Comment by whatshisface
18 hours ago
The issue with that type of reasoning is that if you swapped the parties the sentences would be the same. "Palestine removed generations of settlements from Israel, but was forced to attack because Israel wanted to wipe them out." You need to think in terms of principles that can apply equally to everybody.
There are 2 million muslims living in Israel.
There are zero Jews in Gaza -- not even just living ones, they had to remove the long-buried dead ones too.
The millions being starved purposely are for all practical purposes (and by the territorial recognition of several countries if that means anything...) also living in Israel. More to the point, I am not sure what that means for the discussion: I am sure I'd have evacuated my own citizens too before doing this.
The least important point is technical, which is that I said Palestine lost many homes to Israel over the years, not that every (just many) Palestinian lost their home. For what it's worth to the symmetry argument there were Jews happily living in Palestine before 1900, but let's not get distracted by the question of how good my opinion is when there's an obvious wrong anyone can agree with staring straight at everybody.
> For what it's worth to the symmetry argument there were Jews happily living in Palestine before 1900,
Someone's never heard of jizya, or the repeated slaughters of Jewish civilians in the century prior to Israel's creation: https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/pogroms-in-palestine-befor...
Not to mention what some backward, cruel warlord did to much of the Middle Eastern population starting in 622:
"Alongside his campaign against the Quraysh, Muhammad led campaigns against several other tribes of Arabia, most notably the three Arabian Jewish tribes of Medina and the Jewish fortress at Khaybar."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
And it never ended. It's continuing to this day.
Though your comment is phrased ambiguously ( not sure you are referring to the Arabs in Israel, or Arabs in Gaza/west bank), I try to respond to both.
For Arabs in Israel, it is important to note that inside Israel parliament knesset, there are Arab representatives, some who even call for the soft dissolution of the state itself ( rights of return). They are the descendants of the Arabs who didn't leave Israel during the 1947 Israel independent war. So no, Arabs there are by and large not removed at all by anyone. By contrast, there are zero Jews in Gaza or West Bank. Jews enter those places at their own peril, they could be lynched.
The Arabs in GAZA/West Bank are not under Israeli jurisdiction, and by their actions and words they are still declaring war on Israel, despite that they launched the war first every single time, and lost every single time, and play victim every single time. If Israel wanted to wipe them out then there is no need for Israel to accept the 1947 partition, the David peace accords (2000) or the Oslo accords (2008), which Palestinians all rejected wholesale. If Israel really wanted to wipe them out, the GAZA war following October 7 terrorist attack would be over by the next day as Israel dominated absolutely militarily.
Really, the conflict is really that simple. One side, Israel, wants peace, and the other, the Palestinians, who don't ( as captured by their slogan, "from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free", do look up on where is the river and where is the sea if you have doubt).
It is made complicated only because a lot of people try to obscure the reality. But that's the topic for another day.
> as captured by their slogan, "from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free"
The mental gymnastics required to make a call for freedom into a call for war are astounding. If i say “free tibet” does that mean i want war with china? What part of “free” is a threat to the people of israel?
> despite that they launched the war first every single time
This is such weird playground-like defense - “They started it!!!”. The actions and stated intentions of israel leading up to the 1948 war are pretty easy to see as a declaration of war - claiming other people’s land as part of your state. And then later Oct 7th is often portrayed as hamas “starting it”. But there were over a thousand gazans held by israel without charges on oct 6th. If israel is justified in murdering 80,000 for the hostages taken in oct 7th - is hamas’ attack not justified by their people held by israel?
To be clear, i’d say in both cases the murder of civilians was unjustified, but i don’t see how one can be justified while the other isn’t.
I assume that you are engaging in good faith, therefore I will respond.
On the meaning of Palestine will be free, don't westplain the Palestinians by reading your interpretation into their mind. Instead, listen to what they actually said.
https://youtu.be/w4iGFT9Yl9o?si=oWKWAUzlMSec4n67
A lot of misunderstanding about Israel stems from people not reading the situation as it is, ie: listening to what both sides actually say, instead, they are listening to their own projections of the Jews and the Palestinians.
And your take that on Oct 6 Israel held thousands of Gaza doesn't explain why Israel would unilaterally pull out from GAZA in 2005, which is just another way of saying that it's likely to be false.
1 reply →