Israel slams UN chief for saying Hamas attack ‘did not happen in a vacuum,’ calls for his resignation

Five@slrpnk.net to World News@lemmy.world – 554 points –
Israel slams UN chief for saying Hamas attack ‘did not happen in a vacuum,’ calls for his resignation
politico.eu
187

You are viewing a single comment

Lebanon is also a bad situation, there are many non-equitable situations around the world right now.

We don't have to agree on Apartheid as a term, as long as we agree on the effects.

I'm happy the Arab Israelis have a reasonable life, I see that as the only path forward for the rest of the Palestinians living in Israel territory.

Israel did create the situation, Once it conquered the territories of Gaza and the West bank it now occupied a population of people. It could have integrated them into Israel as they have with the Israeli Arabs, or given the territory back to Egypt / Jordan after the war. But regardless, they now were the colonizers of a client population.

However, I stick with my earlier stance, it doesn't matter how we got here today, we are here now, and the only thing we can control is how we move forward. Blaming people for the sins, or omissions, of their ancestors isn't going to bring peace.

Israel did create the situation, Once it conquered the territories of Gaza and the West bank it now occupied a population of people. It could have integrated them into Israel as they have with the Israeli Arabs, or given the territory back to Egypt / Jordan after the war. But regardless, they now were the colonizers of a client population.

Palestinians are generally not interested in being annexed into Israel. In fact, that's probably what they oppose the most. Being consumed and assimilated is what the more religious and more conservative Muslims don't want. That would also be intolerable to Israelis. The very people who voted for Hamas, who carried out 10/7, who suicide-bomb cafes, should be granted citizenship? That's unrealistic. It would be like if the United States responded to 9/11 by making Afghanistan a state.

And giving back the land conquered during the Six Day War? That was more or less proposed in 2000, though most of it was actually going to a new Palestinian state. In Clinton's summit, Barak offered demolition of settlements, a right of return for Palestinians, half of Jerusalem and shared custody of the Temple Mount, and a return to the 1967 borders. Yasser Arafat, in my estimation fearing for his life if he made peace with Israel, rejected that.

In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza anyway, leaving a vacuum of power. In that vacuum, Hamas won an election a year later. This month, more or less as a direct result of giving Gazans more self-rule, a pogrom erupted from Gaza and killed over a thousand civilians. Surely you wouldn't say that's of Israel's design. And what would you have their response be? I can't imagine any country in the world that wouldn't respond militarily.

The living conditions of Palestinians are awful, terrible, inhumane. Especially in Gaza. But I don't see how or when Israel sat down and said "yes, let's create this." It's a consequence of a long series of events, and Israel is involved, but they didn't just sit down one day and design a two-tier society.

The continued violence is a consequence of the systematic oppression of ethnic Arabs in the Israeli territories. I know we don't agree on the word apartheid.

The Israeli government is in the position where they have to remove Hamas from the Gaza strip, it's going to be a bloody effort, but they have no choice.

The question becomes after they've removed Hamas, how do they work with the remaining Palestinians? The two-tiered system oppressing ethnic Arabs has to end, or they'll just be a different group that emerges.

Relitigating the past isn't going to bring peace, people might not be happy about a single state solution, but a two-state solution is not feasible. But hell, if a two-state solution works great I welcome it.

It is pretty clearly apartheid, the sterile streets in the West Bank that only one race can use, that is segregation of a population by an ethnicity, for the benefit of a minority. So continuing the previous business of oppressing an ethnicity is going to just continue the cycle of violence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/11/more-bloodshed-will-never-resolve-the-israel-palestine-conflict/f3cb49ba-67ee-11ee-9753-2b3742e96987_story.html

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/apartheid Any similar policy of racial separation/segregation and discrimination, particularly when in favor of a minority rule.

The continued violence is a consequence of the systematic oppression of ethnic Arabs in the Israeli territories.

I don't buy that theory. Hamas says their grievance is that a Jew somewhere has a pulse. I take them at their word.

The question becomes after they’ve removed Hamas, how do they work with the remaining Palestinians? The two-tiered system oppressing ethnic Arabs has to end, or they’ll just be a different group that emerges.

There isn't a two-tiered system. Israeli Arabs enjoy all the same privileges as Israeli Jews.

Now, the conditions in Palestine are inhumane and awful, but I don't see that changing with a full Israeli withdrawal. Keep in mind, Israel did mostly withdrawal from Gaza almost 20 years ago.

It is pretty clearly apartheid, the sterile streets in the West Bank that only one race can use, that is segregation of a population by an ethnicity, for the benefit of a minority.

That's just factually completely incorrect. There are several million ethnic Arabs living in Israel. And benefit? What benefit, exactly, does Israel realize here? Would you think the average Israeli wants to live next to Palestine? Surely you see the difference: White South Africans wanted apartheid. Most Israelis probably want to live as far away from anything having to do with Palestine as possible.

There's no benefit to Israel. There's no exploitation of labor or natural resources or anything like that aside from a few thousand settlers living as unlawful squatters in the West Bank.

It would be like saying that the United States' invasion of Afghanistan, which saw thousands of Americans die and billions of dollars lost, was akin to the British invasion of India, which was a very profitable enterprise.

Just because it's a first world country with a modern military doesn't mean that it's the same thing.

Again you bring up Hamas, I am not talking about Hamas.

After Hamas is destroyed completely apartheid and oppression will cause more systemic violence. The sterile road system in the west bank is a clear demonstration of apartheid.

A full Israel withdrawal would include no embargo with external trade. Fully isolating some land in your territory and not allowing anyone in or out is not a independent country, at best it's a prison at worst is a grave yard.

The resource Israel enjoys from Palestine is the land as demonstrated by the west bank.

After Hamas is destroyed completely apartheid and oppression will cause more systemic violence. The sterile road system in the west bank is a clear demonstration of apartheid.

Repeat after. Hamas. Is. Not. The. Result. Of. Oppression.

You believe that terrorism emerged because of the terrible conditions of Palestine. What you don't seem to realize is that the conditions in Palestine are terrible because of terrorism.

Hamas is not the effect. It is the cause.

A full Israel withdrawal would include no embargo with external trade. Fully isolating some land in your territory and not allowing anyone in or out is not a independent country, at best it’s a prison at worst is a grave yard.

Correct. Like existed for the 19 years leading up to Gaza and the West Bank being used as a platform of aggression against Israel-proper.

But have you thought of the wisdom of that for Israel? Every time they loosen their control of either territory, it results in more Israelis dead in the streets. As was the case in the months leading up to this one -- more permits for Gazas, fewer trade restrictions, more shipments. It seems those were mostly used to smuggle in weapons.

You seem to be saying the only solution for the area is a total arab lock down forever. And I simply can never agree with that.

Hamas didn't always exist, Hamas is a result of the conditions of the people.

There's not an Arab lockdown per se. Israeli Arabs are about as free as anyone in Israel. They're members of parliament, serve on the Israeli Supreme Court, all that.

What is true, of course, is that Palestinian Arabs are basically stateless people who live in inhumane conditions with few freedoms and fewer opportunities for dignity. That's a real problem. I don't necessarily have a solution that they would accept though. To live in dignity and liberty, you need to live in peace. To live in peace, you need to accept that your neighbors have a right to exist.

Hamas didn’t always exist, Hamas is a result of the conditions of the people.

Race-hate has existed for a very long time. It isn't a result of the conditions of anyone.

If Hamas were an insurgency against oppression, it would surely be active in the region's other far more oppressive landscapes.

The narrative that oppressed people turn violent and that's what this violence is probably partially true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Much of what fuels Hamas and the main reason the peace process is so challenging in the Middle East isn't the plight of oppressed people; it's plain old bigotry.

If tomorrow, Israel announced that it is now a pacifist state, and it melted down all its weapons, disbanded the IDF, and issued Israeli passports to Palestinians, the result would be a thousand pogroms and millions dead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_militant_groups

By my count there are 38 known Palestinian militant organizations. Hamas is just one of them. Hamas is like a flavor of ice cream. It's not special itself, it's just popular in a specific area at a specific time. There are non-religious resistance groups, they are also religious resistance groups.

I agree, if Israel changed its ways tomorrow and abandon all weapons, the state would collapse. A structured piece, like South African transition from apartheid, should be a slow methodical process, involving the integration of incentives for the entire population.

South Africa was not slow or methodical; it was pretty fast, at least legally. And for a whole host of reasons, it's just not an apples to apples comparison. You could go into the fact that Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbors, who were committed to obliterating it, or you could point out that it's a thousand-year feud, etc. It's just not a comparison that's useful because the differences are too great.

But probably the biggest difference is that there is no Palestinian counterpart to Nelson Mandela.

The concession Israel seeks is, basically, for terrorists to stop slaughtering them in the streets. That's it. What they want is peace. To go to the cinema without fear of being kidnapped or murdered. South Africa's government wanted free labor. Israel just wants to not have bombs go off in the street. Nelson Mandela's whole message was of peace, non-violence, and reconciliation, so if a single Palestinian leader were to offer such a message, they would be a hero to Israelis everywhere.

It's not like Israelis are getting rich off the toil of Palestinians. Quite the opposite. The comparison to South Africa really doesn't work.

And land, the settlers want the land... they would prefer the land not be occupied, but thats just a nice to have.

Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. wiki He was on the USA terrorist watch list until 2008 - time.com

Mandela was not a terrorist. That's an indictment of the US government's stupid "watch list," not Mandela.

In terms of land, do you really think they're coming out ahead in that? Before 2012, they had almost no settlements and they regular demolished them. How were they coming out ahead? Do you think the average Israeli is eager to keep the status quo for a few acres of land? Have you ever talked to an Israeli? They don't care about the land. Most Israelis I know are pretty angry about the squatters and just don't want their tax dollars going to bribe them into leaving like last time Israeli settlers were evicted from Gaza.

Do you think that in 1967, facing invasion from every side, the Israeli thinking was "muaahahaha, finally a full-scale invasion we can use as a subterfuge to add a new subdivision in 50 years!"

The military cost of occupying the West Bank is costing Israel many, many times what the land was ever worth many times over.

And keep in mind, the settlements are mostly in the West Bank, not Gaza.