The war absolutely did not need to happen. Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon and was fully complying with the jcpoa. It's mostly the US and Israel that have acted I'm bad faith.
Most countries in the region torture their citizens, even Israel except it's Palestinians, because it's a racist apartheid state.
Let's not pretend we care about funding terrorists when it's the US that has the biggest supporter of terrorism in the last 70 years.
You're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do.
Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
Palestinian citizens in Israel do not have the same rights as the Israeli Jew, with more than 50 laws discrimination against them. They also face systemic discrimination and also you cannot marry between faiths, all the hallmarks of apartheid. Initially Palestinians within the Green lines were also under military occupation and only after 80% of the other Palestinians were either massacred or ethnically cleansed, so it was basically a forced acceptance. Israeli policy has always been to have a an ethnic supremacy for Jews, so the representation in the Knesset is tokenistic at best. If Israel decides to expel Palestinians in Israel, there's nothing they can do, its the tyranny of the majority.
Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the option of becoming Israeli citizens, except under rare circumstances.
Its laughable that when you say that there are investigations. The number of incidents of journalists, medics, hospital workers being murdered and even children being shot in the head with sniper bullets is shockingly high.
One case is the murder of Hind Rajab where more 300 bullets were shot at the car she was into. Despite managing to call for an ambulance, Israel shelled it killing all the ambulance crew and 6 year old Hind Rajab.
Another example is the 15 ambulance crew murdered by Israel forces and then buried.
Even before the genocide, the murder of the Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was proved to have been done by Israel, after they repeatedly lied and tried to cover it up. Another case was this one, where a soldier emptied his magazine in a 13 year old and was judged not guilty (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2)
The examples and many others are many and have been documented by the ICC and other organisations. Saying that it's not nothing is a distinction without a difference
> and also you cannot marry between faiths, all the hallmarks of apartheid.
Marriage laws have nothing to do with apartheid, a system that uses race to differentiate peoples.
There are plenty of countries where marriage is done on religion basis and there is no civil marriage at all. What does it have to do with Palestinians?
> Because it is imposed by a a colonial population on the native Palestinians in order to maintain an ethnic majority.
So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?
Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?
Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?
> So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?
Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism. In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.
> Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?
> Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?
If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.
Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).
> Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism.
But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.
> In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.
The same way numerous NGOs help migrants today to move and settle in the EU. I am willing to bet $100 you do not see them as colonizers, right?
> If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.
You are twisting facts and lying again. The purchase of lands happened way before the British mandate even. Are you saying it never happened?
> Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).
How can jews be white when they were never considered the same class citizens in Europe at the time? LOL
Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?
> But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.
Yes they did, this was the Nakba, as documented by Israeli historians like Illan Pappe and Bennhy Morris
The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied and upon Palestinians clamouring for their own state, it was decided to take territory by force.
White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.
> Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?
You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism. The narrative is based on historical evidence. I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
> The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied
Palestinians owned about 8%. The rest was owned by the Ottomans and later by the British mandate.
> White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.
You are contradicting yourself. White supremacy is either about race (ie white) or not. If it’s not about race at all, then how can it determine racial hierarchy???
> You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism.
I don’t care who you are. I argue about your claims, and not ethnic or cultural or ancestral background. You can be the Moses himself and still be wrong.
> The narrative is based on historical evidence.
You are not.
> I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
What does it even mean? Are you saying Jews are nazis?
> Gotcha. So, refugees are colonizers then, right?
Once you start making natives refugees themselves and oppressing them, yes
> Palestinians owned about 8%. The rest was owned by the Ottomans and later by the British mandate.
So not owned by Jews either. Also most of African colonies were not owned by Africans themselves so by your argument they could not own the land they had been living on for generations? Really bad argument there
> You are contradicting yourself. White supremacy is either about race (ie white) or not. If it’s not about race at all, then how can it determine racial hierarchy???
Because what constitutes a race shifts according to what is convenient for the powers that be. Since early Zionist Jews in Palestine were primarily European, they were considered worthy, because it was suitable.
> I don’t care who you are. I argue about your claims, and not ethnic or cultural or ancestral background. You can be the Moses himself and still be wrong.
You asked me in your previous comment "Man, why are you like that?", so I answered.
> The narrative is based on historical evidence.
Multiple historians, including Israeli ones have researched the subject and even there are differences on some points, they broadly agree that the Nakba existed. To deny it is the same thing as denying the Holocaust.
> I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
I'm simply saying that I'm not making a special case for Jewish people committing war crimes. I don't think Jews are Nazis, but I do think that zionist rhetoric and methods, especially in Gaza, shares disturbing similarities to the Nazis.
> List them.
- Citizenship and Entry into Israel lay (2003), denies the right to acquire Israeli citizenship to Palestinians from occupied territories even if married to citizens of Israel
- Absentee's property law, which expropriates the ethnically cleansed palestinians in 1948
- Land Acquisition for Public Ordinance, which allows state to confiscate Palestinian land
- Jewish Nation state law that stipulates that Jews only have the right to self determination
> which allows state to confiscate Palestinian land - Jewish Nation state law that stipulates that Jews only have the right to self determination
Similar law exists in Palestinian Authority -- no land can be owned by Jews. Selling land to jews is punishable offense.
> They are being occupied illegaly for decades, remember?
Who? You have to be specific.
> by a supremacist ethno state, remember?
Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.
> Similar law exists in Palestinian Authority -- no land can be owned by Jews. Selling land to jews is punishable offense.
Source? but even if true, I suspect this is an act of resistance against settlers who are already encroaching on Palestinian land through intimidation and terror tactics (poisoning goats, burning trees, cars, houses and evening murdering palestinians, with the protection of the IOF). In any case, the PA is a puppet dictatorship controlled by Israel, so these laws are essentially powerless to stop the stealing of land by Israel. This argument ignores the fact that Israel is gradually ethnically cleansing the rest of Palestine by seizing more and more land every year.
> Who? You have to be specific.
Palestinians are being occupied by Israel, the West Bank since 1967 more specifically.
> Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.
Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.
Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel. Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals. Given the current genocide, and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.
> Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.
Stop shifting goal posts. The fact that Israel is a jewish state does not mean that it is a "supremacist" state (what does it even mean?). There are plenty of countries around the globe that have priority for specific ethnic group. For example, Spain, Poland, Austria, etc. Are these all "supremacist ethnostates" as well?
> Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel.
Ah, right. So, why are you focused on Israel though? Don't you think that there is a bigger fish to fry in all these other countries, where minorities by law are disenfranchised?
> Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals.
This is a lie. For example, during the invasion to Iraq, allied forces prosecuted teenage fighters as well. Why do you lie? Like, all your claims are easily disputed with a simple google search. It seems to me you are obsessed with human rights violations only when they are done by Israeli forces.
> Given the current genocide,
There is no genocide. There are plenty of conflicts with even higher civilian casualty rate, with a clear intent to destroy the population as a whole that the current iteration of a war in Gaza. I know that today, for some reason, everyone expects wars have no civilian casualties, but in reality is not achievable.
> and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.
Waging wars tells you nothing about the tolerance of a country and its populace. If I were to use your line of argument then I can say that any society that engages in war is intolerant, which is absolute bs.
It would be hard to demand love to Gazans from Israelis after October 7th. And if you do, then I can make the same argument and ask the Palestinians to stop their "resistance" and simply be friends with everyone around them.
They're under military occupation by a country that uses the presence of Jewish people as a justification for annexing Palestinian land. There are American billionaires who are pouring tons of money into buying up Palestinian property and giving it to Jewish settlers, so that Israel can lay permanent claim to the land.
Of course the Palestinians are trying to stop that.
Ah, I see. As long as the injustice is done towards the group you don’t like, then it’s not injustice.
You see, this is why it’s so easy to see through your claims — they are not rooted in universal values, but rather in double standards, which are easy to call out.
Its incredible when you consider that they have operating what is essentially a fascist police state in the West Bank for decades where the population has essentially no right and are frequent targets of pogroms by settlers.
In Monty Python fashion: if you disregard the genocide, the occupation, the ethnic cleansing, the heavy handed police state, the torture, the rape of prisoners, the arbitrary detentions with charge, the corruption, the military prosecution of children, then yes its a democracy.
All of your morally indefensible points can still happen in a democracy; democracy doesn't equate morally good, it means that the morally reprehensible acts have a majority support from the population.
Which is one reason why Israelites get so much hate nowadays.
The current government is in power by a small majority, meaning that it is strongly contested by about 50% of Israelis (on most matters). That means against settlements, for ending the war, and largely liberal views. But no, we won't put out head on a platter thank you very much.
I said ethnic cleansing, not genocide. Although genocide is what has been happening for the past 2 years in Gaza as described by even Holocaust scholars.
Your argument is a typical claim of racists and zionist colonialists.
1st: you claimed Israel was carrying out ethnic cleansing since 1948. You are now trying to mix words, but when you do ethnic cleaning, you carry out genocide. You were caught in your dog whistle and then tried to get out of it with semantics.
2nd: “Zionist colonialists” is what you call the people that want to have their home in the tiny piece of desert where they where expelled from. By contrast you don’t seem to have any qualms about the Arab colonialists that took all the Middle East and north of Africa. In fact, you support they should even get to keep the tiny piece of desert that belongs to the Jew people. Your problem clearly has to lie in the ethnicity of the people doing the so called colonialism (you even go as far as calling colonialism to people taking hold of their homeland).
While the Nakba was not a genocide per se, it is now one since Oct 2023, the trajectory was similar in Algeria which also culminated in a genocide, that was my main point
"the Arab colonialists that took all the Middle East and north of Africa.": that sentence is misleading. Arabs conquered the other kingdoms, just like the Romands or Greeks did. In no way did they establish an ethnostate.
While there is some desert in Palestine in the south, the north sees heavy rainfall rainfall in upper gallilee of over a metre per year.
Why does it belong to the "Jew people"? On what basis? If its a religious argument then that is not a valid basis for expelling the native Palestinians.
If its based on ancestry, there is little basis for that either. Jewish people like myself cannot claim that all there ancestors were from Palestine. In fact it is probably that Palestinians can claim more descendance from the Jewish people than people who identify as Jewish (excluding existing Palestinian Jews). Zionist colonialists where like myself, European jews, with mostly European ancestry. They were not reclaiming their land, they replicated the European white supremacy ideology in order to "transfer", as they said, the native population that they saw as inferior.
Therefore your argument is very similar to white supremacists who justify their twisted ideology with a very superficial and wrong view of history.
No, your main point was "IDF who have been ethnically cleansing and murdering Palestinians since 1948". When called for with hard data that shows how preposterous that claim is, you altered it to an equality preposterous claim of some ongoing genocide.
Also, the only ethno state in this conflict is Palestine, where they persecuted or even eliminated every single Christian and Jew.
Israel, on the contrary, has a Muslim community that even has elected representatives in the Knesset.
Whether the population increases or not is irrelevant.
"Also, the only ethno state in this conflict is Palestine, where they persecuted or even eliminated every single Christian and Jew."
This is a blatant lie. Christians, jews and muslims were coexisting peacefully before Israel was created. Israel is murdering Christians in Gaza and the west bank and discriminating against them.
Palestinian community in Israel is also discriminated against with laws that give Jews preferential treatment. They also face systemic racism. This is part of an apartheid system as documented here https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
Their representation in the Knesset is tokenistic at best. As they are always a minority (since rest of Palestinians have no rights in the west bank and the ones in gaza are not even considered humans by Israel), they can never have any meaningful opposition to the fascist policies of the extreme settlers.
I see that you are also denying the fact that there is a genocide, reminds me of the neo nazis that were telling me that the Holocaust didn't happen, even though my own grandmother went through it.
"Seems to me you are really hard trying to ignore reality that the very next day after Israel was granted independence by the British, all the surrounding Arab nations tried to destroy Israel"
This has been debunked many times by Jewish Israeli authors like Illan Pappe and Benny Morris. Arab nations intervened 6 months after the start of the zionist ethnic cleansing campaign.
Seems like you are fully into the zio nazi alternate reality, no point in arguing and anyway you don't cite any sources for your claims.
"The civil war in Mandatory Palestine became a war between separate states with the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, a few hours before the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight. The following morning, the regular armies of neighbouring Arab states – Egypt, Transjordan and Syria – invaded territories of the former Palestinian mandate allocated for a future Arab state according to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine."
"On December 31, 1947, having recruited a few thousand volunteers, Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni organized the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[34] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Husayni's tactic had paid off. Almost all of the Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed.[35] The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and North of Galilee was even more critical."
"Through Plan Dalet, Zionist forces had already, from 1 April down to 14 May, conducted 8 of its 13 full-scale military operations outside of the area allotted to a Jewish state by partition, and the operational commander Yigal Allon later stated that had it not been for the Arab invasion, Haganah's forces would have reached 'the natural borders of western Israel.'"
To those continuing to participate in this subthread:
This discussion thread is now over four days old and people are still engaging in inflammatory back-and-forth over historical facts or interpretations of historical facts.
This re-affirms what we see too often with these kinds of topics; that the people who are the most motivated to participate in them are the most attached to their pre-established understanding of the topic and mostly want to keep beating others over the head with it. This is not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for.
We want HN to be a place where people with different perspectives can discuss difficult topics like this in the spirit of curiosity and come away having learned something.
That's not possible when people respond to opposing arguments with barbs like this:
When called for with hard data that shows how preposterous that claim is
This is a blatant lie
This is an absurd lie, that’s either deeply rooted anti semitism or just blatant propaganda.
Seems like you are fully into the zio nazi alternate reality
Please step away from this discussion, take a moment to have a read of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
for those in the UK