this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
14 points (93.8% liked)
Politics
10192 readers
102 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I give you a report documenting how Israel performed "massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians" and you're response is to say the article cites no examples of mistreatment of Arabs in Israel? I tell you how officials have described Palestine as the largest open air prison and you dismiss it as hyperbole?
I had a feeling you were some kind troll but was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. This comment of yours just confirmed my suspicions. I'm not going to bother talking with you any more as it's clear you are completely determined to wash over the sins of a government and that you have absolutely zero morals or ethics. Anybody reading this thread will be able to see just how wrong you are and how pointless it is to talk to someone like you, or even respect you.
You linked to an article which I looked at. It in turn linked to a 128 page report which I did not read because it does not have a Gaza section - and Gazan conditions leading up to Oct 7 was what you were responding to. I didn't have time today to read the whole thing just in case.
Gaza was not anything like an "open air prison" until 2007 when Egypt closed the Southern Border shortly after Hamas took over: that was not Israel's fault. Water supply issues in Gaza are caused by Hamas who boasted in a 2021 propaganda video showing themselves digging up water pipes to turn them into missiles. From 2014 to 2020, U.N. agencies spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza which could have been used to build civilian infrastructure but Hamas preferred to spend it militarily on its stated goal of ethnic cleansing of Jews "from the river to the sea".
The article. Not the report.
In Israel is was what you were meant to be responding to. There are plenty of Palestinians with citizenship in Israel. I think the West Bank settlement expansion is unjust but that is not the topic here.
Nope I was trying to stick to the topic of BBC going against their own government's designation of Hamas as terrorists. You would rather talk about wider issues, so...
Both sides are "losing the war": Back in December there was a great prescient article criticising Israel and a companion article criticising Hamas.
Very few ProPals seem to do balance whereas plenty of people who try to understand Israel's difficulty (in avoiding being wiped out by Hamas) do criticise Israel.
Netanyahu's Likud party only won 11% of the vote and it took 5 attempts at a working coalition for them to resume power in the last election. There were two arrest warrants against him for corruption and over 100,000 citizens protested against the government changing the law to allow them to override their equivalent of a constitution.
It's quite clear you purposefully do not read a lot of anything. The section you say is missing regarding Gaza is literally in the table of contents:
Since you seem to neglect to do a lot of reading, OPT = Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Like I said, a sad little troll with no moral qualms or ethical standpoint.
Gaza was not occupied prior to the terrorist attacks of October 7th.
Then why does Amnesty International label it as such?
It is odd, isn't it?
You tell me. You're the one contradicting them.
Israel forcefully removed all of their settlers from Gaza in 2005. They essentially ethnically cleansed themselves. There were no IDF soldiers on Gazan soil and the administration of the strip was entirely in the hands of Hamas from that point onward. Under no definition of the word occupation was the strip occupied after 2005.
In 2005, 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four Israeli settlements in the West Bank were unilaterally dismantled.[1] Israeli settlers and army evacuated from inside the Gaza Strip, redeploying its military along the border.[2] The disengagement was conducted unilaterally by Israel, in particular, Israel rejected any coordination or orderly hand-over to the Palestinian Authority.[3] Despite the disengagement, the Gaza Strip is still considered to be occupied under international law.
Source
Notice how this particular sentence is not sourced and how there is an entire section in the article further down explaining just how controversial it is to call the area occupied.
Can you explain to me, in your own words, how not having any boots on the ground amounts to occupation under international law? If you're trying to make the case that the border controls and wall were occupation, then I would like to preemptively remind you that 1) border controls are not occupation, but the right of any sovereign nation and 2) those were a direct reaction to a series of terrorist attacks, including stabbings, shootings and suicide bombings, as well as numerous rocket attacks. Nobody would deny a nation the right to enact measures that prohibit those from occurring on their soil against their citizens. If anything, October 7th showed that this often criticized wall wasn't even remotely sufficient to counter the threat terrorists from the strip posed against Israel.
I don't need to explain it in my words since more qualified people did a much better job explaining it and I have yet to see any kind of fact, source, or piece of information which would lead me to believe the above is incorrect.
You might perceive this as annoying, but can't you see that I'm trying to get something more out of you, that I'm trying to encourage you to be at least a tiny bit intellectually curious, to think about this just a little bit? Hell, I would be ecstatic to sense anything resembling uncertainty from you. I might not always be showing it, but I am always second-guessing myself, am never even remotely certain about how I'm seeing the world. I am engaging in these discussions, because I want to both challenge and be challenged, but I've been mostly disappointed. There's nothing I crave more than a good discourse, a proper exchange of words and ideas. Civil, but not to the point that genuinely valuable opinions are being held back.
As a last attempt to get anything resembling a proper opinion based on your own thoughts instead of that of others out of you: Can you name any other occupation similar to this alleged one? Have you ever thought about finding comparable occupations? I've tried finding one that comes close or is even remotely similar, but haven't been able to.
The often cited South African Apartheid really doesn't compare, because there are Palestinian citizens living in Israel with, at least on paper, full rights (and minus one obligation - they don't have to serve in the IDF, but can voluntarily sign up, which a couple thousand are doing every year, more so after October 7th). There's even a Palestinian supreme court justice. If there was actual Apartheid, then this wouldn't be the case. In practice, Israeli Arabs are similarly discriminated against as people of color in countries like the US, but nothing in Israel comes close to what South Africa did to its Black citizens or what Jim Crow laws did in America. Feel free to pick this opinion of mine apart though (but please, with your own words for once - if I wanted to read Wikipedia articles, I would do this myself).
You can at least clearly see the difference between Gaza and the West Bank, right? In the West Bank, there's an agreement with the ruling Fatah for Israel to assist in security matters, although in reality, the relationship is more that of a vassal proto-state that is too weak to both secure its own territory without being overthrown and meaningfully resist Israeli military supremacy after having lost against it multiple times in the past. Israeli soldiers and police officers are routinely carrying out raids against terrorists together with members of Fatah security forces. They are also setting up road blocks, impairing the movement of the Palestinians living there not just at the borders to Israel, but within the territory as well (seemingly randomly and often to a paralyzing degree - I've read reports of pregnant Palestinian women failing to get to hospitals in time, for example), etc. There are settlers in parts of the West Bank trying to expand their territory, often using violence and with help or at least tolerated by the IDF and Israeli police (and they are further emboldened since the start of the war). This is more or less (save for some contradictory peculiarities, like the Fatah's controversial martyr's fund) what a "normal" occupation looks like and has always looked like even going as far back as antiquity, down to getting rulers from the local population to do some of the dirty work for you. None of this applied to Gaza before this war - but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how Gaza might be governed and ruled after the defeat of Hamas, except with a likely even stricter security regime.
Meanwhile, another territory actually occupied by Israel, the Golan Heights, is effectively administered like any other part of Israel's internationally recognized territory, with all Israeli laws applying to it since 1981. Locals there, including non-Jews like the Druze, are citizens of Israel, very much unlike Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. This is the kind of occupation that is labelled as such according to international law, because most nations outside of Israel don't recognize it as actual Israeli territory. Israel annexed it for purely strategic reasons from Syria (making it arguably a cause separate from the Palestinian one), since otherwise, its heartland would be extremely vulnerable to artillery and other attacks from this area. It's one of those cases where one can simultaneously acknowledge the clearly illegal nature of this occupation/annexation, while at the same time admitting that this tiny nation with extremely disadvantageous borders and lots of hostile neighbors can't really afford not to hold onto this small piece of extremely strategically valuable mountainous terrain. It's definitely a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation, far from the only one Israel has faced and is facing. Once again though, this is completely different from Gaza.
Maybe I overlooked something totally obvious (wouldn't be the first time), so I invite you to try and find a state acting similar to how Israel did towards Gaza and this being labeled as occupation. Alternatively, you can just ignore this lengthy diatribe and we go our separate ways without continuing this conversation. It's entirely up to you.