news Israel-Palestine Conflict 2023/ 2024 Mega Thread

[Jjang]

are non Zionist students now allowed to feel unsafe too? 

[State of Grace.]

Zionists are a threat to humanity and the entire world

[Gaia]

Is there a video of the incident? The video in the OP is just of the protest not an attack which is odd  

[playboi]

I looked for evidence of the attack and couldn't find anything substantial

[Luckitty]

and some people still try to deny that it's a genocide

[Communion]

Imagine if Palestinian students attacked a peaceful Zionist protest with tear gas and some noxious chemical meant to make someone choke until they pass out. 

 

There would literally be nightly talk show headlines about "leftists trying to gas Jewish people to death'.

[Mr.X]

9 hours ago, BletaRexher said:

But we’re funding Israel because they’re fighting the “terrorists”.
Israel is also a terrorist state but it’s okay because they’re America’s home base for oil.
It’s all about money, land of the free my ******* ass. All America is now is a state that sucks out resources from all over the world in the name of being “peace keepers”. Just to give all the money to billionaires and not give a single **** about its citizens who are struggling because we’re all being ****** by this dystopian late stage capitalism society. Buying a home used to be attainable by everyone now it’s a luxury. I feel so ******* free right now living pay check to pay check. 

This, all of this.

 

Abolish Israel, criminalise zionism and remove all international US military bases from the world. That will see world peace develop at a much larger rate and put more focus on the US gov to actually support its citizens

[Jjang]

11 hours ago, Aristotle said:

.

I just noticed that in the Ukraine-Russia thread, you argued that "the Arabs rejected the two-state solution just like the Ukrainians reject Russia's offers". Palestinians were never offered a viable sovereign state. No reparations, no responsibility or accountability over a decades-old brutal military occupation, no right of return, no military, no control over borders, no control over airspace, no access to the fertile part of the land, no port, no authority over infrastructure, and an indefinite IDF presence/surveillance in Palestine - so let's not spread confusion here. 

 

Just a bit of context for you:

 

 

[Communion]

16 hours ago, HeavyMetalAura said:

Dumb question for you guys.
 

I admittedly know very little about this conflict and would consider myself largely ignorant on it. I’ve read a couple - what I believe to be - unbiased summaries of the conflict, both sides views, what caused it, why it’s escalated so much recently, etc - but as a young voter in the US I’m trying to figure out my perspective on this. I’d say I’m voting Biden regardless simply because I need to worry about myself as a gay man and I truly fear for what a Trump dictatorship would mean for my community (and I am sure Trump would have no issue “supporting a genocide,” as I’ve seen people say Biden is doing, if it benefited him) but I still want to understand this the best I can.

 

Can I ask you guys exactly what you think the President of the US should do in response to this conflict? In the ideal world, what’s the best and most appropriate response you’d want from the POTUS, if any? 
 

Forgive me for making this conflict discussion US-centric; mods, if this is a question I should ask in the US Election thread instead, please move or delete my comment. I’m just trying to understand it from my limited US-centric view given our leadership is - from my understanding - playing a big role in this conflict. 
 

TIA for anyone who will take the time to share their thoughts. 

If you're looking for answers you believe are rooted in realistic expectations, we just have to see how Obama handled Israel vs Biden.

 

For context, Hillary Clinton was such a war-hawk that she was caught on audio tape saying the US should have rigged elections in Gaza in 2005.

Biden is effectively operating not just far to the right of Obama - who often had personal interest in Palestinians' humanity - but to that of Clinton, as he always has.

 

For direct examples, the bombing of Yemen via executive authority and using his executive powers to bypass Congress to expedite military aid to Israel are two things Biden could just... not do. 

 

[Gui Blackout]

Providing zero proof or evidence of any of that, but @ColumbiaSJP tweeted so it's totally true

[Jjang]

6 minutes ago, Gui Blackout said:

Providing zero proof or evidence of any of that, but @ColumbiaSJP tweeted so it's totally true

Remember when you said that the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh was fake? 

[brraap]

4 hours ago, Luckitty said:

and some people still try to deny that it's a genocide

This is so dystopian  

[State of Grace.]

14 hours ago, Aristotle said:

The one state supporters overwhelmingly include ethnic cleanse on both sides. 

Sis I think you're a bit confused about what ethnic cleansing is though. Asking for one state is not ethnic cleansing. We're calling for a fully decolonized Palestine: a democratic, secular, and multiethnic state. A state where the IDF is fully dissolved and terminated. A state with one form of citizenship, equal rights for all, reparations for Palestinians, and especially the right of return for the Palestinian diaspora who are still not allowed to visit their land. A state where Christians, Jews, and Muslims live together, just like they did for centuries before.

 

Those who don't like it can leave (like the French settlers who ran back to where they came from after Tunisia and Algeria's independence ). Many Israeli settlers already have dual passports/citizenship and can easily apply for others. This is not ethnic cleansing.

 

The idea of a two-state solution is completely dead.

 

 

Edited January 21 by State of Grace.

[brraap]

The two state solution will never work because it does not hold Israel accountable for years of apartheid and illegally occupied lands. 
 

It’s not a viable option and it never has been. It was just an excuse to give Palestinians blind hope and allow Israel to appear democratic on the world stage.

[Aethereal]

14 minutes ago, State of Grace. said:

Sis I think you're a bit confused about what ethnic cleansing is though. Asking for one state is not ethnic cleansing. We're calling for a fully decolonized Palestine: a democratic, secular, and multiethnic state. A state where the IDF is fully dissolved and terminated. A state with one form of citizenship, equal rights for all, reparations for Palestinians, and especially the right of return for the Palestinian diaspora who are still not allowed to visit their land. A state where Christians, Jews, and Muslims live together, just like they did for centuries before.

 

Those who don't like it can leave (like the French settlers who ran back to where they came from after Tunisia and Algeria's independence ). Many Israeli settlers already have dual passports/citizenship and can easily apply for others. This is not ethnic cleansing.

 

The idea of a two-state solution is completely dead.

 

 

I was not talking about you specifically or every single one state supporter. But suit yourself, I'm glad I am not involved.  

[Aethereal]

Quora is full of pro-Israel propaganda, little to zero empathy for Palestinians.

[Communion]

I do have a question for those who think the two-state solution is viable (despite Biden recently saying the two-state solution doesn't have to include two equal states and... well... giving the game away....). Especially when a one state Palestine is framed as likely to lead to ethnic cleansing like @Aristotle says above.

 

This rhetoric is often presented in two different - and often contradicting - ways.

 

I'm reminded of users like @Harrier brushing away comparisons to post-apartheid South Africa or the dissolving of Rhodesia on the basis that whites only made up a small minority in either. That there are simply too many Israeli settlers and their now children and children's children to willingly accept being a ethnic minority in a single Palestine state (especially given their fear of retribution for the treatment of the Palestinians for decades).

 

But then.. the argument above is wheeled out. That decolonization is inherently violent and giving Palestinians retribution for their suffering would inevitably end in bloodshed of the Israelis due to some.. I guess, I don't know? Innate savagery of the Palestinian people? Despite even South Africa seeing an even smaller white minority still enjoying a higher standard of living and rate of property ownership than non-white South Africans? 

 

It's presented at the same time that Israelis are both too powerful to contend with and not get their way yet also too weak to be left prey to the innate savagery of Palestinians if allowed to govern both themselves and the total law of the land.

 

It's one thing if someone said they felt the 2SS was the most immediate, pragmatic approach due to Israeli savagery revealing itself as knowing no bounds. That a people who video record themselves dropping bombs on children hospitals while wearing funny costumes are going to take decades and decades of mass forced re-education by the international community to be de-radicalized.

 

Yet it's never "a two state solution with an international body taking over *Israel* to dismantle its settlements and restructure the settler society to make room for Palestine to co-exist*. It's the US and Israel calling for a state that's not really a state but a cage to hold a savage people.

 

So often liberal both side-ism doesn't root pragmatism in acknowledging Israeli savagery. Instead viewing the situation as intentional savage Islamism vs misguided fascism on the part of cornered Israelis now too stuck *by no fault of their own* to walk back their 'mistakes'.

Edited January 21 by Communion

[FOCK]

Reportedly, he’s being demoted. 
Mrs Yahoo found out he had a past of protest against her husband’s party & they want a woman in his place for sympathy simping. 
 

 

[Aethereal]

18 minutes ago, Communion said:

I do have a question for those who think the two-state solution is a viable option (despite Biden recently saying the two-state solution doesn't have to include two equal states and... well... giving the game away....), especially when a one state Palestine is framed as likely to lead to ethnic cleansing like @Aristotle says above.

 

This rhetoric is often presented in two different - and often contradicting - ways.

 

I'm reminded of users like @Harrier brushing away comparisons to post-apartheid South Africa or the dissolving of Rhodesia on the basis that whites only made up a small minority in either and that there are simply too many Israeli settlers and their now children and children's children to willingly accept being a ethnic minority in a single Palestine state (especially given their fear of retribution for the treatment of the Palestinians for decades).

 

But then.. the argument above is also wheeled out, that decolonization is inherently violent and giving Palestinians retribution for their suffering would inevitably end in bloodshed of the Israelis due to some.. I guess, I don't know, innate savagery of the Palestinian people? Despite even South Africa seeing an even smaller white minority still enjoying a higher standard of living and rate of property ownership than non-white South Africans? 

 

It's presented at the same time that Israelis are both too powerful to contend with and not get their way yet also too weak to be left prey to the innate savagery of Palestinians is allowed to govern both themselves and the total law of the full scope of land.

 

It's one thing if someone said that the two state solution to them was the most immediate pragmatic approach due to Israeli savagery revealing itself as knowing no bounds. That a people who video record themselves dropping bombs on children hospitals while wearing funny costumes are going to take decades and decades of mass forced re-education by the international community to be de-radicalized.

 

Yet it's never "a two state solution with an international body taking over *Israel* to dismantle its settlements and restructure the settler Israeli society to make room for Palestine to co-exist with it*. It's the US and Israel saying loudly a state that's not really a state to cage a savage people. For animals.

 

So often liberal both side-ism doesn't root pragmatism in acknowledging Israeli savagery but viewing the situation as being intentional savage Islamism vs misguided fascism on the part of cornered Israelis now too stuck by no fault of their own to walk back their mistakes.

I am talking about an equal agreement with more consideration for Palestinians (more than what US or Israel has offered to them) without having to lead to another war in future. If you try to force a one-state Palestine than Israel will rebel or a one state Israel, Palestinians will rebel. And let's not act Israel is entirely depended on US or West, they can fight and resist on their own.

 

It's not always all or nothing even if you are the victim. That's much closer to reality than anything else, it's a statistical fact. Israel would pick to move 400,000 settlers out of West Bank over a one state Palestinian and vice versa Palestine would choose that over a one state Israel.

 

Have certain Muslim countries compensated (even a little) any of their victims throughout history of land loss, genocide and slavery? What about 500,000 Jews that were kicked out of some those countries? 

 

Nearly 2/3 of Israeli Arabs and 1 in 3 Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza support the 2 state solution that's not shy a percentage especially for them who have seen their own people get killed in masses. No offense but who are you to oppose this idea as possible scenario for the sake of peace? Do you know better than the majority of Israeli Arabs and a good chunk of Palestinians? 

 

 

[Both Sides Now]

1 hour ago, State of Grace. said:

Those who don't like it can leave (like the French settlers who ran back to where they came from after Tunisia and Algeria's independence ). Many Israeli settlers already have dual passports/citizenship and can easily apply for others. This is not ethnic cleansing.

Well, yes! 
 

If Israelis don’t want to live in a non-apartheid Israel then they should be free to leave. After apartheid was dismantled in 1995, up to 800K white people in South Africa left the country. Same thing is threatened daily from Loyalists in Northern Ireland (“If Irish Reunification happens, we are fleeing to Britain!!”).
 

It is likely a lot of Israelis won’t want to stay in Israel if the indigenous Palestinians are no longer denied basic human rights. And that’s ok! If they leave, it will be probably be safer for the Palestinians. 

Realistically though, a single state would likely be extremely dangerous for Palestinians. So I’m not sure where to fall on it. 

 

[Jjang]

59 minutes ago, Communion said:

I do have a question for those who think the two-state solution is viable (despite Biden recently saying the two-state solution doesn't have to include two equal states and... well... giving the game away....). Especially when a one state Palestine is framed as likely to lead to ethnic cleansing like @Aristotle says above.

 

This rhetoric is often presented in two different - and often contradicting - ways.

 

I'm reminded of users like @Harrier brushing away comparisons to post-apartheid South Africa or the dissolving of Rhodesia on the basis that whites only made up a small minority in either. That there are simply too many Israeli settlers and their now children and children's children to willingly accept being a ethnic minority in a single Palestine state (especially given their fear of retribution for the treatment of the Palestinians for decades).

 

But then.. the argument above is wheeled out. That decolonization is inherently violent and giving Palestinians retribution for their suffering would inevitably end in bloodshed of the Israelis due to some.. I guess, I don't know? Innate savagery of the Palestinian people? Despite even South Africa seeing an even smaller white minority still enjoying a higher standard of living and rate of property ownership than non-white South Africans? 

 

It's presented at the same time that Israelis are both too powerful to contend with and not get their way yet also too weak to be left prey to the innate savagery of Palestinians if allowed to govern both themselves and the total law of the land.

 

It's one thing if someone said they felt the 2SS was the most immediate, pragmatic approach due to Israeli savagery revealing itself as knowing no bounds. That a people who video record themselves dropping bombs on children hospitals while wearing funny costumes are going to take decades and decades of mass forced re-education by the international community to be de-radicalized.

 

Yet it's never "a two state solution with an international body taking over *Israel* to dismantle its settlements and restructure the settler society to make room for Palestine to co-exist*. It's the US and Israel calling for a state that's not really a state but a cage to hold a savage people.

 

So often liberal both side-ism doesn't root pragmatism in acknowledging Israeli savagery. Instead viewing the situation as intentional savage Islamism vs misguided fascism on the part of cornered Israelis now too stuck *by no fault of their own* to walk back their 'mistakes'.

reminds me of this article: 

 

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190423-israels-anti-bds-tactics-mirror-white-south-africas-defence-of-apartheid/amp/

 

Thomas Jefferson on slavery: 

 

“we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

 

I mean, growing up I genuinely used to think that Palestinian oppression was so unique and inescapable. Turns out it’s just textbook racism manifesting in contemporary times. I guess people back then didn’t believe they were racist either and assumed safety within the respective discriminative regime they were a part of. Crazy tbh. 

Edited January 21 by Jjang

[Communion]

23 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

I am talking about an equal agreement with more consideration for Palestinians (more than what US or Israel has offered to them)

So something that is not being offered? So in any actual scenario that could happen, one party will be forced to accept conditions they do no like, and I'm confused why you're so eager to throw your force behind making that Palestinians and not the Israelis. 

 

23 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

t's not always all or nothing even if you are the victim.

A Palestinian state would be giving Palestinians "it all"? What? You're not engaging with the actual question about the contradictions you and others present for your logic. Even when white South Africans were forced to live alongside non-white South Africans as equal, South African society itself still remains largely unequal *in the favor of* white South Africans. Same for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. This is what's confusing about the rhetoric being used.

 

The international community is being asked to accept that 1) Israelis are simply too large of a population to not have their own state but also 2) that, even if the international community entertained backing a 1SP, we're told it'd be lining up Israelis to slaughter, complete subjugation, "letting the victim become the victimizer". And that.. just doesn't make sense? If a white micro-minority couldn't be subjugated under an equal South Africa, why would a large non-Arab population living in Palestine?

 

It feels like you're creating a theoretical problem (claims that Non-Arab Jews would be subjugated in a one state Palestine) to then invent a theoretical conflict ("you're giving Palestinians EVERYTHING! Just because you're a victim doesn't mean you can make others SUFFERS!"). How would Israelis suffer under a one state Palestine?

 

Quotes like the below feel like, despite claiming to be very serious about this, you're still reflexively trolling and unserious:

23 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

Have certain Muslim countries compensated (even a little) any of their victims throughout history of land loss, genocide and slavery? What about 500,000 Jews that were kicked out of some those countries?

Why do Palestinians have to pay for the crimes of others? How is it Palestinians' fault that Jewish communities across the MENA were victim to mass retaliatory violence following the Nakba? Let alone that every expert on Levant geopolitics has suggested all 2SS plans will effectively be a one state Israel that will continually lead to ethnic cleansing? In function, Israel's existence manifests and leads to the unfolding of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. There's no apparent scenario where it doesn't.

 

That's why this below statement is.. wild:

23 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

1 in 3 Palestinians... but who are you to oppose this idea as possible

*I'm* not opposing anything. I'm accepting that the vast majority of Palestinians oppose living under the subjugation of Israel at this point and not deluding myself that the majority of Palestinians and their autonomy to accept subjugation or not is somehow discreditable if you or another user or myself call them Islamists or terrorists enough times.

Edited January 21 by Communion

[Aethereal]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

So something that is not being offered? So in any actual scenario that could happen, one party will be forced to accept conditions they do no like, and I'm confused why you're so eager to throw your force behind making that Palestinians and not the Israelis. 

 

A Palestinian state would be giving Palestinians "it all"? What? You're not engaging with the actual question about the contradictions you and others present for your logic. Even when white South Africans were forced to live alongside non-white South Africans as equal, South African society itself still remains largely unequal *in the favor of* white South Africans. Same for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. This is what's confusing about the rhetoric being used.

 

The international community is being asked to accept that 1) Israelis are simply too large of a population to not have their own state but also 2) that, even if the international community entertained backing a 1SP, we're told it'd be lining up Israelis to slaughter, complete subjugation, "letting the victim become the victimizer". And that.. just doesn't make sense? If a white micro-minority couldn't be subjugated under an equal South Africa, why would a large non-Arab population living in Palestine?

 

It feels like you're creating a theoretical problem (claims that Non-Arab Jews would be subjugated in a one state Palestine) to then invent a theoretical conflict ("you're giving Palestinians EVERYTHING! Just because you're a victim doesn't mean you can make others SUFFERS!"). How would Israelis suffer under a one state Palestine?

 

Quotes like the below feel like, despite claiming to be very serious about this, you're still reflexively trolling and unserious:

Why do Palestinians have to pay for the crimes of others? How is it Palestinians' fault that Jewish communities across the MENA were victim to mass retaliatory violence following the Nakba? Let alone that every expert on Levant geopolitics has suggested all 2SS plans will effectively be a one state Israel that will continually lead to ethnic cleansing? In function, Israel's existence manifests and leads to the unfolding of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. There's no apparent scenario where it doesn't.

 

That's why this below statement is.. wild:

*I'm* not opposing anything. I'm accepting that the vast majority of Palestinians oppose living under the subjugation of Israel at this point and not deluding myself that the majority of Palestinians and their autonomy to accept subjugation or not is somehow discreditable if you or another user or myself call them Islamists or terrorists enough times.

Nobody said Palestinians have to suffer because of the faults that other Muslims did.  I was simply mentioning that, as a fact since you brought Western colonizer vs Muslims scenario yourself, and that in most cases in history the victims did not reclaim all of their land loss or genocide even when the victimizer is a Muslim. A peace agreement for the sake of future of the Palestinians.

 

I would say the same to Ukraine if they were much weaker to handle Russia. (perhaps if Trump plugs out all the help in 2025)

 

Girl, apartheid in Rhodesia ended 40 years ago there are much bigger problems in Africa now and it was way less violent than Palestinian crisis. Let it go. 

Edited January 21 by Aristotle

[Mean Trees]

52 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

Nobody said Palestinians have to suffer because of the faults that other Muslims did.  I was simply mentioning that as a fact since you brought Western colonizer vs Muslims scenario yourself and that in most cases in history the victims did not reclaim all of their land loss or genocide even when the victimizer is a Muslim. A peace agreement for the sake of future of the Palestinians.

 

I would say the same to Ukraine if they were much weaker to handle Russia. 

 

Girl, apartheid in Rhodesia ended 40 years ago there are much bigger problems in Africa now and it was way less violent than Palestinian crisis. Let it go. 

Girl, apartheid in South Africa ended only 30 years ago. And Girl, There's much bigger problems in Africa like corrupt leaders doing the West's bidding for resources and plundering.

[Aethereal]

18 minutes ago, Mean Trees said:

Girl, apartheid in South Africa ended only 30 years ago. And Girl, There's much bigger problems in Africa like corrupt leaders doing the West's bidding for resources and plundering.

Corrupt leaders are bidding for themselves. Unless you believe Mugabe was bidding for the British.  

 

Edited January 21 by Aristotle