What's the deal with Isreal vs. Palestine side taking in the West?
I feel like I've been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can't find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.
So far from what I've read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can't find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they're an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?
I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don't expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you're highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!
Okay there are more than 2 sides.
Personally I am on the side of civilians whether they are Israeli or Palestinian or Druze or Bedouin. I am also on the side of the doctors, nurses, and humanitarian aid workers. These are who I consider the Good Guys. "Look for the helpers." - Mr Rodgers.
But to cover your question, there's two separate issues here:
the claims of the belligerents
feelings about what is happening now in the Israel Gaza war
The past claims of the belligerents
I'm not going to go into this, but but it goes back to history and it's where the side-taking on the sides of the belligerents mostly comes from, because different people have different interpretations. Legally speaking Palestine is occupied by Israel (West Bank) and blockaded by Israel (Gaza). No one can get in or out, it's effectively controlled by Israel.
What is happening now
What is happening now is a "war" between the IDF and Hamas. People like me, who are rooting for civilians are upset about:
proportionality (so far about 33,000 Palestinian deaths vs 1,400 Israeli deaths)
mortality (currently over 1.5% of the population of Gaza have been killed)
civilian mortality - high numbers of children being killed (according to aid agencies, one is killed or injured every 10 minutes)
high numbers of humanitarian workers and medical staff being killed
inappropriate weapon choices (hundreds of 2,000lb bombs are being dropped, for reference the US used just one in its war against Isis.
widespread infrastructure destruction, particularly of hospitals and other important buildings
mounting evidence of starvation in the civilian population due to blockade of aid
Personally I am against anyone treating a civilian population like this for any reason, and I believe it amounts to war crimes. I was against the killing of civilians in Myanmar, Rwanda, East Timor, and I am against it now.
Side note: The median age in Gaza is 18, meaning literally half the people in it are still children.
Edit: I haven't given any sources cos lazy. I am happy to give them to OP or anyone in good faith (there are probably a bunch on the post history of my main which is livus@kbin.social). However, I do not speak sealionese.
good comment. the language or model that there must be “sides” to this is unfortunately an oversimplification. because it is not a two-sided or symmetric conflict. while attrocities are occuring from multiple fronts, almost everything going on can find its roots in the fact that Israel is an apartheid state, and any meaningful peace that exists in the future will only come to be by the dissolution of that apartheid regime.
Ok, from what I can tell, most of what people care about regarding the current conflict doesn't really involve around belligerents. So I think we can safely put that on the back burner. At least for the current wave of side taking. My one question after reading most of the comments is this, how many of Israel's violent actions against civilians directly target civilians vs targeting Hamas and have civilians stuck in the crossfire? Because I've heard of Hamas using civilian areas as staging grounds as an attempt to ward off enemy fire. Is Israel going and killing civilians outside of these instances?
Slightly unrelated question, are many people taking sides in the general occupation of Palistinian land, or is this newest wave side taking mostly focused on the civilians in Gaza vs Israeli force.
To answer the first question, sorry I keep breaking it into smaller components but again, separating it out makes it clearer. If we look at:
what the IDF intentions are
what their actions are
what the effects of their actions are
What people think kind of depends on how well we think it matches up and whether we think the first one is actually an okay justification for the third one. Like when is it okay shoot when you can see there's someone in the crossfire.
What their intentions are
The IDF and mainstream Israeli politicians publically stated intention is to "destroy Hamas" in order to protect the safety of Israeli citizens both in Israel and in the part of Palestine that Israel is occupying. Hamas is a broad term encompassing both militant (eg militant) and civil (eg Health Dept) organization. Some politicians have gone a lot further and said their intention is to remove most Palestinians from Gaza. Some have said that no civilians are innocent, but these are minority viewpoints.
What their actions are
This is where it gets tricky, and some of it is contested. What is common ground is that they have chosen to use an unusually large number of bombs in a built up environment full of civilians, using huge bunker buster bombs, and drone bombing of targets suggested by AI. It also involves a ground offensive, and there appear to be "kill zones." The IDF has set itself numbers for "acceptable" number of civilians per kill, which may be high, and also permits itself to bomb hospitals and schools. Here is an article which covers some of the AI concerns. They also keep tight control of humanitarian aid and limit what enters. There are allegations that are disputed, of widespread deliberate killing of wounded and civilians and children. We may find forensic evidence in the mass graves. The IDF dispute it.
The effects of their actions
I've covered this already above, but what stands out is the unusually high number of civilians and medics being killed, compared to other modern wars that involved urban warfare. To put the total mortality into perspective, during the Bosnian Genocide 3% of the population were killed over a 2-year period. 1.5% of the Gaza population have been killed in 6 months. The mortality statistics we have are for known deaths, those still buried in rubble are extra.
Using satellite images of before and after, analysts estimate 57-60% of buildings in Gaza are destroyed, rising to 75% in Gaza City. We also know the hospitals were bombed.
During the current war monitoring of humanitarian aid entering Gaza has drastically reduced the amount going in. (Before this war, Gaza did not function self-sufficiently. A significant part of the population (many were refugees) relied on humanitarian aid.
NGOs on the ground report that the current numbers of starving people will meet the technical threshold for it to be designated famine, by May.
For many of those who are on the side of civilians, there is no possible justification for killing this many people to get to each millitant. International law (eg Geneva Conventions) specifies how to treat civilian populations, and many international experts think that these rules are being breached. Moreover, the blocking of humanitarian aid is problematic, whatever the rationale.
Most of us live in civilisations where we do not find it acceptable to kill innocent people as way to also kill guilty people.
Ah, I see. Given those numbers it's pretty clear that Isreal is pretty much going scorched earth when it comes to Gaza. Good to know, thank you. I had just assumed the damages to infrastructure weren't as extensive as they were.
Edit: I also hadn't known about the active blocking of humanitarian aid, so that alongside some of those numbers really speaks volumes.
Edit 2: also no need to apologize, I mean I'm the one asking all the questions and you're graciously taking your time to answer them. The fact that you're splitting them makes sense to me. You've overall been very helpful and I can imagine that anyone that stumbles across this entire thread will likely also leave equally as informed as I have after reading most of it.
Alright, some of the side taking makes sense to me now.
I think it was really cool that you asked questions instead of just being content with assumptions.
Btw, here's an article describing how epidemiologists have been able to independently verify the mortality rate. It's from a while ago so the numbers are lower but you can still get a sense of it.
The answer to your second question to some extentit probably depends on which country you're in.
Generally speaking I think the people with strong opinions about land occupation already had those opinions before this war. The current wave is much more a reaction to what is happening to civilians right now.
I think the general population in the US are more likely to have pre-existing strong opinions about Israel Palestine because it's regularly in their news, and there is a sizeable US expat population in Israel. For me personally (I live in New Zealand) the human rights situation in Gaza normally sits on my radar alongside the situations in for e.g West Papua and Western Sahara. But right now, there is an active large-scale massacre of civilians taking place in Gaza.
There are reports of Israeli forces sniping children and pregnant women. These are, in each case I've seen, denied by Israel but confirmed by aid workers on the ground. There are plenty of confirmed reports of children with high calibre bullet trauma to the head as cause of death. Israel precision-bombed a World Central Kitchen convoy recently. Also a children's playground. These are just off the top of my head- there are more. I've seen too much footage of non-combatants being murdered for my liking. There's a lot. And there's no shortage of this kind of incident happening before Oct 7th. It's a pattern of behaviour.
So, setting aside the question of whether enemy presence is a justification for the killing of civilians, the answer is yes; Israel are almost certainly killing non-combatants outside of staging areas. The sole fact that over thirteen thousand children have been killed is enough of an indicator for me that this campaign is not targeted enough.
I'm trying to keep my language neutral, but it's difficult because it seems to me that this conflict, by the numbers, is a fight between the IDF, a highly advanced, well trained and supplied modern national military, and the Palestinians in Gaza, a blockaded civilian population. Under these circumstances, it's hard not to choose a side you want to "win", when winning for that side simply means being allowed to live under skies which won't kill you and your family in an instant without warning, cause or explanation.
The question of occupation of Palestine is a very complex subject. For me, the bottom line is that it is illegal, it has always been illegal, and yet Israel keep doing it, despite promising not to. This is part of the background of October 7th, but there's much more to it. Hamas are just as bad, but it always ends up being the Palestinians that suffer. And I hold (or held) our allies, Israel to a higher standard. I hoped for better from them.
There's sort of 3 sides to the issue.
I don't hear any real Pro Hamas people (since Hamas is very must a terrorist group), other than circumstantial ("Hamas is literally the only option Palestinians have aside the other side that is literally killing them"). Hamas basically wants to destroy Israel, which is what led to the October 7th attacks in which about 1,000 Israelis were killed. They felt that peace with Israel was not helping their goals, as Israel bombing Palestinians would help recruit more Hamas soldier with which to use to help destroy Israel.
The UN and many countries feel that despite Israel having the right to defend its citizens and attempt to infiltrate and destroy terrorists(Hamas), Israel is executing this plan in such a way that is unnecessarily killing thousands of innocent Palestinians(both through weapons but also starvation), about half of which are children.
A lot of the misinformation in regards to this topic are: "If you don't support Israel you're antisemitic", "You're either supporting Israel or you're supporting Hamas", "Palestinians overwhelming support Hamas", "Israelis completely support what their government is doing"
I'm too lazy to source the above so obviously assume I'm lying/wrong (same with anybody else not posting any sources). You should read actual articles from reliable new sources, but hopefully the above gives you some information to understand what those articles are talking about.
Nobody important seriously believes this. Not even Hamas. Well "Israel should be destroyed" is a popular position, because that's calling for an end to Israeli Apartheid. "Push them into the sea" rhetoric died in the 90s.
They do though. Specifically 80% of Israelis and 88% of Israeli Jews.
Mate, i have seen enough justification for 7/10 by calling every Israeli a legitimate target. And Hamas themselves called for the eradication of jews in their founding manifesto. Nowadays, that language isnt used on the new manifesto, but Hamas leaders (who just happened to sit comfortably in Qatar and Iran) have called for repetitions of 7/10, again, considering every israeli a valid target.
The pro hamas viewpoint is rare in the West but Netanyahu going for the world record on "most children killed" is also probably not doing favors for the public perception of Israel around the world.
That's why I said nobody important.
Uh yes exactly. Hamas radically changed their approach to the conflict in 2006, and then in 2017 updated their charter to reflect that.
Yes.
No. They've actively denied that Hamas fighters were responsible for any civilian casualties, and claimed that any such cases are accidents. Now that's obviously not true, but they definitely didn't consider every Israeli a valid target.
Considering that most of the casualties were civilian, thats like believing the IDF when they say they dont consider every civilian a target. It is reqlly hard to believe any Hamas leader in that regard, once you see who was killed and how.
66%, even including counting crossfire, the involvement of other less trained forces (including random Gazans who happened to enter through the hole Hamas opened) and Israeli friendly fire (the latter is not insignificant; there were multiple proven cases of Israel choosing to kill Hamas fighters along with hostages instead of letting them return to Gaza). Not denying the atrocities that Hamas actually committed, but given these factors 66% isn't indicative of any deliberate targeting.
What I'm trying to say is: Hamas's official stance is that Israeli civilians aren't valid targets. If they do consider all Israeli civilians targets (which considering how pragmatic Hamas generally is as an organization would make absolutely no sense) they're definitely not saying it out loud. They said they'll repeat 7/10 against Israel, the political entity, not that they'd keep killing civilians, is what I'm saying.
I mean they kidnapped civilians and refuse to release them. This is an extreme form of violence against innocent people, even if you accept the claim that the killing of civilians was unintentional which I find extremely dubious.
A charitable interpretation is that they have an extremely callous disregard for civilian lives in their campaign. Uncharitably, we could make an argument that their behavior indicates a clear desire to kill Israeli civilians. Either way, their claims here are total nonsense and I think actually make their malice towards Israeli citizens more, not less clear. They know what happened on Oct 7th and lying about it demonstrates that they have no desire to avoid the atrocities committed in the future.
This is a textbook case of don't blame the player, blame the game. Whatever little of Gaza's dignity Hamas will be able to preserve after the war will depend on the hostages. While it sucks for them it'd suck worse if after this is all over Israel starts "resettling" Gaza or continues their starvation campaign.
I don’t think Likud and IDF leaders care too much about the wellbeing of the hostages, and their behavior pretty clearly reflects that.
What they do care about is international pressure, especially from the US. So if Hamas wants to maximize their bargaining power they should be seeking to undermine the public narratives around the necessity of the war. One possible way to do this would be the release of the hostages, which is constantly brought up as a justification for continued attacks on Gaza.
It would also be, you know, ethical but I guess we are past pretending they care about that.
They don't, but the Israeli public does. This will matter if a Gaza remains after the war ends.
Honestly, nobody who doesn't already support Palestine will change their position because they released the 30 or so hostages that are still alive. It'll just be called a move for clout, which won't be too far from the truth. Also during post-war negotiation what's important won't be clout with the international community; that's more of a long-term thing. What they will need then is negotiating power with Israel. Maybe it'll be different if the international community actually takes an active role in negotiations, but we both know that's not happening.
So, according to your numbers, 20-12 percent of israelis don't support what the government is doing? Doesn't sound like israelis completely supports what the government is doing in Palestine. Thats a majority sure, but there's a not insignificant amount of people that don't support what the government is doing in Palestine.
I don't think anyone is trying to imply that all Israelis support what their government is doing, but 80% (including 88% of Israeli Jews, which are the main demographic we're looking at here) is a very damning number. Related: I don't have the total number for this one, but the number of Israeli Jews who believe Israel is using too little or an appropriate amount of firepower is 94%. Again not all of them, but these are pretty damning numbers and dispel the idea that there's real domestic opposition to what's going on in Gaza.
Maybe that's my bias, but that seems to be a very... specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?
I'd say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.
Just want to throw in. You said both states. Israel is a state. Palastinians do not have a state, they are under occupation and governance of the Israel state. It's similar to South African apartheid. This isn't two countries fighting. This is a colony that has subjugated the local population and are dealing with rebellions. Palastinians have no freedom of travel within Palestine (the geographic name of the area).
Most people aren't talking about the political parties but the civilians caught up in the middle.
Israel's government and Hamas are both fucking awful.
Very few people actually support the genocide of Palestinians or the people of Israel.
But genocide is happening to one.
This whole thing is a major political problem that has been brewing pretty much since World War II. I'm by far not an expert so I might get some details wrong but I'll try.
During the war, millions of Jews fled from the Nazis and the Allies were wondering what to do with all those refugees. One option was British-occupied Palestine. The reasoning was that it geographically coincided with ancient Isreael, the Jewish homeland. The problem is that it had been inhabited by Muslims for over 1300 years so obviously the Arab population wasn't too happy about giving up the region their families had lived in for generations just because some western colonial power had decided to give it to some refugees.
The plan was to split Palestine into two states - Palestine and Israel - with Jerusalem as a neutral zone under control of the United Nations. Because of the unstable situation - including terrorist attacks against the British administration - this was never fully implemented. The state of Isreael was officially founded in 1948 but there
was never any formal agreement on who controls which parts of the region. The Arabs got driven from their homes and only kept the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but were obviously never happy about that.(Edit: please see correction by @Sprawlie@lemmy.world below. The situation is even more complicated) While the general population would probably be okay with just being left in peace, there are radical groups like Hamas who want to take back what was taken from them by the British and Israel.On the other hand, nobody who lives in Israel today was involved 80 years ago when the British decided on their plan. These people were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives. So in a way, both sides just want to keep their homes. There have been several proposals for how we could solve this, including an official two states solution that would regulate the borders (obviously not favored by Palestine), a single state solution (forcing two groups who have been fighting each other for 80 years could be tricky) and reverting everything the British decided and kicking out the Jewish population (obviously not favored by Israel). There just is no good solution and so the situation in the area is heating up more and more. From their own perspectives, both sides have good reasons for what they're doing though the way they're doing it is obviously not acceptable.
(Edit: corrected 1400 to 1300. Math is hard)
This is one place I just want to offer some correction:
There was a formal agreement between UN/West and the Jewish people who occupied the areas that were to become Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine had a sizeable Jewish population already which is why it was also favoured.
It was the Arab nations who completely disagreed and said "NO" to the partition plans. Under which a large portion of the southern half of Israel would become Palestine-Jordan. (Jordan was originally intended to be the Palestinian/muslim portion). The WestBank was accepted as Jordanian in this agreement, as well as Gaza ownership was by Egypt. Israel would originally honour those borders.
Once the British Mandated ended and Israel formed, All the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel immediately, Calling for all Muslims within the Israel land to leave Israel and fight against it. Israel won this war annexing the entirety of Israel instead.
Israel would not actually take Gaza or the West Bank until later wars. They took West Bank from Jordan; Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt. They would later return Sinai to Egypt as part of Peace treaty, but Egypt did not want Gaza due their own history with the Palestinian's of the region.
As for the Muslim's who stayed in Israel after its forming? They're citizens and have full vote/power/rights as every single other Israeli citizen. Since Israel is a democracy with a fairly secular government (even if it's currently ran by right wing terrorists).
Thanks for the corrections. My knowledge about early Israel is fuzzy at best.
As you said in your edit, the situation is extremely complicated, because it involved groups that are historically opposed for generations, if not centuries.
Ty for the brief historical perspective I'm sure it was a very shallow overview but it tied together a lot of the other stuff I've heard into a way that makes more sense.
Thank you for the nice words. I just felt like with all the discussion of who did what in the last few years, people are forgetting why Israel and Palestine are fighting in the first place.
Of course there is a lot more to this. For example the fact that Jerusalem is considered a sacred place by three different major religions and so the question who controls it is not only political but also symbolic. It was literally the (official) reason for the crusades during the middle ages. In that way, a neutral Jerusalem might have actually been a good idea. Though of course we don't know what other problems that would have caused.
A Neutral UN city not directly ran by Israel or Palestine would likely have settled a lot of tensions. Firstly, Israel couldn't claim it their capital, which has been a major pain point for decades now. Something Trump further inflamed by moving the US Consulate to Israel in it.
If it were made a place where all religions of all type are allowed in all parts as a historical landmark, maybe there'd be a peaceful place where the three Bbrahamic religions could actually find common ground.
Instead they created a religious McGuffin to fight over.
Except a macguffin can be like. Stolen and/or destroyed. You don't have to murder everybody standing on it to claim it you can just be a regular dickhead and sucker punch the guy and walk off with it. If people get tired enough of people punching each other over it they can either lock it up better or just light it on fire. Land has to have people probably homeless or dead to change hands and almost no matter what you do to it it'll still be a part of the surface area of this rock we're stuck on or around for the conceivable future.
real life lore has multiple videos around the entire Israel Palestine complex, this one for starters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jyc-LzXqk0
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=7Jyc-LzXqk0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I am by no means highly informed, but so far, I didn't see a few things I think should be mentioned.
Both Israel's government and Hamas are definitely bad guys who found stirring hate towards each other a convenient way of staying in power. After all, If you have the stongest rhetoric towards someone who wants to kill people of your country, of course those people will vote for you and you can get away with things you otherwise couldn't.
There's also another side which I haven't seen explicitly mentioned and should be considered: surrounding islamic countries (who are surely not a homogeneous group). They are in a good position to help palestinian civilians, but don't do very much for various reasons I know relatively little about.
Palestine is under occupation. Every time anyone tries to help (like aid workers or even NATO), Israel attacks them. People say let them resettle in Egypt. They shouldn't have to resettle, lose their homes, Egypt shouldn't have to provide refugees services, etc. People always say, "Other Muslim countries should help them so they must not care." False.
I'll let others fill in the history of the rest of it. TLDR: Palestinian civilians are not all Hamas, but they are treated as such.
It can simultaneously be true that Palestinians should not be evicted from their homes and also that nearby countries (including Israel by the way) have an obligation to assist with the refugee crisis. There is no perfect solution to this crisis, and given the lack of collective consensus, each individual actor should be pursuing the least bad option available to them. I think for neighboring countries this includes letting in refugees at a minimum.
Israel responded with batshit overwhelming force to a terrorist attack by a contingent of Palestinian nationals and has comitted numerous war crimes against innocent civilians in the process.
Boy does that sound familiar
I can spot a bad faith question when I see one, and your comments confirm it.
I'm curious as to which side I was taking before I submitted this discussion. Because I think it's quite clear that I simply thought this was just another battle in the middle east sparked by land and racial tensions, and despite one side being much better equipped for extermination than the other, it wasn't particularly notable. My language doesn't feel pro Hamas, maybe It could be seen as pro Israeli because of that though. But I feel like that's exactly what everyone in this thread has been pointing out, that there aren't just two sides, and people aren't picking between Israel and Hamas (or even Palestine for that matter).
Heck I'm not even arguing with anyone here except you, so what do you think I could possibly be trying to achieve? Let me remind you the community we're currently discussing this in is !outoftheloop@lemmy.world .
Check out this video of Michael Brooks succinctly explaining Israel/Palestine even before Oct 7.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Shaun's video on Palestine is the most rational take that I've heard so far.
Listening now. Thanks for sharing
I'd never heard of him before, but I ended up listening to him all day at work. He seems very rational and compassionate. I owe you one
Yeah this was the first video of his that I've seen, but I've also been going through his backlog. He does seem to have his head on straight.
I used to be more in the "Israel has a right defend itself after they were attacked" camp, but then there was continuous reporting about aid being blocked, and people being shot when trying to collect aid, and reporters being obviously targeted, and an apparently wholesale leveling of buildings... and then I saw Shaun's video, and well that pretty much wrapped it all up.
I think it's pretty clear now that Israel is using the attack as an excuse to just take over all of that territory, and they don't care at all about killing everyone there.
I've been paying attention to this thing for close to 23 years.
When I came in, it was after a long period of time where the Palestinian government was sending suicide bombers. It must've been horrible to live through, but you can't change minds by making their lives harder, and you've got to take responsibility for your own actions.
Shaun really won me over when early in the video he states that Israel being more powerful has more responsibility in the peace process. It's not a revolutionary idea, but it was nice to hear.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Palestine
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Just in brief, ignoring some history and so on, Gaza has been under Israeli occupation for a while now, controlling essentially everything that goes in and out, including people. Hamas gained power there, and legit, the Israeli government has given resources to Hamas to keep them going, supposedly as an excuse to keep their thumb on the Palestinian population.
A lot of people supported the creation of a Jewish state coming out of WWII and the holocaust, but currently, and especially because of just how hard the Israeli military is going now, it's becoming impossible to not see how much the Israeli government just wants to take control of all the land and wipe out the Palestinian people.
Of course, there's more going on, and some people might disagree with my simplification, but I think this is as good of a simple explanation of at least my understanding trying to follow what's been going on in the region since the early aughts.
Because everything is sports teams also virtue signalling
Nailed it. Nobody ever has ever actually cared about anything but themselves.
If your genuine opinion on a genocide is that the side being subject to the genocide is "as genocidal" as the side perpetrating it, then you're too far gone to be worth convincing.
Except that you can’t deny that Arab countries have consistently, and for a long time, been both directly invested in the destruction of Israel, and in ensuring that Palestinians believe they too have a chance of ‘winning’.
The only objective difference between the ‘win’ condition of Palestine, the complete eradication of Israel, and the inverse desire by Israel to completely remove Palestine is that Israel actually possesses the funding and has a sufficient excuse to see it through.
Unless you keep that in mind, I see no possibility of solving the conflict in a lasting way.
Why would anyone accept the creation of a state inside of an already populated region? Now the circonstances are different Israel is already established state and most current Israelis are born there. So we have the choice between a one state solution or a real two state solution not a two state solution that benefits Israel the most. A two state solution where Palestine doesn't have a right to defend itself will never work. There is always a chance for Palestine to win in long term. Algeria got it's independence after over 100 years and i believe the longest colonization in history was 1000 years.
I'd spend my life trying to wipe out a country that was founded by evicting nearly a million people from their homes with no right to return, declaring the religion of the colonizers as God's "chosen people" whilst openly planning to occupy nearly all of its neighbours with the ultimate goal of demolishing every Muslim landmark in your territory to replace them with said Colonizer's religion.
And I wouldn’t say you’re wrong for choosing to do so. My comment is primarily a response to the idea that Palestine is somehow less focused on the idea of getting rid of Israel than Israel is on getting rid of them.
In fact, the simple fact that Israel was plopped into Palestine, and now claims the entire region on theological grounds is enough to show why both sides are ready to be so genocidal about it.
Hard to tell which side you're referring to, Oct 7 was an act of genocide and Jordanian forces fighting on behalf of Palestinians committed genocide against Jews in Jerusalem, but Israel gets accused of it, I believe inaccurately, a lot.
Israel is clearly perpetrating a genocide right now.
I am not saying Hamas wouldnt do the same if they had the opportunity to, but Israel is doing it right now.
Read the genocide statute linked above, genocide just requires an attempt to destroy a protected group in whole or in part, combined with some specific acts, has nothing to do with effectiveness or number of deaths.
Hamas openly intends to destroy Jews/Israel (which, as national, ethnic, and religious groups are protected) as per their charter. Israel claims they are attempting to destroy Hamas, which is not a protected group.
Call it a massacre, call it terrible, call it any number of negative terms, but it's not genocide.
Just listen to Itamar Ben-Gvir's opinions on palastinians. He does not care about the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians, they are the same to him.
Oh yeah he's a real piece of shit, loves Jewish terrorists, but he isn't conducting the war nor does his opinion represent Israel at large.
Their charter has been amended. I’m not going to say I know what Hamas is thinking but saying they openly intend to destroy the Jews is false.
Their actions speak to either a deliberate desire to do so, or a callous disregard for the lives of innocent Jews in their military campaign. But the same is true for Likud and the IDF. There is absolutely no way to claim Hamas is engaged in genocide and IDF is not. Not to mention that Oct 7th was a one off event while the mass-murder of Palestinians is ongoing to this day.
Hamas' genocidal intentions are not ambiguous. It's all nicely summed up in this article,
In order to make such a case about Israel, one would have to prove that their intentions are different than what they state, and all evidence indicates that while they may have more tolerance for collateral damage than they had in the past, they still go to great lengths to choose legal targets and minimize civilian casualties, doing things no other nation does to protect civilians. Meanwhile, Hamas obviously and intentionally targets civilians, as displayed on Oct 7.
It is genocide by the definition that they are directly targeting a whole lot of civilians who are not directly aligned with Hamas. By directly shooting them, bombing hospitals, preventing them from leaving Gaza and actively blocking foreign aid even though the UN has told them to stop multiple times. That's not "attempting to destroy Hamas", that's an active "attempt to destroy a protected group [Muslim religion, Arab ethnicity, Palestinian nationality, probably a mix of all three] in whole or in part".
Oct 7 was an attack. It was violent. We still don't know the casualties caused by hamas. Israeli government has admitted that some of their response killed Israeli citizens. They refuse to cooperate with the UN investigation into the Oct 7 attacks. There's also been some credible reporting refuting the scale of rape on Oct 7. I'm not trying to minimize an individuals trauma, but the Israeli government's rationale for bombing Gaza has been the scale of rape.
In short, we know there was a horrific attack on Oct 7.
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
The Oct 7 attack was about taking hostages. It was not about destroying Israel and its citizens.
Now the bombing of Gaza.... If you can't see that it's genocidal, try living in Gaza as a Palestinian in 2024. Seriously. Just move there. I'm so fucking tired at seeing these ghoulish fucking hot takes. 'Actual genocidal acts accompanied by actual genocidal language with actual genocidal social media posts but perpetrated by the team I'm cheering for isn't genocide because the other side is racist'
Of all my Jewish family and friends, it's only the people that had parents or were directly impacted by the Holocaust that still support Israel. All of the others acknowledge that that trauma explains their support for that flavor of Zionism. I can't fathom why someone that is far removed from those events can support this particular genocide. Especially considering some Holocaust victims have spoken out about how fascist the Israeli government is. Does that not make you question anything? Or do you just take everything that's been spoonfed to you with a smile and a thankyou?
Omfg your references are about things that happened 100s of years ago! The islamization of Jerusalem happened over a period of over 700 years, and stopped over 100 years ago! People are being bombed right now! You're justifying a genocide over something that stopped over 100 years ago!
What the actual fuck.
Some collateral damage probably occurred on Oct 7, but I fail to see why this is relevant to the discussion. Said deaths could not have occurred without Hamas' bloody attack on civilians and the chaos it caused.
I believe the accusations of rape despite criticism of the NY Times article, even the UN, which is often critical and skeptical of Israel, agrees it happened. And even without this specific claim there was enough barbarity, cruelty, kidnapping, abuse, murder, and genocidal violence (Content warning: NSFL, very disturbing footage) on display that day that I don't think it would move the ethical needle much on Hamas.
According to international law genocide is:
Emphasis mine. Note that political groups like Hamas are not included among the protected classes, and that's what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy. Not Palestine/Palestinians, who are protected as a national group just as Israelis are. Meanwhile, Hamas has been clear about their own genocidal intentions. This is why I believe Oct 7 was an act of genocide, as defined above, and Israel's war on Hamas is not.
The Oct 7 attack was not just about taking civilian hostages, it was an attempt by Hamas to create a permanent state of war, and part of their strategy to destroy Israel/Jews as established via their original charter and statements from their leader, (citation above.)
I'm sure it's terrible to live in Gaza but that does not change the definition of genocide. Nor does your dislike of people who point out inaccurate definitions.
1948-1967 isn't, "100's of years ago!"
I think people just like to get mad about something.
This is as good of a thing as any to be mad about.
To everyone who takes offense to this: I'm not saying you don't have reasons. I'm sure you do. Please don't share them with me. I'm so far removed from the conflict and I have so many problems of my own that I cannot spare any thought for this war. My only sentiment on it is that I hope that innocent people stop getting killed needlessly. I don't care what side they're on, if they're not intentionally part of the fighting, and they die as a result of the fighting, that's the kind of person I'm talking about. With a special additional note of the same regarding children. Kids can't really comprehend the reason for the fighting and death and therefore are incapable of "taking a side", so they're especially innocent in all of this.
In summary, stop killing people. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk
From the river of stars to the sea of galaxies, humanity will reign supreme.
Or something, inunno
Hot take: They are all raging cunts.
projection and lowkey racist lol, careful
I'm sorry, Palestinians are lead by a genocidal party? Hamas does not lead Palestine.
You're right, but they do lead the Gaza strip.
I was kind of under the impression that Hamas was a defacto ruling party in Gaza. Given their support (according to some in this thread) that Isreal has given to them previously to maintain Gaza, and their previous political standing in West Bank, as well as all the coverage surrounding the conflict. Perhaps I shouldn't of over generalized by referring to Palestine. Because Gaza seems to be the only Palestinian state actually involved in this war. But then again, I'm also attempting to use the same language to describe the scenario as I see it as many of the media sources and supporters of either side do.
Would you say Hamas isn't attempting to eradicate Israelis when convenient? Obviously they're not as effective as Israel's attempt to eradicate Gazans, but to me it seems like they want Israelis dead even more so than the Israelis want Gazans dead just due to the actions they have taken.
Hamas is a much more pragmatic organization than this. They were like that for a while, but stopped somewhere between 2000 and 2006. They also recently came out and said they'd lay down their arms and become a political party if a two-state solution is enforced. Now whether they mean it aside (I think they should be cautiously believed here) that's not the rhetoric of someone going for an eradication campaign.
People like taking sides, because it fits into any narrative.
You have Jews vs Muslims, White(not really) vs Brown, Western values vs Middle Eastern.
The progressives love Palestine because they are brown, Muslim and anti West/US and some because anti White.
The Nazis love Palestine because they are anti Jew. (although some Progressives seem pretty antisemitic nowadays too.)
The Conservatives love Israel because they are fighting Muslims and the middle east.
Moderates side more with Israel because the values align more than the theocratic Muslim ones and Israel is a good door into middle eastern affairs. But that requires Americans to think about stuff outside of the US, that's not black and white, so there are not a lot.
The thing is, most of these categories aren't actually that black and white.
Israel has taken in a lot of Arab Jews who fled persecution in their home countries. They are also allied with Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and probably more. So the "white" part is not true.
The religions are mostly true, although there are Muslim-majority countries allied with Israel, so its not as clear cut. (Iran is kinda using Palestinians as an attack vector against Israel, and Jordan helped with shooting down Iranian drones)
The west vs middle east part is also a bit weird, since Arab nations are on Israel's side. It's more of a inter-middle-east conflict and the west is supporting Israels side.
That sounds... weird. And ignores a lot of history behind why they are fighting. Do you have any sources for your claims or is that just your personal opinion?
Mostly just a personal explanation for why anyone cares. There a a lot of wars going on, many of them with more casualties. But for some reason this gets all the discourse.
Also I think the history is mostly irrelevant, in the sense that like .01% of people talking about it actually know it. In terms of why they are fighting it is somewhat relevant, but we should go too far back for justifications, only explanations. And for a solution, both sides need to look at the present and ignore history.
Okay, that explains why you're so far off the mark on some points. Framing progressives as "anti West" or even "anti White" is honestly insulting and sounds a lot like far right propaganda. Most left / progressive people I know that support Palestine do so because of a couple of reasons:
Killing civilians is bad. While both sides have been guilty of that over the last few decades, Israel is currently taking it to a whole new level.
Palestine has arguably the better claim to the region. Arabs have lived there from the 7th to the mid 20th century. On the other hand, Israel's claim amounts to "It was ours in ancient times" and "The British said so during WW2"
Israeli aggression comes from the government while Palestinian aggression comes mostly from Hamas, an extremist group who does not officially represent the country as a whole (yes, I know there are some members of Hamas in the government but their pseudo-military actions don't seem to be officially sanctioned to the point where the president has urged them to adhere to the 1967 ceasefire since at least 2006)
I would argue that almost nobody involved in the overall discussion actually supports Hamas' plan of eradicating all Jews from the area, not even the far right. Most people would be fine with a peaceful solution, be it two states or one. But because of the way Israel was founded (by a colonial power giving land that has belonged to Arabs for 1300 years to a bunch of refugees with no personal connection to the place), reaching a peaceful solution extremely hard if not impossible.
In conclusion: everybody sucks but at least right now, Israel sucks more.
Oh and as for why people talk about this and not as much about many other wars:
Explain why many non zionists jews support Palestine. Also arab countries leaders are US puppets that's why they support Israel but the entire populations are against Israel colonization
Buddy Zionist means believing Israel should be a state.
If you ask the four Jews who don't believe that, of course they support Palestine.
And of course its the evil US pulling all the strings again. Why do some people base all their politics on "America Bad"?
Why people believe Us is evil? Because there is a ton of example of US illegal wars and helping overthrowing democratically elected leaders. Non zionist jews could be neutral if they didn't believe in Palestinian struggles
Are they? Pretty sure Ive only seen the opposite but Im not following the topic very closely
Not all Arab nations are united in their beliefs or how government / religion should be linked.
Saudi for example has absolutely no love for Iran. Saudi maybe a muslim Kingdom ran by Sultans. But Iran is a Theocracy ran by the Clergy and is far more hell bent on spreading their form of religion to even the other Muslim nations. Jordan for example is fairly secularly run Kingdom. Iran despises that too.
As for "Sides". Israel has existing peace treaties and open relations now with several of it's neighbouring muslim nations. Egypt and Israel have been allied for decades now. Egypt maintains a border wall and blockade of Gaza as well. Jordan and Israel have been fairly peaceful now for decades. And Lebanon frequently looks to Israel military support to quell Hezbollah. Up until Oct 7th, Saudi Arabia was also in negotiations with Israel to normalize relations towards a peace deal.
I mean, yes. Jordan shot down some of the Iranian drones that were headed for Israel. I think some states are more behind the scenes, because the population doesn't like Jews, but the "monarchs" kinda see the writing on the wall. I mean Israel is a good ally to have in terms of military and economy.
Or Saudi Arabia. They have publicly stated that their AD systems shared information with Israel. Saudi Arabia really isn’t religious enough to care about Israel that much, at least not compared to more important goals that they can reach otherwise. Of course, they do fund various anti Israel groups, but not in any particularly heavy way that can be traced to them
Jordan shooting down drones that pass over their country doesn't make them an ally of Israel. It just means they don't like being caught in the middle of a war that others are fighting.
Reactions by the far left on this issue seem to support horseshoe theory
I don't like that theory. Democrats are on the spectrum of left and right. But if you are antidemocratic you are a whole different thing. And that way the communists and Nazis are the same. Its not really a horseshoe, just a separate bubble of extremists.
Edit: Democrats as in people who believe in democracy, not the party members.
Progressives generally don't hate Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus or any religion or ethnicity in particular. They hate people who think it's okay to harm innocents. Just happens that thinking it's okay to harm innocents currently has a strong overlap with certain groups. Is that so hard to understand?
I'll happily let you pray to whatever god(s) you like. If you want, you can do that right in my back yard. As long as we can agree that "Do not harm others" is kind of important. You know, that thing that is all over the Torah and the Bible. "Thou shalt not kill", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and all that?
No, progressives, leftists, however you want to call them do not want to overthrow western society, abolish conservative thoughts or anything like that. They just want to be left in fucking peace and believe that anyone who doesn't harm others has a right to live their lives. Doesn't matter if they are black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, straight, gay, cis, trans, Star Wars fans or Star Trek fans...
Oh and yes, we're just as annoyed by the few very vocal Stalinist weirdos as you are. They do not represent the majority of left-leaning people.
Edit: some typos and grammar