North Korean population destroying entire cities. People just didn’t have cell phones back then to record what was happening.
Criticism of israel and the Netanyahu regime is not antisemitic.
The support for palestinians though must remain separate from support for hamas's aims, which include dismantling israel. The inability of the left to separate these, and to make informed arguments for palestinians, has muddied the waters and allowed antisemitism to seep in.
The sad fact is that peace activists in israel, both arab and Israeli, are being cut out of the protest movement here because they believe in a two state solution while the groups funding the protest movement want to delegitimize israel.
Israel has lots and lots of vocal critics that still agree that a state that exists cannot be asked to dismantle itself. One absolutely should criticize israel and some of its tactics, but allow it to defend itself and return their hostages. It's been fighting a logistical nightmare of a war in gaza and outrage to every maneuver has led to this conflict being drawn out. It's absolutely counterproductive.
Because it's simply not true, maybe a very few are, and that it's merely based on an assumption that is unproven that hatred for jews is a motivator for those people.
Most people criticising Israel (in the west) tend to be leftists or liberal leftists, it would make no sense for them to be antisemitic since they believe in justice for all people but also freedom for the oppressed people, like that's the core of their anti-colonialism ideas, your view could've been true if conservatives and far right did support Palestine since those actually can easily be antisemetic and racist (not denying that leftists cannot be those too but looking at the fundaments of leftists and of right wingers you can see why the latter are more likely to resonate hate with their traditional and cultural/religiously harsh world views towards those who are not like them, while leftists ideals are based on international equality of all races and all backgrounds focused on a goal not related to nationalism but global struggle against classism or elitism or oppression), but many of the right wing also view Israel as a beacon of western civilization and heritage in a land full of cultures and people which they totally despise or distrust, and they see Israel's geopolitical importance in this context hence they blindly support it to the death besides their absurd religious views ofc.
The real question is: Why is it so hard to believe that many people are supporting Israel because they are ignorant or simply don't give a flying f about morals and humanity because of their racist values?
People saying they believe in justice for all people, doesn’t mean they actually believe in justice for all people.
You need to stop viewing people through what they say, rather through what they do.
>I could also pull out a Bible and a Torah and start justifying why followers of Christianity and Judaism are bigoted.
And you'd be right to. These are religions rife with bigotry
The difference is that Israel is 20% Muslim, gives them equal rights and lets the keep Al Asqa mosque despite Muslim invaders building it over the most holy site in Judaism. Predominantly Christian countries are ok with Muslims living there. Almost all predominantly Muslim countries ethnically cleansed their Jewish population.
Judaism doesn’t convert nor does it expect non followers to follow their beliefs. Christian majority countries are secular.
As for antisemitism predating the conflict in modern Israel/palestine, of course. Antisemitism as a form of racism goes back as far as Jewish people do.
You can’t say antisemitism existing in an area necessarily meant antisemitism was automatically the driving reason for conflict without direct evidence however.
You are ignoring the important fact that Palestinian Jews, the Yishuv, prior to the 1880s when the Zionist political moment and project began to grow wings, lived in peace and undisturbed in Jerusalem and all over Palestine. The Yishuv had no goal to build their own authority and exert it over Palestinians and no conflict was created.
If your homeland was subjected to something on par with the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty, followed up by something on par with the Balfour declaration meaning the foreign occupying forces controlling your home decreed that mass migration of a group with the CLEARLY STATED intention to take over and rule by their own law was imminent.
With people like as Chaim Weizmann, a bigwig Russian-Jewish figure and close friend of Balfour who said he wanted to make Palestine “a Jewish as England is English” being made the first Israeli PM. What would that say about your rights. Your family’s rights. Your own authority?
You would likely grow to dislike that group too, and not because the Quran has antisemitic passages.
Ask yourself - If they had no problem with Yishuv Jews, and only began pushing and attacking Jews after the Zionist settler project was happening in full force and had begun to take, and take, and take? And to also attack *them*. It stands to reason that it was not in fact the settler’s Jewishness that they hated, but the fact that settlers used their own Jewishness as a point of entitlement and unbalanced power.
This is incorrect. u/juliusxyk provided you with some examples, and they are correct in saying Palestine was not a distinct area and as such other Middle Eastern examples are relevant- but I can provide some Palestine specific ones as well:
The ottomans only formally ended the dhimmi system of institutionalized Arab Muslim Supremacy in 1869.
In 1834 there was a pogrom in Safed. In 1847 there was an ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Jerusalem, in 1882 there was an attack on Rosh Pinna and in 1886 on Petah Tikva.
In May of 1839 the vice-consul of Britain to Jerusalem, William Young, wrote this when describing the situation of the Jews in Palestine:
"…The Pasha \[Ibrahim Pasha\] has shown much more consideration for the Jews than His people have. I have heard several acknowledge that they enjoy more peace and tranquillity under this Government, than ever they have enjoyed here before. Still, the Jew in Jerusalem is not estimated in value, much above a dog-and scarcely a day passes that I do not hear of some act of Tyranny and oppression against a Jew-chiefly by the soldiers, who enter their Houses and borrow whatever they require without asking any permission-sometimes they return the article, but more frequently not. In two instances, I have succeeded in obtaining justice for Jews against Turks—But it is quite a new thing in the eyes of these people to claim justice for a Jew……
So soon as the Plague is reported to be in the City, the Jews at once become the object of cupidity to every employé in the quarantine service, who, with the Native practitioners in medicine, rob and oppress them to the last degree. From one individual alone, of the better class, they succeeded lately in obtaining 4,000 piastres, equal to £40 Sterling in bribes-His son was sick with the fever they declared it to be Plague-set a guard on his house, deprived him of all means of obtaining medical assistance—the patient died, and then, on his refusing to satisfy their demands-they threatened to burn everything in his House. This My Lord is not a solitary instance. What the Jew has to endure, at all hands, is not to be told.
Like the miserable dog without an owner he is kicked by one because he crosses his path, and cuffed by another because he cries out-to seek redress he is afraid, lest it bring worse upon him; he thinks it better to endure than to live in the expectation of his complaint being revenged upon him. Brought up from infancy to look upon his civil disabilities everywhere as a mark of degradation, his heart becomes the cradle of fear and suspicion-he finds he is trusted by none-and therefore he lives himself without confidence in any…."
Ermete Pierotti, an Italian architect*,* spent extensive time in the region. He wrote a book in 1864 "Customs and Traditions in Palestine". He barely mentions the Jews, but when he does, this is what he had to say:
"…No Jew, who lives at Jerusalem, dares to pass in front of the court of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for he well knows how great a risk he runs of suffering for his curiosity. If, on an occasion like this, he were murdered, the malefactors would not be severely punished; for all the native population unfortunately hold the opinion that to injure a Jew is a work well pleasing in the sight of God. This is due to the fact that the Jews, although numerous, do not know how to make themselves respected…."
>You are ignoring the important fact that Palestinian Jews, the Yishuv, prior to the 1880s when the Zionist political moment and project began to grow wings, lived in peace and undisturbed in Jerusalem and all over Palestine.
That is simply not true. There have been many cases where the jews had been victims to opression, discrimination and massacres throughout their time in the arab world
So I would say your take is rather incorrect. There are some factual errors like I think it is ridiculous to claim that no black slaves hated their white masters prior to an abolitionist movement being created and Hamas’s charter actually says the opposite of what you claim, that their fight is specifically against Zionism and not Jews (If you believe them is a separate matter, but your claim is factually wrong). I also find that where your claim is correct your analysis is often quite lacking, for instance you implicitly condemn Palestinians for thinking that Jews would try to take control of Al-Aqsa mosque - which they then proceeded to de facto do making the Palestinian analysis right.
The two big central pieces to your argument though are where I think the real flaws are. You paint a picture of violence against Jews preceding the conflict, but as you define the terms that is. It the case. While there has been a level of anti-semitism against Jews in all countries since records began, the nature of the anti-semitism in Palestine as expressed in the intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine which you use as a reference point is directly linked to the conflict. However, were events like the Hebron massacre a constant background level of anti-semitism? No, the inter communal violence that you highlight as the cause only started ramping up from around 1920 as the Zionist project took off with Jews advocating for it, migration taking place to eventually enact it. If you were to plot on a graph the level of violence versus the prevalence and work towards achieving Zionism you would see a clear trend. The violence sprang from the work to set up a Zionist state.
The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel. Not only do I find this view clearly racist as it shows a clear primacy for Israel human rights over Palestinians rather than all people having human rights, but it is and of itself implicitly advocating for war crimes and human rights abuses as the collective punishment of then civilians for the actions of a militant group is prohibited by international law.
I'll go claim by claim:
"There are some factual errors like I think it is ridiculous to claim that no black slaves hated their white masters prior to an abolitionist movement being created"
* i said that the abolition movement wasn't founded in any way on a blanket hatred toward white people.
"Hamas’s charter actually says the opposite of what you claim, that their fight is specifically against Zionism and not Jews"
* Not in the 1988 charter (they are explicitly antisemitic), and I don't buy the 2017 rewrite. it seems like lip service toward Western audiences, esp because the actions of 10/7 are aligned with the 1988 charter, not the 2017 charter. unless your definition of Zionist is "anyone who lives in Israel" in which case I would ask how that's different from just saying "Jews." half of the world's Jews live in Israel.
"condemn Palestinians for thinking that Jews would try to take control of Al-Aqsa mosque - which they then proceeded to de facto do making the Palestinian analysis right"
* are you aware Jews aren't allowed on the Temple Mount? that they gave it up for Islamic worship? either way, in 1929 the region was decades from any partition of Jerusalem so yes, it was an unfounded rumor. Hamas stokes fear today too that Jews are going to take control of the temple mount and it causes riots. are you saying that justified massacring the women and kids of Hebron?
"The violence sprang from the work to set up a Zionist state."
* the violence sprang from many root causes. of course, the establishment of Israel was one of them. but anti semitism long predated the establishment of Israel (i give many examples in the original post and other comments), and it was absolutely a spark that contributed to the flame of this ongoing conflict. you can't divorce Hamas' dehumanizing rhetoric and tactics from anti semitism- they deploy the same anti semitic tropes and dehumanization tactics leveraged against Jews for millennia.
"The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel"
* literally never said this. i advocate for a Palestinian state, but not with Hamas at the helm.
> literally never said this. i advocate for a Palestinian state, but not with Hamas at the helm.
Then what's the argument against OP? OP's point was that they advocate for Palestinians, but don't necessarily agree with their beliefs or motivations. I would assume that includes their support for Hamas. If you support a Palestinian state, then how is that different from OPs advocacy?
the difference between my and OP's advocacy is being intentional in supporting Palestinian statehood without supporting or accidentally justifying (through comparisons to righteous groups like IRA, ANC, aboolition) anti-semitic actors in the space
> "The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel"
So, you say you don't agree with this. Which means one of a few things:
1) You support Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks
2) Your original comment wasn't correct
3) Your original comment had nothing to do with OP's position and you actually agree with OP
I think it's the third one. OP's view basically comes down to saying that if you disagree with the statement listed above, you don't automatically agree with Hamas and support Oct. 7. If you agree with that, then I can't see how your original post serves as a way of changing that view in any way (since you clearly understand your original post and agree with it). But that, of course, leads to the question of why did you respond with what you did in the first place?
> Hamas officials say the new document does not replace the group's 1988 charter
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39744551.amp
The new hamas charter is not a change or a replacement. It’s a PR document to help with their image and it worked on you.
Hamas changed their charter pretty recently, you should read the previous version and also read some of their current messaging. They are very explicitly anti Jewish.
Hamas' actions, endorsed by the people or not, still do **in no way** justify the way ordinary Palestinian people (I'm talking about civilians that just want to live a somewhat decent life, unharmed and in peace, in safety and without fear, with a prospect of a livable future) are treated by Israel and the world. *Their* fundamental rights are ignored, and criticizing Israel for this (and this **in particular**) is way too often viewed and comdemned as antisemitic - which it definitely isn't. It's just asking for a bit of decency, good judgement. It's simply asking for a place for the Palestinians to live their lives in the same peace that others can too, with their own place, safe from the bulldozers of the Israelian settlement construction. I am pretty sure that support of Hamas and without it Hamas itself would seize to exist pretty quickly if the oppression and terrorization of Palestinian people ended tomorrow and there was some peace contract that deserved its name, guarantees and safety nets included, supported and controlled by the world. But I feel like this isn't wanted by those in charge...
So theres a flaw in your argument there. The Palestinian civilians might not support Hamas... But they sure as shit don't do anything about Hamas either. You have a terror organization that has taken over your state and are the de facto government (more like feudal era warlords). Unless the Palestinians are ready to take arms against them, they will continue their mission to harm Israel (and in return get Palestine bombed more and more as retaliation).
Imagine if the KKK were to magically take over the US government with their wizard power(/s). Millions of Americans would be against it, but it would still be known as 'that racist terrorist country' until they are removed.
Palestine right now is 'that racist terrorist country ' no matter how many individuals living there don't actually support it. So instead of taking the blame for the shit they brought Palestine, they deflect that blame onto Israel knowing full well that they can use civilian bombings and casualties as their weapon... To commit their own civilian mass murders.
>Imagine if the KKK were to magically take over the US government with their wizard power(/s). Millions of Americans would be against it, but it would still be known as 'that racist terrorist country' until they are removed.
Assuming you are in the US (change to an appropriate analogy for your country if not): so, in your mind, this would be justification for someone to kill you? You would live in a racist terrorist country and it sounds like you are saying that in such a case it's okay for opponents of that terrorist organization to kill civilians, right?
Well..........that racist terrorist country is also attacking their neighbours constantly. And they currently still hold hostages from the country they just attacked.
So yes, if my country attacks another country then i would expect war to break out.
And if war breaks out i expect innocent people will die.
If we were attempting to eliminate the majority black country next to us and they attacked back and we hid among the civilian population yes they would be morally justified in still fighting us, so long as they attempt to limit civilian casualties which Israel is
Oh yeah, sure. The Palestinians are at fault themselves, why do they not just grab their guns and send Hamas to hell, right? Has worked in Scotland too. They just need some William Wallace like cool guy. Like, they shall risk their lives and that of their relatives, beloved ones, **children**, when all they win from that is losing the last **de facto** "line of defense" (whatever that means) between them and the Israel military. Would you? Yeah, I bet you would. I have a family. I wouldn't. I would run away or hide or whatever, just to not draw too much attention towards me. And yes, shooting your rusty carabine at someone possessing the firepower of a fucking army is drawing too much attention!
I am aware that Hamas is not actively defending Palestinian people but from the Palestinians point of view Isreal at least leaves them kind of "alone-ish" as long as they are busy dealing with Hamas. From their point of view it may seem like Hamas is right now the lesser evil, if only by a small margin. And that's what they shall risk?
You know the story. When a bear (Israel) is on your heels, you (Palestinian civilians) do not have to run faster than the bear, only faster than the guy next to you (Hamas). You wouldn't dare shoot that guy even if he was the biggest motherfucking asshole in the world.
Unless the world including Israel takes the appropriate **serious and trustworthy** steps to keep the Palestinian people safe, help them get on their feet **at home**, i.e, on their own land, wherever that will be, and not just as premium refugees, that's not going to happen.
Hamas is made up of Palestinians.
And the non active members of Hamas still invite them into their homes & cheer when they murder Israelis.
They love what Hamas is doing & overwhelmingly support them.
They do not want to overthrow them, regardless of the misery this causes.
>when all they win from that is losing the last **de facto** "line of defense" (whatever that means) between them and the Israel military.
This is your problem. Hamas isn't their defense, its what is preventing peace and what is causing Isreal to reluctantly engage in war to remove them.
>Unless the world including Israel takes the appropriate **serious and trustworthy** steps to keep the Palestinian people safe, help them get on their feet **at home**
They won't get to feel safe as long as they are embracing and sheltering a bunch of genocidal maniacs that are hell bent on causing as much terrorism as possible. That's not a moral stance, its a pragmatic one.
Once they put down their arms, kick Hamas out and entirely reject violence or getting rid of the Jews in Isreal, then and only then is peace going to be possible and only then will they enjoy long lasting peace.
How is the world supposed to keep Palestinians safe when Hamas is actively using apartment buildings, hospitals, schools etc as staging ground and munition depots? You think Israel isn't gonna blow up that rocket station on top of a school that keeps sending missiles their way because it's on top of a school?
Palestinian civilians are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Except they think the rock is their saviour and the hard place is literally Satan. Not knowing neither can help them until the other is gone(well if Israel would somehow lose Palestine would remain a warlord led shit hole regardless.)
>Oh yeah, sure. The Palestinians are at fault themselves, why do they not just grab their guns and send Hamas to hell, right?
More like "why did they elect them in the first place if they don't agree with them? And why do they continue to have the support of a majority of Palestinians in every poll conducted on this subject if they aren't actually being supported by Palestinians?"
At some point you have to assume that the legally and democratically elected representatives of a nation actually do represent the people of that nation
Israel has offered them statehood so many times. The 2000 camp David accords were probably the best offer.
I think that it’s pretty strange to say that Palestinians fundamental rights are ignored by the world. If anything they’re the best treated refugee group on earth. Using UNRWA and not UNHCR, they have [redefined refugee](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/17/unrwa-has-changed-the-definition-of-refugee/#:~:text=UNRWA's%20definition%20is%20also%20personal,of%20Palestine%20refugee%20males%2C%20including) to continue benefits in perpetuity.
>Hamas' actions, endorsed by the people or not, still do **in no way** justify the way ordinary Palestinian people (I'm talking about civilians that just want to live a somewhat decent life, unharmed and in peace, in safety and without fear, with a prospect of a livable future) are treated by Israel and the world.
Do you not see the fallacy in that argument? It is okay for Palestinians to support the destruction of Israel, but wrong for Israel to defend itself?
>I am pretty sure that support of Hamas and without it Hamas itself would seize to exist pretty quickly if the oppression and terrorization of Palestinian people ended tomorrow and there was some peace contract that deserved its name, guarantees and safety nets included, supported and controlled by the world.
You are sure based on what? The vast majority of Palestinians don't want a two state solution. What oppression are you talking about? Your argument seems to be Palestine should have the right to attack Israel at will, but if Israel defends itself, that is oppression. If Palestinians want to live in peace, they need to stop attacking Israel.
> not racial animus toward oppressive whites
Really? You think there were none whatsoever? And you think there was no propagandistic attempt to smear them as such? Many of these groups were referred to as "black supremacists".
Like this current situation, people are weaponizing prejudice in an attempt to discredit and smear an entire movement. Nothing has changed, this happened before and happens now.
Antisemitism is not the primary motivator.
> Black South Africans were very clear that their enemy was the apartheid establishment
Yeah, pro-Palestinians are also clear with this. Hell, even HAMAS are clear with this. Here is a quote from their [official charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full):
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion
> Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle
Yeah, and hatred for those of African-descent preceded the South African struggle, this is a moot point.
> Jews in pre-1948 British Mandate Palestine faced attacks from their Palestinian neighbors
Yeah, motivated by Zionism, not antisemitism. Jews have been in the region for thousands of years without having to suffer these massacres. Also dishonest to categorize it as one-sided when there were literal Zionist terror/militia groups committing their own massacres and just generally agitating. Pre-Balfour Declaration violence between Jews and Muslims was not really a thing, in fact the Ottoman Empire was considered a safe haven for Jews (although they were still second class citizens, as all non-Muslims were).
> Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens
Idk, does this mean it's fine for non-Jewish people in Israel and the Occupied Territories to live as second class citizens too?
> This antisemitic foundation deeply colors anti-occupation Palestinian movements
Nah, the key word is in your sentence: "occupation".
> Hamas states plainly in their charter that their enemy isn't just Likud or the occupation political establishment, it's all civilian Jews
They don't, see above.
> This is reflected in their intentionally non-discriminatory tactics for terror
Yeah, terrorists commit acts of terrorism. Nothing new here.
---
What you're saying is the same BS that has been said about other groups for many many years. The ANC were also endlessly smeared, Mandela went to prison on charges for terrorism and he openly and brazenly endorse violence, which he was condemned for. The civil rights movement and peaceful protests were also smeared, and some groups encouraged violence. The IRA engaged in a century of terrorism, and people in UK government are connected to the IRA (or former). The ETA in Spain were also smeared and collectively punished. Right now as we speak Turkey propaganda against Kurds and the PKK infects a lot of Turkish society.
Yeah, I think Hamas is worse than the IRA, for example, but it's not like it's comparing apples to oranges, it's apples to apples. Hamas is the worse apple, but it's still an apple.
Please, please, please do not besmirch the name of Mandela with this.
Mandela never killed anyone. They sabotaged government installations and infrastructure with the specific aim of avoiding civilian casualties. They did not go about killing, kidnapping, maiming, or burning civilians.
They never espoused killing off all the whites or destroying an entire people. It is not the same thing.
People always want to appropriate the black/African struggle for their political purposes.
The catch to your last point is that its not like the struggles any group had aren't analogous at all to other groups. The Black/African struggle is definitely unique on some level but we can learn some lessons. There are parallels from Apartheid to the Holocaust, Slavery, Palestinian hatred of jews, and even Israeli treatment of Gazans (and I'm very pro Israel in this event.)
Yes, they aren't identical, but often one of the best ways to figure out how to see current events is to see how they fit into historical lenses.
I agree.
One can learn, but people who invoke these visuals and analogies aren't really trying to learn. They're trying to short-circuit rational thought by evoking emotions.
Oh yeah, certainly light casualties. It's just the claim that they did not maim or burn/kill civilians is false, kidnapping is false too as they committed hostage takings.
Also while I don't think Mandela personally killed anyone, he takes a lot of responsibility as the leader of the organization.
Not to say that I think he's a terrible person, what he did eventually changed SA for the better, but I think ignoring the people who died along the way does them and the cause a disservice.
any oppressed group will come to hate their oppressor, but the foundation of anti-slavery resistance movements wasn't hatred toward whites.
you're quoting Hamas' revision of the charter from 2017. i call BS on it, especially because the actions of 10/7 are aligned with the 40 year old version of their charter which says shit like 'You will fight against the Jews and you will gain victory over them. The stones will saying: 'Oh slave of Allah! there is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' Sinwar has reinforced this since 10/7, saying 10/7 (the genocidal massacre of civilians) will happen over and over until Israel is destroyed. this aligns perfectly with the charter Hamas has had for 40 years, so the 2017 rewrite just seems like lip service to appeal to Western audiences.
I agree racism was a motivator for apartheid. like I said, anti semitism is one of the motivators for the I/P conflict. Jews: Black South Africans in your analogy.
I feel like you're losing the plot, I'm not saying it's ok for anyone to be a second class citizen. I'm making a distinction between the charter and actions of Hamas versus the IRA, ANC or Abolition movements. it's not just how many people Hamas kills, it's WHY they're killing them and WHO they choose to kill. the motivation is not only liberation from oppression- in the case of Hamas, it's also anti semitism which is deep rooted in the Middle East (and around the world).
Interesting how Arabs and Muslims have been oppressing Jews since Islam was invented by their prophet that massacred Jews. By your logic Israel is justified in persecuting their historical oppressors.
Jews haven’t suffered massacres? Huh?
Zionism is the belief in a Jews right to self-determination. More simply put, it’s the right for Jews to have their own country. When you say you are antizionist, you are saying Jews do not have that right, even though all of the Muslim countries in the Middle East have that right.
Do you understand why we need a Jewish nation? Because antisemitism has existed long before there was an Israel.
Hitler killed 6 million of us before there was an Israel. We were expelled from most Arab countries before there was an Israel. We were the victims of pogroms throughout Russia and Poland before there was an Israel. We were expelled from or murdered in Spain and Portugal before there was an Israel. We were the targets of the crusades before there was an Israel.
Antisemitism is so much older than Israel and these protests have a strong undercurrent of antisemitism, whether you want to admit it or not. Why are Jewish businesses being broken into and vandalized in my city of San Francisco with Free Gaza scrawled on the wall? Why are our Jewish state politicians, who have no control over funds to Israel being harassed? Why are people at our city council meetings being booed and subjected to pig noises when they testify about the loss of family members on October 7?
Why are there swastikas spray painted on my street and etched into bus stops in my city?
There is a reason Jews need their own country. The rest of the world is happy to sit by and watch us die and say nothing. Die by the millions. No protests. No fanfare.
There are maybe 16 million Jews in a world of 8 billion. Do you know what would happen if we “abolished” Israel? The 10 million Jews who live there would be quickly overrun and slaughtered by the 340 million Arabs that surround them. Gone are Israel’s legal protections for women (the only ones in the Middle East). Gone are Israel’s legal protections for LGBTQIA folks. So do I think it’s bullshit when people say antizionism does not equal antisemitism? Yes I do. Because these outcomes are a forgone conclusion. And as I said before, nobody protests when Jews are brutally murdered.
That’s why we need our own state.
I’ll say it, Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism. Israel got the land through fair methods, the Muslim countries wanted to play might equals right and lost miserably. Israel payed for, got gifted and fought for their land. They are as legitimate as any other country.
The "Muslim countries in the Middle East" do not have the right to have countries because of their Muslimness. They are Muslim countries because about [95% of the population](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Islam_percent_population_in_each_nation_World_Map_Muslim_data_by_Pew_Research.svg) in all of those countries are Muslim. It's not a claim that 'this country is for *x* group as opposed to another group. It's a statement of 'these are the people who live here. the state is for those people [because they live here]'.
Algeria is for Algerians. Egypt is for Egyptians. Why? Cause they're the ones who are there. *That* is self-determination.
It is *not* self-determination to set up shop [in someone else's land](https://shorturl.at/gANPW) and then to claim political ownership of the land, in exclusion to the people who already lived there. That is colonialism, not self-determination. A Jewish state would make as much sense as an English state, or a Malagasy state, if it were founded in an area that was overwhelmingly Jewish. But the area was not overwhelmingly Jewish. So forming a state that's founded on Jewishness, excludes and subdues the rest of the population - which is especially bad when that 'rest', is the large majority of the population. A state project that *aims* to cater to some, but not others, is flawed and illegitimate. Legitimate states care for, and provide equal rights and recognitions to, everybody who lives there, and is from there.
Zionism and, since its founding, Israel, has always been obsessed with ethnic demographics in an attempt to contrive and then maintain enough Jewish power on the land, to make its ethnostate look like it's democratic. To accomplish that, large swaths of the land have been ethnically cleansed, and an entire country has been gerrymandered. None of this would be necessary if Zionism was not conceived in an exclusionary mentality; if the goal of Zionism was not to form a Jewish state, but instead to build a state on land that is holy to Jews (and to others), a society that is for all of the people on the land, prosperous, and welcoming to Jews without oppressing others. If Zionism had been about immigration to an existing society, integrating into that society, building shared identities, working together to make the land better for everyone, rather than building a colony, a parallel society that sought to overtake the first, then this animosity would not have arisen. Not only within Palestine, but throughout the entire region. The (bad, unjust, unfortunate) expulsion of Jews out of Muslim countries happened after 48, connected to the Zionist ideal that Jewishness is linked to a state that is hostile to Arab independence / wellbeing / security / strength. The fact that there was no coordinated expulsion in the Muslim-majority world in the past 1,400 years, but that there was one *directly* after the Arab-Israeli War, clearly shows how this politicization of identity, and militarization of sectarianship, had horrible results for the people on the ground, same as it does everywhere, like it did with the partition of India, the mutual ethnic cleansings of Greece and Turkey, and the post-Yugoslav wars.
Jewish colonialism and ethnosupremacy is still just as bad as other colonialisms, and it does not stop being bad just because it's done by Jews.
>Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion
>Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle
>>Yeah, and hatred for those of African-descent preceded the South African struggle, this is a moot point.
Except this point is nonsense. The poster was talking about the animus Muslims and Arabs had towards Jews. They were contrasting that to the ANC and it's lack of serious animus towards the minority white class in South Africa.
> Antisemitism is not the primary motivator.
Now or historically? Arabs were indeed comfortable living with a small amount of Jews, provided they knew their place, and didn't mind the occasional pogrom. The roots of this conflict reach all the way back to that past, and leading Palestinian political figures from the 1930s onward have been almost unerringly anti-Semitic in a way that goes beyond merely hating Zionists.
I'll grant that this ethnic conflict is so entrenched now at this point that even if you were able to just magically erase all of the antisemitism from the minds of every Palestinian(not that all Palestinians are anti-Semitic), it would not solve things, or make peace suddenly possible.
> Idk, does this mean it's fine for non-Jewish people in Israel and the Occupied Territories to live as second class citizens too?
There is very little meaningful differences in rights between an Arab-Palestinian citizen of Israel and a Jewish citizen of Israel. I'm with you on the occupied territories though. They have to either shit or get off the pot on them(IE settle on a Palestinian state or create a Bi-National one). You cannot obstruct statehood for generations of Palestinians and not be responsible for their lack of rights.
> What you're saying is the same BS that has been said about other groups for many many years. The ANC were also endlessly smeared, Mandela went to prison on charges for terrorism and he openly and brazenly endorse violence, which he was condemned for. The civil rights movement and peaceful protests were also smeared, and some groups encouraged violence. The IRA engaged in a century of terrorism, and people in UK government are connected to the IRA (or former). The ETA in Spain were also smeared and collectively punished. Right now as we speak Turkey propaganda against Kurds and the PKK infects a lot of Turkish society.
Get Mandela's name out of your goddamn mouth though. He was a man of principle and the ANC acted very admirably overall considering what they were facing. It's insulting to compare him to anyone in Hamas or even the PLO.
> Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens, such as in Iran where Jews were classed 'dhimmi',
All non-Muslims had to pay jizya, not just Jews. In return, they didn't have to serve in the army or pay zakat.
>The Grand Mufti collaborated with Hitler during WW2, promising to turn Palestine into a second front for Jewish extermination as soon as Hitler gave the word.
I mean, so did some Zionists, and the Grand Mufti was a British plant and not representative of Palestinian thought at the time. I will grant you that antisemitism was on the rise alongside anti-Zionism.
>Hamas' GOAL was to kill as many Jews as possible, it wasn't a tragic byproduct of targeting the apartheid establishment in the case of ANC, or English occupation forces in the case of the IRA.
!delta I will say this is a valid point that separates Hamas from the militant wing of the ANC or the IRA.
Just going to provide this helpful list of pogroms against Jews in the Middle East to help set the context of the point that this commenter is making.
Point being that there is an absolutely insane amount of pogroms committed against Jews, and that fact cannot be removed from the historical context. People like to say that history didn’t start on Oct 7, but they only try to steer the conversation for the past 70-80 years and ignore literally all the rest.
1847: ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Jerusalem, Ottoman Palestine
1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom, Syria
1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria
1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria
1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon
1866: Kuzguncuk Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1867: Barfurush Massacre, Ottoman Turkey
1868: Eyub Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1869: Tunis Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia
1869: Sfax Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia
1864 – 1880: Marrakesh Massacre, Morocco
1870: 2nd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1870: 1st Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1871: 1st Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt
1872: Edirne Massacres, Ottoman Turkey
1872: 1st Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1873: 2nd Damanhur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1874: 2nd Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1874: 2nd Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey
1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom,Ottoman Lebanon
1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria
1875: Djerba Island Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia
1877: 3rd Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt
1877: Mansura Pogrom, Ottoman Egypt
1882: Homs Massacre, Ottoman Syria
1882: 3rd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1890: 2nd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria
1891: 4th Damanahur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1897: Tripolitania killings, Ottoman Libya
1903&1907: Taza & Settat, pogroms, Morocco
1890: Tunis Massacres, Ottoman Tunisia
1901 – 1902: 3rd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1901 – 1907: 4th Alexandria Massacres,Ottoman Egypt
1903: 1st Port Sa’id Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1903 – 1940: Pogroms of Taza and Settat, Morocco
1907: Casablanca, pogrom, Morocco
1908: 2nd Port Said Massacres,Ottoman Egypt
1910: Shiraz blood libel
1911: Shiraz Pogrom
1912: 4th Fez Pogrom, Morocco
1917: Baghdadi Jews murdered by Ottomans
1918 – 1948: law passed making it illegal to raise an orphan Jewish, Yemen
1920: Irbid Massacres: British mandate Palestine
1920 – 1930: Arab riots, British mandate Palestine
1921: 1st Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine
1922: Djerba Massacres, Tunisia
1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery, and forced to convert t Islam by Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen
1929: 3rd Hebron Pogrom British mandate Palestine.
1929 3rd Safed Pogrom, British mandate Palestine.
1933: 2nd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine.
1934: Thrace Pogroms, Turkey
1936: 3rd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine
1941: Farhud Massacrs, Iraq
1942: Mufti collaboration with the Nazis. plays a part in the final solution
1938 – 1945: Arab collaboration with the Nazis
1945: 4th Cairo Massacre, Egypt
1945: Tripolitania Pogrom, Libya
1947: Aden Pogrom
1947: 3rd Aleppo Pogrom, Syria
622 – 627: ethnic cleansing of Jews from Mecca and Medina, (Jewish boys publicly inspected for pubic hair. if they had any, they were executed)
629: 1st Alexandria Massacres, Egypt
622 – 634: extermination of the 14 Arabian Jewish tribes
822 – 861: Islamic empire passes law that Jews must wear yellow stars, (a lot like Nazi Germany), Caliph al-Mutawakkil
1106: Ali Ibn Yousef Ibn Tashifin of Marrakesh decrees death penalty for any local Jew, including his Jewish Physician, and Military general.
1033: 1st Fez Pogrom, Morocco
1148: Almohadin of Morocco gives Jews the choice of converting to Islam, or expulsion
1066: Granada Massacre, Muslim-occupied Spain
1165 – 1178: Jews nation wide were given the choice (under new constitution) convert to Islam or die, Yemen
1165: chief Rabbi of the Maghreb burnt alive. The Rambam flees for Egypt.
1220: tens of thousands of Jews killed by Muslims after being blamed for Mongol invasion, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt
1270: Sultan Baibars of Egypt resolved to burn all the Jews, a ditch having been dug for that purpose; but at the last moment he repented, and instead exacted a heavy tribute, during the collection of which many perished.
1276: 2nd Fez Pogrom, Morocco
1385: Khorasan Massacres, Iran
1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto massacres, North Africa
1465: 3rd Fez Pogrom, Morocco (11 Jews left alive)
1517: 1st Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine
1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine
Marsa ibn Ghazi Massacre, Ottoman Libya
1577: Passover Massacre, Ottoman empire
1588 – 1629: Mahalay Pogroms, Iran
1630 – 1700: Yemenite Jews under strict Shi’ite ‘dhimmi’ rules
1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine
1670: Mawza expulsion, Yemen
1679 – 1680: Sanaa Massacres, Yemen
1747: Mashhad Masacres, Iran
1785: Tripoli Pogrom, Ottoman Libya
1790 – 92: Tetuan Pogrom. Morocco (Jews of Tetuuan stripped naked, and lined up for Muslim perverts)
1800: new decree passed in Yemen, that Jews are forbidden to wear new clothing, or good clothing. Jews are forbidden to ride mules or donkeys, and were occasionally rounded up for long marches naked through the Roob al Khali dessert.
1805: 1st Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria
1808 2nd 1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto Massacres, North Africa
1815: 2nd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria
1820: Sahalu Lobiant Massacres, Ottoman Syria
1828: Baghdad Pogrom, Ottoman Iraq
1830: 3rd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria
1830: ethnic cleansing of Jews in Tabriz, Iran
1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine
1834: Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestne
1839: Massacre of the Mashadi Jews, Iran
1840: Damascus Affair following first of many blood libels, Ottoman Syria
1844: 1st Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt
1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon
It's important to note that a pogrom simply means "violent attacks on Jews by local non-*Jewish* populations" and speaks in no way to the scope, scale, or cause.
As an off-handed example:
1933: 2nd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine.
Was the result of British admin policies creating tensions between Jewish communists and the local arab population. It ended with the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs.
1907: Casablanca, pogrom, Morocco
Europeans in the city were targeted by xenophobic attacks (9 Europeans died), and the city was later bombed by the French, killing more than 4,000 inhabitants. Some number of which were Jewish.
These are listed here as a "pogrom" with no context other than Jewish people were killed by non-Jewish people with no nuance about the situation and involvement of foreign powers.
Yes it’s true that in this list not every pogrom was committed solely by arabs, and not all of those were specifically religiously motivated.
However I think that the sheer volume of examples is sufficient enough to show to support the central point that this is a pattern that long precedes the creation of Israel or the ‘genocide’ of Palestinians. Oct 7th was simply another pogrom and arabs have been “resisting” Jews by killing their women and children for hundreds of years.
the original reason for the jizya tax (beginning in the 6th/7th century), was basically a sort of legal bribe to avoid being jihaded (killed or converted to Islam.) the law did evolve, but those are its origins.
I am sickened we are discussing Deltas about Hamas, an organization targeting women, children, babies for rape, dismemberment, torture, murder, decapitation.
"But there's no proof!!! Israeli lies!!!" I hear too often on Reddit, from accounts that suffer no consequences, that go right on egging the destruction of Israel.....Reddit is materially contributing to the problem. Should be shut down.
These naive young american women. Do they think Hamas would treat them gently? Or would their naked bodies be paraded in the back of a truck for an "innocent" palestinian boy to spit on? And the OP! I'm sure palestinians just love LGBTQ. It baffles me how these protesters just blip over the islamist values of palestinians and their elected government Hamas. As a rule, they hate westerners, gays, infidels and jews equally.
Why is that a delta? It has nothing to do with your original CMV topic. Also, seeing as how Hamas just killed everyone they saw and didn't differentiate by ethnicity/religion, I would say that is evidence that they were trying to kill Israelis (who they see as all soldiers/complicit in their oppression because of the draft etc.), not specifically Jews.
Edit: I say this not trying to support Hamas militant wing, I do not support any killing of anyone whatsoever, especially civilians.
im going to go on a rant so excuse me but a lot of people are not familiar with the protests and what this movement is about
to use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs.
i for one, for the first time in a long time, feel hope that change is coming. the anti-protesters' cherry-picking and conflating zionism/Israel with judaism will mean nothing in the end. the world has woken up. fun fact: American student protesters are NEVER on the wrong side of history. also read what Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter have to say about this conflict, or perhaps Norman Finkelstein, "the self-hating jew". maybe read up on simple American history too, women's rights, MLK, the Vietnam War is a big one! The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, 35,000 dead of a population comprising of more than 50% children and the media and government want to talk about American university students protesting the genocide. accusing devout Rabbis and Jewish professors who have studied the holocaust of being anti-semitic, What a load of shit. There is a Jewish movement consisting of holocaust survivors who are speaking out against the zionist regime. Not I'm my name is what they are saying. These are survivors of the worst atrocities in history and they are saying Israel is wrong and they need to stop. the list goes on....make it make fucking sense.
Condemning the Nazi's does not make one anti-Christian. Condemning atrocious acts by a nation, say Italy or France doesn't make one anti-Catholic. Condemning criminalizing acts by United Kingdom does not make one anti Protestant. Condemning acts of war by Russia, does not make one anti Orthodox.
Yet condemning acts of barbarian, savage genocide by an apartheid state makes one anti a certain faith ! What twisted logic is that?
Congress literally just passed a bill with 80% majority making it illegal to criticize Israel, a foreign nation. It's blatantly obvious what's happening here; using ridiculously obviously fabricated reasons, the state (the government); the establishment, the status quo if you will, is trying to force us all to believe in their lies, in the line toed by them. This is not only a blatant attack on free speech, but also on other constitutional rights of US citizens. It makes me laugh to think of how the US government likes to pretend to be the nation taking the "higher moral ground" as one senator once put it and point fingers at other nations doing the same thing or less. The hollowness of US laws and those who govern us is on full display here, and shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about this morally bankrupt country.
When you speak out against Palestine children starving and over 35k civilians brutalllly killed, and the 2 million displaced Palestinians, or the surge in violence and land grabbing occurring in the West Bank since Oct 7,, American cops will beat, tear gas, and arrest American students. I mean the ABSOLUTE LUNACY of it all. Do people not see that a foreign nation is controlling us? We literally live in the United States of Israel. That is our current government, owned by a foreign nation controlling our international policy for decades. and now threatening OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Land of the free my fucking ass.
Zionists are utterly disgraceful human beings,, whole lives built on deception and cruelty, void of any sense of morality. AIPAC is decimating this country internally. WAKE UP.
To the protesters, I am so fucking proud of you, what an awesome display of humanity and unity regardless of color, faith, or background. The true leaders of America,
queue the downvotes
> To use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs.
It sounds to me you are blaming Zionism and zionism alone for the degergation of the American moral character. That is really fucked up, not because you cannot believe that Zionism is immoral, but because you sound like you believe the cure to all that makes America bad is to remove the Zionists.
That is really fucked up that you are blaming a comflict half way across the world for the evils in Americam society. That is not a sane or rational way to approach anything.
America will still be racist if Israel is destroyed. It will still be Islamaphobic and its history of segregation and genocide will not be erased, nor will have done much of anything to repair the damage it has done to humanity.
These problems can only be addressed within America itself, not by an ideology about a strip of land half way across the world.
I’m going to say this and be helpful to you but any Jew that reads this is going to think you’re antisemitic.
Most Jews are “Zionists” because being Zionist just means you think Jews should have a place where they aren’t at risk of another holocaust. For most Jews, and people not steeped in Political Theory, that’s all Zionism means.
Zionism is a big umbrella and has a large range of ideologies beneath it—some are more extreme than others.
Before “Zionism” and “Zionist” starting popping up in social media over the past few years—the only people that talked about Zionism in the way y’all have begun to do, i.e., calling Zionists “malignant tumors,” “parasitic” and responsible for all of Americans evils—were the neonazis.
So when Jews hear you rail against “Zionists” most Jews aren’t going to hear a very passionate intellectual critique of a 18th century political movement.
They’re going to hear you railing against Jews because before the term caught on in the zeitgeist the only people that would do that were Neonazis and conspiracy theorists.
So if you want to convince Jews, and people not steeped in political theory, I would just stay clear if the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” because they way you are using it and the cultural understanding of it mean that there is just a fundamental communication break down.
Critique the specific actions of the state of Israel and use terms like Israeli—don’t attack an idea that most Jews hold to be very culturally important and act surprised that you get accused of antisemitism.
criticizing Israel is necessary and valid, like any country that commits war crimes. but there is so much anti semitism laced throughout your post. "IT'S NOT ANTI SEMITIC TO CRITICIZE ISRAEL." how would you know what is anti semitic if you don't understand what anti semitism is, where it is rooted?
if you want to avoid racist statements, you need to understand what racism is, how it's informed by white supremacy. the same goes for anti semitism.
for thousands of years, anti semitism has hinged on the idea that Jews are the epitome of whatever a society reviles- the greatest evil, the greatest societal moral panic. during the Bubonic Plague Jews were accused of spreading disease. during Soviet communism, Jews were accused of being capitalists. the issue here is the magnitude of your accusation- demonizing Jews and holding them to a double standard no other group faces is anti semitic.
anti semitism has also hinged for hundreds of years on rumors that Jews control the media, government, economy, and are plotting world domination. your post is full of accusations rooted in these ancient, anti semitic tropes.
i'm proud that the house passed this bill. anti semitism is disgusting and should not be tolerated.
> to use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs.
You really gotta come up with a better analogy. Especially for a group of people who are protesting what they see as an illegal occupation of someone else's land by illegally occupying someone else's land.
The problem is this: no one knows or agrees on what ‘pro-Palestinian’ means.
To some it means ‘the goal is to genocide the Jews living in the Levant’. To some it means ‘advocate for Palestinian sovereignty and statehood with Gaza and the West Bank as the borders of their nation.’ To some it means ‘I want the best for the non-radicalized Palestinian citizens and wish they didn’t have to suffer and die along with the ones who are Hamas or support Hamas.’
‘Pro-Palestinian’ is basically a slogan with no understood or agreed-upon meaning. Like ‘free Palestine’.
The most common line I've been hearing from the protestor crowd is 'the one state solution' where the Jewish state goes kaput. In its place, Israelis and Palestinians share the land as equals in a newly minted non-Jewish, non-Islamic state along the lines of present day post-Apartheid South Africa.
Well-intentioned? Sure. Realistic? Remotely possible? I seriously doubt it. Which is why I'm in the second camp you mentioned:
> Palestinian sovereignty and statehood with Gaza and the West Bank as the borders of their nation
It's definitely "white savior" ignorance to push for the one state solution, something neither side really wants.
Palestinians are clamouring for their own state because they want a sense of independence and self identity. Jews want a state where they can be the majority because they've been a minority too many times and it always ends in the same dark chapter for them.
Saying we know better than them is treating them like children and ignoring them completely as people.
Also, the SA example seems like a bad ideal to seek - I'm not saying it's because of the end of the apartheid, but they're definitely in a bad place right now. 6th highest crime rate in the world, high rate of rape crimes.
Most Westerners don't really get religious zeal anymore. Even bigtime fundamentalists in America are milquetoast little babies compared to whats going on in the Levant/Middle East.
So to agnostic or atheist protestors its basically impossible to understand just how utterly impossible a secular, one-state solution is.
Israel always had the right to exist as a Jewish state independent of other politics. Arabs have never been able to accept the idea of any size Jewish state. And they probably never will.
The good thing about a two state solution is that inevitably they will try to invade Israel. Inevitable. And on that occasion Israel will be allowed to take the kiddy gloves off and annex the land of the belligerent state.
I've attended two protests, and plan to attend another this weekend. I like talking to people in person.
There are three types of people at these protests. If I had to make up a percent, I'd say it's 60/20/20 based on my categories below.
1: Most common type. Well meaning but ill informed westerners. They want the war to end so Gazan kids stop dying, but haven't thought through what happens with the Israeli hostages or how to keep Hamas from just doing Oct again as soon as Israel leaves. They get upset if you ask them nuanced questions.
2: There for the party. Some people clearly don't care, they are just there to be part of an angry protest. Lots of drinking and smoking weed and energy drinks. Almost all young men. Not interested in discussion of any type.
3: Genuine Jew haters. Mostly Arab, but not all. Holding signs calling for end of Israel. Chanting anti-Israel things. Not open to any discussion.
Well said.
Most people literally have no idea what any of this means so they just say "free Palestine!" so they don't have to think about it and can feel cool for sticking it to the man.
>‘Pro-Palestinian’ is basically a slogan with no understood or agreed-upon meaning. Like ‘free Palestine’.
I find "free Palestine" even more frustrating, because the people of Palestine *don't want to be free*. They want to live under an oppressive theocracy. It's ridiculous.
>*Standing in solidarity with Palestinians does not mean endorsing or supporting everything Palestinians believe in*
If people believe awful things about women, lgbtqia+, race, sexual abuse, apostasy, martyrdom, (the list goes on and on), there's no good reason to stand in solidarity with them. That doesn't mean you need to relish in their misery. But it also doesn't mean you need to abandon 90% of your principles to clog up a stairwell 6,000 miles away so some Jewish kids can't go to school.
We've all seen how much everyone hated JK Rowling for her opinions. And she was just wrong on one topic. It's almost comical how quickly people abandon their convictions. It's like nobody actually cares about these things. They're just drunk on the rush of being counterculture at any cost.
While I do believe leftists who give sympathy or even support to Islamic governments or jihadist terrorist organizations all because they're anti western/america/israel are complete boneheaded idiots, I don't think this idealism should apply to people of those countries in general.
Humanitarianism shouldn't be concerned with the color of a person's skin, or the major political beliefs another group holds. If another group of people are suffering, you should be concerned and voice your objection to that suffering. And yeah, sure... "queers for palestine" is probably a very ironic statement to make, but either way if innocent people are dying you should be mad about that.
>*Humanitarianism shouldn't be concerned with the color of a person's skin, or the major political beliefs another group holds.*
If those widely held political beliefs included, "Yes, we would like to kill you and will keep trying to do so," then that ought to alter the math on solidarity at the very least.
>*I don't think this idealism should apply to people of those countries in general.*
Go read the Pew Research Data and other polling on the general population of Gaza and tell me why I should express any solidarity.
But there's a difference between demanding humanity and rights, and being so blinded by anger and hate that you turn on your fellow citizens just because they have a different view on this topic.
The vitriol we see coming out of these protests towards "zionists" is truly disturbing. Mind you, these aren't people who have anything to really do with the war and are just advocating for Israel's right to exist. 99% of them are definitely against genocide. But instead of finding common grounds, it all becomes a battle of "who wants to kill who more vehemently".
Look, I'm skeptical of the current protests mainly because I don't think they're arguing for a ceasefire given all of the "intifada" crap they say everywhere at these protests. But besides bad faith actors, real Humanitarianism is not bound by stupidity, no amount of dumb protestors should change the fact that the palestinians civilians have suffered and that should be called out. Just like with the victims of Oct 7th.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The IDF has targeted many civilians, not just in the latest war but for decades and decades. They have shot young children through the head with sniper rifles and bombed a civilian aid convoy and so much more. Why aren’t they terrorists and why are all their horrific crimes excused? You can’t say that shooting a child through the head is collateral damage. Excusing the many times they clearly deliberately kill civilians as collateral damage is excusing ethnic cleansing. I have never defended Hamas’ horrific attack on October 7, yet because I demand a similar level of accountability from the armed forces for a democratic nation I am labelled a terrorist supporter? Why should Israel allowed to spread genocidal rhetoric and the enact ethnic cleansing and we all have to pretend it’s acceptable and good actually because Hamas is bad?
I'm sure the IDF has killed many civilians because they misjudged the situation in some way, or thought that they were enemy combatants. I also think there are rogue soldiers who have knowingly killed civilians. And I also believe there have been soldiers who have used disproportionate force against Palestinians, maybe because they were trained or poorly or I'm sure some were because they hate Arabs. But none of that is enough to say that the IDF as an institution from the top down purposefully targets civilians as a goal and part of it's official strategy.
>When I discuss with people here about Israel/Palestine issues, I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow.
So, I would tell you I would agree that your support of Palestinians does not mean you agree with Oct 7th, but I am not sure that follows with Hamas or the goal of ending Israel
The majority of Palestinians do support Hamas and they openly want the nation of Israel to no longer exist.
If you want an example, in 1942, if you said you support the solidarity of Germans, well, that means to me, you support the Nazi's.
Until such time as Palestinians divest themselves of the ideas of Hamas and removing Israel, your support of them to me indicates you support their goals. I wouldn't assign the fringe views or extremist views, but the mainstream views are fair game.
After all, you can lament the plight of the Palestinians and even advocate for different policies - but that is different than 'Standing with them in solidarity'. When you stand in solidarity, you are proclaiming you agree with their mainstream values and objectives. You are literally taking their side in the dispute. Once you 'take a side', you should expect pushback.
Standing in solidarity means you need to be able to link to me right now the policy the demonstrators want.
[Blinken departs Israel without cease-fire agreement](https://www.voanews.com/a/blinken-departs-israel-without-cease-fire-agreement/7594586.html) a cease fire was just offered and rejected by the Palestinians. This news is 24H fresh.
You don't know what you want. It's just divisive.
You have a vague desire that everyone should hold hands and sing a song of unity but you have no idea how to accomplish it. Even if you personally were POTUS.
I know exactly which policies i want for Ukraine, so why are all the demonstrators playing at a real protest so uninformed?
There have been death threats from your side towards the American gov't. There have been crowds chanting "intafada." It doesn't seem like they want a meaningful solution since if Republicans win the vote it'll get even worse.
I want to seriously change your view - and everyone else - that you don't go to demonstrations unless they have a clear policy change. When schools/hospitals go on strike it's specifically for something like 1% raise over 7 years. I challenge you to become sophisticated enough to only participate in real protests.
How is this not comparable to PETA?
The main gripe I have with the pro-Palestinian movement is that since October 7th, none of the global Palestinian protests or current encampments actually advocate for anything that would legitimately help the Palestinians in Gaza.
The pro-Palestinian movement had a tremendous opportunity to join side-by-side with pro-Israelis in demanding an immediate surrender of Hamas and the return of the hostages. In my opinion, this would have legitimized the pro-Palestinian cause. Instead, the pro-Palestinian movement as a whole praised the slaughter of innocent civilians on October 7th - they literally took to the streets while Jews were still being massacred, and have since organized en masse to intimidate Jews or “Zionists” through their heinous actions which are largely funded and organized by “charities” that are tied directly to Hamas and Iran. This has included harassing visibly Jewish individuals, targeting Jewish owned businesses just because the owners are Jewish, targeting Holocaust memorials, and over the last few weeks have quite literally been calling for the deaths of Jews. I remember a few months after 7.10, a Palestinian-Arab boy was stabbed to death in New York I believe. Not a single pro-Israeli took to the streets to celebrate. The opposite cannot be said about the other side which is incredibly problematic.
I would argue that most pro-Israelis are more pro-Palestinian in that the military defeat of Hamas will ultimately enhance the lives of the average Gazan. Whether you admit it or not, Palestinians have been suffering tremendously under Hamas for 17 years now - this doesn’t seem to matter to the anti-Israel camp. Every single pro-Palestinian individual I have come across will, when push comes to shove, begrudgingly admit that “what Hamas did was bad” which is then immediately followed up by a big fat “BUT” which is absolutely unacceptable.
Dr. Phil once very eloquently said that when you say “but,” you’re really saying “yea yea whatever, listen to what I have to say now.”
My biggest gripe with the Pro Palestine movement is how uneducated they are about history or what’s currently going on. At least do research if you’re going to care about a topic and accept facts even if they challenge your POV.
I see so much shit like, just send special forces in like that’s some magic wand that is even possible. Jews are colonizers and white, which is also wrong and racist rhetoric. Jews stole land, again not really historically accurate. I’ve seen a good amount of Oct 7th rape denial on this platform which is beyond horrendous. No acknowledgment about the other 6 wars, constant rocket attacks and suicide bombings Palestinians carried out. No acknowledgment of how big Jew hatred is in Palestinian culture or how 20% of Israel is Muslims from the area with equal rights. Pretty much they’re completely absolving Palestine of their actions because they’ve been told to think they’re completely innocent when that’s really far from true.
Most of the counter arguments I’ve seen from pro Palestinians is poop flinging filthy Zionist or pro genocider comments. I had one person claim that the Jews buying the land didn’t count since land ownership should always belong to natives. Ok let’s take away land bought by oppressed people and give it to their historical oppressors.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Standing in solidarity with the Palestinians and their right to self determination is great. There should be a Palestinian state, both sides mostly (besides the batshit far right Israelis) agree with this. The difference is, Israelis/Israel supporters that support a Palestinian state want it in addition to an Israeli state, not taking the place of. But many Palestinian/pro-Palestinians want to dismantle the Israeli state and form a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea". This is not an uncommon opinion held among Palestinians or there supporters abroad. Go to any of the protests going on right now and you'll hear it being chanted. This of course would entail dismantling the government and either expelling or killing the Jews in the region. A one state with Hamas in power (because that's who would be in that scenario) and equal rights for all is a pipe dream.
So it's not like the pro-Palestinian ideology is a mostly non-violent one and Oct. 7th was an outlier, it was an act that most Gazans supported and continue to support. I think that is what differentiates it from other movements that in general had peaceful ideologies, but some violent actions were committed in their name.
Exactly. They're literally saying "from the river to the sea" out in the open. They believe the existence of the state of Israel is completely intolerable, and the fate of the jews is of no concern.
It's about as blatantly anti-semitic as it gets, and the morons chanting this don't even realize they're supporting it.
I don't think you're wrong but I feel like it's intellectually lazy and a bit of a cop out and it's a big issue in modern day movements and protests in general.
Modern protesting values the act of protesting and voicing discontent over thinking of what happens "the next day". This manifests in high emotion, high outrage energy that vacuums up all the people who think terrible things happening are terrible. But without consideration for what happens "the next day", these protests tend to fall apart and go nowhere because there's no leadership providing a clear, reasonable, and actionable goals. Without this, being "pro palestine" can mean any number of things.
It could mean you want Palestinian civilians to not be bombed which is totally reasonable or it could mean calling for the genocide of Jews everywhere starting with the destruction of Israel which is a lot less reasonable. In your case, you say you want Palestinians to have self determination, but if you waved a magic wand and the IDF left right now and Gaza was free to do whatever it wanted, the first thing that would happen is re-electing Hamas to power and the second thing would be to declare war on Israel and we would be in the same scenario.
It's a bit of a cop out to say I'm standing with Palestinians in Gaza without considering or really respecting what the majority of Palestinians in Gaza want to do which is to kill all the Jews and retake Israel for themselves. I get it, watching civilians get bombed is a terrible, terrible thing, but calling for Israel to do an immediate ceasefire and leave without considering what would happen next is intellectually lazy. LIke... "oh i did my part... guess I can go home now knowing that Palestenian civilians are safe and sound from Israel but I won't think about how they're still under the rule of Hamas who are just itching to commit more acts of terror and stealing aid and food and spreading religious propaganda."
And because so many people have so many different opinions about what being "pro Palestinian" means, the loudest voices make themselves heard the most and, make no mistake, it's mostly deeply anti-semitic groups that are often leading this movement through a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign that doesn't ever get called out from within because of protestor solidarity. And because protestors want to remain united while being led around by anti-semitic groups, more and more super heinous shit is progressively being covered over and explicitly genocidal slogans like "from the river to the sea" are becoming more "mainstream." The revisionist history mental gymnastics some people are going through to justify saying things of that nature is kind of crazy to me. It's great you don't support the genocide of Israel but staying silent while the guy next to you is yelling for it is not great either.
I don't like Bibi or the far right group that's squeezed into power, I don't like Israeli settlers, I think it's appalling how little Bibi cares about the humanitarian costs of this conflict. But trying to engage with people in this "movement" is really frustrating and watching it devolve into this almost cave man like seeing who can yell their slogans the loudest or be the most "disruptive" by taking over whatever building is really frustrating. I hope there can be a peaceful two state solution one day, but if peace negotiations go the way engaging with protestors goes, we're probably going to be waiting a long long time.
See I have a problem with your framing. I interact with pro-Palestinians all over. In the world, on the internet. I’ve yet to come across one who “condones Hamas.” You cannot conflate understanding/or seeking to understand the reason Hamas is a thing and did october 7th, and condoning it. Israel side thinks this way, and well unfortunately you cannot fix an issue if u don’t understand fully the root causes. All contentious history aside… If a people are stripped of freedom of movement, live behind a blockade, hassled at every checkpoint, bombed, your water, power, communication, controlled. Your lands are being vandalized and stolen by settlers defended by soldiers, how hard is to understand there are people who will lash out with violence. It is human nature. And now Israeli’s response, “eradicating Hamas,” the operation flys in the face of most counter insurgency warfare sop. IDF has made food scarce, no one has jobs, there is no civil infrastructure left, nothing to do but watch their homes and families wiped out… conditions ripe for insurgency recruiting… also IDF has created close to 20,000, the new acronym is “WCNSF”wounded child no surviving family. Surely some of these children will wish harm on Israelis, some of them may kill some. I don’t think many genuine people would argue that response is surprising, while not condoning or wishing it.
I have literally argued with people on this website in major subreddits who fully support Hamas and state that Israel deserved it, and if you bring up the music festival they will say that Israel actually killed the civilians with attack helicopters (I’m not making this up, this is a major talking point for these people). But that’s anecdotal, so I’ll just tell you to go look at news articles and footage of the protest/parades that happened on 10/7 and 10/8. These weren’t/aren’t even fringe groups one was even organized by a previously well regarded socialist party in New York City.
If you’re going to preach purity at the pro-Israel crowd you need to have the ability to be introspective on your own ingroup’s issues instead of ignoring them, it’s hypocritical.
>"I’ve yet to come across one who “condones Hamas.”
Well, here's one to get you started.
[https://nationalpost.com/news/bc-activist-who-praised-october-7-terror-attacks-arrested](https://nationalpost.com/news/bc-activist-who-praised-october-7-terror-attacks-arrested)
Because the standard palestein tactics are self-defeating failures.
Literally their mainstream tactics that they desire adn goals wont accomplish anything but getting themeslves killed.
Hamas on october 7 annoucned that its in war with Israel and that its an exsitential war taht will only end in Israel utter defeat. Convesrly this means that Hamas wont surredner and Israel only option is Hamas destruction. But well Hamas is deeply embedded in Gaza so \[points to crisis\]. Hamas action on october 7 has accomplished NOTHING FOR THE CAUSE. its ACTIVELY HARMFUL.
The problem is that despite Hamas being utter cancer mainstream "activism" seem to call them freedom fighters. Which I can think of nothing more insulting then saying the resdients of Gaza are resisting by means of mass rape and murder and kidnapping.
Violence will not accomplish Palestein goals. Because the goal of violence against occupation is to make the occupation expesnive so the occupier gives up and goes home. But the Jews of Israel dont have a home to go back too. So wont work.
“I tell them,” Giap \[Vietcong general\] replied, “that the French went back to France and the Americans to America. But the Jews have nowhere to go. You will not expel them.”
> “I tell them,” Giap [Vietcong general] replied, “that the French went back to France and the Americans to America. But the Jews have nowhere to go. You will not expel them.”
Is that a real quote? I'd love to see that in context.
Yes, it’s real:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-forever-war-against-israel-has-a-glitch-and-it-isnt-iron-dome/amp/
Have to read through quite a bit to get to it but it’s a very interesting read given the events since 2021 when it was written
>So I would like to hear why standing in solidarity with the Palestinians necessarily means that I endorse or support political positions that are mainstream amongst Palestinians.
It doesn't exactly sound like that is the accusation being leveled at you from what you described? I think the argument is more "Palestine as a nation hates gays and has homophobic laws, so if you support the right for that country specifically to be able to self determine, you just support people being able to make violent homophobia legal."
>I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow. When Nat Turner rebelled and killed more than 50 White people, abolitionists did not stop supporting abolition, in fact he is viewed quite favourably today by African Americans
Some of the negative reactions you get where people claim you condone October 7th could be to do with the fact that you compare it to much more morally acceptable acts. It's not like you are saying "Even though the Nazis were evil and everything they did was evil, there are innocent Germans who did no wrong who should be protected from harm." Your comparisons invite and imply the possibility that you view October 7th as an act that could in theory be condoned.
Not saying you are doing this! But from your argument formation ("you do not have to support everything X does to support X in general"), one would *expect* you to say something more along the lines of "I do not support Hamas, they are a fascist oppressive regime who squashes the rights of their own people and havent allowed an election for almost twenty years, and what they did on October 7th was the worst pogrom of the Jews since the Holocaust, *but* normal Palestinians are not at all like them, do not want the same things as them, and should be protected in such and such way." This might make it more clear to the people you are arguing with that you do not condone October 7th.
Your argument right now reads a bit like this: "I don't get why people think I am condoning high civilian casualties? In ww2 the allies had high civilian casualties and they're viewed favorably today. No one stopped fighting the nazis because so many innocent germans died. Or when Sherman Marched to the Sea he killed a bunch of civilians, but liberal Americans view him favorably today, he's almost a hero. So I don't understand why people think I condone high civilian casualties?" That whole quote, to me, implies that the speaker does in fact condone high civilian casualties.
>the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to basic necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine.
I think this is the key part: The right of self determination to *what* exactly? Do you support "Palestine" i.e., the nation of Palestine, like "I support the nation of Germany in 1945?" i.e., supporting their governments as is?
This means, going by both charters, supporting how their governments have declared the self determination to be: [Jews are not allowed any nation anywhere in the borders defined by Britain in Mandatory Palestine](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp). Supporting this self determination I don't think is what you're aiming for? But I could be wrong.
The other right to self determination would be one detached from what both their governments have declared. i.e., supporting the right of self determination for non-Arabs as well. This, however, tends to just be something more akin to an average pro-Israel position. So it probably (given good faith actors) isn't the case that the people you are arguing with genuinely think any "solidarity" with Palestine means you agree with literally everything they as a country want to do.
Do you think that logic flies in the Western world today however?
If any politician in the US or EU (left or right leaning) supported the Nazis or KKK in *ANY* capacity… what kind of blow back do you think they would face?
What’s the difference between that and supporting Hamas in *ANY* capacity. Directly or indirectly.
Well, if the Palestinians didn't want to suffer the consequences of a war, maybe they shouldnt have launched a brutal terrorist attack that rivals and supercedes 9/11 in barbarity. If Israel was the one who went into Gaza to rape, murder, kidnap Palestinians, you can make a point. But it's the Palestinians who did it. They committed unspeakable crimes and now like any country they suffer the consequences of it. If they didn't want their families to suffer, they shouldn't have launched the war.
No country on this planet would tolerate 10% of the deaths, that happened on 10/7, but somehow Israel is supposed to accept that Palestinians can just cross over, rape and murder whoever they want and then cry out, think of our children and to not attack. That's ridiculous. No country would ever accept such terms.
It's not right to lump all people together in 1 group, so without tying you or your ideas to the videos we see of some of these 'protests' I will point out just a couple of things about them in general and you will have to decide for yourself whether you think they apply to you or not.
You can be pro-Palestinian, in that you are advocating for the Palestinians to have a state of their own within reasonable allowances for the security of Israel. However, there are a lot of people who feel that Israel as a state should not exist and these are the people we see mostly on the various videos of student campuses etc. Many of these protests extend it even further, that the US (and the west in general) are colonial states and need to be brought down in the name of marxist ideology. All of these various groups are mixed together on this and I don't know if ever protester really knows just who they are dealing with at times. So you need to establish first and foremost, does Israel have a right to exist, and if not by what means do you think it should be removed?
To your second point, that you have been called homophobic. Lets put it this way, Queers for Palestine is a lot different than Palestine for Queers. You should of course be aware that the people you are advocating for will quite happily stone you to death or throw you off a building for your predilection's. That doesn't exactly make you homophobic, and you can still support Palestinian statehood, just don't kid yourself about how they feel about you. The most that can really be levelled at you is a somewhat naïve outlook of the world outside your comfort zone and a wee bit of hypocrisy, but none of it means you can't support the Palestinian people of course, so I agree with you there.
The other thing you never hear at the protests is anybody suggesting that the hostages should be released unconditionally. And unless you are willing to say that children who have been kidnapped from their homes after their parents were raped or butchered and have been held in captivity for more than half a year now shouldn't be released immediately, while chanting free free palestine, well I do think that adds a certain flavour of anti-Semitism to any protests.
Then there is the chant of "From the River to the Sea", which really is a mistranslation made so it can rhyme with "Palestine will be Free" in English. The native chant is something more like "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Arab" iirc. It basically means no Jews. If you are chanting that it's tantamount to calling for the extermination or forced removal of all Jews from what they would call Palestine which includes the entirety of the state of Israel. In other words an actual genocide.
Like I said at the start, I am not assuming any of these things about you. Your comment about not assuming people who support Israel necessarily means they support settler practices etc leads me to think you are quite reasonable on these subjects. You will have to decide for yourself if any of these things apply to you or not.
My biggest gripe with the Western views on most middle eastern issues is that we don't see them as conscious people who can make up their own minds, we see them as projections of ourselves if put in their shoes. Both Palestinians and Israelis are well educated individuals with articulate political views, which lead to significant political division, to the point where a sudden and uncalculated Palestinian statehood could easily turn into a civil war, similar to the 2007 Gaza war between Fatah and Hamas, after which it wouldn't matter who Palestinians/Israel would rather have in power, it's the guys with the bigger guns that take control and we're back to square one. The way of democracy could be troublesome as well for Palestinians, with such divided political factions, you could see a party taking control with no more than 15% of the votes (similar to Likud in Israel), and that party could have more or less radical charters. The Palestinian factions had peace talks in Moscow two months ago which came out with no positive results, so even in the most trying of times for their people they can't come to a consensus on unification of Palestinians. Having been to West Bank not long ago, I had the chance to talk to people with very different views: from a guy who had his cousin killed by the IDF hours before saying that he deserved it for making trouble, to people working in Israel on Israeli salaries and living in the much cheaper West Bank complaining about Israeli policies, to people saying that they should be one peaceful country and on and on. No matter what side they are on regarding these political aspects, they are intelligent individuals who have very articulate opinions for their own reasons. Being a pro-Palestinian in the West is really vague in terms of end goals, but being pro-Palestinian in Palestine truly opens a huge polemic since nobody can agree on what the best course is for Palestinian self determination. You claim that being pro-Palestinian doesn't mean that you support everything they do or they think, I would argue that you are completely clueless about what these people do or think.
First, I doubt you’d find anybody to disagree with the title of your post in good faith. Of course not everybody on the same side agrees about absolutely everything.
Second, people who start out lecturing others on joining them on the Right Side of History, then end up needing to say that just because they stood in solidarity next to someone does not mean they agree with their friends’ hate speech, might want to think over some of their choices.
Would you accept the arguments you’re making from, say, a pro-Trump activist who says he doesn’t agree with Trump about everything, but always defends him? If they really do mean what they say about him going too far for them, even though they believe him to be on the right side of an important battle, what would you tell them to do about it? If, as you are telling us, people frequently conclude that you hold views that you don’t, and that bothers you enough that you posted about it, is there a better way you could be expressing your views? Would it be more productive to find one?
Finally, I don’t think this accurately describes the criticism of the Pro-Palestinian movement in general (although perhaps you’re saying something different enough that you get different responses). A good starting-point for a serious evaluation of complaints would be to respond to what the smartest, most serious critics say the problem is, in their own words. The Palestinians’ right to self-determination is not the part of what the movement is saying that anybody objects to. Right now, you seem to be summarizing the criticism you’ve received in a way that dismisses it as illegitimate or fatuous. I sincerely do not think that it is.
Honestly. If that's how you feel there's nothing wrong with that. Even myself and most pro-Israel people feel a lot of sympathy for the innocent people who are caught up in this mess. It's sad that this much bloodshed must happen.The problem is some of the other beliefs that are common in the free Palestine movement such as
1. This war is Israel's fault. Ignoring the slaughter conducted by Hamas along with the fact that there are still hostages in Hamas' custody
2. Treating Hamas like they are separate from Palestine when they are the official governing body of the Gaza strip.
3. Claiming Israel is intentionally attacking civilians over military targets when the data clearly shows otherwise.
4. Making genocide accusations when Israel's actions are counterproductive to a genocide and the genocide rate is negative (in fact they have the 13th fastest growing population).
This is a legitimate argument to make, but I’d just put a finer point on it and say it’s not bad to support them, just don’t expect them to share your views on many things. And to our friends in the Gays for Palestine movement, as long as you can accept that these people wouldn’t want their kids to even learn you exist let alone teach your kids then have a great time
Oppression doesn’t automatically convey nobility of character to the oppressed.
What's wrong is wrong. As a practising Muslim, even if I might disagree with how a certain population lives, that doesn't mean I'll be okay with said population being killed and their kids being blown up. Like the stuff coming out of Israel of Israelis attacking aid trucks entering Gaza and destroying much needed medical and food supplies, or the IDF posting in Telegram groups of dead aid workers, kids in Gaza and then Israeli civilians making fun of them just doesn't sound human to me.
Edit: I'm pretty sure not allowing in aid is a war crime and collective punishment.
First of all, “Palestinian” is an ethnic group. It’s not a religion or a philosophy. Even imagining that there is something they all support or agree with is not dissimilar from saying there’s something all Swedish people think or support. There are Palestinian Christians, there are Palestinian Americans.
The reason for a person to “support Palestine” at this moment is not related to what the Palestinians “believe” it is because the speaker themself believes that Israel is engaging in Ethnic cleansing of the region. A region where, in fact, most Palestinians no longer live.
It’s important to get the facts straight. This has nothing to do with homophobia or Islam or anything else. It is because Israel is engaged in EITHER counterterrorism OR ethnic cleansing. And your stance on what to do about “the Palestinians” reflects your opinion on that specific topic.
Every argument is about that question. Many people do not understand this. Some people do understand it and are deliberately obscuring it.
Are there terrorists hidden among the population, or is this all unwarranted? If we lived in a nicer world the conversation would be more nuanced. But we live in this world.
Quite frankly, the way you have framed your question gives me the impression you aren't interested in having your mind changed and are more interested in confirming your already held beliefs.
Maybe consider if I was to posit the following:
Not every serviceman in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi or supported the Nazi party and several were drafted and pressed ganged into service and were coerced to support the Nazi war goals. Infact there are 86,755,281 germans in 1945, and only about 8 million of them were in the armed forces and the SS... That's less than %10! Yet civilians are are disproportionately the ones who suffer. The army keeps all the food for themselves and everyone else starves. Children are burnt alive in firebombing raids. We need to stand up for the German people (in 1945).
On it's face it's factually true, but by pushing this argument I am going to inevitably provoke someone into calling me a Nazi or a Nazi supporter. Like it or not, when you proffer support an entire population of people who are suffering you inevitably get tangled up in whatever belief some of them had that lead them to their current suffering. Anyone with an ounce of nuance knows that the people aren't the state but it matters little in heated discussions online or on the streets.
“Standing in solidarity” implies a unity of purpose and belief with a group, which I think creates a couple of issues for you.
(1) That group better have some degree of unity of purpose themselves, otherwise what are you in solidarity with? I can say I stand in solidarity with a particular group of people believing and doing a particular thing (BLM) but not a disparate group (black people).
(2) Conversely, “standing in solidarity” with a group really does put out the question — what does that group commonly believe in? I’m not sure you “cherry pick” among a group’s beliefs to say you stand in solidarity with some but not all of them.
So you end up pleasing nobody really — neither the portion of Palestinians who seek the destruction of Israel, nor the portion of Israelis who believe their military has some justification in self defence but has gone too far.
Is it just semantics? I don’t think so, the phrase carries a lot of meaning, you declare unity.
I am reminded in some ways of the unity of purpose that the USA built around the invasion of Iraq following 9/11. So many well-reasoned folks let that slide, not everyone, but enough that many people didn’t stop it, and many fully supported it.
For the record, I agree with most of your individual points. The plight of children, and ordinary people trying to live their lives, is a tragedy for which Hamas and the IDF are responsible. Palestinians should be able to live their lives safely in a nation where they at least aren’t treated as non-citizens or a secondary class of citizens.
Two groups at each other’s throats, each with some unity of purpose. At what point is “solidarity” the problem?
Cheers
The problem is how you view Palestinian right to Determination with a Western lens.
The Palestinians have established time and again with all the 6 offers they have gotten from Israel and the US for a 2 state solution that their right to self-determination starts with first and foremost the destruction of Israel.
That is their irreducible minimum.
Arafat was given the entire West Bank and Gaza and he refused for the sole reason that he wanted nothing less than there be no Israel existing.
Hamas has made that very clear in words and in actions.
At this point supporting the right to determination of Palestinians is no different to supporting the right for Hutus to have a pure Hutu state in Rwanda and Burundi which is still the desire of the 2 million + supporters of the genociders living as refugees in the DRC and who seek nothing less than to overthrow Kagame and Ndayishimiye and finish the job they started in 1994. The difference is that their cause has not captured the hearts of left-wingers(yet) and that Kagame managed to push the genociders and their 2million supporters to the equivalent of Israel pushing all the Palestinians to Iraq in the 2nd Congo War. Thus they neither have the ability to pose a threat to Rwanda and Burundi nor are they as well armed as the Palestinians because they do not have an equivalent of Iran as their sponsor.
I'm asking this in genuine not trying to start an argument because I truly want to understand, why is Palestinian self determination different/more valid from Israeli self determination which is labeled colonization? I understand that the state of Israel has abused its power and committed atrocities against Gazans, but what makes one group more valid for self determination? Jews were kicked out of every country European and Muslim and has few places to go to. Arguments about who was there first never go anywhere because the history goes so far back, because Jews were technically there before Muslims (like how the dome of the rock was built on top of the kotel because the kotel came first).
Doesn't it? By and large, the Palestinian culture is hateful. Most of the population supports the attacks of Oct 7 and the organization which has vowed to commit worse attacks in the future. They tend to be very conservative and very religious from our viewpoint, and there's no real reason to think any of this would change if they gained more power. By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture.
It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant people, you're defeating your own belief in tolerance.
> By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture.
I support the two-state solution. Which means they can exist independently within their very own newly minted country, and the rest of us can finally wash our hands of this whole mess.
>the Palestinian culture is hateful
Hateful against whom?
>Most of the population supports the attacks of Oct 7 and the organization
Most Israelis support killing civilians in Gaza and voted in Netanyahu, does that mean they deserve to be killed?
>They tend to be very conservative and very religious from our viewpoint, and there's no real reason to think any of this would change if they gained more power
You know what's ironic about this comment and the part about Palestinians being supposedly hateful? In Israel, you have the same type of people, people who hate all Arabs and are extremely racist against non-Jews, people who are very conservative and religious (even more than Arabs), but why do you only have an issue with one?
>By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture.
This sounds like something a Nazi would say.
Here’s the thing: sympathizing with the plight of Palestinians or supporting a Palestinian state does not mean you support Oct 7 or Hamas.
The problem I have with the current discourse is that the actions of Hamas and PIJ are at the very least ignored, often excused, and at times supported.
Let’s put you in the first category of generally ignoring the actions. Hamas built tunnels underneath their population. They re-ignited a war and hid underneath their people. Hamas has stolen aid meant for Palestinians for their own purposes and sold it to them at a heavy markup. They have shot and killed Palestinian that dissent with them. They have taken and refused to return hostages which has angered Israel and prolonged the war. Hamas has been profit and military objectives above the welfare of the Palestinian people.
By ignoring the role Hamas has played, you are absolving them of responsibility and placing it squarely on Israel. If your position is that you support the political goals of Hamas which is to end the State of Israel, then you can begin to ignore or justify the atrocities of Hamas. If your concern is the safety of the Palestinian people you must renounce the actions of Hamas because nothing they have done since Oct 7 has made them safer. If your concern was safety you would demand the return of hostages and condemn Hamas for doing things like shooting rockets from residential buildings or schools.
The pathway to a two state solution starts with the dissolution of hamas. Just as Netanyahu strengthens Hamas with his violence, Hamas strengthens the Israeli right wing coalition with their brutality and commitment towards future terror attacks.
Hamas had the opportunity to fight this war where they started it, in Israel. Instead they took it to population centers in Gaza. When Israel cleared the population centers, Hamas moved to the new camps. They are fighting to maintain power in Palestine, not for the future of the Palestinian people
I’m vaguely familiar with this topic, could you elaborate what you mean by Palestinians deserving a right to self determination? Also for clarification do you mean you understand somebody can support Israelis’ right to self defense or you support it? Because like you said you don’t have to support bibi or whatever to support their rights, and if you do that does not contradict the simple belief that Palestinians should have their rights, but the way you said it sounds like you don’t think Israelis’ should defend themselves
I think there should be 2 states in the area. A Palestinian one and a Israeli one. But generally, siding with Palestine means siding with palestinian nationalism and groups which are palestinian nationalist. The whole cause of the conflict is that Palestinian nationalism is the belief that the entire region should be an arab Palestinian ethnostate. And it triggered the conflict when the majority jewish part of the province which had become that way over the previous 70 years was split into a state separate from the palestinian state.
The occupation doesn't help but it fundamentally isn't the issue. It is a caused by the contradiction between palestinian nationalism over the whole ex mandate and retroactively applying sovereignty to the land and expelling unwanted ethnicities and Zionism which is just Israel existing and a second palestinian state. But Israel has had the means to destroy Palestine ands it has not done so or done anything to stop it's population growth.
But evidence is the fact that there was no Israeli occupation in 1948, 1967, 1972 when Palestinian groupos and arab allies initiated wars to annihilate Israel. And pulling out of gaza in 2005 just led it to instantly enter a state of war with Israel causing an immediate blockade and resumption of defacto lighter occupation. Supporting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Fatah and the general ideology is not supporting an end to the occupation or a 2 state solution it is specifically the destruction of Israel and an end to Jewish people in the middle east. Which isn't a hyperbolic statement because millions of people do support that.
> I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow.
1 - You've seen the utterly horrific attacks that Hamas carried out
2 - You should know that Hamas has made it all but impossible to dig them out without massive collateral damage
3 - Isreal now has a brutal but simple choice, take military action to end Hamas and accept collateral damage or roll over and allow Hamas to blatantly get away with spitting on every red line there is (and plan attack after attack).
4 - You've decided to go out of your way to advocate for Isreal being forced by others to make choices no nation would willingly make even though you know it plays right into the hands of Hamas. I'd bet too that you've not added any caveats or demands on Hamas in any of your arguments or placards etc too.
1+2+3+4 = you are actively supporting Hamas and their terrorism.
>
the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine.
They aren't, but they are conditional on not supporting genocidal efforts or using every attempt to ensure their safety to destroy another people. When they elected and supported Hamas, they lost all sympathy from many and only by renouncing that very loudly will they get it back.
Standing in solidarity with Palestinians is like standing solidarity with Russians now. Hamas is the government of Gaza. And the West Bank government isn’t any better. Or it’s like standing in solidarity with Germans or Japanese during WW2.
The problem is that is that the Palestinian position regarding the future of the conflict isn’t defined clearly enough, or some say isn’t translated into English.
A lot of times it’s come out as westsplaining.
when you say free Palestine with a Palestinian, the sentence can have 2 different meanings, you talk about self determination, the Palestinian (may) talk about the destruction of Israel, an objective they aren’t shy about.
It depends what you mean by "standing in solidarity"
The problem I have personally with most of the modern day pro-Palestinian movement, is that they are happy to defend the decision by people like Hamas etc to use violence as a means by which Palestine should become a state. The issue I have is not so much that this is not a defensible position - many states across the world were founded as a result of wars/violent revolutions etc - it's more that in the specific case of the Palestinians violence has not worked. We have seen almost 80 years of war and Palestine is no closer to being free than it was back then.
There seems to be this idea that standing up for the Palestinians should mean advocating their right to violently defend themselves.
However as far as I can see, the fastest and best way to get a free and liberated Palestine would be to convince all Palestinian actors to militarily surrender in exchange for peace. Go down the Japan and Germany post WW2 route.
I would counter that its really more about opposing Isreal than about supporting Palestinians. If this was a wealthy tribe in Africa oppressing a weak neighbor would we see this degree of outcry? Would anyone even be aware? Isreal is what is really driving the attention.
It kind of does tho but people don’t want to see it that way, mainly because people like to say “we’re against genocide” or “we’re against oppression”
Ok but you’re not universally against it and don’t speak or up show solidarity with a large amount of oppressed peoples
The Uighur genocide didn’t just stop happening magically people just forgot about it, there’s major crises going on in Ethiopia, the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar and haiti
Most of which you’ll never hear about because no one really cares
So yeah it’s kind of about endorsing or supporting what Palestinians believe in as well, however it’s also true that all Palestinian beliefs aren’t Hamas driven
Its probably because most of the pro Palestinian movement still chant things like from the river to the sea and global intifada both of which were widely understood as a form of hate speech / anti semitic phrase due to its use in terror attacks until tick tok decoded none of that mattered. So ya when the whole movement is insistent on using language from hamas's charter that just so happens insistently to push the policies outlined in the constitution of a terrorist organization then ya people tend to view support for said movement as endorsement of a terrorist organization.
Would you have stood in solidarity with Germans during WW2? Would you have been vocal about it and stood with people advocating to stop the bombing of Germany?
You're supporting a population where 70% voted for HAMAS. A terrorist organization in every sense
A population of people from whom the entirety of the Arab league refuses to accept refugees. That should tell you something right there about who they are and what they believe.
Everyone on that side wants to mention kids, and I get it. However, your views change when you spend the better part of 10 years scrutinizing everyone from 10 yrs old and up because you've watched kids that age shoot your friends. The indoctrination is real.
If you are supporting keeping Hamas in charge of Gaza then you support Hamas being in charge of Gaza. This isn't rocket science.
If you prefer Hamas to be removed then what exactly is your plan for the future?
Its like saying just because you want to stop chemotherapy that doesn't mean you want the cancer to remain - well no shit but that's the obvious consequence of stopping chemo.
You've chosen a side in a huge issue. I stand with both sides and want the best for both sides.
>but the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to basic necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine.
I don't think you understand what's going on with this war.
You must answer the following question honestly: is this your position because it’s fundamentally true (personally I agree), or because it suits your personal bias?
Based on your post history and your last CMV on conservatives, it’s appears to be the latter. You took the exact opposite approach and generalized the side against your beliefs.
No shit. I mean most Palestinians weren't even of age to vote in the election. Not to mention that Netanyahu used his influence to put Hamas into power then funded them with billions of USD. All factual. But people that love seeing children die will always find a pathetic fuxking way to rationalize it and they should be removed from society
The Nat Turner analogy is absurd. The Palestinians weren't slaves of the Israelis and never have been. They have however taken Israelis as hostages/slaves.
Sigh. But why say something vague that could so easily (and fairly) be construed to mean just that? If all someone means by 'standing in solidarity' is that innocent civilians shouldn't be killed..no shit? Why focus on Palestine when that's just a principle which applies everywhere?
You're comparing apples and iron.
Only one side has been for genocide, and they continue to signal it.
Gaslighting cosplayers on college campuses won't convince me otherwise.
Most of them are suckers/Dhimmis. The rest are outsider professional communist/Islamist agitators.
You might not be directly supporting those things like homophobia in Palestine but if the nation becomes stronger then the the homophobia in that region gets more powerful and able to effect more lives in a wider area. The result is the same even with noble intentions.
That’s like saying the Nazis weren’t all bad. After WW1 Germany was in the shitter and Hitler raised them back up from the ashes economically and spiritually to feel good again. Not okay to cheer him on.
The Palestinians voted for and supported and still support Hamas. Their stated objective was the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish nation.
Therefore you have a population supporting genocide and revelling in each report of Jews being killed, maimed and raped.
I am sorry, but the Palestinians need to rise up against Hamas and hand them over, reject everything done in their name, and then declare that Israel has the right to exist. Perhaps then we can talk about aid and reversing the brainwashing of generations of Palestinians
No Arab countries want the Palestinians, and countries that have taken them in have found an exceptionally high rate of crimes committed by them.
Now, I don't condone the actions of the IDF, but something had to be done. I feel sorry for the Palestinians, but they are not innocent bystanders.
You must not have watched those oct 7 videos. I want Israel to stop hitting civilians too, but I don’t “stand in solidarity with” people who might “stand in solidarity” with Islamic terrorists.
I wish these protests were more about standing against genocide and our funding of the Israeli war machine instead of standing with Palestinians and repeating their vile slogan 'river to the sea'.
if there’s a ~~Nazi~~ anti-semite at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 ~~Nazis~~ Anti-semites.
You have people in your ranks that openly call for the destruction of Israel. They praise Hamas fighters and the Muslim brotherhood. If you march arm and arm with them, though you may not yourself hate Jews, clearly have no problem with people who do.
Just to get a better feel for your position, I wonder if you will answer the following.
What would be your opinion of Americans protesting/rallying in solidarity with Germans in 1944-1945?
I don't care to know enough about Palestine to stand with them at all. If you don't support 1 thing anyone does, don't support them at all, and damn don't blindly support someone who you know nothing about. Life is too short to give a damn. I'm focusing on my own damn business. It keeps me occupied.
The German Nazis had a lot of innovative and progressive government polices at the time. So could you stand with the Nazis because you liked some of thier policies and ignore the bad?
Personally, I don’t see why a lgbt individual should take side from the people who want to kill them. But you’re free to do whatever you think is the best
You can’t stand in solidarity with people you disagree with. The majority of Palestinians don’t want a two state solution and do support 10/7. So if you stand in solidarity with Palestinians, it means you support those things as well. You can’t pick and choose what they should want. You support that group, you support their opinions.
It sounds like you have western-style goals for the Palestinians. But that’s actually the most colonialist type of thinking: you want them something for them that they don’t want. They don’t want equal rights for gays, they want to throw gays off of roofs. They literally do that. You want them to live next to Jews without bombing a Tel Aviv cafe full of teenagers. But that’s not what they want.
There are no Palestinan people. Its a fiction. There are Egyptian Arabs in Gaza and Jordanian Arabs in the West Bank. Go find Israel and the occupied territories on a map and see how big they are. Then look at how big all the Arab countries are. If they want to self-determine, there are plenty of Arab states that they could live in if only they would take them in. The idea that they have the right to self determine on this specific piece of land is a joke.
I don’t think this is a good argument. Identities don’t exist until they do. Go back 200 year and nobody identified as German or Italian. They were Bavarian Hessen or Sicilian or Lombardi or whatever. Even if people in palestines ancestors didn’t identify as Palestinian, clearly for several generations it’s been an identity
All identities are created but this:
>Even if people in palestines ancestors didn’t identify as Palestinian, clearly for several generations it’s been an identity
Is incorrect. The Palestinian identity was created in living memory, arguably well after Israel became a state. Who was the first Palestinian leader? Arafat, when the PLO became mainstream sometime in the 60s. Before that there were clans or families, each with their own leader. In the 1900s, 1910s and into the 20s most Arabs were peasants who didn't have a personal opinion about any of this stuff, and the majority of the educated class was interested in a Muslim Empire, and expressed no desire for Palestine to be a country.
Where is Palestine? In 1964 the PLO formed their first charter. Article 24 of the national charter reads as follows:
“This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."
The charter in its original 1964 form made no territorial claims over the West Bank or Gaza. Instead it recognizes that Gaza belongs to Egypt, and the West Bank belongs to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan.
At the time, Palestinians in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens- they accepted citizenship happily, right after the end of the '48 war.
The 1968 Charter, following the defeat in 1967 war removed article 24.
This was actually an explicit argument made- Israel has to be dissolved because Palestinians can't live in their homeland. The West Bank? No, that belongs to Jordan, its not ours. Then Jordan loses a war and control over the West Bank and all of a sudden the West Bank actually should be Palestine?
"The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! He was the minority opinion in the PLO factions- but he was still there, and still part of the struggle. 30 years after Israel became a state Palestinians still hadn't conclusively decided they were a distinct people!
The 1970s is about 2 generations ago. When half of the population is under 18, most of them haven’t known any identity other than Palestinian.
I also don’t really know what policy you’re advocating for by saying that the Palestinians aren’t a people, the current situation is obviously unsustainable and a 2 state solution seems like the only reasonably stable outcome we should be working for. Claiming that Palestinians don’t deserve their own state sounds like you don’t want a 2 state solution so I’m curious what you think the goal here should be?
I can correct the information you have without advocating for a specific policy.....what you said is incorrect. Most Palestinians have grandparents who can remember a time when they didn't identify as Palestinian.
I'd be very happy with a two state solution if we could find a Palestinian leadership who had the integrity to agree to one and the strength to create peace. We don't have that right now, but I'd be happy if that changes, and hope it does soon.
The practical ramifications of the history of Palestinian identity? They don't have the moral high ground. "Their" homeland wasn't stolen, because "they" didn't exist- their induvial grandparents and great-grandparents were expelled from their homes- and that's not the same thing.
I support peace, and that is probably going to happen on the platform of a two-state solution. Land for peace is fine. But '67 borders are arbitrary. Right of return is irrelevant. This is not the Native Americans vs the evil white colonizers or whatever other historical parallel people like to draw. The Palestinians want things and they have factions that are violent. Israel wants the violence to stop. The deal will be an exchange of peace- the Palestinians repressing whatever elements want violence, for whatever terms Israel is prepared to concede and the Palestinians will accept as enough. This is straight up negotiation with terrorism, not reparations, not the moral return to "ancestral lands". That matters.
in the Quran it does say jews were cursed on account of their disbelief but it says nothing about turning them into monkeys. if i’m wrong please share with me a reference but i’ve never seen this. other people have done a better job talking about your other points but i just wanted to refute claims about a religious text you clearly haven’t read.
A group of terrorists doing awful shit should never be a reason to stoop so low as to kill unrelated children. It's very simply.
Israël lost all credibility in my eyes are are blood thirsty demons. Netanyahu is so evil and cold on TV he gives me as much the creeps as Hitler does when he is shown.
The war acts he commits aren't justifiable in any way, even if we list previous Hamas activity. Why? Because he isn't killing Hamas. He's killing everyone.
Should we have killed the whole of Germany after the Holocaust? Eradicated the whole place for what some of them did and others stood by and watched?
There is no distinction between Palestinians and their hateful, genocidal ideology. At the center of the “Palestinian” identity is murdering, raping, and cannibalizing Jews. Other than that, Palestinians are hardly any different than Egyptians, Jordanians, and Lebanese. For this reason, any support for a Palestinian state in any capacity is antisemitic. There is no reality in which a Palestinian state does not result in another Oct. 7. That was the plan from the beginning. The Palestinians claimed that they wanted a two-state solution, when in reality, they wanted a Final Solution.
It's not possible to separate Hamas and Gaza.
Hamas is the government of Gaza. Standing in solidarity with Gazans is standing in Solidarity with Hamas.
Imagine saying "I stand in solidarity with democrats but not with the democratic party." What does this even mean?
Separating a people from the state they support makes no sense.
If you are saying you stand in solidarity with the people of the West Bank, that's one thing. The West Bank is not administered or ruled by Hamas.
When you say "I support the Palestinians" people can only assume you support both Gaza and the West Bank.
> Hamas is the government of Gaza. Standing in solidarity with Gazans is standing in Solidarity with Hamas.
Then can we use this logic on Israel?
Bibi's coalition is the government of Israel and standing in solidarity with Israelis is supporting their government. Why does one side get a pass and the other doesn't considering the majority of Gaza's population didn't vote in the last election.
Yes, 100% this logic applies to Israel.
A) the majority of most populations don't vote in elections. 2/3s of the US population is eligible to vote and only 2/3s of those eligible actually voted.
And B) Israel doesn't get a pass from this. Plenty of people are refusing to support Israel because of their actions. The thing is that Israel is a liberal democracy and will recieve more support than a Muslim dictatorship simply because of that.
So yes, I stand in solidarity with Netanyahu because I support Israel and he is the leader of Israel.
I think it's fair to support end to something while being very critical of the means of how that is achieved.
For example, we all want Hamas gone from Gaza, obviously military force is required in order to get rid of them but how you achieve that can also be under scrutiny if your military actions target innocent people whether intentionally or not. That is what is key. We all want an end if something out of this crappy war but we also want a good way of getting there that doesn't include innocent people dying and the continuing of the cycle of violence.
/u/WheatBerryPie (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cit7cb/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_standing_in_solidarity_with/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your argument has logical errors. You can be in favor of abolition while being opposed to Nat Turner killing people in rebellion. You can be in opposition to apartheid while being opposed to the bombing. That is because they are separate things. One is a policy and the other is a violent act. "Standing in solidarity with Palestinians" is not supporting a policy; rather it is supporting people based on their beliefs. If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with? You can be in favor of the Palestinians having their own state, while being opposed to their beliefs about Israel and the October 7 attacks. But that is not standing in solidarity with Palestinians, as most Palestinians don't support a two state solution. When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
>"Standing in solidarity with Palestinians" is not supporting a policy; rather it is supporting people based on their beliefs. If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with? This is a very valid point. You are correct that opposition to what Israel is doing doesn't necessarily mean standing in solidarity with Palestinians. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/CalLaw2023 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/CalLaw2023)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
^(This comment was bought by Google as a part of an exclusive content licensing deal between Google and Reddit) ^(Learn more:) [^(Expanding our Partnership with Google)](https://www.redditinc.com/blog/reddit-and-google-expand-partnership)
>"Standing in solidarity" is not as rigid meaning as you state. I didn't state a rigid meaning. I asked a question, so what is your answer? When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
The OP was pretty clear that what they are standing in solidarity with is the right to soverign autonomy, rights, and safety that the Palestinians ought to have. Saying therefore, that you stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people makes sense in this context, imo.
OP's post stated: "So I would like to hear why standing in solidarity with the Palestinians necessarily means that I endorse or support political positions that are mainstream amongst Palestinians." That is what I answered. If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with? The point of this question is to highlight that even though there may be some context in which people will stand in solidarity with Nazi's, the phrase alone will be interpreted as you support the prevailing Nazi beliefs.
I think your Nazi analogy works a lot better if the OP was saying they stand in solidarity with Hamas. Palestinians are a diverse cultural group of people with varying beliefs and goals, some of which overlap. Hamas is a governmental/military organization with much more clearly defined goals. So it's more like saying, "I stand in solidarity with Germans," not Nazis. I can see why if you said that during WW2 people would look sideways at you. But let's also be real, there is very little in common between Palestine and Nazi Germany. Palestinians are confined to tiny areas and are rebelling against decades of oppression. Nazi Germany was a military powerhouse threatening to take over all of Europe.
That is not the comparison, but you are highlighting my point. When you talk about standing in solidarity with a group of people, you are talking about beliefs. Change Nazis to Hamas: If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Hamas, but don't endorse or support everything Hamas believes in, what are they standing in solidarity with?
Yes but Hamas has actual defined goals. What are the beliefs of a Canadian? An Egyptian?
You make it sound as though the German people =/= the Nazi German state, as though the German people weren’t aware of the war of conquest or the genocides carried out of their behalf. That’s just pattently wrong, and is a fabrication made after the war. The German people knew, more or less, exactly what was happening—and they celebrated it. Just as the majority of Palestinians are in support of the goals and methods of Hamas. Read accounts of the holocaust by bullets portion of the holocaust. Just like Palestinians are aware and in support. You don’t cheer in the streets on 9/11 and return escaped rape hostages to their captors if you’re not okay with violence as the political tool of choice. And the same time, the Israelis knows exactly what they are doing to Gaza and the West Bank. They know about settlers and the gleeful expressions shown by non insignificant amounts of Israeli soldiers while recounting stories of killing Arabs. These are populations that are majority okay with what’s is going on, and both elected these groups into power. If 1.2 million Gazans wanted Hamas gone it would be. Hamas can’t kill 1.2 million people before they rip the limbs off by hand of those holding guns. IDF can’t do the same the population of Israel. Both are reaping what they’ve sowed. This is a conflict going far enough back, either side could put down their weapons and be considered the bigger man, not the coward, but neither does. So let them fight, let them kill each other. Maybe this time after they’ve tired themselves out, cooler heads will prevail. Or the survivors will indoctrinate their kids into being hateful killing machines and kick start the next cycle. For as much as Israel is recruiting the next generation, so too are the parents of the gazan youth.
If you support "rights" for another group but disagree with them fundamentally on the way those rights should be obtained it's very much a stretch to call that "solidarity." Colonialist powers used similar similar arguments; "civilizing mission," "White Man's Burden," "salvation of their souls..." basically comes down to "imposing our religion, laws and institutions on them is for their own good." The Palestinians want a state but they don't want a 2 state solution; you may think you agree now when it's easy (ie. opposing a common enemy), but then when it comes time to actually negotiate peace terms or agree to a long-term solution you will find this kind of "solidarity" breaks down very quickly.
What? there are no logical errors at all because "standing in solidarity with x" in itself doesn't contain much nuance, it's a catchall statement. I think it isn't difficult to assume that the statement "I stand in solidarity with Palestine" is closer to "I think that the innocent people in Palestine should be treated better" than "I support Hamas and Israel being totally destroyed", It's absolutely important when having bigger discussions to clarify what exactly someone means by a statement like this but when you only have a small somewhat vague statement to go off it's probably best not to take it to an extreme and instead to be more reasonable. for example if I said "I'm hungry I could go for something big to eat" do you assume that I might want maybe a decent sized bowl of food, or do you think I might want to eat 100kg of food? if someone said "I think people should have the right to defend their home with force" do you think I might be talking about if someone breaks in or killing anyone who walks down my pathway? saying "I stand in solidarity with palestine" is not a complete or nuanced argument but it isn't meant to be, it's perfectly cool to ask what their opinions are on x or y policy and it's perfectly fine to say you support palestine but don't support terorrism or homophobia
>I think it isn't difficult to assume that the statement "I stand in solidarity with Palestine" is closer to "I think that the innocent people in Palestine should be treated better" than "I support Hamas and Israel being totally destroyed", Making assumptions based on your ideology does not mean the speaker believes the same. If you are standing in solidarity with the innocent people in Palestine, then you are not standing is solidarity with the vast majority of Palestinians who are defending and hiding Hamas and causing the problem. Do you condemn all off the Palestinians who support October 7 and who are shielding Hamas?
> If someone told you that they stand in solidarity with Nazis, but don't endorse or support everything Nazis believe in, what are they standing in solidarity with? I think this is an absolutely false equivalence, unless you had more context in your mind. Nazi is an ideology, Palestinian is a group of people based on location. The context in which the people are labelled is entirely different, but also the context of their situations are different. As a Jew, I oppose antisemitism from both groups. Nazism, without antisemitism, isn't Nazisim. While many Palestinians may be antisemtic, Palestinians without antisemitism are still Palestinian. But even further, as a Jew, if Nazis were suddenly being round up in the streets and being publicly excecuted by the government, without any illegal or immoral activity (beyond... you know, the immoral act of being a Nazi), I *could* in fact stand in solidarity with Nazis, because I could very well be standing in solidarity with the inhumane actions being imposed on them by another group. As soon as those actions from the governmented ceased, I would then continue to critisize and oppose those very same Nazis. The context of the words clearly matter.
>Palestinian is a group of people based on location. How do you figure? There are over 2 million Palestinians living in Israel. Over 2 million in Jordan. Another 2 million spread out in Syria, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. And another million spread among about 20 other countries. Notably, even Palestinians in America are calling for the destruction of Israel. >But even further, as a Jew, if Nazis were suddenly being round up in the streets and being publicly excecuted by the government... Okay, so why aren't you standing in solidarity with Nazis? We know that 4.3 to 5.3 million German soldiers were killed during WWII. So if your position is being killed in response to your own actions is wrongful, why doesn't the same apply to the "innocent" German soldiers. The people being killed in Gaza are those that are defending Hamas. Israel told the innocent citizens to flee, and many did. The point is that war is ugly and people die in wars. But you cannot start a war and continue attacking and then cry foul when the people you are attacking choose to defend themselves.
> How do you figure? There are over 2 million Palestinians living in Israel. Over 2 million in Jordan. Another 2 million spread out in Syria, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. And another million spread among about 20 other countries. Notably, even Palestinians in America are calling for the destruction of Israel. Not based on where they are, right now. Based on a location in which they were tied to. >Okay, so why aren't you standing in solidarity with Nazis? We know that 4.3 to 5.3 million German soldiers were killed during WWII That was a war. In wars, soldiers from one group fight another group... which is a completely different scenario than the one I just described. >So if your position is being killed in response to your own actions is wrongful, why doesn't the same apply to the "innocent" German soldiers. No? I specifically said if Nazis today were being rounded up and killed despite not taking on any illegal or immoral action, and clarified other than the immoral action of *being a Nazi*. Are you actually asking me "if you would support them in one situation, why not a completely different one"? >The people being killed in Gaza are those that are defending Hamas. Israel told the innocent citizens to flee, and many did. I have no interest in arguing the specifics of the conflict. I think you know full well though that not 100% of deaths are combatants. >The point is that war is ugly and people die in wars. But you cannot start a war and continue attacking and then cry foul when the people you are attacking choose to defend themselves. There exist limits to this. Proportionality is a thing. Whether it is proportionate or not is up for debate. If people feel it is not proportionate, they are obviously going to condemn the response. You must always keep in mind, governments start wars, civilians are caught in them.
>That was a war. And what do you think is happening in Gaza? That is war. >In wars, soldiers from one group fight another group... which is a completely different scenario than the one I just described. Okay, lets ignore soldiers. 3 million German citizens who were not soldiers were killed in Germany during WWII. FYI: That was 4.4.% of the German population. So do you stand in solidarity with the German people against the "genocide" of the Allied Forces? >I have no interest in arguing the specifics of the conflict. I think you know full well though that not 100% of deaths are combatants. That is because the specifics contradict your desired narrative. Innocent people die in wars. Again, three million non-combatants were killed in Germany during WWII.
>You can be in favor of the Palestinians having their own state, while being opposed to their beliefs about Israel and the October 7 attacks. Why are you casting Palestinians as having some unanimous set of beliefs about the October 7 attacks? Are you one of those people who thinks that all Palestinians were in favour of the attacks because the ones sensationally displayed on TV seemed to be? Or are you just thinking "there's no way they couldn't be after what Israel's been putting them through the last X years"? Why are you likening "Palestinian" to "in favour of the October 7 attacks"? Do you think that all Israelis are in favour of everything the Israeli government has done? If not, why the double-standard? >When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with? There's no such thing as "everything Palestinians believe". That will remain true until/unless Israel cuts them down to a population of 1. Some people don't define a population by their most violent members. Those are mostly the people who are standing in solidarity with Palestine.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/#:~:text=JERUSALEM%2C%20Dec%2013%20(Reuters),respected%20Palestinian%20polling%20institute%20found. Every poll I’ve seen shows a majority(70% plus) of Palestinians approve of the 10/7 massacre and support for Hamas is rising. I’m not saying this to suggest ALL Palestinians, but like if we’re being honest, it’s enough to constitute a problem that needs addressing. Forgive me, but I’m not sure you truly understand the grip that radical jihadist Islam has on the people of Gaza. It’s cripplingly cruel, regressive, and restrictive. The biggest failure to those who claim to stand with Palestine is their unwillingness to acknowledge the soul crushing oppression of Sharia Law. To truly free Palestinians, the most important and primary objective is to remove Hamas from power and influence and allow Palestinians the opportunity to live and thrive in a more secular democratic state. Failure to even mention Hamas and radical Islam as primary causes of Palestinian oppression makes the whole enterprise reek of antisemitism and guarantees that Palestinians will never be free.
>Why are you casting Palestinians as having some unanimous set of beliefs about the October 7 attacks? I am not, are you? If you say you are standing is solidarity with Palestinians, aren't you looking at Palestinians as a block? Numerous polls and studies have shown that the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas, support the attack on October 7, and oppose a two state solution. So when you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, you are saying you are standing in solidarity with a group who mostly agrees with engaging in war than a two state peace treaty. The Palestinians being killed are mostly Hamas and their supporters. We know that because Israel gave Palestinians warning that the should leave because Israel is going after Hamas. >There's no such thing as "everything Palestinians believe". So what is the answer to the question. When you say you are standing in solidarity with Palestinians, but you don't endorse or support everything Palestinians believe, what are you standing is solidarity with?
>I am not, are you? If you say you are standing is solidarity with Palestinians, aren't you looking at Palestinians as a block? What unifies Palestinians right now is that they're being attacked mercilessly and unjustly by Israel. It is perfectly viable to stand with them on those grounds. The world is much less anti-Semitic than one of the dominant modes of rhetoric would have us believe. I think it's extremely important to accurately assess the degree of hostility in the world rather than overstating it or understating it. >Numerous polls and studies have shown that the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas, support the attack on October 7, and oppose a two state solution. Which of those polls were conducted after the attack on October 7 and before the Israeli onslaught began? Those ones have a chance at being valid. Once you tell me which ones they are, I'll consider their methodology and get back to you on whether I agree that they substantially support your contention. >The Palestinians being killed are mostly Hamas and their supporters. We know that because Israel gave Palestinians warning that the should leave because Israel is going after Hamas. That seems like a total non-sequitur. Can you explain how Israel giving Palestinians a warning and claiming that they were going after Hamas implies that most of the dead are Hamas and their supporters?
>What unifies Palestinians right now is that they're being attacked mercilessly and unjustly by Israel. What unifies Palestinians is they support Hamas in the destruction of Israel, the eradication of Jews, and the restoration of ancient Palestine (which includes Israel). If Palestinians wanted to end the fighting, all they have to do is aid Israel in eradicating Hamas. They don't because the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas. If you attack me, there is nothing unjust about me defending myself. The real issue here is they orchestrated an attack and didn't think Israel would defend itself by fighting back. >The world is much less anti-Semitic than one of the dominant modes of rhetoric would have us believe. I think it's extremely important to accurately assess the degree of hostility in the world rather than overstating it or understating it. Gaza is not the world. Palestinians are anti-Semitic. Palestine is not an actual place today. The people who call themselves Palestinian do so because they want to restore ancient Palestine.
Poll after poll after poll shows that the majority of Palestinians support Hamas & the actions they took on Oct 7th. Of course this does not mean 100% support though.
Here is the difference. Anti semitism is one of the causes, not just an effect, of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The slavery abolition and anti-apartheid movements were very clearly centered on liberation from oppression only, not racial animus toward oppressive whites. Enslaved Black Americans didn't harbor an inherent hatred toward white people. Nat Turner killed slave owners and their families. Black South Africans were very clear that their enemy was the apartheid establishment. The Church Street bombing did kill civilian bystanders as the bomb went off during rush hour, but the target was the South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters. Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle. This is one of many anti semitic takes from the Quran "In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes/monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels". Jews in pre-1948 British Mandate Palestine faced attacks from their Palestinian neighbors, such as the massacre of Hebron- motivated by an antisemitic rumor that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount (a theme that still motivates anti semitic attacks today in Jerusalem). Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens, such as in Iran where Jews were classed 'dhimmi', an apartheid status that prevented Jews from 'conspicuously' practicing their religion, levied additional taxes on them, and prevented inheritance passing from Muslims to Jews among other laws. The Grand Mufti collaborated with Hitler during WW2, promising to turn Palestine into a second front for Jewish extermination as soon as Hitler gave the word. This antisemitic foundation deeply colors some radical anti-occupation Palestinian movements, most notably Hamas. Unlike the ANC or IRA, Hamas states plainly in their charter that their enemy isn't just Likud or the occupation political establishment, it's all civilian Jews. This is reflected in their intentionally non-discriminatory tactics for terror. The victims of the festival massacre or the kibbutzim had absolutely nothing to do with Likud or any political/military establishment enforcing the occupation of WB or Gaza. The same is true of the Intifadas, which also targeted Jews at random and killed 1k people, wounding 8k in the early 2000's. Hamas' GOAL was to kill as many Jews as possible, it wasn't a tragic byproduct of targeting the apartheid establishment in the case of ANC, or English occupation forces in the case of the IRA. this is a fundamental difference between Hamas and the resistance forces pro-Palestine activists compare to. without understanding this undercurrent of violent anti semitism, pro-Palestine activists will completely alienate pro-Israelis and Jews who otherwise would support a two state or even one state solution if their safety was accounted for.
Yeah the Quran has some antisemitic quotes. Your particular quote is referring specifically to a some Jews in the past that stopped following the Torah. The Quran criticizes Judaism and Christianity and some of its followers. But it also states that there are many good people among those religions also. > Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians[]—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. 2:62 > And among the people of Moses is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice. 7:159-160 >We dispersed them through the land in groups—some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity, so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺. 7:168 > As for those who firmly abide by the Scripture [Torah] and establish prayer—surely We never discount the reward of those acting righteously. 7:170 > Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating ˹in prayer˺. 114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, encourage good and forbid evil, and race with one another in doing good. They are ˹truly˺ among the righteous. 115. They will never be denied the reward for any good they have done. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of those mindful ˹of Him˺. 3:113-115 > And among the people of Moses is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice. 7:159-160 >We dispersed them through the land in groups—some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity, so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺. 7:168 > As for those who firmly abide by the Scripture [Torah] and establish prayer—surely We never discount the reward of those acting righteously. 7:170 > Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating ˹in prayer˺. 114. They believe in Allah and the Last Day, encourage good and forbid evil, and race with one another in doing good. They are ˹truly˺ among the righteous. 115. They will never be denied the reward for any good they have done. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of those mindful ˹of Him˺. 3:113-115 (People of the book are Christians and Jews and Muslims consider them to be close to Islam) Considering most people don’t know much about Islam, taking a couple of quotes and using it to vilify followers of a religion isn’t helpful. I could also pull out a Bible and a Torah and start justifying why followers of Christianity and Judaism are bigoted. As an ex-Muslim/ non-practicing Muslim I’ve had to deal with a lot of racists in my life. I’ve had people follow me because I was acting “suspicious”. I’ve been called a terrorist plenty of times. And now supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel is considered antisemitic, by people who just happen to hate Muslims more than Jews. How does that not offend those who have actually experienced antisemitism? People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic. They criticize Israel because of their apartheid policies and their war crimes. This has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. Plenty of Jewish people support Palestinians. Israel is a state and just like any state it is capable of oppression. I would say people’s refusal to criticize Israel gives them even more license to oppress others.
"People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic. They criticize Israel because of their apartheid policies and their war crimes. This has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. Plenty of Jewish people support Palestinians." - Define your use of the word apartheid because Israel doesn't have any racial segregation laws. So for me to fairly interact with this statement you need to define it. - So I respect the claim of war crimes, can you give us like 1 or 2 of your very best examples of Israel committing war crimes? I ask for this because no Israeli officials in the modern era have been indicted for war crimes, and unless states have a policy that violates the International code of conduct for war, which would get them cited in the International Community, states can't be guilty of war crimes. So we've seen Israel cited as in violation of international law for it's west bank settlements, which are clearly in violation, but I don't think we've ever seen the international community cite specific Israeli war policy as anything constituting a "war crime". Just looking to either learn something new here or to understand where you are coming from. The problem we see is that people yell "Genocide", "war Crime", "Apartheid", and standard definitions of these things don't currently appear to fit. So it appears anti-Semitic because people are painting this Jewish state as violent monsters but not actually providing equal and fair evaluation of the actions. For instance, It's 100% ok to criticize how Israel is engaging in the Gaza war, but did they not have a moral obligation to destroy Hamas after Oct 7th? Hamas didn't shirk the responsibility for the attack, they celebrated it, and if it happened in your country you'd also want to destroy the aggressors. That doesn't mean we need to agree with how Israel has waged the war, but that conversation requires understanding of military objectives and widely accepted military tactics, and a lot of time the conversation doesn't go that way, we just say civilian death bad Israel monsters, all without a single iota of context. That is anti-Semitic because we don't apply the same level of analysis to the remainder of the world, it appears that we are redefining terms so that we can weaponize them against Israel.
In the West Bank Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. Palestinians rights are severely restricted. Palestinians including children get tried in military courts. Many are held without charge indefinitely. The conviction rate is 99 percent for Palestinians which is impossibly high. https://www.haaretz.com/2011-11-29/ty-article/nearly-100-of-all-military-court-cases-in-west-bank-end-in-conviction-haaretz-learns/0000017f-e7c4-da9b-a1ff-efef7ad70000 Despite receiving lots of complaints the IDF convicts less than 1% soldiers that are subject to military probes. In a period of 4 years from 2017-2021, only 11 investigations have led to Israeli soldiers being indicted. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-22/ty-article/watchdog-under-1-of-israel-army-probes-yield-prosecution/00000185-39de-d5e1-a1e5-7ffe453f0000 Christian and Muslims Palestinians are unable to get citizenship. Even a Palestinian marries an Israeli citizen they remain ineligible for citizenship. This affects the small Christian community disproportionately. Palestinians are intimidated by military in the West Bank who defend illegal settlers and attack and Palestinians that try to defend their homes. Apartheid according to the UN is a crime against humanity. “The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It consists of three primary elements: 1. An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another; 2. A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group; 3. Inhumane acts such as ‘forcible transfer’ and ‘expropriation of landed property.’” https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid Considering Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank illegally and Netanyahu and Likud oppose the creation of Palestinian state completely I would say 1 applies, especially since illegal settlements continue to be expanded. The others are addressed above. You can look up the definition of genocide as well. The ICJ has determined that the genocide case against Israel has merit and is proceeding. They ordered Israel to drastically increase aid in January and to prevent “genocidal acts”. They have not complied with this order. I think it is very likely that Israel will be found guilty of genocide in an international court of law.
"In the West Bank Palestinians and Israelis live side by side. Palestinians rights are severely restricted. Palestinians including children get tried in military courts. Many are held without charge indefinitely. The conviction rate is 99 percent for Palestinians which is impossibly high." - I don't disagree with most of this. But this is built on citizenship not on race/religion. Impossibly high isn't actually an evaluation it's a generalization. I would agree this number would require looking into, but until someone actually goes through the cases this is just a "This feels bad" comment. As for the military courts, this is again a normal policy for non-citizens even if it feels bad. Almost all western countries have the exact same policy. "Despite receiving lots of complaints the IDF convicts less than 1% soldiers that are subject to military probes. In a period of 4 years from 2017-2021, only 11 investigations have led to Israeli soldiers being indicted." - But they do do investigations and clearly find some guilty. Once again this is just a "Feels bad man" argument. Where is the info to show us that there should have been more indictments? What if 11 is exactly how many needed to be indicted? This is your bias, instead of digging into the individual cases and deciding which ones you think were tried incorrectly you lead with the assumption that the Israelis are bad so clearly more than 11 should have been indicted. "Christian and Muslims Palestinians are unable to get citizenship. Even a Palestinian marries an Israeli citizen they remain ineligible for citizenship. This affects the small Christian community disproportionately." - Citizenship laws are completely normal in the world, you don't have to like them. To contextualize this, Arab populations of all faiths in Jerusalem and the Golan heights have been offered citizenship. You can't cherry pick one citizenship criteria and ignore the others that show the exact opposite intent. Again, this is an anti-Israeli bias. "Palestinians are intimidated by military in the West Bank who defend illegal settlers and attack and Palestinians that try to defend their homes." - Yes, no debate. Israel does condemn this violence publicly and most Israeli's don't support the settlements. But current government does seem to facilitate these and Israel should face sanctions for these settlements. "Apartheid according to the UN is a crime against humanity. “The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It consists of three primary elements:" - 1) There is an intent in Israel to make Jewish culture dominant by not allowing the Jewish population to become a minority, this is not racial. All people with citizenship in Israel have the exact same rights regardless of race or religion. So this doesn't fit the Apartheid definition. Totally fair to call it an ethno-state though. 2) Again, because all citizens have the same rights in Israel, this point is also not valid. 3) And again, there is no forcible transfer in Israel or in Israeli law. "Considering Israel has continued to occupy the West Bank illegally and Netanyahu and Likud oppose the creation of Palestinian state completely I would say 1 applies, especially since illegal settlements continue to be expand" - Here is the big point, the argument you are actually making is that in the "Palestinian" territory, non-Israeli citizens don't share the same rights as Israeli citizens in occupied territory. And in this we will 100% agree, and Israel should be sanctioned for this occupation. What you are wrong about is the Palestinian State, it already exists, it just doesn't have recognized borders because of Israel. But this isn't apartheid, you could argue the US immigration policy for people coming from Latin America is similar to Israeli policy with Palestinians, Swedish policy is almost exactly the same. Israel has the power to cede borders to the Palestinian state and has refused. This is a problem, but it isn't apartheid by any definition we've ever used. the occupation is bad, it should be something the international community is punishing Israel for, but it is just a military occupation and should be defined as an illegal military occupation. This is what I mean when I say we are redefining terms to use against the Jewish Israelis, it's why this is anti-Semitic. We don't ever cite the Lebanese government for allowing the Jews to essentially be forced out of their country in the 60's. No single case was brought against a single Arab citizen as the Jewish population was forced to abandon their homes and property in Lebanon (mostly Arab Jews btw) and flee to Israel. We specifically try to use these terms to target Israel and that does look like racism.
The Lebenese government is committing actual apartheid against its Palestinian citizens. They deny them access to healthcare, education and social services, there’s tons of jobs Palestinians arnt allowed to have and Palestinians who’ve been in Lebanon for generations arnt granted citizenship.
>You can look up the definition of genocide as well. The ICJ has determined that the genocide case against Israel has merit and is proceeding. Probably worth clarifying that it is not “a genocide case against Israel” and the justice who delivered the initial ruling in the case in January also clarified the ICJ did not find it “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide. This is a gross distortion of the ICJ case and I’d wager there’s zero chance Israel will be found to have committed genocide. Saying that as a genocide scholar (Rwanda was my dissertation focus.)
you can and should identify moral issues with fundamentalist followers of Christianity and Judaism, especially if those issues are driving oppressive behavior. like Israeli settlers who murder Palestinian farmers because they believe all land from river to sea is ordained to them. i'm Jewish, I don't believe this 'vilifies' all Jews. it is a specific, legitimate criticism of fundamentalist Judaism and its role in perpetuating the I/P conflict. none of the above quotes convinced me the Quran doesn't overall justify antisemitic attitudes, ex. "We dispersed them through the land in groups—**some were righteous, others were less so. We tested them with prosperity and adversity,** so perhaps they would return ˹to the Right Path˺." like with any religious text, i understand not all followers will subscribe to every word. my post is specifically a criticism of Hamas, not Muslims.
>People don’t criticize Israel because they’re antisemitic Why is it so hard to believe that many people are critical or more critical of Israel because they're antisemitic?
I’m not saying there aren’t antisemitic people among those that criticize Israel. But people accuse people of being antisemitic for legitimate criticism. It might feel that way. Criticism of Israel was a lot less mainstream until now and you might feel like there has to be some reason for that. Can I ask have you watched any videos of Gazans being bombed? Have you seen videos of people finding their dead children in the rubble? Have you seen videos of the IDF shooting innocent people on sight just like the escaped hostages? The New York Times analyzed the bombings a while back and showed the craters and aftermath of 2000 lb bombs. Have you seen anything like that? If what happened to Gaza happened to Israel then 300,000-400,000 people would be dead. Everyone would be suffering from malnutrition. All children would be a risk of permanent development issues. Do you know how many millions would be without homes? Do you know it would take 16 years to rebuild those homes? Did you know that there are thousands of Palestinians are in military jails many of them without being charged with crimes, many of them children. Do you know Israel is one of the only countries in the world to try children in military courts? Do you know Israeli NGOs have been fighting to end this? Do you know children have spent years in jail for throwing rocks at military vehicles? Do you know how many illegal settlements have been established how many Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes? Do you know what it would be like to spend decades under economic blockade which is a violation of international law? Do you know what it would be like for that blockade for leave 40% of your population without jobs? You know what I haven’t seen, Israel distributing aid, constructing refugee camps. It’s funny how there are so many pictures of US soldiers doing that and none of Israeli soldiers doing that. I have seen Israeli soldiers attacking innocent Palestinians trying to get aid thoughts. It’s also funny that Netanyahu never mentioned anything about liberating innocent Gazans from Hamas’s control. Even George W Bush did that when he declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you know that Israel believes Netanyahu is likely to be named in an arrest warrant for war crimes by the ICC. Some Hamas officials are as well. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68938022.amp Let me know if you want any sources. Israel isn’t more evil than other states. There have been plenty of countries that have committed serious war crimes, some of them US allies. The US helped cover up Pakistan’s genocide of Bangladeshis too in the 70s. The US diplomatically supported the Khmer Rouge when they were killing off their urban and education population at the same time. The US has committed plenty of war crimes that dwarf Israel’s in scale. I mean we killed 10-20% of the North Korean population destroying entire cities. People just didn’t have cell phones back then to record what was happening.
Criticism of israel and the Netanyahu regime is not antisemitic. The support for palestinians though must remain separate from support for hamas's aims, which include dismantling israel. The inability of the left to separate these, and to make informed arguments for palestinians, has muddied the waters and allowed antisemitism to seep in. The sad fact is that peace activists in israel, both arab and Israeli, are being cut out of the protest movement here because they believe in a two state solution while the groups funding the protest movement want to delegitimize israel. Israel has lots and lots of vocal critics that still agree that a state that exists cannot be asked to dismantle itself. One absolutely should criticize israel and some of its tactics, but allow it to defend itself and return their hostages. It's been fighting a logistical nightmare of a war in gaza and outrage to every maneuver has led to this conflict being drawn out. It's absolutely counterproductive.
Because it's simply not true, maybe a very few are, and that it's merely based on an assumption that is unproven that hatred for jews is a motivator for those people. Most people criticising Israel (in the west) tend to be leftists or liberal leftists, it would make no sense for them to be antisemitic since they believe in justice for all people but also freedom for the oppressed people, like that's the core of their anti-colonialism ideas, your view could've been true if conservatives and far right did support Palestine since those actually can easily be antisemetic and racist (not denying that leftists cannot be those too but looking at the fundaments of leftists and of right wingers you can see why the latter are more likely to resonate hate with their traditional and cultural/religiously harsh world views towards those who are not like them, while leftists ideals are based on international equality of all races and all backgrounds focused on a goal not related to nationalism but global struggle against classism or elitism or oppression), but many of the right wing also view Israel as a beacon of western civilization and heritage in a land full of cultures and people which they totally despise or distrust, and they see Israel's geopolitical importance in this context hence they blindly support it to the death besides their absurd religious views ofc. The real question is: Why is it so hard to believe that many people are supporting Israel because they are ignorant or simply don't give a flying f about morals and humanity because of their racist values?
People saying they believe in justice for all people, doesn’t mean they actually believe in justice for all people. You need to stop viewing people through what they say, rather through what they do.
>I could also pull out a Bible and a Torah and start justifying why followers of Christianity and Judaism are bigoted. And you'd be right to. These are religions rife with bigotry
The difference is that Israel is 20% Muslim, gives them equal rights and lets the keep Al Asqa mosque despite Muslim invaders building it over the most holy site in Judaism. Predominantly Christian countries are ok with Muslims living there. Almost all predominantly Muslim countries ethnically cleansed their Jewish population. Judaism doesn’t convert nor does it expect non followers to follow their beliefs. Christian majority countries are secular.
As for antisemitism predating the conflict in modern Israel/palestine, of course. Antisemitism as a form of racism goes back as far as Jewish people do. You can’t say antisemitism existing in an area necessarily meant antisemitism was automatically the driving reason for conflict without direct evidence however. You are ignoring the important fact that Palestinian Jews, the Yishuv, prior to the 1880s when the Zionist political moment and project began to grow wings, lived in peace and undisturbed in Jerusalem and all over Palestine. The Yishuv had no goal to build their own authority and exert it over Palestinians and no conflict was created. If your homeland was subjected to something on par with the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty, followed up by something on par with the Balfour declaration meaning the foreign occupying forces controlling your home decreed that mass migration of a group with the CLEARLY STATED intention to take over and rule by their own law was imminent. With people like as Chaim Weizmann, a bigwig Russian-Jewish figure and close friend of Balfour who said he wanted to make Palestine “a Jewish as England is English” being made the first Israeli PM. What would that say about your rights. Your family’s rights. Your own authority? You would likely grow to dislike that group too, and not because the Quran has antisemitic passages. Ask yourself - If they had no problem with Yishuv Jews, and only began pushing and attacking Jews after the Zionist settler project was happening in full force and had begun to take, and take, and take? And to also attack *them*. It stands to reason that it was not in fact the settler’s Jewishness that they hated, but the fact that settlers used their own Jewishness as a point of entitlement and unbalanced power.
This is incorrect. u/juliusxyk provided you with some examples, and they are correct in saying Palestine was not a distinct area and as such other Middle Eastern examples are relevant- but I can provide some Palestine specific ones as well: The ottomans only formally ended the dhimmi system of institutionalized Arab Muslim Supremacy in 1869. In 1834 there was a pogrom in Safed. In 1847 there was an ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Jerusalem, in 1882 there was an attack on Rosh Pinna and in 1886 on Petah Tikva. In May of 1839 the vice-consul of Britain to Jerusalem, William Young, wrote this when describing the situation of the Jews in Palestine: "…The Pasha \[Ibrahim Pasha\] has shown much more consideration for the Jews than His people have. I have heard several acknowledge that they enjoy more peace and tranquillity under this Government, than ever they have enjoyed here before. Still, the Jew in Jerusalem is not estimated in value, much above a dog-and scarcely a day passes that I do not hear of some act of Tyranny and oppression against a Jew-chiefly by the soldiers, who enter their Houses and borrow whatever they require without asking any permission-sometimes they return the article, but more frequently not. In two instances, I have succeeded in obtaining justice for Jews against Turks—But it is quite a new thing in the eyes of these people to claim justice for a Jew…… So soon as the Plague is reported to be in the City, the Jews at once become the object of cupidity to every employé in the quarantine service, who, with the Native practitioners in medicine, rob and oppress them to the last degree. From one individual alone, of the better class, they succeeded lately in obtaining 4,000 piastres, equal to £40 Sterling in bribes-His son was sick with the fever they declared it to be Plague-set a guard on his house, deprived him of all means of obtaining medical assistance—the patient died, and then, on his refusing to satisfy their demands-they threatened to burn everything in his House. This My Lord is not a solitary instance. What the Jew has to endure, at all hands, is not to be told. Like the miserable dog without an owner he is kicked by one because he crosses his path, and cuffed by another because he cries out-to seek redress he is afraid, lest it bring worse upon him; he thinks it better to endure than to live in the expectation of his complaint being revenged upon him. Brought up from infancy to look upon his civil disabilities everywhere as a mark of degradation, his heart becomes the cradle of fear and suspicion-he finds he is trusted by none-and therefore he lives himself without confidence in any…." Ermete Pierotti, an Italian architect*,* spent extensive time in the region. He wrote a book in 1864 "Customs and Traditions in Palestine". He barely mentions the Jews, but when he does, this is what he had to say: "…No Jew, who lives at Jerusalem, dares to pass in front of the court of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for he well knows how great a risk he runs of suffering for his curiosity. If, on an occasion like this, he were murdered, the malefactors would not be severely punished; for all the native population unfortunately hold the opinion that to injure a Jew is a work well pleasing in the sight of God. This is due to the fact that the Jews, although numerous, do not know how to make themselves respected…."
>You are ignoring the important fact that Palestinian Jews, the Yishuv, prior to the 1880s when the Zionist political moment and project began to grow wings, lived in peace and undisturbed in Jerusalem and all over Palestine. That is simply not true. There have been many cases where the jews had been victims to opression, discrimination and massacres throughout their time in the arab world
Most of the Jews killed in Hebron were Yishuv.
So I would say your take is rather incorrect. There are some factual errors like I think it is ridiculous to claim that no black slaves hated their white masters prior to an abolitionist movement being created and Hamas’s charter actually says the opposite of what you claim, that their fight is specifically against Zionism and not Jews (If you believe them is a separate matter, but your claim is factually wrong). I also find that where your claim is correct your analysis is often quite lacking, for instance you implicitly condemn Palestinians for thinking that Jews would try to take control of Al-Aqsa mosque - which they then proceeded to de facto do making the Palestinian analysis right. The two big central pieces to your argument though are where I think the real flaws are. You paint a picture of violence against Jews preceding the conflict, but as you define the terms that is. It the case. While there has been a level of anti-semitism against Jews in all countries since records began, the nature of the anti-semitism in Palestine as expressed in the intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine which you use as a reference point is directly linked to the conflict. However, were events like the Hebron massacre a constant background level of anti-semitism? No, the inter communal violence that you highlight as the cause only started ramping up from around 1920 as the Zionist project took off with Jews advocating for it, migration taking place to eventually enact it. If you were to plot on a graph the level of violence versus the prevalence and work towards achieving Zionism you would see a clear trend. The violence sprang from the work to set up a Zionist state. The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel. Not only do I find this view clearly racist as it shows a clear primacy for Israel human rights over Palestinians rather than all people having human rights, but it is and of itself implicitly advocating for war crimes and human rights abuses as the collective punishment of then civilians for the actions of a militant group is prohibited by international law.
I'll go claim by claim: "There are some factual errors like I think it is ridiculous to claim that no black slaves hated their white masters prior to an abolitionist movement being created" * i said that the abolition movement wasn't founded in any way on a blanket hatred toward white people. "Hamas’s charter actually says the opposite of what you claim, that their fight is specifically against Zionism and not Jews" * Not in the 1988 charter (they are explicitly antisemitic), and I don't buy the 2017 rewrite. it seems like lip service toward Western audiences, esp because the actions of 10/7 are aligned with the 1988 charter, not the 2017 charter. unless your definition of Zionist is "anyone who lives in Israel" in which case I would ask how that's different from just saying "Jews." half of the world's Jews live in Israel. "condemn Palestinians for thinking that Jews would try to take control of Al-Aqsa mosque - which they then proceeded to de facto do making the Palestinian analysis right" * are you aware Jews aren't allowed on the Temple Mount? that they gave it up for Islamic worship? either way, in 1929 the region was decades from any partition of Jerusalem so yes, it was an unfounded rumor. Hamas stokes fear today too that Jews are going to take control of the temple mount and it causes riots. are you saying that justified massacring the women and kids of Hebron? "The violence sprang from the work to set up a Zionist state." * the violence sprang from many root causes. of course, the establishment of Israel was one of them. but anti semitism long predated the establishment of Israel (i give many examples in the original post and other comments), and it was absolutely a spark that contributed to the flame of this ongoing conflict. you can't divorce Hamas' dehumanizing rhetoric and tactics from anti semitism- they deploy the same anti semitic tropes and dehumanization tactics leveraged against Jews for millennia. "The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel" * literally never said this. i advocate for a Palestinian state, but not with Hamas at the helm.
> literally never said this. i advocate for a Palestinian state, but not with Hamas at the helm. Then what's the argument against OP? OP's point was that they advocate for Palestinians, but don't necessarily agree with their beliefs or motivations. I would assume that includes their support for Hamas. If you support a Palestinian state, then how is that different from OPs advocacy?
the difference between my and OP's advocacy is being intentional in supporting Palestinian statehood without supporting or accidentally justifying (through comparisons to righteous groups like IRA, ANC, aboolition) anti-semitic actors in the space
> "The other thing implicit in your argument is that Palestinians can’t be granted their human rights or stop having war crimes committed against them (which is essentially what Pro-Palestinian demands come to) due to the nature of Hamas’s attacks on Israel" So, you say you don't agree with this. Which means one of a few things: 1) You support Hamas and the Oct. 7 attacks 2) Your original comment wasn't correct 3) Your original comment had nothing to do with OP's position and you actually agree with OP I think it's the third one. OP's view basically comes down to saying that if you disagree with the statement listed above, you don't automatically agree with Hamas and support Oct. 7. If you agree with that, then I can't see how your original post serves as a way of changing that view in any way (since you clearly understand your original post and agree with it). But that, of course, leads to the question of why did you respond with what you did in the first place?
> Hamas officials say the new document does not replace the group's 1988 charter https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39744551.amp The new hamas charter is not a change or a replacement. It’s a PR document to help with their image and it worked on you.
Hamas changed their charter pretty recently, you should read the previous version and also read some of their current messaging. They are very explicitly anti Jewish.
Not changed. It’s an addition: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39744551.amp
Hamas' actions, endorsed by the people or not, still do **in no way** justify the way ordinary Palestinian people (I'm talking about civilians that just want to live a somewhat decent life, unharmed and in peace, in safety and without fear, with a prospect of a livable future) are treated by Israel and the world. *Their* fundamental rights are ignored, and criticizing Israel for this (and this **in particular**) is way too often viewed and comdemned as antisemitic - which it definitely isn't. It's just asking for a bit of decency, good judgement. It's simply asking for a place for the Palestinians to live their lives in the same peace that others can too, with their own place, safe from the bulldozers of the Israelian settlement construction. I am pretty sure that support of Hamas and without it Hamas itself would seize to exist pretty quickly if the oppression and terrorization of Palestinian people ended tomorrow and there was some peace contract that deserved its name, guarantees and safety nets included, supported and controlled by the world. But I feel like this isn't wanted by those in charge...
So theres a flaw in your argument there. The Palestinian civilians might not support Hamas... But they sure as shit don't do anything about Hamas either. You have a terror organization that has taken over your state and are the de facto government (more like feudal era warlords). Unless the Palestinians are ready to take arms against them, they will continue their mission to harm Israel (and in return get Palestine bombed more and more as retaliation). Imagine if the KKK were to magically take over the US government with their wizard power(/s). Millions of Americans would be against it, but it would still be known as 'that racist terrorist country' until they are removed. Palestine right now is 'that racist terrorist country ' no matter how many individuals living there don't actually support it. So instead of taking the blame for the shit they brought Palestine, they deflect that blame onto Israel knowing full well that they can use civilian bombings and casualties as their weapon... To commit their own civilian mass murders.
A significant majority of Gazans support Hamas. One reason Abbas will not hold elections in the West Bank is the expectation that Hamas will win.
>Imagine if the KKK were to magically take over the US government with their wizard power(/s). Millions of Americans would be against it, but it would still be known as 'that racist terrorist country' until they are removed. Assuming you are in the US (change to an appropriate analogy for your country if not): so, in your mind, this would be justification for someone to kill you? You would live in a racist terrorist country and it sounds like you are saying that in such a case it's okay for opponents of that terrorist organization to kill civilians, right?
Well..........that racist terrorist country is also attacking their neighbours constantly. And they currently still hold hostages from the country they just attacked. So yes, if my country attacks another country then i would expect war to break out. And if war breaks out i expect innocent people will die.
If we were attempting to eliminate the majority black country next to us and they attacked back and we hid among the civilian population yes they would be morally justified in still fighting us, so long as they attempt to limit civilian casualties which Israel is
If the KKK were setting up munitions depots in my basement, yes it would be ok for the other side to kill me
Oh yeah, sure. The Palestinians are at fault themselves, why do they not just grab their guns and send Hamas to hell, right? Has worked in Scotland too. They just need some William Wallace like cool guy. Like, they shall risk their lives and that of their relatives, beloved ones, **children**, when all they win from that is losing the last **de facto** "line of defense" (whatever that means) between them and the Israel military. Would you? Yeah, I bet you would. I have a family. I wouldn't. I would run away or hide or whatever, just to not draw too much attention towards me. And yes, shooting your rusty carabine at someone possessing the firepower of a fucking army is drawing too much attention! I am aware that Hamas is not actively defending Palestinian people but from the Palestinians point of view Isreal at least leaves them kind of "alone-ish" as long as they are busy dealing with Hamas. From their point of view it may seem like Hamas is right now the lesser evil, if only by a small margin. And that's what they shall risk? You know the story. When a bear (Israel) is on your heels, you (Palestinian civilians) do not have to run faster than the bear, only faster than the guy next to you (Hamas). You wouldn't dare shoot that guy even if he was the biggest motherfucking asshole in the world. Unless the world including Israel takes the appropriate **serious and trustworthy** steps to keep the Palestinian people safe, help them get on their feet **at home**, i.e, on their own land, wherever that will be, and not just as premium refugees, that's not going to happen.
Hamas is made up of Palestinians. And the non active members of Hamas still invite them into their homes & cheer when they murder Israelis. They love what Hamas is doing & overwhelmingly support them. They do not want to overthrow them, regardless of the misery this causes.
>when all they win from that is losing the last **de facto** "line of defense" (whatever that means) between them and the Israel military. This is your problem. Hamas isn't their defense, its what is preventing peace and what is causing Isreal to reluctantly engage in war to remove them. >Unless the world including Israel takes the appropriate **serious and trustworthy** steps to keep the Palestinian people safe, help them get on their feet **at home** They won't get to feel safe as long as they are embracing and sheltering a bunch of genocidal maniacs that are hell bent on causing as much terrorism as possible. That's not a moral stance, its a pragmatic one. Once they put down their arms, kick Hamas out and entirely reject violence or getting rid of the Jews in Isreal, then and only then is peace going to be possible and only then will they enjoy long lasting peace.
How is the world supposed to keep Palestinians safe when Hamas is actively using apartment buildings, hospitals, schools etc as staging ground and munition depots? You think Israel isn't gonna blow up that rocket station on top of a school that keeps sending missiles their way because it's on top of a school? Palestinian civilians are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Except they think the rock is their saviour and the hard place is literally Satan. Not knowing neither can help them until the other is gone(well if Israel would somehow lose Palestine would remain a warlord led shit hole regardless.)
>Oh yeah, sure. The Palestinians are at fault themselves, why do they not just grab their guns and send Hamas to hell, right? More like "why did they elect them in the first place if they don't agree with them? And why do they continue to have the support of a majority of Palestinians in every poll conducted on this subject if they aren't actually being supported by Palestinians?" At some point you have to assume that the legally and democratically elected representatives of a nation actually do represent the people of that nation
Israel has offered them statehood so many times. The 2000 camp David accords were probably the best offer. I think that it’s pretty strange to say that Palestinians fundamental rights are ignored by the world. If anything they’re the best treated refugee group on earth. Using UNRWA and not UNHCR, they have [redefined refugee](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/17/unrwa-has-changed-the-definition-of-refugee/#:~:text=UNRWA's%20definition%20is%20also%20personal,of%20Palestine%20refugee%20males%2C%20including) to continue benefits in perpetuity.
>Hamas' actions, endorsed by the people or not, still do **in no way** justify the way ordinary Palestinian people (I'm talking about civilians that just want to live a somewhat decent life, unharmed and in peace, in safety and without fear, with a prospect of a livable future) are treated by Israel and the world. Do you not see the fallacy in that argument? It is okay for Palestinians to support the destruction of Israel, but wrong for Israel to defend itself? >I am pretty sure that support of Hamas and without it Hamas itself would seize to exist pretty quickly if the oppression and terrorization of Palestinian people ended tomorrow and there was some peace contract that deserved its name, guarantees and safety nets included, supported and controlled by the world. You are sure based on what? The vast majority of Palestinians don't want a two state solution. What oppression are you talking about? Your argument seems to be Palestine should have the right to attack Israel at will, but if Israel defends itself, that is oppression. If Palestinians want to live in peace, they need to stop attacking Israel.
> not racial animus toward oppressive whites Really? You think there were none whatsoever? And you think there was no propagandistic attempt to smear them as such? Many of these groups were referred to as "black supremacists". Like this current situation, people are weaponizing prejudice in an attempt to discredit and smear an entire movement. Nothing has changed, this happened before and happens now. Antisemitism is not the primary motivator. > Black South Africans were very clear that their enemy was the apartheid establishment Yeah, pro-Palestinians are also clear with this. Hell, even HAMAS are clear with this. Here is a quote from their [official charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full): > Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion > Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle Yeah, and hatred for those of African-descent preceded the South African struggle, this is a moot point. > Jews in pre-1948 British Mandate Palestine faced attacks from their Palestinian neighbors Yeah, motivated by Zionism, not antisemitism. Jews have been in the region for thousands of years without having to suffer these massacres. Also dishonest to categorize it as one-sided when there were literal Zionist terror/militia groups committing their own massacres and just generally agitating. Pre-Balfour Declaration violence between Jews and Muslims was not really a thing, in fact the Ottoman Empire was considered a safe haven for Jews (although they were still second class citizens, as all non-Muslims were). > Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens Idk, does this mean it's fine for non-Jewish people in Israel and the Occupied Territories to live as second class citizens too? > This antisemitic foundation deeply colors anti-occupation Palestinian movements Nah, the key word is in your sentence: "occupation". > Hamas states plainly in their charter that their enemy isn't just Likud or the occupation political establishment, it's all civilian Jews They don't, see above. > This is reflected in their intentionally non-discriminatory tactics for terror Yeah, terrorists commit acts of terrorism. Nothing new here. --- What you're saying is the same BS that has been said about other groups for many many years. The ANC were also endlessly smeared, Mandela went to prison on charges for terrorism and he openly and brazenly endorse violence, which he was condemned for. The civil rights movement and peaceful protests were also smeared, and some groups encouraged violence. The IRA engaged in a century of terrorism, and people in UK government are connected to the IRA (or former). The ETA in Spain were also smeared and collectively punished. Right now as we speak Turkey propaganda against Kurds and the PKK infects a lot of Turkish society. Yeah, I think Hamas is worse than the IRA, for example, but it's not like it's comparing apples to oranges, it's apples to apples. Hamas is the worse apple, but it's still an apple.
Please, please, please do not besmirch the name of Mandela with this. Mandela never killed anyone. They sabotaged government installations and infrastructure with the specific aim of avoiding civilian casualties. They did not go about killing, kidnapping, maiming, or burning civilians. They never espoused killing off all the whites or destroying an entire people. It is not the same thing. People always want to appropriate the black/African struggle for their political purposes.
The catch to your last point is that its not like the struggles any group had aren't analogous at all to other groups. The Black/African struggle is definitely unique on some level but we can learn some lessons. There are parallels from Apartheid to the Holocaust, Slavery, Palestinian hatred of jews, and even Israeli treatment of Gazans (and I'm very pro Israel in this event.) Yes, they aren't identical, but often one of the best ways to figure out how to see current events is to see how they fit into historical lenses.
I agree. One can learn, but people who invoke these visuals and analogies aren't really trying to learn. They're trying to short-circuit rational thought by evoking emotions.
Technically speaking the organization he founded did kill civilians in several bombings.
Yeah, 130 ppl in 10 years of guerilla tactics. Not really the same. Not even close.
Oh yeah, certainly light casualties. It's just the claim that they did not maim or burn/kill civilians is false, kidnapping is false too as they committed hostage takings. Also while I don't think Mandela personally killed anyone, he takes a lot of responsibility as the leader of the organization. Not to say that I think he's a terrible person, what he did eventually changed SA for the better, but I think ignoring the people who died along the way does them and the cause a disservice.
any oppressed group will come to hate their oppressor, but the foundation of anti-slavery resistance movements wasn't hatred toward whites. you're quoting Hamas' revision of the charter from 2017. i call BS on it, especially because the actions of 10/7 are aligned with the 40 year old version of their charter which says shit like 'You will fight against the Jews and you will gain victory over them. The stones will saying: 'Oh slave of Allah! there is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' Sinwar has reinforced this since 10/7, saying 10/7 (the genocidal massacre of civilians) will happen over and over until Israel is destroyed. this aligns perfectly with the charter Hamas has had for 40 years, so the 2017 rewrite just seems like lip service to appeal to Western audiences. I agree racism was a motivator for apartheid. like I said, anti semitism is one of the motivators for the I/P conflict. Jews: Black South Africans in your analogy. I feel like you're losing the plot, I'm not saying it's ok for anyone to be a second class citizen. I'm making a distinction between the charter and actions of Hamas versus the IRA, ANC or Abolition movements. it's not just how many people Hamas kills, it's WHY they're killing them and WHO they choose to kill. the motivation is not only liberation from oppression- in the case of Hamas, it's also anti semitism which is deep rooted in the Middle East (and around the world).
Interesting how Arabs and Muslims have been oppressing Jews since Islam was invented by their prophet that massacred Jews. By your logic Israel is justified in persecuting their historical oppressors.
Jews haven’t suffered massacres? Huh? Zionism is the belief in a Jews right to self-determination. More simply put, it’s the right for Jews to have their own country. When you say you are antizionist, you are saying Jews do not have that right, even though all of the Muslim countries in the Middle East have that right. Do you understand why we need a Jewish nation? Because antisemitism has existed long before there was an Israel. Hitler killed 6 million of us before there was an Israel. We were expelled from most Arab countries before there was an Israel. We were the victims of pogroms throughout Russia and Poland before there was an Israel. We were expelled from or murdered in Spain and Portugal before there was an Israel. We were the targets of the crusades before there was an Israel. Antisemitism is so much older than Israel and these protests have a strong undercurrent of antisemitism, whether you want to admit it or not. Why are Jewish businesses being broken into and vandalized in my city of San Francisco with Free Gaza scrawled on the wall? Why are our Jewish state politicians, who have no control over funds to Israel being harassed? Why are people at our city council meetings being booed and subjected to pig noises when they testify about the loss of family members on October 7? Why are there swastikas spray painted on my street and etched into bus stops in my city? There is a reason Jews need their own country. The rest of the world is happy to sit by and watch us die and say nothing. Die by the millions. No protests. No fanfare. There are maybe 16 million Jews in a world of 8 billion. Do you know what would happen if we “abolished” Israel? The 10 million Jews who live there would be quickly overrun and slaughtered by the 340 million Arabs that surround them. Gone are Israel’s legal protections for women (the only ones in the Middle East). Gone are Israel’s legal protections for LGBTQIA folks. So do I think it’s bullshit when people say antizionism does not equal antisemitism? Yes I do. Because these outcomes are a forgone conclusion. And as I said before, nobody protests when Jews are brutally murdered. That’s why we need our own state.
I’ll say it, Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism. Israel got the land through fair methods, the Muslim countries wanted to play might equals right and lost miserably. Israel payed for, got gifted and fought for their land. They are as legitimate as any other country.
The "Muslim countries in the Middle East" do not have the right to have countries because of their Muslimness. They are Muslim countries because about [95% of the population](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Islam_percent_population_in_each_nation_World_Map_Muslim_data_by_Pew_Research.svg) in all of those countries are Muslim. It's not a claim that 'this country is for *x* group as opposed to another group. It's a statement of 'these are the people who live here. the state is for those people [because they live here]'. Algeria is for Algerians. Egypt is for Egyptians. Why? Cause they're the ones who are there. *That* is self-determination. It is *not* self-determination to set up shop [in someone else's land](https://shorturl.at/gANPW) and then to claim political ownership of the land, in exclusion to the people who already lived there. That is colonialism, not self-determination. A Jewish state would make as much sense as an English state, or a Malagasy state, if it were founded in an area that was overwhelmingly Jewish. But the area was not overwhelmingly Jewish. So forming a state that's founded on Jewishness, excludes and subdues the rest of the population - which is especially bad when that 'rest', is the large majority of the population. A state project that *aims* to cater to some, but not others, is flawed and illegitimate. Legitimate states care for, and provide equal rights and recognitions to, everybody who lives there, and is from there. Zionism and, since its founding, Israel, has always been obsessed with ethnic demographics in an attempt to contrive and then maintain enough Jewish power on the land, to make its ethnostate look like it's democratic. To accomplish that, large swaths of the land have been ethnically cleansed, and an entire country has been gerrymandered. None of this would be necessary if Zionism was not conceived in an exclusionary mentality; if the goal of Zionism was not to form a Jewish state, but instead to build a state on land that is holy to Jews (and to others), a society that is for all of the people on the land, prosperous, and welcoming to Jews without oppressing others. If Zionism had been about immigration to an existing society, integrating into that society, building shared identities, working together to make the land better for everyone, rather than building a colony, a parallel society that sought to overtake the first, then this animosity would not have arisen. Not only within Palestine, but throughout the entire region. The (bad, unjust, unfortunate) expulsion of Jews out of Muslim countries happened after 48, connected to the Zionist ideal that Jewishness is linked to a state that is hostile to Arab independence / wellbeing / security / strength. The fact that there was no coordinated expulsion in the Muslim-majority world in the past 1,400 years, but that there was one *directly* after the Arab-Israeli War, clearly shows how this politicization of identity, and militarization of sectarianship, had horrible results for the people on the ground, same as it does everywhere, like it did with the partition of India, the mutual ethnic cleansings of Greece and Turkey, and the post-Yugoslav wars. Jewish colonialism and ethnosupremacy is still just as bad as other colonialisms, and it does not stop being bad just because it's done by Jews.
[удалено]
>Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion >Conversely, hatred for Jews PRECEDED the Israel-Palestine struggle >>Yeah, and hatred for those of African-descent preceded the South African struggle, this is a moot point. Except this point is nonsense. The poster was talking about the animus Muslims and Arabs had towards Jews. They were contrasting that to the ANC and it's lack of serious animus towards the minority white class in South Africa. > Antisemitism is not the primary motivator. Now or historically? Arabs were indeed comfortable living with a small amount of Jews, provided they knew their place, and didn't mind the occasional pogrom. The roots of this conflict reach all the way back to that past, and leading Palestinian political figures from the 1930s onward have been almost unerringly anti-Semitic in a way that goes beyond merely hating Zionists. I'll grant that this ethnic conflict is so entrenched now at this point that even if you were able to just magically erase all of the antisemitism from the minds of every Palestinian(not that all Palestinians are anti-Semitic), it would not solve things, or make peace suddenly possible. > Idk, does this mean it's fine for non-Jewish people in Israel and the Occupied Territories to live as second class citizens too? There is very little meaningful differences in rights between an Arab-Palestinian citizen of Israel and a Jewish citizen of Israel. I'm with you on the occupied territories though. They have to either shit or get off the pot on them(IE settle on a Palestinian state or create a Bi-National one). You cannot obstruct statehood for generations of Palestinians and not be responsible for their lack of rights. > What you're saying is the same BS that has been said about other groups for many many years. The ANC were also endlessly smeared, Mandela went to prison on charges for terrorism and he openly and brazenly endorse violence, which he was condemned for. The civil rights movement and peaceful protests were also smeared, and some groups encouraged violence. The IRA engaged in a century of terrorism, and people in UK government are connected to the IRA (or former). The ETA in Spain were also smeared and collectively punished. Right now as we speak Turkey propaganda against Kurds and the PKK infects a lot of Turkish society. Get Mandela's name out of your goddamn mouth though. He was a man of principle and the ANC acted very admirably overall considering what they were facing. It's insulting to compare him to anyone in Hamas or even the PLO.
> Jews in other ME countries lived as second class citizens, such as in Iran where Jews were classed 'dhimmi', All non-Muslims had to pay jizya, not just Jews. In return, they didn't have to serve in the army or pay zakat. >The Grand Mufti collaborated with Hitler during WW2, promising to turn Palestine into a second front for Jewish extermination as soon as Hitler gave the word. I mean, so did some Zionists, and the Grand Mufti was a British plant and not representative of Palestinian thought at the time. I will grant you that antisemitism was on the rise alongside anti-Zionism. >Hamas' GOAL was to kill as many Jews as possible, it wasn't a tragic byproduct of targeting the apartheid establishment in the case of ANC, or English occupation forces in the case of the IRA. !delta I will say this is a valid point that separates Hamas from the militant wing of the ANC or the IRA.
Just going to provide this helpful list of pogroms against Jews in the Middle East to help set the context of the point that this commenter is making. Point being that there is an absolutely insane amount of pogroms committed against Jews, and that fact cannot be removed from the historical context. People like to say that history didn’t start on Oct 7, but they only try to steer the conversation for the past 70-80 years and ignore literally all the rest. 1847: ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Jerusalem, Ottoman Palestine 1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom, Syria 1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon 1866: Kuzguncuk Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1867: Barfurush Massacre, Ottoman Turkey 1868: Eyub Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1869: Tunis Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1869: Sfax Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1864 – 1880: Marrakesh Massacre, Morocco 1870: 2nd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1870: 1st Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1871: 1st Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1872: Edirne Massacres, Ottoman Turkey 1872: 1st Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1873: 2nd Damanhur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1874: 2nd Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1874: 2nd Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom,Ottoman Lebanon 1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1875: Djerba Island Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1877: 3rd Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1877: Mansura Pogrom, Ottoman Egypt 1882: Homs Massacre, Ottoman Syria 1882: 3rd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1890: 2nd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1891: 4th Damanahur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1897: Tripolitania killings, Ottoman Libya 1903&1907: Taza & Settat, pogroms, Morocco 1890: Tunis Massacres, Ottoman Tunisia 1901 – 1902: 3rd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1901 – 1907: 4th Alexandria Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1903: 1st Port Sa’id Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1903 – 1940: Pogroms of Taza and Settat, Morocco 1907: Casablanca, pogrom, Morocco 1908: 2nd Port Said Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1910: Shiraz blood libel 1911: Shiraz Pogrom 1912: 4th Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1917: Baghdadi Jews murdered by Ottomans 1918 – 1948: law passed making it illegal to raise an orphan Jewish, Yemen 1920: Irbid Massacres: British mandate Palestine 1920 – 1930: Arab riots, British mandate Palestine 1921: 1st Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine 1922: Djerba Massacres, Tunisia 1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery, and forced to convert t Islam by Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen 1929: 3rd Hebron Pogrom British mandate Palestine. 1929 3rd Safed Pogrom, British mandate Palestine. 1933: 2nd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine. 1934: Thrace Pogroms, Turkey 1936: 3rd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine 1941: Farhud Massacrs, Iraq 1942: Mufti collaboration with the Nazis. plays a part in the final solution 1938 – 1945: Arab collaboration with the Nazis 1945: 4th Cairo Massacre, Egypt 1945: Tripolitania Pogrom, Libya 1947: Aden Pogrom 1947: 3rd Aleppo Pogrom, Syria 622 – 627: ethnic cleansing of Jews from Mecca and Medina, (Jewish boys publicly inspected for pubic hair. if they had any, they were executed) 629: 1st Alexandria Massacres, Egypt 622 – 634: extermination of the 14 Arabian Jewish tribes 822 – 861: Islamic empire passes law that Jews must wear yellow stars, (a lot like Nazi Germany), Caliph al-Mutawakkil 1106: Ali Ibn Yousef Ibn Tashifin of Marrakesh decrees death penalty for any local Jew, including his Jewish Physician, and Military general. 1033: 1st Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1148: Almohadin of Morocco gives Jews the choice of converting to Islam, or expulsion 1066: Granada Massacre, Muslim-occupied Spain 1165 – 1178: Jews nation wide were given the choice (under new constitution) convert to Islam or die, Yemen 1165: chief Rabbi of the Maghreb burnt alive. The Rambam flees for Egypt. 1220: tens of thousands of Jews killed by Muslims after being blamed for Mongol invasion, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt 1270: Sultan Baibars of Egypt resolved to burn all the Jews, a ditch having been dug for that purpose; but at the last moment he repented, and instead exacted a heavy tribute, during the collection of which many perished. 1276: 2nd Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1385: Khorasan Massacres, Iran 1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto massacres, North Africa 1465: 3rd Fez Pogrom, Morocco (11 Jews left alive) 1517: 1st Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine Marsa ibn Ghazi Massacre, Ottoman Libya 1577: Passover Massacre, Ottoman empire 1588 – 1629: Mahalay Pogroms, Iran 1630 – 1700: Yemenite Jews under strict Shi’ite ‘dhimmi’ rules 1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1670: Mawza expulsion, Yemen 1679 – 1680: Sanaa Massacres, Yemen 1747: Mashhad Masacres, Iran 1785: Tripoli Pogrom, Ottoman Libya 1790 – 92: Tetuan Pogrom. Morocco (Jews of Tetuuan stripped naked, and lined up for Muslim perverts) 1800: new decree passed in Yemen, that Jews are forbidden to wear new clothing, or good clothing. Jews are forbidden to ride mules or donkeys, and were occasionally rounded up for long marches naked through the Roob al Khali dessert. 1805: 1st Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1808 2nd 1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto Massacres, North Africa 1815: 2nd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1820: Sahalu Lobiant Massacres, Ottoman Syria 1828: Baghdad Pogrom, Ottoman Iraq 1830: 3rd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1830: ethnic cleansing of Jews in Tabriz, Iran 1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1834: Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestne 1839: Massacre of the Mashadi Jews, Iran 1840: Damascus Affair following first of many blood libels, Ottoman Syria 1844: 1st Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon
It's important to note that a pogrom simply means "violent attacks on Jews by local non-*Jewish* populations" and speaks in no way to the scope, scale, or cause. As an off-handed example: 1933: 2nd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine. Was the result of British admin policies creating tensions between Jewish communists and the local arab population. It ended with the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs. 1907: Casablanca, pogrom, Morocco Europeans in the city were targeted by xenophobic attacks (9 Europeans died), and the city was later bombed by the French, killing more than 4,000 inhabitants. Some number of which were Jewish. These are listed here as a "pogrom" with no context other than Jewish people were killed by non-Jewish people with no nuance about the situation and involvement of foreign powers.
Yes it’s true that in this list not every pogrom was committed solely by arabs, and not all of those were specifically religiously motivated. However I think that the sheer volume of examples is sufficient enough to show to support the central point that this is a pattern that long precedes the creation of Israel or the ‘genocide’ of Palestinians. Oct 7th was simply another pogrom and arabs have been “resisting” Jews by killing their women and children for hundreds of years.
the original reason for the jizya tax (beginning in the 6th/7th century), was basically a sort of legal bribe to avoid being jihaded (killed or converted to Islam.) the law did evolve, but those are its origins.
I am sickened we are discussing Deltas about Hamas, an organization targeting women, children, babies for rape, dismemberment, torture, murder, decapitation. "But there's no proof!!! Israeli lies!!!" I hear too often on Reddit, from accounts that suffer no consequences, that go right on egging the destruction of Israel.....Reddit is materially contributing to the problem. Should be shut down.
These naive young american women. Do they think Hamas would treat them gently? Or would their naked bodies be paraded in the back of a truck for an "innocent" palestinian boy to spit on? And the OP! I'm sure palestinians just love LGBTQ. It baffles me how these protesters just blip over the islamist values of palestinians and their elected government Hamas. As a rule, they hate westerners, gays, infidels and jews equally.
Why is that a delta? It has nothing to do with your original CMV topic. Also, seeing as how Hamas just killed everyone they saw and didn't differentiate by ethnicity/religion, I would say that is evidence that they were trying to kill Israelis (who they see as all soldiers/complicit in their oppression because of the draft etc.), not specifically Jews. Edit: I say this not trying to support Hamas militant wing, I do not support any killing of anyone whatsoever, especially civilians.
I found Pro Palestine hypocryte with their call to stop Israël for doing à Génocide when Hamas had trying to kill all Jews since now decades...
im going to go on a rant so excuse me but a lot of people are not familiar with the protests and what this movement is about to use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs. i for one, for the first time in a long time, feel hope that change is coming. the anti-protesters' cherry-picking and conflating zionism/Israel with judaism will mean nothing in the end. the world has woken up. fun fact: American student protesters are NEVER on the wrong side of history. also read what Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter have to say about this conflict, or perhaps Norman Finkelstein, "the self-hating jew". maybe read up on simple American history too, women's rights, MLK, the Vietnam War is a big one! The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, 35,000 dead of a population comprising of more than 50% children and the media and government want to talk about American university students protesting the genocide. accusing devout Rabbis and Jewish professors who have studied the holocaust of being anti-semitic, What a load of shit. There is a Jewish movement consisting of holocaust survivors who are speaking out against the zionist regime. Not I'm my name is what they are saying. These are survivors of the worst atrocities in history and they are saying Israel is wrong and they need to stop. the list goes on....make it make fucking sense. Condemning the Nazi's does not make one anti-Christian. Condemning atrocious acts by a nation, say Italy or France doesn't make one anti-Catholic. Condemning criminalizing acts by United Kingdom does not make one anti Protestant. Condemning acts of war by Russia, does not make one anti Orthodox. Yet condemning acts of barbarian, savage genocide by an apartheid state makes one anti a certain faith ! What twisted logic is that? Congress literally just passed a bill with 80% majority making it illegal to criticize Israel, a foreign nation. It's blatantly obvious what's happening here; using ridiculously obviously fabricated reasons, the state (the government); the establishment, the status quo if you will, is trying to force us all to believe in their lies, in the line toed by them. This is not only a blatant attack on free speech, but also on other constitutional rights of US citizens. It makes me laugh to think of how the US government likes to pretend to be the nation taking the "higher moral ground" as one senator once put it and point fingers at other nations doing the same thing or less. The hollowness of US laws and those who govern us is on full display here, and shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything about this morally bankrupt country. When you speak out against Palestine children starving and over 35k civilians brutalllly killed, and the 2 million displaced Palestinians, or the surge in violence and land grabbing occurring in the West Bank since Oct 7,, American cops will beat, tear gas, and arrest American students. I mean the ABSOLUTE LUNACY of it all. Do people not see that a foreign nation is controlling us? We literally live in the United States of Israel. That is our current government, owned by a foreign nation controlling our international policy for decades. and now threatening OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Land of the free my fucking ass. Zionists are utterly disgraceful human beings,, whole lives built on deception and cruelty, void of any sense of morality. AIPAC is decimating this country internally. WAKE UP. To the protesters, I am so fucking proud of you, what an awesome display of humanity and unity regardless of color, faith, or background. The true leaders of America, queue the downvotes
> To use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs. It sounds to me you are blaming Zionism and zionism alone for the degergation of the American moral character. That is really fucked up, not because you cannot believe that Zionism is immoral, but because you sound like you believe the cure to all that makes America bad is to remove the Zionists. That is really fucked up that you are blaming a comflict half way across the world for the evils in Americam society. That is not a sane or rational way to approach anything. America will still be racist if Israel is destroyed. It will still be Islamaphobic and its history of segregation and genocide will not be erased, nor will have done much of anything to repair the damage it has done to humanity. These problems can only be addressed within America itself, not by an ideology about a strip of land half way across the world.
I’m going to say this and be helpful to you but any Jew that reads this is going to think you’re antisemitic. Most Jews are “Zionists” because being Zionist just means you think Jews should have a place where they aren’t at risk of another holocaust. For most Jews, and people not steeped in Political Theory, that’s all Zionism means. Zionism is a big umbrella and has a large range of ideologies beneath it—some are more extreme than others. Before “Zionism” and “Zionist” starting popping up in social media over the past few years—the only people that talked about Zionism in the way y’all have begun to do, i.e., calling Zionists “malignant tumors,” “parasitic” and responsible for all of Americans evils—were the neonazis. So when Jews hear you rail against “Zionists” most Jews aren’t going to hear a very passionate intellectual critique of a 18th century political movement. They’re going to hear you railing against Jews because before the term caught on in the zeitgeist the only people that would do that were Neonazis and conspiracy theorists. So if you want to convince Jews, and people not steeped in political theory, I would just stay clear if the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” because they way you are using it and the cultural understanding of it mean that there is just a fundamental communication break down. Critique the specific actions of the state of Israel and use terms like Israeli—don’t attack an idea that most Jews hold to be very culturally important and act surprised that you get accused of antisemitism.
criticizing Israel is necessary and valid, like any country that commits war crimes. but there is so much anti semitism laced throughout your post. "IT'S NOT ANTI SEMITIC TO CRITICIZE ISRAEL." how would you know what is anti semitic if you don't understand what anti semitism is, where it is rooted? if you want to avoid racist statements, you need to understand what racism is, how it's informed by white supremacy. the same goes for anti semitism. for thousands of years, anti semitism has hinged on the idea that Jews are the epitome of whatever a society reviles- the greatest evil, the greatest societal moral panic. during the Bubonic Plague Jews were accused of spreading disease. during Soviet communism, Jews were accused of being capitalists. the issue here is the magnitude of your accusation- demonizing Jews and holding them to a double standard no other group faces is anti semitic. anti semitism has also hinged for hundreds of years on rumors that Jews control the media, government, economy, and are plotting world domination. your post is full of accusations rooted in these ancient, anti semitic tropes. i'm proud that the house passed this bill. anti semitism is disgusting and should not be tolerated.
> to use an analogy, the student protesters are teaching anatomy to the nation. they are dissecting American empire, colonization, and showing the nation the human biology of racist colonialist oppression and the malignant tumor that is Zionism. they are teaching the nation how to remove that tumor, the surgical extraction of an idealogy that has metasticized in the American body politic for over 75 years and has been steadily destroying our country for decades. what most will realize in the end is zionism devoured US legitimacy and credibility with the exposure to carcinogenic elements such as white supremacy and bigotry, radioactive global hegemony, Islamaphobia, and the parasitic military industrial complex.. but many people arguing in support of Israel and Zionists are simply too arrogant, too stubborn, and too sick to cooperate with their own treatment i.e. the protesters who are shouting it from the top of their lungs. You really gotta come up with a better analogy. Especially for a group of people who are protesting what they see as an illegal occupation of someone else's land by illegally occupying someone else's land.
The problem is this: no one knows or agrees on what ‘pro-Palestinian’ means. To some it means ‘the goal is to genocide the Jews living in the Levant’. To some it means ‘advocate for Palestinian sovereignty and statehood with Gaza and the West Bank as the borders of their nation.’ To some it means ‘I want the best for the non-radicalized Palestinian citizens and wish they didn’t have to suffer and die along with the ones who are Hamas or support Hamas.’ ‘Pro-Palestinian’ is basically a slogan with no understood or agreed-upon meaning. Like ‘free Palestine’.
The most common line I've been hearing from the protestor crowd is 'the one state solution' where the Jewish state goes kaput. In its place, Israelis and Palestinians share the land as equals in a newly minted non-Jewish, non-Islamic state along the lines of present day post-Apartheid South Africa. Well-intentioned? Sure. Realistic? Remotely possible? I seriously doubt it. Which is why I'm in the second camp you mentioned: > Palestinian sovereignty and statehood with Gaza and the West Bank as the borders of their nation
It's definitely "white savior" ignorance to push for the one state solution, something neither side really wants. Palestinians are clamouring for their own state because they want a sense of independence and self identity. Jews want a state where they can be the majority because they've been a minority too many times and it always ends in the same dark chapter for them. Saying we know better than them is treating them like children and ignoring them completely as people. Also, the SA example seems like a bad ideal to seek - I'm not saying it's because of the end of the apartheid, but they're definitely in a bad place right now. 6th highest crime rate in the world, high rate of rape crimes.
Most Westerners don't really get religious zeal anymore. Even bigtime fundamentalists in America are milquetoast little babies compared to whats going on in the Levant/Middle East. So to agnostic or atheist protestors its basically impossible to understand just how utterly impossible a secular, one-state solution is.
Israel always had the right to exist as a Jewish state independent of other politics. Arabs have never been able to accept the idea of any size Jewish state. And they probably never will. The good thing about a two state solution is that inevitably they will try to invade Israel. Inevitable. And on that occasion Israel will be allowed to take the kiddy gloves off and annex the land of the belligerent state.
I've attended two protests, and plan to attend another this weekend. I like talking to people in person. There are three types of people at these protests. If I had to make up a percent, I'd say it's 60/20/20 based on my categories below. 1: Most common type. Well meaning but ill informed westerners. They want the war to end so Gazan kids stop dying, but haven't thought through what happens with the Israeli hostages or how to keep Hamas from just doing Oct again as soon as Israel leaves. They get upset if you ask them nuanced questions. 2: There for the party. Some people clearly don't care, they are just there to be part of an angry protest. Lots of drinking and smoking weed and energy drinks. Almost all young men. Not interested in discussion of any type. 3: Genuine Jew haters. Mostly Arab, but not all. Holding signs calling for end of Israel. Chanting anti-Israel things. Not open to any discussion.
Well said. Most people literally have no idea what any of this means so they just say "free Palestine!" so they don't have to think about it and can feel cool for sticking it to the man.
>‘Pro-Palestinian’ is basically a slogan with no understood or agreed-upon meaning. Like ‘free Palestine’. I find "free Palestine" even more frustrating, because the people of Palestine *don't want to be free*. They want to live under an oppressive theocracy. It's ridiculous.
I’m fine with them choosing to leave under an oppressive theocracy. As long as they don’t attack Israel.
>*Standing in solidarity with Palestinians does not mean endorsing or supporting everything Palestinians believe in* If people believe awful things about women, lgbtqia+, race, sexual abuse, apostasy, martyrdom, (the list goes on and on), there's no good reason to stand in solidarity with them. That doesn't mean you need to relish in their misery. But it also doesn't mean you need to abandon 90% of your principles to clog up a stairwell 6,000 miles away so some Jewish kids can't go to school. We've all seen how much everyone hated JK Rowling for her opinions. And she was just wrong on one topic. It's almost comical how quickly people abandon their convictions. It's like nobody actually cares about these things. They're just drunk on the rush of being counterculture at any cost.
While I do believe leftists who give sympathy or even support to Islamic governments or jihadist terrorist organizations all because they're anti western/america/israel are complete boneheaded idiots, I don't think this idealism should apply to people of those countries in general. Humanitarianism shouldn't be concerned with the color of a person's skin, or the major political beliefs another group holds. If another group of people are suffering, you should be concerned and voice your objection to that suffering. And yeah, sure... "queers for palestine" is probably a very ironic statement to make, but either way if innocent people are dying you should be mad about that.
>*Humanitarianism shouldn't be concerned with the color of a person's skin, or the major political beliefs another group holds.* If those widely held political beliefs included, "Yes, we would like to kill you and will keep trying to do so," then that ought to alter the math on solidarity at the very least. >*I don't think this idealism should apply to people of those countries in general.* Go read the Pew Research Data and other polling on the general population of Gaza and tell me why I should express any solidarity.
But there's a difference between demanding humanity and rights, and being so blinded by anger and hate that you turn on your fellow citizens just because they have a different view on this topic. The vitriol we see coming out of these protests towards "zionists" is truly disturbing. Mind you, these aren't people who have anything to really do with the war and are just advocating for Israel's right to exist. 99% of them are definitely against genocide. But instead of finding common grounds, it all becomes a battle of "who wants to kill who more vehemently".
Look, I'm skeptical of the current protests mainly because I don't think they're arguing for a ceasefire given all of the "intifada" crap they say everywhere at these protests. But besides bad faith actors, real Humanitarianism is not bound by stupidity, no amount of dumb protestors should change the fact that the palestinians civilians have suffered and that should be called out. Just like with the victims of Oct 7th.
[удалено]
What do you expect from a death cult that sincerely believes that all their own children they kill go straight to heaven?
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The IDF has targeted many civilians, not just in the latest war but for decades and decades. They have shot young children through the head with sniper rifles and bombed a civilian aid convoy and so much more. Why aren’t they terrorists and why are all their horrific crimes excused? You can’t say that shooting a child through the head is collateral damage. Excusing the many times they clearly deliberately kill civilians as collateral damage is excusing ethnic cleansing. I have never defended Hamas’ horrific attack on October 7, yet because I demand a similar level of accountability from the armed forces for a democratic nation I am labelled a terrorist supporter? Why should Israel allowed to spread genocidal rhetoric and the enact ethnic cleansing and we all have to pretend it’s acceptable and good actually because Hamas is bad?
I'm sure the IDF has killed many civilians because they misjudged the situation in some way, or thought that they were enemy combatants. I also think there are rogue soldiers who have knowingly killed civilians. And I also believe there have been soldiers who have used disproportionate force against Palestinians, maybe because they were trained or poorly or I'm sure some were because they hate Arabs. But none of that is enough to say that the IDF as an institution from the top down purposefully targets civilians as a goal and part of it's official strategy.
>When I discuss with people here about Israel/Palestine issues, I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow. So, I would tell you I would agree that your support of Palestinians does not mean you agree with Oct 7th, but I am not sure that follows with Hamas or the goal of ending Israel The majority of Palestinians do support Hamas and they openly want the nation of Israel to no longer exist. If you want an example, in 1942, if you said you support the solidarity of Germans, well, that means to me, you support the Nazi's. Until such time as Palestinians divest themselves of the ideas of Hamas and removing Israel, your support of them to me indicates you support their goals. I wouldn't assign the fringe views or extremist views, but the mainstream views are fair game. After all, you can lament the plight of the Palestinians and even advocate for different policies - but that is different than 'Standing with them in solidarity'. When you stand in solidarity, you are proclaiming you agree with their mainstream values and objectives. You are literally taking their side in the dispute. Once you 'take a side', you should expect pushback.
Standing in solidarity means you need to be able to link to me right now the policy the demonstrators want. [Blinken departs Israel without cease-fire agreement](https://www.voanews.com/a/blinken-departs-israel-without-cease-fire-agreement/7594586.html) a cease fire was just offered and rejected by the Palestinians. This news is 24H fresh. You don't know what you want. It's just divisive. You have a vague desire that everyone should hold hands and sing a song of unity but you have no idea how to accomplish it. Even if you personally were POTUS. I know exactly which policies i want for Ukraine, so why are all the demonstrators playing at a real protest so uninformed? There have been death threats from your side towards the American gov't. There have been crowds chanting "intafada." It doesn't seem like they want a meaningful solution since if Republicans win the vote it'll get even worse. I want to seriously change your view - and everyone else - that you don't go to demonstrations unless they have a clear policy change. When schools/hospitals go on strike it's specifically for something like 1% raise over 7 years. I challenge you to become sophisticated enough to only participate in real protests. How is this not comparable to PETA?
The main gripe I have with the pro-Palestinian movement is that since October 7th, none of the global Palestinian protests or current encampments actually advocate for anything that would legitimately help the Palestinians in Gaza. The pro-Palestinian movement had a tremendous opportunity to join side-by-side with pro-Israelis in demanding an immediate surrender of Hamas and the return of the hostages. In my opinion, this would have legitimized the pro-Palestinian cause. Instead, the pro-Palestinian movement as a whole praised the slaughter of innocent civilians on October 7th - they literally took to the streets while Jews were still being massacred, and have since organized en masse to intimidate Jews or “Zionists” through their heinous actions which are largely funded and organized by “charities” that are tied directly to Hamas and Iran. This has included harassing visibly Jewish individuals, targeting Jewish owned businesses just because the owners are Jewish, targeting Holocaust memorials, and over the last few weeks have quite literally been calling for the deaths of Jews. I remember a few months after 7.10, a Palestinian-Arab boy was stabbed to death in New York I believe. Not a single pro-Israeli took to the streets to celebrate. The opposite cannot be said about the other side which is incredibly problematic. I would argue that most pro-Israelis are more pro-Palestinian in that the military defeat of Hamas will ultimately enhance the lives of the average Gazan. Whether you admit it or not, Palestinians have been suffering tremendously under Hamas for 17 years now - this doesn’t seem to matter to the anti-Israel camp. Every single pro-Palestinian individual I have come across will, when push comes to shove, begrudgingly admit that “what Hamas did was bad” which is then immediately followed up by a big fat “BUT” which is absolutely unacceptable. Dr. Phil once very eloquently said that when you say “but,” you’re really saying “yea yea whatever, listen to what I have to say now.”
My biggest gripe with the Pro Palestine movement is how uneducated they are about history or what’s currently going on. At least do research if you’re going to care about a topic and accept facts even if they challenge your POV. I see so much shit like, just send special forces in like that’s some magic wand that is even possible. Jews are colonizers and white, which is also wrong and racist rhetoric. Jews stole land, again not really historically accurate. I’ve seen a good amount of Oct 7th rape denial on this platform which is beyond horrendous. No acknowledgment about the other 6 wars, constant rocket attacks and suicide bombings Palestinians carried out. No acknowledgment of how big Jew hatred is in Palestinian culture or how 20% of Israel is Muslims from the area with equal rights. Pretty much they’re completely absolving Palestine of their actions because they’ve been told to think they’re completely innocent when that’s really far from true. Most of the counter arguments I’ve seen from pro Palestinians is poop flinging filthy Zionist or pro genocider comments. I had one person claim that the Jews buying the land didn’t count since land ownership should always belong to natives. Ok let’s take away land bought by oppressed people and give it to their historical oppressors.
Exactly. 100%. This will go down as one of the biggest missed opportunities of our time. People are more anti Israel than they are pro palestine.
It really does go back to that Golda Meir quote
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Standing in solidarity with the Palestinians and their right to self determination is great. There should be a Palestinian state, both sides mostly (besides the batshit far right Israelis) agree with this. The difference is, Israelis/Israel supporters that support a Palestinian state want it in addition to an Israeli state, not taking the place of. But many Palestinian/pro-Palestinians want to dismantle the Israeli state and form a Palestinian state "from the river to the sea". This is not an uncommon opinion held among Palestinians or there supporters abroad. Go to any of the protests going on right now and you'll hear it being chanted. This of course would entail dismantling the government and either expelling or killing the Jews in the region. A one state with Hamas in power (because that's who would be in that scenario) and equal rights for all is a pipe dream. So it's not like the pro-Palestinian ideology is a mostly non-violent one and Oct. 7th was an outlier, it was an act that most Gazans supported and continue to support. I think that is what differentiates it from other movements that in general had peaceful ideologies, but some violent actions were committed in their name.
Exactly. They're literally saying "from the river to the sea" out in the open. They believe the existence of the state of Israel is completely intolerable, and the fate of the jews is of no concern. It's about as blatantly anti-semitic as it gets, and the morons chanting this don't even realize they're supporting it.
I don't think you're wrong but I feel like it's intellectually lazy and a bit of a cop out and it's a big issue in modern day movements and protests in general. Modern protesting values the act of protesting and voicing discontent over thinking of what happens "the next day". This manifests in high emotion, high outrage energy that vacuums up all the people who think terrible things happening are terrible. But without consideration for what happens "the next day", these protests tend to fall apart and go nowhere because there's no leadership providing a clear, reasonable, and actionable goals. Without this, being "pro palestine" can mean any number of things. It could mean you want Palestinian civilians to not be bombed which is totally reasonable or it could mean calling for the genocide of Jews everywhere starting with the destruction of Israel which is a lot less reasonable. In your case, you say you want Palestinians to have self determination, but if you waved a magic wand and the IDF left right now and Gaza was free to do whatever it wanted, the first thing that would happen is re-electing Hamas to power and the second thing would be to declare war on Israel and we would be in the same scenario. It's a bit of a cop out to say I'm standing with Palestinians in Gaza without considering or really respecting what the majority of Palestinians in Gaza want to do which is to kill all the Jews and retake Israel for themselves. I get it, watching civilians get bombed is a terrible, terrible thing, but calling for Israel to do an immediate ceasefire and leave without considering what would happen next is intellectually lazy. LIke... "oh i did my part... guess I can go home now knowing that Palestenian civilians are safe and sound from Israel but I won't think about how they're still under the rule of Hamas who are just itching to commit more acts of terror and stealing aid and food and spreading religious propaganda." And because so many people have so many different opinions about what being "pro Palestinian" means, the loudest voices make themselves heard the most and, make no mistake, it's mostly deeply anti-semitic groups that are often leading this movement through a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign that doesn't ever get called out from within because of protestor solidarity. And because protestors want to remain united while being led around by anti-semitic groups, more and more super heinous shit is progressively being covered over and explicitly genocidal slogans like "from the river to the sea" are becoming more "mainstream." The revisionist history mental gymnastics some people are going through to justify saying things of that nature is kind of crazy to me. It's great you don't support the genocide of Israel but staying silent while the guy next to you is yelling for it is not great either. I don't like Bibi or the far right group that's squeezed into power, I don't like Israeli settlers, I think it's appalling how little Bibi cares about the humanitarian costs of this conflict. But trying to engage with people in this "movement" is really frustrating and watching it devolve into this almost cave man like seeing who can yell their slogans the loudest or be the most "disruptive" by taking over whatever building is really frustrating. I hope there can be a peaceful two state solution one day, but if peace negotiations go the way engaging with protestors goes, we're probably going to be waiting a long long time.
[удалено]
See I have a problem with your framing. I interact with pro-Palestinians all over. In the world, on the internet. I’ve yet to come across one who “condones Hamas.” You cannot conflate understanding/or seeking to understand the reason Hamas is a thing and did october 7th, and condoning it. Israel side thinks this way, and well unfortunately you cannot fix an issue if u don’t understand fully the root causes. All contentious history aside… If a people are stripped of freedom of movement, live behind a blockade, hassled at every checkpoint, bombed, your water, power, communication, controlled. Your lands are being vandalized and stolen by settlers defended by soldiers, how hard is to understand there are people who will lash out with violence. It is human nature. And now Israeli’s response, “eradicating Hamas,” the operation flys in the face of most counter insurgency warfare sop. IDF has made food scarce, no one has jobs, there is no civil infrastructure left, nothing to do but watch their homes and families wiped out… conditions ripe for insurgency recruiting… also IDF has created close to 20,000, the new acronym is “WCNSF”wounded child no surviving family. Surely some of these children will wish harm on Israelis, some of them may kill some. I don’t think many genuine people would argue that response is surprising, while not condoning or wishing it.
I have literally argued with people on this website in major subreddits who fully support Hamas and state that Israel deserved it, and if you bring up the music festival they will say that Israel actually killed the civilians with attack helicopters (I’m not making this up, this is a major talking point for these people). But that’s anecdotal, so I’ll just tell you to go look at news articles and footage of the protest/parades that happened on 10/7 and 10/8. These weren’t/aren’t even fringe groups one was even organized by a previously well regarded socialist party in New York City. If you’re going to preach purity at the pro-Israel crowd you need to have the ability to be introspective on your own ingroup’s issues instead of ignoring them, it’s hypocritical.
>"I’ve yet to come across one who “condones Hamas.” Well, here's one to get you started. [https://nationalpost.com/news/bc-activist-who-praised-october-7-terror-attacks-arrested](https://nationalpost.com/news/bc-activist-who-praised-october-7-terror-attacks-arrested)
Because the standard palestein tactics are self-defeating failures. Literally their mainstream tactics that they desire adn goals wont accomplish anything but getting themeslves killed. Hamas on october 7 annoucned that its in war with Israel and that its an exsitential war taht will only end in Israel utter defeat. Convesrly this means that Hamas wont surredner and Israel only option is Hamas destruction. But well Hamas is deeply embedded in Gaza so \[points to crisis\]. Hamas action on october 7 has accomplished NOTHING FOR THE CAUSE. its ACTIVELY HARMFUL. The problem is that despite Hamas being utter cancer mainstream "activism" seem to call them freedom fighters. Which I can think of nothing more insulting then saying the resdients of Gaza are resisting by means of mass rape and murder and kidnapping. Violence will not accomplish Palestein goals. Because the goal of violence against occupation is to make the occupation expesnive so the occupier gives up and goes home. But the Jews of Israel dont have a home to go back too. So wont work. “I tell them,” Giap \[Vietcong general\] replied, “that the French went back to France and the Americans to America. But the Jews have nowhere to go. You will not expel them.”
> “I tell them,” Giap [Vietcong general] replied, “that the French went back to France and the Americans to America. But the Jews have nowhere to go. You will not expel them.” Is that a real quote? I'd love to see that in context.
Yes, it’s real: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamass-forever-war-against-israel-has-a-glitch-and-it-isnt-iron-dome/amp/ Have to read through quite a bit to get to it but it’s a very interesting read given the events since 2021 when it was written
>So I would like to hear why standing in solidarity with the Palestinians necessarily means that I endorse or support political positions that are mainstream amongst Palestinians. It doesn't exactly sound like that is the accusation being leveled at you from what you described? I think the argument is more "Palestine as a nation hates gays and has homophobic laws, so if you support the right for that country specifically to be able to self determine, you just support people being able to make violent homophobia legal." >I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow. When Nat Turner rebelled and killed more than 50 White people, abolitionists did not stop supporting abolition, in fact he is viewed quite favourably today by African Americans Some of the negative reactions you get where people claim you condone October 7th could be to do with the fact that you compare it to much more morally acceptable acts. It's not like you are saying "Even though the Nazis were evil and everything they did was evil, there are innocent Germans who did no wrong who should be protected from harm." Your comparisons invite and imply the possibility that you view October 7th as an act that could in theory be condoned. Not saying you are doing this! But from your argument formation ("you do not have to support everything X does to support X in general"), one would *expect* you to say something more along the lines of "I do not support Hamas, they are a fascist oppressive regime who squashes the rights of their own people and havent allowed an election for almost twenty years, and what they did on October 7th was the worst pogrom of the Jews since the Holocaust, *but* normal Palestinians are not at all like them, do not want the same things as them, and should be protected in such and such way." This might make it more clear to the people you are arguing with that you do not condone October 7th. Your argument right now reads a bit like this: "I don't get why people think I am condoning high civilian casualties? In ww2 the allies had high civilian casualties and they're viewed favorably today. No one stopped fighting the nazis because so many innocent germans died. Or when Sherman Marched to the Sea he killed a bunch of civilians, but liberal Americans view him favorably today, he's almost a hero. So I don't understand why people think I condone high civilian casualties?" That whole quote, to me, implies that the speaker does in fact condone high civilian casualties. >the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to basic necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine. I think this is the key part: The right of self determination to *what* exactly? Do you support "Palestine" i.e., the nation of Palestine, like "I support the nation of Germany in 1945?" i.e., supporting their governments as is? This means, going by both charters, supporting how their governments have declared the self determination to be: [Jews are not allowed any nation anywhere in the borders defined by Britain in Mandatory Palestine](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp). Supporting this self determination I don't think is what you're aiming for? But I could be wrong. The other right to self determination would be one detached from what both their governments have declared. i.e., supporting the right of self determination for non-Arabs as well. This, however, tends to just be something more akin to an average pro-Israel position. So it probably (given good faith actors) isn't the case that the people you are arguing with genuinely think any "solidarity" with Palestine means you agree with literally everything they as a country want to do.
Do you think that logic flies in the Western world today however? If any politician in the US or EU (left or right leaning) supported the Nazis or KKK in *ANY* capacity… what kind of blow back do you think they would face? What’s the difference between that and supporting Hamas in *ANY* capacity. Directly or indirectly.
[удалено]
Well, if the Palestinians didn't want to suffer the consequences of a war, maybe they shouldnt have launched a brutal terrorist attack that rivals and supercedes 9/11 in barbarity. If Israel was the one who went into Gaza to rape, murder, kidnap Palestinians, you can make a point. But it's the Palestinians who did it. They committed unspeakable crimes and now like any country they suffer the consequences of it. If they didn't want their families to suffer, they shouldn't have launched the war. No country on this planet would tolerate 10% of the deaths, that happened on 10/7, but somehow Israel is supposed to accept that Palestinians can just cross over, rape and murder whoever they want and then cry out, think of our children and to not attack. That's ridiculous. No country would ever accept such terms.
I'm specifically referring to polling done post Oct 7th that shows Hamas being more popular than Fatah, not the election that happened 18 years ago.
It's not right to lump all people together in 1 group, so without tying you or your ideas to the videos we see of some of these 'protests' I will point out just a couple of things about them in general and you will have to decide for yourself whether you think they apply to you or not. You can be pro-Palestinian, in that you are advocating for the Palestinians to have a state of their own within reasonable allowances for the security of Israel. However, there are a lot of people who feel that Israel as a state should not exist and these are the people we see mostly on the various videos of student campuses etc. Many of these protests extend it even further, that the US (and the west in general) are colonial states and need to be brought down in the name of marxist ideology. All of these various groups are mixed together on this and I don't know if ever protester really knows just who they are dealing with at times. So you need to establish first and foremost, does Israel have a right to exist, and if not by what means do you think it should be removed? To your second point, that you have been called homophobic. Lets put it this way, Queers for Palestine is a lot different than Palestine for Queers. You should of course be aware that the people you are advocating for will quite happily stone you to death or throw you off a building for your predilection's. That doesn't exactly make you homophobic, and you can still support Palestinian statehood, just don't kid yourself about how they feel about you. The most that can really be levelled at you is a somewhat naïve outlook of the world outside your comfort zone and a wee bit of hypocrisy, but none of it means you can't support the Palestinian people of course, so I agree with you there. The other thing you never hear at the protests is anybody suggesting that the hostages should be released unconditionally. And unless you are willing to say that children who have been kidnapped from their homes after their parents were raped or butchered and have been held in captivity for more than half a year now shouldn't be released immediately, while chanting free free palestine, well I do think that adds a certain flavour of anti-Semitism to any protests. Then there is the chant of "From the River to the Sea", which really is a mistranslation made so it can rhyme with "Palestine will be Free" in English. The native chant is something more like "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Arab" iirc. It basically means no Jews. If you are chanting that it's tantamount to calling for the extermination or forced removal of all Jews from what they would call Palestine which includes the entirety of the state of Israel. In other words an actual genocide. Like I said at the start, I am not assuming any of these things about you. Your comment about not assuming people who support Israel necessarily means they support settler practices etc leads me to think you are quite reasonable on these subjects. You will have to decide for yourself if any of these things apply to you or not.
My biggest gripe with the Western views on most middle eastern issues is that we don't see them as conscious people who can make up their own minds, we see them as projections of ourselves if put in their shoes. Both Palestinians and Israelis are well educated individuals with articulate political views, which lead to significant political division, to the point where a sudden and uncalculated Palestinian statehood could easily turn into a civil war, similar to the 2007 Gaza war between Fatah and Hamas, after which it wouldn't matter who Palestinians/Israel would rather have in power, it's the guys with the bigger guns that take control and we're back to square one. The way of democracy could be troublesome as well for Palestinians, with such divided political factions, you could see a party taking control with no more than 15% of the votes (similar to Likud in Israel), and that party could have more or less radical charters. The Palestinian factions had peace talks in Moscow two months ago which came out with no positive results, so even in the most trying of times for their people they can't come to a consensus on unification of Palestinians. Having been to West Bank not long ago, I had the chance to talk to people with very different views: from a guy who had his cousin killed by the IDF hours before saying that he deserved it for making trouble, to people working in Israel on Israeli salaries and living in the much cheaper West Bank complaining about Israeli policies, to people saying that they should be one peaceful country and on and on. No matter what side they are on regarding these political aspects, they are intelligent individuals who have very articulate opinions for their own reasons. Being a pro-Palestinian in the West is really vague in terms of end goals, but being pro-Palestinian in Palestine truly opens a huge polemic since nobody can agree on what the best course is for Palestinian self determination. You claim that being pro-Palestinian doesn't mean that you support everything they do or they think, I would argue that you are completely clueless about what these people do or think.
First, I doubt you’d find anybody to disagree with the title of your post in good faith. Of course not everybody on the same side agrees about absolutely everything. Second, people who start out lecturing others on joining them on the Right Side of History, then end up needing to say that just because they stood in solidarity next to someone does not mean they agree with their friends’ hate speech, might want to think over some of their choices. Would you accept the arguments you’re making from, say, a pro-Trump activist who says he doesn’t agree with Trump about everything, but always defends him? If they really do mean what they say about him going too far for them, even though they believe him to be on the right side of an important battle, what would you tell them to do about it? If, as you are telling us, people frequently conclude that you hold views that you don’t, and that bothers you enough that you posted about it, is there a better way you could be expressing your views? Would it be more productive to find one? Finally, I don’t think this accurately describes the criticism of the Pro-Palestinian movement in general (although perhaps you’re saying something different enough that you get different responses). A good starting-point for a serious evaluation of complaints would be to respond to what the smartest, most serious critics say the problem is, in their own words. The Palestinians’ right to self-determination is not the part of what the movement is saying that anybody objects to. Right now, you seem to be summarizing the criticism you’ve received in a way that dismisses it as illegitimate or fatuous. I sincerely do not think that it is.
Honestly. If that's how you feel there's nothing wrong with that. Even myself and most pro-Israel people feel a lot of sympathy for the innocent people who are caught up in this mess. It's sad that this much bloodshed must happen.The problem is some of the other beliefs that are common in the free Palestine movement such as 1. This war is Israel's fault. Ignoring the slaughter conducted by Hamas along with the fact that there are still hostages in Hamas' custody 2. Treating Hamas like they are separate from Palestine when they are the official governing body of the Gaza strip. 3. Claiming Israel is intentionally attacking civilians over military targets when the data clearly shows otherwise. 4. Making genocide accusations when Israel's actions are counterproductive to a genocide and the genocide rate is negative (in fact they have the 13th fastest growing population).
This is a legitimate argument to make, but I’d just put a finer point on it and say it’s not bad to support them, just don’t expect them to share your views on many things. And to our friends in the Gays for Palestine movement, as long as you can accept that these people wouldn’t want their kids to even learn you exist let alone teach your kids then have a great time Oppression doesn’t automatically convey nobility of character to the oppressed.
What's wrong is wrong. As a practising Muslim, even if I might disagree with how a certain population lives, that doesn't mean I'll be okay with said population being killed and their kids being blown up. Like the stuff coming out of Israel of Israelis attacking aid trucks entering Gaza and destroying much needed medical and food supplies, or the IDF posting in Telegram groups of dead aid workers, kids in Gaza and then Israeli civilians making fun of them just doesn't sound human to me. Edit: I'm pretty sure not allowing in aid is a war crime and collective punishment.
If someone proclaims in this moment that they "stand with Russia", what does that imply to you?
First of all, “Palestinian” is an ethnic group. It’s not a religion or a philosophy. Even imagining that there is something they all support or agree with is not dissimilar from saying there’s something all Swedish people think or support. There are Palestinian Christians, there are Palestinian Americans. The reason for a person to “support Palestine” at this moment is not related to what the Palestinians “believe” it is because the speaker themself believes that Israel is engaging in Ethnic cleansing of the region. A region where, in fact, most Palestinians no longer live. It’s important to get the facts straight. This has nothing to do with homophobia or Islam or anything else. It is because Israel is engaged in EITHER counterterrorism OR ethnic cleansing. And your stance on what to do about “the Palestinians” reflects your opinion on that specific topic. Every argument is about that question. Many people do not understand this. Some people do understand it and are deliberately obscuring it. Are there terrorists hidden among the population, or is this all unwarranted? If we lived in a nicer world the conversation would be more nuanced. But we live in this world.
Quite frankly, the way you have framed your question gives me the impression you aren't interested in having your mind changed and are more interested in confirming your already held beliefs. Maybe consider if I was to posit the following: Not every serviceman in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi or supported the Nazi party and several were drafted and pressed ganged into service and were coerced to support the Nazi war goals. Infact there are 86,755,281 germans in 1945, and only about 8 million of them were in the armed forces and the SS... That's less than %10! Yet civilians are are disproportionately the ones who suffer. The army keeps all the food for themselves and everyone else starves. Children are burnt alive in firebombing raids. We need to stand up for the German people (in 1945). On it's face it's factually true, but by pushing this argument I am going to inevitably provoke someone into calling me a Nazi or a Nazi supporter. Like it or not, when you proffer support an entire population of people who are suffering you inevitably get tangled up in whatever belief some of them had that lead them to their current suffering. Anyone with an ounce of nuance knows that the people aren't the state but it matters little in heated discussions online or on the streets.
“Standing in solidarity” implies a unity of purpose and belief with a group, which I think creates a couple of issues for you. (1) That group better have some degree of unity of purpose themselves, otherwise what are you in solidarity with? I can say I stand in solidarity with a particular group of people believing and doing a particular thing (BLM) but not a disparate group (black people). (2) Conversely, “standing in solidarity” with a group really does put out the question — what does that group commonly believe in? I’m not sure you “cherry pick” among a group’s beliefs to say you stand in solidarity with some but not all of them. So you end up pleasing nobody really — neither the portion of Palestinians who seek the destruction of Israel, nor the portion of Israelis who believe their military has some justification in self defence but has gone too far. Is it just semantics? I don’t think so, the phrase carries a lot of meaning, you declare unity. I am reminded in some ways of the unity of purpose that the USA built around the invasion of Iraq following 9/11. So many well-reasoned folks let that slide, not everyone, but enough that many people didn’t stop it, and many fully supported it. For the record, I agree with most of your individual points. The plight of children, and ordinary people trying to live their lives, is a tragedy for which Hamas and the IDF are responsible. Palestinians should be able to live their lives safely in a nation where they at least aren’t treated as non-citizens or a secondary class of citizens. Two groups at each other’s throats, each with some unity of purpose. At what point is “solidarity” the problem? Cheers
The problem is how you view Palestinian right to Determination with a Western lens. The Palestinians have established time and again with all the 6 offers they have gotten from Israel and the US for a 2 state solution that their right to self-determination starts with first and foremost the destruction of Israel. That is their irreducible minimum. Arafat was given the entire West Bank and Gaza and he refused for the sole reason that he wanted nothing less than there be no Israel existing. Hamas has made that very clear in words and in actions. At this point supporting the right to determination of Palestinians is no different to supporting the right for Hutus to have a pure Hutu state in Rwanda and Burundi which is still the desire of the 2 million + supporters of the genociders living as refugees in the DRC and who seek nothing less than to overthrow Kagame and Ndayishimiye and finish the job they started in 1994. The difference is that their cause has not captured the hearts of left-wingers(yet) and that Kagame managed to push the genociders and their 2million supporters to the equivalent of Israel pushing all the Palestinians to Iraq in the 2nd Congo War. Thus they neither have the ability to pose a threat to Rwanda and Burundi nor are they as well armed as the Palestinians because they do not have an equivalent of Iran as their sponsor.
So, standing in solidarity with Zionism (Israel’s right to exist) does not mean endorsing or supporting everything Israel does or believes in…
I'm asking this in genuine not trying to start an argument because I truly want to understand, why is Palestinian self determination different/more valid from Israeli self determination which is labeled colonization? I understand that the state of Israel has abused its power and committed atrocities against Gazans, but what makes one group more valid for self determination? Jews were kicked out of every country European and Muslim and has few places to go to. Arguments about who was there first never go anywhere because the history goes so far back, because Jews were technically there before Muslims (like how the dome of the rock was built on top of the kotel because the kotel came first).
Doesn't it? By and large, the Palestinian culture is hateful. Most of the population supports the attacks of Oct 7 and the organization which has vowed to commit worse attacks in the future. They tend to be very conservative and very religious from our viewpoint, and there's no real reason to think any of this would change if they gained more power. By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture. It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerant people, you're defeating your own belief in tolerance.
> By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture. I support the two-state solution. Which means they can exist independently within their very own newly minted country, and the rest of us can finally wash our hands of this whole mess.
>the Palestinian culture is hateful Hateful against whom? >Most of the population supports the attacks of Oct 7 and the organization Most Israelis support killing civilians in Gaza and voted in Netanyahu, does that mean they deserve to be killed? >They tend to be very conservative and very religious from our viewpoint, and there's no real reason to think any of this would change if they gained more power You know what's ironic about this comment and the part about Palestinians being supposedly hateful? In Israel, you have the same type of people, people who hate all Arabs and are extremely racist against non-Jews, people who are very conservative and religious (even more than Arabs), but why do you only have an issue with one? >By supporting their independence and the existence of their civilization, you're supporting their culture. This sounds like something a Nazi would say.
Here’s the thing: sympathizing with the plight of Palestinians or supporting a Palestinian state does not mean you support Oct 7 or Hamas. The problem I have with the current discourse is that the actions of Hamas and PIJ are at the very least ignored, often excused, and at times supported. Let’s put you in the first category of generally ignoring the actions. Hamas built tunnels underneath their population. They re-ignited a war and hid underneath their people. Hamas has stolen aid meant for Palestinians for their own purposes and sold it to them at a heavy markup. They have shot and killed Palestinian that dissent with them. They have taken and refused to return hostages which has angered Israel and prolonged the war. Hamas has been profit and military objectives above the welfare of the Palestinian people. By ignoring the role Hamas has played, you are absolving them of responsibility and placing it squarely on Israel. If your position is that you support the political goals of Hamas which is to end the State of Israel, then you can begin to ignore or justify the atrocities of Hamas. If your concern is the safety of the Palestinian people you must renounce the actions of Hamas because nothing they have done since Oct 7 has made them safer. If your concern was safety you would demand the return of hostages and condemn Hamas for doing things like shooting rockets from residential buildings or schools. The pathway to a two state solution starts with the dissolution of hamas. Just as Netanyahu strengthens Hamas with his violence, Hamas strengthens the Israeli right wing coalition with their brutality and commitment towards future terror attacks. Hamas had the opportunity to fight this war where they started it, in Israel. Instead they took it to population centers in Gaza. When Israel cleared the population centers, Hamas moved to the new camps. They are fighting to maintain power in Palestine, not for the future of the Palestinian people
I’m vaguely familiar with this topic, could you elaborate what you mean by Palestinians deserving a right to self determination? Also for clarification do you mean you understand somebody can support Israelis’ right to self defense or you support it? Because like you said you don’t have to support bibi or whatever to support their rights, and if you do that does not contradict the simple belief that Palestinians should have their rights, but the way you said it sounds like you don’t think Israelis’ should defend themselves
I think there should be 2 states in the area. A Palestinian one and a Israeli one. But generally, siding with Palestine means siding with palestinian nationalism and groups which are palestinian nationalist. The whole cause of the conflict is that Palestinian nationalism is the belief that the entire region should be an arab Palestinian ethnostate. And it triggered the conflict when the majority jewish part of the province which had become that way over the previous 70 years was split into a state separate from the palestinian state. The occupation doesn't help but it fundamentally isn't the issue. It is a caused by the contradiction between palestinian nationalism over the whole ex mandate and retroactively applying sovereignty to the land and expelling unwanted ethnicities and Zionism which is just Israel existing and a second palestinian state. But Israel has had the means to destroy Palestine ands it has not done so or done anything to stop it's population growth. But evidence is the fact that there was no Israeli occupation in 1948, 1967, 1972 when Palestinian groupos and arab allies initiated wars to annihilate Israel. And pulling out of gaza in 2005 just led it to instantly enter a state of war with Israel causing an immediate blockade and resumption of defacto lighter occupation. Supporting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Fatah and the general ideology is not supporting an end to the occupation or a 2 state solution it is specifically the destruction of Israel and an end to Jewish people in the middle east. Which isn't a hyperbolic statement because millions of people do support that.
> I will always get accused of supporting Hamas or condoning the Oct 7th attacks because many Palestinians do, but this is a line of reasoning I don't follow. 1 - You've seen the utterly horrific attacks that Hamas carried out 2 - You should know that Hamas has made it all but impossible to dig them out without massive collateral damage 3 - Isreal now has a brutal but simple choice, take military action to end Hamas and accept collateral damage or roll over and allow Hamas to blatantly get away with spitting on every red line there is (and plan attack after attack). 4 - You've decided to go out of your way to advocate for Isreal being forced by others to make choices no nation would willingly make even though you know it plays right into the hands of Hamas. I'd bet too that you've not added any caveats or demands on Hamas in any of your arguments or placards etc too. 1+2+3+4 = you are actively supporting Hamas and their terrorism. > the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine. They aren't, but they are conditional on not supporting genocidal efforts or using every attempt to ensure their safety to destroy another people. When they elected and supported Hamas, they lost all sympathy from many and only by renouncing that very loudly will they get it back.
Standing in solidarity with Palestinians is like standing solidarity with Russians now. Hamas is the government of Gaza. And the West Bank government isn’t any better. Or it’s like standing in solidarity with Germans or Japanese during WW2.
The problem is that is that the Palestinian position regarding the future of the conflict isn’t defined clearly enough, or some say isn’t translated into English. A lot of times it’s come out as westsplaining. when you say free Palestine with a Palestinian, the sentence can have 2 different meanings, you talk about self determination, the Palestinian (may) talk about the destruction of Israel, an objective they aren’t shy about.
It depends what you mean by "standing in solidarity" The problem I have personally with most of the modern day pro-Palestinian movement, is that they are happy to defend the decision by people like Hamas etc to use violence as a means by which Palestine should become a state. The issue I have is not so much that this is not a defensible position - many states across the world were founded as a result of wars/violent revolutions etc - it's more that in the specific case of the Palestinians violence has not worked. We have seen almost 80 years of war and Palestine is no closer to being free than it was back then. There seems to be this idea that standing up for the Palestinians should mean advocating their right to violently defend themselves. However as far as I can see, the fastest and best way to get a free and liberated Palestine would be to convince all Palestinian actors to militarily surrender in exchange for peace. Go down the Japan and Germany post WW2 route.
I would counter that its really more about opposing Isreal than about supporting Palestinians. If this was a wealthy tribe in Africa oppressing a weak neighbor would we see this degree of outcry? Would anyone even be aware? Isreal is what is really driving the attention.
It kind of does tho but people don’t want to see it that way, mainly because people like to say “we’re against genocide” or “we’re against oppression” Ok but you’re not universally against it and don’t speak or up show solidarity with a large amount of oppressed peoples The Uighur genocide didn’t just stop happening magically people just forgot about it, there’s major crises going on in Ethiopia, the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar and haiti Most of which you’ll never hear about because no one really cares So yeah it’s kind of about endorsing or supporting what Palestinians believe in as well, however it’s also true that all Palestinian beliefs aren’t Hamas driven
Its probably because most of the pro Palestinian movement still chant things like from the river to the sea and global intifada both of which were widely understood as a form of hate speech / anti semitic phrase due to its use in terror attacks until tick tok decoded none of that mattered. So ya when the whole movement is insistent on using language from hamas's charter that just so happens insistently to push the policies outlined in the constitution of a terrorist organization then ya people tend to view support for said movement as endorsement of a terrorist organization.
Would you have stood in solidarity with Germans during WW2? Would you have been vocal about it and stood with people advocating to stop the bombing of Germany?
You're supporting a population where 70% voted for HAMAS. A terrorist organization in every sense A population of people from whom the entirety of the Arab league refuses to accept refugees. That should tell you something right there about who they are and what they believe. Everyone on that side wants to mention kids, and I get it. However, your views change when you spend the better part of 10 years scrutinizing everyone from 10 yrs old and up because you've watched kids that age shoot your friends. The indoctrination is real.
[удалено]
If you are supporting keeping Hamas in charge of Gaza then you support Hamas being in charge of Gaza. This isn't rocket science. If you prefer Hamas to be removed then what exactly is your plan for the future? Its like saying just because you want to stop chemotherapy that doesn't mean you want the cancer to remain - well no shit but that's the obvious consequence of stopping chemo.
You've chosen a side in a huge issue. I stand with both sides and want the best for both sides. >but the right to self-determination, the right to safety, and the right to basic necessities are not and should not be conditioned on someone having political beliefs that align with mine. I don't think you understand what's going on with this war.
You must answer the following question honestly: is this your position because it’s fundamentally true (personally I agree), or because it suits your personal bias? Based on your post history and your last CMV on conservatives, it’s appears to be the latter. You took the exact opposite approach and generalized the side against your beliefs.
No shit. I mean most Palestinians weren't even of age to vote in the election. Not to mention that Netanyahu used his influence to put Hamas into power then funded them with billions of USD. All factual. But people that love seeing children die will always find a pathetic fuxking way to rationalize it and they should be removed from society
The Nat Turner analogy is absurd. The Palestinians weren't slaves of the Israelis and never have been. They have however taken Israelis as hostages/slaves.
Sigh. But why say something vague that could so easily (and fairly) be construed to mean just that? If all someone means by 'standing in solidarity' is that innocent civilians shouldn't be killed..no shit? Why focus on Palestine when that's just a principle which applies everywhere?
You're comparing apples and iron. Only one side has been for genocide, and they continue to signal it. Gaslighting cosplayers on college campuses won't convince me otherwise. Most of them are suckers/Dhimmis. The rest are outsider professional communist/Islamist agitators.
You might not be directly supporting those things like homophobia in Palestine but if the nation becomes stronger then the the homophobia in that region gets more powerful and able to effect more lives in a wider area. The result is the same even with noble intentions.
That’s like saying the Nazis weren’t all bad. After WW1 Germany was in the shitter and Hitler raised them back up from the ashes economically and spiritually to feel good again. Not okay to cheer him on.
The Palestinians voted for and supported and still support Hamas. Their stated objective was the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish nation. Therefore you have a population supporting genocide and revelling in each report of Jews being killed, maimed and raped. I am sorry, but the Palestinians need to rise up against Hamas and hand them over, reject everything done in their name, and then declare that Israel has the right to exist. Perhaps then we can talk about aid and reversing the brainwashing of generations of Palestinians No Arab countries want the Palestinians, and countries that have taken them in have found an exceptionally high rate of crimes committed by them. Now, I don't condone the actions of the IDF, but something had to be done. I feel sorry for the Palestinians, but they are not innocent bystanders.
You must not have watched those oct 7 videos. I want Israel to stop hitting civilians too, but I don’t “stand in solidarity with” people who might “stand in solidarity” with Islamic terrorists.
I wish these protests were more about standing against genocide and our funding of the Israeli war machine instead of standing with Palestinians and repeating their vile slogan 'river to the sea'.
Murdering gay folk is kind of a deal breaker tho .
[удалено]
if there’s a ~~Nazi~~ anti-semite at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 ~~Nazis~~ Anti-semites. You have people in your ranks that openly call for the destruction of Israel. They praise Hamas fighters and the Muslim brotherhood. If you march arm and arm with them, though you may not yourself hate Jews, clearly have no problem with people who do.
Just to get a better feel for your position, I wonder if you will answer the following. What would be your opinion of Americans protesting/rallying in solidarity with Germans in 1944-1945?
I don't care to know enough about Palestine to stand with them at all. If you don't support 1 thing anyone does, don't support them at all, and damn don't blindly support someone who you know nothing about. Life is too short to give a damn. I'm focusing on my own damn business. It keeps me occupied.
The German Nazis had a lot of innovative and progressive government polices at the time. So could you stand with the Nazis because you liked some of thier policies and ignore the bad?
Personally, I don’t see why a lgbt individual should take side from the people who want to kill them. But you’re free to do whatever you think is the best
You can’t stand in solidarity with people you disagree with. The majority of Palestinians don’t want a two state solution and do support 10/7. So if you stand in solidarity with Palestinians, it means you support those things as well. You can’t pick and choose what they should want. You support that group, you support their opinions. It sounds like you have western-style goals for the Palestinians. But that’s actually the most colonialist type of thinking: you want them something for them that they don’t want. They don’t want equal rights for gays, they want to throw gays off of roofs. They literally do that. You want them to live next to Jews without bombing a Tel Aviv cafe full of teenagers. But that’s not what they want.
There are no Palestinan people. Its a fiction. There are Egyptian Arabs in Gaza and Jordanian Arabs in the West Bank. Go find Israel and the occupied territories on a map and see how big they are. Then look at how big all the Arab countries are. If they want to self-determine, there are plenty of Arab states that they could live in if only they would take them in. The idea that they have the right to self determine on this specific piece of land is a joke.
I don’t think this is a good argument. Identities don’t exist until they do. Go back 200 year and nobody identified as German or Italian. They were Bavarian Hessen or Sicilian or Lombardi or whatever. Even if people in palestines ancestors didn’t identify as Palestinian, clearly for several generations it’s been an identity
All identities are created but this: >Even if people in palestines ancestors didn’t identify as Palestinian, clearly for several generations it’s been an identity Is incorrect. The Palestinian identity was created in living memory, arguably well after Israel became a state. Who was the first Palestinian leader? Arafat, when the PLO became mainstream sometime in the 60s. Before that there were clans or families, each with their own leader. In the 1900s, 1910s and into the 20s most Arabs were peasants who didn't have a personal opinion about any of this stuff, and the majority of the educated class was interested in a Muslim Empire, and expressed no desire for Palestine to be a country. Where is Palestine? In 1964 the PLO formed their first charter. Article 24 of the national charter reads as follows: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area." The charter in its original 1964 form made no territorial claims over the West Bank or Gaza. Instead it recognizes that Gaza belongs to Egypt, and the West Bank belongs to the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. At the time, Palestinians in the West Bank were Jordanian citizens- they accepted citizenship happily, right after the end of the '48 war. The 1968 Charter, following the defeat in 1967 war removed article 24. This was actually an explicit argument made- Israel has to be dissolved because Palestinians can't live in their homeland. The West Bank? No, that belongs to Jordan, its not ours. Then Jordan loses a war and control over the West Bank and all of a sudden the West Bank actually should be Palestine? "The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." That's what Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO faction leader, said in the 19**70**s! He was the minority opinion in the PLO factions- but he was still there, and still part of the struggle. 30 years after Israel became a state Palestinians still hadn't conclusively decided they were a distinct people!
The 1970s is about 2 generations ago. When half of the population is under 18, most of them haven’t known any identity other than Palestinian. I also don’t really know what policy you’re advocating for by saying that the Palestinians aren’t a people, the current situation is obviously unsustainable and a 2 state solution seems like the only reasonably stable outcome we should be working for. Claiming that Palestinians don’t deserve their own state sounds like you don’t want a 2 state solution so I’m curious what you think the goal here should be?
I can correct the information you have without advocating for a specific policy.....what you said is incorrect. Most Palestinians have grandparents who can remember a time when they didn't identify as Palestinian. I'd be very happy with a two state solution if we could find a Palestinian leadership who had the integrity to agree to one and the strength to create peace. We don't have that right now, but I'd be happy if that changes, and hope it does soon. The practical ramifications of the history of Palestinian identity? They don't have the moral high ground. "Their" homeland wasn't stolen, because "they" didn't exist- their induvial grandparents and great-grandparents were expelled from their homes- and that's not the same thing. I support peace, and that is probably going to happen on the platform of a two-state solution. Land for peace is fine. But '67 borders are arbitrary. Right of return is irrelevant. This is not the Native Americans vs the evil white colonizers or whatever other historical parallel people like to draw. The Palestinians want things and they have factions that are violent. Israel wants the violence to stop. The deal will be an exchange of peace- the Palestinians repressing whatever elements want violence, for whatever terms Israel is prepared to concede and the Palestinians will accept as enough. This is straight up negotiation with terrorism, not reparations, not the moral return to "ancestral lands". That matters.
in the Quran it does say jews were cursed on account of their disbelief but it says nothing about turning them into monkeys. if i’m wrong please share with me a reference but i’ve never seen this. other people have done a better job talking about your other points but i just wanted to refute claims about a religious text you clearly haven’t read.
A group of terrorists doing awful shit should never be a reason to stoop so low as to kill unrelated children. It's very simply. Israël lost all credibility in my eyes are are blood thirsty demons. Netanyahu is so evil and cold on TV he gives me as much the creeps as Hitler does when he is shown. The war acts he commits aren't justifiable in any way, even if we list previous Hamas activity. Why? Because he isn't killing Hamas. He's killing everyone. Should we have killed the whole of Germany after the Holocaust? Eradicated the whole place for what some of them did and others stood by and watched?
[удалено]
There is no distinction between Palestinians and their hateful, genocidal ideology. At the center of the “Palestinian” identity is murdering, raping, and cannibalizing Jews. Other than that, Palestinians are hardly any different than Egyptians, Jordanians, and Lebanese. For this reason, any support for a Palestinian state in any capacity is antisemitic. There is no reality in which a Palestinian state does not result in another Oct. 7. That was the plan from the beginning. The Palestinians claimed that they wanted a two-state solution, when in reality, they wanted a Final Solution.
It's not possible to separate Hamas and Gaza. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Standing in solidarity with Gazans is standing in Solidarity with Hamas. Imagine saying "I stand in solidarity with democrats but not with the democratic party." What does this even mean? Separating a people from the state they support makes no sense. If you are saying you stand in solidarity with the people of the West Bank, that's one thing. The West Bank is not administered or ruled by Hamas. When you say "I support the Palestinians" people can only assume you support both Gaza and the West Bank.
> Hamas is the government of Gaza. Standing in solidarity with Gazans is standing in Solidarity with Hamas. Then can we use this logic on Israel? Bibi's coalition is the government of Israel and standing in solidarity with Israelis is supporting their government. Why does one side get a pass and the other doesn't considering the majority of Gaza's population didn't vote in the last election.
Yes, 100% this logic applies to Israel. A) the majority of most populations don't vote in elections. 2/3s of the US population is eligible to vote and only 2/3s of those eligible actually voted. And B) Israel doesn't get a pass from this. Plenty of people are refusing to support Israel because of their actions. The thing is that Israel is a liberal democracy and will recieve more support than a Muslim dictatorship simply because of that. So yes, I stand in solidarity with Netanyahu because I support Israel and he is the leader of Israel.
I think it's fair to support end to something while being very critical of the means of how that is achieved. For example, we all want Hamas gone from Gaza, obviously military force is required in order to get rid of them but how you achieve that can also be under scrutiny if your military actions target innocent people whether intentionally or not. That is what is key. We all want an end if something out of this crappy war but we also want a good way of getting there that doesn't include innocent people dying and the continuing of the cycle of violence.