I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.
So far from what I’ve read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can’t find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they’re an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?
I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don’t expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you’re highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!
If your genuine opinion on a genocide is that the side being subject to the genocide is “as genocidal” as the side perpetrating it, then you’re too far gone to be worth convincing.
Except that you can’t deny that Arab countries have consistently, and for a long time, been both directly invested in the destruction of Israel, and in ensuring that Palestinians believe they too have a chance of ‘winning’.
The only objective difference between the ‘win’ condition of Palestine, the complete eradication of Israel, and the inverse desire by Israel to completely remove Palestine is that Israel actually possesses the funding and has a sufficient excuse to see it through.
Unless you keep that in mind, I see no possibility of solving the conflict in a lasting way.
Why would anyone accept the creation of a state inside of an already populated region? Now the circonstances are different Israel is already established state and most current Israelis are born there. So we have the choice between a one state solution or a real two state solution not a two state solution that benefits Israel the most. A two state solution where Palestine doesn’t have a right to defend itself will never work. There is always a chance for Palestine to win in long term. Algeria got it’s independence after over 100 years and i believe the longest colonization in history was 1000 years.
I’d spend my life trying to wipe out a country that was founded by evicting nearly a million people from their homes with no right to return, declaring the religion of the colonizers as God’s “chosen people” whilst openly planning to occupy nearly all of its neighbours with the ultimate goal of demolishing every Muslim landmark in your territory to replace them with said Colonizer’s religion.
And I wouldn’t say you’re wrong for choosing to do so. My comment is primarily a response to the idea that Palestine is somehow less focused on the idea of getting rid of Israel than Israel is on getting rid of them.
In fact, the simple fact that Israel was plopped into Palestine, and now claims the entire region on theological grounds is enough to show why both sides are ready to be so genocidal about it.
Hard to tell which side you’re referring to, Oct 7 was an act of genocide and Jordanian forces fighting on behalf of Palestinians committed genocide against Jews in Jerusalem, but Israel gets accused of it, I believe inaccurately, a lot.
Israel is clearly perpetrating a genocide right now.
I am not saying Hamas wouldnt do the same if they had the opportunity to, but Israel is doing it right now.
Read the genocide statute linked above, genocide just requires an attempt to destroy a protected group in whole or in part, combined with some specific acts, has nothing to do with effectiveness or number of deaths.
Hamas openly intends to destroy Jews/Israel (which, as national, ethnic, and religious groups are protected) as per their charter. Israel claims they are attempting to destroy Hamas, which is not a protected group.
Call it a massacre, call it terrible, call it any number of negative terms, but it’s not genocide.
Just listen to Itamar Ben-Gvir’s opinions on palastinians. He does not care about the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians, they are the same to him.
Oh yeah he’s a real piece of shit, loves Jewish terrorists, but he isn’t conducting the war nor does his opinion represent Israel at large.
Their charter has been amended. I’m not going to say I know what Hamas is thinking but saying they openly intend to destroy the Jews is false.
Their actions speak to either a deliberate desire to do so, or a callous disregard for the lives of innocent Jews in their military campaign. But the same is true for Likud and the IDF. There is absolutely no way to claim Hamas is engaged in genocide and IDF is not. Not to mention that Oct 7th was a one off event while the mass-murder of Palestinians is ongoing to this day.
Hamas’ genocidal intentions are not ambiguous. It’s all nicely summed up in this article,
In order to make such a case about Israel, one would have to prove that their intentions are different than what they state, and all evidence indicates that while they may have more tolerance for collateral damage than they had in the past, they still go to great lengths to choose legal targets and minimize civilian casualties, doing things no other nation does to protect civilians. Meanwhile, Hamas obviously and intentionally targets civilians, as displayed on Oct 7.
It is genocide by the definition that they are directly targeting a whole lot of civilians who are not directly aligned with Hamas. By directly shooting them, bombing hospitals, preventing them from leaving Gaza and actively blocking foreign aid even though the UN has told them to stop multiple times. That’s not “attempting to destroy Hamas”, that’s an active “attempt to destroy a protected group [Muslim religion, Arab ethnicity, Palestinian nationality, probably a mix of all three] in whole or in part”.
Oct 7 was an attack. It was violent. We still don’t know the casualties caused by hamas. Israeli government has admitted that some of their response killed Israeli citizens. They refuse to cooperate with the UN investigation into the Oct 7 attacks. There’s also been some credible reporting refuting the scale of rape on Oct 7. I’m not trying to minimize an individuals trauma, but the Israeli government’s rationale for bombing Gaza has been the scale of rape.
In short, we know there was a horrific attack on Oct 7.
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
The Oct 7 attack was about taking hostages. It was not about destroying Israel and its citizens.
Now the bombing of Gaza… If you can’t see that it’s genocidal, try living in Gaza as a Palestinian in 2024. Seriously. Just move there. I’m so fucking tired at seeing these ghoulish fucking hot takes. ‘Actual genocidal acts accompanied by actual genocidal language with actual genocidal social media posts but perpetrated by the team I’m cheering for isn’t genocide because the other side is racist’
Of all my Jewish family and friends, it’s only the people that had parents or were directly impacted by the Holocaust that still support Israel. All of the others acknowledge that that trauma explains their support for that flavor of Zionism. I can’t fathom why someone that is far removed from those events can support this particular genocide. Especially considering some Holocaust victims have spoken out about how fascist the Israeli government is. Does that not make you question anything? Or do you just take everything that’s been spoonfed to you with a smile and a thankyou?
Omfg your references are about things that happened 100s of years ago! The islamization of Jerusalem happened over a period of over 700 years, and stopped over 100 years ago! People are being bombed right now! You’re justifying a genocide over something that stopped over 100 years ago!
What the actual fuck.
Some collateral damage probably occurred on Oct 7, but I fail to see why this is relevant to the discussion. Said deaths could not have occurred without Hamas’ bloody attack on civilians and the chaos it caused.
I believe the accusations of rape despite criticism of the NY Times article, even the UN, which is often critical and skeptical of Israel, agrees it happened. And even without this specific claim there was enough barbarity, cruelty, kidnapping, abuse, murder, and genocidal violence (Content warning: NSFL, very disturbing footage) on display that day that I don’t think it would move the ethical needle much on Hamas.
According to international law genocide is:
Emphasis mine. Note that political groups like Hamas are not included among the protected classes, and that’s what Israel has been clear they intend to destroy. Not Palestine/Palestinians, who are protected as a national group just as Israelis are. Meanwhile, Hamas has been clear about their own genocidal intentions. This is why I believe Oct 7 was an act of genocide, as defined above, and Israel’s war on Hamas is not.
The Oct 7 attack was not just about taking civilian hostages, it was an attempt by Hamas to create a permanent state of war, and part of their strategy to destroy Israel/Jews as established via their original charter and statements from their leader, (citation above.)
I’m sure it’s terrible to live in Gaza but that does not change the definition of genocide. Nor does your dislike of people who point out inaccurate definitions.
1948-1967 isn’t, “100’s of years ago!”