Palestine & Israel

[neutralmilk]

Very firmly on the side of Palestine. I'll never support Israel's ongoing genocide. Abuse your victim long enough and they'll fight back, just the way it goes.

resistance is justified when ppl r occupied. Ppl focus on the Hamas attack but never on the Nakba and every evil Israel committed before hand.

 

[Adûnâi]

resistance is justified when ppl r occupied. Ppl focus on the Hamas attack but never on the Nakba and every evil Israel committed before hand.

Violence is justified... because the only laws are the laws of physics. It's a never-ending story. Or, to be more precise, it will only end when one side is dead.

 

[Pessimist]

resistance is justified when ppl r occupied. Ppl focus on the Hamas attack but never on the Nakba and every evil Israel committed before hand.

Wow such an impressive slogan, I bet you also use the phrase "from the river to the sea" without knowing which river or sea you're talking about.

 

[weirdog]

free palestine.

 

[Pessimist]

free palestine.

"Free Palestine" can be interpreted in many different ways. I support freeing Gaza from Hamas and freeing the West Bank from the Jewish settlements. I don't support the Islamist interpretation of it (destroying the Jewish state and establishing a theocratic Islamic state "from the river to the sea" instead) that is promoted by jihadist groups Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

 

[Temporal_Anchorite]

resistance is justified when ppl r occupied. Ppl focus on the Hamas attack but never on the Nakba and every evil Israel committed before hand.

And no one discusses the nearly 900,000 Jews who were kicked out or displaced from the neighboring Arab nations, only to end up in Israel as a bastion of refuge.

And Concerning the Nakba, Arab officials openly encouraged many Palestinians to evacuate & leave their homes with promises that they'd be able to return, thinking they'd be able to successfully defeat Israel in the 1948 war (a war that the Arab states initiated btw!!).

But of course, let's only examine the factors that paint the Palestinians in a sympathetic light. Double standards and whatnot.

 

[Pessimist]

And no one discusses the nearly 900,000 Jews who were kicked out or displaced from the neighboring Arab nations, only to end up in Israel as a bastion of refuge.

I'm so thankful someone else brings it up or even knows about it! My maternal grandparents fled from Iraq. There's absolutely no "right of return" for the victims of the Jewish Nakba who were ethnically cleansed from Muslim countries.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

I don't agree with Israel's leadership or its handling of the war, but what has happened has happened, and with the Rafah offensive looming it's too late for random citizens to try to prevent any further Israeli offensive from taking place this time around. It's really been too late for a while.

I hope that going forward Israel will pursue a two-state solution or use its power to integrate palestine under a unified secular state (not a "state for the jewish people" with a jewish flag, but a state for both the Israeli Jewish and the Palestinian Arabs, with equal political representation).

The walls around Gaza have to come down or someone else will be posting about another conflict years from now. At least I'll be long dead then though.

 

[Pessimist]

I don't agree with Israel's leadership or its handling of the war, but what has happened has happened, and with the Rafah offensive looming it's too late for random citizens to try to prevent any further Israeli offensive from taking place this time around. It's really been too late for a while.

I hope that going forward Israel will pursue a two-state solution or use its power to integrate palestine under a unified secular state (not a "state for the jewish people" with a jewish flag, but a state for both the Israeli Jewish and the Palestinian Arabs, with equal political representation).

The walls around Gaza have to come down or someone else will be posting about another conflict years from now. At least I'll be long dead then though.

1. What makes you think that Hamas are into any secular or reasonable solution?





2. What makes you think the walls around Gaza "have to come down"? Gaza is not part of Israel, and without a border Israel would get an October 7 on a regular basis. On the other hand, Egypt doesn't have an actual justification for their blockade on Gaza: Hamas doesn't fight Egypt, and both Gaza and Egypt are overwhelmingly Muslim.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

1. What makes you think that Hamas are into any secular or reasonable solution?

View attachment 132461View attachment 132462



2. What makes you think the walls around Gaza "have to come down"? Gaza is not part of Israel, and without a border Israel would get an October 7 on a regular basis. On the other hand, Egypt doesn't have an actual justification for their blockade on Gaza: Hamas doesn't fight Egypt, and both Gaza and Egypt are overwhelmingly Muslim.

View attachment 132466

View attachment 132469View attachment 132474

View attachment 132475

View attachment 132468

1) I don't support Hamas. I also don't support the Israeli right wing nationalists. 2 things can be true at the same time, and incidentally neither of those groups are interested in secular unification or a two state solution. That doesn't mean that secular unification or a two state solution (where the walls eventually come down and Gazans are given the right to build their own communities) is wrong. Hamas will not exist in the same way it once did after this offensive, which leaves Israel to decide what to do next, not Hamas. I focused on what is already happening when I made the first reply because we can't undo what has already happened. I disagree with it, but expending energy debating over it now will change nothing.

2) Gaza is not it's own nation and has many pieces of critical infrastructure controlled by Israel (including water and electricity). They aren't even allowed to build air or seaports and have an economy that is set up to primarily service Israel with low wage labor. Israel had the power from 30+ years of direct occupation in the last century to integrate into a secular state or pursue a 2-state solution, and yet it did neither, and also has so far kept the living conditions of the Gazans at rock bottom. Going forward it will once again have complete control in Gaza and therefore the power to decide whether to pursue peace or to restart the cycle.

I am not a fan of the apartheid it has chosen so far.

As for Egypt I imagine they don't want a refugee crisis when they can instead let Israel deal with the consequences of its own actions. Cold hearted, maybe, but Egypt itself has a struggling economy. I'm not sure how Egypt is relevant here though.

(I accidentally posted this early and then had to leave for a few minutes before I could edit it, but I don't think you've seen it yet so I edited it)

 

[KafkaF]

I find this particular conflict very interesting.. more interesting than the war itself is the way people around the world seem to be split between their ideologies and their government's ideologies. I say this because a huge rally in support for Palestine took place in New York. At the same time the president has gone on record claiming support for Israel. I want to know the point of view from anyone who'd be willing to share. (Personally I hope that this war is one step closer to Armageddon but that's just me lol)

For me there's very little ideology to it.

I don't support the occupation, genocide or ethnic cleansing of any group, no matter their ideology or beliefs. I am against it no matter who it happens to, where or by who it is done. It is always bad no matter the circumstances or goals.

That's pretty much all there is to it for me.

There's a complex history between Palestine and Israel. But in so far as opposing what Israel is currently doing, it literally doesn't matter. Because occupying or ethnically cleansing a population is always wrong no matter the historical circumstances that brought it about.

 

[Pessimist]

1) I don't support Hamas. I also don't support the Israeli right wing nationalists. 2 things can be true at the same time, and incidentally neither of those groups are interested in secular unification or a two state solution. That doesn't mean that secular unification or a two state solution (where the walls eventually come down and Gazans are given the right to build their own communities) is wrong. Hamas will not exist in the same way it once did after this offensive, which leaves Israel to decide what to do next, not Hamas. I focused on what is already happening when I made the first reply because we can't undo what has already happened. I disagree with it, but expending energy debating over it now will change nothing.

2) Gaza is not it's own nation and has many pieces of critical infrastructure controlled by Israel (including water and electricity). They aren't even allowed to build air or seaports and have an economy that is set up to primarily service Israel with low wage labor. Israel had the power from 30+ years of direct occupation in the last century to integrate into a secular state or pursue a 2-state solution, and yet it did neither, and also has so far kept the living conditions of the Gazans at rock bottom. Going forward it will once again have complete control in Gaza and therefore the power to decide whether to pursue peace or to restart the cycle.

I am not a fan of the apartheid it has chosen so far.

As for Egypt I imagine they don't want a refugee crisis when they can instead let Israel deal with the consequences of its own actions. Cold hearted, maybe, but Egypt itself has a struggling economy. I'm not sure how Egypt is relevant here though.

(I accidentally posted this early and then had to leave for a few minutes before I could edit it, but I don't think you've seen it yet so I edited it)

Israel is already pretty secular, it's the nation-state of both secular and religious Jews. Israel isn't a Judaist theocracy. One third of Israeli citizens are non-religious Jews ("Hilonim").

For me there's very little ideology to it.

I don't support the occupation, genocide or ethnic cleansing of any group, no matter their ideology or beliefs. I am against it no matter who it happens to, where or by who it is done. It is always bad no matter the circumstances or goals.

That's pretty much all there is to it for me.

There's a complex history between Palestine and Israel. But in so far as opposing what Israel is currently doing, it literally doesn't matter. Because occupying or ethnically cleansing a population is always wrong no matter the historical circumstances that brought it about.

To prove Israel is committing a genocide you have to first prove that the Israeli goal isn't to dismantle Hamas, but to eliminate an ethnic group (because genocide requires this intent). So, technically speaking, even if Israel indiscriminately bombed Gaza and didn't warn any civilian, it's still not a proof that they are guilty of genocide (probably a certain war crime, but not genocide). It's much easier to accuse Hamas of genocidal intent: according to their own charter, "the day of judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them". What can you expect from an organization that combines ultra-nationalism with fundamentalist Islamism?

Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

Israel is already pretty secular

Israel still has the Star of David (which is very much a religious symbol as much as it is a "community symbol") as its flag and national symbol and in your own source it says there is "a strong connection as well as a confict between state and religious law".

I should also mention that Israel's constitution is riddled with references to "a home for the jewish people", which, despite the historical reasons why, is mildly disturbing because it implies israel is also meant to be an ethnostate where non ethnic jews have an inferior status.

These things could be changed going forward under a unified state. If Israel refuses to release control with a two state solution, it is the next best option imo.

 

[Pessimist]

Israel still has the Star of David (which is very much a religious symbol as much as it is a "community symbol") as its flag and national symbol and in your own source it says there is "a strong connection as well as a confict between state and religious law".

I should also mention that Israel's constitution is riddled with references to "a home for the jewish people", which, despite the historical reasons why, is mildly disturbing because it implies israel is also meant to be an ethnostate where non ethnic jews have an inferior status.

These things could be changed going forward under a unified state. If Israel refuses to release control with a two state solution, it is the next best option imo.

The Star of David isn't explicitly religious in its roots:





Israel is not an ethnostate:

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

The Star of David isn't explicitly religious in its roots:
View attachment 132665




Israel is not an ethnostate:
View attachment 132664

The Star of David is used extensively as a religious symbol, idk about it's roots but that seems irrelevant to me.

Israel does now and has historically practiced some form of apartheid and economic coercion on areas that were (depending on the time) either directly or indirectly under its control, but I understand you are referring to the territory considered integral to Israel and not palestine.

Bringing up the implications of "a home for the jewish people" being in the constituion may not have been a good argument, but things like these would still need to be changed if the unified secular state idea would ever work in the far future, even if it is just symbolic (which imo is debatable whether it is really symbolic but there is a lot more to unpack there that I dont have time to). There are also other rights and provisions extended to jewish people in the constitution without mention of the arabs that I think would need to be changed to add the arabs, but I dont have time to quote it rn (sorry).

What is important is that going forward someone makes the economic and political reforms necessary to ensure the palestinians are represented and can control their own economy. I'm sure we can agree on that to some extent. The two state solution is still the best option imo. However if Israel continues to demand control over palestine, the people there must be given equal rights, symbolic or not, within Israel and equal representation.

 

[Pessimist]

The Star of David is used extensively as a religious symbol, idk about it's roots but that seems irrelevant to me.

1. The Star of David is sometimes used as a religious-Judaist symbol. However, it's also used to represent both secular and religious Israeli nationalism (Zionism).
2. Even if the Star of David was purely religious-Judaist, it doesn't make the State of Israel religious. The national motto of the US is religious ("In God We Trust"); does it make the US religious?

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

1. The Star of David is sometimes used as a religious-Judaist symbol. However, it's also used to represent both secular and religious Israeli nationalism (Zionism).
2. Even if the Star of David was purely religious-Judaist, it doesn't make the State of Israel religious. The national motto of the US is religious ("In God We Trust"); does it make the US religious?

1) Whether it sometimes also represents "Zionism" or a nation for the Jewish ethnicity does not change the fact that it is also often used as a religious symbol. And no matter if it were perceived as a symbol of the ethnic Jewish people or of Judaism it still excludes every other group symbolically by existing as a national symbol. This doesn't mean that Israel is an authoritarian theocracy, but it does give preferential status to a specific group in its constitution and in practice when it has had full control over Palestine before. This represents an area that would need change if the next Israeli administration wants to become serious about long term reforms that include the Palestinians (assuming there is no hope for a two state solution, which is a big assumption).

2) The US has the motto "in god we trust" which causes an incredible amounts of friction between hardline religious conservatives and most center right to left wing policy proposals, despite the "in god we trust" slogan not even representing any particular religion. This friction does interfere in and influence politics. In Israel the friction is much worse because a much more significant portion of their right wing is demanding an ethno state and the continued suppression/ forcible removal of the Palestinians.

I am arguing that to become a fully secular state Israel would need to change its flag and the constitution to give equal status to the Palestinian Arabs, many of whom alive today were displaced within the past century by European immigrants to the region.

It would be like if the USA had a white cross on a red background as its flag to represent the broader "white European Christian community" and had provisions that were still in effect in its constitution that directly mention evangelical Protestants from around the world as having prioritized citizenship rights and stating that the USA is specifically meant to be a "white evangelical homeland under the flag of the blazing cross".

Trust me, things can get bad sometimes in the USA, but nowhere in our constitution (even in the original believe it or not) does it say that the USA is a white evangelical Christian homeland and that white people or evangelical Christians get prioritized citizenship over everyone else. We also do not have a flag with a giant white cross on it. If it were there would be justified mass protests and social upheaval to get both changed.

I don't say this to be critical of the Israeli people or the state itself, but the political leaders of Israel and some of its conservative populous need to recognize this and consider making a change to live side by side with the Palestinians if they can not accept a 2-state solution and insist on control of Palestine.

This is just my opinion though. I'm sure many Israelis are already concerned about what is going to happen next when Israel takes full control of Gaza. Im sure nothing I've said probably hasn't already been said within Israel.

 

[Pessimist]

1) Whether it sometimes also represents "Zionism" or a nation for the Jewish ethnicity does not change the fact that it is also often used as a religious symbol. And no matter if it were perceived as a symbol of the ethnic Jewish people or of Judaism it still excludes every other group symbolically by existing as a national symbol. This doesn't mean that Israel is an authoritarian theocracy, but it does give preferential status to a specific group in its constitution and in practice when it has had full control over Palestine before. This represents an area that would need change if the next Israeli administration wants to become serious about long term reforms that include the Palestinians (assuming there is no hope for a two state solution, which is a big assumption).

2) The US has the motto "in god we trust" which causes an incredible amounts of friction between hardline religious conservatives and most center right to left wing policy proposals, despite the "in god we trust" slogan not even representing any particular religion. This friction does interfere in and influence politics. In Israel the friction is much worse because a much more significant portion of their right wing is demanding an ethno state and the continued suppression/ forcible removal of the Palestinians.

I am arguing that to become a fully secular state Israel would need to change its flag and the constitution to give equal status to the Palestinian Arabs, many of whom alive today were displaced within the past century by European immigrants to the region.

It would be like if the USA had a white cross on a red background as its flag to represent the broader "white European Christian community" and had provisions that were still in effect in its constitution that directly mention evangelical Protestants from around the world as having prioritized citizenship rights and stating that the USA is specifically meant to be a "white evangelical homeland under the flag of the blazing cross".

Trust me, things can get bad sometimes in the USA, but nowhere in our constitution (even in the original believe it or not) does it say that the USA is a white evangelical Christian homeland and that white people or evangelical Christians get prioritized citizenship over everyone else. We also do not have a flag with a giant white cross on it. If it were there would be justified mass protests and social upheaval to get both changed.

I don't say this to be critical of the Israeli people or the state itself, but the political leaders of Israel and some of its conservative populous need to recognize this and consider making a change to live side by side with the Palestinians if they can not accept a 2-state solution and insist on control of Palestine.

1. The Palestinian Arabs never had "full control over Palestine". Before Israel, there wasn't a Palestinian state. It was a British territory.
2. Both (Jewish) Zionism and (Arab) Palestinian nationalism are forms of ethnic nationalism.
3. Israel is surrounded by anti-democratic Islamic states and Arab ethnostates.

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

1. The Palestinian Arabs never had "full control over Palestine". Before Israel, there wasn't a Palestinian state. It was a British territory.
2. Both (Jewish) Zionism and (Arab) Palestinian nationalism are forms of ethnic nationalism.
3. Israel is surrounded by anti-democratic Islamic states and Arab ethnostates.

View attachment 132733


View attachment 132736
View attachment 132737
View attachment 132738

I'm not trying to claim that the Palestinians ever did have control, but it is true that a lot were displaced from European migration.

I know #2 and #3 are true as well, but I don't think that either should prevent Israel from attempting to pursue a two state solution or attempting to pursue greater unity between Arabs and Jews, even if it comes at the cost of some Zionist symbols.

Going forward there will be a lot more to talk about, like what role Israel plays in Gaza's reconstruction. I believe that one day the moderate left wing will triumph over the conservative religious right wing nationalists in both Israel and Gaza, and peace will prevail, but, again, I'll be too dead to know for sure.

 

[Pessimist]

I'm not trying to claim that the Palestinians ever did have control, but it is true that a lot were displaced from European migration.

I know #2 and #3 are true as well, but I don't think that either should prevent Israel from attempting to pursue a two state solution or attempting to pursue greater unity between Arabs and Jews, even if it comes at the cost of some Zionist symbols.

Going forward there will be a lot more to talk about, like what role Israel plays in Gaza's reconstruction. I believe that one day the moderate left wing will triumph over the conservative religious right wing nationalists in both Israel and Gaza, and peace will prevail, but, again, I'll be too dead to know for sure.

I understand the "right of return" concept, but for some reason it never applies to the Jewish people who were ethnically cleansed from Muslim countries and had to move to Israel:

Jewish exodus from the Muslim world - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

I understand the "right of return" concept, but for some reason it never applies to the Jewish people who were ethnically cleansed from Muslim countries and had to move to Israel:

Jewish exodus from the Muslim world - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another Arab nation not being ethical or being a literal theocratic dictatorship shouldn't be a reason for Israel to not strive to do the right thing, imo. I don't look at Eritrea being a dictatorship and think "arghh they don't let the press report the news independently why must we?"

That being said I understand the right to return for Palestinians may not be feasible for a very long time. I didn't ever mention right to return for the Palestinians though, I was just saying that many Palestinians used to live in what is now Israel, despite never having their own state, and I think that makes their grievances (just like Israel's) real. Just because they've been colonized by Britain before doesn't mean their concerns or wishes for statehood are less valid. Either way I think In this response I am getting sidetracked and confusing you because I am not good at explaining myself.

I am trying to advocate for equal political and economic representation under a more secular unified state or a two state solution. I also think there must be immediate aid in rebuilding Gaza and it's economy, which both the US and Israel can help fund.

I want the conflict to end in a long term solution that won't breed future extremism on either side. I think you also want the conflict to end in a long term solution that won't breed future extremism on either side.