I genuinely do not know who the bad guys are. S lot of my leftist friends are against Israel, but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.
Enlighten me. Am I wrong? Why am I wrong?
And dumb it down for me, because apparently I’m an idiot.
Hamas are, I think, a lesser bad guy to Israel’s big bad. Hamas are an inevitable consequence of a settler neighnour like Israel… the conflict is very old. Perhaps really the bad guy was Britain & the UN back in the 40s, who carved up Mandatory Palestine to create Israel & Palestine. You can trace it farther back to the origins of Zionism, too, in the late 19th century, and again British Zionists allowing settlers into Mandatory Palestine in the 20s.
I’d suggest reading over the history yourself and making up your own mind. The Wikipedia article is a good starting point imo. It’s a long and complex conflict with no clear “good” or “bad” side.
What I think personally is that Israel was founded by colonist settlers, supported by imperial western powers. The Arab locals have resisted as best they could but been repeatedly defeated, while Israel’s western support has allowed it to grow and grow. They have expanded far beyond the original borders by settling and stealing land from the Palestinians. Hamas is the most recent military faction in opposition, and it certainly has done terrible things… But a terrorist insurgency is an inevitable consequence of a settler nation attempting to take over a much less powerful neighbour. If it wasn’t Hamas, it would be another group.
Maybe if Hamas are truly wiped out, we’ll get lucky and the next one will be slightly less insane… But I doubt it. And you can bet Israel will use whoever they are as an excuse to continue their brutal occupation and wage yet more war in the region, while the rest of the world looks on.
Have you watched the Mandalorian? Palestinians are Grogu and the Mandalorian, Israel / US and Zionists are the Empire.
The working class in both nations. The people, divided and conquered.
If Israel has a working class, it is one of settlers, IDF soldiers, etc. Those are not the “good guys”.
There is a longstanding and incorrect view of Western leftists in the capacity of the Israeli working class to build their power and address the injustices. That class has no capacity to do so whatsoever. They are fully bought-off by the ethnocentric project, both materially and psychologically. This is not very different from how other settler colonist “working classes” did the same. If anything, it is an important lesson that the working class is not a moral quantity, it is a group defined by its relation to production, and only through political education can it gain agency for positive change.
They do have a working class, but your second point is all too true, which is why it has made no impact.
Israel are absolutely and undeniably the bad guys. To use an analogy, imagine a school bully who is stronger and gets the support of the teachers and principal of the school, and the bully beats up the smaller kid every day until they hit a breaking point and throws a punch back. A reasonable school would support the bullied kid, but in this case, the principal just gives the bully a gun and looks away.
Israel has been dehumanizing and oppressing the Palestinian people since it’s inception and things have been getting worse. When October 7th happen, it was indeed horrible and many civilians got hurt, but Israel’s response was so completely disproportionately mad that they are actively committing genocide, treating the list of warcrimes like a to-do list.
The humanitarian aide workers.
The fact that somebody would be asking this question after a year of genocide is phenomenal.
Reminder that at the outbreak of WWII, TONS of people in the US supported the Nazi regime right up until they started invading Western Europe AKA “the countries that matter”
Also worth noting that the US continued to do business with the nazis well into the war, and IBM famously facilitated the holocaust.
The palestinian people. Sure, they have done some horrible things but it’s been mostly out of desperation for decades of abuse from Israel, who are actively invading their country.
Yeah the conflict started way before october the 7th.
The resistance including Hamas, Ansar Allah, Iraqi resistance, Hezbollah, etc.
but from what I know Israel was attacked and is responding and trying to get their hostages back.
lol what. You do realize gaza is a concentration camp right? That’s like saying the Jews who fought back during the warsaw ghetto uprising were bad guys. Also they aren’t trying to get their hostages back at all. On oct 7 the IDF was responsible for the MAJORITY of deaths. Look up hannibal directive.
The bad guys are Zionists. Simply put they think they are superior to anyone that’s not Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.
I actually didn’t realize Gaza was a concentration camp.
In 1948, during the Nakba, Israel ethnically cleansed much of Palestine. From that (and a good portion of the ethnic cleansing Israel has done since), many of the people were driven into Gaza.
In 2006, when Israel got kicked out of Gaza due to an uprising, they built a wall around it and restricted the amount of food, fuel, and other items, and banned the gazans from constructing wells, water containers, and other things that would allow the people in Gaza to stay alive longer if Israel cut off food/water supplies.
We learned about the displacement of Palestinians in school and it made me so angry. Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then. Aren’t the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this? Well, I suppose that’s just what they want! (Please note that I am only criticizing the Israeli government, not Jews or Israel in general; you have to be very careful to not get accused of antisemitism where I live.)
P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.
Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel back then.
They are punished because they are Palestinian and Israelis are racist occupiers.
Aren’t the Israeli politicians realizing they are fueling the conflict by doing this?
Yes, of course. Israel has a long record of maximum escalation and starting wars and ethnic cleansing. They have official doctrines of killing as many civilians as possible in bombing campaigns rather than engaging with fighters directly.
Israelis are incredibly racist.
P.S. I am from Germany, imagine new generations still had to suffer for the crimes the Nazis committed. That would be unforgiving and unjustified. It is our job to make sure this never happens again, though.
Good on you for having this position despite the racism of your government against solidarity with Palestine!
Great-grandchildren are being punished because their relatives (might) have fought against Israel
Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.
I am only criticizing the Israeli government, […] Israel in general
Israel is a settler colonial project, an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.
not Jews
Yes, we agree that it’s antisemitic as fuck to associate Jewishness with Zionism. When Israel is murdering children in public view, implying that Israel represents Jews is just blood libel with extra steps.
Fighting against settler colonists who came and established an apartheid regime is not a crime.
But killing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians is. You have to be clear about that, and also take a nuanced look at the whole conflict. There is no single good or bad side.
Apart from innocent Palestinians and Israelis (good) there are the terrorists (a.k.a. Hamas) who killed and kidnapped hundreds of civilians (bad). Then there is are the settlers, occupying land and terrorizing Palestinians (bad) with the help of the IDF. The Israeli government either looks away or even encourages them (bad). The IDF imprisons children, willingly destroys houses and infrastructure in Gaza and the west bank and executes “precision strikes” in areas of high population while also blocking humanitarian aid (bad).
I support chief investigator Khan’s arrest warrant for Netanjahu, Galant, Deif and Haniyya. Regarding the riots after trying to arrest nine IDF soldiers for abusing a Palestinian prisoner, it is obvious that Israel won’t be interested in a trial or at least not able to arrange one.
[…] an Israel that provided equal rights to all Muslims, Christians, and Jews living in its territory would be less related to the current state of Israel than modern South Africa is to Apartheid South Africa.
That is my dream. Just people living together peacefully, no matter their religion.
Thank you for the information. I did not know this.
It’s important to separate out the government from the people, especially as it pertains to governments that don’t listen to their population and don’t have overwhelming support. Neither government is good. Most of the civilians from both sides are perfectly decent, though a number of them are misguided.
It’s really impossible to simplify it, but I’ll give it a shot with a quick timeline:
- ~1200 BCE: Several unrelated tribes of people group together to become what we now call Jews or Hebrews or ancient Israelites. How this happened and exactly when is disputed, and is significantly muddied by their own mythology.
- ~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others.
- ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time).
- ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.
- 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State” and births the modern Zionist movement, claiming Jews have a right to Israel primarily on religious basis. He approaches world leaders saying as such and finds little traction.
- 1920: Britain takes control of the area now called Mandatory Palestine.
- 1941-1945: The Holocaust. I assume no additional information needed.
- 1945-1948: The Holocaust gives significant weight to Zionists’ arguments that Jewish people need their own country. As many Jews have already been emigrating there (known as “Aliyah” or Jewish emigration to the promised land) since Zionism took hold, the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
- 1948: Israel is officially recognized by the United States, its primary backer today. As part of this recognition, Israel and its allies committed what is commonly known as “The Nakba.” A huge number of Palestinians were killed, injured, jailed, or forcibly removed from the area.
- 1948: Arab-Israeli War. The Arab countries unite to fight the new state of Israel. This, as with most wars, is primarily because of power. The don’t want the West to be controlling the region. The Arabs lose, but nobody loses more than Palestine.
- 1948: Palestinian attacks on Israel start. I don’t have anywhere else to put this, but know that the end of the Arab-Israeli War didn’t end Palestinians fighting for their land and independence. They will continue to do so by any means available to them.
- 1956: Suez Crisis. Israel and its backers invade and militarily occupy part of Egypt and take control of the Suez canal because Egypt decided to nationalize it. This war is transparent in its goal for power.
- 1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders, including land owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Palestine would be listed as well if it were recognized as a state. They’re successful in only six days. Notable areas you may have heard of that were militarily acquired by Israel at this time are the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. Israel still retains control over these conquered areas.
- 1973: Yom Kippur War. Arab states attack to try to get back the land lost in the Six Day War. Israeli victory.
- 1978: Camp David Accords. Israel agrees to give some land back in return for being recognized by Egypt as a state. Sedat, the Egyptian leader, would be assassinated in part because of this action.
- 1987–1993: First Intifada. More organized and wide-scale Palestinian insurgency than we’ve seen before. Palestinians are fighting for their independence and their land. The insurgency is suppressed.
- 2000–2005: Second Intifada. Same reasons and result as the first.
- 2006-current: Much like the intifadas, there’s a lot to say here, but for the sake of brevity (lol too late) the Palestinian attacks that started in 1948 continue to this day. Israel intermittently declares various wars with the claim that they’re rooting out terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more.
This leaves out a lot. It’s just not possible to condense it. But (mostly) off the top of my head, that’s what I’d consider most of the most important bits.
The way I see it, whether or not you think Israel is “the good guys” largely hinges on whether or not you think Jews have a right to the land of Israel, and whether or not you think that claim was executed in a humane way.
I would compare it to the Native Americans - were the Americans of that time period the “good guys”? In my opinion, absolutely not. Were the Native Americans wrong for defending their land? Again, absolutely not. Were they wrong for attacking innocent civilians in retribution (for their land being taken, their own innocent civilians being killed, a genocide in progress)? Maybe, but it’s also understandable that when you’re working from a position of basically zero power against a behemoth, you can’t fight the way the behemoth fights, or you’re going to lose.
The way I see it, the Palestinian people just want a place to live and develop, and nobody’s giving them a way out, so they’re trying anything and everything they can.
One minor, but important detail: The First Aliyah began in the 1880s, a decade before Herzl’s work. Land was purchased for settlements, and a few tens of thousands came, mostly from Eastern Europe. Within a couple decades the kibbutz system was established, small socialist communities where it was decided, unfortunately, to try to rely exclusively on Jewish labor and economy. This led to the first significant frictions between the settlers and the Palestinians, setting the stage for our situation today.
Very true! It’s hard to imagine Israel would be the same today without the particular cultural choices those first immigrants made. Thanks for the addition.
lmao 1200 BC
Buddy, Zionism is a European settler colonial project from the 1800s that emerged as a response to European antisemitism but is of course, itself, deeply ethnocentric and racist.
All resistance to the occupation, which has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleansing, is justified under international law. They have now, for a years engaged in a fast genocide, which makes choosing a side very easy so long as you aren’t yourself deeply racist.
Also, approximately 900,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout Africa and Asia, primarily as a consequence of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and the establishment of the State of Israel.
True! That’s a good one to point out. It’s hard to overstate how significantly and suddenly the Arabs turned against the Jews. Plenty were understandably going to emigrate from Europe, but Israel made them very unwelcome in the Arab world, too. It’s also another good example of how Israel couldn’t have been established without their allies, since the US/UK were the primary providers of air travel for Jews seeking refuge from Arab states to Israel.
1967: Six Day War. Israel invades a variety of areas that it borders
You’ve made a pretty good summary, but I have one quibble: Egypt, Syria and Jordan were planning to attack Israel. Israel launched pre-emptive strikes.
I find it very difficult to justify most historical claims of anticipatory self-defense - it usually looks to me that it’s an aggressor using an excuse to justify their aggression. I haven’t seen nearly enough evidence to suggest Israel wasn’t the aggressor in the Six Day War. While the military mobilization of their neighbors certainly contributed toward Israel’s mobilization, that alone isn’t justification for invasion. Nasser thought Israel was preparing to invade Syria, but he didn’t preemptively invade Israel, he lined up his troops on the Israel-Egypt border and waited. We know now that Israel was not mobilizing troops on Syria’s border, but Nasser’s choice to defend his border was reasonable and nonviolent, even with false information.
But aside from that, I think it’s reasonable to suggest Israel would have attacked even had there been no mobilization of troops from the Arab states. We saw Israel attack Egypt during the Suez Crisis where they forcibly re-opened passage through the Straits of Tiran, their only shipping route to the south other than the also-Egyptian Suez Canal. Just prior to the Six Day War, Egypt cut off Israel from the Straits of Tiran again, something Israel publicly called an act of war. It’s not a coincidence Israel went ahead and took Sinai (immediately adjacent to the Straits of Tiran) during this war and didn’t give it back until the Camp David Accords. (It’s worth noting that had Nasser not gotten the original false information, he wouldn’t have done any of this, and it’s entirely possible the entire thing would have been averted. But he did, and that was a huge blunder on his part. Still, I disagree with Israel that refusing them passage through shipping routes is an act of war.)
I would also suggest that Israel’s behavior after the Six Day War doesn’t seem like the actions of a country that was acting in self-defense. They conquered land during that war and continue to occupy most of it to this day. They’ve invaded other countries since, with stated reasons that are as believable as the United States’ reasons for invading Iraq. They’ve continued to occupy additional land. These actions indicate a country interested in expansionism and power growth, not peaceful co-existence.
lmao imagine being this easy to fool
You left out the protocol of the elders of zion and the backlash it caused against Jews. It’s fairly important as a catalyst for some of the 20th century shit.
I’m actually okay with that not being included as a critical point in Israeli history. My understanding is it was one piece in a long line of antisemitism, and while it was known by the Nazi party, it was known by the leadership to be fictional and wasn’t used seriously as propaganda by them. That’s not to say it didn’t have any effect, just that I’m not convinced it made much difference when it comes to the creation of Israel as a state.
I’m open to alternative viewpoints if you want to provide evidence or just offer some book titles that might change my mind.
- 1896 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “The Jewish State”
- 1897 CE: Theodor Herzl writes “Mauschel”
Herzl believed that there were two types of Jews, Jiden (Yids) and Juden (Jews), and considered any Jew who openly opposed his proposals for a Zionist solution to the Jewish question to be a Mauschel. The article has often been taken, since its publication, to be emblematic of an antisemitic strain of thinking in Zionism, and has been described as an antisemitic rant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl
Due to his Zionist work, he is known in Hebrew as Chozeh HaMedinah (חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה), lit. ‘Visionary of the State’. He is specifically mentioned in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and is officially referred to as “the spiritual father of the Jewish State”.
the powers that be (UK and US primarily) already have control of the area (still Mandatory Palestine), and a desire to maintain control of the area, they decide to give most of that land to the Jews and call it Israel.
Israel wasn’t created by the UK or the US (or the UN). Israelis declared the state of Israel themselves after seizing territory in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The UN did have a plan to create an Israel in 1947, but that didn’t happen, because neither the Jews, the Arabs, nor the UK were on board.
I think this might be a semantic argument - it’s not important to me if we use the words “give” or “create.” Happy to use whatever words you prefer for allies having power and control of an area and ensuring that power and control is transferred to their chosen ally.
British Mandatory Palestine was officially ending May 15, 1948. Israel announced its independence on May 14, 1948. The United States officially recognized Israel as a state 11 minutes after it declared itself a sovereign state. It’s strange to suggest these are coincidences rather than planned action with their allies, but there’s plenty of evidence in addition to this to make it very clear that Israel wouldn’t have stood a chance without the backing of their superpower friends.
Thank you for the detailed timeline. However, it raises a serious question for me. Am I misreading, or does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years? If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?
Here’s the issue: who’s home is it? Is it the home of people who haven’t lived there for hundreds of years or the home of the people who currently do? Neither of these two groups had anything to do with what happened previously.
Jews had lived in the area for a very long time even after most were expelled. This was relatively peaceful (though not perfect). The current issues started when settlers came, who were not from there, and purchased farms. They later decided they would only hire Jewish workers, despite Muslims traditionally tending it (which hurt production because the Jewish settlers had no idea how to do so, but production wasn’t the goal). Muslims then fought back as their livelihood was being taken from them. The settlers used militias to attack back and used it as justification to take more.
Those militias became the IDF when Israel formed. Israel still uses this tactic of provoking an attack and then using that as an excuse to use more force to take more territory. This has happened many times now and the current fight is just the latest, but not a new event.
There are no “good guys” but there are victims. Anyone just trying to live their lives is a victim. The bad guys are the ones trying to take this away from others.
does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years?
That’s one interpretation, though I’d disagree with it. I have Jewish heritage - enough that a significant portion of my ancestry was wiped out in the Holocaust, though obviously a few of them were lucky and escaped to the US with the help of a sponsor. I don’t practice Judaism as a religion and don’t really relate much to any of my heritage. Is Israel my homeland? Not at all. The United States is my homeland. Before that, Germany would be my homeland. Before that… well, I’m not sure, but history would suggest it’s highly unlikely it was Israel. I have zero attachment to that land, much like I expect you have zero attachment to the land of your ancestors from millennia ago. (I also have zero attachment to the land of my non-Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what it is from thousands of years ago, but I wouldn’t care if I did.)
Would I and other Jewish people be justified in kicking out Germans, because they spent hundreds of years there? What about the Russians? Poles? The Jewish diaspora has gone all over the place and made just about everything their home. Why should they have claim to land that their great great great great great ancestors once conquered and stole from somebody else?
If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?
I would argue Israel wasn’t their home until they moved there over the last hundred or so years. Home isn’t where some of your family lived 3000 years ago. The individuals in question never lived there. Their parents never lived there. Their grandparents never lived there. None of these people had any idea what Israel was even like. Today, there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel, and they’re happy to call the United States home.
If we’re going to make the argument that people should be allowed to lay claim to land their ancestry owned 3000 years ago, we open up a lot of questions.
First, it’s worth noting that this is also the home of Palestinians. The origins of Palestinians are much less clear than the origins of Jewish people in large part because the Jews have been uniquely good at maintaining their culture, so we have a much better grasp on Jewish people throughout history than we do of Palestinians. But at its core, the fact is Palestinians haven’t ever lived anywhere else. This means they’re also “so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home.”
Second, to be consistent, we’d have to revert a lot of borders to ancient times. Does that mean we should all revert borders to what they were 3000 years ago? Why 3000? Why not 2000? 4000? Regardless, you’re uprooting a lot of people - and you’d have to provide a really good justification for that, and I don’t see it.
Third, even if we agreed the Jews have a right to this land and we should revert to their ancient borders and give them control, that doesn’t mean they have a right to attempt genocide on those living there. The moment they embarked on the Nakba, they should have lost their allies in their mission. Assuming they have a right to the land, they have to humanely displace the people there, ensure they have a new place to live, and give them adequate compensation for the land and the massive inconvenience you’ve caused by uprooting their entire lives. Sort of a “sorry we’re doing this, but we’re trying to make it right.” Instead, they’ve killed millions of people over the decades.
I’m referring to this part of your timeline-
“~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others. ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time). ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.”
Maybe I’m misreading it, but it seems to imply that they were, as a people, born from that land, and systemically were persecuted through the course of around 2400 years.
I think there’s a lot of fuzzyness around the idea of “born from that land.” It’s not like they sprouted out of the earth. As with just about any people, there was a lot of rape and murder of warring tribes until some combination of them stopped doing as much rape and as much murder and somewhat arbitrarily called themselves “one people.” If you want to call that “born from that land,” sure, but their ancestry goes back further than that. We’re all just apes.
As you now know, the Zionist project is one by Europeans who colonized and ethnically cleansed large regions of Palestine in the last 120 years or so. Ethnic supremacist myths about stolen Palestinian homes being on Israeli homelands are unacceptable.
Just count the dead, injured, displaced, starved, and dehydrated on either side. You’ll find pretty quickly the numbers are extremely disproportionate. If that’s [not] a baseline consideration for your judgment then you should think on that.
[Edit in brackets]
Removed by mod
This is absolutely false, hamas is not anti-semitic, they’re anti-zionist. You’re doing the british / murican tabloid thing of equating the two.
- Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Fine but why does one potential future genocide justify the realized genocide currently under way?
…it doesn’t?
I don’t understand your response then. If it doesn’t then why would it be a consideration here?
Removed by mod
I’ve made no claims about the ethics of Hamas here. Simply put, genocide is not an act of strategy, and putting the ethics of retaliation aside, does nothing to further the security of your own citizens. Israel has not made its people safer, rather the opposite. It has paved the road to open war with other nations, and is walking it.
I generally agree that the response seems lopsided. However, I also find it odd that Hamas simply hasn’t returned the hostages. This to me signifies two possibilities- they are not actually interested in peace, or they don’t believe that returning the hostages will stop Israel’s destruction.
Would that appraisal of the situation seem reasonable?
Hamas wants to trade those hostages for Palestinian hostages. Which have been imprisoned for decades.
It is a tale of “Israel started it” and the Palestinians have no other possible way to make demands from Israel than using the same tactics.
Israel openly says they will continue the destruction. Even if Hamas releases the hostages. Their government does not care about hostages. But the Israeli people do. Hamas would be giving up the only leverage they have against Israel by releasing the hostages.
Not really. Israel has a vested interest in continuing this land grab. The hostages are a convenient excuse, but separate from the inciting event. Furthermore it’s just as likely the hostages have been killed in israeli bombings.
I see. So you think Israel wants the hostages to be kept in order to give them a public excuse to continue their campaign?
No. I said they’re a convenient excuse. If they were to return then a new excuse would be found. The impetus for this campaign started as “self defense” in response to the Oct 7 attack. Then when that was no longer sufficient to justify things they moved onto the hostages as a bargaining chip.
There is a lot more to this way than just the hostage situation - Israel has been in control of Palestinian territory for a long time (they consider it theirs) and they have been fighting with the Hamas organization for years now. This is the single worst escalation of it.
Hamas doesn’t want peace. The status quo is domination of Palestine under Israel government - erasure of Palestine effectively if they laid down arms and disbanded. They want liberty, and payback for hardships.
There isn’t reason to believe Israel will stop the attacks on return of the hostages, as they have gone overwhelmingly above and beyond the total damage done by Hamas (even comparing women and children victims vs. the concert raid that started it all) and given Netanyahu’s far right government is at the helm, so your second point has merit.
I don’t have any inherent support either side, and there’s too much history along with bias, propaganda, and outright misinformation to make a determination of who the “good guys” are, if anyone.
However, in such cases I will support the underdog on the principle that you don’t really want one side to have too much power over the other. That’s how we end up with things like ethnic cleansing and genocide. If Palestine (and Lebanon) had powerful militaries, you wouldn’t be seeing the mass devastation and huge loss of civilian lives. I’d prefer to see the sides more balanced so that they can keep each other in check.
Another angle to consider is that I consider the state of Israel to be actively harmful to Americans on the basis of:
-
using our tax dollars to commit mass murder against civilians, including a staggering death toll for children
-
infiltrating our government, interfering with our elections, and having an undue level of influence on American policy
-
corollary to the preceding point: they support getting Trump back into the White House
-
training American law enforcement, who then use their oppressive tactics on Americans
-
similarly, technology they develop for surveillance and other means of control being used on Americans
-
directly attacking our First Amendment rights
Bottom line is I’d say everyone sucks, but in different ways. But I am anti-Israel on the basis of them being way out of control (and without anyone to keep them in check) and due to the threat they pose to the American public.
-
Removed by mod
Up until 1967, the bad guys were Britain.
Britain seized Palestine from the Ottomans during WWI with the help of the local Palestinians, promising the Palestinians sovereignty in exchange for their help overthrowing the Ottomans.
At the same time, Britain promised to create a homeland for Jews in Palestine (in the Balfour Declaration), and Jewish refugees from Europe began settling in Palestine. Britain did this because they thought they might gain the support of Jewish financiers for their war efforts.
The Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague about whether Britain was giving all of the land to the Jews or just some of the land. It was vague because Britain wanted to appeal to Jewish Zionists (who wanted all of Palestine) while not alienating the Palestinians.
Britain never did divide the land, resulting in two different populations who felt they legally owned the land, one who had always been there, and one who mostly arrived as refugees.
When Britain left following WWII, a civil war broke out for control of the land. A border was eventually drawn at the line of control (which ran through the middle of Jerusalem), and Israelis declared the new State of Israel, while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states. That was in 1948.
So, up until then, it’s a messy situation created by Britain, but one which eventually resulted in the land being split (albeit violently), with both Israelis and Palestinians having a state, and each having part of Jerusalem. The world accepted this as the new status quo and hoped it would be sustained peacefully.
That changed in 1967 when Israel annexed the Palestinian lands (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Days War. Since then, Palestinians have been living under a harsh Israeli occcupation as a stateless people (meaning no citizenship), with their rights and freedoms strictly curtailed. Palestinians have been resisting through a number of resistance movements, usually designated as terrorist groups in the Western media.
There was a political movement towards peace and repartitioning of the land that peaked in the 1990s, but since then it has been held up by a series of right-wing governments in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has been aggressively building Jewish neighbourhoods (called settlements) in the formerly Palestinian lands of the West Bank.
So since 1967, Israel has pretty clearly been the bad guy.
The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis was horrific, and we should all hope nothing like that ever happens again. But the root cause of the attack was Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The way to prevent future terror attacks is to end the oppression of the Palestinian people.
Concise, eloquent, and fair. I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
while Palestinian refugees fled to their side of the border or neighbouring states.
Technically not incorrect, but too much passive voice. Palestinian refugees were expelled by Israel, either by being directly told to leave or die or through massacres.
The terrorist attack that killed 1200 young Israelis
Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians. Don’t let Israel trick you into thinking Hamas just entered, killed a bunch of civilians and left, because that creates what they consider justification for their genocide.
Also do not forget that on 10/7 Israeli helicopters were firing on civilians and the state censors have been covering this up. There are attempts to ban Haaretz, a friendly mouthpiece for state interests, because they have been reporting on this.
If 66% of 1200 are civilians killed by Hamas then
Don’t let Israel trick you into thinking Hamas just entered, killed a bunch of civilians and left
is false (they indeed came and killed a bunch of civilians).
I’m not a pro-Israel person, I hate Netanyahu with a passion but still Hamas killing innocent people is not deserving of compassion albeit I understand their reason.
is false.
How so? Hamas attacked a number of Israeli military bases and outposts on October 7th, which was along with taking hostages the goal of the attack. The Israeli narrative conveniently ignores that, painting the whole thing as one big act of barbarism.
still Hamas killing innocent people is not deserving of compassion albeit I understand their reason.
It’s not about compassion. They definitely committed a bunch of atrocities on October 7th, and that very much deserves condemnation, but ignoring the very real military goals behind the attacks helps no one but Israel. Nobody really talks about that anymore, but if you remember before it was overshadowed by the genocide in Gaza things like how much of Israeli accusations against Hamas was true, how many casualties were Israeli friendly fire, what Hamas’s goals behind the attack were, etc etc were still open questions. The world quite reasonably stopped focusing on these things because Israel kept one-upping themselves in genociding Gazans, but that had the side effect of cementing the Israeli narrative on them as reality in the minds of most pro-Palestinian Westerners. What I’m saying is: Condemning terror that happened during the attack and condemning the attack itself are a different things, and one of them invalidates many legitimate acts of resistance.
Another correction: The attack that killed 1200 Israelis, 33% of which were legitimate military targets and 66% of which were civilians.
I never said they were civilians.
Yes but that’s the implication when you say “the terririst attack that killed 1200 young Israelis”.
I wasn’t implying that.
I mean okay but that’s how it reads like, especially because that myth is still alive and well.
They were young people who were gathered for a music concert.
Israel has compulsory military service for young people, so many of them were enlisted in the military. That doesn’t change the fact that they were young.
Removed by mod
There’s something else I want to mention.
In 1947, the UN attempted to sort out Britain’s mess by creating a “partition plan” in which the land would be split between a state of Israel and a state of Palestine.
Though adopted as a UN resolution, it was never implemented, and the aforementioned civil war broke out instead.
I just mention this because I find a lot of people are under the misimpression that Israel was created by the UN in 1947 as some kind of compensation for the Holocaust, and that’s not what happened.
Removed by mod
Israel struck first in the Six Days War.
Over a shipping route.
Israel started the six day war by striking its neighbors. It wanted that war, it knew it had dedicated sponsors that would back them up.
PS Israel, as an apartheid ethnostare premised on settler colonialism, should not exist. The “state” of Israel should be abolished and replaced by a non-apartheid, non-ethnostate that includes all of the people and guarantees a return of stolen homes and land.
That’s a pretty good summary. I will add that the partition plan was deliberate tactic by Ben-Gurion to set a precedent for the Ethnic Cleansing needed to create the Settler Colonialist Ethnostate within Palestine. The alternative presented by Palestinian Representatives was a Unitary State for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Partition
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
- Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
- Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
Ethnic Cleansing and Settler Colonialism
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
- The Transfer Committee, and the JNF Ethnic Cleansing, which led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate before the Nakba
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
The good guys are aid workers and Palestinian and Israeli civilians who do not like the conflict.
💯 this. The people doing the kidnapping, murdering, and genocide are the bad guys. The people trying to help are the good guys.
The people violently resisting a genocide are also good guys.
If someone is trying to kill you and everyone who looks like you, shooting back is good.
Shooting back is not only good, but necessary for survival.
Folks throughout these threads would’ve been wringing their hands over occupier civilians killed in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, acting like they just can’t tell who’s right or wrong.
About the Warsaw Uprising, I thought the targets were purely German military, so while a close analogy to how Hamas framed their action, it’s not exact.
The Warsaw Uprising was an open air prison/ghetto break with a wide number of participants, both organized and not. Those facing violence by the people seeking to fight their genociders were not just those in the military. It was anyone in the way or supporting them, per individuals’ wonts.
In addition, Hamas et al (Hamas was not the only organized group participating 10/7) did also focus on military targets while also taking hostages from a wider set. It is important to note that kibbutzim, little settler colonies, are often militarized and fired on them and others.
What sources do you have on German civilian casualties during the Warsaw Uprising?
Direct accounts. Here is one.
https://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/warsaw-uprising.html
Can you please show me a single protest of an Israeli citizen against the war specifically because of the genocide?
Asked n’ answered hahaha
In Western fiction, you are taught to support the scrappy underdogs facing oppression from a racist occupying force. You root for them and cheer when they blow up military facilities and you feel for them when they lose their compatriots to oppressor violence. You know very well who the good guys and bad guys are.
But then, in Western media, with a mere change of labeling and some paper-thin propaganda, they will have you believing the opposite. All they need to do is call the freedom fighter resistance “terrorists”, say that the occupiers “have a right to defend themselves”, and pretend the “conflict” is “complicated” and really about religion. And they will so this even when the occupier ramps up genocide to unignorable levels.
The good guys remain those fighting occupation. This is consistent with a basic understanding of liberation, with nearly everyone’s stated beliefs about self-determination, and international law. The bad guys are the ethnic supremacist apartheid settler colonist occupiers doing a genocide as well as their supporters.
Question- isn’t Hamas constantly attacking Israel with the stated goal to eradicate them?
Just to be clear, Hamas does not want to eradicate the Jews. That is a myth propagated by Israel.
Hamas wants to eliminate Israel, by which they mean they want Israel replaced by an Arab-majority state in which both Jews and Arabs live. (Hamas want the return of 4 million Palestinian refugees to Israel/Palestine, which would make it an Arab-majority state.)
Furthermore, they have indicated they are open to negotiating a Two-State solution.
I don’t think it makes any sense to portray Hamas as unreasonable for wanting Arabs to control the whole land (from the river to the sea) when Israel want the same thing for Jews.
Why does Hamas get to say they want to eradicate Israel as a state and have Arab-majority control over the region, but Israel doesn’t get to say they want to control the entire region? What makes who correct to say that in either case?
Because Palestine is a multifaith, multicultural country and Israel is a colonial foothold & apartheid that is actively and systemically trying to erase both Palestine and Palestinians.
Resistance is justified, oppression is not.
Your confusing a state with a people.
Hama’s want to stop Israel (the state) from existing as they occupy of their territory, and make them live in internment camps.
Israel wants to stop the Palestinian people from existing, because they are an inconvenience.
Because Israel set up an apartheid state. If they had set about building a representative democracy that included a constitutional right of return for Jews nobody would have had a problem. Instead they want to own all this land and oppress the people who live there.
Either that’s a legitimate goal or it isn’t. I don’t think it is.
but Israel doesn’t get to say they want to control the entire region?
What do you mean Israel doesn’t “get” to say that?
Israel does say that, and Israel does control the entire region, and almost every Western power allows them to.
I guess I meant to ask why is it morally okay for Palestinians to want to do that, but not morally ok for Israelis to want to do that. Is it because Israel is an apartheid, ethnostate?
Palestinians want the right to return from where they were ethnically cleansed, Israel wants to maintain a Jewish majority state.
Israel is saying they want to destroy Hamas which is the government of Gaza.
And they are saying they want to control the region. They call it Greater Israel.
Israel is a racist genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate. All good people wish for the destruction of such a thing just like all good people wished for the destruction of the apartheid South African ethnostate. If Hamas wishes this, they should be commended for it, don’t you think? And anyone who disagrees called out for the racial supremacist that they are?
What does destruction of Israel as a genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate look like to you? Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel? Does it look like the massive bombing campaign, displacement, and destruction of capacity for civilians to live that Israel has perpetrated in Gaza?
How did it look when south africans overthrew the apartheid regime? Didn’t come anywhere near the racist nightmares of white supremacists, and there’s no reason to believe the return of palestine will be any different.
Also it’s up to Palestinians, and no one else to decide what to do with their land.
The end of apartheid, the end of ethnosupremacy at both the state and societal level, land back for displaced Palestinians. But most importantly, self-determination for the people of Palestine. They decide what they need or want once they are in a position to liberate themselves, not you and not me.
The side you are carrying water for is an ethnosupremacy at apartheid settler colonial occupation. You don’t get to hand wring about what you think the oppressed will do to their opprrssors.
First, I am not on Israel’s side in this matter. I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned, dismantling apartheid and establishing self-determination for Palestinians. However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal. Just as I am in support of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.
Sure, neither of us are directly affected won’t be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.
First, I am not on Israel’s side in this matter
And yet you used a tired Zionist talking point that amounts to, “what if the people we are oppressing do the same things to us if we stop the oppression?” It was also used for apartheid South Africa, incidentally. And we can see that the oppressed are far more humane than these ethnic supremacists.
But maybe you are anti-Zionist and just picked up this question from others.
I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned
The outcomes I mentioned are incompatible with a two-state solution. A two-state solution is bantustans and it was “agreed” to by compradors. It is not a serious proposal, which is why Israel/the US has never attempted to implement it and has instead further oppressed and fragmented Palestinians.
A two-state solution means no right of return, the continuation of the Israeli apartheid ethnostate, and the status quo for Gaza and The West Bank. There can be no state under occupation, with its orchards and homes stolen, with its towns disjointed, with a comprador government installed by Western interests. That is neither sovereignty nor justice and it would not be tolerated by the oppressed.
However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal.
Define atrocities. Israel will simply shoot and torture peaceful movements. It already has done so many times. Only armed resistance can defeat such an oppressor.
Just as I am in support of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.
Just as the West labels all Palestinians freedom fighters, they will label actions far lesser than what Israel does on a daily basis “war crimes” when it suits them, just like the ICC seems to basically only go after black African war criminals (Bush and Cheney weren’t tried at the Hague, hmm). Guerilla warfare against an oppressor will not be clean, this is impossible. Intelligence will fail and targets will be colocated, e.g. the IDF has part of its headquarters by a shopping mall. And individuals will do terrible and violent things. Also, Israelis and the West, including the US president, will simply lie, like with the “beheaded babies” narrative. So you will have to prepare yourself to question these narratives and accept a world where the freedom fighters will be accused of war crimes by the usual sources.
Though, if we are speaking of international law, occupied people are allowed to resist their occupiers by any means they deem fit.
Sure, neither of us are directly affected won’t be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.
I use this platform for chatting and agitation. This convo is in the agitation category, of course. Generally speaking it is important to shout down pro-genocide narratives, whether it is Zionist propaganda or Dems trying to get their voters to tolerate genocide.
Because you’re unable to distinguish between a state and a people, you’re unable to imagine anything but the eradication of a people, even though the example of the state of South Africa was just given to you.
Removed by mod
conflation of state and people that Hamas’s ideology clearly makes
A Document of General Principles and Policies
by largely targeting and slaughtering civilians in their homes
That is not what happened. That is what Western media said happened.
- The Intercept:
- Al Jazeera: Why did Israel deploy Hannibal Directive, allowing killing of own citizens?
- Electronic Intifada: How Israel killed hundreds of its own people on 7 October
.
If Hamas wants to dismantle Israeli oppression through activism, negotiations, and political reform great.
- It has tried to do that for decades. The most recent significant attempt was Great March of Return, wherein the IDF slaughtered Gazans.
- Palestinians have the legal right under UN law to struggle against their occupiers by any means necessary, including armed struggle.
- Israel, as an occupier, has no right to “self defense.”
You can support Palestine as a people right to live, and condemn Israeli blanket bombing without supporting Hamas’ shooting civilians.
Or did you also struggle with condemning British occupation of Ireland, whilst also disagreeing with the IRA bombing of civilian targets?
Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel?
Can’t say they don’t deserve it
Which is why Jews across the world have said Israel is genuinely the greatest source of danger to them in terms of antisemitism - because it has linked its atrocities to their identity, regardless of their personal support.
Removed by mod
I’ve seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system. You’re saying that’s not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?
I don’t have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you’re justifying Israel’s reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.
I think, from what I’ve learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.
I’ve seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system.
That is not a solution, it is bantustans.
You’re saying that’s not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?
The “state” of Israel should be destroyed thoroughly. The “state” of Israel is premised on ethnosuoremacist genocidal apartheid and colonization. Remove those things and the “state” of Israel will fundamentally no longer exist, both because injustice will have been addressed and also because a very large number of Israeli settlers will simply leave, as they only care about living in an ethnostate that serves them. Something similar happened with Boers.
I don’t have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you’re justifying Israel’s reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.
Israel’s political leadership have always understood their project as ethnosupremacist, of requiring stealing land from the natives, as requiring oppression of the larger population of Palestinians who will not tolerate these conditions. They correctly understand that this project will end if those conditions are addressed, if justice is done. That is not a reason to accept their justification, as no ethnkstate deserves to exist or “defend itself” against those it oppresses.
I think, from what I’ve learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.
A two-state solution is bantustans and not even taken seriously by the “Israelis” or their American sponsors. It is just a nice-sounding “compromise” they hold in front of liberals like a carrot so that they will accept their continued slow (or now fast) genocide and displacement of Palestinians. “Israel” prefers its slow and steady expulsion of Palestinians into smaller and smaller concentration camps, like districts from South Africa. Those could never be considered a “state” under any circumstances and “Israel” would never accept them as such, even in such a diajointed condition.
Justice requires an end to the ethnostate itself.
Thank you for such a detailed response. Considering your views that ethnostates should be done away with, an interesting question came up for me. Would you be in favor of forcefully going in and forcing regime change in Israel?
I think the latter is entirely unnecessary. The US and its co-sponsor lackeys could do plenty by simply withdrawing support. The Zionist project is 90% dependent on constant material aid from Western powers to prop up its regime and would be forced to concede to the larger and more committed Palestian liberation movement without it. If they were to do anything active that was helpful, it would be to denuclearize Israel first.
Both of this things would require significant changes, though. Israel is propped up because it’s violence against its neighbors is useful for US domination of the region. But we can work for this in pieces by blocking arms exports, disrupting supply chains, and builsing leverage to demand that countries spend domestically instead of supporting genocide. Ironically in EU countries it is far-right electoral groups that have more steam for the latter due to the fact that liberals have made themselves the warmongers focused on increased militarization, but of course we cannot trust those right wingers to follow through.
Please understand the distinction between the destruction of the state of Israel and the destruction of the people of Israel. The example you were just given was the destruction of the state of South Africa.
a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable.
That sounds nice, but Israel wants no such thing and never has, despite its past claims to the contrary.
I think a Two-State Solution would be a good idea (and I have opinions on exactly where the border should go), but it will have to be imposed on Israel by the international community.
Israel has never been sincere about a Two-State solution, and their “offers” to Palestine have been inadequate and unworkable, and the Palestinians have been right to reject them because there’s no point in accepting a deal that won’t lead to peace. Only a fair and workable deal can lead to peace.
Israel has demonstrated that they are an illegitimate state, because legitimate states do not bomb the stateless people living within their borders. At this point we should be treating Israel like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany. The Israeli military should be placed under foreign control, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza returned to the Palestinians.
So far, the only thing stopping this from happening has been the United States’ support for Israel.
Israel needs to realize that the United States is rapidly declining in power, and if Israel doesn’t voluntarily cede the Palestinian territories, Israel might not exist at all in the near future.
Israel has been keeping Palestinians in a brutal and murderous apartheid state and brutalizing them for 80 years-- imprisoning them indefinitely without charges too. But you want to question what the oppressed do and why, as if it was mysterious. I’m having a hard time beleiving you when you say you want this explained to you, but I suppose I’ll take it at face value and hope for the best.
If you truly want to understand this stuff, start with a deep dive-- several actually, into history. Start with the jewish-roman wars to understand the zionist/zealot motivations. At this point the original states of Israel were 1000 years gone, having weakened themselves with civil war over taxation, then plundered and abosrbed by the neo-babylonians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars
From there you’ll want to look at the expansion of the ottoman empire and jewish place in it, and how they were governed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire This overlapped with the crusades. I recommend “empires of the sea” by crowley. Crucial in there is how the Ottoman empire depended on slaves to function, but their religion only allowed them to get slaves by capturing them in battle, and it forbade muslims from trading in slaves thesmelves, but allowed buying them. Hence the birth of slave traders as a caste, who were foriegn, and became largely a jewish group. This understandably was not well received back in Europe, where the slaves came from. The ottomans almost totally depopulated the mediteranean coasts gathering slaves. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-13260-5_14 Toward the end of the ottoman empire (it was an 800 year empire), they officially tolerated muslims as slave traders. (Progress?)
You can also read up on how jews participated in and were persecuted in the crusades, and draw some conclusions as to why and how that played out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades#:~:text=In the First Crusade%2C Jewish,Jews in France suffered especially.
Then move on to jewish presence in the region during the ottoman empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
Read up on how jewish expulsions from european countries came about because of christianities Vix pervenit. Theres a lot there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_pervenit
See how because of medeival views of usury, Jews were ejcted by monarchs in europe as a way to justify seizing their assets, only to allow them back a bit later and starting the process over https://humsci.stanford.edu/feature/stanford-historian-explores-how-expulsions-became-widespread-medieval-europe
From there you can end up in the start of WW2, the jewish holocaust, and then Haganah and Irgun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
Partition, the UN creating a state of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
Israel’s leadership thoughts at the time: https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
From there, the Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
The six day war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War The USS liberty incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The first and second intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
Oslo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_I_Accord
The creation of hamas by Israel to thwart the PLO peace plans and two state solution https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/
9/11 and Osama bin laden, and the use and weaponization of his logic by western powers https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html
The rise of indefinite administrative detention https://apnews.com/article/israel-detention-jails-palestinians-west-bank-793a3b2a1ce8439d08756da8c63e5435
Storming of al aqsa mosque on oct 4 2023 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/4/israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-mosque-complex-on-fifth-day-of-sukkot
October 7 2023 attacks https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67039975
The use of the hannibal directive https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
You can google and read a lot about the negoatiations and doubts for whether Netenyahu wanted to negotiate for the release of hostages at all, and the Israelis protesting his lack of interest in getting the hostages back. You can also look at settler groups auctioning off peices of gaza, and now lebanon.
That’s fine. Some of my leftist friends feel the same way, like I’m not asking in good faith. I don’t have any way to convince you that I am. I just feel like I’m not educated on the subject and that’s why I’m looking for a wide array of facts and opinions.
Personally I think your perception is part of a larger problem of a breakdown in communication and education, where people automatically assume the worst of everyone’s intentions because of either experience with other bad actors, or because you feel like since you have the knowledge you have and it feels intuitive to you, you feel like everyone else must also have that knowledge and anyone outside of that sphere is simply trying to be a disruptor.
Personally I think your perception is part of a larger problem of a breakdown in communication and education, where people automatically assume the worst of everyone’s intentions because of either experience with other bad actors
Thats a fair accusation. Theres often a lot of bad faith in these communications, so if you are coming from a place of good faith and are here to learn, I apologize, and I’ve added a bunch of history links to my original comment, so you can interpret the history yourself.
Thank you for adding all of that information to your original post. I will read through it!
Did you watch the video I linked you below?
I’m sorry, I don’t see a video link.
