They do get away doing anything in the Palestine territory. And there are a lot of accusations against Israel in that topic. Although I don't know how much of it is true. But definitely they could do better regarding this issue
The Thing is that there is no Country coming to mind that does not get away with something like that.
Morrocco does it in the Westsahara. Saudi arabia does it in yemen. We got a lot of examples like that in africa. We also have examples in asia like in burma.
And most of those countries are not US allies. And most of them are a lot more radical than Israel is.
We tend to Forget that arab People live in Israel outside of gaza, it is not like that is impossible. You will however have a hard time Outing yourself as a jew in palestine and getting out alive.
There IS a lot untrue accusations, and there are also a lot of true ones. But We have to Keep in mind that it is not only Israel attacking.
ISrael is getting bombed, civillians are knived down. It is hard to have peace with People whose Goal is to end the existence of your Nation.
Even if Israel withdrew completely from gaza, called all settlers back and Held ist feet still, it is very unprobable that the attacks would stop.
But Israel bombing gaza and sometimes providing collective punishments, destroying houses, are not justified either.
Israel is actually blocked a two state solution by building settlements. Now a 2 state solution would mean Israel giving up those settlements. And a one state solution is not an option either. These two groups of people have decades of hatred towards each other. A one state solution would result in a civil war. Currently I don't really see any solution which would be acceptable to both parties. Israel is alright with this no solution though.
Collective punishment is never justified, bombing however can be. As i said: What else can Israel do when they are attacked by Missiles? They have to destroy the tunnel Systems and Depots of terrorists, and the terrorists are hiding them in public to gain public sympathy.
If the Israelis had a solution not giving them flack, you can bet they would do it.
A two state solution is difficult because it would mean that every time there are Missile attacks from gaza, Israel basically has to attack another state when it tried to retaliate. And once again: It is unlikely the hamas will ever accept the existance of Israel.
I agree that there is no feasible solution on the mid term.
Morrocco does it in the Westsahara. Saudi arabia does it in yemen. We got a lot of examples like that in africa. We also have examples in asia like in burma.
One death on the Israeli side usually results in hundreds death on the other side. One thing is beyond doubt is Israel overreacts. Just check the number of dead Israeli and dead Palestinian in that conflict.
We tend to Forget that arab People live in Israel outside of gaza, it is not like that is impossible. You will however have a hard time Outing yourself as a jew in palestine and getting out alive.
I don't know if you heard of it but they're not treated very well. (I'm not sure if I can give an English (approximatively-)objective source, sorry), aside from their religion. You can stay alive as an Arab person in Israel as long as you're being careful, if not, the non-Arab people would "just" discriminate towards you at best.
I agree on this, it's hard to find objective sources about this conflict but that's why I'm also curious to know how you can defend Israel so much without taking into account their own responsibilities.
But We have to Keep in mind that it is not only Israel attacking.
ISrael is getting bombed, civillians are knived down. It is hard to have peace with People whose Goal is to end the existence of your Nation.
Yeah, and we also have to keep in mind that Israel struck back with disproportionate means. I mean, they bombed hospitals and schools during the war of 2014. And yeah, I'm aware they were suspected to hide rebels from Hamas, that still doesn't change anything to their actions, there were civilians there and if you're going to answer that they didn't have to help terrorists in the first place, they mostly don't have the choice. And when they have it, what should they do ? They're living in a very precarious situation, they're desperate and the worst is that they're losing the few territories they're supposed to own. This map is pretty clear :
(coming from The Economist)
Philia answered you very well imo, I just want to specify that I don't consider that the existence of Israel is wrong, unlike some pro-Israel (not you obviously, but I have some French intellectuals' names in mind ) like to pretend when some arguments oppose their interests. I think that the creation of a country with a Jewish majority was necessary, Jews need a place which is safe for them because the entire world has been unable to do so until now. Furthermore, the discrimination towards them has increased. (in my country at least) That said, the whole thing has not been managed correctly and at the same time, could it be the case ? Reactions from the local population were legitimate at that time, nobody really like to see foreigners invading their territory for whatever reason.
This conflict is very complex and goes further than being on Israel/Palestine's side. I wanted to add some other things regarding Philia's last sentence but I'm way too lazy it'll be for another time. I just participate because I was a bit mixed about your message (and I think you're also a bit wrong about Israel's intent, for instance, when you said that they'd avoid military intervention if they could), I don't like this topic because it's a never-ending conflict for us outsiders as well.
Exactly, but we are not, and noone is. Instead there are countlesss NGO working actively at getting the last word in media coverage about this topic.
What i want to express is that there are organizations which are partially linked to states like saudi arabia or even openly anti semitist connections who try to broadcast or even exaggerate or lie about every single misconduct of any israelian.
Misconduct should be investigated and, if necessary, persecuted, but there are dishonest intentions at work which want to tip the picture towards a one sided conflict fueled only by israel. And this is not a correct picture.
My problem is: People seem to ask why the israelians are not better in any way than every other state in that region. And they get blamed for not being better by states from that region (and their media influence and political power) who do much worse.
And people still jump on the train.
It is a fucked up situation. Neither side is right anymore. Israel happens to be way overpowered. So they look like a bully here.
One death on the Israeli side usually results in hundreds death on the other side. One thing is beyond doubt is Israel overreacts. Just check the number of dead Israeli and dead Palestinian in that conflict.
That is true, israel has a much better position. But the question is what we exspect israel to do. You mentioned death number, but even there,we have to see that the ones who have to keep order are soldiers, not policemen in this regions. And the reason for that is because policemen wont be able to enact any kind of authority there because they will be met by a rain of stones once they dare into a gaza region. We know how US cops react when they are met with opposition, now imagine how soldiers who are trained to kill when they are threatened react, even if they are not ordered to do so.
Those are not going to calmly talk to some kid with a knife who threatens them or others, they don't have the necessary training for that.
But what to do about it? without heavy arms and in a group, you might end up dead as an israelian official in gaza or at least be chased away.
The problem is that they cannot make out who gets what and that both sides dont trust the honest intentions of the other one.
If a two state solution would come to place, for example, hamas wants the 1967 borders, which would imply that jerusalem is a divided city and that is something many israelians don't agree with.
On the other hand, israel demands that a possible palestine state has to be demilitarized, which the palestine leadership does not agree with because it'd mean to be defenseless.
I don't know if you heard of it but they're not treated very well. (I'm not sure if I can give an English (approximatively-)objective source, sorry), aside from their religion. You can stay alive as an Arab person in Israel as long as you're being careful, if not, the non-Arab people would "just" discriminate towards you at best.
I know that israel is a defacto apartheid state at the moment and that has to stop. I even think that a one state solution with equal rights for nonjewish people would be a more realistic and peaceful resolution than two states who still quarrel with each other.
I agree on this, it's hard to find objective sources about this conflict but that's why I'm also curious to know how you can defend Israel so much without taking into account their own responsibilities.
Simply because i feel that israel is much more often attacked with unfair claims than the palestine side is.
People in europe and the US who don't have much to do with that conflict and don't know much about it still say that israel is a dictatorship or stuff like that. And to me, this fuels antisemitism and is partially veiled antisemitism. Not because israel is such a great state and can do no wrong, but because people act like israel is doing anything much worse than other states of that region and even attack jews in general for it (the last big german anti israel demo had a lot of people shouting 'gas all jews' and people with israel flags got attacked, and attacks on synagogues and people wearing a kippa are on the rise, which is worrying).
The conflict gets emotionalized to stir up hate even with people not involved in it.
So many arab people not from palestine claim to hate jews or israel several reasons, EVEN IF their own homestate does the same or much worse to its minorities and even if for example egypt does not exactly treat palestine refugees well.
It does not matter, what matters is that israel is evil and should be seen as evil. And that is something that upsets me.
Yeah, and we also have to keep in mind that Israel struck back with disproportionate means. I mean, they bombed hospitals and schools during the war of 2014. And yeah, I'm aware they were suspected to hide rebels from Hamas, that still doesn't change anything to their actions, there were civilians there and if you're going to answer that they didn't have to help terrorists in the first place, they mostly don't have the choice. And when they have it, what should they do ? They're living in a very precarious situation, they're desperate and the worst is that they're losing the few territories they're supposed to own. This map is pretty clear :
(coming from The Economist)
Philia answered you very well imo, I just want to specify that I don't consider that the existence of Israel is wrong, unlike some pro-Israel (not you obviously, but I have some French intellectuals' names in mind ) like to pretend when some arguments oppose their interests. I think that the creation of a country with a Jewish majority was necessary, Jews need a place which is safe for them because the entire world has been unable to do so until now. Furthermore, the discrimination towards them has increased. (in my country at least) That said, the whole thing has not been managed correctly and at the same time, could it be the case ? Reactions from the local population were legitimate at that time, nobody really like to see foreigners invading their territory for whatever reason.
This conflict is very complex and goes further than being on Israel/Palestine's side. I wanted to add some other things regarding Philia's last sentence but I'm way too lazy it'll be for another time. I just participate because I was a bit mixed about your message (and I think you're also a bit wrong about Israel's intent, for instance, when you said that they'd avoid military intervention if they could), I don't like this topic because it's a never-ending conflict for us outsiders as well.
I would never blame civillians for their own deaths. I am well aware that opposing hamas often means death in palestine.
I am not saying that palestine people can do much about it. If anything, the Hamas can.
I am simply asking what israel can do about it here. Every means will not be accepted which harms civillians, so how can they fight back? I don't see much more option than to not fight back at all or risk civillian deaths.
To the map: It has to be said that the third picture is directly caused by the arab war against israel. Arab nations did not accept the UN Partition and attacked.
This is like one of the things i mean: This map goes arround the net without much context. Many people don't even know the timeframe or which wars are involved, and the map makes it look like israel simply, from the beginning on, tried to devour whole palestine. People dont get a story about two clashing factions with several mutual pogroms (even in the beginning) and wars. They get a map showing how israel is killing off palestine.
And then some pictures of dying children which may or may not be actual victims of israel's military actions are tapped on, and boom, u got a clear villain.
I am aware that you are not like that, but that is the thing thatticks me off time after time: The clear side taking of that conflict which, in my opinion is mostly fueled by antisemism.
Which is not to say critisizing israel is antisemitist, but choosing to hate israel while completely ignoring any other middle east state who does similar things is. Thus, whenever i think israel is getting unfair blame, i feel like i should comment on it.
They hardly seem to do anything when violence comes from the other way. They do little to stop settler violence. In some cases they have been seen to do nothing just standing by while violence were committed by the settlers.
If a two state solution would come to place, for example, hamas wants the 1967 borders, which would imply that jerusalem is a divided city and that is something many israelians don't agree with.
On the other hand, israel demands that a possible palestine state has to be demilitarized, which the palestine leadership does not agree with because it'd mean to be defenseless.
A two state solution would require Israel to give up a lot of land. They wouldn't want to. And Palestine like every other state need their own military.
I know that israel is a defacto apartheid state at the moment and that has to stop. I even think that a one state solution with equal rights for nonjewish people would be a more realistic and peaceful resolution than two states who still quarrel with each other.
Two grups of people for decades of hatred for each other. In a one state solution it will be a civil war. Israel is an apartheid and this has to be stopped. But how? Israel will try to keep it this way as long as they can. Their government consists of a coalition of far-right parties. There is hardly anyone influential in the Israel government who would genuinely want a solution. Like I said, Israel likes this no solution solution. Any solution would mean Israel comprising one way or another.
To the map: It has to be said that the third picture is directly caused by the arab war against israel. Arab nations did not accept the UN Partition and attacked.
So it is alright for a country to forcefully seize land? This is no feudal era. A country cannot seize land which is supposed to be a part of other country.
Which is not to say critisizing israel is antisemitist, but choosing to hate israel while completely ignoring any other middle east state who does similar things is. Thus, whenever i think israel is getting unfair blame, i feel like i should comment on it.
I understand Israel is singled out at times. But clearly they should be criticized for the wrong things they do. Criticizing Israeli policies does not make one anti-Semite.
Which is not to say critisizing israel is antisemitist, but choosing to hate israel while completely ignoring any other middle east state who does similar things is.
Yeah but a country doesn't necessarily have to be in competition with another one in order to be considered "okay" by someone's standards. After all, a lot of countries in Israel's neighborhood set some pretty low ones... I don't hate Israel, I just dislike some of the implementations of it. Whatever a centuries old dusty book of myths says about anything shouldn't be used as a basis for sovereignty. The UK doing this might have been a requirement due to actual more present-day issues, but it doesn't mean countries can't expect better of their ally. And criticizing Israel for this isn't the same thing as being an anti-Semite, even though some will insist that they're the same thing. After all, more than half of the World's Jewish population don't even live in Israel, despite the immigration to the area by them. There are Jews who are against zionism themselves too.
The entire situation is a rather impossible one. Israel is going to get bad press in some circles regardless of what they do, not doubt...it's a shitshow.
I know that israel is a defacto apartheid state at the moment and that has to stop. I even think that a one state solution with equal rights for nonjewish people would be a more realistic and peaceful resolution than two states who still quarrel with each other.
That is interesting. I mean, they should have done this from the start : discrimination issues would have been present anyway but I guess it would have been more "peaceful". Now, it's way too late, they hate each other.
Simply because i feel that israel is much more often attacked with unfair claims than the palestine side is.
People in europe and the US who don't have much to do with that conflict and don't know much about it still say that israel is a dictatorship or stuff like that. And to me, this fuels antisemitism and is partially veiled antisemitism. Not because israel is such a great state and can do no wrong, but because people act like israel is doing anything much worse than other states of that region and even attack jews in general for it (the last big german anti israel demo had a lot of people shouting 'gas all jews' and people with israel flags got attacked, and attacks on synagogues and people wearing a kippa are on the rise, which is worrying).
The conflict gets emotionalized to stir up hate even with people not involved in it.
Ah, I see what you mean. (as I said, antisemitism increased in France and even people who aren't supposed to be antisemitic begin to repeat the same clichés about Jews that our ancestors already believed in)
However, I'll be a bit blunt but if people are way too stupid that they can't see things in another way than black and white (and that doesn't only work with Israel/Palestine conflict), it won't stop me to criticize if something is wrong, I don't care if it's Israel's illegitimate actions or Hamas' widespread hate. I mean, we can't be blind just because it could raise hate towards Israel, it could ever seem like we're defending them all the time and consider Palestine as the bad guys, it's not even smarter and it contributes to the 'black-and-white' vision. Hateful people like when there is some unsaid things, they can point them out as a proof of "see ? They hide it, so something is really wrong", so speculations and conspiracy theories go on. Imo, it's better to be transparent, fair and as neutral as possible, regardless of who is the "culprit".
So many arab people not from palestine claim to hate jews or israel several reasons, EVEN IF their own homestate does the same or much worse to its minorities and even if for example egypt does not exactly treat palestine refugees well.
It does not matter, what matters is that israel is evil and should be seen as evil. And that is something that upsets me.
But it's not because they do worse that we can't admit there are issues on Israel's side... To be really honest, I don't really take the opinions of countries like Egypt into account for obvious reasons. But I understand what you mean, it's hard not to take them seriously anyway, their speeches of hate towards Israel are listened by the arab community everywhere. I don't really know what we should do to struggle against that but defending Israel regardless of what they've done is not a solution either, it'll just raise the West/East conflict.
To the map: It has to be said that the third picture is directly caused by the arab war against israel. Arab nations did not accept the UN Partition and attacked.
This is like one of the things i mean: This map goes arround the net without much context. Many people don't even know the timeframe or which wars are involved, and the map makes it look like israel simply, from the beginning on, tried to devour whole palestine. People dont get a story about two clashing factions with several mutual pogroms (even in the beginning) and wars. They get a map showing how israel is killing off palestine.
I half-agree with you. Of course, it's better to remind people of the context (actually, the map shows dates, so it's easier to observe the evolution of the conflict and what happened betwen them) but I don't see why they would have the right to invade Palestinian territories either. Furthermore, and it's not rumors, they are current Israeli colonies. With Israeli citizens living there. Based on what ? It's clearly not only to secure these fields... The main important keyword here imo is : colonies. Seriously, why do they have the right to do that when colonization is supposed to be over ? (well, there is the neocolonialism but that's another debate - and a complete different thing - and my country is not innocent at all /cough/)
And then some pictures of dying children which may or may not be actual victims of israel's military actions are tapped on, and boom, u got a clear villain.
I am aware that you are not like that, but that is the thing thatticks me off time after time: The clear side taking of that conflict which, in my opinion is mostly fueled by antisemism.
Yeah, that's clearly an issue, especially on the Internet. Still the sensationalism... In a way, I think we basically think the same, we're just nitpicking on things which seem important for us.
(actually, if you want me to bring Hamas down at the same time, no problem , I really don't like them - especially as a woman )
In order to gain an objective perspective of this complicated conflict, one should do a really deep research and find objective, historical sources from which he or she would obtain info about such conflict.
I would like to point out that the conflict between Isreal and Palestine is in no way simple, and when one side of the two acts in a certain way (like Palestinian youth and children throwing stones at Isreali soldiers), one should analyze why would they act in such a way, as the conflict between the two sides is deep-rooted since 1948, and any hatred or hate-filled action is the result of such old conflict.
Also, this conflict should not be limited to Hamas vs Isreal only, as Hamas is only a tiny result of such big and complicated conflict. In other words, Hamas was born from the hate and chaos that this conflict caused.
The thing that everyone would agree on though is that those who suffer the most from such conflicts are civilians, and apparently and without doubt, the Palestinian side is suffering a heavier damage to its civilians than the Isreali side, so the more aggressive behaviour from the Palestinian side could be interpreted as a backlash or negative reaction for such suffering they are going through (and a good research will tell us who is causing them such suffering).
I would like to add that a child or an adolescent will not be willing to throw off his or her life throwing stones at a soldier or stabbing people with a knife or even standing in front of a tank if he or she did not experience horrible circumstances which lead such a person to do these awful actions. And this is applicable to older individuals as well. In other words, a person would not commit such actions which clearly endanger his or her life unless this person has suffered gravely and/or experienced critical and grave situations which lead him or her to act in such way.
Morrocco does it in the Westsahara. Saudi arabia does it in yemen. We got a lot of examples like that in africa. We also have examples in asia like in burma.
To be fair about Morocco's stance and the West Sahara, this involves with its neighbor Algeria (let's just say it's more about control). This whole mess started with the occupation of both France and Spain that separated the nations, and after its independence in the 1950s, the boundary lines were a bit messy.
What I'm saying is that the country does own the Sahara (although I have never been there before since it's a LOOONG drive), but there has been some obstacles.
Now onto the topic of this long-going crisis: I have been a Pro-Palestinian for a long time, up until I took a specific class that basically caused me to shift to neutral status.
On the Israel's side: This nation has existed long before even the coming of Christ, and we have people with heritage from these ages. It was only after the Romans conquered the nation, destroyed the Second Temple, and exiled the people for good. The re-establishment of the nation after WW2 was a result from the massive amount of Jewish Refugees from Europe into Palestine after there's nothing left for them (no home, no jobs, and sometimes no family after a near annihilation of the Jewish population). Who could blame them moving to another part of the world after the deadliest conflict in human history? (Hell, it's even happening right now with Syrians)
On the Palestinian side: These people have lived in the country for over a thousand years; it's their home. To have people come into the country and say "Hi, we're home, now get out" would result in conflicts. Granted, I'm sure Palestinians would welcome incoming people pouring into the country, but to have the country taken over with the help of the West will give out some bad results.
And of course, it doesn't help when Israel is bombing the shit out of Palestine and Palestine retaliating (and vice-versa). I don't think this conflict would change as long as there are people fighting and valuing their pride over people's lives (it's just what happened with the Assassination of an Arch-Duke that triggered the first Great War; He and his wife got assassinated, Austria-Hungary declared ultimatum on Yugoslavia and eventually triggered the War). While the case is different, my point here is that if people were to drop the Nationality identity, I firmly believe the conflict would cease to exist (sure, there is the religious issue, but I personally see this conflict as a nationality issue).
But alas, I don't think this conflict will ever stop. As long as the cycle of conflict continues, there's never going to be a time where someone will take a stand and destroy the loop.
I dislike how Israel is portrayed as good when they're just as bad as the Palestinian terrorists. Both sides are just as guilty, and it's ridiculous that people defend Israel.
Firstly: I find it kind of rude to not reply for a long time in small threads such as that, so: Sorry, i was very busy and didnt want to rush posts in the politics subforum.
Now, however, i am without any responsibility or bothersome social necessities and what is better to celebrate that than writing about the middleast conflict?
So, i don't want to let this extent in a citation war, thus i will answer generally and try to capture the most important points:
@Philia First of all: You said that noone in israel wants a solution because their politics is so far right wing. That is very very untrue.
In 2013 Israel had about 40% of votes vote for outright pro peace pro two state solution parties.
The reason for the decline in the latest vote was the downfall and split the biggest left wing party and more interest in rightwing parties due to renewed attacks.
Israel is a democracy with parties from all the democratic spectrum.
Secondly: You often ask whether something makes another thing 'okay'.
(to make this post less long, i will proceed in spoiler tags)
But that is the wrong question in my opinion. Israel is not fighting for the moral highground, but for its right to exist, and it does so since the first jewish settlers came there.
And the jews got attacked time after time, and if we bother to read the history books, the porgroms started before any military actions by jews were undertaken.
It is rather natural that palestinians didnt want jewish settlers there, but by all rules of the time back then, britain could do whatever they pleased there. The osmans did the same and so did any other nation powerful enough at that time (it was even before world war 2).
We cannot forget that in fact there were a lot of tries to get a consensus with the arab side.
Anyway:
After a pogroms from the arab side and the bloody retaliation from the british side which killed very many palestinins, there was once again a proposed solution: Splitting israel in a jewish and a palestinian side.
The jewish side agreed, the arab side didnt and began attacking israel immadietly.
They lost. After that war Israel looked like this: https://chronicle.fanack.com/wp-con...e-state-of-israel_israel_armisticemap0002.jpg
It gained territories (like, if we are honest, every other european state at that time did when they one a war. This was nothing unheard of, exspecially when in the defensive position), but there was still any possibility of a palestine state. And that state would have happened much greater if the arab side had agreed to the two state solution.
Flash forward: Almost Ten years later: Nasser, egypts leader, used the Suez canal for his own goals, even tho by law, it was under the control of britain and france. He actively tried to give himself the backround of an anti zionist front leader and sponsored raids on israeli civillians, cargo ships and military.
Israel was not really the mainplayer in that war, that would be britain and france.
Egypt closed the suez canal completely for israeli ships, which would basically completely screw israel's economy, in addition to the prior hostile actions.
Israel participated in the european led war.
This war had nothing to do with palestine and Israel won no territories there, but UN troups were installed in parts of egypt and the gaza strip.
At that time, there was relative peace due to the UN troups.
Flash forward about another ten years. Egypt gathers troups at the israelian border, israel does the same. no war yet.
Then egypt demands that the UN troups leave, which they do. Then he remilitarizes demilitarized zones.
At that point, israel preemptively attacks after nasser holds a speech in which he invites other arab nations to participate in the destruction of israel (which jordania and syria did).
THIS is the war in which israel takes over a lot of regions, like the golan heights, the gaza strip, so on (and it has to be said that arab fighters from gaza participated in that war).
Now, you asked whether 'that is okay', and after those three clear aggressions which kept on happening. And i can only reply that by any standards of that time, yes. After being threatened to be wiped out and attacked by several serrounding nations directly or indirectly, it is okay to take over the spots of them which enable them to attack you best.
What should they do? Letting it happen a force time and just give back all regions once again?
Flash forward five years and another surprise raid from egypt and syria happens at jom kippur to claim the lost territories back.
After finally being defeated a fourth friggign time, egypt then recognized israel's right to exist and since then, the relationship got significantly better.
No more wars between israel and egypt.
But let's be honest: It s it really Israel being in the wrong here? They were the ones accepting the UN two state solution and got attacked.
And they kept getting attacked with arab leaders simply having to invite other states to attack it like its some kind of party.
Once aggressions from the egypt side ceased, there is peace between the two nations. The same goes for jordania.
Those wars leave marks, which, yes, did lead to oppressive actions against people from gaza. However, again, we cannot ignore that the hostilities from PLO and later Hamas started this off, and before them from the arab nations.
The thing is: Israel really has zero interest in the european or US opinion about what is 'okay' after being attacked so much without help from the west (as i said, the UN troops basically simply made way for an egypt attack back in the days).
I mean: Imagine if you are an israeli and your anchestors fought in those wars in which israel religious zealots or arab nationalists wanted to destroy that state time after time.
How do you think you would react to pictures like here in that thread which paint israel as the imperialist force occupying more and more land?
Israel never occupied land without being attacked until very late with the settlement policy, and arguably, until that time, there in fact were attacks from PLO and later Hamas.
Ignoring that is one of the reasons why someone from israel does not really take someone from europe or the US serious when it comes to this topic.
Yeah but a country doesn't necessarily have to be in competition with another one in order to be considered "okay" by someone's standards. After all, a lot of countries in Israel's neighborhood set some pretty low ones... I don't hate Israel, I just dislike some of the implementations of it. Whatever a centuries old dusty book of myths says about anything shouldn't be used as a basis for sovereignty. The UK doing this might have been a requirement due to actual more present-day issues, but it doesn't mean countries can't expect better of their ally. And criticizing Israel for this isn't the same thing as being an anti-Semite, even though some will insist that they're the same thing. After all, more than half of the World's Jewish population don't even live in Israel, despite the immigration to the area by them. There are Jews who are against zionism themselves too.
The entire situation is a rather impossible one. Israel is going to get bad press in some circles regardless of what they do, not doubt...it's a shitshow.
But should history being used as a basis for sovereignity? And if so, how far back?
Critisizing israel is not antisemitist, but the focus on israel as being a hostile nation is.
As i said, take the picture in this thread which makes it seem like israel actively claimed land in hostile actions and read what i wrote in my post to philia.
Those things are fueled by antisemitism like the storys about christian lebanon being outbred by muslims are fueled by antiislamism (because in spite of common ideas, lebanon is a rather liberal state . Not a nice place to live due to terror attack and other tensions, but liberal nonetheless with no hostilities against christians whatsoever).
Actual criticism of israel is always right and welcome, but most of it is simple populism fueled by antisemitism.
And yes i say most not because there is not a lot to critisize, but due to the sheer amount of populist fueled antisemitism.
However, I'll be a bit blunt but if people are way too stupid that they can't see things in another way than black and white (and that doesn't only work with Israel/Palestine conflict), it won't stop me to criticize if something is wrong, I don't care if it's Israel's illegitimate actions or Hamas' widespread hate. I mean, we can't be blind just because it could raise hate towards Israel, it could ever seem like we're defending them all the time and consider Palestine as the bad guys, it's not even smarter and it contributes to the 'black-and-white' vision. Hateful people like when there is some unsaid things, they can point them out as a proof of "see ? They hide it, so something is really wrong", so speculations and conspiracy theories go on. Imo, it's better to be transparent, fair and as neutral as possible, regardless of who is the "culprit".
Let me phrase it like that: If you critisize the quran or islam, that is absolutely legit. You should if you feel it is correct. I do it too.
However, if you begin to focus on islam as pure evil in any conflict alone, tell others to do so, too and employ simplified or outright farbicated ideas about muslims, then you are antiislamic.
And that is what happens under the cover of 'critisizing israel'.
I can only repeat myself in saying that the picture posted in this thread is one of the things i see as being a populist mean to spread antisemitism (and before anyone gets an idea: no, i dont think people who posted it or liked it are antisemitists). I tried to explain in this giant post why the picture is, in my opinion, very very misleading. But for someone seeing it, it might seem as very rational criticism and accurate depiction. He is not an antisemitist for believing it, but the picture itself is antisemitist propaganda, which is then spread.
And people who start hating israel due to that are influenced not by rational critique, but by a misleading picture.
That is one of the things i mean. Noone ever asked which right palestinians had to attack israel from the gaza strip (being used by egypt).
People ask why israel then occupied that place (after UN troops didnt help keeping peace because they left gaza when egypt asked to).
It did so because it got attacked from there and didnt want it to happen again.
Once again: No injustice committed by an israeli settler or soldier is justified. But focussing on what israel did really or allegedly wrong while not always stressing that it got attacked time after time by all its neighbours and by the palestinians while israel itself relied on the UN several times paints a very wrong picture.
On the Palestinian side: These people have lived in the country for over a thousand years; it's their home. To have people come into the country and say "Hi, we're home, now get out" would result in conflicts. Granted, I'm sure Palestinians would welcome incoming people pouring into the country, but to have the country taken over with the help of the West will give out some bad results.
And of course, it doesn't help when Israel is bombing the shit out of Palestine and Palestine retaliating (and vice-versa). I don't think this conflict would change as long as there are people fighting and valuing their pride over people's lives (it's just what happened with the Assassination of an Arch-Duke that triggered the first Great War; He and his wife got assassinated, Austria-Hungary declared ultimatum on Yugoslavia and eventually triggered the War). While the case is different, my point here is that if people were to drop the Nationality identity, I firmly believe the conflict would cease to exist (sure, there is the religious issue, but I personally see this conflict as a nationality issue).
These things happened with the distance of about 50 years.
First and foremost: Jewish settlers didnt say 'get out'. There were rightful complaints on the palestinian side, but basically, the jewish settlers bought land, being sold to them by rich palestinians, ignoring the poor. That is not pretty, but it is another thing than driving someone out with force.
There could have been a two state solution with a neutral jerusalem, israel was up for it. that is a point which cannot be stressed enough.
(and yes, it has also to be stressed that the british betrayed the arabs by promising them a lot of things before they shoved jewish settlers there).
However , at that points, there were no hostilities of israel against the today's gaza strip. The invasion of the gaza strip was about 20 years later after UN troops at that region didnt help and israel got attacked from there.
it's not like israel suddenly decided 'oh hey guys, lets invade the gaza strip slowly because the people there are dirty arabs'.
Gaza is led by a terror organization, too. It is hard to really negotiate with them. It has to be done, but we should not overlook that, even with discrimination, israel is a democracy with free spech, and opposing the hamas in gaza gets you killed.
I dislike how Israel is portrayed as good when they're just as bad as the Palestinian terrorists. Both sides are just as guilty, and it's ridiculous that people defend Israel.
I find your equation very very wrong.
You cannot equate a terrorist organization who rose to power by destroying another terrorist organization with a democratic state.
If anything, the hamas are depicted in a much better light than they deserve. Who ever paints israel in a good light in the media?
Some evangelists maybe? But left and rightwing usually agree that israel is evil. Politicians have another stance towards a nato state, but that's it.
However: One should never equate a terrorist organization to a democratic state.
Being leftwing does not get you killed in israel. 2013, about 40% of israelians voted left wing.
The Hamas is taking their people hostage more than israel ever could.
These things happened with the distance of about 50 years.
First and foremost: Jewish settlers didnt say 'get out'. There were rightful complaints on the palestinian side, but basically, the jewish settlers bought land, being sold to them by rich palestinians, ignoring the poor. That is not pretty, but it is another thing than driving someone out with force.
There could have been a two state solution with a neutral jerusalem, israel was up for it. that is a point which cannot be stressed enough.
(and yes, it has also to be stressed that the british betrayed the arabs by promising them a lot of things before they shoved jewish settlers there).
However , at that points, there were no hostilities of israel against the today's gaza strip. The invasion of the gaza strip was about 20 years later after UN troops at that region didnt help and israel got attacked from there. it's not like israel suddenly decided 'oh hey guys, lets invade the gaza strip slowly because the people there are dirty arabs'.
Hence why I'd like to be in the neutral side, because of newer informations that I'm gaining like the two state solution. I've really never heard about the settlers buying the lands tho, which is news to me.
Although, there has been evidence that Palestinians are being driven out of their homes by settlers even to this day, and I've seen quite enough of clips to the point where I couldn't watch anymore.
Gaza is led by a terror organization, too. It is hard to really negotiate with them. It has to be done, but we should not overlook that, even with discrimination, israel is a democracy with free spech, and opposing the hamas in gaza gets you killed.
The Hamas issue is more complicated than that. Granted, while it is considered a terror organization, it's more of a group of rebels (not that I'm endorsing Hamas of course). But regardless of that, it is definitely difficult to negotiate with Hamas (but not impossible).
Oh yeah, and that's another issue about the conflict: the information distributed about both Palestine and Israel, and that is what makes things a lot harder to verify (even in the Age of Information). On Palestine's side, you have Hamas denying any sorts of "airstrikes" towards Israel while Israel's side denies the killing of Palestinian children during their airstrikes.
Again, I'm not saying things like Palestinians are angels while Israel are demonic beings; I'm just saying that both of the party's at fault (one way or another).
Although, there has been evidence that Palestinians are being driven out of their homes by settlers even to this day, and I've seen quite enough of clips to the point where I couldn't watch anymore.
Welol, it is less 'even to that day' but more 'nowadays'.
It is undeniable that settlers try to claim more land for israel. That is happening. But it did not happen before all those wars.
But it is true: For a peaceful solution, it has to stop
The Hamas issue is more complicated than that. Granted, while it is considered a terror organization, it's more of a group of rebels (not that I'm endorsing Hamas of course). But regardless of that, it is definitely difficult to negotiate with Hamas (but not impossible).
Well, the Hamas supported bin laden and said that they pray for his soul resting in peace and see the US killing him as an act of imperialism.
They also employ torture on opponents.
They drove their only rivalsm fatah, out of gaza by force.
They shoot rockets onto israelian territory.
And thier influence and guidelines made many minors go to israelian settlements with knife and attack civillians there.
I really would see them as a terror organization. But that is semantics, in any case, they are one leading reason for the impossibility of peace in gaza at the moment. It is hard to do peacetalks with an organization that, after one semi democratic election, drove out its opponent by force and since reigns with violence.
Again, I'm not saying things like Palestinians are angels while Israel are demonic beings; I'm just saying that both of the party's at fault (one way or another).
I think every action has to be watched under the lense of 'is it useful or does it escalate' instead of being right or wrong.
There are things which are not pretty but do not leave a choice. In any war, people die, even if it is a war in self defense.
I don't see much choice to doing military raids on gaza if there are rocket attacks, and in any raid, there is a chance that people die.
I do see a lot of options instead settlements. Israel does not need those, they uselessly escalate the conflict.
They are only there because the government has to appease the right wing.
Thus, yeah, critisizing the settlements is very legit. But i feel like it is often rather unfair act like israel had the option to fight back against terrorattacks without using violence which might hurt civillians themselves.
It has to be investigated whether there were carelessness, things against the law and so on, but many people seem to think that israel has basically no right at all to even defend itself.
Every military action leaves horrible pictures, no matter how 'justified' or 'unjustified' it might be.
It is simply that i feel that a peaceful solution does not get any closer when populists take over a conflict.
There are so many people in the west who dont have the smallest clue about this conflict but still have made up their mind about one side being evil or both sides being evil or whatever.
But conflicts can only be solved when they are understood. Most ppl dont seem to want to understand it tho, but rather judge it and be done with it.
I am not strictly pro israel because i am not 'pro' any nation, but i feel israel gets attacked for a lot of things which did not happen the way they are narrated, which has effects even in europe and the US with rising antisemitism.
Where did I say that? I said there is hardy anyone influential the current Israeli Government who genuinely wants a solution. Their current government is a coalition of extreme right wing parties. And they do not want a solution.
In 2013 Israel had about 40% of votes vote for outright pro peace pro two state solution parties.
The reason for the decline in the latest vote was the downfall and split the biggest left wing party and more interest in right wing parties due to renewed attacks.
That means majority people in Israel do not want a solution? 40% is a bit lower than majority. And I do not know why do you bring this. I said nothing about general Israeli people not wanting a solution.
Oh and nearly half of the Israeli population prefers the expulsion of Arabs. 79% this Jews should get preferential treatment. So much for secular democracy.
Anyway:
After a pogroms from the arab side and the bloody retaliation from the british side which killed very many palestinins, there was once again a proposed solution: Splitting israel in a jewish and a palestinian side.
The jewish side agreed, the arab side didnt and began attacking israel immadietly.
They lost. After that war Israel looked like this: https://chronicle.fanack.com/wp-con...e-state-of-israel_israel_armisticemap0002.jpg
Enough of the history lesson. You mentioned everything to make Israel look good. Why not say that the Israel military expelled Arabs and destroyed their village in 1948 war?
Now, you asked whether 'that is okay', and after those three clear aggressions which kept on happening. And i can only reply that by any standards of that time, yes. After being threatened to be wiped out and attacked by several serrounding nations directly or indirectly, it is okay to take over the spots of them which enable them to attack you best.
Oh....they are not being attacked anymore?
This did not help them attain peace. I doubt they want that in the first place. All this did is keep the conflict ongoing.
I mean: Imagine if you are an israeli and your anchestors fought in those wars in which israel religious zealots or arab nationalists wanted to destroy that state time after time.
How do you think you would react to pictures like here in that thread which paint israel as the imperialist force occupying more and more land?
Israel never occupied land without being attacked until very late with the settlement policy, and arguably, until that time, there in fact were attacks from PLO and later Hamas.
Imagine you are a Palestinian. Your family were expelled from their homes. Anyone Jewish can come from anywhere and become a citizen and you are treated as a second class situation. You would be rather happy, I guess?
Linking Hamas with everything won't do anything. There was no Hamas before 1987. Israel have been building settlements since 1967.
But every country in the west seems to be very eager defending Israel. Paying little attention to Israel's wrongdoings. Israel lobbyists are quite influential in many countries.
I don't actually hate Israel but lots of negativity coming from this state makes it impossible for me to like Israel.
I find your equation very very wrong.
You cannot equate a terrorist organization who rose to power by destroying another terrorist organization with a democratic state.
If anything, the hamas are depicted in a much better light than they deserve. Who ever paints israel in a good light in the media?
Some evangelists maybe? But left and rightwing usually agree that israel is evil. Politicians have another stance towards a nato state, but that's it.
However: One should never equate a terrorist organization to a democratic state.
Being leftwing does not get you killed in israel. 2013, about 40% of israelians voted left wing.
The Hamas is taking their people hostage more than israel ever could.
Luckily finding my equation wrong doesn't change anything. Israeli army commit horrific acts just as Hamas do, and to claim otherwise is to be blind. Why is it justified with "well Hamas are hiding behind citizens!!"? Innocent citizens are still dying no matter how anyone spins it, and it's disgusting that people will defend Israel with that.
How are they depicted in a much better light? I rarely see anyone saying anything good about Hamas, whereas Israel is painted as the good side. What are you reading that doesn't paint Israel in a good light? You do know that Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz got vilified and attacked by tons of people, especially celebrities, for supporting Palestine, if not criticizing Israel? If one criticizes Israel, they're called Anti-Semitic.
According to what? I can see left wing saying Israel is the villain or one of the villains, but when has the right wing ever said that? Even then, Israel still receives more support from the USA than Palestine, one way or another, so it doesn't really matter what they think. If I recall, some businesses help support Israel too.
Why not? If they act like terrorists, then they should be called terrorists. Many ME countries call US terrorists because of the damage we've caused to these countries. Israeli armies should be called terrorists because they attack citizens without giving a shit about their lives. There are pictures and videos of Israelis treating Palestinians horribly, so there's no reason to make them look like they're better. They're not, and it doesn't matter how democratic they are, they're still doing horrible stuff.
Let me phrase it like that: If you critisize the quran or islam, that is absolutely legit. You should if you feel it is correct. I do it too.
However, if you begin to focus on islam as pure evil in any conflict alone, tell others to do so, too and employ simplified or outright farbicated ideas about muslims, then you are antiislamic.
And that is what happens under the cover of 'critisizing israel'.
But if you criticize Israel, you're antisemitic as another member mentionned it, and it's way more considered badly than the other.
Anyway, I don't really see the point : the main opinion is in favour of Israel, I'm really surprised that you think it's the opposite. Probably because of the propagandia on Internet but both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine have their ways to convince people, that's pretty scary to see which level of hate they're able to display. However, main medias (especially on tv) basically are in favour of Israel, regardless of what they did, that's why some people also defend Palestine because, yeah, unfair things happened towards them as well and it's also a way to make up for this unfair treatment.
I can only repeat myself in saying that the picture posted in this thread is one of the things i see as being a populist mean to spread antisemitism (and before anyone gets an idea: no, i dont think people who posted it or liked it are antisemitists). I tried to explain in this giant post why the picture is, in my opinion, very very misleading. But for someone seeing it, it might seem as very rational criticism and accurate depiction. He is not an antisemitist for believing it, but the picture itself is antisemitist propaganda, which is then spread.
And people who start hating israel due to that are influenced not by rational critique, but by a misleading picture.
That is one of the things i mean. Noone ever asked which right palestinians had to attack israel from the gaza strip (being used by egypt).
People ask why israel then occupied that place (after UN troops didnt help keeping peace because they left gaza when egypt asked to).
It did so because it got attacked from there and didnt want it to happen again.
Wait, this map comes from The Economist. (I mentionned it before because I knew this argument would be used) And I got the same map in my history books with the context you mentionned and it's far from being antisemitic propagandia. And I really see what you mean but you didn't answer to this : why Israeli citizens are on these territories ? I mean, if they were only militaries, it should bother me a bit but that's war, so that's kinda understandable with the context we know. But with the presence of Israeli citizens, it's not for security only, they clearly search for a way to get as many fields as they can. And regardless of what Palestine did, it's unforgivable. None of what they did can justify this anyway. What's the purpose of Israeli citizens on Palestinian territories ?
But should history being used as a basis for sovereignity? And if so, how far back?
Critisizing israel is not antisemitist, but the focus on israel as being a hostile nation is.
Well yeah, but actual history. The proposed timeline proposed in the Pentateuch makes no sense, and we know from the known archaeological record that the Hebrew culture is no where near as old as religious people would say it is. But I guess that's neither here nor there, the fact is, religious people use the Torah as a basis for the Jewish people being there on top of the British Mandate, of course. That is also why so many people have flooded there over the last century, as it is considered the "Holy Land".
But of course, this is also on-top of the long-standing history of antisemitism in Europe, no denying that. This is the reason Israel was established in the first place from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after the Holocaust.
As i said, take the picture in this thread which makes it seem like israel actively claimed land in hostile actions and read what i wrote in my post to philia.
Those things are fueled by antisemitism like the storys about christian lebanon being outbred by muslims are fueled by antiislamism (because in spite of common ideas, lebanon is a rather liberal state . Not a nice place to live due to terror attack and other tensions, but liberal nonetheless with no hostilities against christians whatsoever).
Well, I don't know about them taking land in a hostile fashion, but the UN has definitely labeled it illegal on multiple occasions IIRC. It's probably pretty convenient to merely label all of that as antisemitism, no?
Actual criticism of israel is always right and welcome, but most of it is simple populism fueled by antisemitism.
And yes i say most not because there is not a lot to critisize, but due to the sheer amount of populist fueled antisemitism.
Well yeah, but actual history. The proposed timeline proposed in the Pentateuch makes no sense, and we know from the known archaeological record that the Hebrew culture is no where near as old as religious people would say it is. But I guess that's neither here nor there, the fact is, religious people use the Torah as a basis for the Jewish people being there on top of the British Mandate, of course. That is also why so many people have flooded there over the last century, as it is considered the "Holy Land".
But of course, this is also on-top of the long-standing history of antisemitism in Europe, no denying that. This is the reason Israel was established in the first place from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire after the Holocaust.
Well, I don't know about them taking land in a hostile fashion, but the UN has definitely labeled it illegal on multiple occasions IIRC. It's probably pretty convenient to merely label all of that as antisemitism, no?
Well, just because a criticism can exist for antisemitic reasons, doesn't necessarily mean that the criticism is wrong or indecent.
Well, do you know who it is that fills those resolutions against israel?
It is the UNHRC. And do you know who is leading the UNHRC at the moment? Saudi Arabia. Ya. those guys are the ones leading the UN human rights council.
And it wasnt better before. Let's look on the resolutions they did since 2006:
The source is german but i think the statistics is quite understandable : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-Menschenrechtsrat#Kritik
Now, no matter what your stance to israel is: Having more resolutions against israel than against any other country TOGETHER seems kind of like ther eis an underlying motive, right?
Why do countries like islamic autocracies except saudi arabia's enemy iran have no resolutions against them? Because they help each other and have a strong voting bloc. For the same reason, there are countless resolutions filed against israel.
Taking that as an unbiased source and saying 'the un thinks that' is not exactly the whole truth.
And that is one of the things which, yes, are fueled by antisemitism. Having no single resolution against china, russia, saudi arabia, various african countries and so on but 61 against israel is the antisemitic focus i mean. And that has nothing to do with convenience, that is a reality we have to see.
The loudest parties who scream a bout israelian monsters killing palestinian children are those doing that in their own countries.
And they have no problem lying and taking things out of context.
What really is to be critisized in israel is something you can only judge if you have read many different independend sources or, better, have been there yourself.
Still every college kid wants to tell people about what israel does right or wrong, when chances are, that they have read a source influenced by the same players who are in fact driven by underlying motives.
Criticism of something that factually happened is one thing and it is absolutely fine.
But when i see the whole european left and right joining together condemning israel while partially supporting countries who do much worse and often due to halftruths or outright lies, then that is not right.
Because this is not criticism anymore if it is solely focussed on one country and if you have a strong opinion about it without even beginnign to completely understand the complex conflict.
'Israel is evil because i have seen some injured palestinian child on facebook' is a good enough reason for many people to get into hate tirades.
And you simply dont have that with other countries.
And that is where i see the antisemitism which has to be fought.
Because its not like that is helping anyone in that conflict because IT IS NOT ACTUALY CRITICISM.
Actual criticism is what follows after actually reading into a topic and taking into account various sources.
That almost never happens when it comes to israel.
It's pictures, not facts motivating people in this conflict.
Enough of the history lesson. You mentioned everything to make Israel look good. Why not say that the Israel military expelled Arabs and destroyed their village in 1948 war?
I don't. What i actually did was goign through wikipedia and citing the reasons for israel's wars to show you that it never started the hostile actions and that, in the beginning, it a) agreed to sharing the land in a plan made by UN and b) was fine with UN troops being stationed in (a that time much bigger) gaza and had no business there.
Israel went into gaza to begin with because it got attacked form there several times and for no other reason.
Arabs didnt have 'their village'. There were several arab villages destroyed in that war. You will never hear me denying that. But what does that change about israel always only retiliating? This was a war shortly after the second worldwar led by an inexperienced army of volunteers. What does that fact change? There were muslims after the war in israel which got citizenship. It's not like israel led a genozide there.
What you basically tell me with that is: It does not matter whether israel was attacked, it also does not matter the arab armies at that time said that the jews all have to die (and followed through when they could), but instead, by the sheer fact that the israeli army has chased away some arabs from their towns makes them just as bad as the other party in that conflict.
And that is a logic i really cannot follow.
It is simply the truth that hostile actions were never started from the israelis in that time.
And that just does not add up with the picture of israel simply 'coming there and taking the palestine land'. That just did not happen in the way it is implied.
Oh....they are not being attacked anymore?
This did not help them attain peace. I doubt they want that in the first place. All this did is keep the conflict ongoing.
There was a peace agreement in oslo. Israel followed through. They left gaza. They withdrew troops and settlers from there. It is not like they had to do that at this point. They were in Nato already, noone would be hindering them from going on settling there. There would simply be more settlements by now and a tighter grasp arround them.
They still withdrew and then, elections were held in palestina.
Long story short, hamas won it, and after that, they killed off their opponents and chased them out of gaza.
Hamas, a party which, in their parties charter, has it that all jews have to leave or die.
After israeli withdrawal, rocket attacks intensified again.
And you still tell me it is israel not interested in peace when they dont trust a 'two state solution' with the hamas as heads of gaza?
Imagine you are a Palestinian. Your family were expelled from their homes. Anyone Jewish can come from anywhere and become a citizen and you are treated as a second class situation. You would be rather happy, I guess?
Linking Hamas with everything won't do anything. There was no Hamas before 1987. Israel have been building settlements since 1967.
I do imagine that. I imagine i would not like to be lied to by people who want to make me angry, and want me to take up a knife and kill a jewish civillian.
I imagine i dont want to be ruled by the corrupt hamas or fatah who kill me off if i disagree with them and use me and my family as hostages.
I would rather like to be told the full picture and have people interested in a solution working together.
But that is not what happens.
People in gaza are being lied to and used. By very many different players.
But every country in the west seems to be very eager defending Israel. Paying little attention to Israel's wrongdoings. Israel lobbyists are quite influential in many countries.
I don't actually hate Israel but lots of negativity coming from this state makes it impossible for me to like Israel.
Why is this happening then? http://www.unwatch.org/un-vilifies-israel-worlds-violator-health-rights/
The behaviour of EU and US dont reflect the old myth of 'israel is treated as special'.
It is simply not true. Turkey got more goodwill in the latest developements than israel did.
Saudi Arabia similarly. There is a reason why there are 61 un resolutions against israel and 0 against saudi arabia.
The US can partially be counted as a protector of israel, yes, but Obama is not exactly a friend. He is a nato partner.
Most western politicians have for israel are warm words and sometimes some weapon deals which benefit them and are normal between nato partners.
Where else do you see israel beign treated as better? Certainly can't be in the UN.
Luckily finding my equation wrong doesn't change anything. Israeli army commit horrific acts just as Hamas do, and to claim otherwise is to be blind. Why is it justified with "well Hamas are hiding behind citizens!!"? Innocent citizens are still dying no matter how anyone spins it, and it's disgusting that people will defend Israel with that.
How are they depicted in a much better light? I rarely see anyone saying anything good about Hamas, whereas Israel is painted as the good side. What are you reading that doesn't paint Israel in a good light? You do know that Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz got vilified and attacked by tons of people, especially celebrities, for supporting Palestine, if not criticizing Israel? If one criticizes Israel, they're called Anti-Semitic.
According to what? I can see left wing saying Israel is the villain or one of the villains, but when has the right wing ever said that? Even then, Israel still receives more support from the USA than Palestine, one way or another, so it doesn't really matter what they think. If I recall, some businesses help support Israel too.
So, by that logic, is the US just as bad as Saudi Arabia because both have led a war with civillian victims?
Or is france just as bad as Russia when it comes to corruption because it happens in both countries?
No.
How is it disgusting to defend israel with that? What is your alternative? You would have to be able to give an alternative about how israel can defend itself without civillian victims if the hamas do their best to rack those up?
How do you think israel should react when rockets fly on civillian ground or when soldiers or other citizends are kidnapped? Should they do nothing at all?
Where is Israel ever painted as the good side? It is not hard to be better than actual terrorists. Even Assad is by now seen as the good side by some because he fights Isis (sometimes)-
In the UN, israel gets countless shit while a lot of actual dictatorships with torture, death penalty and so on go free or are the accusers.
The european left has ties with the PLO, the european right is not exactly a friend of the jews either.
So what's left here?
And you asked about the right wing: Is Front National, AfD, the whole eastern european right extremist parties like jobbik or the ouright antisemitist strache in austria really not enough? Do we really need more?#
Also: Penelope Cruz said Israel is a state of terrorism. That is why she got attacked. And i find that quite understandable. And a shitstorm today is not exactly anything outlandish. If i am an american celebrity and twitter something along the lines of 'well the palestinians got it coming, no sympathy!' after some civillians die, then you can bet i face a shitstorm too. And that has nothing to do with 'paitning in a good light' but with 'people shitstorm when they feel something is very wrong and upsetting'.
You can read up on UN watch how israel is treated in the UN.
Why not? If they act like terrorists, then they should be called terrorists. Many ME countries call US terrorists because of the damage we've caused to these countries. Israeli armies should be called terrorists because they attack citizens without giving a shit about their lives. There are pictures and videos of Israelis treating Palestinians horribly, so there's no reason to make them look like they're better. They're not, and it doesn't matter how democratic they are, they're still doing horrible stuff.
And thoese ME countries are usually actually people who support terrorists or employ torture and death penalty themselves.
Calling the US a terror state is just as nonsensial as calling Israel a terror state.
Both are democracies, both do not use violence to cause fear. Did you ever hear about terrorists withdrawing from something they occupied without being forced to? Israel did that, following the Oslo peacetalks. After that hamas rose to power and shot more rockets.
Still, noone gets upset about 'those evil hamas terorrists'. NO,Why would anyone?
It is much more important that penelope cruz can shout out that she thinks israel is a terror state.
You should not follow pictures, because there is also a lot of faking and photoshopping involved.
It is not unheard of to claim that a palestine child was attacked and kille dby israelis and it later turns out that this child was not even from the middle east but from africa and died due to another reason.
To understand what israel actually does and where it might do things wrong, you need a deep understanding of their military actions and the reason for those.
It is not enough to watch a picture or a video of which you do not know the context at all.
But if you criticize Israel, you're antisemitic as another member mentionned it, and it's way more considered badly than the other.
Anyway, I don't really see the point : the main opinion is in favour of Israel, I'm really surprised that you think it's the opposite. Probably because of the propagandia on Internet but both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine have their ways to convince people, that's pretty scary to see which level of hate they're able to display. However, main medias (especially on tv) basically are in favour of Israel, regardless of what they did, that's why some people also defend Palestine because, yeah, unfair things happened towards them as well and it's also a way to make up for this unfair treatment.
But i do critisize israel rather often and i was never called an antisemitist.
The mainopinion is NOT in favour of israel. I can go from germany here because i know the number:
36% have a good picture of israel, 48% a bad one. In germany, i wanna stress. And it's the same nonsense claims as anywhere else 'well well I may not say it because everyone is hating on me, but those israelians are kinda nazi themselves. right. RIGHT???'.
The thing is, people feel like they 'may not say something', but say it anyway and get applause for being 'brave'. A minor shitstorm of people who (often rightfully) get upset about it does not change that fact.
On which TV channels do you think that israel is always seen as good no matter what it does? In germany that definitely is not the case. there might be some US channels who do that, but in germany, at best, it is some newspapers who do that (those from axel springer, who was a jew). But even those dont outright lie, like you will see it often on antisemitist channels, which focus more on the internet.
Wait, this map comes from The Economist. (I mentionned it before because I knew this argument would be used) And I got the same map in my history books with the context you mentionned and it's far from being antisemitic propagandia. And I really see what you mean but you didn't answer to this : why Israeli citizens are on these territories ? I mean, if they were only militaries, it should bother me a bit but that's war, so that's kinda understandable with the context we know. But with the presence of Israeli citizens, it's not for security only, they clearly search for a way to get as many fields as they can. And regardless of what Palestine did, it's unforgivable. None of what they did can justify this anyway. What's the purpose of Israeli citizens on Palestinian territories ?
I know that it comes from the economist. But i do not know how that is relevant.
WITH the context, it is NOT propaganda.
WITHOUT the context, claiming that 'look israel is killing off palestine', it is.
And i have almost never seen taht picture with context in the internet. You?
As i said, israel withdrew settlers from gaza with the oslo peace agreement. they didnt have to, but they did.
After that, hamas rose to power and attacks intensified.
This is part of the reason why israelis feel that settlements give them more safety.
It is the UNHRC. And do you know who is leading the UNHRC at the moment? Saudi Arabia. Ya. those guys are the ones leading the UN human rights council.
Well that's a giant joke, no denying that. But yeah, it's a recent development.
I doubt it was intentional, but you sort of started a straw-man argument off the back of what I said. I don't claim to critique Israel on the basis that I fully understand the conflict there in detail, but I am saying that Israel is not blameless and suggesting this is not antisemitic. That's the long and the short of it really. I haven't been complaining about Israel bombing civilians or whoever in retaliation or whatever. The whole situation is a pigfuck, but Israel moving further right-wing ever since the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu alliance into the current ultra-right/orthodox coalition has made the situation worse IMO. It isn't only about actions, there's also a problem with ideology, whether it's Hamas or Fatah. Both sides.
There's been an update to our forum rules to broaden crediting/sourcing to all series news/announcement, etc. Please read HERE
Oscars Contest 2023 is LIVE! Click HERE for a chance to win your Oscar!
It's back! MH presents a celebration of manga/anime culture; Mangahelpers Awards 2022 is NOW LIVE!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) like to pretend when some arguments oppose their interests. I think that the creation of a country with a Jewish majority was necessary, Jews need a place which is safe for them because the entire world has been unable to do so until now. Furthermore, the discrimination towards them has increased. (in my country at least) That said, the whole thing has not been managed correctly and at the same time, could it be the case ? Reactions from the local population were legitimate at that time, nobody really like to see foreigners invading their territory for whatever reason.
)
