Squint a bit harder and see if US toppled a democratically elected government in Mexico and installed a cruel dictator for oil? And shot down a civilian flight from Mexico? Maybe not.
>War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked.
Please do mention the Dalet Plan, the massacres of the Palestinians by Zionists, and how the war broke out. Also killing UN mediators by Zionists would something to complete the history lesson, rather than Palestinians rejected. Wow, who would have thought people would reject taking their land and giving it to somebody else! And also mention the rejection by Zionists of the count Bernadotte's plan. So the Zionists just killed the one who made the plan, so whoever came after him just gave more land to Zionists.
>Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt?
The border is controlled by Israel. Egypt US and Israel has a tripartite treaty to have Egypt act as a mere watchdog on the border. This border crossing is now controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel, and has fixed and detained any maritime peace activities, read the floatilla raid on Palestinian waters. Maybe we should be holding accountable those who call themselves to a democratic nation than a party in a small bombed out piece of land.
It is NOW. For obvious reasons. Other than that: bullshit. The border was controlled by Egypt and Hamas from 2005 to 2021. Incidentally it was Egypt that closed the border, not Israel (after hamas decided to murder Egyptian army officers "because they were Jews", I might add, the incidents (plural) that wikipedia euphemistically describes as "escalation of cross-border incidents between Israel and Hamas". Cross-border is correct, but somehow it is not relevant to point out that it was hamas attacks in Egypt, and that it was Egyptian security forces that died. Oh and they probably weren't even anti-Israel attacks but an attempt to sabotage one of the attempts of the Egyptians to hold an election. That attempt was succesfull I might add (of course it's still the middle east and "it's complicated")
I am quite sure God does not operate through US JDAM missiles and billions of dollars' of ammunition. God doesn't operate the American media which doesn't report the Genocide.
If US was willing, this Gift could have ended long long ago. I am sure no other country was forcing US to vote against peace at UN.
You don't get the three major religions with community at the core, in a place like Mars. It is Mediterranean coast with documented habitation spanning millenia. The incredibly dehumanising colonial propaganda, that is a land without people for a people without land, is just that; A dehumanising propaganda which reduces the native population to savages and not-human.
>Ahem... You're suggesting that Ukraine killed over a thousand Russians and took them hostage, and thereby provoked a war?
Maybe, just maybe you could have a look at what Gaza was like before the said event. It was blockaded by Sea, Air and Land. It was oppressed and occupied, not to mention the settler terrorism in West Bank. It is a myopic view to hold that it was peace before the Oct 7 incident.
Not only people feel that the non viability of peaceful dialogue doesn't exist, it is a reality that such dialogue is not going anywhere. As reiterated by the Genocidal regime's prime minister, peace in Palestine is not an option for Zionists.
The solutions are not appearing to shrink, rather the solutions are made to shrik, deliberately.
So kind of them to offer freedom, and sovereignty, both taken by themselves. What a moral high ground they have!
Did they offer reparations too, for the ethnic cleansing in Jaffa, and Haifa, and numerous other villages and cities? I am sure they would even respawn the murdered Palestinian children.
> Most of the Palestinians who fled in 1948 did so because of Arab armies who urged them to move so they can kill the Jews more easily. That backfired. Those who stayed are Israeli citizens and always have been. Those who fled couldn't come back because the borders were sealed due to a war their leaders chose to start.
You mention 1948....but what happened in 1946, and 1947? Aren't those years also relevant? Things like the bombing of the King David Hotel (by Zionist militias) and the Deir Yassin Massacre (same militias again), precede intervention by neighboring Arab states. Palestinians were already fleeing from murder, and they couldn't return to homes which had been demolished by the Zionist militias, and with the rubble mined to prevent people returning.
Sure. Lehi and Shamir are indeed awful and that's why the Hunting Season was justified. There was no similar ability to unify against the extremist voices in the Palestinian side which is the main point I'm making here.
This isn't history. You see the same patterns happening right now. Arafat and Abu Mazen were unable to control Hamas in the same way the Jews were able to control their extremists.
You could argue that the Irish were unable to control the IRA which would be a very accurate comparison. But the scale would be different. Hamas killed in one day more than the IRA killed in its entire existence. Hamas enjoys the backing of Iran, Qatar, Turkey and others. It's used as a puppet to force a regional war that goes against the interests of the Palestinian people. At least the ones who don't want to die in a holy war.
It's good to see a contraction from "Palestinians" to Shamir and Hamas.
We can also contract Jews to IDF and perhaps discuss how they kill 10x more than Hamas by most accounts.
The killing is the extreme behaviour. The insidious cause is the constant slow creeping pushing out of the other, the dispossesions and land captures that continue unabated.
> We can also contract Jews to IDF and perhaps discuss how they kill 10x more than Hamas by most accounts.
Why is killing more of the enemy a "bad thing"?
> The killing is the extreme behaviour.
Yes. However, you fail to offer an alternative. Israel left Gaza, Israel made attempts to form a Palestinian state. Palestinians had the opportunity to end the cycle and Israel made that step...
Last time Israel left Gaza Hamas took over. It killed MANY Palestinians then started preparing for war, building rockets, tunnels etc. Israel didn't return to Gaza and tried to limit retaliation. That clearly didn't work.
> The insidious cause is the constant slow creeping pushing out of the other, the dispossesions and land captures that continue unabated.
This I actually agree with. I think the settlements in the west bank, especially the deep ones are a huge mistake. Guess what enables them...
> Some see it. Other refuse to acknowledge it.
Goes both ways sir. What do you expect Israel to do?
I wish the current conflict wasn't as violent. I wish more planning was given for "the next day". I wish Israel worked with the Palestinian authority and used this as an opportunity for that. I wish it would clear the deep settlements in the west bank instead of expanding them.
Unfortunately, Israel has a terrible government and Hamas/Iran knew that when they initiated Oct 7th. I hope that after this is all over Israel would elect a more reasonable government. It would probably still be very right-wing since violence tends to push people in that direction, but hopefully it would be reasonable. A right-wing government cleared settlements in Gaza, made peace with Egypt etc. So everything is possible.
Okay. Wow. I hadn't realised you were on board with Hamas killing more Jews.
Or are you saying all Palestinians are "the enemy"?
Currently there's a lot of legit credentialed journalists being killed with evidence that some are being specificly targetted. That's a straight up war crime .. although as unlikely to be prosecuted, just as Kissinger skated.
> However, you fail to offer an alternative.
It's on me? Perhaps act in good faith, eg:
> Israel left Gaza, Israel made attempts to form a Palestinian state.
Israel also continued displacing and taking land via settlements in defiance of International law, etc.
> Guess what enables them...
Is the answer Netanyahu and his scaly mates? They do seem to offer a lot of incentives.
> What do you expect Israel to do?
Act in accordance with the people that have acquired power .. for now I expect Israel to act in the worst way possible and it hasn't disappointed .. years of pushing limits have rebounded much as many predicted and now those that sought permission to go all out have that in spades.
It'd be nice albeit a little fanciful, if the people of Israel could put better people in power .. but that's a whole other slice of alternative history.
> Okay. Wow. I hadn't realised you were on board with Hamas killing more Jews.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument. Do I seriously need to explain how wars work?
It's fair to be a pacifist, but it's unrealistic and deadly. PLO killed many Israelis, children etc. But their goal was statehood so they stopped and moved forward. Hamas's goal is ending Israel. Wars work towards goals.
> Currently there's a lot of legit credentialed journalists being killed with evidence that some are being specificly targetted.
That is terrible. But you know what's also terrible? Hamas literally kept hostages in the house of a Journalist. Many so called Journalist were part of the October 7th attack. They used UNWRA as a puppet as part of their attacks and money laundering.
They used ambulances, hospitals etc. as cover. There's some point where using an ID as a get out of jail free card is a problem.
> That's a straight up war crime .. although as unlikely to be prosecuted, just as Kissinger skated.
That is a huge problem. Unfortunately the UN has zero credibility at this point. It came up with more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined. More than Russia, Sudan, China, Iran etc.
That's a problem because I would like to know if Israel is committing actual war crimes and I would like an objective body to be in control of that. The UN is not objective by any stretch of the imagination.
Luckily the US has Leahy. If there is actual evidence of a war crime being committed then a lawsuit against Israel in the USA can stop financial support for Israel. Even if the lawsuit is thrown out the facts would still be out. Yet such a lawsuit isn't prosecuted.
> > Guess what enables them...
>
> Is the answer Netanyahu and his scaly mates? They do seem to offer a lot of incentives.
How did Netanyahu get into power and keep it for so long?
During the 90's Israel tried to go through with the Oslo accords. Hamas blew up busses filled with civilians in the middle of Tel Aviv. Many busses. They shot up coffee shops and did everything they could to stop the peace process.
Netanyahu used that and built his power base around it. He went to every such attack site and gained traction. Without Hamas he would have been an anonymous secondary "also ran" politician. Hamas made him. This symbiotic relationship continues to this day to such an extent that the right-wing extremists defined Hamas as an asset. Following October 7th they expanded settlements in the West Bank as "retaliation" which is stupid and evil. But again, zero-sum entities act like that.
The difference here is that Israel is the stronger side. When Palestinians pick a zero-sum approach to solving a conflict it is a suicidal death cult.
> > What do you expect Israel to do?
>
> Act in accordance with the people that have acquired power ..
That isn't an answer. Israel tried to do that. It tried to offer statehood. It tried "just leaving". You can argue that this wasn't "genuine" or wasn't enough... But baby steps are required in this case and Hamas proved the problematic nature of this approach.
> years of pushing limits have rebounded much as many predicted and now those that sought permission to go all out have that in spades.
This shows deep misunderstanding of the situation. Hamas is a zero-sum player, it wants an all out war because it wants everything from the river to the sea. It objects to the very notion of peace with Israel.
> It'd be nice albeit a little fanciful, if the people of Israel could put better people in power .. but that's a whole other slice of alternative history.
Israel did put better people in power. Notice how the whole world including Europe and the states are seeing a surge in the right-wing?
Why is that? Because unfortunately the extreme left has become delusional in its extreme stances.
There's a huge difference between wanting peace and refusing to fight a war. You're completely dismissing Israeli attempts at peace and mis-labeling Hamas attacks as territorial when they are religious, fanatic and proxy driven.
In the US the majority of people want to deport all immigrants. These are people who contribute to the economy and do nothing wrong. Is it a surprise that Israelis moved to the right as a result of Hamas attacks?
Is it a surprise that these right-wing politicians use that to further their agenda in the west-bank?
I think Israel is naturally liberal and will move back to the left when it is no longer under threat. The problem is that as long as Hamas is a threat this just can't happen. One of the reasons the settlements are expanding is to block such motion to the left, this is where US pressure could help but it's a delicate needle to thread. If the UN had any credibility it could help, unfortunately it doesn't when it comes to Israel.
In 1940s the Palestinians went to Hitler and asked him to take care of the Jews.
So you're using Amin al-Husseini as a stand-in for all Palestinians, which I suppose is about as cool as using Netanyahu as a stand-in for all Israelis. Or as the other commenter pointed out, when referring to the occasion when agents from Stern Gang met with Nazi officials to discuss the possibility of an anti-British alliance, we might as well just say simplify and say "the Jews" did so, collectively.
But never mind that. Just tell us, please: what did Amin ask Hitler to do, specifically?
Referencing the transcript we all have of their sole meeting in November 1941, of course.
> So you're using Amin al-Husseini as a stand-in for all Palestinians
Nope, not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can pick any historical point in time and show why things happened in a particular way. Palestinians bemoan that Israel exists and that Jews were "given" statehood (I quote given because there was a war and it was paid for with blood). But if you look at the history it's pretty clear why the UN felt Jews deserved a home in Israel. They were on the right side of history in this particular conflict and fought besides the allies.
This is a repeating pattern for Palestinian leadership. Unwillingness to compromise and victim-hood, that doesn't work well for them. I'm not saying they're not victims or even not saying that Israel isn't to blame for a lot of their problems. I am saying that their leadership bares a LOT of that responsibility too, the choices they made brought them to this point and they continue to make similar choices which make matters worse.
Right now it's obviously too late since the last big choice they had was in 2008 when they rejected a statehood deal. Hamas had a choice during that time of recognizing Israel and negotiating, but it's Hamas so it obviously wasn't much of a choice.
I hope there will be another such fork in the road, I doubt they will get anything remotely as good as the 2008 offer. Knowing history I doubt Palestinian leadership will take it and again they will blame Israel.
I guess we have to "snap the chalk-line" somewhere. I didn't explicitly establish this but in debates I often snap it at the end of WW2. The period 1914-1945 was full of so much chaos and bloodshed globally, I think the end of WW2 was when people REALLY tried to catch a breather and try to build a newer, better world.
> The initial Jews that came into the area were under constant attacks by Palestinians in the area so they formed militias of their own. These became very successful and split into 3 groups. Hagana which was the moderate one ended up becoming the IDF. The two others were the ones that performed those attacks and indeed performed terrorism (moderate by today's standard but still terrorism).
When you refer to Jews "coming into the area", do you mean the post-WW2 immigration, or some other timespan? Because the Irgun, at least, was actively committing terrorism against the British, even outside of Palestine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_British_Embassy_bombing ), as early as 1946. This appears to be a mostly one-sided campaign (not targeting the Palestinian Arabs...yet) but definitely set the stage for their level of violence moving forward. Interestingly, neither Morris nor Pappe cover 1946 violence in particular detail (both focus on the Zionist leadership's planning for the following ethnic cleansing). I need to find additional sources for this period.
> Palestinians didn't have that capability of unity. They have very little in common other than hate towards Israel.
Where does that hate come from, though? It didn't coalesce in a vacuum.
> That is both unconfirmed
I'll be perfectly honest, it's really hard not to interpret that as anything other than "Holocaust denial" level delusion. Which, of course, is tragically ironic given the subject. Both authors I mentioned cite documents in IDF archives about the deliberate planning process for the destruction in this timeframe. If you are going to assert that the destruction, its specific methods, or the resulting movements of large numbers of civilians, is unconfirmed, you need to support that with some very robust evidence. I'm not sure what could be more authoritative than "primary source documents from the perpetrator".
> Then they couldn't return since there was a border.
Some of them tried to return (refugees from Huj, in one example from mid-late 1948), and were refused, after internal debates by the Israelis over whether it would "set a precedent". Those debates were documented, and are cited in Morris' book, pgs330-333. Those were deliberate decisions made by Israeli leadership.
> But Israel didn't choose that war, it was forced on them.
Actions have consequences. As an aside, I constantly see this use of the passive voice in discussing this conflict. Israel never does anything, it just has stuff happen to it. Once you notice it, it's a really obvious form of shaping the information environment to condition people to think that nothing could ever possibly be Israel's fault, that no one making decisions in Israel has ever done so with malicious intent. Things just....happen.
> Notice that Israel didn't take neither Gaza or the West Bank during that war. So why didn't the Palestinians finally have a state at that point?
> Did anyone complain to Egypt/Jordan for denying the rights of the Palestinian people?
That's a good question, I'll add it to my list of RFIs as I continue to research.
> The fact is that this is purely because Jews were involved.
I watched a man hooked up to an IV bag in a field hospital BURN ALIVE after an Israeli airstrike. The perpetual victim complex just doesn't resonate with people anymore.
> But as far as this conflict goes, Israel acted WAY better than pretty much any other country in a similar situation. E.g. Turkey which keeps blasting Israel over and over just bombed civilians for a tiny attack. Crickets from the world police...
Yeah, because Turkish airstrikes haven't killed FORTY THOUSAND PEOPLE in less than a year. What a ridiculous deflection.
-----
At any rate, I hope this discussion has provided enough material for other HNers to educate themselves. The available Israeli sources are detailed and surprisingly candid. I don't expect either of us will illuminate any further understanding.
> I think the end of WW2 was when people REALLY tried to catch a breather and try to build a newer, better world.
I think discussing history is irrelevant. None of us were around back then so blaming some ancestor for something is just stupid posturing that doesn't solve anything.
The bottom line is that there are millions of people on both sides who were born in the region. They have nowhere to go and the idea that some would "just leave" is just stupid. There's only one solution and it's a two state solution, blaming history is redundant since both sides did some bad things.
We can review history to see what we can learn from it. Here the pattern is clear: Jews unified and strengthened their moderate base. Palestinians fragmented and moved towards violent approaches which didn't work well for them. With the exception of Oslo, but even there their leadership failed to compromise.
> When you refer to Jews "coming into the area", do you mean the post-WW2 immigration, or some other timespan?
19th century when the initial Jewish militias were formed.
> > Palestinians didn't have that capability of unity. They have very little in common other than hate towards Israel.
>
> Where does that hate come from, though? It didn't coalesce in a vacuum.
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't deserve some hate. But it's much easier to blame others for your problems instead of blaming yourself. Jordan and Egypt did pretty evil things to the Palestinians and didn't give them a country when they controlled these regions. Yet you don't see the same level of hate.
> I'll be perfectly honest, it's really hard not to interpret that as anything other than "Holocaust denial" level delusion
That is nonsense. You claimed "Palestinians were already fleeing from murder, and they couldn't return to homes which had been demolished by the Zionist militias".
Were there homes destroyed during the war?
Sure. Was it by Israelis? Possibly.
Was it with the purpose to prevent people from coming back? Maybe.
But you're presenting this as if all the Palestinian refugees or a significant amount of them escaped because of such actions. That is not something anyone can claim. The common narrative on the Israeli side is that the armies of surrounding countries orchestrated a strategic retreat. No one knows because there was no actual army in 1948. It was being formed from a militia and there was no organized standard/hierarchy. Also that particular war was remarkably deadly/violent for both sides. Record keeping wasn't exactly something you can count on.
Regardless, this is irrelevant. The fact that Palestinians keep going back to 1948 is part of the toxicity that prevents them from compromising on proposals for a Palestinian state.
> Some of them tried to return (refugees from Huj, in one example from mid-late 1948), and were refused, after internal debates by the Israelis over whether it would "set a precedent".
Could Jews who had to flee Arab countries and territories within that region return? Could they get their assets back?
"Ukraine was given territory from Poland, and the Polish minorities were expelled from Ukraine. In turn, Ukrainian minorities were expelled from Poland. While the Polish had to leave Lithuania and Belarus, the Lithuanians and Belorussians had to leave Poland. Also, Poland was given land from Germany, and the Germans were expelled from Poland. Many Hungarians had to leave from the Transylvania region of Romania. The Italians were expelled from what is Croatia today. In May 1945, the President of Czechoslovakia called on his people to “eliminate the German problem.” Nearly 2 million Germans were expelled from the country, and thousands of Germans died in the process."
Wars reshape regions and demographics. Especially in the 40's. Jews were victims of that through history too. I'm not excusing it, but it's not something special or unique in any way.
> > But Israel didn't choose that war, it was forced on them.
>
> Actions have consequences. As an aside, I constantly see this use of the passive voice in discussing this conflict. Israel never does anything, it just has stuff happen to it. Once you notice it, it's a really obvious form of shaping the information environment to condition people to think that nothing could ever possibly be Israel's fault, that no one making decisions in Israel has ever done so with malicious intent. Things just....happen.
Instead of proving that something is wrong you try to twist it. When the facts don't work in the favor of your argument then obviously the argument is redundant.
The fact is that Israel did seek peace and made a great deal of effort in that direction. But the standard Israel is held to is a standard that no country on earth would be able to hold to.
> I watched a man hooked up to an IV bag in a field hospital BURN ALIVE after an Israeli airstrike. The perpetual victim complex just doesn't resonate with people anymore.
You mean the hospital to which civilian hostages were taken and murdered there? Where Hamas literally had a base of operations?
I agree, it's awful. But what is the option here?
From now on firing rockets is OK as long as you do it on top of orphanages?
By accepting that narrative you're encouraging Hamas. Every time people talk about children dying in Gaza it creates a terrible incentive for Hamas. They use children as couriers because they know the IDF doesn't want to shoot them, but if they die they also win: https://www.timesofisrael.com/encouraging-our-children-to-ki...
> Yeah, because Turkish airstrikes haven't killed FORTY THOUSAND PEOPLE in less than a year. What a ridiculous deflection.
40,000+ most of which were Hamas terrorists. This was a response to an attack that killed 5 people. This is besides all the stuff that Erdogan is doing in Syria etc.
> At any rate, I hope this discussion has provided enough material for other HNers to educate themselves. The available Israeli sources are detailed and surprisingly candid.
The fact that you're surprised that Israel is honest indicates a lot about your core bias. Israel is a liberal democracy and tries to do better all the time. Its history isn't perfect, whose is?
Try criticizing Hamas in Gaza. You might get buried alive by your brother using a spoon...
