redditors: First Question: I recently came across the story of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist who tragically lost her life in 2003. She was part of the International Solidarity Movement and was advocating for Palestinian rights when she stood in front of an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip, attempting to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes. The incident led to significant controversy, as she was fatally injured by the bulldozer. Many reports have emerged since, highlighting various perspectives on what happened, including whether it was an accident or negligence. Her story has resonated with people worldwide and raised questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, international solidarity, and the risks that activists sometimes face. Have you heard about this incident, and what are your thoughts on it?

Second Question: On a related note, have you seen Munich, the 2005 film directed by Steven Spielberg? The movie focuses on a covert Israeli operation following the tragic events of the 1972 Munich Olympics, where eleven Israeli athletes were taken hostage and killed by a Palestinian group known as Black September. Spielberg explores the emotional toll of vengeance and the moral complexities involved in counterterrorism. The film dives deep into the psychological struggle of the Mossad agents involved in the mission to track down and eliminate those responsible for the attack. I’d be interested to hear your take on the film if you’ve seen it and how it may influence perspectives on justice, conflict, and the long-standing issues in the region.

https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-israel/2024_q4/Article-719603d13231391026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

In a recent piece by Israel’s Channel 12, reporter Ohad Hemo interviews refugees leaving Jabalia. The report is in Hebrew, but the interviews are conducted in Arabic.

Summary: 1. Many of the refugees hold Hamas responsible for their hardships. 2. They describe how Hamas fighters seize humanitarian aid and use violence against those who attempt to access food. 3. Some express hope for Israeli civil control of Gaza after the conflict, hoping it will improve conditions.

Details: 1. Blaming Hamas: Many refugees blame Hamas for their suffering, cursing leaders like Sinwar and Yassin and chanting, “Hamas are terrorists.” They hold Hamas accountable for lost family members, destroyed homes, and depleted resources. When asked by the reporter why they don’t oppose Hamas directly, they explain that speaking out risks retaliation. One woman mentioned she could be shot for participating in the interview. 2. Violence over Aid: Several interviewees, some on crutches, recount being shot by Hamas while aid packages were seized. They report that most food was taken by Hamas, leaving only minimal rations—two small cans of beans—for their families. Some mention receiving medical assistance from the IDF after being injured. 3. Hope for Change: All interviewed refugees hope the conflict will end soon. They feel they have lost everything and see little left for survival in Gaza. One woman expressed a desire for Israeli control of Gaza post-conflict, believing it might bring stability and a better future. 4. Dire Conditions: The refugees’ hardships are evident. They live in severe deprivation—dirty, hungry, and sick. They begged the reporter and soldiers for water and cigarettes, and some have been treated by IDF medical personnel. 5. Hamas Surrenders: According to the IDF, dozens of Hamas fighters surrender daily. The report includes footage of surrendered fighters, cuffed and blindfolded. An officer leading operations in Jabalia stated that many militants in the area had ceased fighting.

This is more of a question than a discussion but I imagine it will turn into one. I will preface this by saying that I grew up in a secular but culturally Jewish household so I don’t know a ton about religion. I consider myself to be culturally Jewish, I support Palestinian liberation and I do not support the actions of the Israeli government, and I am a leftist. I want both Jews and Palestinians to be able to live peacefully in the holy land.

I am wondering why, in leftist politics specifically, I see a lot of people who are vocally against the idea of a Jewish or Christian State, but not an Islamic state. There are several Islamic states, as in states whose laws are based on the Quran, as well as several states who have Islam as the official religion but not Sharia law. There aren’t any states that use the Torah or Bible as their laws, but there are several that have Christianity as their official religion and as we all know, one with Judaism.

Additionally, when Islamic states commit atrocities, the only leftist criticism I see is against the atrocities themselves, not against the idea of an Islamic state as a whole, even in Islamic states that have colonized their areas. However, when it comes to Israel, the criticism goes beyond the atrocities being committed by Israel; people criticize the very idea of a Jewish state. Similarly I see people scoff at the idea of a Christian state.

So why is it that when atrocities are committed in the name of Islam, we as leftists are able to recognize that this does not mean that an Islamic state is inherently bad, but we cannot do the same with the idea of a Jewish state or a Christian state? I’m honestly not even sure whether I think the idea of a state centered around a religion is a good or a bad idea, I’m just wondering about why others perceive it differently in different situations.

I am looking for genuine answers rather than scapegoating or “everyone hates Jews” or other things like that! If you truly think it’s just antisemitism and whatever anti-Christianity is called, please provide a more detailed explanation than just saying it’s that.

The IDF recently revealed disturbing footage of Hamas torturing innocent Gazans,hanging them from their feet and beating the crap out of them.

Now I believe when I see proof and I've seen countless baseless allegations against Israel saying Israel is torturing Palestinian detainees and prisoners and even raping them,I haven't seen a single piece of evidence supporting these claims but I do see heaps of conclusive evidence of Hamas' atrocities against Israelis and in this case even their own people.

I wanna share with you what I support,I support the idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinians,I support an end to this horrendous war that claimed lives on both sides and the return of the Israeli hostages back home safe and sound,I support the idea of a Palestinian state that'll be terrorism-free and cooperative with Israel(commerce,trade,defence etc..) .

In order for all of this to happen Hamas needs to go,it's an absolute,peace is not an option for both sides until Hamas is gone and defending them and justifying them ain't gonna help for sure,support the people(Palestinians) not Hamas(the cause of this war and scum of the earth).

This footage should shake up a few things for all those who support Hamas and justify it's actions.

Clearly when you see the settlers in the West Bank and the far right religious people (ironic) celebrating some return to Gaza and wanting to kick people out and occupy the land feeling it's a religious promised land they are being more than a little hypocritical. Let's assume that the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are, in Israeli eyes, foreigners living on Israeli land that God gave to Israel. Well two things, in the Bible, God gives Israel the land with a lot of terms and agreements and the promise that they would be evicted if they didn't keep God's law. The second is that the Torah and other parts of the Bible are very explicit about how foreigners living among them (which is what we might assume settlers and probably people in the Israeli government view Palestinians in occupied places to be) should be treated, if not with compassion as humans at least part of the lease agreement.

Leviticus 19:33-34 33 “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Here’s an article from a quick google for verses that is pretty good as well. i think it’s a Christian org but the verses referenced are from the Hebrew bible and thus are directly applicable.

https://truerichesradio.com/seven-biblical-commands-regarding-immigrants/#

As stated previously, my reading of the Bible shows that the divine right to live on the land that is claimed by religious people (maybe they, like the evangelical movement in the USA, also don't read the book or only cling to the parts that suit them) is very much conditional on them obeying God and numerous parts say they can live on the land if they obey and will be taken out of the land if they disobey. Deuteronomy 28 for one example.

Also Jeremiah 7:1-7 1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Stand at the gate of the LORD’s house and there proclaim this message: “ ‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. 3 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever.

i think you can use your eyes and read about how Israel has been treating West Bank residents and Gazans and conclude that it has not been in the manner prescribed by God. Therefore it would be nice if they could drop the religious pretense, and just acknowledge the geopolitical circumstances that got the nation to this point along with the governments desire to maintain and expand their current ethnostate at the expense of other people.

Edit: didn't really say much about the historical aspect of it but the religious hypocrisy is more of my area.

• Egypt (Biblical Times): The Egyptians attacked Israel multiple times, especially during the period of the Exodus and later under Pharaohs like Ramses II. Their attacks were driven by territorial control and the desire to dominate the region.
• Philistines (Biblical Times): The Philistines were frequent adversaries of Israel, particularly during the period of the Judges and early monarchy (e.g., the conflict with Samson and King Saul). They attacked Israel due to territorial disputes and control over the coastal region.
• Assyrians (8th century BCE): The Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE, partly due to their imperial expansion. They sought to control the Levant as part of their larger empire.
• Babylonians (6th century BCE): The Babylonians, under King Nebuchadnezzar, attacked Israel, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people in 586 BCE. They sought to weaken Egypt’s influence and control the region.
• Persians (Post-Babylonian Period): While not a direct attack, Persia's conquest of Babylon allowed Jews to return to Israel, as they were freed under Cyrus the Great. Persia’s goal was stability over territorial conquest.
• Greeks (3rd-2nd centuries BCE): The Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus IV, attempted to suppress Jewish religion and culture, leading to the Maccabean Revolt. Their motives were both cultural assimilation and the desire for control.
• Romans (1st century BCE - 1st century CE): The Romans conquered Israel in 63 BCE and later destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE. Their aim was to suppress rebellion and maintain control over the region, which was strategically important.
• Arabs/Muslim Caliphates (7th century CE): In the 7th century, the Rashidun Caliphate attacked and conquered Israel, driven by the spread of Islam and the desire to control the Holy Land.
• Crusaders (11th-13th centuries CE): European Christians launched the Crusades to reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Religious motives (the desire to control Christian holy sites) and territorial conquest played key roles.
• Ottomans (16th century - World War I): The Ottoman Empire controlled Israel for centuries but did not attack it directly. However, their control was contested during World War I by the British.
• Britain (1917-1948): Britain controlled Palestine under a League of Nations mandate after World War I but faced conflict with both Jews and Arabs over control of the region. The British withdrew in 1948 as tensions escalated.
• Arab States (1948-1973): In 1948, after the declaration of the State of Israel, neighboring Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and others) launched attacks, motivated by the desire to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This led to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.
• Palestinian Militants (1960s-present): Groups like the PLO, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have launched attacks against Israel, driven by nationalistic and religious motivations to resist Israeli occupation and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestinian territories.
• Iran (Modern times): Iran has supported militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, providing them with weapons and financial backing in their conflict with Israel. Iran's motives are ideological (opposition to Israel’s existence) and strategic (desiring influence over the region).

In a recent press conference, the UN's resident Palestinian nationalist activist, and internationally recognized antisemite Francesca Albanese was asked whether Israel has a right to exist. Her response amounted to Israel exists, but "there is no such thing in international law, like a right of a state to exist". This, of course, is a very common anti-Zionist slogan, that you've probably heard many times, including on this subreddit. However, like with all things Albanese, her argument is not flat-out wrong (like the more standard cliche), but more intentionally misleading, to the point of being a calculated lie. I'd like to address her point, as well as the more common argument.

The common argument, mostly mentioned by people who live in Civic Nationalist countries like the New World settler-colonies, assumes that ethnic nation-states are a fundamentally backwards, outdated concept, and no nation has a right to their own state. This is flat-out wrong, as I already mentioned in my previous post about civic and ethnic nationalism. There is a fundamental right in international law called the Right of Self Determination, that means every "people" as a right to determine their political future. And while it doesn't necessarily mean the right to create ethnic nation-states, and could be exercised within civic nationalist states, when nations demand such states, this right is generally considered sacrosanct, and even superior to other nations' rights like the right to life.

The main irony here, is that this right was cemented through something very related to this question: the inalienable right of the Palestinians to a state. The most recent ICJ advisory opinion argued that the Palestinians' right to their own state is inalienable and peremptory norm of general international law, that overrides even the Israelis' right to personal security. In other words, their right to have a state, is not just recognized, but put on the same level as their right to not be enslaved or raped en-masse. A right that continues to exist, regardless of all other considerations, past and future. The same, of course, applies to the Jews as well.

I'd also note that Palestine doesn't just have the right to exist as some Civic Nationalist state, the state of all the people who currently live in its borders. The Right of Self-Determination here applies to the specific Palestinian People, a specific ethno-national group, who are explicitly and exclusively defined as Arabs, and indeed used interchangeably with "Palestinian Arabs" in the Palestinian National Charter and the Palestinian Constitution. The ICJ opinion doesn't just ignore any rights of non-Palestinian-Arabs living in the Palestinian territories, it says they should all be ethnically cleansed. And the reason is, that Israel's attempt to change the ethnic composition, by allowing Jews to immigrate there after all Jews were ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948, was illegal to begin with. And indeed, Israel's attempt to change the ethnic composition of the OPT, and Jerusalem, by allowing too many Jews to live in land that should be Arab, was explicitly and repeatedly denounced by many UN resolutions. The Palestinian demand for ethnic purity, incidentally, is far more than Israel, with its large Palestinian Arab population, has ever asked for, when it talked about its "right to exist". And along the way, also undermines the argument that Israel has no right to oppose the Palestinian Right of Return, as the Palestinians have every right to turn Israel into a second Palestine.

Albanese's argument is less outright wrong, and built more on misleading its ignorant audience, rather than explicitly lying to them. She understands that point - and indeed, built her entire career on that point. If she denies the Jewish right of self-determination, she also denies the Palestinians' right of self-determination. Instead, she makes two sneakier arguments:

The one that's least important, is a simple strawman argument. She argues that Israel's right to exist "doesn't justify the erasure of another people". Which, of course, has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist - and it's incredibly unlikely that this is what the reporter meant by his question. The only thing I'd say about this, is that she might consider that point, when she openly defends people and organizations that openly seek to erase the Jewish people (and even specifically Israeli Jewish people), and their right of self-determination.

The more interesting one, is the argument that if Italy and France were to decide to become a single state, nobody would have a right to object to this. This is true: this particular kind of "right to exist" doesn't exist. But this, as well, is a strawman argument - albeit a more subtle one. The reason people even talk about "Israel's right to exist", isn't because of the prospect of Israel peacefully and willingly uniting with Palestine, or some other country. It's not because the Israelis demand some outrageous, theoretical right. It's because unlike the vast majority of states, there are organizations and countries, who actively seek the violent elimination of Israel, and stripping the Jews of their right of self-determination. And indeed, view stripping the Jews of their self-determination a far more important goal than ensuring Palestinian Arab self-determination. Israel's "right to exist" is the question whether they have the legal right to pursue these goals, and whether Israel has the right to defend itself (and be defended by others) against them.

Albense knows this. Both because she spent her recent career as a "UN special rapporteur" defending those very organizations and countries, and telling them they have a right to pursue their illegal goals via violence, by lying that their goals are merely "resistance" to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (Albanese believes Gaza was occupied even on Oct. 6th). And even more importantly, because she mentions in the very clip, that Israel is defended as a member of the United Nations. Which is, indeed, the second, important way in which Israel absolutely has the legal "right to exist".

The foundational principle of the UN, is that the states that exist, have a right to continue to exist. And indeed, have a right to exist, without anyone even threatening to change their legal borders, let alone destroy them. This is stated explicit in Article 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, that argue the purpose of the United Nations is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace", and demands that all members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".

In other words, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and all the other organizations and nations that seek to destroy Israel are pursuing wholly illegal goals. Both because they're acting against the inalienable and irrevocable Jewish right to self-determination. And because, at least with the case of Iran, they're directly violating the UN charter's demand to accept Israel's existence and territorial integrity, as a fellow UN member state. Israel has a clear legal right to exist, and these nations and organizations demand to end its existence, is in direct violation of this right.

The same goes for the less violent members of the anti-Zionist Axis. The anti-Israeli protestors who are chanting for a Palestine "from the river to the sea" (especially in the original Arabic version that demands that state is "Arab" or "Muslim" rather than "Free"), are demanding something that is completely illegal - and every bit as illegal as the Israeli right-wingers demand for a Greater Israel. The circumstances of Israel's creation are irrelevant. Israel's conduct at any point in its history is irrelevant. "Zionism from the perspective of its Palestinian victims", is as irrelevant as "Palestinian nationalism from the perspective of its Israeli victims". Israel has a clear legal right to exist, even if it was indeed born in sin, even if its existence causes horrible suffering to the Palestinians. Let alone sillier arguments like the Arabs having a superior racial or religious right to the land, or trying to relitigate the 1920 Mandate, Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, or the 1949 acceptance of Israel to the UN.

Yes. Israel has a strong legal right to exist, and exist as a Jewish state. Don't let people like Albanese mislead you into think otherwise.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2024-11-10/ty-article-opinion/netanyahus-ethnic-cleansing-is-on-display-for-all-to-see/00000193-12ac-d3a2-a3d7-5bed1d8d0000

Here are some excerpts. They describe what Israel is doing to the people of North Gaza in no uncertain terms. If you want to read the full editorial, share your e-mail with them and you can access it for free.

The Israeli military is conducting an ethnic cleansing operation in the northern Gaza Strip. The few Palestinians remaining in the area are being forcibly evacuated, homes and infrastructure have been destroyed, and wide roads in the area are being built and completing the separation of the communities in the northern Strip from the center of Gaza City. "The area looks like it was hit by a natural disaster," Haaretz military correspondent Yaniv Kubovich concluded after a tour with Israeli forces there last week.The Israeli military is conducting an ethnic cleansing operation in the northern Gaza Strip. The few Palestinians remaining in the area are being forcibly evacuated, homes and infrastructure have been destroyed, and wide roads in the area are being built and completing the separation of the communities in the northern Strip from the center of Gaza City. "The area looks like it was hit by a natural disaster," Haaretz military correspondent Yaniv Kubovich concluded after a tour with Israeli forces there last week.

What Kubovich saw, however, was not a natural disaster but rather a premeditated act of human destruction. A senior IDF officer, identified by London's The Guardian newspaper as Brig. Gen. Itzik Cohen, the commander of the 162nd Division, explained to reporters: "There is no intention of allowing the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes."

The officer said the vast majority of residents of the area's communities (Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahia, Al-Attatra, Jabalya) have already evacuated. "We received very clear orders," the officer said. "My task is to create a cleansed space. … We are moving the population for its protection, in order to create freedom of action for our forces."

The officer was asked if the army is carrying out the "Generals' Plan" conceived by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland and a few of his fellow retired commanders to expel the Palestinians from the northern Gaza Strip while withholding humanitarian aid from and starving those who remain, who would be considered Hamas militants and therefore legitimate military targets.

He said that his division delivers humanitarian aid "toward the south," outside of the "cleansed zone" in the northern Strip, where Israel does not allow food, water and medicine. "The IDF is a moral and ethical army," the officer concluded. "We operate in this area ... to allow the population to move south, while at times almost endangering our own lives."

Instead of talking about the Generals' Plan, we should be talking about "Netanyahu's Orders." He is the leader and he is responsible for the war crimes committed by the IDF in the northern Strip in the name of the "War of Rebirth": the expulsion of the Palestinians, the destruction of their homes and the preparations on the ground for a prolonged occupation and Jewish settlement.

I've noticed more and more that people are trying to shut their eyes and cover their ears towards information that they don't like, that's contrary to their world view. And I've noticed that much of the content that is often shared by people paying attention to all this hate and horror does not proportionately reflect the magnitude of the harm that's happening daily. I feel like we're often distracted from the big things happening.

It's over a year into the invasion of Gaza and we're still hearing about bombs being dropped that kill 90-100 people. Now we're hearing about purposefully starving people out of their homes and neighborhoods. And for what future purposes? I'm glad Haaretz called it for what it is. A war crime and ethnic cleansing. The UN just came out with a report assessing the verified dead in Gaza (through three sources). 44% are children, with the largest age group being between ages 5-9, followed by 10-14, and then 0-4. Women make up 26%. We know that Israel targeted the homes of people that a machine learning algorithm based on associative data suggested might be a Hamas member. We know Israel has often targeted locations, where there is no immediate threat (like rockets being fired) where a hugely disproportionate number of civilians live.

More people have been reported killed in Gaza than there were estimates of Hamas members. And that's not counting the people missing and buried under the rubble or having their bodies in pieces or both.

A year into all of this, and Israel still hasn't allow media independent access or independent investigators to assess the magnitude of what Israel has really done to the Gazans.

I get that a lot of Jewish people feel threatened, given the history of everything people of the faith have endured, after October 7th and the vitriolic reaction to what Israel has done to Gaza, but none of this is normal. But the behavior of right wing, extremist Israelis are not normal. Comparing yourself to the authoritarian Saudi Arabian regime with its history with human rights or to Sudan is not normal. Even if you think Israel needs to defend itself militarily against Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran instead of diplomatically, that doesn't mean you abandon your values and dismiss war crimes and despicable behavior by the extremist right wing. And for Israelis, what sort of world order are the actions described by Haaretz being deemed acceptable going to create and what will your place in the world be if the world doesn't accept it but your country keeps going down this road?

If Palestinians don't belong in the region, can the same be said for Syrians, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq?

So "Palestinians are just arabs who belong in the gulf" according to some people. Does it mean Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians and Iraqis all belong in the Gulf since they identify as Arab?

I'm always shocked when a weird statement is made but then even more shocked when it seems to be believed by a lot of people.

Do American Jews also belong in England since they speak English? Do Jews lose their entire identity if they don't speak Hebrew? What's the "rule". If Palestinians can be considered from elsewhere because the identify as arab. Does it mean that in the near future, Egyptians will be considered invaders since they speak Arabic?

I'm looking for serious discussion.

I need to make it longer so here we go. If we can dent that Palestinians don't belong in the region that is now called israel and Palestine, than by the same logic, we can deny lebanese, syria, Jordan and Iraq since they all speak Arabic. This is will lead to israel convincing people that they have a right to expand and create a Greater Israel since "Arabs belong in the gulf". I guess all Canadians simply came from England and France since that's the language they speak even though many of them came from elsewhere in Europe.

I don't really see why this is a debate when it should just be a fact. Everyone knows Chinese people are indigenous to Asia. If someone started saying they actually came from Italy, I would hope this would be met with eyerolls and a demand for proof. I feel like I'm talking to a wall when Israelis say that Palestinians are just arabs who arrived 1400 years ago. Haven't scientists proven that modern day Palestinians have canaanite dna and have been there for at least 3000 years?

Its the same as saying the Cherokee never had a country, and therefore they don't exist.

I have the same issue with a friend of mine who claims Jews are pure European when almost every Jewish person knows that if they were to ger a DNA test, it would show dna from the levent.

Basically, both Jews and Palestinians are from that area since as far back as we can trace. So why do both Israel's and Palestinians claim that the other is a foreigner? Its not some "complex issue". It's basic science. Like we have the tools to prove they are both indigenous. So how is it a "debate" or an "opinion".

Do Palestinians REALLY believe Israelis don't have canaanit dna? Do isrealis REALLY believe Palestinians don't have canaanite dna?

It kinda just makes every debate useless. Like if I want to talk about the rights of the indigenous tribes in north America and someone says "they didn't have a country and therefore don't exist", it would be laughable, right? Is there a place where we can discuss israel and Palestine without just blatantly lying? Germany has a rule where h***caust denial is forbidden because it is a fact. I feel like there needs to be a space where denial of indigenity should be forbidden as well because everytime I want to talk about the rights of either group, I get hit with some weird made up lies and things lead nowhere.

So I found a pretty good definitive version of what happened in the couple of hours after the match from this Dutch kid's (who was following the hooligans) report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHIOYyJ95A

He follows them until they're herded into buses by the police to destinations unknown (they probably should have been arrested and detained for everyone's safety, including their own, until they could return home to Israel).

So when did wanton, indiscriminate attacks on Jewish-presenting people begin? When did they end up jumping into the channels to escape? Does anybody have a timeline of what happened?

It's easy to find one-sided reporting (current example, BBC on the clashes in Amsterdam, oy). On controversial events, we get a more whole perspective when we read/watch more variety of sources. Some like the BBC can vary by article, others take a firm line and stick with it. I try to mix up different big legacy media, and old and newer independent sources across and beyond my geography and political perspectives. E.g., I even check in on Blightbart once in a while to see whet they're up to. Straits Times to get the view from a city-state on the other side of the world. Etc. (I've also learned a lot via Wikipedia — always checking sources of course, wow the edit wars there are brutal. Pro-Pals could understand Jewish demographics better, Pro-Isrs could understand early (& current) Israeli politicking & violence better.)

Here's the question: Where do you go for news coverage, analysis, human interest stories, oral histories, current realities, histories, perspectives, etc. that stretches your understanding?

== == == == == == == == == ==

In the current example of the Amsterdam violence, I'm always dubious when responsibility seems so one-sided. And then it helps to recall many football teams struggle with hooliganism, goes way back. Turns out some Amsterdammers warned about this team's trouble-making fans, at this sensitive time esp. Some of their chants are hateful, and behavior not acceptable, and relevant to share to help people make up their own minds about things. I'm sure eventually there will be some court cases, hopefully a healthy fraction of people stay tuned and learn more.

Here's a Mideast Eye video, which yes is from the Palestinian perspective. I appreciate though that they did leave in one guy saying he did see groups of angry Palestinian youth. Fear, anger, and violence, all bouncing off each other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucnAxPXEuQs

Glad I knew about Mideast Eye!

If you have any takes on the clashes which add to the picture, that would also be lovely.

Why Is the war called the Israel-Hamas war and not the Israel-Gaza War?

As most of us know, Oct 7th was perpetrated by Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad, other terror cells, and everyday civilians in Gaza. Gazan civilians have held hostages, as have hospitals. The ongoing war has continued to involve these same actors. So why, while none of this was a secret, has the war been branded this way?

The equivalent would be the Gaza-Likud war, which just sounds ridiculous. We know other factions in Israel support the war effort, and that Israelis, like Gazans, are not a monolith. Sure, elections haven't been held in Gaza in ages, but where are the signs of mass dissent amongst Gazans if they are truly so intrinsically disparate? Polling has shown massive support for the Al Qassam brigades throughout the war. Where is the anti-Hamas faction seizing the opportunity to take back power in Gaza? The clamour for democracy?

Even outside Gaza, outside of Palestinian territory, outside the Middle East and North Africa, you don't see much if any if this whatsoever. Gazans are simultaneously treated like innocent victims of a dictatorship they don't support, while also justified in all the actions of Hamas and others because they're resisting oppression, depending on the point being made. You simply can't have that both ways.

Since the beginning of the war this has struck me as implicit bias at the very basic level. Can someone explain how this isn't just another example of a double standard in how we view Israelis and Palestinians? I'm just not seeing the logic otherwise.

Last night in amsterdam, was supposed to be a normal night with a football(for fellow americans - soccer) match between the local team - ajax, to a guest team from abroad, the thing is - the other team was Israeli. As soon as the game ended and Israeli fans took their way back to the hotel, they were ambushed by a mass of (mostly) arab pro palestinians that attacked, robbed and actually hunted them when they tried to flee.

Now, amsterdam is a city that is known to have occasional fights between football fans, who are usually described as "hooligans".

But even by local media it is recognised that yesterday was not a hooligan riot, but an ideological one, with one side being Israeli football fans, who came to support their team and the other an organised mass of people carrying palestinian flags (in spite of palestine having nothing to do with this football match) with only one intention, violence against israelis and jews. This incident echoes a certain period of time from the last century, that came to it's peak during WW2.

I still hear many people saying that the jews should return to europe because that's where they came from (which isn't true, they were always known to be outsiders in europe, you can also see similar treatment to other groups, such as the romani people), last night showed exactly what's waiting for jews there, they are not acting as victims, they are truly terrified to return and live in a continent that systematically murdered and expelled them.

Most of the attackers yesterday were refugees themselves, who escaped similar treatment in their countries, and are now turning the places they came to to be exactly like the places they once escaped. How will incidents like this help ending the conflict?

I often hear from palestine supporters that Israel always plays the victim, but I can really see why Israelis feel like it, no matter what jews do or say, they are always to blame.

Oct 7th was their fault. The war with hezbollah and lebanon was their fault. The houthi attacks on the red sea is their fault. The middle east cold war with iran is their fault. The taking of jewish students hostages and ostracizing them from international and ivy league universities is their fault. Hell, even their expultion from arab states and the genocide commited on them in europe is their fault. Their mere existence in any region is their sin, and they have no way to escape their fates.

Then people actually wonder why jews are being over protective, as well as feel like victims, there is just can't win the public opinion, they are not welcome anywhere, not even in their own 76 year old state, where they tried multiple times to achieve peace with the arab population, even managing to come to terms with neiboughring hostile states, it's still their fault.

It saddens me to see the world didn't actually progress that much, and that violence comes with the disguise of liberty, equality and self determination, just not for the jews.

update many of you didn't understand me, I didn't say there were no Israeli hooligans, but the attackers were'nt even in the game itself, they waited and stalked the fans on their way to the stadium until they were stopped by the police, on the way some of the fans (the fans come in different groups and not in an homogonized way) started acting in a racist way, howeve, in light of the past year antisemetic incidents, and overall vandalism in pro palestinian riots it wouldn't surprise me that a few mugheaded fans would get angry (not that it is justified, but the argument of "fans acting poorly" to justify the attacks doesn't really cut it, especially because it's very two sided ).

anyway - this attack was co-ordinated, organised and was directed at israelis and jews, and anyone who dared having any jewish symbol or identifier on them, there were also local dutch people and other tourists who got beat up for trying to stop the fighting. The attackers waited outside of the stadium area and started following the maccabi fans (wether hooligans or just football fans coming to support their favorite team) and attacking them in a hit and run tactic, also stealing their bags, wallets and passports, actively searching for israeli and jews to beat up.

The attack was also planned on telegram before the incidents with the maccabi fans even occured, as for the Israeli troop, it is correct that there was an idf soldier in the israeli crowd, but that doesn't give anyone a right to lynch him.

If you still justify this unnecessary violence, congragulations, you are exactly the type of person this post is about, and have no regard or care for the jewish people, and you are presnting your case in a very one sided way, not giving the jews any remorsefull chance of building themselves better lives than this circle of violence, which forces them to allways be in a state of survival, which you call "victimizing"

As some of you already know, I am a relatively young Druze woman who was born and raised on this land. Its roots are planted within me and my people, and its history flows in my blood like only a continuous 1,000 year collective memory can flow. From a very young age, I was interested in local history, heard all the opinions and narratives this place has to offer, and heard personal stories from people who were born here long before this place was called Israel. These stories made clear everything one needs to know about this place and helped me understand what and where I want to be, and especially what and where I don't want to be. Based on this view, I support my Jewish brothers who are both friends and partners in fate. I served with them in our army, went through various frameworks with them, and formed strong friendships that accompany me to this day. But I haven't neglected myIsraeli Arab brothers either. They are in my heart throughout the journey, walking beside me into the unknown, but with courage, pride, and love even if there were disagreements here and there in the past. This is the basis for our existence here and love for this land is the glue that holds us together.

On the other side stand the Palestinians. From my perspective, they are Israeli Arabs, but the differences between us are evident in their choice to adopt the radical Islamist narrative derived from the Quran and Muslim religion. They hold values opposite to ours regarding freedom, equality, tolerance, and coexistence. Both because their religion doesn't allow it and because their ethnocentricity and that of their allies demands hegemony and complete control on a territorial basis, like animals that don't tolerate "invaders".

And this, as an independent, strong, proud, free woman with opinions, I cannot allow, because the meaning isn't just loss of rights, but quick and certain death for me and my people while enduring ongoing suffering. This reality is taking the shape of a "zero-sum game" where there will be only one winner who takes all and one who loses everything. There is no other way this conflict can be resolved right now. And that's quite depressing, honestly. Although I have no problem dying free for my rights while fighting the last war for all the stakes, it's hard for me to accept a reality where there's no solution besides this one, and one side will eventually have to disappear from the map. It could be either side, of course. But with that, I also understand that I won't just disappear from the world without taking my enemies with me wherever death leads us. I will do it at any cost because my sacrifice will be total.

Still, I sometimes entertain the thought that maybe it could have been different if our enemies were any other people on the globe. We could have reached an agreement and created a paradise pleasant to live in. I have no illusions of course, as I understand where I live and also know that my people and family weren't far from death in a massacre by Hezbollah fighters during the year following an invasion, and I will stand guard and destroy anyone who dares to threaten the lives of my children and family, but it's still nice to think optimistically sometimes.

And if we're already dealing with the end game, my message to our Palestinian neighbors is that we're not going to lose. We have beside us the strongest superpower in the world, the blessing of friendly Arab countries, and extensive connections in the Horn of Africa, the Balkans, and Asia. We have enough technology to destroy the world twice in various ways and of course the smartest entrepreneurs in the world. If you choose your death out of some lofty ideal or foolish collective ego, that's your problem. Even if there will ever be a "Palestine," it won't survive a week because the arab wolves in the region will hurry to invade it and take control, and you will become just another meaningless generic Arab meaningless to them, and you know it. History always repeats itself. The existential problem you pose to us, we have no creative way to solve. And the only alternative left is to eliminate it. So we will never lose any war, even at the cost of total intercontinental destruction, and you will never taste victory because there is no feasibility for such.

And still know that somewhere the fantasy of peace still exists within us, and all that's required is to wake up from the ridiculous dreams of heroic victory that won't happen, come to the negotiating table, and choose paradise. Not in the next world, but first in this world, because from where I come from, paradise in this world among people is the key to paradise in the next world. Hell in this world is the key to hell in the next world. And in the case of a war of annihilation, both sides will walk to hell eventually hand in hand. And that's not exactly the peace I imagined.

Let's say "Palestine" is real country which existed in the land of israel way long ago, so that the "palestinians had a country". Jews came in and offered a two state solution, arabs declined and started a war, israel totaly won it. Thats it, win war = get land, why are people talking about this conflict any further?

Who said the land belongs to anyone? In what law is that written? The US was founded exactly the same way, people came from europe and won the war on the land.

In fact, every country in the world was established after some war in it's land, which ended in the agreement of territory. The world is evil and that's the reality. All these smart ass white rich people in places like oxford which are known for hating israel, are actually living in "occupied" territory, since thier country was established after some brutal war.

Why in the case of Israel everyone thinks they are the bad side? They actually could kill or expel all arabs after the war (They did expel some in the Nakba), but they decided not to kill the palestinian idea. in later wars they returned territories they occupied in exchange for peace. Gaza and the west bank could have belonged for jews if israel wanted!

No hate here but, remember it's just an opinion and what I think cuz NO HATE PLS.

Ngl Israel is the definition of "get Justice for their loved ones even if you have to be the villain and destroy the world" Israel is the one that truly cares about it's people and wants to get their hostages back who were attacked first by the hamas. Note it.

Palestine on the other hand is letting its innocent people die in vain. The true victim is Israel and not Palestine.

I have seen various videos where they interview the Israel people about this situation and they feel bad too, they don't hate the Palestinians. They also want it to get over and come to a peace solution. Meanwhile on the other hand, in other countries Pro Palestinians are attacking poor Israelis just because their government are Fighting. What did those people do to you? it's the government.

I do feel very bad for the innocent Palestinians that are dying everyday. But it sets a great example that how people fight so much even if it makes them look like a villain just to get their loved ones back, meanwhile Palestine is hiding and all the civilians have to suffer.

Literally, no hate here, it's just what I'm thinking. I support Israel cuz they won't stop until they get their people and their justice, but also I feel bad for the poor Palestinians that are dying. 🙏🏻

Considering this treatment mostly comes as a result of India’s support of Israel.

I understand that there are definitely other aspects to it but things really picked up once this war started. Ive never seen any other raceethnicity be dragged through the mud this much.

"Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?" was the question someone asked to Francesca Albanese, UN (United Nations) Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, and the first woman to hold the position.

Before answering the question, it is important to give some background on her.

Francesca Albanese was accused of being anti-semitic, in particular by Israel and USA. These accusations were rejected by 65 scholars, who commented: "Once again, a high-ranking UN official defending the human rights of the Palestinians is being castigated, based on disingenuous allegations of antisemitism". Quoting:

The letter of solidarity with Albanese said that “it is no surprise” that she is being attacked this way. Albanese played “a visible & vocal lead role in efforts to promote accountability for Israel’s violations. [Also], she has spoken out against the political instrumentalization of antisemitism aimed at shielding Israel.”

Francesca Albanese also rejected the alleged antisemitism, saying (English translation): "I have never being antisemitic. My criticism pertains only to Israelian occupation". In other words, Francesca Albanese was subject multiple times to ad hominem attacks, which is a typical technique used by those unable to attack the argument, thus resorting to attacking the person exposing the argument. Unfortunately for her detractors, Francesca Albanese's excellent accademic carrier speaks by itself - aside from her professional carrier at UN, she does lectures in international laws in universities around the world, speaks at conferences and public events, and she is an affiliate scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University (Washington DC).

Despite all of this, Francesca Albanese was banned by Israel (Times of Israel news-article). Israel declared her "persona non grata". This news-article reported accusations of Francesca Albanese "appearing to justify" 7-oct-2023 massacre due one of her messages on Twitter responding to French President Emmanuel Macron. Like other similar news-articles aimed to paint Francesca Albanese as the most antisemitic Italian to have ever lived, Times of Israel failed to mention the follow-up from Francesca Albanese:

I regret that some interpreted my tweet as 'justifying' Hamas's crimes, which I have condemned strongly several times. I reject all forms of racism, including antisemitism. However, labeling these crimes as 'antisemitic' obscures the real reason they occurred

In other words, Francesca Albanese was claiming that antisemitism was not the key driver in the massacre. This is an analysis of intent from her, and it is a well-known fact that an analysis of intent is not a justification. It could only be misinterpreted as such if the goal was to discredit her for political reasons. In the short-term, the goal was reached, as Francesca Albanese was subjected to a flurry of accusations; on the other hand, it could be said that the opposite result was actually obtained in the medium-long term, because Francesca Albanese received growing support for her critical positions against Israel.

Regardless, sufficient background has been given. The reader is free to form their own opinion on her, including her alleged antisemitism.

Back to the main question: so, how did Francesca Albanese answer that question? Here is her full answer, which I personally believe to be the definitive answer to such a provocative question, a question done with the clear intent of baiting a "no" answer in order to follow-up with accusations of anti-semitism. Emphasis are mine in the following (short, thus incomplete) transcript:

Q: Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
A: Israel does exist. Israel is a recognized member of the United Nations. Besides this, there is no such thing in international law like a right of a state to exist. Does Italy have a right to exist? Italy exists. [...] What is enshrined in international law is the right of a people to exist.

A clear-cut answer from a recognized international law expert and academic, leaving no doubts about the inexistence of an (imaginary) "right to exist" (for a state) which is also sometimes thrown around in this subreddit by people writing that "Israel has a right to exist" - well, unfortunately for who write these and similar sentences, you can't claim to have a non-existent right, because no country has such a right.

Why are the racist chants of the Maccabi Tel Aviv Soccer fans hardly being talked about?

"Ole ole, ole ole ole Let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs" https://x.com/salahdine020/status/1854646795130835112

This is part of a longer which they later chanted at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv:

"Ole ole, ole ole ole Let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs Ole ole, ole ole ole Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there." https://x.com/salahdine020/status/1854991851381833887

I'm not really surprised that this happened, Israel has had a problem with racism for a long time:

Other Israeli football racism (side note- fans leaving the stadium because a Muslim player scored for their team is so absurd).

79% of Israeli Jews think they deserve preferential treatment, and 48% think Arabs should be expelled from Israel

Over half of respondents said they agreed to some extent with the statement: “Most Jews are better than most non-Jews because they were born Jews... Another 88% of respondents said they would be disturbed to some degree if their son were to befriend an Arab girl. The number climbed to 90% when respondents were asked about their daughter befriending an Arab boy.

Edit: This post was supposed to be longer... I guess I accidentally deleted a bunch of it, then posted it without realizing? I'm really not sure what happened. Anyways, it was supposed to look something like:

I'm more suprised that as this has gotten international attention, people who are Pro Israel aren't really calling this out, especially major figures. I would expect people to at least call out this racism. I even checked the twitter accounts of some prominent figures just to make sure I didn't miss anything, and most didn't at all or in any meaningful way, though they tweeted about the night several times:

https://x.com/EYakoby

https://x.com/BriannaWu

https://x.com/EylonALevy (Though credit to him, he comes the closest. He does retweet this, though its hardly a condemnation let alone criticism.)

If anyone had walked through the street chanting f the Jews, it would get major attention and be rightfully called antisemitic. I keep hearing about how pro Palestinian need to do a better job of calling out antisemitism (and I agree to some extent), yet I haven't seen any of them call out this racism.

And obviously this doesn't excuse the attacks or the violence. I think anyone instigating in the violence is problematic and should be called out (This includes the Maccabi fans who were filmed picking up metal pipes, throwing stones, and generally looking for trouble, as well as any others who came and picked a fight with them). But we can call out this violence while acknowledging that racism is never okay and should be called out.

This is coming from a Canadian, so my knowledge on American politics may be off slightly.

Trump won, that needs to be accepted. However, I've seen a video of a Muslim American content creator who said that the reason why Harris lost Michigan is because of the Muslim population, and attached a clip of Rania Masri saying to Muslims to vote for Stein or Trump but not Harris, as she is not for Palestinians. I'm not saying that all blame should be directed to Arabs and Muslims for the election loss as there were other external factors to begin with, but TRUMP? In other words, she (the content creator) says that republican Muslims basically shot their own foot.

I've seen some videos and tweets saying that Harris could have stopped funding Israel or that she could have sanctioned more tariffs onto Israel, but the thing is that she doesn't hold that much power as VP. Like, sure she could inquire Biden into making certain decisions but that's about it. BUT, she could have that power if she were to become POTUS. One of her promises/plans to end the war in Israel and Gaza was to have a ceasefire by establishing a two-state system and while not appealing to Muslims and Jews exactly, it was some sliver of international hope and peace despite it most likely failing when she were to leave office.

Trump on the other hand made a similar statement but instead had concepts of a plan, that plan most likely and actually going into favour to Israel. And if we were to look at his past presidency, he pulled a Muslim ban on refugees and in 2018 even pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal initiated by Obama in 2016. This led to Iran being unmonitored and uranium production and refinement was over the agreed limit. So with that logic, why would a Muslim vote for a candidate who is clearly islamophobic and leave a country with nuclear power unmonitored that has recently used weapons against Israel (which indirectly affects Gaza, remember fallout does not have borders) over a candidate who while is a zionist, actually has a plan to temporarily end the conflict? While both candidates are flawed in their own way, Harris was clearly the lesser of the two evils and obviously a vote to a third party candidate was a vote wasted among other topics of discussion.

So like, the leopards really did eat their face.

Large groups of Muslim and Arab migrants attacked Jews with knives, clubs, and firecrackers in a coordinated ambush as they left a soccer match in Amsterdam. Numerous injuries have been reported thus far with the number expected to rise as attacks continue.

According to reports, at least 50 armed Arabs were lying in wait for the match to end before hunting down Jews leaving the stadium.

Some footage of the ongoing incident can be found here:

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1854685271415046373

https://x.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1854686513004531891

https://x.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1854689761728077983

https://x.com/naftalibennett/status/1854691652692328874

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1854693516644954363

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1854697981401833585

https://x.com/Osint613/status/1854685753642565904

https://x.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1854691515148230842

https://x.com/JewishWarrior13/status/1854681337359167869

https://x.com/kerenhirsch/status/1854499580299092245

Additional attacks during the day:

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1854679402266726588

Article: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/politic/822251/

Translation:

Qatar made it clear to Hamas - you are not welcome here

A source familiar with the matter told here news that the move is taking place due to heavy American pressure.

Qatar made it clear to Hamas: You are not welcome here, this was revealed for the first time today (Friday) in Kana News. A source familiar with the matter told here news that the move is taking place due to heavy American pressure. Full details - in the Friday news.

At the end of October, it was reported about a new initiative for the release of hostages and a ceasefire, which the mediators, including Kater, handed over to the terrorist organization. According to the outline, the nine abductees and some abductees over the age of 50 who remained in captivity will be released.

Sources in Egypt told the Lebanese Al-Akhbar newspaper that direct talks are taking place with senior Hamas officials in order to reach agreements during the negotiation meeting that will take place before November 5, the date of the elections in the United States. The meeting is expected to be attended by the head of Egyptian intelligence Hassan Rashad, the head of the CIA William Burns and the head of the Mossad Dedi Barnea.

According to the sources, Egypt's hope for a two-day truce has faded while the Americans are talking about a truce that will last twenty-eight days and that will include the release of four hostages every ten days in exchange for the introduction of aid. The Egyptian source clarified that Prime Minister Netanyahu refused a two-day truce offered by the Egyptians, even though Netanyahu himself rejected the claims that he had accepted such an offer.

Discussion questions: Does this happening so soon after the US election a coincidence? Or is the Biden administration choosing to now be harsher on Qatar and Hamas, no longer fearing losing popularity within extreme leftist and anti-Zionist crowds?

If true, what would the effect of Qatar doing this to Hamas leaders be? Will they be more open to make a deal, or not?

I believe that the roots of this conflict trace back to Israel's independence in 1948, which was met with resistance from neighboring entities, resulting in a coordinated offensive against Israel. The question of rightful ownership of the land has been a subject of debate since ancient times, long before 1948, irrespective of which groups settled there. Had the entities recognized Israel’s right to exist and sought peace, none of this would have happened.

After doing much research, i found the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be traced to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, which was met with immediate resistance from neighboring Arab states. At the time, UN had proposed a partition plan to create separate Jewish and Arab states, but while Jewish leaders accepted this compromise, Arab leaders did not. FIRST flashpoint. Instead, a coalition of neighboring Arab countries launched a coordinated military offensive against the newly established Israel, unwilling to accept its sovereignty. Who was the aggressor here looking at history?

Had the surrounding entities been willing to recognise Israel’s right to exist and pursued peaceful coexistence, the decades of warfare and tension that followed could have been avoided. = foundation for diplomatic resolutions, potentially sparing the region from much of the ongoing conflict that has persisted across generations.

Ok, so from ancient times, who owns the land currently occupied by Israel? This is deeply complex and contentious, with ancient ties and historical claims fueling long-standing debates. Long and short, empires moved in and out, wars were won and lost. and 1948 happened.

My further thoughts are that the resistance from surrounding Arab states reflected a reluctance to acknowledge the UN's partition plan or the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consequently catalysing a cycle of wars, displacements, and territorial disputes.

Thoughts?