SD on 13/10/2024 at 02:41
Quote Posted by Starker
As long as we are asking questions, here's one... Why are there hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in occupied Palestinian territories?
Let's flip the question around: why shouldn't Jews live in places like Bethlehem? It can hardly be argued that they don't have history there; according to tradition, it's where both David and Jesus were born. Nablus, which is the coloniser name for Shechem, the first capital of the Kingdom of Israel - why shouldn't Jews live there? Hebron, where the Jewish patriarchs are buried, where David was crowned - should it really be off-limits to Jews in the 21st century?
This is the issue with looking at things from a strictly legal viewpoint. Under most interpretations of international law, settlements in the West Bank are illegal. No argument from me. But this is land from which the native Jewish inhabitants have been ethnically cleansed. The legal position may very well be that it's okay for Jews to be robbed of this land, but not for them to take any of it back. Whether it is moral or consistent is more subjective.
DuatDweller on 13/10/2024 at 02:47
Until Netanyahu gets Iranians mad, and they will throw a nuke over Israel, he won't stop killing people.
:erg:
Starker on 13/10/2024 at 04:48
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But Israel isn't vandalising the sites - they are collaterally damaged. So it's not the same, at all.
Again - Israel held to a different standard. Their accidental damage of things is somehow equal to someone else's intentional and deliberate damage.
Clown world.
How is driving a bulldozer through a cemetery collateral damage? Again, what military benefit is there in the destruction of gravestones? Clown world indeed.
Starker on 13/10/2024 at 05:26
Quote Posted by SD
Let's flip the question around: why shouldn't Jews live in places like Bethlehem? It can hardly be argued that they don't have history there; according to tradition, it's where both David and Jesus were born. Nablus, which is the coloniser name for Shechem, the first capital of the Kingdom of Israel - why shouldn't Jews live there? Hebron, where the Jewish patriarchs are buried, where David was crowned - should it really be off-limits to Jews in the 21st century?
This is the issue with looking at things from a strictly legal viewpoint. Under most interpretations of international law, settlements in the West Bank are illegal. No argument from me. But this is land from which the native Jewish inhabitants have been ethnically cleansed. The legal position may very well be that it's okay for Jews to be robbed of this land, but not for them to take any of it back. Whether it is moral or consistent is more subjective.
This is not a "strictly legal viewpoint". It's a matter of settling people into occupied territories, something that's internationally recognised as a war crime, yes, but it's also a matter of displacing people who have lived on the land for generations and disrupting their society. How is it moral to colonise a land of people already living there just because your extremely distant ancestors have lived there thousands of years ago?
Subjective Effect on 13/10/2024 at 08:57
How much time needs to have passed then? A generation? Two? And then you can say "you no longer belong here?".
I'm not of the "God gave us this" mindset, but what SD says it's important in refuting the ridiculous claim that Israel is a colonial project, when in fact the real colonial project is the Islamisation of the entire Middle East and North Africa.
As to bulldozers though cemeteries - you'll have to link some examples so I can have a look. My first thought is "is there a strategic military reason?". Are there tunnels under it? Is it adjacent to a launch site? Is it a significant impairment to military traffic in a way that vastly increases vulnerability? And in the reverse cases I've linked to it was simply vandalism of the "fuck this Jewish stuff" type.
Starker on 13/10/2024 at 10:42
Israel is specifically a colonial project, right from its inception. You'd just have go read the things early Zionists wrote to see plenty of examples in plain uncoached language. And it's still a colonial project. Or how else do you explain the settlers, then?
As for the destruction of cemeteries, just go look at the Wikipedia article I gave you about necroviolence. That's as good a place to start as any.
As for the excuses, what possible military value does a cemetery have or what benefit is there to the destruction of tombstones? Mind you, where there have been Jewish gravesites, the IDF has managed to remain completely respectful and leave the graves in pristine condition. It's only Palestinian graves that have been destroyed and only Palestinan bodies that have been desecrated.
Tomi on 13/10/2024 at 12:10
Quote Posted by Starker
As for the excuses, what possible military value does a cemetery have or what benefit is there to the destruction of tombstones?
I may get in trouble for talking about this, but I don't want anyone to think that IDF would do anything immoral such as vandalising graves or desecrating the dead. The truth is that the graveyard strike was in fact Israel sabotaging Palestinians' top secret project called
Operation Eisenfaust. The top scientists behind the project (a 4-year-old kid and their dog) who happened to live nearby were also killed, so the strike was a great success!
I find it a bit odd that a lot of people seem to see this conflict as a binary Good vs. Evil battle. At this point I think it's a bit naive to think that Israel would
not bomb the shit out of Palestinians because they try to avoid civilian losses and needless destruction.
It's easy to swipe all that under the carpet though and label it as collateral damage, but in my opinion both sides of this conflict have their fair share of barbarians - they just use different (but still barbaric) methods to achieve their goals.
demagogue on 13/10/2024 at 14:02
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
How much time needs to have passed then? A generation? Two? And then you can say "you no longer belong here?".
The question at hand is if Palestinians belong in Palestine, where no time at all has passed.
As I already posted, the majority of Palestinians have already accepted that Israelis are there for good, just like Native Americans have for white settlers, just like Catholic North Irish have for the Protestants, just like black South Africans have for the white settlers. That's never been the debate. The debate has always been does the population living there at the time of settlement have a right to stay where their great grand parents, much less their parents, were born. And here you or anyway many people taking that line are talking about the greatx80 grandparents of the occupiers to apparently answer "no, they don't because they don't enough connection to the land. Your parents and grandparents may have been born here, but my greatx80 grandparents were born here. So get out." If you step back, that's an insane cognitive dissonance on its face.
Again, Palestinians aren't asking Israelis to leave at this point. Somebody always digs up one anecdotal comment as if it stands for all 5 million Palestinians. Sure, some Apaches would love for whites to suddenly disappear from North America too, and I'm sure you could easily find one to say that. But that's not the relevant question. The question is would Palestinians accept Israelis staying & be in peace if they get citizenship to a state that protects their rights, and on that the super-majority would.
Edit: While we're at it, let's write this out:
My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents were born here.
vs.
I was born here. And my parents and grandparents and great-grandparents.
And if we're talking about when Arabs entered the Levant area, that was already at least 65BCE, which is greatx82 grandparents. So even the "greatx80+ grandparent" connection of the Jewish population to the region is at best on par with the proto-Arabic speaking population.
But anyway again nobody is debating Jewish Israelis leaving. They are there for good. The only debate is if Palestinians have to leave (ethnically cleansed), and if not (since that's one of the highest crimes in int'l criminal law that there is; I don't think Israelis really have the stomach for it, push come to shove), when do they get citizenship to a state already? It's been 80+ years.
Subjective Effect on 13/10/2024 at 15:44
Nobody is debating Jewish Israelis leaving?
What drugs are you on right now?
demagogue on 13/10/2024 at 20:09
It's not a viable solution to the situation. Or you tell me, what is the case for Israeli Jews leaving that we have to debate?
A third way I can put it is, if one's starting point to a political course of action is ethnic cleansing, it's not a serious proposal legitimate enough to even debate. One could try to talk about how Israel's situation is like the French in Algeria, but I don't think that kind of debate is going to go far if you get into any details.
Edit: Also for I guess now the fifth time, the polls show a supermajority of Palestinians want citizenship to a viable state and not for the Jewish population to leave. The other thing to remember is cases like South Africa. People said apartheid in South Africa would never end until one day the entire edifice just crumbled immediately and completely, and at the center of that was protection of the white population in the new state, and once it was clear that the black population was getting equal citizenship, there was no serious debate about removing the white population, despite the exact same fear-mongering by the apartheid government that they argued justified their repressive measures all that time. I think this situation is like that as well. Once the chips are down, there's not really room for many options, and Jews leaving won't be one of them, which maybe people on the ground haven't thought about what they'd think in that situation, but that's what the case studies and polls indicate.
Also, how many Palestinians have you ever actually personally talked to about it?
