So many empty hateful comments here miss the fact that 70 years ago was 70 years ago, and since then a whole new generation of people are living in the region. Israelies who don’t feel obligated to have Israel but don’t want anti-Semitism abroad, and palestinians who don’t mind staying where they were born, inside the 48 borders, but want a decent live inside of it. No leader from any place on earth is working towards them. Israeli leaders want the whole country for themselves, and Palestinian leaders also want the whole land for themselves. Neither is plausible without serious loss of life. So stop being so one-sided and actually acknowledge there are two sides to this conflict, and that all parties are reaponsible. Israel would give anything in the world to have peaceful rulers in Gaza.
Israel would give anything in the world to have peaceful rulers in Gaza.
All the evidence tells us this is not true.
I was with them until that comment. Israeli people might want that, but the action of the Israeli government has been the opposite. Funny they say ‘stop being so one-sided’ and say Israel wants peaceful rulers, like Palestinians don’t want that also.
like Palestinians don’t want that also.
Exactly. This fiction that Palestinians all want Hamas to murder Israelis, or even want them to stay in charge is dangerous, because they open the door to even more moderate people buying the idea that the only thing preventing peace is Palestinians wanting it.
While the majority of Gazans (65%) did think it likely that there would be “a large military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza” this year, a similar percentage (62%) supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel. Moreover, half (50%) agreed with the following proposal: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” Moreover, across the region, Hamas has lost popularity over time among many Arab publics. This decline in popularity may have been one of the motivating factors behind the group’s decision to attack.
In fact, Gazan frustration with Hamas governance is clear; most Gazans expressed a preference for PA administration and security officials over Hamas—the majority of Gazans (70%) supported a proposal of the PA sending “officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up separate armed units,” including 47% who strongly agreed. Nor is this a new view—this proposal has had majority support in Gaza since first polled by The Washington Institute in 2014.
that 70 years ago was 70 years ago,
I don’t have a row to hoe in any of this but that alone tells me you’re full of shit and apologizing for some evil asshole somewhere in the conflict. The past is always gonna matter whether you want it to or not.
An eye for an eye leaves Israel/Palestine a smoldering hole in the ground…
No, I think I got that wrong. How does it go?
Another retarded thought-terminating cliche that is making me think you are more and more sus.
What do you stand to gain from trying to manipulate someone like me?
Clearly you don’t understand what I mean, since you’re not that knowledgeable in this conflict. Palestinians’ leaders final goal is to get the 48 borders back. Nothing less and nothing more. And to that I said that it’s been 70 years, and you’ll need to grab it by conquest to get it, since the people lived there an entire life, and will never give it up. The leaders from both sides need to understand that any further border change between them will only make things worse, and the ones who started wanting to conquer was Palestinians. Now Israel is doing the same, but after many years, in which they got more right wing and more national, because of course they will when their busses are bombed by terrorists on the other side. I’m not saying Israel is clear of charge, I just say that they started better than Palestinians, then got more national as time went, because obviously - their enemies are murdering rapists. Palestinians are consistent with their desire to destroy Israel, Israelies have been building up to it (talking about each of their leaders, a.k.a the ones who matter).
So in other words you really really want me to reject the notion that the past matters, and therefore you can be dismissed outright.
You have no knowledge of the history and it’s painfully obvious.
Hamas exists because Israel killed secular resistance movements and funded Hamas’ rise.
i understand you are well intentioned but really also simplistic and generic. what you have said can apply to any conflict just changing the names.
the world through the UN resolutions has clearly indicated who is the oppressor and violators of human rights.
it is the state of Israel itself.
Right now? Yeah, definitely they’re violating human rights. But what are they supposed to do given their history? Every Palestinian leadership ever called out for civilians to be "jihad"s (terrorists) and kill as many as possible. I was simplistic because everyone here on lemmy also talks simplisticly. Talk of no nuance and no faults on both sides, mainly say “israel bad”, “israel apartheid”, “israel should stop existing” - all while forgetting this conflict has two sides. Yes, one side is poorer, but that doesn’t make them more just. Both are wrong, but arguably palestinian leadership are the worst here. Being at a huge disadvantage and still choosing to fight a war they’ll lose, while in the process keeping their citizens poor. At least Israel evacuated the cities near Gaza, while Hamas blocked people evacuating outside of a warzone.
sorry for late response.
well,is it not true that the entity who denies the right of existence to the other side has been Israel?
is it not true that Israel is a terrorist state by any definition of the word?
and is it not true that Hamad is truely something which if it did not exist, Israel would wish it existed?
and is it not true that that which Israel wishes for, Israel gets?
what are your thoughts on these?
So stop being so one-sided and actually acknowledge there are two sides to this conflict, and that all parties are reaponsible.
I find comments like this frustrating.
There may be two sides, but there’s only one side with an actual military and nukes and only one side running an apartheid. The only reason people aren’t referring to Israel as a terrorist state (which they are) is that they’re destroying hospitals with bombs dropped from planes and shooting news reporters with guns held by soldiers in military uniforms.
The other side has no military, has been blockaded for sixteen years, is terrorized and killed at will without recourse, and isn’t actually allowed to leave.
What makes Israel the criminal here is the power they wield and how they’ve chosen to use it.
So sure, yeah, there are two sides, yes, but the two sides are very, very different.
Oh so because the other side is weak they’re supposed to just sit idle when they murder pillage and rape? You’re disregarding all the brutal fights Israel has fought against its neighbours as “they’re strong so boo hoo”. They also have thousands dead. They’re also terrorized daily. Just because they’re stronger doesn’t make them less right. Again, they of course have a responsibility in this situation, but come on. Please tell me of any rocket launchers hidden inside a hospital Israel has. Blaming solely israel for the palestinian miserable lives is half the story. A big part of it is their terrorist leadership who take advantage of their poverty to promote a gruesome war they started (not talking about these days, talking about 48, where all the UN agreed on something and they chose to invade. Since then both sides are fully taking part in this war.).
You could have said the same thing 70 years ago about the leader if mandatory Palestine who was appointed by the British colonizers and collaborated with Nazis, and that a group like Irgun bravely fought against them. The same Irgun that carried out the Deir Yassin massacre.
What Israel’s government is doing is wrong, and they should pay for it. And Israel should pay reparations. But the majority of Israeli’s, Palestinians, and American Jews and Muslims just want peace man. This whole thing about who colonized who is silly.
No, Hamas is palestines only means of fighting their oppressors. The US has made military conflict impossible for Palestine to win, and so they resort to harming whichever Israeli they can find.
In reality, there are far more than two sides. At least we should look at four groups: Israel and Palestine, crossed with militant and non-militant.
Thinking in terms of only two sides is a trap, because it invites people (not you, but others who have the same starting point) to justify mass killing in the name of revenge or justice or deterrence whatever label they prefer.
Massacring civilians is fine, but occupying is a bridge too far, I guess.
I definitely get your point here, but a ground invasion would be irreversible. They would never leave Gaza
They didn’t demand evacuation back then. They invaded, killed a bunch of people, declared victory, then left (obvious oversimplification). This time, they ordering the civilian population to leave seems to be an indication they expect to invade, murder stragglers, then annex the land once it’s empty and leveled. It does seem to go along with the rhetoric of “exerting a price they’ve never dreamed of”.
It’s ok I told the angry pitbull to not attack the baby I slathered in steak sauce. Anyway, off to golf.
Stop funding it.
Perhaps stop funding Hamas. USA has given Palestine several billions of dollars in aid, which they divert to the hands of Hamas. Ditto for rest of the western world. It isn’t just Iran and Qatar who enable them, it’s all of us.
Your post uses double speak. Opening with Hamas and switching to Palestine.
Hamas was democratically elected but they stopped allowing elections. They don’t represent Palestine and intentionally conflating relief efforts with funding Hamas comes off as more than a little racist.
If you’re parroting some news source you may want to look for your news someplace else. If these are really your own views you may want to examine them if you don’t like sounding racist.
If you don’t mind, then by all means, carry on. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously outside of right wing circles.
Also worth adding, since people don’t seem to realise this: The majority of Palestinians alive today were not of voting age when Hamas won those elections, and a very substantial proportion were not even born.
And even then, of course, while Hamas won the largest number of votes, even back then they still only had the support of a minority (ca. 44%) of the electorate.
Exit polls during the same election showed near 80% support for a peace agreement with Israel, and 75% who wanted Hamas policy towards Israel to change. In other words: It’s also disingenuous to see even the support for Hamas that was there in elections as support for the more extreme aspects of Hamas’ actions.
It’s this part.
We’re telling them they’ve gone too far, seeing rules… and giving them weapons. Are we giving them seasons so they listen?
And if they don’t listen, doesn’t this make us complicit and with exceedingly poor intensional optics?
They know that the worst that will happen is a stern warning. “Don’t do that again, but it was justified. But don’t do it… OK, just a little bit, but still.”
The wink and the nod really spoil the effect of the stern look and strong finger wagging…
I don’t think America, the country that arguably occupied Afghanistan, gets to take the high road here.
Whataboutism at its finest, folks. “Murika done did it, so they can’t take a stance.”
I don’t think Israel would benefit from occupying Gaza, mostly because they have already done that before and know it doesn’t work.
You’re missing my point.
Insinuating that because America occupied Afghanistan they don’t have the right to make statements about Israel occupying Gaza is absurd.
Frankly, Gaza is already an open air prison. They can’t leave, the don’t have real autonomy, their food, water, electricity, and health are all effectively controlled by Israel.
I didn’t see the interview, so I’m basing this on just the quotes from the linked article, but Biden stopped very short of criticism and appeared to becoming from a strategic “it’s a bad plan, do it differently” perspective rather than a moral high-ground perspective.
Which is consistent with US foreign policy, even if I think it’s casually glossing over some atrocities in a way I find truly revolting.
