Whatever else might be argued, this much is true: ...

[Revoltingest]

One side completely genocidingthe other side.

An ex-employee of mine (fundie Christian)
actually advocated that, ie, exterminating
the Palestinians. It's the Bible's way.

IMO they have been fighting so long they do not want anything but the complete and utter unconditional surrender and removal of the other.

Yeah, so it has gone...sort of.
But maybe governments of Israel & USA
will read my posts here, & do as I say.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am Israeli

I have some questions for you if you don't mind.

Are Palestinians living in Gaza free to live in other countries if they have the means to get to somewhere else where they are welcome? Are they free to live in the parts of Israel with a patriotic Jewish majority? I ask because I wonder why they are in Gaza - by choice or otherwise?

Also, do you know whether Palestinians in Gaza are likely to know where these tunnels are when living close to some, and which of their neighbors are in Hamas? I assume that they know which of their fathers, husbands, brother and sons are Hamas, and probably which of their neighbors are as well. Do you know anything about that?

Also, do you know who provided the little bit of humanitarian aid already delivered? My guess is Egypt, since my understanding is that it entered Gaza from Egypt. If so, do you know anything about the rest of the Muslim world trying to help there? We know that Iran is sympathetic to the mission to destroy Israel, and arms and trains terrorists, but do the Iranians express any empathy for the present plight of Palestinian Muslims?

Thanks in advance, and best wishes to you and your family.

 

[Orbit]

Guide for the perplexed: A timeline of Israel and Palestine’s complicated history

 

[Harel13]

Are Palestinians living in Gaza free to live in other countries if they have the means to get to somewhere else where they are welcome?

Yes, as far as I'm aware. But see below what those means are.

Are they free to live in the parts of Israel with a patriotic Jewish majority?

No. Even if the majority wasn't Jewish (I'm not sure what patriotism has to do with this) they still wouldn't be allowed to live there. In other words, Israel would not grant them citizenship or residency.

I ask because I wonder why they are in Gaza - by choice or otherwise?

Presumably some stay by choice. Families supported by Hamas, people who are especially sympathetic to Hamas, etc, as well as people who are simply attached to their homes and don't want to leave. But many others can't leave, the main reason being that since Israel usually (except in extraordinary cases) won't let them leave via the Israeli border, they have to travel via the Egyptian border, and that costs a lot of money, as well as it being difficult to get passes from Hamas who control the border passing. It's also likely that Egypt imposes its own restrictions on immigration. Another option is to try to leave by boat and hope that you aren't caught by Hamas, or by Israel when you reach its territorial waters. Yet another option is to get a work permit in Israel and then not return to Gaza at the end of the day. This is illegal according to Israeli law, but it has been done by quite a few.

Also, do you know whether Palestinians in Gaza are likely to know where these tunnels are when living close to some, and which of their neighbors are in Hamas? I assume that they know which of their fathers, husbands, brother and sons are Hamas, and probably which of their neighbors are as well. Do you know anything about that?

I don't know. I would think that at least some do, since we know that Israeli intelligence makes use of average Gazan informants.

Also, do you know who provided the little bit of humanitarian aid already delivered? My guess is Egypt, since my understanding is that it entered Gaza from Egypt. If so, do you know anything about the rest of the Muslim world trying to help there? We know that Iran is sympathetic to the mission to destroy Israel, and arms and trains terrorists, but do the Iranians express any empathy for the present plight of Palestinian Muslims?

That's an interesting question. I didn't find any information on that various news articles on the topic, though I did see that when the Israel first let trucks in, the US had to get Egypt to agree to open its border, so I guess the supplies aren't from Egypt itself. According to a reporter friend of mine, they come from the Red Cross, the US government, the UN and the EU.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, as far as I'm aware. But see below what those means are.

No. Even if the majority wasn't Jewish (I'm not sure what patriotism has to do with this) they still wouldn't be allowed to live there. In other words, Israel would not grant them citizenship or residency.

Presumably some stay by choice. Families supported by Hamas, people who are especially sympathetic to Hamas, etc, as well as people who are simply attached to their homes and don't want to leave. But many others can't leave, the main reason being that since Israel usually (except in extraordinary cases) won't let them leave via the Israeli border, they have to travel via the Egyptian border, and that costs a lot of money, as well as it being difficult to get passes from Hamas who control the border passing. It's also likely that Egypt imposes its own restrictions on immigration. Another option is to try to leave by boat and hope that you aren't caught by Hamas, or by Israel when you reach its territorial waters. Yet another option is to get a work permit in Israel and then not return to Gaza at the end of the day. This is illegal according to Israeli law, but it has been done by quite a few.

I don't know. I would think that at least some do, since we know that Israeli intelligence makes use of average Gazan informants.


That's an interesting question. I didn't find any information on that various news articles on the topic, though I did see that when the Israel first let trucks in, the US had to get Egypt to agree to open its border, so I guess the supplies aren't from Egypt itself. According to a reporter friend of mine, they come from the Red Cross, the US government, the UN and the EU.

Thanks for all of that. I was trying to get a sense of to what degree the Gazan Palestinians are unwilling victims of circumstance and to what extent they are volunteers who support Hamas' existence and Israel's destruction and who perhaps aid and abet Hamas. I'm wondering why they are close enough to legitimate military targets to be dying from the attacks. Do they not know where Hamas is? Do they know and want to remain by their sides out of family or ideological loyalty?

The reference to patriotism was a reference to the opposite attitude - a love for Israel, which I presume doesn't exist in Gaza anywhere, but might be found among Arabs living where Israeli Jews live.

I saw a Palestinian-American man on the news whose wife and minor children were visiting relatives in Gaza on October 7th, and who can't get out. He wants to join them even it means his death, too. He said that he'd rather die with the ones he loves than live without them. That I understand, but maybe he is also taking an ideological position as well and would like to be in Gaza as a show of solidarity, just like the American Jew I also saw on the news, who is leaving his family to go fight for Israel.

I'm sure it's possible for a Palestinian or a Palestinian-American to not resent Israel and support its destruction, or to strongly and sincerely condemn Hamas, but I suspect it's uncommon. I haven't heard from such people yet. I hear Jews condemning Netanyahu and calling for his immediate removal and the end to hostilities, but are there Arabs calling for Hamas to relent and surrender? There must be, but if so, not loudly enough for me to have heard them.

 

[sun rise]

It seems we're agreeing.
I like this so far.

Sometimes I assume too much. You took my statement as a standalone not in the context of my other statements including the history of the region which included Arab riots in the 1930's when Jews fleeing Hitler came to settle and going through the 1947 attack by all of Israel's neighbors etc, it's hardly fair to blame Israel for Hamas's abominable and unjustifiable atrocities. If you want to assign blame, then blame the Arabs for Israel's current policies.

Personally assigning such blame is overly simplistic at best. If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan, Israel would look like this today

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes I assume too much. You took my statement as a standalone not in the context of my other statements including the history of the region which included Arab riots in the 1930's when Jews fleeing Hitler came to settle and going through the 1947 attack by all of Israel's neighbors etc, it's hardly fair to blame Israel for Hamas's abominable and unjustifiable atrocities. If you want to assign blame, then blame the Arabs for Israel's current policies.

Blame is your focus not mine.
I prefer to assign responsibility for solving the conflict.
But you don't address Israel's founding being based
upon terrorism, murder, exile, & thievery of land.

Personally assigning such blame is overly simplistic at best. If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan, Israel would look like this today

And now you blame Arabs in attempt to deflect from
Israel's deadly brutality towards Palestinians.
Nothing....absolutely nothing in history justifies that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that it is any exageration to say that a major reason why this conflict has been so difficult to deal with is significant and genuine confusion and misunderstandings. Quite possibly from the Arab side, but definitely and perhaps mostly from non-Arabs.

At the very least, I find myself worried about how hard it is to understand their goals and motivations. Often enough I fear that I may actually have understood those well enough. That would be awful if true.

It is conceivable, and appears to be reasonably well supported by some circunstantial evidence, that one source of that confusion may be in the idea of a Palestinian nation itself. Many non-Arabs will find it natural enough at least in the abstract, but perhaps it isn't.

So far the evidence that I am aware of strongly suggests that there may well never even much of an idea of a Palestinian Nation before Yasser Arafat began to promote it. It is possible and perhaps very likely that even the purpose and role of that hypothetical country is not a pacified consensus, but rather a strong source of conflict in and of itself.

Let's consider:

• The 1948 conflict was unusual in that it involved many Arabs with no claim whatsoever of ever having lived in the region coming from very far abroad. It is all but unavoidable to conclude that it can't be described as a revolt against an invader, but rather as an expression of some combination of solidarity for the Arabs in the general region and hatred for the idea of a Jewish State there.
• Pakistan was created as a State separate from India almost at the same time as Israel, with what seems at first glance to be a similar and comparable mission. Word has it that it was hoped that it would be a place ruled by Muslims but receptive for all. I don't think that plan survived very long. And of course, it Bangladesh split from it in 1971. Both of those events were remarkably difficult and belligerent.
• The Muslim world has a long tradition of caring about family ties, tribes and possession of land far more than about Nations as such. The modern concept of Nation, flawed as it is, is a fairly recent concept; far more recent than Islam.
• It is probably significant that there is a whole lot more talk about Israel's supposed duty towards the well-being of the Arabs in the region than of any duty or even organized initiative from the established neighbor Arab countries. Israel does not control the gate between Egypt and Gaza, for instance. Syria, Lebanon and particularly Jordan were enthusiastic in sending armies to try and destroy Israel back in 1948, but they don't seem to be trying very hard to offer hospitality or non-military help for the West Bank either. I hope I am wrong and welcome and indications of evidence to the contrary.
• Yasser Arafat, whose contributions to the world are mixed at best, has been decisive to the very idea support to a Palestinian State as such - and was heavily criticized from all sides for that.
• Many people criticize Israel for supposedly "stealing land from the Palestinians", but the rebuttals from Israelis are emphatic and well supported by evidence.

The bottom line is that while I would love to believe that establishing a Palestinian State would lead to peace, it is far from clear that the Arabs even want or would respect such an idea. That was arguably attempted in various forms 1947, 1993-1994, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2020 to little result beyond insults, accusations and armed hostility from the Arabs.

I'm sure that there are many arguable reasons why those attempts where rejected. Some of those may be very legitimate and convincing, even. But at this point I stand very unconvinced.

If I had to guess (I will try to anyhow), local Arabs don't fully grasp what those proposals were supposed to mean or open the way for, and largely don't much care. They are just behaving the same way they ever did, accusing Israel of disrespect no matter what, complaining that they do not receive more land and prestige, and acting quite carelessly with their own safety, present and future because their pride and desire to be perceived as intransigent defenders of the rights of Muslims over Jerusalem overrules those concerns.

I dearly hope that I am entirely wrong and holding an unfair opinion. I am not holding any breath.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I had to guess (I will try to anyhow), local Arabs don't fully grasp what those proposals were supposed to mean or open the way for, and largely don't much care. They are just behaving the same way they ever did, accusing Israel of disrespect no matter what, complaining that they do not receive more land and prestige, and acting quite carelessly with their own safety, present and future because their pride and desire to be perceived as intransigent defenders of the rights of Muslims over Jerusalem overrules those concerns.

I find that overview to be disturbingly uninformed and demeaning.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find that overview to be disturbingly uninformed and demeaning.

You do?

By all means, show me why.

As I said at least twice in the post itself, I dearly hope I am wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By all means, show me why.

You're asking me to debate your "guess" that local Arabs -- presumably all of them -- "don't grasp" and "largely don't care," but are simply being petulant. Seriously?

 

[LuisDantas]

You're asking me to debate your "guess" that local Arabs -- presumably all of them -- "don't grasp" and "largely don't care," but are simply being petulant. Seriously?

Not petulant as such. Fanatical, perhaps apathetic to some measure. They may very literally never have learned better.

But that is something of a side point. The main point is that while we may have certain expectations tied to the idea of a Palestinian State, it is not clear that the Arabs have any sort of similar expectations. Possibly because their loyalties are still largely to tribes and they see this talk of States as an innovation from the kuffar?

Once more, I look forward to evidence and even indications that I may be misreading it. I _am_ definitely having a hard time understanding the Arabs from Gaza.

At the very least, I hope that you realize that there is some challenge in attempting to put hope into the two-state solution when we have seen so much rejection of so many versions of it from the Arab side.

 

[idea]

FYI, where the lines are being drawn.

120 votes in favor, 14 against and 45 abstentions - humanitarian truce in Israel-Gaza war

UNGA urges humanitarian truce in Gaza: How did your country vote?

The resolution passed with 120 votes in favour, 14 against and 45 abstentions.

www.aljazeera.com

For (120):
A: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan
B: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
C: Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba
D: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic
E: Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea
F: France
G: Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana
H: Honduras
I: Indonesia, Iran, Ireland
J: Jordan
K: Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan
L: Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg
M: Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar
N: Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway
O: Oman
P: Pakistan, Peru, Portugal
Q: Qatar
R: Russia
S: Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria
T: Tajikistan, Thailand, East Timor, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey
U: Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan
V: Vietnam
Y: Yemen
Z: Zimbabwe

Against (14):
A: Austria
C: Croatia, Czechia
F: Fiji
G: Guatemala
H: Hungary
I: Israel
M: Marshall Islands, Micronesia
N: Nauru
P: Papua New Guinea, Paraguay
T: Tonga
U: United States


Israel will be alone soon. It is a PR battle, and the PR side of it is not being fought well.
Turn the other cheek - reach out with love, would have been a much better long-term strategy.

I talked with my kids the other day - for all the animal species, how many carnivores? How many herbivores? Omnivores? Herbivores have won the evolutionary battle - peaceful existence has for the most part won. For all life - plants win over animals, plants sustain themselves by producing oxygen - peaceful solutions win, turning the other cheek, finding ways to live together wins.

Everyone has their own problems. Everyone's resources are stretched thin. A lesson for everyone - don't let things fester, talk it out, love-bombs work better than bombs....

A long long time ago, the alpha of the herd gained their position through brute strength. If another in the herd became stronger, brute strength would choose a new leader..... Then, a few members of the herd learned to communicate with one another, learned that 2 could overtake 1 if they just worked together. Communication changed everything, it was no longer about brute strength, instead communication, a popularity contest I suppose. It's now a PR battle. Whoever appears the most kind, the most loving, the most forgiving - that is who wins now. It's only ok to be smart/rich if you reach down and help others up. Selfless wins above brains.

Communication blackout - doesn't work. The imagination tends to conjure worse images than reality when left to itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

FYI, where the lines are being drawn.

120 votes in favor, 14 against and 45 abstentions - humanitarian truce in Israel-Gaza war

UNGA urges humanitarian truce in Gaza: How did your country vote?

The resolution passed with 120 votes in favour, 14 against and 45 abstentions.

www.aljazeera.com

For (120):
A: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan
B: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
C: Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba
D: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic
E: Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea
F: France
G: Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana
H: Honduras
I: Indonesia, Iran, Ireland
J: Jordan
K: Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan
L: Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg
M: Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar
N: Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway
O: Oman
P: Pakistan, Peru, Portugal
Q: Qatar
R: Russia
S: Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria
T: Tajikistan, Thailand, East Timor, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey
U: Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan
V: Vietnam
Y: Yemen
Z: Zimbabwe

Against (14):
A: Austria
C: Croatia, Czechia
F: Fiji
G: Guatemala
H: Hungary
I: Israel
M: Marshall Islands, Micronesia
N: Nauru
P: Papua New Guinea, Paraguay
T: Tonga
U: United States


Israel will be alone soon. It is a PR battle, and the PR side of it is not being fought well.
Turn the other cheek - reach out with love, would have been a much better long-term strategy.

I talked with my kids the other day - for all the animal species, how many carnivores? How many herbivores? Omnivores? Herbivores have won the evolutionary battle - peaceful existence has for the most part won. For all life - plants win over animals, plants sustain themselves by producing oxygen - peaceful solutions win, turning the other cheek, finding ways to live together wins.

Funny that China, Iran, & Russia are making USA & Canuckistan look bad.

 

[idea]

Funny that China, Iran, & Russia are making USA & Canuckistan look bad.

The situation at the Russian airport was quite... wow. Jewish people are once again leaving a few countries. There are a few WW2 feelings going around for sure.

 

[idea]

History:

Before the modern state of Israel there was the British mandate.
Before the British mandate there was the ottoman empire.
Before the ottoman empire there was the Islamic mamluk sultanate of Egypt.
Before the Islamic mamluk sultanate of Egypt there was the ayyubid dynasty (Godfrey of bouillon conquered it in 1099)
Before the ayyubid dynasty there was the christian kingdom of Jerusalem
Before the christian kingdom of Jerusalem there was the Fatimid caliphate
Before the Fatimid caliphate there was the byzantine empire.
Before the byzantine empire there was the Roman empire.
Before the Roman empire there was the hasmonean dynasty.
Before the hasmonean dynasty there was the Seleucid empire.
Before the Seleucid empire there was the empire of Alexander the 3rd of Macedon.
Before the empire of Alexander the 3rd of Macedon there was the Persian empire.
Before the Persian empire there was the Babylonian empire.
Before the Babylonian empire there was the kingdoms of Israel and Judea.
Before the kingdoms of Israel and Judea there was the kingdom of Israel.
Before the kingdom of Israel there was the theocracy of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Before the theocracy of the 12 tribes of Israel there was the individual state of Canaan.

Territorial evolution of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

November 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, announcing its intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine.

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This seems important to study:

From comments - the British invented the name Palestine. Prior to the British involvement, the region was known as Syria and the people were called the Sanjak of Jerusalem as decreed by the Ottoman Empire. ... . Jordan. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, and the Saudis - various groups with differing goals, many hated each other.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Before the theocracy of the 12 tribes of Israel there was the individual state of Canaan.

"state of Canaan"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From comments - the British invented the name Palestine

From Wikipedia > Palestine (region):

The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for the neighboring people or land. In the 8th century BCE, the Assyrians referred to the region as Palashtu or Pilistu. In the Hellenistic period, these names were carried over into Greek, appearing in the Histories of Herodotus as Palaistine. In 6 CE, the Roman Empire established a province over the area known as Judaea, then in 132 CE (the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt) formed it into Syria Palaestina.[1] In 390, during the Byzantine period, the region was split into the provinces of Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, and Palaestina Tertia.​

 

[Revoltingest]

November 1917, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, announcing its intention to facilitate the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine.

This is 10 wolves & one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

[Little Dragon]

The hamas attack was a war crime, the Israeli response is also a war crime. Two wrongs don't make a right.

A cure was suggested many years ago by the now deceased master of creative thinking Edward De Bono.

He was asked how to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict , his answer was send them Marmite (for those who don't know, marmite is a yeast extract spread)

The logic... A lack of zinc makes men irritable and belligerent. You get zinc in yeast, which is fine for your average lover of Mother's Pride bread. But in the Middle East, the bread is unleavened. Ergo, the great man says, Marmite is the answer to easing the way to peace.

His solution was not acted on

Interesting. I don't eat bread at all or marmite. I might check out the zinc supplements next time I am in my pharmacy/drugstore. Maybe I could use some zinc.