Pro-Palestinian views face suppression in US amid Israel-Hamas war
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/us-campaign-to-end-israeli-...
Their aim clearly seems to be the destruction of Israel.
So, hmm, is the Guardian an useful idiot or is it more sinister?
> Exploits the US civil rights struggle by accusing Israel of maintaining a “matrix of control” over the Palestinian population and enacting “laws that discriminate against [Palestinians], much as Black Americans had been treated during the Jim Crow era.”
"Exploits the US civil rights struggle"?
One director tweeted "F*k Israel every day until the fall of the zionist regime."
Then some members orgs "rejecting dialogue", "Promotes political warfare strategy against Israel ... with the ultimate goal of dismantling Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."
If you can be so blind I think this proves the point of what very nasty people are easily hiding under the "Pro-Palestine" umbrella. People should be extremely cautious and do their own research. Even the cursory one I've just done here already raises many red flags.
If you can be so blind ...
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
You seem as blind by the way by refusing to see or acknowledge the sort of people who often hide (or not so hide) their true agenda under the "pro-palestine" umbrella.
"Not so hide" because even in this thread I alreary see one commenter siding with what I have called out. So here we have it.
So it seems to me that the Guardian is the useful idiot here, if not worse.
By the way, I don't think the topic is appropriate on this site, so I have already commented too much but it is also frustrating to see the exploitation by extremists.
NGO Monitor has been criticized by academic figures, diplomats, and journalists for allowing its research and conclusions to be driven by politics,[8][9][10] for not examining right-wing NGOs,[10] and for putting out misleading information.[11] NGO Monitor's stated mission is to "end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas".[1] A number of academics have written that NGO Monitor's aims and activities are political in nature.[10][12][9]
The organization's leader, Gerald M. Steinberg, has reportedly worked for the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the Office of the Prime Minister while heading NGO Monitor.[13]
That's what you should focus on rather than trying to shoot the messenger.
I am genuinely curious what people like you expect them to do, and — if you were in the Palestinian position — what you would do.
It's demonstrably not true in that Israel has, at various times, agreed to peace deals that would create a two-state solution (which would mean there being a Palestinian state). These deals were rejected by the Palestinians for various reasons.
In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state.
> if you were in the Palestinian position — what you would do.
I'd try, to my best ability, to get decent leaders instead of Hamas, who would pursue the betterment of my people and pursue peace. Hamas spends so much of its resources on war with Israel, if they spend more of those resources on its own citizens, they would both be better off, and peace would happen far more quickly.
That’s Israel in case you aren’t sure. And those are acts of genocide. So why are you saying Israel doesn’t act on it?
> And those are acts of genocide.
No, those aren't.
Just in case I was wrong about this, I went and checked the UN's definition of genocide:
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Israel is not trying to destroy the Palestinians using any of the above. Their numbers have doubled during the time Israel is around. Which of the things Israel is doing is a genocide as per this definition?
Back to your "list of things Israel does", saying that Israel has "forced" Palestinians into a 25x5 mile strip of land is inaccurate. What do you mean forced? This is their land. Israel withdrew from it, they govern it themselves, in what way were they "forced" into it?
And in what way does Israel not allow that land to be built out? Hamas isn't exactly big on improving the land, preferring to use their resources to kill Israelis, but that's no the fault of Israel. Again, Israel withdrew from that land and doesn't govern it! They can build things (and have, actually).
That’s their land? Are you kidding? The entirety of what is called Israel now is their land, along with fellow Jews. Do you think people haven’t read the history of the area? To even say that shows an incredible ignorance of the history of the area.
As to your last point, Israel controls what goes in Gaza. They limit the amount of concrete so they can’t build, for example. They control water, Palestinians have to get a permit to build water infrastructure from the Israeli government. They rarely grant them. Rain catchers set up by Palestinians are destroyed by the IDF or settlers. Not to mention, anything they do actually build ends up bombed by the Israelis. To say they don’t like to build things is, once again, an incredible display of ignorance.
In fact, since your whole response is filled with such absurdly one sided takes that ignore reality, I have to assume you are trolling.
I'm not trolling. I simply disagree with you (and think you're wrong on a bunch of facts). If every time someone disagrees with you or presents another point of view, you think they're trolling, that might explain why you continue to be wrong. I'm going to try to engage as honestly as I can and take you completely at face value, and ask real questions, and I urge you to please do the same.
> How is not allowing food, water, and aid into Gaza not Israel doing those things? How is the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza not any of those things? You are just denying reality to suit your point.
Neither of these things are happening, despite what a lot of people claim. But let's play devil's advocate for a minute and say, yes, Israel is doing these things - why aren't there hundreds of thousands of starving Palestinians? Why aren't there hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinian civilians by the supposedly indiscriminate Israeli bombings?
I'm totally serious in asking this. You're making a factual claim about the world, which if I understand it correctly, is that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. I'm claiming your facts are wrong. The best way to settle such disagreements is with proof and data. So let's see - how many Palestinians have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
According to the UN site listing casualties, between 2008 and September 2023 (not including the current conflict), there were ~6,400 casualties. Of these, ~4,000 were civilians. [1]
All deaths are regrettable. I sincerely believe that. I wish that number were 0. But do you honestly think that 4,000 dead civilians is evidence of Israel trying to commit genocide? Hamas literally killed a quarter of that number of Israelis in half a day two weeks ago!
For reference, the number of casualties during the war in Afghanistan, 2001-2021 (so a comparable span of years) - 176k. 49k civilians. [2] So the US has killed literally 12 times more civilians in Afghanistan. Is the US trying to cause an Afghani genocide?
For even more reference, number of people killed in the Syrian civil war - 300k civilians. Every death is a tragedy, especially of civilians. But these numbers aren't even close to being in the same ballpark! How can you honestly, with a straight face, say that Israel is trying to cause a genocide?
> That’s their land? Are you kidding? The entirety of what is called Israel now is their land, along with fellow Jews. Do you think people haven’t read the history of the area? To even say that shows an incredible ignorance of the history of the area.
And here's the rub. You're saying (if I parsed it correctly) that all of Israel should actually belong to the Palestinians. Ok. I think that's a pretty ridiculous point of view to have, given the actual history of the region, given that Israel was actually voted to have that land by the UN, which is a far more peaceful way of getting land than, oh, just about every other country on Earth. That's the bottom line, that's why Israel can't have peace - because the precondition for peace among many people seems to be "you, Israel, have to disappear, and we're not very bothered what happens to the people currently living there".
[1] https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war...
First, yes, Israel has been blockading Gaza since the Hamas attack. This humanitarian crisis has been all over the news even in the US, so not sure why you’re saying it isn’t true. [2]
Over 5000 Palestinians have died so far since the Al-Aqsa Flood. So almost as many deaths as the last 15 years. 62% being women and children. 150k other casualties. [1] Also comparing death counts like that is not a logical way to view these situations. You can use the same line of thinking to deny the holocaust. “Only 6 million Jews? Do you really think that’s a genocide when Nazis killed over 20 million Soviets?”
No I did not mean the land belongs to the Palestinians. It belongs to all who live there, Jew and Arab. The UN is a political entity, the countries who voted had no right to say the Palestinians don’t get that land. The land has been lived in for thousands of years by all sorts of ethnicities. The current ethnostate does deserve to go away. Its existence will forever destabilize the region.
Last, I notice you had no response to how Israel doesn’t let Gaza build infrastructure. So I’ll assume you saw that was true.
[1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142687
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/gaza-aid-rafah...
I've been hearing that "Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians" for 20 years. It's a little disingenuous to say "oh, no, that's always been a lie, but now it's true".
Then again, you're not necessarily the one who was saying that for the last twenty years, so let me attempt to address you. So I'll ask again - by what definition of genocide do you think Israel is committing genocide as we speak, and do you have any semblance of proof? While 5k dead in the last 2 weeks is a tragic and regrettable number, it is not demonstrative of intent to kill all Palestinians.
As for the humanitarian crisis that's all over the news - Israel is letting in aid now, at least some aid, and has turned back on the water (btw, Israel only provides like 10% of water in Gaza IIRC). Israel is understandably being cautious given that so much aid is stolen by Hamas. But Israel is not letting Palestinians mass starve, as is reflected in the number of dead.
> Also comparing death counts like that is not a logical way to view these situations. You can use the same line of thinking to deny the holocaust. “Only 6 million Jews? Do you really think that’s a genocide when Nazis killed over 20 million Soviets?”
I don't think death counts is the only metric, but it's certainly good evidence one way or the other. As per the UN's definition that I quoted above, "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: [...]". So the intent here matters. The Nazis didn't intend to kill all Soviets, they did intend to kill all the Jews (and other groups).
But again, please, you insist that Israel is committing genocide, I'm showing what (to my mind) is pretty conclusive evidence that it isn't doing so under the UN definition of genocide. If you disagree, explain to me how under that definition (or another) Israel is committing genocide.
For the record, I'll repeat again - every civilian (and actually every non-civilian) death is a tragedy, on both sides. But I have full confidence in Israel to not actively target civilians for no reason just to kill them, and I believe all of the tragic history of this region shows that I'm right.
> No I did not mean the land belongs to the Palestinians. It belongs to all who live there, Jew and Arab. The UN is a political entity, the countries who voted had no right to say the Palestinians don’t get that land.
Ok sorry, I misunderstood you.
I think it's a valid historical question to debate whether or not the founding of Israel in that area was just or not. Just as valid as asking the same of any other country, frankly. But given the reality now, there is no way for the ethnostate to go away. Or at least, I certainly don't know of any way in which that happens without the mass killing and/or deportation of the Jews in Israel. Do you have a way of achieving that without that outcome? Also, do you only object to a Jewish ethnostate specifically in that region?
> Last, I notice you had no response to how Israel doesn’t let Gaza build infrastructure. So I’ll assume you saw that was true.
I thought my comment was too long, that's mostly why I didn't answer it. I also don't know enough to answer this in a way that I feel is knowledgeable enough.
I certianly don't think Israel is a saint by any means, and wish it acted differently in many respects. I don't think it's valid to say that it doesn't let Gaza build any infrastructure. Firstly, Gaza has built infrastructure. Secondly, Hamas has shown over and over a willingness to utilize resources (foreign aid, imports, etc) to build weapons to attack Israel. That's a double crime - they're both preventing infrastructure being built, as well as making it so that Israel has to block some of the aid reaching Gaza for fear of it turning into weapons. (There's videos posted proudly by Hamas themselves of them tearing water pipes out of the ground to turn into rockets to shoot at Israel, something to think about when saying that Gazans don't have access to water.)
To be clear, I think the situation isn't Israel vs. Gazans. It's Israel and Gazans vs. Hamas. Hamas is a brutal dictatorship that's taken over Gaza, and is both an enemy of its neighbors, as well as a ruthless ruler that hurts its own population.
The west bank is the two state solution and it's horrible for palestinians. Even after the olso accords the number of illegal settlements went from 120k to 950k
> In fact, the government of Gaza, which is Hamas, in contrast with Israel, both says that it wants to destroy Israel and kill all Jews, and also acts on it. So it's the Palestinian side (or at least Gaza's currently-elected leaders) that are trying to destroy the Israeli state.
Hamas changed it's deal to be the emancipation of Palestine. Remember in front of the UN showed a map of israel without palestinians. the new government is so right wing and borderline facist. this video about the itamar ben gvir guy who was labeled as a terrorist and was too extreme for the idf was in the government. It shows some shit. https://youtu.be/OplM9oNmTfQ
It's not actually a two-state solution as it isn't a completely independent state.
I'm definitely against the settlements though. I'd much prefer an actual peace be reached, official borders agreed upon, and therefore the end of settelments.
As for Ben Gvir, I agree - he is horrible. He isn't the entire government, but he definitely represents a fringe (though still far too large) point of view.
That said, Israeli have been protesting this government for a year, for this among other reasons. And like I said, you have to look at actions, not just at the rhetoric, horrible as the rheotric might be.
(And again, I hate Ben Gvir and think it's a travesty he's part of the government. If he were the whole of the government, and the government actually carried out these kinds of actions on Palestinians, then we'd be in a similar situation as Gazans are in right now.)
Don't write in euphemisms. Their aim is the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or slaughter of all Jews. For a start...
Supporting them is a criminal offence in a number of countries for a very good reason.
So do say if that is what you support so that everything is crystal clear.
The other issue heavily discussed is settlements in the West Bank. Settlements have caused, and continue to cause, problems: barriers, scanners, street closures (thereby preventing access for non-Jews), etc. Here, Israel downplays problems faced by locals. This is also a consequence of why it is not possible for Jews and Arabs to live together without barriers, scanners, closures.
Arafat scuttled the camp David deal in 2000. Of course, that deal was bad to Palestinians from the latter's perspective. Can they get a better deal than that by NOT 'lay down and die'?
From Clinton's biography: 'Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.'