To say Israel has just been oppressing Palestinians for 75 years is reductionist and doesn’t take into account any of the reasons for conflict over that time
Didn’t that minister actually say the conditions weren’t right at the time. And in Arafats place he wouldn’t take the deal. Not that the deal was actually bad? And that’s rhetorical, I’m 80% sure without actually pulling up the direct quote
A blockade is not necessarily an act of war. If attacks are being launched from part of your country and you block certain goods going into the region I’d hardly call that an act of war
Can you point at a time Hamas legitimately put forward a reasonable attempt to negotiate?
NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 6 months ago
No? You should read more about the Nakba. Palestinians in Israel were subject to military rule where they were literal second class citizens until 1966. They still are, but it's less obvious now compared to when they could legally be run out of their homes.
But that aside, the deal was just fucking horrible. Hell, they started with the position that they wouldn't return East Jerusalem no matter what. That's a deal-breaker right there.
Again the Israeli propaganda. First of all, no, a blockade is always an act of war. Israel blockades Gaza by land, sea and air, in complete violation of its territorial integrity. Second, the attacks came after the blockade because Gazans, for obvious reasons, didn't take well to being starved. Third, it's not "certain goods"; it's almost everything, imports and exports. Israel has stated before that they're deliberately keeping the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse.
Let's see...
2008 ceasefire: Hamas followed it while Israel kept up the blockade and airstrikes until the whole thing went under.
2012 ceasefire: Same as above.
2013-2014 united government that Israel opposed at every turn until it collapsed.
Not Hamas but 2014 peace initiative where 'Netanyahu did not move more than an inch".
From what I see here a lot of your image of the conflict comes from bold-faced Israeli propaganda.
throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com 6 months ago
Just to cut your tirade short. The irony of the “bro you just fell for propaganda”, is that you’re literally doing that except on the other side I have no illusions about Israel. They continue to do some pretty heinous shit, including their expansion of settlements, which I believe they are continuing in the dumbest move of all time
But to remove all context from how this region got fucked to begin with is stupid. The Nakba wasn’t some random event, it was during and after a civil war in the region, at a time where arguably both sides had good reasons to fight. The Israelis needed somewhere to live, and had been given it by the British government, who maybe shouldn’t have but it was tricky anyway. And the Arabs on that land (now Israel/Palestine) fairly reasonably didn’t want that, and decided they should attack them instead of live along side them as an Arab majority mind you
I just don’t think Hamas is a good solution to the conflict. The only way I see of moving forward is to fuck Hamas off, hold an election and move towards a 2 state solution. But even that’s hard as the majority of Palestinians think that they’ll get their way via military action, which is definitely not the case
I’m really curious for you, do you think Palestine are completely innocent in this conflict? Is it really as straightforward to you as Israel bad?
NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 6 months ago
Uh... I literally stated exactly why what you're stating is propaganda. I don't believe I've said anything that you can't verify by yourself or ask for a source for. I'm saying it's propaganda because it's lies or spins Israel created to control Western public opinion, aka propaganda. Nonsense like "Hamas doesn't negotiate" just has no basis in reality.
There's no excuse for genocide. And that's what Palestinians faced in 1948-1949: genocide. But sure, let's look at the context. Israel wanted to create a Jewish state, defined by them as a Jewish majority, Jewish dominated ethnostate, on land that's populated by Palestinians, so they drove them out at gunpoint That's the context, otherwise they wouldn't need to drive Palestinians from their homes.
The Israeli plan has always been to drive Palestinians from their homes to make way for a Jewish state. The Nakba wasn't a coincidence.
They're not a good solution, but the situation Palestine is in has no good solutions, and it won't as long as the world has Israel's back. Organizations like Hamas force Israel to be loud about its genocide and lose international support for it, while "peace" allows them to control public opinion quietly.
So that's been tried already after the first Initfada. And failed because the Israeli PM was assassinated by a Zionist terrorist and replaced by Netanyahu who called the whole thing off. Netanyahu and his ilk are now ruling Israel and support for them is growing. Do you see the problem now? Palestinians haven't rejected peace; they've recognized that peace is impossible without violence. That was the case for the South Africans, for the African Americans, for the Irish, for the Irish again and it's going to be the case for the Palestinians if they aren't wiped out first. It was also the case for the Native Americans, but those failed. You can see this in Hamas's attempts at gaining concessions through ceasefires (most recently the Sheikh Jarrah debacle). This is what happens when there's no viable option except violence.
There's some important context, and a bunch of things Palestinians could've done better (mostly thinking of Yasser Arafat rejecting Sadat's offer to back him for a two-state solution bid), but mostly yeah. It's almost exactly the relation between the Irish (especially North Irish) and the British, or Native Americans and European Colonists. Sure there are details but this is still textbook settler colonialism so I don't see how considering Palestinians overwhelmingly victims is reductive.