Would have been nice if Israel did not steal the land in 1948, displaced 750 000 Palestinian people, having an apartheid state and put millions of Palestinians on starving.
Would been nice if Israel did not do illegal settlements, stealing more homes. Threatening to kill innocent Palestinian people If they do not give up their own homes.
Would also have been nice if Israel didn’t kill thousands of Palestinian people (more than 20 000 Palestinian people been murdered and ongoing).
But hey that suppose to be “okay” right because “right to self defense” right?
Want to talk about warcrimes? Check Israel’s history and ongoing warcrimes first.
Hamas was literally made because of Israel’s atrocities. They were made in 1987 because of all the things Israel did to the Palestinian people from 1948 up to 1987.
EDIT: Added a bit more context and specifics dates.
Would been nice if Israel did not do illegal settlements, stealing more homes.
Yeah that’s called the West Bank. That’s not even part of Gaza / where Hamas has control. You’re conflating issues as if I’m a dumbass who doesn’t know what’s going on in that region.
Want to talk about warcrimes? Check Israel’s history and ongoing warcrimes first.
So do you condone Oct. 7th or not? Both sides can be jackasses. Whataboutism fucking sucks when Republicans do it, I’m not going to tolerate it here either. If both sides suck, then we have other things to do.
But just saying “Oh, these warcrimes are fine but those aren’t” is no way to solve any issue. You wouldn’t be able to solve two 5-year-olds fighting with that kind of nonsense, and it obviously wouldn’t work on adults who are literally launching bombs at each other.
It is the West Bank, does not take away about what is happening. I’m not conflating it, I’m explaining it.
Israel is stealing more land and homes and on a daily basis, murdering Palestinian people on a daily basis. Apartheid state.
Israel even said, they wanted to drop an atomic bomb on Gaza apnews.com/…/israel-nuclear-weapons-gaza-iran-chi…. Not to mention, they called Palestinian people “animals”. I can get that article for you too, if needed.
Again, “do you condone”, it is a nice way of trying to turning around tables isn’t it? I will ask you the same “do you condone Israelis atrocities, warcrimes, stealing land, murdering since 1948 up until now?”
I’m not saying, that one is fine and the other is not. Don’t try to put words into my mouth, that I never wrote or implied.
I’m telling you, before even talking about Hamas warcrimes - Check Israelis warcrimes first. You seem to blame Hamas for everything however the entire blame is Israel’s. It all started the moment they stole the land in 1948, displaced 750 000 people, apartheid state and kept going on from there.
It all started the moment they stole the land in 1948
That’s a fucking stupid start date.
It all started when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1917. The breakup of the empire leads to the modern Middle East crisis. Part of the deal from WW1 was Britain’s plan for the former Ottomans. Yes, it involves Israel and Palestine. It also involves a bunch of other things.
Palestine always was under another state. Yes, It was a Muslim Controlled Empire of the past few centuries, but that power doesn’t exist anymore.
Israel is stealing more land and homes and on a daily basis
Like all the settlers they removed from Gaza in 2005 and all the soldiers they removed?
This is fucking why Gaza vs West Bank matters dude. Gaza is the side the Israeli’s left and returned. To be attacked from “this side” is a huge deal from the perspective of the greater Palestinians vs Israel conflict… and for those who want peace in this region. Hamas has shattered the peace in a way that seemingly cannot be put back together.
Just 6 months ago, Israel was far more focused on West Bank issues than Gaza. Or have you forgotten? Its like history of the last 15 years is completely missing from your understanding, and you are choosing exceptionally weird dates (wtf? 1948 ain’t even the start of the Israel plan. Why the fuck are you choosing this date historically? Most people would choose Balfour Declaration or some shit).
1948 is a stupid start date for understanding this problem. The Israeli state was promised by the British in 1917, years before the British took over the region of Palestine. Deal with it. Before the founding of Mandatory Palestine of 1920 (which only existed as a piecemeal state the British took over after the Ottoman collapse), Britain already had plans for Israel.
History is a wee bit deeper than you might think it seems. Balfour Declaration is rather significant to the discussion, and your avoidance of the subject is quite telling. The plans for Israeli settlement were laid out nearly three decades before 1948.
To put it more diplomatically, yes, 1948 is a way too late of a starting year if you're seeking to examine the full historical context of the conflict. Jewish immigration into post-Ottoman Palestine started significantly earlier and was explicitly supported by the British during the aftermath of World War I (some limited immigration happened even earlier). It should be noted that Britain's actions here were directly contradictory to promises that they had made to their Arab allies during WWI, when they'd promised the Hashemite family (now the ruling royal family of Jordan, then ruling from Mecca) an Arab state from Mecca to Damascus in exchange for their military assistance against the Ottomans. My general understanding is that most of that immigration was generally legal, in that Jewish immigrants legally purchased land that they moved in to, but a lot of those landowners were Ottomans and their claim to the land can certainly be criticized. At any rate, as the number of Jews increased, tensions quickly emerged, Jews and Arabs rapidly started fighting, both sides commit terrible acts, and the moment the British leave, true war breaks out as all of Israel's neighbors invade, with the Israelis ultimately being successful and roughly establishing the modern borders of the West Bank and Gaza.
I personally would argue that we're long past the point where who started what is a particularly useful question towards finding a path to peace, since both sides have done terrible things and have next to no trust for one another, but if you want to explore the history, you really do need to go back to Ottoman Palestine, the beginnings of Zionism in the late 1800s, and World War I.
For some interesting context, I'd point you to the main image of this article, which shows land in British Palestine that was legally owned by Jews. The vast vast majority of Israel's Jewish population still lives in these same areas. Now again, most of this land was purchased from non-Palestinian land owners who had acquired it during the Ottoman era, and you can certainly criticize that as unfair or unjust, but I honestly don't think "steal" accurately describes the situation. You might say that the establishment of the Israeli state was a theft, but I don't see how that's meaningfully different than the establishment of British Mandatory Palestine, or Ottoman Palestine before that. You might say that modern Israel is the result of western imperialism, and I can somewhat understand that argument, but given that it was earlier under the Ottoman Empire, who were certainly not loved by the local Arab population, the difference feels almost more aesthetic than anything else.
For what it's worth, I do fully support an independent Palestine and think Netanyahu is a horror with zero interest in peace, though I also can understand that Israel has legitimate security concerns, though the retaliation in Gaza has absolutely been excessive.
"There is limited space and great risk in putting Rafah under further military escalation due to the growing number of Palestinians there,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Saturday during a press briefing, warning that an escalation would have “dire consequences.”
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Egyptian officials warned the decades-long peace treaty between Egypt and Israel could be suspended if Israel Defense Forces’ troops enter Rafah, or if any of Rafah’s refugees are forced southward into the Sinai Peninsula.
In addition, Saudi Arabia — which has already conditioned normalization with Israel on an end to hostilities and steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state — issued a statement Saturday warning of “the extremely dangerous repercussions of storming and targeting the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip,” given the city being “the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of people.”
Meanwhile
According to Netanyahu, an assault on Rafah is critical to completing Israel’s stated war aim of dismantling Hamas. Earlier in the week, the premier rejected Hamas’s “delusional” terms for a hostage deal, which included a full withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Strip and the release of hundreds of terrorists serving life sentences.
Terrifying. Even if Israel does the ‘humanitarian’ thing of further forced displacement before assaulting Rafah, where would they go? Even during the ‘pause’, Palestinians who tried to return back to their destroyed houses in the north were shot by the IDF.
How easy it is to move 1M+ people who are not extremely fond of you to a different place in Gaza and what is this magical place that has existing infrastructure that can handle the humanitarian needs of those 1M+ people.
And I also doubt that destroying another city in Gaza will achieve anything but strengthening the resolve of locals to continue fighting and push even more people into the embrace of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
Why do you think terror groups aren’t flourishing in times of peace and prosperity?
Clearly the right way to end terrorism is with more terrorism Counter Terrorism. No way analysing the situations’ underlying material conditions to improve QoL and de-radicalize could dramatically reduce any support for terrorism, it must be internal/cultural instead of external factors /s
Oh yeah and they returned all their hostages because of their war pressure. This turned out to be such a great idea. /s
Israel is most likely complicit for some of their casualties, by bombing them, they also managed to shoot three of their own who happened to be shirtless and waving a white flag and shouting in Hebrew, and saved a single hostage. Such a magnificent successful story!
Hamas is fucking disgusting. They could end this now, but there is no end to the number of Palestinian martyrs they’ll sacrifice for their anti-zionist views.
Blinken reportedly said that, nevertheless, the reality of the matter is that “entire families that are not connected to Hamas were harmed” amid the fighting.
The Biden team has pretty clearly demonstrated that they see being able to influence Israel from their side as more valuable in terms of what they can do to limit Israel’s destruction of Gaza than what they can do by joining the international condemnations.
And to a certain extent they might be right? So far Biden’s been able to negotiate hostage swaps and autonomy for a hypothetical post war Gaza, and sanctioning settlers is definitely a step in the right direction compared to past presidents, although I’d have gone as far as dragging American participants back to be prosecuted and imprisoned for that shit but whatcha gonna do?
But the long and short remains, Blinken may be hand tied on what he’s allowed to press Israel on, and on how much he can question the official strategy from the whitehouse.
The Biden team has pretty clearly demonstrated that they see being able to influence Israel from their side as more valuable in terms of what they can do to limit Israel’s destruction of Gaza than what they can do by joining the international condemnations.
this has basically been the american position since, basically… always.
it doesn’t work. No president has ever had enough of a spine to actually pull that trigger.
It sure stopped the Suez Crisis, last I checked Egypt still controls both sides of the canal, and that was this policy put into direct action.
Believe it or not choosing to not blow up a decades long alliance and show the world that your reliability as a diplomatic partner sways election to election does actually work sometimes.
It’s a bit inaccurate to say that it worked in the Suez Crisis.
yes, Eisenhower cut (or tried to cut) private aid to Israel (about 100 million annually at the time,) But he also sought (via UN,) sanctions that were vetoed by France and Britain, both of whom were also in on the invasion.
Also, Eisenhower put inordinate pressure on the UK, rejecting an IMF request (because they needed oil, and were loosing money,); while also threatening to dump UK bonds held by the US. (which would have had deleterious effects on their economy… though those effects were grossly overstated by Macmillan. Further pressure was laid out by the Saudi embargo on both Britain and France- and the US refused to help alleviate that.
regardless, my point stands that simply being “good friends” with Israel doesn’t really give you the ability to hold them back. particularly when they don’t believe you’d actually do it. The Suez Crisis was resolved at least as much by pressure on Britain and France as it was on Israel- because they were desperate for oil.
timesofisrael.com
Hot