Then you're not paying attention.
DarthJon
joined 2 weeks ago
If that were the case then they wouldn’t have forcibly removed the Palestinians from their own lands stripped them of their homes and livelihoods.>
Are you referring to 1948, during the war started by the Arab League to destroy Israel? If the Arabs had accepted partition in 1937 or 1947, there wouldn't have been a war. There would be a Jewish and a Palestinian state coexisting to this day. Zionism is nothing more than the belief in Jewish self-determination in our ancestral homeland. That's it. It does not preclude anyone else's existence or self-determination. That's what defines Palestinian nationalism, not Zionism.
You’re welcome to explain to me why I’m wrong.>
As I said above, Israel didn't start the war that led to the Nakba. The Arab League of Nations did. They lost that war. Twenty years later Egypt declared war again and Israel launched a pre-emptive strike to end it quickly. Six years later Arab countries attacked again, this time on the holiest day in Judaism. Israel won that war too. And now we have the war of 2023-2024, whatever it will be called, which was once again started by Hamas's barbaric invasion and Hezbollah's sympathy attacks from the north. There is a clear pattern in this history, and I didn't even include the Arab violence against Jews that pre-dated 1947.
I hate it because it’s existence comes at the expense of others and they don’t seem to even want to stop.>
Except it doesn't. See my first response above. The Arabs/Palestinians have had many opportunities to pursue peaceful coexistence and have chosen violence every time. That is simply because they refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. There was no Palestinian nationalist movement until Israel was created. It is literally defined by its opposition to Israel's existence.
Here's one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If there was a magical way to eliminate the genocidal threats facing Israel and bring about peace in the Middle East without a single civilian death, Israel would take that option. Israel haters won't accept that because they've been brainwashed to think that Israel is itself a genocidal threat, intent on taking over the Middle East. Which, for many people, is a reflection of some underlying antisemitic sentiments.
such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives> I will be honest, though. I'm not sure how many of them would fit in this category. And that's something I'm struggling with because I used to consider myself fairly left-wing and quite tolerant and respectful of diversity. But I just haven't seen much if anything over the past 100 years to suggest that there is a critical mass of Palestinian people who are interested in peaceful coexistence. Quite the opposite, actually. But I think the coming days and weeks following Sinwar's death will be very telling because this does represent the best opportunity the people of Gaza have since Israel's withdrawal in 2005. Will they choose a different future for themselves, one that focuses on hope and peace? Or will they choose to continue the cycle of violence?
Israel will continue to vaporize whomever steps into their place.
And Hezbollah is getting their asses kicked in Lebanon. Even the IDF is shocked at how quickly they've made progress. There are reports that captured Hezbollah fighters have admitted they lost their will to fight after Nasrallah was killed. Generals fled.
So are the Palestinians.> I didn't say they weren't. That's the difference between the two sides in this conflict. The vast majority of Jews have always been willing to share the land with the Palestinian people, while the anti-Zionists refuse to accept that.
Yes you did.> Really? That's your counterargument, a Wiki reference to the Nakba? You really know nothing about the history, do you?
And were being kept in the worlds largest open air prison.> Blame Hamas. There was a time before Hamas took over Gaza that Israelis and Palestinians freely moved across the border. That changed when Hamas started turning Gaza into a terrorist base.
Listen, you clearly know nothing about Israel and Zionism. You're just blinded by hate and whatever crap you see on TikTok or you learn about from your keffiyeh-wearing college buddies.
LOL, does Israel look weak and vulnerable to you?
Jews are indigenous to the land. Do you know what's underneath the mosques in Israel? Jewish temples and artifacts dating back thousands of years.
And we didn't start any of the violence. None of it. Arabs rejected the presence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and have been trying (and failing) to destroy it for 100 years.
Once again, the Palestinian people have received billions in foreign aid. They are supported by Iran and Qatar, which are two pretty damn wealthy countries.
You clearly know nothing about Zionism. You are making generalizations about a movement and a people based on the behavior of a small number of extremists. Do you know what that's called? Bigotry.
And I hate to disappoint you, but anti-Zionist Jews are a very, very small fringe minority. So when you say, "I don't have a problem with Jews, I have a problem with Zionists," you're basically saying, "I don't have a problem with all Jews, just most of them."
They have basically destroyed Hamas.
They are kicking the crap out of Hezbollah.
The Iranian regime is significantly weakened.
Some of the world's most barbaric terror leaders have been eliminated. Nasrallah is dead. Sinwar is dead.
Remarkable successes. Unfortunately some civilians have paid the price, but that's what happens in war.
I don't disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That's pretty standard in war. But that wasn't what I have in mind when people say things like "Israel is committing war crimes." That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say 'prosecute' rather than 'perpetrate'. My bad.
The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.> That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don't pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let's face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don't think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don't understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn't. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that's it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can't be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it's about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn't do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
Are you Muslim? You seem to be having a very difficult time with the idea of Jewish success.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack. Claiming that Netanyahu intentionally allowed 1200 Israelis to be butchered to so he can justify going to war is some seriously irrational conspiracy shit. That being said, I fully agree that he has handled the war the way he has partly to further his own political agenda. And there was a time when I had serious concerns about it and wondered if Israel was headed down the right path. But given the remarkable successes of the past two months, it looks like it was indeed the right path.
view more: next ›
That's not what I said. I criticized them for expressing a perspective about Israel's motives that are simply wrong. And this is a common attitude about Israel I hear all the time: "The Holocaust doesn't give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way." That's simply not how Israelis think.
I'll admit I haven't read the book myself because I'm not going to give Coates my money, but I have now heard three different interviews about it. One of those interviews was about an hour long on the Ezra Klein podcast. So my impression is based on listening to him discuss Israel in these three different contexts.
Wrong. He witnessed things that he *interpreted *as apartheid based on his own frame of reference and preconceived notions about Israel. The point is, he doesn't have the knowledge of the history and the details - he literally describes seeing things and thinking, "That reminds me of apartheid." For example, he describes having an IDF soldier approach him and ask him questions about his background and how that just feels wrong. Well, those soldiers are trained to do what they do for security purposes because the country has dealt with terrorism for decades.
I totally disagree that Dokoupil came across as "unhinged." No doubt he was trying very hard to suppress his emotions about the book, but he did not get angry or aggressive or anything. I will give Coates credit, however. He does present himself very well. He comes across as very calm and thoughtful.