if one side is directly inciting violence, then yeah, they will have to "take sides"
Who determines this? If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Who should Twitter ban?
Inciting violence is a broad definition. There are two sides at war, each one using what they have at hand to fight the other side, however when we see regular well equipped troops our brain thinks "Army", while when there are random masked citizens with AK47s, we immediately think "Terrorists", also thanks to well crafted western propaganda. As Peter Ustinov said: "terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich"; I see two sides battling, but one side just follows orders while the other defends their homes, therefore I am 100% with the Palestinians.
Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
I feel like this is similar to a false dichotomy. The GP is pointing out a difference in resources and thus power. It doesn't mean one does not empathize with anyone suffering. That's just not something that follows. Any case of someone who is having their home, workplace and life destroyed is an absolute tragedy. I don't think that distracts from GPs point at all which has to do with power dynamics and the media's presentation of events.
> Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
Why would they do this? I don't understand the relevance.
You’re right, civilians should be off limits. But don’t forget that many of those civilians are trained soldiers and could be deployed in a matter of days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
No, that will not satisfy me because they are shooting for maximum civilian casualties not military targets, what's the purpose of firing into Tel-Aviv, Rishon, Ashkelon, Jerusalem? It's to create terror.
Imagine a much more powerful group was occupying your area, and you didn't have the technology to target your strikes carefully against only military targets. Should you simply roll over and allow their occupation to continue?
I'm not saying that Israel isn't in the West bank, it is. Are their life better than the ones in Gaza? Absolutely yes. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield and that there is corporation between the PA defense forces and Israel. Do they live normal life? No. Israel stand is that peace will be met with peace Israel is rarely the aggressor.
"Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself" this isn't self-defenses that's terrorism. You want to fire at military checkpoints, at soldiers at military vehicles and compounds fine, it's an armed conflict. If by your standards anything goes then don't hold Israel to a different value.
If I was under occupation I would target the military, I would target the the ones that are in my city I wouldn't go to a busy shopping center and blow myself up. I wouldn't fire rockets to kills as many people as I can, I wouldn't add ball bearings to create maximum affect.
>>>...Israel is rarely the aggressor.
This completely depends on whether you consider military occupation aggression. I certainly would. If Israel stopped occupying Gaza and the West Bank and removed the settlements, then it would be a very different situation. As long as they're occupying Palestine, I don't know how you can see them as not being aggressors.
>>>If I was under occupation I would target the military
I suggest that if you were under military occupation, and you saw fellow civilians injured (or killed) and their homes destroyed, you might consider any methods that could stop that acceptable.
Maybe show us an example by ending the illegal occupation of Canada and return to which ever country your family came from and give it back to the poor natives who suffer immensely under the Canadian occupation.
1) No modern Palestinian group (not even Hamas) is pushing the "kill all Jews" idea, thankfully. The majority seem to want a two state solution with Israel continuing to exist. And again, Israel is occupying territory; why isn't the onus on them to stop doing that?
2) What does it matter if it's religious or not? Call it religious or political or economic, what does that change?
3) And which of the countries my ancestors left ~150 years ago, that I don't have citizenship in, that (in some cases) don't exist any longer, should I return to, exactly? It was wrong for my ancestors to colonize and occupy Canada; we should take steps to undo that harm in the ways we can. I don't think that's the same situation as asking settlers who actively started occupying an area in the West Bank in the last five/ten/fifteen years to move back into Israel.
Let's look at this another way. How do you think this whole mess should be resolved, ideally? I think a two-state solution is really the only way. What would you like to see?
2) It matters because even if you believe the occupation is wrong you need to understand the reason for it, the hostilities didn't not start in 47 and not in 67. Hell the PLO was founded in 64 to liberate Palestine by force.
3) It's the same situation, it's just it was hundreds of years ago going back to the 16th century. By that logic lets wait 100-200 years and then there will a statute of limitation? The only reason this is a thing is because news media, tv and radio which distort reality into small chunks to be feed to the masses. If this was Muslims conquering other Muslims that's fine but when it's Jews? Oy vey that won't do. You have to understand that it's not the settlements in the west bank, they consider every Jew a settler and want them to go back to Europe or Russia. What about the 850K Jews who were expelled from Arab countries?
Ideally? Palestinians stop all hostilities. Denounce violence. Disarm. Recognize Israel right to exists. Israel stop building more settlements. Israel sees that they hold on to their word, ease road blocks, ease the blockade. Help them have a sea port and airport (which Israel already agreed to do but was declined), connect the gaza and west bank somehow. Both sides agree on borders with land and population exchange, Israel retains security controls, Israel and the Palestinians reduce friction to a minimum but there is a joined council with daily meeting with cooperation on security, economics, health and holy sites.
A non ideal solution is that neither side agrees to anything, all the settlers go back to Israel and the west bank and gaza become a nature reserve because no one can play nicely.
People aren't that much religious in Palestine, at least not the younger generations. Things change, generations come and go.
But I can understand if you think people are, because of so much silly things to read on Facebook etc.
However a 2-3 hours bus trip to get to the University (can be in total 4-5 h in the bus, per day), when normally it'd been 20? minutes by train (on a railroad that hasn't yet been built), doesn't make Israel and the checkpoints popular.
How else do you propose they quell the proliferation of arms that they know will eventually be fired into populated areas of Israel out of pure hatred, killing innocent civilians? They certainly don't run checkpoints because they're fun.
Indeed among both the Israelis and Palestinians, there's a small percentage violent men (mostly men), for example, a small fraction of the people in IDF shot a thousand people in Gaza some years ago (about 100 died, don't remember exactly).
And a small fraction of the Palestinian men in Gaza fire rockets against civilians (although they pretend they target military but they don't) and I think eventually some people like them would blow bombs if they could get past the barrier. And that would restart a circle of violence, bad for everyone.
> How else do you propose they quell the proliferation of arms
That might take about a generation.
Examples: Stop doing bad things to one's neighbor: Don't send soldiers with weapons to the West Bank, building settlements and taking other people's land, forcing them to leave. You can websearch for "Breaking the silence IDF" maybe combined with "male soldier Gaza" or "female border police" to find out other things individuals in IDF or the border police sometimes do, that can create and keep alive such hatred you mention. (And maybe is that kind of hatred, just this time from some Israelis against Palestinians.)
And do kind things to one's neighbor: Share the Covid-19 vaccine with the Palestinians: Reverse time and give it to high risk group in Palestine, instead of first to low risk groups in Israel. Support women in Palestine who start their own businesses -- women are generally more peaceful and the more influence they have, the better.
And about the barriers: More buses, more checkpoints, and more staff in each checkpoint, so takes less time to pass the checkpoints. To respect other people's time.
There're probably 100s of things to stop doing, and 1 000s of things one could start doing, to create peace and friendship. Then, continue like that, for one (maybe two) generations, and it'll be fine.
(Plus doing kind things to the people in nearby Arab countries, so it'll be harder for dictators or corrupted politicians there, to say bad things about Israel -- which they apparently do a bit much, maybe to divert attention from problems in their own countries. For example, share the covid vaccine with the people in Lebanon.)
However I think Netanyahu and Hamas or Jihad group leaders, need conflict, to get more votes and stay in power. Isn't Netanyahu popular partly because many voters think he's saving them from danger. Too many of the voters don't realize that he is part of creating the danger. And the same goes for Hamas and jihad groups. And they'll want to continue taking land, and firing rockets, doing the opposite to what I mentioned above.
Those who do that, make Netanyahu stronger -- I think many people vote for him because they think he's better at stopping such things. (When in fact he encourages it by eg using military to take more land)
By firing rockets, they are Netanyahu's best recruiters for the elections.
Please don't say that "Palestinians" fire rockets? It's a small fraction, one in a thousand or less? who does that.
> firing into cities because it has no other means
That's like, "we cannot reach the military so let's stab a bunch of school children instead". Doesn't solve any problems, doesn't make a good impression
(And btw I think it'd be a bad and sad idea to fire rockets at military too. It's just ordinary people, there's general conscription in Israel. Now when I've said that I suppose I have to mention that I don't like violent settlers (those who are) and talking land from others.)
I didn't know that the commanders in IDF were doing that just now -- they've killed 40 Palestinian children and 139 adults, and comparing 40 with 139 indicates that most (almost all?) adults were civilians.
Those "let's stab a bunch of school children" type of people -- some of them are military commanders in IDF, and gives orders about those reckless bombings (of Gaza). That makes Hamas and jihad groups more popular in Gaza. (Whilst the rockets being fired makes Netanyahu more popular in Israel.)
In a war there are potentially no good people; war makes everyone capable of committing atrocities if there is a higher motivation. During WWII the insurgents in my country did nasty things as well, but the ultimate goal was to fight against the Nazi, which were a greater evil, heavily armed and more numerous. In such a situation you don't think twice but rather throw at the enemy every weapon you have. That's why I don't judge Palestinians if they also do bad things as I'm pretty sure that if they could they would rather hit an armed tank rather than a car with a family inside, but as the Ustinov line says, terrorism is the war of the poor, and they are just fighting with what they have at hand, also with no control on how events are reported.
Regarding who started it, there are well known maps that give an idea on who invaded who. Example: https://wikispooks.com/w/images/8/86/Palestinian_land_loss.j... This is not the only one, and minor inaccuracies, if any, don't invalidate the trend that is shown there.
Feel free to dissect each and every sentence of my post in order to find six lines to hang me Richelieu style, but be aware that the more effort you put in this the more you reveal to be a lot more biased than I am.
There won't be any more replies by me on this subject. Now back to technical stuff.
(For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. The Egyptian government has repeatedly closed the border with the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas using that border to import rockets and for trying to use Egyptian territory to fire rockets into Israel. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has sanctioned Hamas by refusing to pay for various things in the Gaza Strip. Obviously the Israelis have no patience for Hamas, but let's not pretend that this is the typical Zionists-vs-Palestinians dispute.)
The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
Yitzhak Segev, once the Israeli military governor of Gaza, funded Ahmed Yassin and encouraged antagonism in him against secular Palestinian political forces.
It's funny for Israel to fund the founding of Hamas, encourage Muslim religious antagonism against more internationally appealing secular Palestinian figures, and then turn around and whinge about the people that they bankrolled. Hamas was bankrolled by Israel and its no secret.
Working people around the world know this and stand in support of Ahmad Sa'adat and other Palestinians to live free of the barbarism and tyranny Zionism is inflicting on them right now.
Instead of blaming Israel for all that is wrong why don't you demand the liberation of the Gaza strip from Hamas, why don't you demand a better lives for the Palestinians in the refuges camps in Lebanon and Jorden where they are treaded as second class citizens. Where are all those big Arab countries who stand by the Palestinians but don't really want to make their lives better but to perpetuates their suffering so they'll have someone to blame.
Refugees should return to their homeland, in case you don't know how to let them get the normal life of a citizen.
International laws put all the responsibility on the colonizer's shoulder (i.e. The Netanyahu regime). So please stop spreading more red herrings.
When Egypt was in control of Gaza were the Gazans citizens? No
When Jorden ruled east Jerusalem and the west bank were they citizens? No
Did they mistreat them? Yes
Did they try and hold the peace and avoid conflict? No
Was there an International cry for Palestinians self determination? No
Did they encourage violence and throwing Jews to the sea? Yes
I'm not saying Israel is an angel who did nothing wrong, horrible things did happen, and could have done things better but this should not all be on Israel shoulders.
The bottom line is that the world doesn't really want to get involved, they don't want to solve the conflict, the Arabs don't want to look weak and ashamed and the Israeli side doesn't want to make hard concessions.
Well unless you have specific evidence, that seems to be a reality we don't live in, so not really something we need to worry about. The point of the GP was to point out the power differential. That seems to remain the consant even in your hypothetical world.
1. ban people for threatening violence
2. what if both sides are?
3. then consider which side is killing people
4. count up how many people each side is killing, and only ban sides with a large number
and that's what doesn't make sense to me.
More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.
Based on a recent statement from the UN, I don't believe Israel has this right (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492). My inclination to evaluate the situation purely on the facts of the dispute implies that Israel does. Regardless of how long ago this all came to be, Israel remains an occupying power in the eyes of International Law. The laws and courts of Israel should not apply here.
[Edit: I did not downvote you.]
My understanding from the UN link that I shared is that international law applies here as Israel is an occupying power. I am not sure whether there is an international court to hear this dispute and rule according to the applicable international law. If there isn’t, though, I can’t bring myself to justify that Israel has the right to apply its laws and courts in order for there to be some system of law and order. Even if the PA is in effect ceding this responsibility to Israel through incompetence, applying Israeli law and adjudicating in Israeli courts sets a precedent that any occupying nation can do this in land that is not internationally recognized as their own so long as there is no functioning law and court system in that land. To me accepting this as precedent feels like a slippery slope toward an invitation for nations to engage in annexation and colonialism.
Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1]
It's also quite difficult to actually solidly connect accounts with real-world persons - and equally difficult to find reliable streams on who has committed violent crimes (ones that aren't likely to be poisoned by political silencing) and integrate that into your system.
Social media has definitely made this problem on their own, but it isn't surprising to me that they're all struggling to weave a line between becoming tools of political repression and being full to the brim with extremism.
Hundreds of thousands upvoted a fake hitler quote… will they get banned for inciting violence? Hopefully…?