Jenin mayor says forces duplicating their offensive on Gaza, warns his city will be abandoned; Tulkarm mayor says Israel changing refugee camps' demographics
  • HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee
    181·
    3 days ago

    Why are media outlets so dead set on parroting Israel’s framing of every story when they have so consistently lied?

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      151·
      3 days ago

      Isn’t Ynet literally an israeli outlet. So not too suprising they are following the State’s propaganda speaking pointsz

      • VerifiedSourceOPEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        It’s an Israeli center left outlet with high factual reporting.

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ynetnews/

        This article quotes Tulkarm governor Abdullah Kamil, Jenin mayor Mohammed Jerar, governor of Tubas, and the IDF. That’s three Palestinians and one Israeli. Seems sufficiently balanced.

        Ynetnews even published an opinion piece that’s very critical of this very operation.

        This approach carries far-reaching consequences beyond its immediate impact on civilians. It will erode Israel’s international legitimacy, prevent Palestinian workers from entering Israel, and weaken the Palestinian Authority in three key ways: economically, politically and by undermining its security forces. If the current trajectory of collective punishment — driven largely by political motives — continues, Israel could face a third intifada within months. Unlike the second intifada, characterized by suicide bombers, the next wave of violence could involve sophisticated explosive devices within Israel’s borders and on West Bank roads. Methods of bomb placement and concealment would become increasingly advanced and deadly.

        (…)Experience shows that such pressure does not deter terrorists; rather, it strengthens their resolve. (…)

        Netanyahu and his inexperienced defense minister should reconsider their counterinsurgency strategy in the West Bank. The current approach — erecting countless roadblocks that do little to enhance security but significantly fuel resentment, deploying tanks unnecessarily in refugee camp operations to project strength (not against Palestinians, but to appease Jewish settlers demanding ever-harsher measures) — is deeply flawed…

        Ignorance of internal Israeli politics and media landscape is notoriously widespread among self styled supporters of Palestinians.

        • juli@lemmy.world
          21·
          2 days ago

          isn’t MBFC run by a zionist? no wonder israeli outlet has high factual ratings

          • VerifiedSourceOP
            1·
            2 days ago

            Of course everyone who doesn’t want to see Israel destroyed is an evil Zionist. Ignore everything else. /s

          • VerifiedSourceOP
            1·
            2 days ago

            Of course everyone who doesn’t want to see Israel destroyed is an evil Zionist. Ignore everything else. /s

  • Deceptichum@quokk.auMEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    Hey everyone, the comments are starting to get a bit wild. If we can please get back to talking about rampart the article. I don’t ideally want to have to lock the thread but may need to if it gets any more off topic or personal.

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    49·
    3 days ago

    I wonder if anyone was so concerned last week while their husbands, brother and sons were stuffing explosives they were putting on Israeli buses to detonate and slaughtere hundreds? Well, once again, it sucks to suck. You want to keep threatening Israeli lives, you will reap the fucking whirlwind.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
      91·
      3 days ago

      A while back, I was saying that the “you can’t criticize Israel on lemmy.world” crowd should invest in some troll accounts to post absurd pro-Israel stuff just so it wouldn’t be quite so obvious a strawman. I’m glad to see that somebody was listening apparently.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
          3·
          3 days ago

          Maybe. I wonder if I look over their account, I’ll find any other curious little points of view.

          Honestly, after looking, you might be right. They seem to sincerely participate in a whole bunch of different topics, it’s not just some one-note merry go rounds about Biden, Russia, and Israel, and then sort of token participation in random other topics. They’re a little heavy on geopolitics, and they say stuff like:

          because it’s not true. nothing in trumps actions can be explained by him being compromised by russia, if you’ve payed any attention at all to his entire life history, that can’t also be explained by the simple fact he just wanted to fucking do it.

          bad news, truly, this is what i believe from all evidence i’ve seen, most european nations have no standing armies, and no conventional weapons stockpiles, only uk and france have nukes. europe will begin to cauterize ukraine soon in order to concentrate on their own borders, but their defense spending has been so low, for so long, they couldn’t offer a token defense to the russians (not even mentioning the americans) in 10 years, and that’s if they started diverting enourmous parts of their gdp currrently going to social services like health care, yesterday

          … but that’s about all I could find. I think they might be sincere, and just sort of confused about things or sincerely pro-Israel.

          I think it’s possible that they are meant to be caricaturing the “other side,” they are overtly super-insulting and hostile about how it’s all the voters’ fault that Harris lost, and Israel is the good guys, and Russia is super strong and dangerous and we need to go be against Russia, guys. But they don’t look a whole lot like a troll account just paging over their history for a little while.

    • VerifiedSourceOPEnglish
      21·
      3 days ago

      Here’s the bus bombing you reference. The main reason nobody died was because the detonators were set to PM instead of AM time.

      I find such harsh measures questionable with tens of thousands of people fleeing from their homes is a justifiable response.

      The PA had been fighting terrorists in the West Bank pretty well over the last couple of months. However something like this will be hard to swallow for them. Their legitimacy comes from keeping the IDF out of people’s lives in area A. A short IDF raid like we have seen before is something else than the talk now about wanting to stay for a year.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
        3·
        3 days ago

        You could talk about just reprisals, terrorism and defense, the limits of collective punishment, and all that. But, of all the people who’ve spilled however much ink about it, David Ben-Gurion did some of the best in just getting to the heart of the matter.

        Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs.

        Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.

        I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?

        • VerifiedSourceOPEnglish
          22·
          3 days ago

          You could be honest and provide the full quote. This was said during the early years of Israel’s founding.

          ‘I don’t understand your optimism,’ Ben-Gurion declared. 'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: THEY THINK we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?

          They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.’

          Some more context of what the Arabs were saying around the same time.

          To be sure, while mentioning “God,” Ben-Gurion - a child of Eastern European social democracy and nationalism who knew no Arabic (though, as prime minister, he found time to study ancient Greek, to read Plato in the original, and Spanish, to read Don Quixote) - had failed fully to appreciate the depth of the Arabs’ abhorrence of the Zionist-Jewish presence in Palestine, an abhorrence anchored in centuries of Islamic Judeophobia with deep religious and historical roots. The Jewish rejection of the Prophet Muhammad is embedded in the Qur’an and is etched in the psyche of those brought up on its suras. As the Muslim Brotherhood put it in 1948: “Jews are the historic enemies of Muslims and carry the greatest hatred for the nation of Muhammad.” Such thinking characterized the Arab world, where the overwhelming majority of the population were, and remain, believers. In 1943, when President Franklin Roosevelt sent out feelers about a negotiated settlement of the Palestine problem, King Ibn Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia responded that he was “prepared to receive anyone of any religion except (repeat except) a Jew.” A few weeks earlier, Ibn Sa’ud had explained, in a letter to Roosevelt: “Palestine… has been an Arab country since the dawn of history and… was never inhabited by the Jews for more than a period of time, during which their history in the land was full of murder and cruelty… [There is] religious hostility… between the Muslims and the Jews from the beginning of Islam… which arose from the treacherous conduct of the Jews towards Islam and the Muslims and their prophet.” Jews were seen as unclean; indeed, even those who had contact with them were seen as beyond the pale. In late 1947 the Al-Azhar University 'ulema, major authorities in the Islamic world, issued a fatwa that anyone dealing with “the Jews,” commercially or economically (such as by “buying their produce”), “is a sinner and criminal… who will be regarded as an apostate to Islam, he will be separated from his spouse. It is prohibited to be in contact with him.” This anti-Semitic mindset was not restricted to Wahhabi chieftains or fundamentalist imams. Samir Rifahi, Jordan’s prime minister, in 1947 told visiting newsmen, "The Jews are a people to be feared… Give them another 25 years and they will be all over the Middle East, in our country and Syria and Lebanon, in Iraq and Egypt… They were responsible for starting the two world wars… Yes, I have read and studied, and I know they were behind Hitler at the beginning of his movement."

          The eternal war against Israel’s existence has cost Palestinians very dearly over the decades. Accepting defeat and peace would be in their self interest, even if it’s unjust.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
            3·
            3 days ago

            Why are you accusing me of being dishonest?

            There’s a broader context (I actually thought about providing some of Ben-Gurion’s quotes explicitly approving of ethnic cleansing, just to provide a bitter reminder of the context, but decided it was a distraction), sure. My point was focused purely on the idea that if we’re going to look to assign “questionable ness” to any actions, we need to start with who is the injured party, not just treat it as a neutral situation. Ben-Gurion’s hope that things would die down with the generations wasn’t the way it worked out, and the calculus of blame he laid out honestly hasn’t changed.

            What exactly is dishonest about that? It’s incomplete about one aspect, because it wasn’t a history lesson, just some words that I felt applied to the present day.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
              12·
              3 days ago

              You weren’t, yet at the same time he conflated Palestinians with Arabs in general…

              Far more Zionist leaders, since it’s founding in the late 1880s, have discussed the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population, and were doing so during the British Occupation up til the Nakba and to present day

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
            21·
            3 days ago

            Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and has never stopped being an Apartheid. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology. Zionism is not Judaism. The leaders of other Arab or Muslim nations do not represent Palestine or Palestinians. There is no point to conflate either of those other than to justify Israel’s Settler Colonialism. Land grabbing is antithetical to peace. Peace requires the end of the Apartheid.

            Quote

            Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.

            The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.

            An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

            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

            (Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ).

            The settlements have created hundreds of isolated bantustans within the West Bank, preventing any two-state solution that may have been possible before the Israeli occupation in 1967

            The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

            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

            Historian Works on the History
            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
              1·
              3 days ago

              You didn’t see fit to answer me about how I was dishonest, which isn’t surprising.

              Just to add. You quoted Rifahi as saying:

              "The Jews are a people to be feared… Give them another 25 years and they will be all over the Middle East, in our country and Syria and Lebanon, in Iraq and Egypt…

              … as well as a variety of antisemitism. You quoted Ben-Gurion very misleadingly though, implying that the strategy was in contrast to that, to maintain “a powerful army” and wait until the next generation forgot that Israel used to be theirs. That sort of became the strategy, as time went on and “facts on the ground” eventuated in their way, but it wasn’t the original strategy. Here are some other things he said:

              The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill: from the Nile to the Euphrates.

              We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.

              The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.

              It’s not a matter of maintaining the status quo. We have to create a dynamic state, oriented towards expansion.

              We do not recognize the right of the Palestinian Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.

              I wonder where Rifahi got his antisemitic ideas from. For centuries, the Middle East was a lot safer place for Jews to be than Europe, and then in the early 20th century, things all of a sudden shifted. For some reason.

                • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catM
                  2·
                  2 days ago

                  Oh no! You are completely correct, I replied to the wrong comment.

                  I felt bad about it, since I thought what I said was useful context, but the chance of a productive continuation to the conversation is almost 0. So in a way replying to the wrong comment is the best of both worlds.

                  Edit: Typo

            • VerifiedSourceOPEnglish
              22·
              3 days ago

              One major thing you left out in your history is the forced displacement of 800,000 Jews from Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East.

              Hamas and Fatah

              These two parties can’t even make peace among themselves.

              Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders

              The so-called 1967 borders were offered in 1948, but refused. Instead war was chosen again and again, and lost every time. Losing wars has consequences.

              Palestinians refused this offer among other similar ones like Camp David.

              Listen to what Prince Bandar has to say about Arafat’s (Abu Ammar) missed opportunities to reach a peace agreement during the Oslo process.

              All of that stuff is decades old by now. The reality on the ground has changed, as has the regional political landscape.

              If you’re actually interested in novel grassroots peace initiatives, check out One Land for All. If you support BDS, then of course even talking to Israelis is haram.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                22·
                3 days ago

                One major thing you left out in your history is the forced displacement of 800,000 Jews from Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East.

                The Jewish exodus from middle eastern countries was certainly tragic and unjust. It was also certainly connected to what was going on in Palestine in multiple ways. The exodus, a mix of immigration and ethnic cleansings, was multi-faceted. It was absolutely not incited by Palestinian elites. Nor would that justify the Nakba if it was true. Let’s go through the main factors for the exodus. Most of the new middle eastern countries were very anti-british, in particular anti-occupation, during and after WWII. Zionism was seen as a British project of Occupation at this time. The expressed aim of Zionism throughout the mandate was to ethnically cleanse the Arabs (distinctions were not made, they were all considered savages to European powers at the time). Anti-british and anti-zionist sentiment was heavily exploited by Nazi Germany, who deliberately pushed European anti-semitism and framed themselves as an opposition to the colonialism and occupations middle eastern countries were facing from the Allied forces. That said, it’s still entirely on the the leaders of these middle eastern nations for falling to this anti-Semitic rhetoric and implementing ethnic cleansing. However none of this was done at the behest of the Palestinian elite. While the populations of these countries did have some semblance of solidarity with Palestinians being victim to occupation and colonialism, that is not the case for the leadership of these countries. They were looking out for themselves.

                The so-called 1967 borders were offered in 1948, but refused. Instead war was chosen again and again, and lost every time. Losing wars has consequences.

                Partition was never an acceptable solution, it was always just a justification to ethnically cleanse parts of Palestine. Palestinian leadership agreed to parity, a binational One-State Solution with equal rights for all since the 1920s. Israel has always chosen war as the aims are settler colonialism which is the opposite of peace.

                I already linked plenty about the peace process, please read before you mention things already discussed at length in the sources provided. The Oslo Accords were just a way for Israel to continue it’s Setter Colonialism and Apartheid under the guise of a “peace process”

                And a two-state solution is outdated, it’s completely impossible when considering the situation on the ground, where the West Bank has been divided into hundreds of isolated enclaves (bantustans). It’s already a One-State Reality. Which is exactly why an end to the Apartheid and Emancipation for Palestinians is the only way forward to peace.

                • VerifiedSourceOPEnglish
                  22·
                  3 days ago

                  All of this history is long and endlessly complex.

                  The Jewish exodus from middle eastern countries was certainly tragic and unjust

                  For persecution of Jews, it’s of course let bygones be bygones. No need to do anything about it now. /s Pure hypocrisy from you.

                  Zionism was seen as a British project of Occupation

                  There Mandate was granted by the League of Nations to build a homeland for the Jewish people. From the 1940s on some Zionists started fighting the British directly, leading to them leaving the messy situation by 1948.

                  expressed aim of Zionism throughout the mandate was to ethnically cleanse the Arabs

                  The goal was a homeland for the Jewish people. Peaceful coexistence with the Arabs was a wish, but it turned out not be viable in practice. Expulsions from some areas were then considered a necessary evil for lack of other options.

                  The UN partition plan from 1947, which was accepted by the Zionists and rejected by Arabs, would have meant zero expulsions.

                  Israel today has 20% of Arab citizens with full rights inside Israel proper of 1948. There was never a complete ethnic cleansing. Few Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes, most fled.

                  none of this was done at the behest of the Palestinian elite

                  Don’t infantilize Palestinians. They have agency and were not powerless.

                  in the sources provided

                  Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, Rashid Khalidi, …

                  You should have at least listed Benny Morris as well, so you could pretend to not be fully propagandized by one side. You didn’t list Finkelstein, which is a plus I guess. But then you linked to propaganda rag mondoweiss.

                  Palestinian leadership agreed to parity, a binational One-State Solution with equal rights for all since the 1920s

                  I don’t think you’re being quite honest here.

                  High Commissioner Samuel tried to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate, but the Arab leadership refused to co-operate with any institution which included Jewish participation

                  Palestinian Arabs weren’t ready to accept Jewish refugees fleeing persecution, who didn’t have anywhere else to go. They had a whole armed Arab Revolt about this in the 1930s. This lead to the British imposing very hard restrictions on immigration of Jewish refugees from then on.

                  I already linked plenty about the peace process

                  Listen to Prince Bandar, a first hand witness, and you might actually learn something new.

                  And a two-state solution is outdated

                  Why do you even mention Fatah and Hamas supposedly accepting it, then?

                  One-State

                  As of now, it would immediately collapse into civil war and we would be where we started.

                  I will also recommend you a book, and it’s only one.

                  Read The war of return : how Western indulgence of the Palestinian dream has obstructed the path to peace by Einat Wilf and Adi Schwartz to get a different perspective on this conflict.

                  What you are doing is fueling this forever war, not working towards peaceful coexistence.