That's where we disagree. It's not a simple gesture, it holds a very strong antisemitic meaning, it kinda helps to spread hate and to make it banal. I don't think I'm completely wrong on this since you consider it's just a "gesture" and you're not the only one, plenty of non-antisemitic people think the same and they don't consider it's dangerous. They can even do it for "fun". As I explained, it's not tolerable : that doesn't remove the hateful meaning.
I was not aware of it. Nothing in Wikipedia states it's deep anti-Semitic meaning either, other than it being performing outside of Jewish institution and Holocaust memorials. And it is a inverted Nazi salute, popularized by an anti-Semite. But even Nazi salute doesn't get one into this much trouble.
Anyway I guess you are right, since I don't know much about it. This kinda shows that antisemitism is on the rise.
Well, for some, it's kinda a gesture of rebellion but basically, it's used by antisemitic circles... as a gesture of rebellion against "Jewish domination". In France at least, I don't really know for other countries, these people were trouble for some time. That could explain why you seemed less shocked by it than I am.
Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 over Suez dispute. This was the first act of violence after the 1948 war and it was done by Israel. Israel attacked Iraq in 1981 to bomb their nuclear facilities. Israel invaded Lebanon several times to fight the PLO. Israel attacked US ship in Egypt. Later apologized and paid compensation for it.
Res. 57 (Sep. 18, 1948) – Expresses deep shock at the assassination of the U.N. Mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, by Zionist terrorists.
Res. 89 (Nov. 17, 1950) – Requests that attention be given to the expulsion of “thousands of Palestine Arabs” and calls upon concerned governments to take no further action “involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines”, and notes that Israel announced that it would withdraw to the armistice lines.
Res. 93 (May 18, 1951) – Finds that Israeli airstrikes on Syria on April 5, 1951 constitutes “a violation of the cease-fire”, and decides that Arab civilians expelled from the demilitarized zone by Israel should be allowed to return.
Res. 100 (Oct. 27, 1953) – Notes that Israel had said it would stop work it started in the demilitarized zone on September 2, 1953.
Res.101 (Nov. 24, 1953) – Finds Israel’s attack on Qibya, Jordan on October 14-15, 1953 to be a violation of the cease-fire and “Expresses the strongest censure of that action”.
Res. 106 (Mar. 29, 1955) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip on February 28, 1955.
Res. 111 (Jan. 19, 1956) – Condemns Israel’s attack on Syria on December 11, 1955 as “a flagrant violation of the cease-fire” and armistice agreement.
Res. 119 (Oct. 31, 1956) – Considers that “a grave situation has been created” by the attack against Egypt by the forces of Britain, France, and Israel.
Res.171 (Apr. 9, 1962) – Reaffirms resolution 111 and determines that Israel’s attack on Syria on March 16-17, 1962 “constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution”.
Res. 228 (Nov. 25, 1966) – “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action” by Israel in the southern Hebron area on November 13, 1966, and “Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter” and the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan.
Res. 237 (Jun. 14, 1967) – Calls on Israel “to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants where military operations have taken place” during the war launched by Israel on June 5, 1967 “and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities”.
Res. 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) – Emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasizes that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and calls for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.
Res. 248 (Mar. 24, 1968) – Observes that the Israeli attack on Jordan “was of a large-scale and carefully planned nature”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, “Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”, and “Calls upon Israel to desist from” further violations of resolution 237.
Res. 250 (Apr. 27, 1968) – Considers “that the holding of a military parade in Jerusalem will aggravate tensions in the area and have an adverse effect on a peaceful settlement of the problems in the area” and “Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated” for May 2, 1968.
Res. 251 (May 2, 1968) – Recalls resolution 250 and “Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem” on May 2, 1968 “in disregard of” resolution 250.
Res. 252 (May 21, 1968) – “Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with” General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, considers Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid”, and calls upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.
Res. 256 (Aug. 16, 1968) – Recalls Israel’s “flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter” condemned in resolution 248, observes that further Israeli air attacks on Jordan “were of a large scale and carefully planned nature in violation of resolution 248”, “Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property”, and condemns Israel’s attacks.
Res. 259 (Sep. 27, 1968) – Expresses concern for “the safety, welfare and security” of the Palestinians “under military occupation by Israel”, deplores “the delay in the implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General”, and requests Israel to receive the Special Representative and facilitate his work.
Res. 262 (Dec. 31, 1968) – Observes “that the military action by the armed forces of Israel against the civil International Airport of Beirut was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned nature”, and condemns Israel for the attack.
Res.265 (Apr. 1, 1969) – Expresses “deep concern that the recent attacks on Jordanian villages and other populated areas were of a pre-planned nature, in violation of resolutions” 248 and 256, “Deplores the loss of civilian life and damage to property”, and “Condemns the recent premeditated air attacks launched by Israel on Jordanian villages and populated areas in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the cease-fire resolutions”.
Res. 267 (Jul. 3, 1969) – Recalls resolution 252 and General Assembly resolutions 2253 and 2254, notes that “since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions”, “Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, “Confirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently calls on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.
Res. 270 (Aug. 26, 1969) – “Condemns the premeditated air attack by Israel on villages in southern Lebanon in violation of its obligations under the Charter and Security Council resolutions”.
Res. 271 (Sep. 15, 1969) – Expresses grief “at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem” on August 21, 1969 “under the military occupation of Israel”, reaffirms “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”, “Determines that the execrable act of desecration and profanation of the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque emphasizes the immediate necessity of Israel’s desisting from acting in violation” previous resolutions and rescinding measures to annex Jerusalem, calls on Israel “to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation”, and condemns Israel’s failure to comply with previous resolutions.
Res. 279 (May 12, 1970) – “Demands the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”
Res. 280 (May 19, 1970) – Expresses conviction that “that the Israeli military attack against Lebanon was premeditated and of a large scale and carefully planned in nature”, recalls resolution 279 “demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory”, deplores Israel’s violation of resolutions 262 and 270, “Condemns Israel for its premeditated military action in violation of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations”, and “Deplores the loss of life and damage to property inflicted as a result” of Israeli violations of Security Council resolutions.
Res. 285 (Sep. 5, 1970) – “Demands the complete and immediate withdrawal of all Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory.”
See, I can do this too. Israel is responsible more than 75% of the violations of ceasefire agreements. However I don't think this is the main goal of this thread. Both sides did questionable things during that time. That doesn't make one side right here. Neither it gives Israel to occupy lands.
I feel like this one kind of contradicts other things you said. Basically, the only ones bringing about resolutions against israel to the table are the western nations, exactly the nations who get blame for being too nice to israel.
Also, the attack from britain, france and israel against egypt in the suez crisis came too place after Resolutions were filed against Egypt, legitimizing the attacks.
So, this illustrates pretty well that firstly, the western nations didnt go easy on israel, exspecially before it became a nato partner, and secondly that, if we accept those resolutions (which were majorly brought on the way by western nations), then the attack in the suez crisis was absolutely legitimate because britain and france, who were mainplayers in those resolutions, attacked too.
Okay they never retreated from Gaza. They just relocated the settlers. Israel controls what gets into Gaza. Israel controls the airspace and the water resources. They claim there is no occupation in Gaza. But this is the case. EU still considers Gaza strip occupied.
And Israel has nothing to do with it?
Every government in the West overlooks Israel's law violation. There are so many sanctions against North Korea and Iran. How many against Israel? There are resolution against Israel. But where are the actions?
Yes, israel still controls the gaza strip by having control over movement, military actions on sea and air.
It was still a big step. It meant that every single jew previously settling there had to go out. Israel also gave up military posts there and administrative control.
It can hardly be denied that this was a huge step towards a two state solution. If, at that point, gaza had become a democratically led region with relative stability, israel could hardly have maintained its position, not in foreign politics, nor in inner politics.
But that did not happen:
In the Palestinian parliamentary elections held on 25 January 2006, Hamas won a plurality of 42.9% of the total vote and 74 out of 132 total seats (56%).[194][195] When Hamas assumed power the next month, Israel, the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations demanded that Hamas accept all previous agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist, and renounce violence; when Hamas refused,[196] they cut off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, although some aid money was redirected to humanitarian organizations not affiliated with the government.[197] The resulting political disorder and economic stagnation led to many Palestinians emigrating from the Gaza Strip.[198]
In January 2007, fighting erupted between Hamas and Fatah. The deadliest clashes occurred in the northern Gaza Strip, where General Muhammed Gharib, a senior commander of the Fatah-dominated Preventive Security Force, died when a rocket hit his home.
On 30 January 2007, a truce was negotiated between Fatah and Hamas.[199] However, after a few days, new fighting broke out. On 1 February, Hamas killed 6 people in an ambush on a Gaza convoy which delivered equipment for Abbas' Palestinian Presidential Guard, according to diplomats, meant to counter smuggling of more powerful weapons into Gaza by Hamas for its fast-growing "Executive Force". According to Hamas, the deliveries to the Presidential Guard were intended to instigate sedition (against Hamas), while withholding money and assistance from the Palestinian people.[200] Fatah fighters stormed a Hamas-affiliated university in the Gaza Strip. Officers from Abbas' presidential guard battled Hamas gunmen guarding the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.[201]
In May 2007, new fighting broke out between the factions.[202] Interior Minister Hani Qawasmi, who had been considered a moderate civil servant acceptable to both factions, resigned due to what he termed harmful behavior by both sides.[203]
Fighting spread in the Gaza Strip, with both factions attacking vehicles and facilities of the other side. Following a breakdown in an Egyptian-brokered truce, Israel launched an air strike which destroyed a building used by Hamas. Ongoing violence prompted fear that it could bring the end of the Fatah-Hamas coalition government, and possibly the end of the Palestinian authority.[204]
Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk blamed the conflict between Hamas and Fatah on Israel, stating that the constant pressure of economic sanctions resulted in the "real explosion."[205] Associated Press reporter Ibrahim Barzak wrote an eyewitness account stating: "Today I have seen people shot before my eyes, I heard the screams of terrified women and children in a burning building, and I argued with gunmen who wanted to take over my home. I have seen a lot in my years as a journalist in Gaza, but this is the worst it's been."
From 2006-2007 more than 600 Palestinians were killed in fighting between Hamas and Fatah.[206] In the aftermath of the Gaza War, a series of violent acts killed 54 Palestinians, while hundreds have claimed they were tortured.[207] 349 Palestinians were killed in fighting between factions in 2007. 160 Palestinians killed each other in June alone.[208]
So, right after the first democratic election, the elected leadship refused to accept israel's right to exists or any other sticking to the agreement and started killing off (and rather violently) its rival.
In late June 2008, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan declared the West Bank-based cabinet formed by Abbas as "the sole legitimate Palestinian government". Egypt moved its embassy from Gaza to the West Bank.[211]
Saudi Arabia and Egypt supported reconciliation and a new unity government and pressed Abbas to start talks with Hamas. Abbas had always conditioned this on Hamas returning control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas visited a number of countries, including Russia, and the EU member states. Opposition parties and politicians called for a dialogue with Hamas as well as an end to the economic sanctions.
After the takeover, Israel and Egypt closed their border crossings with Gaza. Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing, on the Gaza–Egypt border for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.[212] Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.[213]
Meanwhile, Israeli and Egyptian security reports said that Hamas continued smuggling in large quantities of explosives and arms from Egypt through tunnels. Egyptian security forces uncovered 60 tunnels in 2007.[214]
Now this bit is interesting. After Hamas, an organization who at that point has never been ambigous about wanting to kill all jews in israel, took power and the palestine administration broke down, they still were guests in EU countries and oppositional parties even wanted to lift any issued sanctions on them.
Because......why not? Sure, give them more money to get more bombs, i bet that will make them change their ways.
Another interesting thing: Egypt closed its border too. Israel gets blame for that and for not letting persons move freely between gaza and israel, when egypt did the exact same thing. The sane thing, i might add.
So, what happened after israel removed administrative control from gaza was that fashists (and that is what the hamas are) rose to power, killed off anyone disagreeing with them and started getting explosives into the country.
After Hamas' June win, it ousted Fatah-linked officials from positions of power and authority (such as government positions, security services, universities, newspapers, etc.) and strove to enforce law by progressively removing guns from the hands of peripheral militias, clans, and criminal groups, and gaining control of supply tunnels. According to Amnesty International, under Hamas rule, newspapers were closed down and journalists were harassed.[215] Fatah demonstrations were forbidden or suppressed, as in the case of a large demonstration on the anniversary of Yasser Arafat's death, which resulted in the deaths of seven people, after protesters hurled stones at Hamas security forces.[216]
Hamas and other militant groups continued to fire Qassam rockets across the border into Israel. According to Israel, between the Hamas takeover and the end of January 2008, 697 rockets and 822 mortar bombs were fired at Israeli towns.[217] In response, Israel targeted Qassam launchers and military targets and declared the Gaza Strip a hostile entity. In January 2008, Israel curtailed travel from Gaza, the entry of goods, and cut fuel supplies, resulting in power shortages. This brought charges that Israel was inflicting collective punishment on the Gaza population, leading to international condemnation. Despite multiple reports from within the Strip that food and other essentials were in short supply,[218] Israel said that Gaza had enough food and energy supplies for weeks.[219]
The Israeli government uses economic means to pressure Hamas. Among other things, it caused Israeli commercial enterprises like banks and fuel companies to stop doing business with the Gaza Strip. The role of private corporations in the relationship between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an issue that has not been extensively studied.[220]
Due to continued rocket attacks including 50 in one day, on March 2008, air strikes and ground incursions by the IDF led to the deaths of over 110 Palestinians and extensive damage to Jabalia.[221]
The Hamas didnt stop at aquiring absolute power in Gaza, they also intensifyed their rocket attacks on israel by a large margin.
After that, the gaza war happened. And we don't have to talk about israel's every single military action being justified. It is not. There are warcrimes like in any other army. Let it be more than in other armies, i am not going to deny that there are things unjustified happening in some military operations.
But the story of 'israel is draining out gaza with embargos and does not actual want peace' is nonsense when we look at the facts.
The facts are that israel was absolutely right by not giving up control over the borders and the airspace. It would just have given the Hamas more room for attacks.
This was a try out. Gaza was given more control and more attacks on israel happened.
You really cannot blame israel for not giving up more control. They were right not doing that.
If you think Israel respects Oslo agreements,
Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel’s occupation forces were to have withdrawn from substantially all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by July, 1997 – more than four and a half years ago. The process of withdrawal was to be carried out in three phases, beginning in October 1996 and ending in July 1997 and would have transferred approximately 88 percent of the West Bank to Palestinian control. Israel delayed each and every phase of the withdrawal. The Palestinian Authority has only full jurisdiction over 17.2 percent of the West Bank.
I state how else they violates the agreement. And they themselves signed it.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted on a resolution bearing on issues of international law as applied to the conflict every year since 1974. In November 2013, on a resolution entitled "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine", was adopted by a recorded vote of 165 in favor to 6 against with 6 abstentions. The 6 against were US, Israel, Australia, Tuvalu, Micronesia and Fiji.
But fact is that they did. They did withdraw.
We have a completely palestinian controlled westbank and, for some time, we had a fully palestinian controlled (so no israelian military or administrative rights) in gaza.
And israel did not have to do that. If israel was actually as evil as many people make it out to be it would let the gaza strip bleed out to death, allow more settlements and be done with that in 40 years. But they do not do that.
There is quite some difference in 'delaying to do the thing you said you do' and 'refusing to do anything you agreed to do and launching rockets'.
If you say Israel has the right to exist, I would 100% agree.
If you say Israel has the right to occupy territories, build settlements, destroy Palestinians homes, Violate UN resolutions, employ collective punishments, bomb indiscriminately then I don't think I can agree any longer.
I don't think they are happy to kill civilians. They just don't care if civilians die. Even that's quite bad in my opinion.
But one means the other, because the Hamas do not agree with israel's right to exist.
And since they don't there will be fighting. I have already explained how UN resolutions are usually a bad idea to go by .Those things sometimes claim israelians poison wells to kill palestine children, noone actually cares what the text says. People just vote for what is politically easy. The arabs write the papers, the EU says 'oh don't write that' to some passages. Then they shake hands and exspect israel to be happy that the EU weakened the already partially or completely made up paper. The fact that the US does not play this game is a GOOD thing for once about the US.
Basically, the things you say israel has no right of doing come out of the thing you say it has the right to do.
If Israel wants to exist, it has to fight back against missile or terror strikes. to do that, they have to have certain control about gaza, hence the 'occupation', or rather, having border control and airspace control.
Since hamas hide behind civillians, there will have to be civillian homes being destroyed. If you have a way to not do that but still stop the rockets, i am sure israel would be glad about it.
We got the anti missile dome, but that alone might not be enough.
These tweets are things of which i think that, yes, they should cost someone in academia their job.
For example: "Zionists: They transforming "antisemitism" from something horrible to something honorable since 1948"
Someone who writes shit like that had it coming, and rightfully so. It the same same thing as if i would be a professor and write angry tweets about islam being the same as fashism after a terror attack. I might be rightfully angry, but it will also rightfully cost me my job if i take that to the internet.
The fact alone that he put antisemitism into quotation marks speaks volumes.
The second link does not do anything for me, but i really would not trust a source called 'electronic intifada', to be honest.
I was actually curious to see the main opinion in France and it's way more complicated than we could think. 17% of French people feel empathy for Palestine, 9% for Israel. You could tell me that Palestine is the winner there... With such a weak percentage and such a small gap ? Actually, the rest of the population got bored of this conflict and don't really know what to think about it and don't consider there is especially a victim there... Imo, this survey is more honest like that.
(btw, Israel was the big winner of the surveys 50 years ago)
For every and any of such statistics, i would rather like to know how much those people actually learned about that conflict.
If a conflict is sufficiently complex, people will just say 'well they are both evil' and be done with it. And this is, in my opinion, very problematic if they then still have strong opinions about the conflict.
On channels owned by people who have interests in Israel ? Cynicism aside, seems like our contries are not really on the same wavelength here. Which means it's not the same everywhere and your imply of "everybody support Palestine" is partially wrong.
Which french channels are biased for israel tho? Genuinely curious?
French populism has traditionally good picture of israel. I mean, sure, recently FN noticed that they can get jewish votes by painting every muslim as antisemitist, but actually a lot of the european antisemitist propaganda comes out of germany and france.
And the french governemnt? Hollande had no real connection to israel, nor had he israel friendly foreign politics.
He backed resolutions against israel.
So i do not see where the french politics or media are biased positively towards israel.
I doN't watch french TV tho, any channels?
As i said: With context of the situation, it is not propaganda. No matter where it is. And yes, they should remind people about why and when the regions israel controlled changed, because why else write the article?
If a picture like that without context goes arround on facebook with angry juveniles capsing about how evil israel is and where people then equate it with anzi germany, that is propaganda. And that happens. The picture is used to make people angry.
If the context is given and people still think what israel did was wrong, they are free to caps and equate it to any dictatorship they want.
But that does not happen, the picture, by now (and probably not by the original article) is meant solely to spill hate on jews.
Safe for israel on a whole. What we saw was that once the settlements were out of gaza, rocket attacks intensified.
Thus there is the opinion of settlements bringing safety for the majority.
I feel like this one kind of contradicts other things you said. Basically, the only ones bringing about resolutions against israel to the table are the western nations, exactly the nations who get blame for being too nice to israel.
Also, the attack from britain, france and israel against egypt in the suez crisis came too place after Resolutions were filed against Egypt, legitimizing the attacks.
So, this illustrates pretty well that firstly, the western nations didnt go easy on israel, exspecially before it became a nato partner, and secondly that, if we accept those resolutions (which were majorly brought on the way by western nations), then the attack in the suez crisis was absolutely legitimate because britain and france, who were mainplayers in those resolutions, attacked too.
And yeah there are many resolutions against Israel. But no effective action to end the occupation. No action to stop Israel from building illegal settlements. Western nations signs them just to stay politically correct. In reality there is no action against Israel.
Yes, israel still controls the gaza strip by having control over movement, military actions on sea and air.
It was still a big step. It meant that every single jew previously settling there had to go out. Israel also gave up military posts there and administrative control.
It can hardly be denied that this was a huge step towards a two state solution. If, at that point, gaza had become a democratically led region with relative stability, israel could hardly have maintained its position, not in foreign politics, nor in inner politics.
What kind of two state solution? I doubt it would be acceptable to the Palestinians to form a state without Jerusalem and many places occupied by Israel.
But fact is that they did. They did withdraw.
We have a completely palestinian controlled westbank and, for some time, we had a fully palestinian controlled (so no israelian military or administrative rights) in gaza.
And israel did not have to do that. If israel was actually as evil as many people make it out to be it would let the gaza strip bleed out to death, allow more settlements and be done with that in 40 years. But they do not do that.
There is quite some difference in 'delaying to do the thing you said you do' and 'refusing to do anything you agreed to do and launching rockets'.
Again you're overlooking Israel's faults. Israel took much longer time. And yet they only gave up 17% of the west bank. They were supposed to give up 88% of it. And yeah Israel also built many settlements and all of them are a violation of international law. They only did a small portion of what they were required to do. And was also building settlements in that time. And you say Israel had genuine intention of a two state solution? I cannot really follow your logic here.
Oh god. What is this logic. Many countries do not recognize Israel. Maybe Israel should start bombing nuclear armed Pakistan. Heck Kosovo is not recognized by many countries. So you are saying Kosovo need to build a strong air force and start bombing Serbia?
Basically, the things you say israel has no right of doing come out of the thing you say it has the right to do.
If Israel wants to exist, it has to fight back against missile or terror strikes. to do that, they have to have certain control about gaza, hence the 'occupation', or rather, having border control and airspace control.
Since hamas hide behind civillians, there will have to be civillian homes being destroyed. If you have a way to not do that but still stop the rockets, i am sure israel would be glad about it.
We got the anti missile dome, but that alone might not be enough.
What I understand is Peace won't come unless the occupation is ended. Israel wants peace without giving up the occupied territories. Israel wants peace by building settlements. By applying collective punishments. If Israel has genuine interest about peace then they have to acknowledge Palestinian state first. Has to reach an agreement about land swapping. That would result in Israel giving up a huge amount of lands. Relocating many settlers. And most importantly Giving up East Jerusalem for sure. they're simply not going to attain peace by giving up parts of Gaza. Palestine has to fight for it. If your land is occupied can you be blamed for fighting back? I do not advocate the terrorist attacks or the suicide attacks. But they do this because they are in a hopeless situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
This guy was a rebel in India against British occupation. He assassinated British policeman and then went on to bomb central legislative assembly. Eventually he was hanged as a terrorist. But can you blame him for fighting back against occupation? He is hailed as a hero in India. Countless movies have been made on him. And there is a statue of him outside Indian parliament. He is indeed a terrorist, right?
We need to understand, one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Palestinians don't attack Israel because they like to do it. It is because their land is occupied and they have to fight somehow. Like I said whatever solution has been put on the table is not acceptable to Palestinians. If they are offered something which is acceptable, then there will be peace eventually. Some incidents will still happen at the start. But eventually things will be under control. But the major problem is what is acceptable to Palestine is not acceptable to Israel and vice versa.
We need to understand, one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Palestinians don't attack Israel because they like to do it. It is because their land is occupied and they have to fight somehow. Like I said whatever solution has been put on the table is not acceptable to Palestinians. If they are offered something which is acceptable, then there will be peace eventually. Some incidents will still happen at the start. But eventually things will be under control. But the major problem is what is acceptable to Palestine is not acceptable to Israel and vice versa.
But like Shionoro said, Israel existing at all is seen as being unacceptable to many of those in a leadership position among Palestine. Whether Israel completely complies with agreements regarding illegal settlements, at what point will Hamas be satisfied? They are on record denying Israel's right to exist at all.
But like Shionoro said, Israel existing at all is seen as being unacceptable to many of those in a leadership position among Palestine. Whether Israel completely complies with agreements regarding illegal settlements, at what point will Hamas be satisfied? They are on record denying Israel's right to exist at all.
Probably not. But as long as majority of Palestinians are satisfied it will weaken Hamas and their agenda. However settlements are not the only issue. Their needs to be negotiation about border as well. And the right to return issue. I'm not sure about this but I think UN accepts Palestinians refugee's right to return. Their number is estimated around 500,000 today. I don't think it would be possible to get 500,000 Palestinian refugees to become Israeli citizen, but an agreement has to be reached on that matter. Clinton almost got peace between them at camp David summit but failed because of this issue.
After that both parties will have to compile with the agreements. Palestine will have to be allowed to operate like any other country. They will be controlling their export import, their airspace, their resources and they'll have to be able to build their own military. And UN troops can be stationed at Palestine for a temporary period of time to ensure peace until the state can be considered a stable one. I think if things go like this for several years then things should improve. Of course some incidents will still happen but those have to be solved through diplomacy not military actions.
Well, this is how I see a solution can be reached. I don't really see a one state solution possible as there has been too many violence among the parties. A one state solution would probably cause huge unrest and sectarian violence. Also Israel would not be able to remain a Jewish state and will have to change their name, flag and a lot of things.
For every and any of such statistics, i would rather like to know how much those people actually learned about that conflict.
If a conflict is sufficiently complex, people will just say 'well they are both evil' and be done with it. And this is, in my opinion, very problematic if they then still have strong opinions about the conflict.
I agree with you, of course taking sides is not a good idea. (and kinda irrelevant based on the complexity of this conflict) I don't think it's the case in France according to the survey.
Which french channels are biased for israel tho? Genuinely curious?
French populism has traditionally good picture of israel. I mean, sure, recently FN noticed that they can get jewish votes by painting every muslim as antisemitist, but actually a lot of the european antisemitist propaganda comes out of germany and france.
And the french governemnt? Hollande had no real connection to israel, nor had he israel friendly foreign politics.
He backed resolutions against israel.
So i do not see where the french politics or media are biased positively towards israel.
I doN't watch french TV tho, any channels?
I was joking, of course there is none. (I used strikethroughs for a reason) However, during the war of 2014, the main channels which broadcasted news (TF1 and France 2 if you're curious - do you understand French ?) clearly took sides with Israel, portraying Palestine as the bad guys. Too bad for them that people were able to see that something was a bit wrong. You can't change the facts and after some complaints, they tried to be more neutral in their way to analyze the situation. (and I see you're aware of our situation with our dear (no) extreme-right party ) Regarding Hollande, his first declarations were not as severe towards Israel than you think, far from it. The same change happened when he heard that people accused him to be partial. You can say that it's not a great thing that people have so much power to make our president change his position but the initial support of French government towards Israel regardless of their mistakes was a bit shocking.
(and I don't really have any channels to suggest you apart from the ones I mentionned, they're the more popular - for a more neutral analysis, I guess we both know Arte is nice )
As i said: With context of the situation, it is not propaganda. No matter where it is. And yes, they should remind people about why and when the regions israel controlled changed, because why else write the article?
If a picture like that without context goes arround on facebook with angry juveniles capsing about how evil israel is and where people then equate it with anzi germany, that is propaganda. And that happens. The picture is used to make people angry.
If the context is given and people still think what israel did was wrong, they are free to caps and equate it to any dictatorship they want.
But that does not happen, the picture, by now (and probably not by the original article) is meant solely to spill hate on jews.
I guess the issue you pointed out goes over the Isral/Palestine conflict. What you're really afraid is where people are going to search for information. Can we really struggle against that ? It's a more general issue, if people go on propagandia websites, it's because they don't trust official news anymore. (not because of Israel/Palestine but because of issues which they can relate to easily, like unemployment for instance) I know that very well, FN is not even hiding anymore their links with populist websites. (if you're curious to see some of them, I'll give you the names in a private message, I won't make any free advertising for them here) I don't want to be off-topic, though it could also be an interesting topic but that doesn't concern Israel/Palestine only, that's even a wider issue than that. :/
Safe for israel on a whole. What we saw was that once the settlements were out of gaza, rocket attacks intensified.
Thus there is the opinion of settlements bringing safety for the majority.
I don't really know how to check this information for sure... Anyway, I can't agree with you. If I follow your logic, then... Israel should just occupy the whole Palestinian territory because it's safer for them. (and Palestine won't exist anymore, of course)
And yeah there are many resolutions against Israel. But no effective action to end the occupation. No action to stop Israel from building illegal settlements. Western nations signs them just to stay politically correct. In reality there is no action against Israel.
The british threatened israel to step in when they were on the verge of occupying more land.
On 22 December, large IDF forces started Operation Horev. Its objective was to encircle the Egyptian Army in the Gaza Strip and force the Egyptians into ending the war. The operation was a decisive Israeli victory, and Israeli raids into the Nitzana area and the Sinai peninsula forced the Egyptian army into the Gaza Strip, where it was encircled. Israeli forces withdrew from Sinai and Gaza under international pressure and after the British threatened to intervene against Israel. The Egyptian government announced, 6 January 1949, that they were willing to enter armistice negotiations. General Yigal Allon persuaded Ben-Gurion to continue as planned, but Ben-Gurion told him: "Do you know the value of peace talks with Egypt? After all, that is our great dream!"[69] He was sure that Transjordan and the other Arab states would follow suit. On 7 January 1949, a truce was achieved.
My point is not to say that israel did not commit warcrimes. Far from it. My point is that it can hardly be seen as the mainaggressor in these wars and that it did not have nor has undisputed protection from the west.
Similarly, the british installed a weapon embargo in the israeli/lebanon war in the 80's.
The story about the west besides POSSIBLY the US being friends of Israel is one that cannot really be upheld
I agree with Israel still having control about the airspace, seaspace and borders of gaza. Yes. But I don't agree that this is due to israel being an evil opressor. It is because Israel experienced what happens if they give hamas more room.
Occupation and Settlements in gaza are gone. Rockets still flew. More than before. Is that justified? No. Does it justify protective means? Yes, in my opinion it certainly does. And these protective means are controlling the gaza border and its airspace. Israel still does not meddle in gaza's administrative affairs.
You act like this developement is israel's fault after giving up some control they had. I really cannot see it as such.
There is room to give up more control of gaza if gaza would be stabile with a somewhat moderate government, but not like this.
What kind of two state solution? I doubt it would be acceptable to the Palestinians to form a state without Jerusalem and many places occupied by Israel.
With moderate palestinian administration, there are possible ways. it's not like people in palestine and israel were decisively against, for example, a shared Jerusalem. There was space to negotiate. But there is no space to negotiate if the one in power of the one faction throws rockets at the other WHILE there is still negotiation going on. This simply cannot work.
Again you're overlooking Israel's faults. Israel took much longer time. And yet they only gave up 17% of the west bank. They were supposed to give up 88% of it. And yeah Israel also built many settlements and all of them are a violation of international law. They only did a small portion of what they were required to do. And was also building settlements in that time. And you say Israel had genuine intention of a two state solution? I cannot really follow your logic here.
It is a fair point to say that Israel was and is doing a lot things wrong in westbank. For example, in areas which are formally under complete palestine control, they still do commit raids at night and the areas under jewish control are heavily restricted for palestinians. I am not going to excuse that.
But i will still say: Yes, they were interested in a two state solution. Israel did steps they did not have to take.
For example the removing of settlers in gaza. If israel had wanted to let gaza bleed out slowly, they could have done that. They would face problems with the UN, but after all it is your opinion that noone would step in.
So if they were not interested in peace, why would they do that? If they hadnt, they had a much tighter control of gaza and probably half of its area by now.
My main point remains: Israel did give up control over things they could have kept, and when they did it, hamas rose to power and intensified terror.
If you are someone in a position of power, would you then keep on giving up more control quickly?
I can honestly say that I would not do that. the other thing is that they can never really be sure whether the palestine administration they talk to (for example in westbank) really has the power to keep up their part of the bargain. They thought that in gaza, until hamas rose to power.
And it's not like the administration in westbank is undisputed.
Oh god. What is this logic. Many countries do not recognize Israel. Maybe Israel should start bombing nuclear armed Pakistan. Heck Kosovo is not recognized by many countries. So you are saying Kosovo need to build a strong air force and start bombing Serbia?
You are comparing two very different things there.
It is one thing if a state does nto recognize another.
It is another thing if a state bordering to another has a government in whose founding charter it is written that all people in the neighbouring start have to die and proceeds to throw rocket.
That is basically like if Germany after WW2 would start off the new relationship with france by threateneing worldwar 3 and then wonder why France is not a big fan of giving back administrative control over the parts it controlled.
What I understand is Peace won't come unless the occupation is ended. Israel wants peace without giving up the occupied territories. Israel wants peace by building settlements. By applying collective punishments. If Israel has genuine interest about peace then they have to acknowledge Palestinian state first. Has to reach an agreement about land swapping. That would result in Israel giving up a huge amount of lands. Relocating many settlers. And most importantly Giving up East Jerusalem for sure. they're simply not going to attain peace by giving up parts of Gaza. Palestine has to fight for it. If your land is occupied can you be blamed for fighting back? I do not advocate the terrorist attacks or the suicide attacks. But they do this because they are in a hopeless situation.
But peace didnt come when the occupation was ended, there came more rockets. If israel did not want givin gup anything, they would not have done so in the past. Yes, you can say it was slowly and not enough, but they did without being forced to. It didnt do them good.
There cannot be talk about giving up more if giving up a little lead to rockets and a fashist government in the areas from which you withdrew.
That is just not a possibility any politician with responsibility could run with.
The situation of palestinians is hopeless due to the Hamas, but i didnt see terror attacks targetting them.
There were attacks by teens against some israeli civillians. That is not the action of a political fight, that is terrorism and nothing else.
It is the same thing as the terror strikes in europe where teens run arround with knives or axes without even knowing why.
We had similar attacks on jews in france. Did those guys need a desperate situation to do that? Nope.
We have to ask ourselves why Palestinians are desperate. Some of Israel's actions have hurt the economy of gaza, yes, but the bigger chunk of it is the ineptitude of their leadership. People in Gaza are not poor due to Israel alone, and they are pushed arround much more by their own government than by the SDF (whose police brutality clearly exists, but who are not exactly prevalent inside gaza).
Why are they still going to israel to attack civillians instead toppling their government, who is directly responsible for lots of the military actions israel deployed there?
This guy was a rebel in India against British occupation. He assassinated British policeman and then went on to bomb central legislative assembly. Eventually he was hanged as a terrorist. But can you blame him for fighting back against occupation? He is hailed as a hero in India. Countless movies have been made on him. And there is a statue of him outside Indian parliament. He is indeed a terrorist, right?
We need to understand, one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Palestinians don't attack Israel because they like to do it. It is because their land is occupied and they have to fight somehow. Like I said whatever solution has been put on the table is not acceptable to Palestinians. If they are offered something which is acceptable, then there will be peace eventually. Some incidents will still happen at the start. But eventually things will be under control. But the major problem is what is acceptable to Palestine is not acceptable to Israel and vice versa.
This is a very different thing in a different time.
The british were a clear colonial power from half across the world. You will not find me being angry about arabs wanting to throw out the british. But in fact, back then, they got along with the british quite well for some time.
Someone who kills a civllian is not a freedom fighter, no matter how you shape it.
And someone who ignores political realities in favour of wanting his own goal accomplished now is not, either.
If you kill an israeli soldier you gain nothing at all except that you are making the conflict worse.
That is another big difference between these cases. It is about enabling jews and palestinians to live together, not about chasing jews away by killing their soldiers (like it was with the brits).
Then it is really clear to me that you can hardly blame desperation in the gaza strip on israel as the mainproblem.
What Israel demanded was simply: stick to the deal, say we may exist and abhor violence.
Didnt, happen, violence increased. Then the israelis stopped giving aid (which they gave before) and only then.
And if someone from palestine then thinks: Oh well, i should arm myself with a knife and kill some israeli civillian, because clearly, that will help and he is subsequently called 'freedom fighter', then sorry, then i must disagree very harshly.
A freedom fighter in palestine would throw over the hamas.
And after that, with a rational and moderate government, with help of the UN, there can be pressure on israel that they have to give up more control.
But you cannot pressure someone that it is the right thing to do to give you more control when you cannot even promise him (and actually won't) even to not immadietly attack.
Occupation and Settlements in gaza are gone. Rockets still flew. More than before. Is that justified? No. Does it justify protective means? Yes, in my opinion it certainly does. And these protective means are controlling the gaza border and its airspace. Israel still does not meddle in gaza's administrative affairs.
You act like this developement is israel's fault after giving up some control they had. I really cannot see it as such.
There is room to give up more control of gaza if gaza would be stabile with a somewhat moderate government, but not like this.
Giving up just a little portion of the occupied land does not mean Israel ended the occupation. That's more like trying to satisfy them with 1% of their demand and say you've done your work. And occupation won't end that way.
With moderate palestinian administration, there are possible ways. it's not like people in palestine and israel were decisively against, for example, a shared Jerusalem. There was space to negotiate. But there is no space to negotiate if the one in power of the one faction throws rockets at the other WHILE there is still negotiation going on. This simply cannot work.
Maybe a moderate Israeli administration is necessary too. The administration which won't claim that they want peace while occupying, building settlements, denying the other side their rights.
It is a fair point to say that Israel was and is doing a lot things wrong in westbank. For example, in areas which are formally under complete palestine control, they still do commit raids at night and the areas under jewish control are heavily restricted for palestinians. I am not going to excuse that.
But i will still say: Yes, they were interested in a two state solution. Israel did steps they did not have to take.
For example the removing of settlers in gaza. If israel had wanted to let gaza bleed out slowly, they could have done that. They would face problems with the UN, but after all it is your opinion that noone would step in.
So if they were not interested in peace, why would they do that? If they hadnt, they had a much tighter control of gaza and probably half of its area by now.
My main point remains: Israel did give up control over things they could have kept, and when they did it, hamas rose to power and intensified terror.
If you are someone in a position of power, would you then keep on giving up more control quickly?
I can honestly say that I would not do that. the other thing is that they can never really be sure whether the palestine administration they talk to (for example in westbank) really has the power to keep up their part of the bargain. They thought that in gaza, until hamas rose to power.
And it's not like the administration in westbank is undisputed.
Really the only point you can get here is Israel giving up administrative control of Gaza. But they did violate every other agreements. Netanyahu openly states that his government will never recognize a Palestinian state. And you still say Israel is interested in a 2 state solution.
If israel did not want givin gup anything, they would not have done so in the past. Yes, you can say it was slowly and not enough, but they did without being forced to. It didnt do them good.
There cannot be talk about giving up more if giving up a little lead to rockets and a fashist government in the areas from which you withdrew.
That is just not a possibility any politician with responsibility could run with.
They still keep building settlements. Violate international laws. And does a lot more. Israel has a fascist government too. There are regular cross border firing between India & Pakistan too. But that odes not mean one country should try to occupy the other. Israel has to end the occupation. Not just parts of it. Then reach some agreement regarding right to return. And let a Palestinian state function without Israel's influence. They can secure their border. But no influence on the others border. Then if rockets are still fired at them, they can ask for UN help may even respond(not overreact) to it. It's funny how you point Hamas as the main aggressor while its Israel that has violated more than 75% of the ceasefire agreements.
The british were a clear colonial power from half across the world. You will not find me being angry about arabs wanting to throw out the british. But in fact, back then, they got along with the british quite well for some time.
Someone who kills a civllian is not a freedom fighter, no matter how you shape it.
Israel is a clear colonial power too. Many claims that. Even in this thread here, someone other than me did. Maybe Israelis don't feel this way. But I'm sure many Brits felt that they need to civilize those uncivilized people they've occupied. I'm sure if the occupation of Israel ends many of those Palestinian terrorists will be seen as a hero. Like Bhagat Singh is seen in India.
That is another big difference between these cases. It is about enabling jews and palestinians to live together, not about chasing jews away by killing their soldiers (like it was with the brits).
How do you enable two groups that have killed each other and hates each other for 70 years to live together? Also stop with that same Gaza point. Gaza is not the only part of Palestine.
Then it is really clear to me that you can hardly blame desperation in the gaza strip on israel as the mainproblem.
What Israel demanded was simply: stick to the deal, say we may exist and abhor violence.
Didnt, happen, violence increased. Then the israelis stopped giving aid (which they gave before) and only then.
And if someone from palestine then thinks: Oh well, i should arm myself with a knife and kill some israeli civillian, because clearly, that will help and he is subsequently called 'freedom fighter', then sorry, then i must disagree very harshly.
A freedom fighter in palestine would throw over the hamas.
And after that, with a rational and moderate government, with help of the UN, there can be pressure on israel that they have to give up more control.
But you cannot pressure someone that it is the right thing to do to give you more control when you cannot even promise him (and actually won't) even to not immadietly attack.
Problem exists in both sides. Israel needs to recognize Palestine and stop building settlements immediately. Why do you expect Hamas to stick to the deal when Israel themselves don't? And no one seems to care about that. Brand Hamas as terrorists and put all the blame on them. Keeps things simple. Doesn't it?
Scottish club Celtic was fined by UEFA because their fans waved Palestinian flags in a match against an Israeli club.
Why flying Palestinian flags is a wrong thing? I'm sure I've seen Israeli flags flown in games as well. But that doesn't seem to raise any eyebrow.
We need to get out of this double standards. No one in Media says Hamas is good. But we need to understand that Israel is not much better either. Blindly blaming one side just prolongs the conflict.
@shionoro This discussion is going nowhere. We're just repeating the same things over and over again. You put forward the same arguments and I reply in the same way.This is a hopeless situation. And discussing it gets me in a bad mood. So I guess we should stop.
I'm curious what the people here discussing think of Sam Harris' view on the topic, if they care to listen.
I think it's an interesting angle to earnestly think about what each side wants as an endgame, and the disparity between the two. Perhaps Harris exaggerates this when it comes to Palestine, since I think many there are a hostage to their environment and society. But I think it makes perfect logical sense to say that purposefully killing civilians and murdering all Palestinians is not something that Israel needs or desires. Can the same thing be said about a Palestinian authority like Hamas wants when it comes to Israelis? I think there's a pretty obvious answer there.
This discussion is going nowhere. We're just repeating the same things over and over again. You put forward the same arguments and I reply in the same way.This is a hopeless situation. And discussing it gets me in a bad mood. So I guess we should stop.
Yeah, i guess, I was also afraid that i might reply too often or too emotionally to it and it would seem hostile or so.
I will not reply to what you wrote then because then you would subsequently feel compelled to reply again and so on, so let's leave it at that
I will try to get some source material videos or articles about the conflict to take this more into a newsdiscussion kind of direction which is less of an endless debate.
@Anera I will reply to you too, but when i think about replying i am always either tired or confused due to a lot of coffeine or out of time, so i guess i will reply tomorrow
I'm curious what the people here discussing think of Sam Harris' view on the topic, if they care to listen.
I think it's an interesting angle to earnestly think about what each side wants as an endgame, and the disparity between the two. Perhaps Harris exaggerates this when it comes to Palestine, since I think many there are a hostage to their environment and society. But I think it makes perfect logical sense to say that purposefully killing civilians and murdering all Palestinians is not something that Israel needs or desires. Can the same thing be said about a Palestinian authority like Hamas wants when it comes to Israelis? I think there's a pretty obvious answer there.
Sam Harris is that angry atheist buddy of Hitchens, right?
I guess i will watch that vid too, later. I...have a weird habit of sometimes dozing off on my chair to debate tracks running on youtube. And Hitchens had good ones to doze off too, he had a very calming voice. And he actually usually made some good points, while i don't think very highly of guys like Dawkins.
Sam Harris is that angry atheist buddy of Hitchens, right?
I guess i will watch that vid too, later. I...have a weird habit of sometimes dozing off on my chair to debate tracks running on youtube. And Hitchens had good ones to doze off too, he had a very calming voice. And he actually usually made some good points, while i don't think very highly of guys like Dawkins.
Angry? That'd be one of the last words I'd use to describe Sam Harris honestly. You've probably mistaken him for someone else. But yeah, they were frequently associated when Hitchens was still alive.
Well it's a bit offtopic, but I think Dawkins issue tends to be his attitude. It's quite a bit more grating to people than someone like Harris or Dennett, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I see people lump Dawkins and Douglas Murray together often, maybe it's the British accent?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I came across the video on Youtube and found it interesting because it seemed to sort of encapsulate the argument @shionoro had put forth.
Angry? That'd be one of the last words I'd use to describe Sam Harris honestly. You've probably mistaken him for someone else. But yeah, they were frequently associated when Hitchens was still alive.
Well it's a bit offtopic, but I think Dawkins issue tends to be his attitude. It's quite a bit more grating to people than someone like Harris or Dennett, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I see people lump Dawkins and Douglas Murray together often, maybe it's the British accent?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I came across the video on Youtube and found it interesting because it seemed to sort of encapsulate the argument @shionoro had put forth.
Yeah, i watched it now, and you are right: His view aligns strikingly close to mine. He formulated it quite a bit more pessimistic than i probably would have done it tho, the end was pretty strong.
And even there, yes, i agree. The big quest of western society is to deal with people who want to shun the free western society without acting like an actual dictatorship towards them.
I think the reason why israel is held to another standard is because israel is seen as the one in power. The one who has to act rational.
That is pretty common in the left and i often hold that view in different areas myself. When it comes to social politics for example, i am very willing to ignore personal responsibility towards a state who simply has to deal with citizens who are stupid and do mistakes, like they are children.
And in the left, that view is then for example also exerted onto foreign politics.
For example, the US is seen as so incredibly powerful that it is a much bigger deal when the US bombs a hospital by accident than when other forced do it even on purpose. Because the most powerful should be like a parent figure and if he does not fullfill this role he will be critisized. At least that is my view towards an integral part of western leftist worldviews.
Rightwingers and religious nutjobs tend to have different reasons to attack israel
So, it is some part of twisted honour if israel is held to another standard, but certainly, in my opinion, a harmful one for the whole conflict.
I was joking, of course there is none. (I used strikethroughs for a reason) However, during the war of 2014, the main channels which broadcasted news (TF1 and France 2 if you're curious - do you understand French ?) clearly took sides with Israel, portraying Palestine as the bad guys. Too bad for them that people were able to see that something was a bit wrong. You can't change the facts and after some complaints, they tried to be more neutral in their way to analyze the situation. (and I see you're aware of our situation with our dear (no) extreme-right party ) Regarding Hollande, his first declarations were not as severe towards Israel than you think, far from it. The same change happened when he heard that people accused him to be partial. You can say that it's not a great thing that people have so much power to make our president change his position but the initial support of French government towards Israel regardless of their mistakes was a bit shocking.
(and I don't really have any channels to suggest you apart from the ones I mentionned, they're the more popular - for a more neutral analysis, I guess we both know Arte is nice )
Oh, no, I am a plebs who does not understand any languages except my own and english.
Arte is nice sometimes, but it is also confusing sometimes lol.
I cannot judge what was presented here and whether TV channels lied and the outrage was justified or whether they simply took a stance and the outrage was worrying. In the question whether israel is portrayed overtly positive in the media, i simply have never felt that way.
A friend of mine actually wrote a seminar thesis about that topic and checked media coverage for underlying antisemitism, and he found that quite a lot of media are biased against israel (german media). I didnt read his thesis, but if i take the brunt of the media and include the things i would never read myself, i would intuitively agree.
Your run of the mill state TV channel is not going to get into that risky terrority usually and possibly even be a bit too gentle to them, but all the magazines which go more to the extremes? I think even most of them know that they can use antisemitism to make a quota in some way, much like they know how to use antiislamism.
I guess the issue you pointed out goes over the Isral/Palestine conflict. What you're really afraid is where people are going to search for information. Can we really struggle against that ? It's a more general issue, if people go on propagandia websites, it's because they don't trust official news anymore. (not because of Israel/Palestine but because of issues which they can relate to easily, like unemployment for instance) I know that very well, FN is not even hiding anymore their links with populist websites. (if you're curious to see some of them, I'll give you the names in a private message, I won't make any free advertising for them here) I don't want to be off-topic, though it could also be an interesting topic but that doesn't concern Israel/Palestine only, that's even a wider issue than that. :/
I probably won't be able to read those websites if they are french, but i would think that all of those propaganda pages look alike in every language^^
And yes, i am afraid of people who believe anything without context or source if it fits their worldview.
I am very afraid of people who just need to see a facebook picture with some fabricated text under it and then go outside to hunt down refugees/alleged rapists/jews or whomever (all of those cases have happened in germany due to facebook and youtube stories, sadly)
And ya, i am thinking about opening a thread about that very topic, but that would be something i will do when i am in a better flow than now.
But what i meant with antisemitism and pictures: There are pictures flying arround of children from any given poor country who are then rebranded as palestinian and sent arround. Basically, you go on google picture search, look for the most heartbreakingly sad picture of a dying child and then send it arround with the text 'look what israeli soldiers did'.
It works every time. And that is not to say there are no children dying due to israeli soldiers.
But the fact that people stir flames by lying tells us that there is an agenda.
I have never seen such fabricated stories about palestinians killing jews. Because there is no agenda big enough to fabricate those.
And i think that we have to ask ourselves why pictures like the ones i mentioned (or texts or, as in our initial case, statistics taken out of context) work so well. And i think the answer lies in the fact that people want to have some moral ammunition against jews (and i say jews because it usually falls back on all of them, not only israelis).
I don't really know how to check this information for sure... Anyway, I can't agree with you. If I follow your logic, then... Israel should just occupy the whole Palestinian territory because it's safer for them. (and Palestine won't exist anymore, of course)
No, that is not what i meant.
I am in no position to tell israel what to do, because, quite honestly, i am glad that i am not the one responsible for that clusterfuck.
What i wanted to express was that it can only seem reasonable for an israeli to not give gaza more freedom than it has if there is still a power in charge which took the slightly bigger freedom given to them to attack at once.
That the rocket attacks indeed intensified is well documented (there are sources on wikipedia on it, too), and it is also well documented that hamas didnt even agree to keep it peaceful when asked. They couldnt even lie about not resorting to violence.
I am all for an independend palestine, but i don't see it happening under Hamas leadership.
A party who kills and persecutes their own people when they disagree and starts rocket attacks right after its country/region has at least some more air to breathe is not one that will ever be a partner you can discuss a deal with.
And if you ask me what to do then: I got no answer, i am upfront about that.
Israel cannot have gaza under its control forever and it has no means to exchange hamas for a moderate palestinian government.
So the best bet is waiting for political environments to change.
The only thing i think is a nobrainer is to improve arab-jewish relations inside israel.
I cannot judge what was presented here and whether TV channels lied and the outrage was justified or whether they simply took a stance and the outrage was worrying. In the question whether israel is portrayed overtly positive in the media, i simply have never felt that way.
A friend of mine actually wrote a seminar thesis about that topic and checked media coverage for underlying antisemitism, and he found that quite a lot of media are biased against israel (german media). I didnt read his thesis, but if i take the brunt of the media and include the things i would never read myself, i would intuitively agree.
Your run of the mill state TV channel is not going to get into that risky terrority usually and possibly even be a bit too gentle to them, but all the magazines which go more to the extremes? I think even most of them know that they can use antisemitism to make a quota in some way, much like they know how to use antiislamism.
I'm going to specify what happened : people were really shocked to see that Israel was portrayed as the only victim, though the number of Palestinian victims was way greater, so it's kinda understandable.
I don't really understand the bold sentence. (to make a quota? What do you mean?)
I probably won't be able to read those websites if they are french, but i would think that all of those propaganda pages look alike in every language^^
And yes, i am afraid of people who believe anything without context or source if it fits their worldview.
I am very afraid of people who just need to see a facebook picture with some fabricated text under it and then go outside to hunt down refugees/alleged rapists/jews or whomever (all of those cases have happened in germany due to facebook and youtube stories, sadly)
And ya, i am thinking about opening a thread about that very topic, but that would be something i will do when i am in a better flow than now.
But what i meant with antisemitism and pictures: There are pictures flying arround of children from any given poor country who are then rebranded as palestinian and sent arround. Basically, you go on google picture search, look for the most heartbreakingly sad picture of a dying child and then send it arround with the text 'look what israeli soldiers did'.
It works every time. And that is not to say there are no children dying due to israeli soldiers.
But the fact that people stir flames by lying tells us that there is an agenda.
I have never seen such fabricated stories about palestinians killing jews. Because there is no agenda big enough to fabricate those.
And i think that we have to ask ourselves why pictures like the ones i mentioned (or texts or, as in our initial case, statistics taken out of context) work so well. And i think the answer lies in the fact that people want to have some moral ammunition against jews (and i say jews because it usually falls back on all of them, not only israelis).
I really agree with you on that but something still bothers me : what does that change to the facts ? I mean, Hamas did plenty of wrong actions and that's a good thing we can denonciate and condemn them (I think they prevent an amelioration but I also think Israeli government doesn't care that much) but that should also be the case for Israel. I understand your dilemma to not give any argument to the antisemitic side but ignoring them is not the solution either. I also think it's an endless debate like @Philia , we don't really agree though I also completely understand your point. We already talked about that and I don't really know how to make you understand my point. Imo the solution would be to be "neutral" (nobody is, right) by recognizing both countries' faults.
No, that is not what i meant.
I am in no position to tell israel what to do, because, quite honestly, i am glad that i am not the one responsible for that clusterfuck.
What i wanted to express was that it can only seem reasonable for an israeli to not give gaza more freedom than it has if there is still a power in charge which took the slightly bigger freedom given to them to attack at once.
That the rocket attacks indeed intensified is well documented (there are sources on wikipedia on it, too), and it is also well documented that hamas didnt even agree to keep it peaceful when asked. They couldnt even lie about not resorting to violence.
I am all for an independend palestine, but i don't see it happening under Hamas leadership.
A party who kills and persecutes their own people when they disagree and starts rocket attacks right after its country/region has at least some more air to breathe is not one that will ever be a partner you can discuss a deal with.
And if you ask me what to do then: I got no answer, i am upfront about that.
Israel cannot have gaza under its control forever and it has no means to exchange hamas for a moderate palestinian government.
So the best bet is waiting for political environments to change.
The only thing i think is a nobrainer is to improve arab-jewish relations inside israel.
Well, I don't really like Wikipedia but other sources are really partial, so even if I know anyone can participate on there, I hope there is enough people who are keeping an eye on these pages.
You put a finger on the problem : as long as Hamas is predominant, Israel is not going to change his politics towards Palestine. BUT if Hamas won so much "popularity", it's also because the situation was dramatic before and Israel was not all white. There is also a lack of efforts on Israel's side. Palestinians are desperate, that's completely understandable. @Philia already answered you pretty well and that's why I feel a bit mixed : I don't know if I have to waste my time developing my own answer because I feel like it's going to be useless.
We still agree on your last sentence but I think we both know no side is going to do anything about that... To be really honest, I'm kinda pessimistic about the whole situation.
@Anera So let's maybe focus on another point.
I have lots of things to say about the idea of a 'neutral observer'.
I will have prepared a well worded and thoughtful reply by tomorrow!
Nah, really, i think this discussion can be fruitful and i think i can explain my point about this better, but since i don't wanna rush actually serious posts in the politics subforum i will send it later arround tomorrow morning.
I'm going to specify what happened : people were really shocked to see that Israel was portrayed as the only victim, though the number of Palestinian victims was way greater, so it's kinda understandable.
I don't really understand the bold sentence. (to make a quota? What do you mean?)
I really agree with you on that but something still bothers me : what does that change to the facts ? I mean, Hamas did plenty of wrong actions and that's a good thing we can denonciate and condemn them (I think they prevent an amelioration but I also think Israeli government doesn't care that much) but that should also be the case for Israel. I understand your dilemma to not give any argument to the antisemitic side but ignoring them is not the solution either. I also think it's an endless debate like @Philia , we don't really agree though I also completely understand your point. We already talked about that and I don't really know how to make you understand my point. Imo the solution would be to be "neutral" (nobody is, right) by recognizing both countries' faults.
Well, I don't really like Wikipedia but other sources are really partial, so even if I know anyone can participate on there, I hope there is enough people who are keeping an eye on these pages.
You put a finger on the problem : as long as Hamas is predominant, Israel is not going to change his politics towards Palestine. BUT if Hamas won so much "popularity", it's also because the situation was dramatic before and Israel was not all white. There is also a lack of efforts on Israel's side. Palestinians are desperate, that's completely understandable. @Philia already answered you pretty well and that's why I feel a bit mixed : I don't know if I have to waste my time developing my own answer because I feel like it's going to be useless.
We still agree on your last sentence but I think we both know no side is going to do anything about that... To be really honest, I'm kinda pessimistic about the whole situation.
The most important sentences i want to focus on here is this:
We already talked about that and I don't really know how to make you understand my point. Imo the solution would be to be "neutral" (nobody is, right) by recognizing both countries' faults.
and this
I understand your dilemma to not give any argument to the antisemitic side but ignoring them is not the solution either.
I will start with the second sentence because i am edgy.
My idea is not ignoring actual problems caused by the israeli government or solveable by the israeli government.
Far from it. If there is a legitimate case after one has looked into the details and can suggest a good solution but the government simply refuses to take it, yes, then it is to blame.
And there are problems like that. There are social problems between jews and muslims in israel which should be tackled with more effort.
Now, first of all: These problems should be tackled and discussed by the people who are ACTUALLY AFFECTED OR RESPONSIBLE for them.
Not by an outside source just using them to express how horrible israel is.
Fact is that westeners like us who have never been there know jackshit about the actual situation there. We can read it up, we can inform ourselves very well, too. But to empathetically understand the different sides of conflicts (and it's more than two) takes more than that.
And the thing is: It is not really our business. And i don't necessarily mean politics here. The international politics should make glaring misconduct in other countries their business when it has means to do a positive change. But why do we as individuals focus on that conflict?
There is no genocide going on, and we have partners internationally who do much worse but don't get stern lectures from us or even resolutions or boycots.
May one critisize israel? Of course. But the question is how much it is worth. Is the opinion of someone who just read about some bombing or some knife attack actually important? It does not matter for the people who are in this conflict, because actual solutions and actual understanding of the conflict takes months if not years.
What we in the west however like to do is condemn. Some condemn one side, the others condemn both by equivalencing them.
And both of it is actually harming and fueling a conflict UNLESS the west has actual solutions it can present (notice that i say 'the west', not 'one guy with a blog').
We can talk to a partner if we think there is a glaring misconduct in his country.
For example, it was made rather clear towards turkey that there won't be an EU membership if they will install death penalty again.
Things like that are fine. Those are things which affect us and are in our direct responsibility to bring up.
So is Israel's settlement policy. We can talk about that on the political realm, and we do.
Exspecially the US does through big efforts to keep the sides talking. But the people who bring it up are people who were informed by advisors who usually are experts on that matter and have several degrees and thus can actually propone solutions or at least alternatives.
They are not a screaming crowd get angry over facebook posts and demand impossible things and get even angrier if those impossible conditions are not met.
I am open to anyone who has made his homework about the settlement situation explaining me how israel could do better in an objective and reasoned way.
I even encourage doing that if the conflict just happens to be of interest for someone.
What i am not open to is people who hate israel or jews searching desperately for reasons to hate more and make others hate more in conflicts they do not even understand.
This brings us to the first quote:
I am all for having a neutral observer. I would have actually no problem if people would post all the misdoings from hamas and get enraged about that, protest and call for them to lay down their weapons. If we do that for both sides, sure, why not?
It's still kinda strange from a westener to focus on that one country, but at least that is consequent.
But we don't. We focus on the misdoings of one side and ignore the other. Exactly what people say the 'defenders' of israel do.
All i hear is 'well ya, hamas are bad but why ignore israel?' and then they go on and on about how evil israel is and will never mention the hamas again.
Imagine that you as a french get blamed nonstop for living in a racist country.
People say: "Look at france. They forbid the Burka lately. All of them are racists. look at FN rising, it's clear, france is a racist country who hates muslims. They also kill muslims, we saw what they did in mali and lybia. The terror attacks on charlie hebdo and in the church and at the concert were all justified. The muslims there are desperate because they are shunned into the banlieus.
Look at all the statistics showing that frenchs are richer than muslims in france. Look at how muslims never get into the better schools and universities.
France is a nazi country, plain and simple, and a warmongerer. They also help the US in syria and iraq to kill even more muslims. they deserve every terror attack they get. There can only be peace if france stops trying to kill all muslims, and until then, every french person is fair game."
Then you could reply that a lot of these things are taken completely out of context and that the person speaking knows jackshit about france, and that there are a lot of social reasons for the things cited.
You would also be appalled by someone justifying attacks on civillians, EVEN if you are against the war efforts france has made recently or against the burka ban.
You could also reply that it's not like france is significantly more rightwing than many other countries. it is less rightwing than basically all middle eastern or northern african countries and also less rightwing than many other european countries.
If someone keeps saying bullshit like that, giving you partially invented, partially taken out of context statistics and propagandistic news tidbits, you would disregard his opinion at some point because he is clearly anti french and would never be pleased with anything france does.
And if you say: Other countries have rightwing attacks too, he would simply ask 'OH, SO THAT MAKES IT OKAY??'.
It is clear at that point that a country has to be judged by the context of its situation and only after you actually know the country beyond the suggestive headlines.
If we have a neutral observer, everything is alright.
Then let us check: Is there any other democracy in the middle east than israel and how is the freedom of speech in other middle eastern countries?
And we would see israel is, when it comes to freedom of speech, the country in that region that does best.
And then we can check all the different countries about how they treat their minorities. And once again: There is A LOT of fierce competition.
Even when it comes to the treatment of palestines, egypt does exactly the same things at their part of the border that israel does.
And if we are really really interested about the situation, then yes: Let us have the observer count it all down, and every time something happens (or at least something significant), we bring it out at UN and talk about it, and, if necessary, have a resolution.
If we do that, i am absolutely fine with any criticism on israel because then it is actually fair criticism and can be taken serious.
It is fruitful criticism if it is serious criticism.
What is not fruitful is to abuse the UN as a weapon to hurt israel. Or use facebook as a weapon against israel, or any other medium.
Once again i have to ask: Why are all these westeners who don't know jackshit about the conflict lining up to talk about their right to critisize israel?
Why exactly that country? Even when it comes to partners of the west, turkey is nearer than israel and has more trouble with keeping up their democracy lately.
There's also hungary and poland in the EU, of which one recently fantasized about installing death penalty again and the other disregards their own high court.
These are things which directly affect us and we don#t care for it.
Then there are the countries arround israel who treat their minorities like shit.
Slaveworkers in katar are building stadiums for the soccer championship. There is some complaints, but nothing even near the outrage about a conflict which we actually do not know much about and also have no actually anything to do with.
And THAT is bias. That is not neutral. That is also not constructive criticism (which i wanna stress: is always allowed).
This is not criticism fit to change a situation for the better, this is a weapon.
It is playing the game of hatemongerers and has nothing to do with actual criticism.
Once one took a side or equivalenced anything without even knowing exactly what he is talking about, he fell into this trap and leave the realm of valid criticism.
@shionoro ... My message is clearly not going to be that long.
Actually, I kinda agree on the first part. (sorry if I seemed to participate to the problem talking about their social issues but I don't think there is any problem on this forum anyway - I wouldn't insist on that if I felt that a member really has something against Jews, I'm perfectly able to adapt myself to my interlocutor) But it raised a question : you also said in your conclusion it is playing the game of haters but if you endlessly seem to support Israel, is it not goint to play their game as well ? I mean, they're just going to pretend we're trying to shut them out, which proves that what they're saying is true, #conspiracytheory and all of this shit they like to mention to pretend they're victims and that they really go against the system. :/ And your debate with Philia gave me this feeling, you were defending Israel, he was defending Palestine and... I was also defending Palestine because some points of your messages bothered me. You were really inflexible in your messages, that's why it seemed weird for me and I thought you only think that Israel is the victim here, hence all the reactions you had to face. It could seem weird for someone else as well. But there is no antisemitic people here (or they're hiding pretty well) so the need to defend Israel seemed less useful imo. If I could feel something was off with someone defending Palestine while attacking the existence itself of Israel, my messages wouldn't have been the same.
I would like to mention that though : if you're bothered by the fact even non-antisemitic people defend Palestine more than Israel, it's probably because they're in a situation of superiority, whether it be their current economical and military situation way better than Palestine or their supports who are clearly more frightening than those of Palestine. I mean, look at the US always ready to step in if something is really wrong, I would think twice before doing anything again. No country has really the means to do anything anymore. (Egypt is trying to but lol) And the status of Palestine doesn't really give a right to the country to be considered as an equal anyway. I might be wrong but I don't think they have the status of a true country.
Regarding the "popularity" of people "caring" about this conflict more than for other important things... You're participating in it since you created this thread. Though you're right about all the antisemitic people who are trying to take advantage of this situation to spread their hate under the cover of "we're only defending Palestinian victims", there is also the fact that this conflict is pretty singular in the world. There is no similar situation anywhere and people might be intrigued by this now long conflict which doesn't seem to find any fair solution. I'm not saying this treatment is fair, don't take me wrong but it could explain people's curiosity.
I more or less agree with the rest, except for one thing :
Then let us check: Is there any other democracy in the middle east than israel and how is the freedom of speech in other middle eastern countries?
And we would see israel is, when it comes to freedom of speech, the country in that region that does best.
I would like to mention that though : if you're bothered by the fact even non-antisemitic people defend Palestine more than Israel, it's probably because they're in a situation of superiority, whether it be their current economical and military situation way better than Palestine or their supports who are clearly more frightening than those of Palestine. I mean, look at the US always ready to step in if something is really wrong, I would think twice before doing anything again. No country has really the means to do anything anymore. (Egypt is trying to but lol) And the status of Palestine doesn't really give a right to the country to be considered as an equal anyway. I might be wrong but I don't think they have the status of a true country.
I agree. The left is ALWAYS cheering for the underdog. It is never the other way round.
But that is a problem.
But you thinking the US will always be at Israel's side is not really the truth anymore.
The truth is Obama and Netanjahu hate each other's gutts and Trump is not a reliable Nato ally.
Obama initiated the US and israel's archenemy iran getting on better terms.
And while trump is anti iran it does not matter, because trump wants to basically get out of any foreign involvement of the US.
Trump saying mean things about iran in the white house wont keep iran in check and won't reassure israel.
That is insanely dangerous, as both israel and iran get more trigger happy that way.
Back to the underdog: Sometimes the underdog should not be seen as the one who has moral highground.
As i said i am all for treating both equally regarding their actions.
But then we have to stop shrugging when terror attacks happen because 'They are desperate so WE' and lose our shit when a settler does something.
This for example. Israel wants to ban the call for prayer. And while i don't necessarily disagree with banning loud noises 5 times a day including the night, i also see this as very counterproductive.
Muezzins call for prayer since a long time, including via speakers. I do not know how loudly they do it and whether there is a legit point about noise, but i am sure this could be dealt with in another way.
So why do we not focus on things which are part of the actual day to day politics and small reforms or reachable goals?
Simply because it is easier and more rewarding to act like a revolutionary by saying that israel should just disengage and everything will be fine then.
there is also the fact that this conflict is pretty singular in the world. There is no similar situation anywhere and people might be intrigued by this now long conflict which doesn't seem to find any fair solution. I'm not saying this treatment is fair, don't take me wrong but it could explain people's curiosity.
I disagree very strongly with this.
There are a lot of those conflicts.
The turkish kurdish conflict.
The saudi yemen conflict.
The Burma Rohingya conflict.
The China Xinjiang conflict (or if you want, the Tibet conflict too).
The Mali Tuareg conflict.
And that is just the ones which came to my mind in like a minute of thinking about it. There are lots more i might have heard about but never verified because they happen in some african or asian countries i know absolutely nothing about nor about what the conflict is about.
Of course, every conflict has some differences, but the conflict between a state and a region that would like to be independend is not exactly new.
There is always some discussion about who came first and whom the land rightfully belongs to, there is a demographic component and often a cultural or religious one.
Israel's conflict is one of the more relevant ones to the west because israel is a nato ally, but the biggest involvement in it comes from the fact that jews are involved and for no other reason at all.
Reporters without border thinks that israel is rightfully in front of bulgaria when it comes to freedom of press, and bulgaria is inside the EU.
So we can really not complain about that, even if they place it on rank 101 which is not exactly great (then again, italy is on place 77...)
But jokes aside: You are not getting killed in israel for some blogposts.
And definitely not by the state.
And that is a low bar, but it is in fact a bar in the middle east.
While I do agree Chinese govt suppress the Uyghurs many ways, the situations are not comparable. Xinxiang is an autonomous region inside China. The Uyghurs inside China are fully Chinese citizens and they can move around freely around China. Palestine is not really comparable with Xinxiang.
While I do agree Chinese govt suppress the Uyghurs many ways, the situations are not comparable. Xinxiang is an autonomous region inside China. The Uyghurs inside China are fully Chinese citizens and they can move around freely around China. Palestine is not really comparable with Xinxiang.
Yes, some of the conflicts i mentioned are more and some less comparable, but i think it can hardly be claimed that the israel-palestine conflict is a very unique one.
The only thing making it seem that way is that is the only conlifct that was directly related to western involvement with both sides.
There was WW2 and the resulting jewish refugees, there was the british and french involvement with the arabs and then the US and later nato involvement in this conflict.
That seperates it from other conflict.
Because a lot of interest groups are involve here and want to take sides.
The rightwingers are the most ambivalent here, because they need the narrative of jewish power elites to some degree but also hate muslims so like israel's more aggrssive stances.
The leftwingers invert this idea to some degree because they, by reflex, always wanna be on the side of the underdog which they think in this case is gaza (bonus points for, once upon a time but not anymore, the gaza revolt being led by people you could call socialists if you wanted to). And they also like the narrative of the powerful bankers. They don't explicitly (usually) use jews for that narrative, but by implication it happens anyway.
For basically anyone who has anything to say about religion, muslims, jews or general humanrights talks, there is a stake in this conflict and also a narrative to use to gain more influence. That is not true with burma. No matter how extreme your coverage of burma gets, it won't net you viewers. Because arab muslims don't care for Burma and nor do western right or leftwingers.
And that is the inherent dishonesty i see in focussing on the israel conflict and acting like it is the only conflict in the world of that kind.
If people were really actually interested in human rights or freedom of choice regarding statehood or even just interested in protecting muslims, then we would see more talking about yemen and burma.
But we won't.
We will however see fancy college kids or celebs making mean tweets and having to apologize later (to whichever side).
Hmm, what do you mean ? It seems obvious to me that supporting underdogs is normal since they're... underdogs (so, in an implied situation of inferiority) but is there some points which especially bother you ? I mean, I can see what you're talking about since I also had debates with people being on the left wing and I met both sides : the ones who think they're right on everything and the ones with who you can debate safely. Did you imply we can't really discuss things about Israel and Palestine because they'll always defend Palestine no matter what ? (Hamas being forgotten a lot, I have to admit, that also annoys me)
But you thinking the US will always be at Israel's side is not really the truth anymore.
The truth is Obama and Netanjahu hate each other's gutts and Trump is not a reliable Nato ally.
Obama initiated the US and israel's archenemy iran getting on better terms.
And while trump is anti iran it does not matter, because trump wants to basically get out of any foreign involvement of the US.
Trump saying mean things about iran in the white house wont keep iran in check and won't reassure israel.
That is insanely dangerous, as both israel and iran get more trigger happy that way.
After some thinking, you're probably right, though Obama still supported Israel in some way despite his dislike towards the Israeli Prime minister.
Regarding Trump, this guy is absolutely unpredictable. I easily imagine him doing some shit in his own country (it's not really hard to discriminate people, humanity has done that for centuries now) but regarding foreign policy, I still have some hope, I don't know if it's misplaced or not. I mean, his team is probably not going to let him do as he wants. Anyway, I still agree he'll probably be a worst support than Obama was for Israel.
I think it's kinda unfair to do this because in this conflict, they're not even equals. Treating them like equals, it's like saying to Israel they're as much victims as Palestine (well, as for now, it was way more complicated many years ago but the situation is not the same) and they're not.
This for example. Israel wants to ban the call for prayer. And while i don't necessarily disagree with banning loud noises 5 times a day including the night, i also see this as very counterproductive.
Muezzins call for prayer since a long time, including via speakers. I do not know how loudly they do it and whether there is a legit point about noise, but i am sure this could be dealt with in another way.
So why do we not focus on things which are part of the actual day to day politics and small reforms or reachable goals?
Simply because it is easier and more rewarding to act like a revolutionary by saying that israel should just disengage and everything will be fine then.
I agree with you regarding the news and the way to deal with this issue. Regarding your last sentence though, becoming stricter as Israel is doing is not the solution either. Disengaging completely is kinda stupid with the threat of Hamas but they did something wrong by annexing Palestinian territories. I read a French article (and not even a free one, but French speakers can still ask me for it if they're curious) which explained Israeli people have lived on Palestinian territories for twenty years and have to leave before the end of this year because the international community considered it was illegal. (and they're right) Of course, they have no intention to leave and the worst of this situation is that Israel won't even give these territories back to Palestinians because of security reasons. (which I can understand, it's pretty risky)
So, what should they do ? The problem is that Israel has annexed a lot of Palestinian territories and not just for security reasons and this shit will happen again. You still haven't answered me about something crucial : why Israeli citizens are present on these territories ? I mean, if it was only the army, I'd say "okay, I'm not really for it but that's understandable". The more we'll defend them about this, the more they'll feel free to annex Palestinian territories for their citizens, the more it'll be hard for Palestinian people to get their rightful territories one day. Stop saying this is for security reasons because I don't see how they're protecting the country like this.
To be really honest, I'm pretty pessimistic about this : I feel like Palestine will disappear one day. This day, I wonder what you're going to say... My point is not that they just have to disengage : but they have to stop this madness (annexing Palestinian territories, I mean) and... changing their minds, but the opposition in this country which still hopes for a two-countries solution is having a hard time with the government and the population as well. Hamas is also a problem because Palestinian should also consider them as terrorists but no one in Palestine is able to be a good counterpart to Israel.... That's why Israel should begin to be fairer - that way, Hamas will have less things to use as arguments if Israel is the first one to take a step into the right direction. And I'm sure there are a lot of Palestinian citizens who just want this conflict to end, despite their possible hate of Israel. You can say it's pretty idealistic (and will never happen) and I'd agree with you - that's why it'll end badly.
Of course, every conflict has some differences, but the conflict between a state and a region that would like to be independend is not exactly new.
There is always some discussion about who came first and whom the land rightfully belongs to, there is a demographic component and often a cultural or religious one.
Israel's conflict is one of the more relevant ones to the west because israel is a nato ally, but the biggest involvement in it comes from the fact that jews are involved and for no other reason at all.
Ah, regarding this conflict, I should also add something. You're pretty right about the fact hat the West supports Israel, that's a reason of medias' special interest, I forgot about this. I thought about something else as well but I forgot to mention it : Jews were persecuted during history and I guess that seeing them with their own territory is a curiosity for most people, hence the heated debates about this conflict. (and there is probably some antisemitic reasons as well, as you said - the "funniest" is people defending Palestinians when they don't give a fuck about Arab people in the West, far from it...)
Reporters without border thinks that israel is rightfully in front of bulgaria when it comes to freedom of press, and bulgaria is inside the EU.
So we can really not complain about that, even if they place it on rank 101 which is not exactly great (then again, italy is on place 77...)
But jokes aside: You are not getting killed in israel for some blogposts.
And definitely not by the state.
And that is a low bar, but it is in fact a bar in the middle east.
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.
In France at least, I don't really know for other countries, these people were trouble for some time. That could explain why you seemed less shocked by it than I am. 
) Regarding Hollande, his first declarations were not as severe towards Israel than you think, far from it. The same change happened when he heard that people accused him to be partial. You can say that it's not a great thing that people have so much power to make our president change his position but the initial support of French government towards Israel regardless of their mistakes was a bit shocking.
You were really inflexible in your messages, that's why it seemed weird for me and I thought you only think that Israel is the victim here, hence all the reactions you had to face. It could seem weird for someone else as well. But there is no antisemitic people here (or they're hiding pretty well) so the need to defend Israel seemed less useful imo. If I could feel something was off with someone defending Palestine while attacking the existence itself of Israel, my messages wouldn't have been the same. 