Israel/Palestine thread

The people are people, but prove the abuses.

People saying things aren't a proof especially if it's people who think that state of Israel shouldn't exist.

You can't prove anything.

I am so sorry very sorry.

You have no jurisdiction there btw. At all.

I can't write exactly what my okay is because it goes against forum rules but I think you can guess it.

That said, I am positively surprised at least for this we are on the same page.

One thing is clear: there is never any moral limit to what you are allowed to do to survive, at all, without absolutely any exception. If, big IF, you are under existential threat of extinction that is.

Nothing morally goes above survival

Now you're denying the fact it has been confirmed? The riots? The politicians filmed saying it's okay?

Come on now.

I get it. They're lesser humans in your eyes because they're Muslim, Arab or both. Even vs lesser human beings, these are war crimes.

There is no confirmation of anything about torture and rape as torture. There are claims.

There are no lesser human beings at the start of the game and having religious beliefs, for me, doesn't change that.

Of course in my model you do lose "human rights" depending on what you DO. especially if you are not a citizen of my country.

I have roman morals.

Civis romanus sum -> rights.

You aren't? Tough luck.

For sure you can claim I am not an universalist.

But it's true no matter the ethnicity and the religious belief.

I think this says it all.

you got crickets bc a mod repeatedly said not to respond.

the play is to end the illegal apartheid occupation and **** off back to the 67 borders. the play is not to just kill 100s of thousands of children.

It says something.

We aren't all buying the Kool aid of universalism, it's not a mandated religion yet, and the morals of that ideology aren't the rules of this forum afaik.

And a ton of people agree with me, you might just be surprised I am saying it loud, because I don't have any shame about what I believe is correct no matter how many leftists disagree with me

A mod said, move the thread. People were still discussing this at the time, and they did not say to not respond.

So you want a one-state solution.

Do you believe if the borders are settled, that Muslims's in Palestine will end their war? Because that's incredibly, incredible naive and disingenuous. This is the problem... there is no end. There are no borders that will satisfy this situation. If people tell you their goals, you should believe them instead of projecting your beliefs of what is just and fair.

He wants a one state solution with Jews deported btw

I don't have a left / right compass... my compass points to justice and fairness always. I was cursed at birth this way honestly, as it never turns off.

I noticed very, very early on when this war ramped up, all of the absurd Russian propaganda around this issue, because it's extremely easy to frame this as a rich, mostly white powerful nation responding w/ unnecessary force vs the poor muslim people of color.

It's a very easy issue to get naive democrats divided on because this fits our narratives in most world situations. I had to explain this issue to my kids (20 and 16), because like many young people, they are anti-war, and they grew up in a large family that has organized war protests, and fought for marginalized groups all their lives. It's been the ethos of our family, and why so many of our family members are in politics.

Once it was explained fully, they understood it, but acknowledged, many of their friends don't understand the issue at hand. They just look at it as almost a "genocide" of sorts.

That's not what's happening here.. and if it was, I would be the first person fighting against this as well.

Russian propaganda he says

for real though, have you ever read any Palestinian sources? or even Israeli sources?

I'll answer your question, when you answer mine.

Do you want to have a genuine discussion on this, and are you open to being wrong? Or are you just looking for confirmation bias about this issue?

I point myself towards truth, no matter where it leads, and I'm OK with changing my position. My position on this issue has evolved over the years as I've studied it more.

As a side note, I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim. I'm not religious.

It says a lot about you, to dehumanize people and to justify the torture and abuse you have been justifying.

Believe it or not boss, not everybody is strictly right or left. You can both believe Hamas is responsible for what is happening right now AND believe that torturing POWs is ****ed up and is in fact a war crime even if it happens to a stateless people.

You can fully support Israel's war on Hamas and question some of the accusations thrown at them. Doesn't mean I believe there's a genocide going on or that I believe Hamas is a force for good. Just means that even during a justified war the countries on the ''right'' side can and most likely will commit war crimes.

He's a ''from the river to the sea'' guy. You're not going to like his answer.

I don't dehumanize anyone.

I just don't agree with the universalist bullshit of universal human rights no matter what.

They are humans, and they don't deserve the same rights our citizens do.

If you don't treat yiur citizens better than all other human beings why does your country even exist in the first place

I change my mind all the time. I used to be a liberal then I saw the way.

I didn't say anything about left/right, especially because this topic in particular DOES NOT map on left/right as most other things do.

I am just surprised because the dialect methods you used with me elsewhere denoted the kind of tribe that agrees with viktor.

As i said, i am happy that wasn't the case.

tbh i don't think it's about russia very much, but what you wrote might play a role as well

1. A warmonger is someone who advocates for aggression against other people for the sake of it. I advocate proactively destroying enemies who've made their entire life's purpose to commit a genocide against your people. This advocation is only as a last resort and solely to protect Israelis from future attacks. I find this reasonable because Israel has extended olive branches for 80 years now, to no avail. Hamas has sworn to keep perpetrating 10/7 attacks and I don't think they're just joshing. It's a no-brainer that Israel needs to finally crush them so they stop stockpiling weapons and plotting their next attacks.

I'd prefer that Arabs in the region stop trying to murder Jews, however. Their quality of life was probably at its highest in years on 10/6, but here we are. Raising your children in a psychotic death cult because you believe martyrdom is what Allah wants is pure insanity. But I am not an anti-Semite, just a realist, so I understand that Israel must destroy Hamas because the alternative is waiting for more and more bloodshed (which they've promised). I am genuinely puzzled at how you can read this as anything but acknowledging the terrible hand Israel has been dealt. Regardless, that's not "warmonger" behavior, but understanding the reality of what's going on. If I could press a button that'd guarantee no more attacks on Israel (and Hamas steps down) in exchange for everyone going home, I'd hit it, obviously.

2. I absolutely do not acknowledge that Gazans aren't Hamas; quite the opposite, actually. Plenty of civilians participated in 10/7, which is why I believe Hamas can't keep track of hostages left. Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas, especially when they murder Jews. Obviously not every single person there is a radical lunatic, but a lot of them are. The people who speak out are brutally beaten and/or disappeared, which is another reason why Israel needs to destroy Hamas. Regardless of the reasons and the current state, it was a good thing that America toppled and hanged Sadam. He was horrific to his people, much like Hamas is to the Arabs we're discussing. Again, I am puzzled at how you find this such an acerbic, hateful take.

3. As always, people on your end have a mental block where you're incapable of understanding that the civilian casualties are Hamas' fault, not Israel's. Israel is only killing innocent Gazan's in "large numbers" if you have nothing to compare it to. In reality, Israel has an extremely low civilian-to-combatant ratio, despite the evil level of asymmetrical warfare that Hamas wages as their SOP. If you can't wage war without using your population as cannon fodder for propaganda, I'd say the onus is on you to surrender immediately. The ethical obligation is on Hamas to stop getting their civilians killed, not on Israel. It's beyond unreasonable to expect Israel to simply NOT ever kill the Hamas members embedding themselves in civilian infrastructure. Where are all of these instances of Israel deliberately targeting civilians like people imply? I see Hamas targets being eliminated and sometimes there's collateral damage. When the entirety of Gaza is filled with terror tunnels with hatches and entrances in and around mosques, schools, civilian homes/dwellings, hospitals, and other regular infrastructure, there's simply no way to avoid civilian casualties. Again, this is why we have rules that declare these tactics illegal. And if these tactics are implemented, its universally understood that the civilian deaths are the fault of the party violating these conditions, not the nation wiping out viable military targets.

4. I genuinely have no idea what "Bibi" is saying or what you're even referencing.

5. I'm sorry that I can't get you to understand what I find to be such a basic concept, dude. I don't want innocent people dying, either. ****, I don't even want crappy people to die like this because it wrecks the infrastructure their population needs. However, war happens and it's not always avoidable. Again, your stance seems to be, "I hate war!" As I said, nobody likes war (at least nobody normal; brainwashed Muslim extremists seem to love it, tbh). There is quite literally no way for Israel to remain secure without engaging enemies like Hamas (who started the war). We have rules of war that people are supposed to abide by for a reason. Hamas chooses to take a dump on all of them, utilizing every dirty tactic in the book, yet you seem to solely blame Israel. Why aren't your efforts focusing on shaming Hamas and encouraging them to STOP placing their civilians directly in the line of fire? Perhaps you do and I've overlooked it, but it really seems like you're holding Israel to an impossible standard; one that isn't fair or realistic.

If you're wearing a front-ways baby pack and firing a gun at me, you better believe I'm emptying a mag at you to stop the attack, baby be damned. While I'd be heartbroken killing a baby, it's not reasonable to shame me for defending myself in that scenario. Yet during the equivalent in the Israel/"Palestine" context, your side is constantly saying, "What the hell is wrong with Israel for killing that baby?!" I never hear any vitriol aimed at Hamas for using a baby as a shield. Instead, it's, "Can you blame them after all this oppression?!" Like yes, I can and do.

6. I have no clue what you're referencing regarding me calling the idea of Israeli's abusing prisoners a "fantasy." I have only mentioned specific instances being proven horseshit, such as the dogs raping them (and they were horseshit). I spent pages talking about how horrific any type of sexual violence is, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if I'm all for it when it's Israel? I have told you my stance on this multiple times now, which you're ignoring for your own version of things. Perhaps you're incorrectly believing I'd blanket reject any and all claims like that against Israel when I'm only responding to specific claims I've heard that lack evidence.

I scraped all my posts in this thread and you can find them here. Again, please post any quotes of mine that seem to support rape as a tool for anybody, or any specific claims of rape that I laughed at and called a fantasy. I have no doubt that individuals in Israel could abuse suspected terrorists in custody. People are awful and war brings out the worst that humanity has to offer. I reject the idea that it's SOP for the IDF to have dogs raping hospital patients or that Israelis performed systematic gang rape while in "Palestine" like the 10/7 terrorists did in Israel. But if there's evidence to the contrary (actual evidence, not clipped Twitter vids), I'm down to see it. I don't condone SA of any kind by anybody. Anybody caught assaulting others like that should be swiftly dealt with.

I haven't followed the recent news much about Israeli's discussing raping prisoners or whatever you're referencing. I was banned for a week and wasn't participating in the discussion. But I'm not sure how that matters because my stance will always be that rape is unforgiveable and shouldn't ever happen, especially not in the context of torture or to gain information. I think any instances of this happening in Israel are going to be used as another false equivalence to Hamas, though. Like people reference IDF soldiers doing bad things by linking to the trial and sentencing of their behavior. You won't ever see that in "Palestine." I definitely think one side is far more barbaric than the other, so if that's what you have issue with, I have no problem acknowledging that as a jump-off point.

Please let me know what about these stances is so terrible or uninformed. Cheers.

It's not to do with Geneva. Palestine is a non-member observer state of the UN (the USA alone keeps vetoing full membership, up to as recently as this year), but it is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, and the ICC has accordingly declared jurisdiction in Palestine, which is why they've issued warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant and three Hamas figures, one of whom (Haniyeh) has subsequently been killed, apparently by the Israelis.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine

Israel, like the USA, has declined to become a state party to the Rome Statute, obviously to avoid jurisdiction.

https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/...

The current Israeli govt came into power by fighting a small war against the British in the 1940s

The British were protecting the Palestinians from the people who wanted to start Israel. After years of fighting and losing over 50 people, the British pulled out and stopped protecting the Palestinians

Then the Israeli govt was setup and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcible removed from their lands. Many were killed

Do you acknowledge this?

No, because it's an incredibly dishonest bit of revisionist history. The British were in conflict with both Arab and Jewish resistance groups. It's not accurate at all to say they were protecting the Arab population from the Jews. Jewish resistance groups were formed after Arab groups kept attacking those who'd lawfully immi.... In 1920, there were like 590,000 Arabs in the region and only 65,000 Jews. By 1930, there were 845,000 Arabs to the 175,000 Jews. On what planet are the Arabs requiring protection of the British from the wrath of the Jews? In reality, the British reneged on their promise to support the facilitation of their nation. They went back on their pledge to let Jews immigrate to their homeland, preventing many escaping the SS from entering. Instead, they were sent back and subsequently exterminated.

Haha, yeah. I remember it like it was yesterday. On that very day in 1948, the Jews said, "should we forcibly remove these Arabs for no reason?" and flipped a coin. Israel is a country because they successfully defended their nation against an attack from several Arab nations carved out of the Ottoman Empire. Egypt, Transjordan (which is the country already given to "Palestinian" Arabs), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon (with help from Saudi Arabia and Yemen) attacked Israel. Israel won. Get over it.

Your retelling is extremely inaccurate and very disingenuous.

To take just one of your rapid-fire misconceptions, that just isn't true. As people of the book, Jews and Christians have a protected status under the Koran. Muslims believe in both the Old Testament and the New. The Koran is a third prophecy designed for Arabs. Devout Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. You don't sound well informed.

by Phresh m

No, because it's an incredibly dishonest bit of revisionist history. The British were in conflict with both Arab and Jewish resistance groups. It's not accurate at all to say they were protecting the Arab population from the Jews. Jewish resistance groups were formed after Arab groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

en

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia

. Haha, yeah. I remember it like it was yesterda... See full post

Nakba denial in this thread now.

by Phresh m

No, because it's an incredibly dishonest bit of revisionist history. The British were in conflict with both Arab and Jewish resistance groups. It's not accurate at all to say they were protecting the Arab population from the Jews. Jewish resistance groups were formed after Arab groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots

en

1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia

. In 1920, there were like 590,000 Arabs in the ... See full post

I said protecting Palestinians. Let me help you out

“ After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[5] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt but, in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs. Another issue was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain promised its support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in PALESTINE . Mandatory Palestine was then established in 1920, and the British obtained a Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922.[6]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

en

Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia

But wait there’s more

A successful paramilitary campaign, sometimes referred to as the Palestine Emergency,[5] was carried out by Zionist underground groups against British rule in Mandatory Palestine from 1944 to 1948. The tensions between the Zionist underground and the British mandatory authorities rose from 1938 and intensified with the publication of the White Paper of 1939. The Paper outlined new government policies to place further restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, and declared the intention of giving independence to Palestine, with an Arab majority, within ten years. Though World War II brought relative calm, tensions again escalated into an armed struggle towards the end of the war, when it became clear that the Axis powers were close to defeat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_i...

.