My grandparents shared the same fate as Hen's. In 1950, terrified of the Farhud and other pogroms done in Iraq, they were forced to sign over their property to the state as a condition of being...
My grandparents shared the same fate as Hen's. In 1950, terrified of the Farhud and other pogroms done in Iraq, they were forced to sign over their property to the state as a condition of being allowed to leave. When they immigrated to Israel they lived in tent towns with their extended family for years, along with other refugees from Arab countries and Europe. There was a lot of racism there, with European Jews looking down at Mizrahi Jews, describing them as tribal, dirty brown, uncouth, animalistic. There was a lot of racism from Mizrahi Jews towards others, as well - their customs were odd, their food was terrible, and they were usually less educated. My maternal grandmother didn't want my mother marrying my dad cause he was "too dark". But what united them all was the circumstances they were thrown into and the feeling of pioneering, of having to build a state to protect themselves from pogroms.
In fact, if you speak Hebrew (hi @Nmg!), I can't recommend enough that you watch this documentary they did on those refugees tent towns in the 50s. My mom's cousin was one of the interviewees :) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLttfoK87AdW0BPUe_MqaxNUuUH2GEkH0
At any rate, I totally agree with what Hen is saying, presenting the case for Mizrahi Jews and their cultural baggage and history. The story that Lamont Hill is peddling is very obviously historically ignorant and probably also bigoted. What he says on the air is definitely appalling - "from River to sea", for those unfamiliar, is the call of those nationalistic Palestinians, from the 30s till today, to cleanse the land of Jews by pushing them into the ocean and claiming the entire land, from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean as their own. It is a ridiculous thing to say and what's more - it does a bear's service to his cause. It allows everyone to paint the call for Palestinian statehood (alongside Israel) and the well-deserved criticism of Israel as all antisemitic and dismiss them in one fell swoop.
I feel that would be a more difficult picture to paint of Israel if Netanyahu would stop saying things like every Palestinian should be dead. Obviously there's much, much more to this conflict...
I feel that would be a more difficult picture to paint of Israel if Netanyahu would stop saying things like every Palestinian should be dead.
Obviously there's much, much more to this conflict than that. BN suddenly dropping a talking point won't fix that. It certainly wouldn't hurt, though. Meanwhile if Palestine could stop it with the terror attacks and bombings that would be pretty useful as well.
Not to throw too much of a tangent on this but this type of MAD is a great example of why secular people can get so frustrated with religious devotees, if anyone was wondering. Knowing Tildes' userbase probably not, but you never know.
small point, but let's please recognize some nuance here and not unintentionally act like the palestinian people are responsible for the vast majority of the terrorist attacks committed against...
Meanwhile if Palestine could stop it with the terror attacks and bombings that would be pretty useful as well.
small point, but let's please recognize some nuance here and not unintentionally act like the palestinian people are responsible for the vast majority of the terrorist attacks committed against israel. the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks and shooting events on the palestinian end of things are committed by Hamas + a couple of satellite groups in their vicinity, and Hamas only officially represents palestine's legislative council in gaza specifically (which they only seem to control currently because they forcefully took it over and refuse to hold elections).
their main political opponents, Fatah, are not recognized as a terrorist group anymore and are for the most part nonviolent, and neither is the PLO, which is the official representative of the palestinian people as recognized by basically everybody who thinks palestine is a legitimate state (although the PLO are open about sometimes directly employing violence). treating Hamas & co's actions as representative of all palestinians would be like treating the actions of Kahanist militants toward palestinians and anti-zionists as official actions of the state of israel, which is silly. it's more complicated than that.
I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here, but we should also note that the PLO was chartered specifically to liberate palestine via armed struggle. Additionally, they deny the existance of...
although the PLO are open about sometimes directly employing violence
I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here, but we should also note that the PLO was chartered specifically to liberate palestine via armed struggle. Additionally, they deny the existance of Israel and that there is place for an Israeli state. They also claim all historical claims of religious or historical ties of the Jews to Palestine are false (which I believe can be proven to be false). They deny the existance of a Jewish nationality, and think Jews should be sent back to the countries they came from. There are obvious issues with the preceding statement considering nobody would take them.
In 1993 the PLO finally rejected terrorist. However that did not prevent violence by the PLO from breaking out during the Second Intifada.
Really, I don't think under any metric we can truly state the PLO is "nonviolent".
I think we need to recognize the Israel-Palestinian conflict is much more like the Troubles, where religiously motivated tit-for-tat violence lead to a whole lot of death, which for most of the conflict people were just trying to find out who made the first tit. We need to get past that, and create a framework of peace rather than determining who screwed up in the first place (But personally I think it is the British post-ww2 government).
as near as i can tell, these were true previously but seem to have been nullified to comply with the oslo accords back in 1996 and don't at this point reflect the ideology of the PLO. (although i...
I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here, but we should also note that the PLO was chartered specifically to liberate palestine via armed struggle. Additionally, they deny the existance of Israel and that there is place for an Israeli state. They also claim all historical claims of religious or historical ties of the Jews to Palestine are false (which I believe can be proven to be false). They deny the existance of a Jewish nationality, and think Jews should be sent back to the countries they came from. There are obvious issues with the preceding statement considering nobody would take them.
as near as i can tell, these were true previously but seem to have been nullified to comply with the oslo accords back in 1996 and don't at this point reflect the ideology of the PLO. (although i imagine that de facto some of their constituent parts might still adhere to some of those, since the PLO is by no means homogeneous)
In 1993 the PLO finally rejected terrorist. However that did not prevent violence by the PLO from breaking out during the Second Intifada.
Really, I don't think under any metric we can truly state the PLO is "nonviolent".
well, yeah. that's why i qualified them with sometimes being open about using violence directly. they still employ violence sometimes and don't really seem to make any claim to being nonviolent (fatah for the most part does seem to on the other hand; if they do violence it seems to be through proxy groups since they explicitly renounced terrorism in 1988 and have basically transitioned into being a purely political organization).
Yes, they officially renounced terrorism, however they still carry it out. The Second Intifada is proof of that. IMO it doesn't matter what they say, or what accords they sign. What matters is...
Yes, they officially renounced terrorism, however they still carry it out. The Second Intifada is proof of that. IMO it doesn't matter what they say, or what accords they sign. What matters is that they continue to carry out violence, and many of their members support violence, and the assertion that they have "renounced terrorism" and have transitioned into a "purely political organization" is simply false.
they literally did though, and it's not like the US and israel (and honestly, other countries which maintain active terrorist group lists) have some reason to give fatah the benefit of the doubt...
What matters is that they continue to carry out violence, and many of their members support violence, and the assertion that they have "renounced terrorism" and have transitioned into a "purely political organization" is simply false.
they literally did though, and it's not like the US and israel (and honestly, other countries which maintain active terrorist group lists) have some reason to give fatah the benefit of the doubt on this issue, considering that fatah is in active opposition of what either of them want. that neither of them considers fatah terrorist anymore and haven't for... two or more decades now? suggests pretty clearly that while fatah might have relationships with militant groups, they themselves are not one and neither the US nor israel think such is the case. the same to a lesser extent can be said of the PLO too, tbh.
I do not see how you can look at the recent terrorist attacks by PLO directly in violation of the Oslo accord and argue that the PLO has renounced terrorism. This feels like a "No True PLO" to me.
I do not see how you can look at the recent terrorist attacks by PLO directly in violation of the Oslo accord and argue that the PLO has renounced terrorism. This feels like a "No True PLO" to me.
i mean, if we go down the road of violations of agreements though you basically just end up at a point which you actually made earlier in the thread, which is that: for every example of...
i mean, if we go down the road of violations of agreements though you basically just end up at a point which you actually made earlier in the thread, which is that:
I think we need to recognize the Israel-Palestinian conflict is much more like the Troubles, where religiously motivated tit-for-tat violence lead to a whole lot of death, which for most of the conflict people were just trying to find out who made the first tit.
for every example of palestinians contravening agreements, i can give you examples of israel doing the same or committing acts that kill disproportionately more civilians than militants, possibly in contravention of international law, which is kinda pointless and also not strictly relevant to the line of the past few comments, which is what the PLO (and by proxy to some extent, fatah) stand for and their place in all of this.
At no point do I recall arguing that Israel did not violate the agreements. I think I am very critical of Israel. But this particular chain of comments discusses the PLO, and the assertion that...
At no point do I recall arguing that Israel did not violate the agreements. I think I am very critical of Israel. But this particular chain of comments discusses the PLO, and the assertion that they are nonviolent.
To say "But Israel did bad things too" is true, but it's whattaboutism. If we want to solve this conflict we need to acknowledge both the bad things Israel does, and the bad things the PLO does.
True point. This is a game played primarily by small groups with a large amount of power and it's important to remember that. Above all else I'd like to see them all just knock it the fuck off so...
and not unintentionally act like the palestinian people are responsible for the vast majority of the terrorist attacks committed against Israel.
True point. This is a game played primarily by small groups with a large amount of power and it's important to remember that. Above all else I'd like to see them all just knock it the fuck off so people stop dying but I'm just some rando from the Midwest so I'm sure there's plenty of reasons both sides of the conflict have for continuing to kill people.
I think this piece isn't a rebuttal for those who are anti-expansion of Israel, but rather made for those who argue Israel is an illegitimate state. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is, IMO, bigger...
I think this piece isn't a rebuttal for those who are anti-expansion of Israel, but rather made for those who argue Israel is an illegitimate state.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is, IMO, bigger than Netanyahu. It's about the existance of the Israeli state. And that's why a lot of people have issue with BDS. They view it not in terms of BDS wanting to further the rights of Palestinians (which I believe they do) but also as BDS wanting to dismantle the state of Israel (which I think would be an outcome of Palestinian right of return). Israel was not created as an ethnostate because all the Jews wanted to be there. It was created because nobody else would take them. And I worry that if Israel were to cease to exist, there would be nowhere for most Jews to go.
i don't necessarily buy that, to be honest, at least not in the present. israel is just too well established as a thing for any real deal smashing it into nonexistence to take place beyond a...
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is, IMO, bigger than Netanyahu. It's about the existance of the Israeli state. And that's why a lot of people have issue with BDS.
i don't necessarily buy that, to be honest, at least not in the present. israel is just too well established as a thing for any real deal smashing it into nonexistence to take place beyond a one-state, multiethnic solution that turns the whole area into a singular polity kinda like what happened with bosnia and herzegovina. war getting israel to that point is likely to be a war of annihilation given israel is armed with nuclear weapons, so that's also realistically off the table, i think. that mostly leaves diplomacy, and i think you've seen that in the increasing willingness of arab parties to come to the table where they might not have previously, although the right-swing of israeli politics is... not exactly helping advance diplomatic solutions to the whole thing.
I think a lot of people fear that if Israel is not a majority Jewish state that the protections for Jews will be eroded. That is the inherant problem with an ethnostate, but I don't think there is...
I think a lot of people fear that if Israel is not a majority Jewish state that the protections for Jews will be eroded. That is the inherant problem with an ethnostate, but I don't think there is any way to 'turn back the clock' so to speak. I think change will only come in time, when Israel elects competent leadership. Til then I think we're just going to continue having murders committed by the IDF and Hamas/PLO. I just don't see any way to stop it.
I really do not think Israel would nuke Palestine. Nothing about that makes sense to me. It'd cause the entire Arab world to attack, it'd bring fallout into Israeli cities, it would probably make Europe invade honestly.
Honestly, I think that's a propaganda trope. Some political parties like to flaunt how in Arab states Jews have never enjoyed the freedoms afforded to Arabs in Israel. And they like to fear-monger...
I think a lot of people fear that if Israel is not a majority Jewish state that the protections for Jews will be eroded
Honestly, I think that's a propaganda trope. Some political parties like to flaunt how in Arab states Jews have never enjoyed the freedoms afforded to Arabs in Israel. And they like to fear-monger and say they will do the same in Israel if given the chance. This is simply a trope to hide the increasingly prejudicial treatment of the Arab-Israelis, from a prime minister that disenfranchises them, to a judicial system that condones prejudice against them, to law-enforcement that often targets them with impunity. Israeli Jews are mainly afraid they will not get preferential treatment anymore.
You are correct, I was mistaken and I apologize. He has however insisted that Israel is exclusively a Jewish state, despite its many Arab citizens. Not exactly sure how a non-jewish, religious...
Netanyahu has never said such a thing.
You are correct, I was mistaken and I apologize. He has however insisted that Israel is exclusively a Jewish state, despite its many Arab citizens. Not exactly sure how a non-jewish, religious citizen would take that, but I can't imagine it would be "well".
With regard to Israel not being Netanyahu, you are correct again. I was speaking in generalities with reference to the parties directly involved in the conflict rather than their people, something I hoped my use of proper pronouns and capitalization would emphasize, but in the future I'll make my intent more direct to avoid confusion.
MAD
MAD is an abbreviation for Mutually Assured Destruction. It was originally coined as a way to describe the relationship between the US and Russia during the cold war, but has since grown to be used in most any socio-political situation where both parties escalate simply because they believe the other will continue to do so, leading ultimately to the destruction of both and the victory of neither.
I say
this is a great example of why secular people can get so frustrated with religious devotees
simply because it is. To an outside perspective the conflict is only continuing because the two parties involved (Hamas and the Israeli government) can't resolve their religious differences in non-religious ways because they've both so closely intertwined their politics with their religion. This leaves very little room for diplomacy, which is the only way I can see out that completely stops the loss of life over, and I mean this with as little offense as it can possibly be said with, what is ultimately a piece of land.
My grandparents shared the same fate as Hen's. In 1950, terrified of the Farhud and other pogroms done in Iraq, they were forced to sign over their property to the state as a condition of being allowed to leave. When they immigrated to Israel they lived in tent towns with their extended family for years, along with other refugees from Arab countries and Europe. There was a lot of racism there, with European Jews looking down at Mizrahi Jews, describing them as tribal, dirty brown, uncouth, animalistic. There was a lot of racism from Mizrahi Jews towards others, as well - their customs were odd, their food was terrible, and they were usually less educated. My maternal grandmother didn't want my mother marrying my dad cause he was "too dark". But what united them all was the circumstances they were thrown into and the feeling of pioneering, of having to build a state to protect themselves from pogroms.
In fact, if you speak Hebrew (hi @Nmg!), I can't recommend enough that you watch this documentary they did on those refugees tent towns in the 50s. My mom's cousin was one of the interviewees :)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLttfoK87AdW0BPUe_MqaxNUuUH2GEkH0
At any rate, I totally agree with what Hen is saying, presenting the case for Mizrahi Jews and their cultural baggage and history. The story that Lamont Hill is peddling is very obviously historically ignorant and probably also bigoted. What he says on the air is definitely appalling - "from River to sea", for those unfamiliar, is the call of those nationalistic Palestinians, from the 30s till today, to cleanse the land of Jews by pushing them into the ocean and claiming the entire land, from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean as their own. It is a ridiculous thing to say and what's more - it does a bear's service to his cause. It allows everyone to paint the call for Palestinian statehood (alongside Israel) and the well-deserved criticism of Israel as all antisemitic and dismiss them in one fell swoop.
I feel that would be a more difficult picture to paint of Israel if Netanyahu would stop saying things like every Palestinian should be dead.
Obviously there's much, much more to this conflict than that. BN suddenly dropping a talking point won't fix that. It certainly wouldn't hurt, though. Meanwhile if Palestine could stop it with the terror attacks and bombings that would be pretty useful as well.
Not to throw too much of a tangent on this but this type of MAD is a great example of why secular people can get so frustrated with religious devotees, if anyone was wondering. Knowing Tildes' userbase probably not, but you never know.
small point, but let's please recognize some nuance here and not unintentionally act like the palestinian people are responsible for the vast majority of the terrorist attacks committed against israel. the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks and shooting events on the palestinian end of things are committed by Hamas + a couple of satellite groups in their vicinity, and Hamas only officially represents palestine's legislative council in gaza specifically (which they only seem to control currently because they forcefully took it over and refuse to hold elections).
their main political opponents, Fatah, are not recognized as a terrorist group anymore and are for the most part nonviolent, and neither is the PLO, which is the official representative of the palestinian people as recognized by basically everybody who thinks palestine is a legitimate state (although the PLO are open about sometimes directly employing violence). treating Hamas & co's actions as representative of all palestinians would be like treating the actions of Kahanist militants toward palestinians and anti-zionists as official actions of the state of israel, which is silly. it's more complicated than that.
I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here, but we should also note that the PLO was chartered specifically to liberate palestine via armed struggle. Additionally, they deny the existance of Israel and that there is place for an Israeli state. They also claim all historical claims of religious or historical ties of the Jews to Palestine are false (which I believe can be proven to be false). They deny the existance of a Jewish nationality, and think Jews should be sent back to the countries they came from. There are obvious issues with the preceding statement considering nobody would take them.
In 1993 the PLO finally rejected terrorist. However that did not prevent violence by the PLO from breaking out during the Second Intifada.
Really, I don't think under any metric we can truly state the PLO is "nonviolent".
I think we need to recognize the Israel-Palestinian conflict is much more like the Troubles, where religiously motivated tit-for-tat violence lead to a whole lot of death, which for most of the conflict people were just trying to find out who made the first tit. We need to get past that, and create a framework of peace rather than determining who screwed up in the first place (But personally I think it is the British post-ww2 government).
as near as i can tell, these were true previously but seem to have been nullified to comply with the oslo accords back in 1996 and don't at this point reflect the ideology of the PLO. (although i imagine that de facto some of their constituent parts might still adhere to some of those, since the PLO is by no means homogeneous)
well, yeah. that's why i qualified them with sometimes being open about using violence directly. they still employ violence sometimes and don't really seem to make any claim to being nonviolent (fatah for the most part does seem to on the other hand; if they do violence it seems to be through proxy groups since they explicitly renounced terrorism in 1988 and have basically transitioned into being a purely political organization).
Yes, they officially renounced terrorism, however they still carry it out. The Second Intifada is proof of that. IMO it doesn't matter what they say, or what accords they sign. What matters is that they continue to carry out violence, and many of their members support violence, and the assertion that they have "renounced terrorism" and have transitioned into a "purely political organization" is simply false.
they literally did though, and it's not like the US and israel (and honestly, other countries which maintain active terrorist group lists) have some reason to give fatah the benefit of the doubt on this issue, considering that fatah is in active opposition of what either of them want. that neither of them considers fatah terrorist anymore and haven't for... two or more decades now? suggests pretty clearly that while fatah might have relationships with militant groups, they themselves are not one and neither the US nor israel think such is the case. the same to a lesser extent can be said of the PLO too, tbh.
I do not see how you can look at the recent terrorist attacks by PLO directly in violation of the Oslo accord and argue that the PLO has renounced terrorism. This feels like a "No True PLO" to me.
i mean, if we go down the road of violations of agreements though you basically just end up at a point which you actually made earlier in the thread, which is that:
for every example of palestinians contravening agreements, i can give you examples of israel doing the same or committing acts that kill disproportionately more civilians than militants, possibly in contravention of international law, which is kinda pointless and also not strictly relevant to the line of the past few comments, which is what the PLO (and by proxy to some extent, fatah) stand for and their place in all of this.
At no point do I recall arguing that Israel did not violate the agreements. I think I am very critical of Israel. But this particular chain of comments discusses the PLO, and the assertion that they are nonviolent.
To say "But Israel did bad things too" is true, but it's whattaboutism. If we want to solve this conflict we need to acknowledge both the bad things Israel does, and the bad things the PLO does.
True point. This is a game played primarily by small groups with a large amount of power and it's important to remember that. Above all else I'd like to see them all just knock it the fuck off so people stop dying but I'm just some rando from the Midwest so I'm sure there's plenty of reasons both sides of the conflict have for continuing to kill people.
I think this piece isn't a rebuttal for those who are anti-expansion of Israel, but rather made for those who argue Israel is an illegitimate state.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict is, IMO, bigger than Netanyahu. It's about the existance of the Israeli state. And that's why a lot of people have issue with BDS. They view it not in terms of BDS wanting to further the rights of Palestinians (which I believe they do) but also as BDS wanting to dismantle the state of Israel (which I think would be an outcome of Palestinian right of return). Israel was not created as an ethnostate because all the Jews wanted to be there. It was created because nobody else would take them. And I worry that if Israel were to cease to exist, there would be nowhere for most Jews to go.
i don't necessarily buy that, to be honest, at least not in the present. israel is just too well established as a thing for any real deal smashing it into nonexistence to take place beyond a one-state, multiethnic solution that turns the whole area into a singular polity kinda like what happened with bosnia and herzegovina. war getting israel to that point is likely to be a war of annihilation given israel is armed with nuclear weapons, so that's also realistically off the table, i think. that mostly leaves diplomacy, and i think you've seen that in the increasing willingness of arab parties to come to the table where they might not have previously, although the right-swing of israeli politics is... not exactly helping advance diplomatic solutions to the whole thing.
I think a lot of people fear that if Israel is not a majority Jewish state that the protections for Jews will be eroded. That is the inherant problem with an ethnostate, but I don't think there is any way to 'turn back the clock' so to speak. I think change will only come in time, when Israel elects competent leadership. Til then I think we're just going to continue having murders committed by the IDF and Hamas/PLO. I just don't see any way to stop it.
I really do not think Israel would nuke Palestine. Nothing about that makes sense to me. It'd cause the entire Arab world to attack, it'd bring fallout into Israeli cities, it would probably make Europe invade honestly.
Honestly, I think that's a propaganda trope. Some political parties like to flaunt how in Arab states Jews have never enjoyed the freedoms afforded to Arabs in Israel. And they like to fear-monger and say they will do the same in Israel if given the chance. This is simply a trope to hide the increasingly prejudicial treatment of the Arab-Israelis, from a prime minister that disenfranchises them, to a judicial system that condones prejudice against them, to law-enforcement that often targets them with impunity. Israeli Jews are mainly afraid they will not get preferential treatment anymore.
probably referring to the principle of mutual assured destruction, but in a more rhetorical sense than a literal one.
You are correct, I was mistaken and I apologize. He has however insisted that Israel is exclusively a Jewish state, despite its many Arab citizens. Not exactly sure how a non-jewish, religious citizen would take that, but I can't imagine it would be "well".
With regard to Israel not being Netanyahu, you are correct again. I was speaking in generalities with reference to the parties directly involved in the conflict rather than their people, something I hoped my use of proper pronouns and capitalization would emphasize, but in the future I'll make my intent more direct to avoid confusion.
MAD is an abbreviation for Mutually Assured Destruction. It was originally coined as a way to describe the relationship between the US and Russia during the cold war, but has since grown to be used in most any socio-political situation where both parties escalate simply because they believe the other will continue to do so, leading ultimately to the destruction of both and the victory of neither.
I say
simply because it is. To an outside perspective the conflict is only continuing because the two parties involved (Hamas and the Israeli government) can't resolve their religious differences in non-religious ways because they've both so closely intertwined their politics with their religion. This leaves very little room for diplomacy, which is the only way I can see out that completely stops the loss of life over, and I mean this with as little offense as it can possibly be said with, what is ultimately a piece of land.