Verso is giving away a whole lot of their ebooks about Palestine. Anthony Lowenstein just won a Walkley award for his book "The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports The Technology of Occupation around The World", so you know journalists think it's the real deal.
Plenty of others there if you'd like a deeper understanding of what's happening in the middle east right now.
That's probably because that's the one being murdered in the numbers
It's a war that Hamas started.
They should be protesting about Hamas causing all these deaths.
@jv: in this event, yes. Overall this is not isolated, and as much as you might think that's what they should - the cold hard reality is that the civilians that they are protesting for are being murdered in the 000's by one side.
Does the Israeli government (which it calls itself a democracy and people of the civilised world)?
No. But West bank did and what good did this do to them? Other than having more settlements encroaching their land.
Gaza is not a country, it is an occupied territory, described as the largest open air prison on earth. Every drop of water and morsel of food that goes in requires Israeli approval.
It was Israel preventing any form of international presence in Gaza, including application of international laws describing what Israel is doing as “Apartheid”.
(https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af…)
What is your point?
Your comment is very naive and full of rhetoric. I’m not saying pro or against, just saying you can clearly tell people who know what they’re talking about and people who are media forwarders.
@bravyboy: Apologies for being a naive media forwarder.
Apologies for being biased towards people who’ve been occupied for 75 years, kept in inhumane conditions for decades and who are being slaughtered at will whenever someone sneezes.
Please educate me
@Xizo: Okay I will educate you. When you say 'people who have been occupied for 75 years'. Define occupied? Which people? Are Hamas and PLO the same thing? Are Hezbollah involved? What about Jordan and Egypt? When and why was the term Palestinian coined, and what did it mean? What does the land of Judea mean? How much do you know about the 6 day war? Thoughts on Yasser Arafat? Whats daily life like in Israel as we speak - is it the same in all areas? Does everyone in Israel agree with the government? 'Slaughtered at will whenever someone sneezes?' - youre against this on all sides?
You have written a tiny summary point in one sentences summing up an incredible diverse, complex political, religious landscape with a 'media snippet'. The middle eastern conflict isnt two people sitting in a room fighting - its as complex as it comes. Theres different religious and political sects within each country/territory - if you feel like you can speak for all of them then you are NAIEVE
@Soldier: Dont think you can summarise it like that - its not a kids storybook! This was actually the British Mandate of Palestine (interesting if you look up the historical context of the word Palestine). This was a hardly occupied land but was a COLONY of Britain, which had a history of people being invaded, kicked out and recolonised, all the way from Judea, through the Romans, Babylonians, Ottomans, British etc; I'll let you define when we started 'counting' :)
Some other interesting questions to ask about that time is who was living in Judea - which is about 500 years before Islam was invented. Also interesting to study the decreasing population of Jewish people in all the surrounding countries over the last 100 years and why - just conversation starters.
Anyway, the people that are called Palestinians today actually only started identifying as that in the 60s. There has been many wars, ceasfires, peace agreements in that time. Atrocities on both sides.
But my point being - the above should show you how complex this all is and I want you to keep asking yourself if you actually understand the issue.
Gaza is not a country, it is an occupied territory
With an elected governing body that commits terrorist acts on innocent people at concerts…
@jv: Yeah, terrible. The primitive Hamas killed 1400 Israelis, 400 of them were SOLDIERS (look it up, every single name of them is published).
So, 1/3 were a valid target. Israel killed 15,000 innocent people of whom 7 thousand children buried under their homes, and failed to present any evidence about how many Hamas fighters it killed.
EDIT. Forgot to state the obvious, that Hamas seems much better at hitting its targets than one of the most advanced militaries on the planet
Actually, scratch that. After storming Al-Shifa hospital, they did show 15 guns and a calendar as proof of terrorist activity.
That is not to mention, as published in Haaretz, many of the festival goers were shot by blind Israeli fire. Something they’re good at.
So, if your heart bleeds for “innocents”, who’s the terrorist?
@Xizo: Ahh yes, the number game… if that's the case we should have all been on the Nazi side in WWII, Brits killed wayyyy more civilians than Nazi Germany. Actually, that's a valid comparison, as Hamas are literally Nazis
@BargainCowboy: Funny you say that. Hamas was FOUNDED and FUNDED by Israel, something Netanyahu was bragging about until recently. You can draw historical parallels from that as well of the free world funding Nazis.
I’m not trying to argue with you, the situation is morally crystal clear, there’s no point trying to change the mind of genocidal apologists.
I’m only responding with established facts for others to read.
If you want to keep arguing that it is ok for Israel to bomb the hell out of Gaza and clear it of every last remaining human through killing or displacement (like it did with the rest of the land it occupies), the pleas go ahead, I’m not going to argue.
If you’re trying to say Israel is forced to do what it’s doing out of fear that those people form an “existential threat to its existence”, so better wipe them off the face of earth as their existence doesn’t matter anyway, be my guest. I swear I’ll even upvote you!
@BargainCowboy: Worth mentioning as well that this is a WAR. All innocent lives are atrocities - all sides. But there are thousands of rockets being fired into Israel which they successfully defend themselves with. What if they werent? Would then the victim card fall the other way?
If New Zealand shot 5000 rockets into Australia and they were being intercepted, would we say its okay only X amount of people died?
@bravyboy: Successfully defending themselves from what? The attack on Israel was unprovoked. But wait, that does not sit well with the narrative…
@BargainCowboy: Unfortunately the easy answer to this is 'its resistance' or 'its uprising'. Its not - its terrorism. Innocent kids, innocent civilians. Brutal and indiscriminate. Some of the people killed were pro-peace advocates. Atrocities and terrorism on both sides should always be called out. Some people arent actually against terrorists, theyre only against terrorists from the other 'team'. Simpletons unfortunately.
@BargainCowboy: " Brits killed wayyyy more civilians than Nazi Germany"
You are not a very intelligent individual
@WinstonWithAY: Intelligent enough to have an argument, not a plain ad hominem… Can you refute that? Casualties of war are not an indication of who's just
@BargainCowboy: The Nazis killed over 11 million civilians in the Soviet Union alone. You made a claim with no evidence. Imagine defending Israel so hard you engage in Holocaust revisionism and Nazi apologia. Again, not a bright individual
Then on top of that count all the civilians killed in Greece, North Africa, Yugoslavia, France and the low countries, Poland, Norway etc. It's honestly disgusting that you would make such a claim, what an insult to those who died at the hands of fascist tyranny.
Also 3 million German civilians died in WW2, even if you assume all of those were killed by British bombers or the British Army your claim is still colossally retarded
So, 1/3 were a valid target
That's not how it works. Even in war you are not free to just murder any enlisted soldiers you feel like without following a specific set of rules of engagement.
Also Israel has national military service, meaning EVERYONE over 18 has to register for military service. That doesn't give you the right to murder them at a music festival
who’s the terrorist?
That fact that you wrote what you did makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
@Xizo: This is horrible. If you want me to re-write this for you I can.
"Hi my name is Xizo. I am against all innocent people being slaughtered. I don't try justify one innocent person by pointing out another, especially when its hard to verify. I'll do my best in future not to come across as a terrorist defender for any side'
@bravyboy: That’s right. Take my upvote.
Let me add one more thing. In alignment with strict Islamic teachings of never killing any non-combatants regardless the circumstances, I can say, may the Hamas perpetrators burn in hell if they deliberately killed babies or any innocents, or even if they know there’s a high chance of killing them with blind fire.
According to many eyewitnesses and Israeli press, many of the festival goers were killed by blind Israeli helicopter fire. Heard of the Hannibal Directive?
Can you say the same for Israel carpet bombing the most densely populated place on earth where everyone is a refugee fleeing Israeli ethnic cleansing?
If you say yes, we agree then.
Occupied by Hamas, closed off by Egypt… Go speak to A-Sisi
How do weapons and explosives get in then?
How do weapons and explosives get in then?
More importantly, how do lots of brand new American weapons get in. Now there's a chestnut that needs to be cracked…
Into Gaza? Show me.
It's hard to get reliable info from biased media, but this raises questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMmOroyLVFI
An IDF soldier posted a photo of an M16 taken from Hamas.
Could be fake news, but how can you tell these days?
Doesn't take much thought to work out why Gaza isn't referred to a ghetto, either. Which it essentially is.
why would they, international laws promised their own government to be officially formed in 1947, fast forward to today, this is where we got to still calls for 2 states solution.
i find even s.tupid to use term "government of Gaza" as how can be a government in an open-air prison (this term also belongs to President Carter after he visited Gaza said, it is the biggest open air prison in the world)
why would they
why would they what ?
"Does the government of Gaza follow international laws?"
I think they obviously don't.
Do you think they do?
it is the biggest open air prison in the world
so you support the terrorism acts then?
@jv: well sounds like you support genocide as well. so facts matter not what it sounds like.
What Israel does is perfect match with the definition:
genocide
/ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd/
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
![[eBook] 6 Free eBooks on Israel-Palestine Relations and Conflicts @ Verso Books](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/14/815514.jpg?h=c168c5ed)
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.
What Israel does is perfect match with the definition:
genocide
Same as what Hamas says that all Jews should be killed…
But you think that that is OK…
What Israel does is perfect match with the definition:
No it isn't, not at all.
Israel has nuclear weapons, if they want to wipe Gaza off the map it would take them about 15 minutes.
So they clearly not 'aiming to destroy the entire Palestinian population' otherwise it would have already happened.
But sure make up whatever stupid stories you need to to justify the support of terrorism…
@1st-Amendment: 'Because Israel aren't (profanity) nuking what remains of Palestine it means they don't want to genocide them.'
Truly astounding levels of genius. There can't be any other possible reason. It doesn't matter that numerous current and former Israeli government ministers have openly stated they want to wipe out Palestinians and completely take over Gaza multiple times. I guess you're right.
Truly astounding levels of genius.
Words have meanings. I can't help you if you don't want to learn what those are
It doesn't matter that numerous current and former Israeli government ministers have openly stated they want to wipe out Palestinians and completely take over Gaza multiple times.
Israel used to occupy Gaza and didn't wipe it out, in fact they supplied aid to them before Palestinians started trying to murder them in return. Even now in the middle of the war they are still offering aid to Palestinians. That's an odd way to commit genocide don't you think?
Nothing you claim matches reality.
Now since Hamas openly admit that they want to wipe Israel off the map, therefore by your own logic this is an attempted genocide?
I guess you're right.
Yes, because I learn what words mean before I use them so as not to make a fool of myself. You may learn this trick and use it next time.
@1st-Amendment: You said Israel isn't planning to wipe out Palestinians because they aren't using nukes.
"Israeli minister's call to 'erase' Palestinian village an incitement to violence, US says" - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-ministers-…
"‘Nakba 2023’: Israel right-wing ministers' comments add fuel to Palestinian fears" - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-nakba-israels-far-ri…
"Israel-Palestine war: Likud MP calls for Gaza to be 'erased from the face of the earth'" - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-liku…
Those are just a few examples.
Hamas's actions on October 7th were genocidal, they went around slaughtering innocent civilians, and Hamas have openly stated that they want to genocide Jews. The thing is, Israel is saying the same thing, and they are doing it on a much larger scale. Half of Gaza's population is under 18, so if you are happy to justify the murder of children then have fun. It's incredible that people like you think genocide happens instantly and isn't built up over time, which can take decades, maybe listen to concerns of people who have made it their life's work to study genocide instead of being a moron:
https://twailr.com/public-statement-scholars-warn-of-potenti…
You said Israel isn't planning to wipe out Palestinians because they aren't using nukes.
That's right. Now let's see how you evidence stacks up…
Israeli minister's call to 'erase' Palestinian village
Now let's read the full quote:
"I think that Huwara needs to be erased. I think that the state of Israel needs to do it, but God forbid not individual people."
So not people. Did you read that bit? Because that's kind of important if you are claiming genocide… hard to do that when the call specifically rules out people, and it's only one village.
‘Nakba 2023’: Israel right-wing ministers' comments
Now let's read the full story:
"Ministers who made the comments are not in the war cabinet".
So a back bencher like Pauline Hanson or Lydia Thorpe says something stupid and you run with that?
This is your smoking gun?
Likud MP calls for Gaza
"Distel Atbaryan, who belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, resigned as minister on 12 October"
As above, comments from the back bench, not policy positions…
Hamas's actions on October 7th were genocidal, they went around slaughtering innocent civilians, and Hamas have openly stated that they want to genocide Jews.
That's right, it is Hamas' policy position and has been for decades. See the difference there?
The thing is, Israel is saying the same thing
Nope, because the key difference is that a handful or people saying something is not an official policy position from the nations leadership.
It's incredible that people like you think genocide happens instantly
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and YOU have failed to provide any. This is not my problem
maybe listen to concerns of people
tRuSt ThE eXpErTs…
Here's a pro tip for you. When someone says this 'could', or 'may', or 'might', or has the 'potential', you need to take it with a huge grain of salt. These types of headlines are designed to suck in gullible people and it looks like it worked a treat on you.
instead of being a moron
Ooh… when you can't argue your case with facts, resort to personal attacks and see how that works out…
@1st-Amendment: They have already dropped bombs equivalent to more than 2 nukes and have threatened to continue their bombing once the pause ends. How is that not genocide ?
They have already dropped bombs equivalent to more than 2 nukes
No they haven't. These are the types of exaggerations that make people like you sound unhinged
How is that not genocide ?
Because by the very definition of the word ie 'with the aim of destroying that nation or ethnic group' does not qualify.
Words have meanings. Try and learn what they are if you want any credibility.
Gaza is the size of a small town, Israel could literally wipe it off the face of the earth if they wanted to. The fact that they haven't means they don't want to and all your assertions exist only in your head.
Israel must be treating Palestine pretty badly for Hamas to seem like the better option to submitting to Israel to hash out a solution.
Israel must be treating Palestine pretty badly for Hamas to seem like the better option to submitting to Israel to hash out a solution.
Seems like you think killing innocent people at a concert is justified…
@jv: It's funny you say that because Israeli attack helicopters also shot at Israeli concert goers, the pilots justified it in their minds by telling themselves it was maybe their only chance to kill the Hamas soldiers. So I guess both Israel and Hamas agree that under certain circumstances it is justified to kill innocent Israeli concert goers.
@jv: I'm not. But Hamas is an Israeli creation. The ball has been in Israel's court for 75 years now. Israel could have made other choices over the last 75 years with regards to Palestine and Hamas wouldn't exist. If they made certain other choices there would be peaceful two state solution by now.
@jv: I'm just pointing out that Israel also justified shooting Israeli concert goers. And that Israel has created a situation in Palestine where terrorism seems like the right choice. Palestine hasn't been in control of the region these past 75 years, Israel has.
But Hamas is an Israeli creation
Now I've heard everything….
What about ISIS? Did Israel create that too?
@jv: The US could have made different choices and ISIS and the Taliban wouldn't exist today. In a sense they exist today only because of choices the US made.
@jv: And in a sense the US exists today because of choices the British Empire made. And the British Empire exists because of choices made by the Roman Empire. And if the Parthian Empire made different choices then the Roman Empire wouldn't have ever existed.
@AustriaBargain: You are aware that Israel tried to make peace quite a few times since 1947? The Palestinians declined 9, yes 9 peace offers of a 2 state solution. It's hard to make peace when one side is not able to accept any solution besides the complete annihilation of the other side.
@jv: Funny how the word innocent only comes up when the festival goers are concerned, many of whom were killed by Israeli forces, yet it is totally justified when 15,000 innocents are buried under the rubble of their primitive homes where they were seeking shelter.
@jv: Israel helicopters and tanks went on a killing spree, murdering Hamas and its own civilians. Have you not heard of their Hannibal directive ? I suggest you look up and educate yourself
‘Israel's Haaretz newspaper on 20 October published an interview - only in its Hebrew edition - with a man called Tuval who lived in Kibbutz Be'eri, but who was away on 7 October. Tuval's partner was however killed in the events.Haaretz reports: "According to him [Tuval], only on
Monday night and only after the commanders in the field made difficult decisions – including shelling
houses with all their occupants inside in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages - did the IDF [Israeli army] complete the takeover of the kibbutz. The price was terrible: at least 112 Be'eri people were killed. Others were kidnapped. Yesterday, 11 days after the massacre, the bodies of a mother and
her son were discovered in one of the destroyed houses. It is believed that more bodies are still lying in the rubble."
Israel helicopters and tanks went on a killing spree, murdering Hamas
You mean after Hamas started the war with them?
What international laws are you talking about? I find when people make that argument they are people who haven't read or understand international law and don't understand how international court systems work, how most resolutions at the UN are non-binding and not legal, how International court advisory opinions carry no legal weight and are essentially amicus briefs about untested legal doctrine, etc. I feel like a lot of people just see someone say "this is illegal" without even gaining the simplest understanding of what the law is and failing to understand that there is no black and white to the law, that it is open to a wide berth of interpretation. Take for example some people having the legal opinion that Donald Trump isn't allowed to run for office due to S3 of the 14th Amendment of the USC. 99.99% of all the times anyone says Israel is doing something illegal it's is something that is potentially illegal but if you read the actual law and look at the small amount of caselaw in the international community those arguments typically fall to pieces. Just something to keep in mind. When you say that Israel is diametrically opposed to various international laws you are clearly not someone who has done a deep dive into anything surrounding the laws because no reasonable good faith person would do that. You start falling into some weird place of just being some propogandist who isn't interested in actually doing any research, isn't interested in looking at the laws, isn't interested in looking at the various case laws and seeing if and where they apply. Anyways just something to keep in mind. And look my background and education is legal - though I'm not claiming to be arguing from authority. I just think that most people honestly don't understand how complicated international law is and when you say that it's not you're just making an argument from belief and not reality. Much love to you but you should do better to argue from a rational standpoint instead of a place of belief. Looking forward to this being downvoted despite me being, I hope, somewhat reasonable and decent as the community on this site can be a bit ugly at times and we all devolve into some 4chan like community. But hey what do I know?
Also Lowenstein being of Jewish heritage is pretty meaningless. Candace Owens and Jesse Peterson are both of African American heritage and have no issue basically speaking unhinged white supremacist talking points. My background is Muslim and here I am trying to explain that making the argument that Israel does a lot of illegal stuff isn't really true. But my guess again is that no one will care. Everyone in this conflict has already decided what team their on and there's a huge weird gulf between each side with so much polarization. And I don't think it even helps. If the goal is to try to get Israel and Palestine to get together and make peace everyone polarizing right now is not going to do anything but delay that which ultimately hurts the Palestinians more than anyone as it will maintain the status quo which is much worse for Palestinians than Israelis. Which is why I do call out stuff like this a bit - if you want to know my motivation - as I think this rhetoric of just trying to make the other side seem like unhinged N@zis is not going to help either side reach across the aisle to find a way to make a real peace.
But anyways you all feel free to downvote me for trying to be a moderate rational person. Much love to you all.
Don't bother, some of it is plain ignorance but some of it is pure anti-semitism.
Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f——n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
Was this meant for someone else? I didn't quote anyone. I've never even read Vickers. I didn't even talk about someone named Wood or mention anything about "inherited wealth." What the heck are you talking about bro?
@rightguy: I'm just joking about. I like what and how you write, even when I don't agree with every point you make. It's always an interesting read. My shitpost is a Will Hunting quote from the movie Good Will Hunting. tldr. It's a backhanded compliment - an appreciation of your intelligence and participation. Genuinely. It's said ironically. Guy in the movie is a dick - you are not.
@seamonkey: Sorry bro - my bad. Hadn't seen that movie in years and honest to God can't even remember that reference. Much love to you and yours. Also can I just take a moment to be reminded how we lost a great guy in Robin Williams. That one still hurts.
@rightguy: Your words had value and I was using that as an easy way to shitpost. Really what was going through my head is how much ozbargain has changed over the last 15 years or so. The seriousness of people on posts about saving a few bucks is next level these days. I really need to check out the forums these days - I'll bet the younger generations are bringing it. I'm old af. That's the disconnect you witnessed. 😂🤣 Have an awesome weekend mate.
👏
But my guess again is that no one will care.
You might be surprised. Some of us still lead with trying to understand first rather than choose a side. Appreciate you articulating the problem with the statement as you saw it, in as respectable way as you could.
I've recently finished a book about how contempt is corroding democracy, and how it has become the currency of the internet to divide along contentious issues, gather in likeminded groups and utterly write off the beliefs, motives and inherent value of those who oppose us.
The Israeli/Palestine situation has always been complex and fraught with difficulty - both sides believe they are in a fight for existence. It's hard to see any easy solution, despite the strong opinions of those that argue exclusively for either side.
The solution is talk to Israelis and Palestinians and figure out what they want and what they're both willing to give and do to get what they want. There's a joint poll that comes out regularly that does this and it's pretty clear what needs to be done. Israeli Arabs are clearly willing to do some work to bridge the gap and find trustworthy partners. The problem with making peace at the moment is who speaks on behalf of the Palestinians - is it the PA or Hamas or both? At least the Israeli government for all its issues with the current government has a single unified legal government that can make negotiations. The fracture between Hamas and the PA has really stalled any ability to make peace. I think it will be good to see Hamas go and hopefully Netanyahu and Abbas can be ousted as well. We clearly need new blood and new voices. The previous Israeli government was the first one in history with Arabs in its coalition. That was historic. Hopefully we can see that again in whatever eventuates once this current conflict is over.
If you want to read the most current joint poll here it is https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20Report_%…
The solution is talk to Israelis and Palestinians and figure out what they want
That has been happening for the past 80-odd years…
Israel would like to be left in peace, Palestinians would like Israel and all Jews wiped off the map.
Israel's neighbours initiate conflict, Israel does what it needs to do to secure the safety of its people.
Palestinians have been offered numerous deals over the years and they declined each one. It's not hard who the bad guy is in the story, even the Egyptians don't want them in their country. Why do you think that is?
@1st-Amendment: It really hasn't been done. For the most part Palestinians have been used as a chip - first by Pan-Arabists who wanted to make an Arab state but after 1967 and 1973 that was all but abandoned and Egypt put the nail in that coffin when it accepted the Sinai back for peace. Then Palestinians were used by the Soviet Union as a chip against American interests in that area post-1967 (as before that America had little to do with supporting Israel) until the Soviet Union fell apart and then we ended up with a potential peace deal that probably would have gone through if not for Rabin's assassination.
Then in the 2000s you had a chance for peace again but now the Palestinians were being used a chip by Iran to go against American interests and that's sort of how it's been for a few decades now.
But honestly we haven't been listening to Palestinians or Israeli-Arabs or Israelis. When people bring up this topic they typically talk about Chomsky or Saod or more recently someone like Finkelstein. The people dictating a lot of how we in the West think about these issues are other people living in the West who have no skin in the game and won't ever have to deal with the reality of living in the solution that gets created. People who march in pro-Palestinian marches are typically listening to Palestinian voices that live over here and might be second or third generation removed from having lived in those lands. We need to foster a dialogue between Israelis (Arabs and Jews) and Palestinians. I think Israeli-Arabs are a key ingredient in making that happen. We clearly have to get rid of Abbas and Netanyahu as they are two men who have no trust with one another. And we ultimately need a legitimate Palestinian government that can speak on behalf of its people so that a negotiation can actually take place.
I get your point. I think though that we have to continue this process. You're right 80 odd years has gone by. But a lot of the people who have been sitting at these tables are the same people who have been in charge for at least 40 of those years. We need new blood and trusting relationships. Hopefully that will happen in the aftermath of this mess at the moment.
As for the bad guy - yeah I would say that the Palestinian government and the leadership has been corrupt and stupid to not go back to its people with some concept of "hey, we will never get 100% of everything we want and we need to compromise." They have probably failed the worst out of the bunch otherwise we'd have a two state solution. I think the radicalisation of the right wing in Israel has also been a bad guy as all it does is perpetuate the ongoing crisis and pass this solution on to future generations where it could be solved reasonably now. There's plenty of stupidity and incompetence to go around. But the reality is that the Palestinians are the ones who suffer the most from the incompetence and stupidity so their leaders are absolutely far more to blame because ultimately Israel's maintenance of the status quo is not damaging its people to the extent of the Palestinians maintenance of the status quo. Palestine could be a prosperous country like Israel. Gazans could be wealthy but instead their cities, even before this mess, were broken down and suffering from poor infrastructure because of a massive incompetent government that wasn't interested in actually governing its population and improving their conditions or lives.
@rightguy: Well written rightguy….as Biden has said (regarding protecting their "interests" in the region) "if Israel didn't exist we would have invented it".
Maybe creating two states would result (finally) in peace for the Israelis and Palestinians, but the only side that can in reality make this happen is Israel.
However, when their right wing governments approve of the Yinon plan of a Greater Israel, rebuilding the Temple and want a Jewish-only country, it doesn't indicate that they sincerely want to have any Palestinians/ Christians amongst them and they will drive everybody else out, no matter how long it takes to achieve their true intent for the region.
Then you also have the fundamental American Protestants looking forward to Armageddon and then converting the remaining Jews, so they pray for Israel and back it to the hilt no matter what it does, so the prophecy comes true.
Israel (as a country) commits what are, objectively speaking, war crimes. There's really no reason to write an essay defending them - they bomb and murder civilians, they claim self-defence on issues that are not legally self-defence on an international level, and they use collective punishment to attempt to flush out Hamas members (again, a war crime).
this rhetoric of just trying to make the other side seem like unhinged N@zis is not going to help either side reach across the aisle to find a way to make a real peace
Israel is not going for peace. They are going for a genocide, and have been inching towards it for over 7 decades. It is, unfortunately, as simple as that.
What war crime does it objectively commit? Can you clarify what that crime is because I could just say that Australia commits what is objectively war crimes. Also a country cannot commit war crimes because a country cannot be brought to court - only individuals can commit war crimes so how can you even say that a country objectively commits war crimes when there's no such thing as a legal framework where it's possible to bring a country to court to have a trial.
Your comment that Israel uses collective punishment is silly. To prove a crime you need to prove that someone in the Israeli military has the mens rea to commit collective punishment. Then you have the issue that we have clear evidence of Israel taking actions to warn people prior to bombings be it with phone calls, flyers, knock bombs, etc. To prove a crime you now need to show that the intent of an Israeli commander (because again you can only charge commanders and not the nation with a crime) is to hurt civilians. And if you were to bring an Israeli commander into court and charge them with the crime you just claimed they committed they would say well we tried to limit civilians casualties by doing this and this and this and this. And they would show evidence of that in the court. And remember this is beyond a reasonable doubt as it's a criminal court. It would be very hard for a prosecutor to successfully show either mens rea or that there wasn't sufficient attempts to limit civilian casualties. And the case would fall apart.
This is why I think it's silly to say that Israel is committing war crimes because you might not like what they are doing from a moral standpoint but they are actually following some interpretation of International Law in this campaign and they are doing a good enough job to at least skirt the line of committing war crimes. And you saying they are committing war crimes when any rational person would know that what they're doing wouldn't be able to be considered a crime in any international court is silly. What you should be doing is just saying you don't like what they are doing because you think it's immoral. That's a good faith statement based on your reaction to the situation. You saying they are committing war crimes or even genocide is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding various international laws like the Geneva Convention or the Genocide Convention.
You are making a very poor argument and ultimately you saying that this is just simple when you clearly don't understand an ounce of how the laws or legal systems work doesn't do anything but present that you're operating in bad faith and choosing emotions over rational thought. And hey I have no issue with people choosing emotions over rational thought but I dislike when people transfer that emotion over into the realm of logic by then channelling that emotion into a legal argument. Much love to you but seriously don't do that bro. Just leave it as an emotional argument which is what it is and save the legal rhetoric for people who are willing to deal with the reality of what the laws are and how the legal systems work.
@rightguy: Allowing the occupation of the West Bank and allowing Israeli "settlers" to kill Palestinians in the West Bank are international crimes.
@AustriaBargain: Occupation of West Bank is an international crime? How? The Geneva Conventions allow for belligerent/military occupation. Are you saying that the Geneva Conventions don't exist? And there's an explicit legal declaration between both Israel and the Palestinians that clearly dileneate roles and responsibilities regarding the occupation. Are you saying the Oslo Accords aren't a legal agreement between the two parties or that they don't exist? I'm extremely confused by how you believe that a military occupation is an international crime but would welcome your argument.
As for your second claim, I don't believe Israel has a legal policy of letting settlers kill Palestinians in the West Bank without suffering criminal consequences. It looks like when violence happens that they are investigated and sometimes charges are brought and sometimes they aren't where a clear reasonable self-defence claim can be made. This seems similar to Australian or American or any legal code. Not sure how it's an international crime. And yes where an occupation happens any member of that occupied group has the right to no longer remain a civilian and fight against the occupation by becoming a military combatant but once they do that they lose all protections as a civilian and then can be subject to being killed in combat by enemy combatants. I don't claim to know Israeli law but your statement is about International Law and there would be nothing in the International Law stopping a settler from killing an enemy combatant if they were to engage in combat. I would imagine that any Palestinian deaths in Area A would be under the legal auspice of Palestianian laws and Area B & C would be subject to Israeli law. But your statement about it being an international crime doesn't make any sense. What code of international law are would the settler be breaking even if they were to go out and kill a civilian Palestinian as an act of murder? Like when Jeffrey Dahmer killed people he wasn't committing any international crimes he was committing state and federal crimes where he resided. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that Jeffrey Dahmer was an international criminal - just a criminal of the place where he resided. So I'm lost with what claim you're trying to make here.
@rightguy: The Oslo Accords, between Israel and the PLO, aimed to establish a framework for the gradual transfer of governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel to the Palestinians. However, the implementation of the Oslo Accords and the resolution of issues surrounding the West Bank and its status remain contentious and subject to ongoing disputes between the parties.
Instances involving violence in the context of an occupation may raise questions about adherence to international humanitarian law, especially concerning protections for civilians under occupation.
@AustriaBargain: Again - your claim is that these are international crimes. Are you rescinding those claims or sticking to them?
Instances of violence doesn't mean a policy of it and those instances need to be viewed in context. It's very easy to say hey some Palestinian was killed but then one has to look at the substantive facts of that situation to decide whether there was any justification for the killing, whether there was any crime on behalf of that person who did the killing and whether that crime was pursued in court. It is not always easy to convict people of murder. OJ Simpson famously got acquitted. Recently Kyle Rittenhouse got acquitted. While almost every killing is a tragedy (I'd argue that Hitler's killing wasn't really a tragedy and was the best thing he ever did) not every killing is a crime. There has to be mens rea. There has to be a law broken. There has to be no special circumstances under which that law no longer applied. The reality of the laws around occupation and international law is that once someone picks up arms they are now an enemy combatant. That arm could be a gun, a knife, a blunt object, a rock. Any occupied person who picks that up and tries to fight to end occupation now becomes an enemy combatant and the rules around how one is able to engage with them changes on that basis. They lose almost all their protections under international law for civilians and only have the protections due to enemy combatants. That's sadly how international law works. You might not like it. But that's just how it works.
@AustriaBargain: Yes murder is a crime - no one was arguing that it isn't, especially in California where OJ was charged with it - it's definitely a crime. But OJ was not criminally responsible for anyone's murder. It was determined that he had committed no crime. That's how the law works. A case was presented and it did not meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. OJ got to walk away a free man after his trial. The same would happen if any of the claims you make against members of the IDF or other Israeli governmental agencies were brought to trial. They would absolutely all walk free because the evidence is flimsy, there's no clear mens rea, there's clearly attempts to mitigate civilian deaths. I'm not sure if you've studied wars and any caselaw with regards to war crime trials but IDF does a very good job of keeping within the framework of a reasonable interpretation of international law when it comes to conflict. Believing that they are somehow doing stuff that is clearly or boldly illegal is nonsense. They are acting within a reasonable interpretation of international law - the issue is that people often don't understand how the Geneva Conventions apply to situations such as these. I would highly recommend reading the Geneva Conventions carefully and critically so you can better understand this subject. God bless you and yours bro.
@AustriaBargain: No he did not 100% murder anyone. That's why there was reasonable doubt and why he was acquitted. That 100% threshold was never ever met. But yes, again, murder is a crime in the state of California and in the USA.
@AustriaBargain: No he did not 100% kill anyone. Not his ex-wife and not the poor guy returning her sunglasses.
@rightguy: Posting paragraphs upon paragraphs to justify a genocide on Ozbargain of all places your life is a joke
@WinstonWithAY: Trying to pretend there's a genocide so you can just get off being a bad faith actor in an online interaction is really sad. We have a Genocide Convention - I would highly recommend that you actually try reading it before coming here and cosplaying as someone who has any clue what genocide means. There's a lot of tragic things happening in Gaza but a genocide is not one of things things. Again, we have a Genocide Convention, which I'd imagine would be the definitive defining document and when you use it to look at what's happening in Gaza now there's no reasonable way one can call it a genocide unless you want to absolutely change the definition of what a genocide is and, if so, then what's the point if genocide now means internally displacing of people in during a war. A population of internally displaced people isn't a genocide otherwise there's a genocide of Israelis as there's 500,000 or so internally displaced at the moment as well. So good luck to you mate. I wish you well but I wish you would honestly stop the cosplay and start to act in good faith and deal with reality. God bless you and yours.
If Israel was trying to commit a genocide (which they're clearly not) the war would have been over on 8/10…. saying this bullshit word doesn't make it true…
@Mike911: Actual genocide scholars and historians are either classing it as genocide or are worried it will escalate to one. I assume you know more than them though.
@WinstonWithAY: Cool and actual constitutional legal scholars told Trump he could just usurp power by getting Pence to turn away the real slate of electoral voters and bring in his own handpicked slate instead. Actual medical doctors made claims that 5G caused Covid and that Ivermectin was the only cure for it. Actual historians have made claims that the Holocaust never happened.
If I want to find an "expert" to confirm my bias I totally can. But that's not how science works - we look for consensus. That's how any rational good faith actor approaches something. They don't just go with what one or two people say they look for a clear consensus. And there is no consensus amongst scholars in this field whatsoever. In fact where we find a consensus is that the majority of scholars and historians who study genocides are saying that what we are seeing is not a genocide. And the vast majority of people in these fields are pushing back against these sentiments.
Again, any rational good faith actor would look for a consensus instead of cherry-picking a handful of people saying what confirms one's bias. You trying to pretend there is some consensus where there isn't any is just a weak attempt to apply any weight to your irrational argument. And maybe that works when you speak to someone who doesn't have any critical thinking skills but I don't see that working here my friend.
@rightguy: You said there's no consensus so you can't draw the conclusion yet you've drawn the conclusion that there is no genocide going on. I hope the IDF is paying you something to post so much because this is sad.
Israel is not going for peace
Yet they have offered Palestinians exactly that numerous times and each time got rejected. Do you know who Yasser Arafat is?
Then they initiate a mass terror event and act surprised when there is retaliation. Truly some next level mental gymnastics going on there…
@jv: That's probably because that's the one being murdered in the numbers… I dunno it might be that.