That Netanyahu still walks free is a consequence of a) Israel not being party to the ICC, therefore not bound to obey their prosecutors' requests and b) the countries he travels to not being party to the ICC either or c) the ICC member states he travels to guaranteeing diplomatic immunity as is tradition for an invited diplomatic guest.
c) is actually a problem, but not one of Israel being undemocratic, but of the respective member states being hypocrites for disobeying the ICC while still being members.
“All 125 ICC member states, including France and the United Kingdom, are required to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter the state's territory”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
If he isn’t guilty, defend the charge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court...
Does he "still travel everywhere"? The article mentions him travelling to Hungary and not being arrested despite Hungary having signed the treaty. The article doesn't mention him travelling anywhere else.
Of course that won’t happen now since Israel got to him first.
And shooting enemies in a war is unfortunately not something you would investigate, it isn't even murder, it is just a consequence of war under the articles of war. In cases where civilians are shot (what Israel defines to be civilians), there are investigations and sometimes even punishments for the perpetrators. Now you may (sometimes rightfully) claim that those investigations and punishments are too few, one-sided and not done by a neutral party. But those do happen, which by far isn't "nothing".
> In cases where civilians are shot (what Israel defines to be civilians), there are investigations and sometimes even punishments for the perpetrators.
Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians
I've been hearing this for as long as I can remember, yet the population numbers tell a completely different story. It makes no sense to speak of a genocide if the birthrate far outpaces any casualties. In fact, the Palestinian population has been growing at a faster pace than Israeli over the past 35 years (that's how far the chart goes on Google)
Genocide requires intent, not just a number of dead. If you judge by the numbers only, then US committed many genocides in the past 50 years.
‘Just adjust the frame of measurement. With this one simple trick, you can remove any 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.
The tricky part isn't about (a) to (e), it is in "intent to destroy".
So, if you can’t prove the intent, you are saying it’s enough to use “polling”, TV interviews, and what the politicians had to say? I guess it’s bad news for the Palestinians, then. With Palestinians we have official policy that pays money to kill Israelis regardless of their status and political views. Way more convincing than “polling”.
What’s country? Palestine never existed as independent country.
Israel never existed either, until it was administratively created in 1948. Maybe it shouldn't have been created where other people were already living?
Of course this doesn't really work very well, see Bosnia.
Does it legitimise the invasion of someone's land? I don't think so
There were. They had their own government, and were able to have relationships with other countries.
At what point in time Palestinians had their own government and country? I’ll remind you that during the mandate there was no Jordan as well.
> Does it legitimise the invasion of someone's land? I don't think so
Jews also owned land there during the mandate, the ottomans, and even before. Is it okay to take their land?
Of course not! It's not OK to take anyone's anything.
Edit: removing further comments. It would be ideal if everyone could just live in peace
Palestinians do not want to stick to those borders too. They want it all to themselves. I mean, you cannot expect Israeli government to sell the idea to their people that we are going to give it to the Palestinians and let's see what happens to us, right?
But since you only picked up on that: what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians, is exactly what you are describing, but from the other side. It's not hypothetical. It's happening. When will they stop?
The open secret that for some reason nobody is willing to acknowledge is that Palestinians will never accept even the borders of 1948 — for Palestinians it’s all or nothing. You won’t find even a single popular politician that is okay with peace deal for a simple reason — they do not want it.
So, what do you do?
Obviously there is no straightforward solution, and I don't want to fuel this anymore.
0. Which you referred to as the borders of 1948.
Nope. They refused any deal, including the ones with a land swaps and capital in East Jerusalem.
> while the Israelis insist on taking considerable territory beyond those borders.
Israelis offered land for peace multiple times. Moreover, Israelis signed deals that were based on land for peace, e.g., Egypt. Palestinians got autonomy only to establish a "pay for slay" government-funded fund to incentivize more Palestinians to commit terrorist attacks.
One of the reasons why the Palestinians refused the Israeli offers was because the Israelis never offered the 1967 borders, which is what the Palestinians want. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
> Moreover, Israelis signed deals that were based on land for peace, e.g., Egypt.
The difference is that the Egyptians had a serious army that scared the bejeezus out of the Israelis is 1973. Israel only respects the language of force.
> Palestinians got autonomy only to establish a "pay for slay"
Israel has a massive "pay for slay" program. It's called the IDF.
Can you list those "many times"?
> The difference is that the Egyptians had a serious army that scared the bejeezus out of the Israelis is 1973. Israel only respects the language of force.
You mean the one that Israel won? You do realize that your argument holds no water for the simple reason that there was like 5-6 years between the war of 1973 and siding of the peace deal? If Egyptian army was so strong, why did they left Sinai in Israeli hands after the war of 1973? If this army was so strong why did they need to sign a peace deal at all?
> Israel has a massive "pay for slay" program. It's called the IDF.
Can you point me to the part of this "program" that increases the pay to IDF soldiers with number of Palestinians they kill?
I think it will be hard for you to find this part for a simple reason -- it does not exist. Service in the IDF is not voluntary, and the salary for every soldier is the same.
Palestinian government-sponsored terrorism is completely different: first of all, you are not forced to participate, and second -- the more you kill, the more money you get.
So, you can continue with these false equivalences but they hold no water, and easy to dispute.
The Palestinians spent most of the 1980s trying to simply get the Israelis to come to the table and talk, and 1990s trying to get the Israelis to agree to a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The Palestinians were consistently more interested in a peace deal than the Israelis were. The simple reason is that Israel suffers very few negative consequences from its occupation of the Palestinian territories. It has very little incentive to make any peace deal.
> You mean the one that Israel won? You do realize that your argument holds no water for the simple reason that there was like 5-6 years between the war of 1973 and siding of the peace deal?
Israel came very close to defeat in 1973, and had to rely on an unprecedented resupply effort by the United States, which replaced nearly the entire Israeli tank force and much of the airforce within days. The Israelis were aware of their vulnerability after 1973, which is why they entered negotiations with the Egyptians. Negotiations take time, which is why the whole process took several years.
> Can you point me to the part of this "program" that increases the pay to IDF soldiers with number of Palestinians they kill?
The IDF is a massive organization that kills hundreds of Palestinians every day. Every week is another October 7th for the Palestinians, for two years in a row. But you're quibbling about the details of how IDF soldiers get paid, as if that made any moral difference.
> So, you can continue with these false equivalences
I'm not trying to draw any equivalence. The IDF is a thousand times more evil than any Palestinian organization.
So, nothing concrete beyond your opinions not grounded in facts. Okay.
> Israel came very close to defeat in 1973, and had to rely on an unprecedented resupply effort by the United States, which replaced nearly the entire Israeli tank force and much of the airforce within days.
What? How do you replace entire tank force within days from across the globe?? How do you train the crews on new equipment? Why are inventing things that never happened?
> The Israelis were aware of their vulnerability after 1973, which is why they entered negotiations with the Egyptians. Negotiations take time, which is why the whole process took several years.
Realizing that piece is better than constant wars and trading the land for it is a good move. I’m not sure what are you trying to show here.
> But you're quibbling about the details of how IDF soldiers get paid, as if that made any moral difference.
Devil is in the details though, right? :) I know that you cannot have an evidence based discourse because it will be quickly shown that Palestinians incentivize non-conventional terror warfare, while Israelis not.
Getting people paid to kill civilians is immoral.
> I'm not trying to draw any equivalence. The IDF is a thousand times more evil than any Palestinian organization.
Of course not. Making your own people blow themselves up in cafes and buses is immoral.
You can read about every round of negotiation, going back to Madrid in 1990. This was consistently the Palestinian position. At Madrid, the Israelis were so obstinate that they refused to even meet with a Palestinian delegation at all. The Palestinians had to join the Jordanian delegation. The Palestinians proposed a two-state solution with 1967 borders. The Israelis refused to commit to the idea of a Palestinian state at all.
> What? How do you replace entire tank force within days from across the globe?? How do you train the crews on new equipment? Why are inventing things that never happened?
It sounds amazing because it was. The US used its massive airborne heavy-lift capacity, and flew in hundreds of M60 tanks within literally days. It was an amazing, unprecedented feat of logistics, intended partly to save Israel from defeat, and partly to impress the Soviets. The Israeli tank crews did not have to be replaced from scratch - when a tank is knocked out, the crew often survives. They just don't have a tank any more. The resupply effort also brought in large numbers of aircraft to replenish the Israeli air force, and massive amounts of ammunition. The Israelis simply did not have enough ammo to fight such a high-intensity war for longer than about one week. No US ammo resupply would have meant that the Israelis would have had to freeze all of their offensive operations and start conserving ammo just a few days into the war.
> Realizing that piece is better than constant wars and trading the land for it is a good move. I’m not sure what are you trying to show here.
That Israel will not trade land for peace with the Palestinians, because unlike the Egyptians, the Palestinians don't have anything like a serious army that could threaten Israel.
> Of course not. Making your own people blow themselves up in cafes and buses is immoral.
Israel just dropped a bomb on a café in Gaza used by Palestinian journalists a few days ago. Is that more moral? Israel has been doing things like this many times a day, every day, for nearly two years, killing tens of thousands of civilians and wiping Gaza off the face of the earth. Now, the Israeli Defense Minister has proposed building a giant concentration camp for 600,000 Palestinians in southern Gaza. Is that moral?
And then we had Oslo Accords.
How can you make such a claim, when a bit later there was a deal???
> and flew in hundreds of M60 tanks within literally days
The whole airlift took about a month! No denying, ofc US helped Israel caught with their pants down, but making it like US just brought 200 tanks overnight, is laughable. Regardless: Israel turned the war around. Israeli forces were forced to stop on their march to Cairo. What kind of victory is that for Egypt?
Making a land deal for peace to make future wars impossible is a good deal. There was no war with Egypt ever since, so it clearly worked. I don’t understand why you denying this simple fact?
> That Israel will not trade land for peace with the Palestinians, because unlike the Egyptians, the Palestinians don't have anything like a serious army that could threaten Israel.
Israel literally left Gaza. Why would they leave Gaza if they want more land?
> Israel just dropped a bomb on a café in Gaza used by Palestinian journalists a few days ago. Is that more moral?
It’s different. I don’t understand how can’t see a difference between military action that has no incentive whatsoever for those who carried it out vs. paying your civilians to carry out attacks against civilians and making the payment directly proportional to the severity and number of casualties.
> Israel has been doing things like this many times a day, every day, for nearly two years, killing tens of thousands of civilians and wiping Gaza off the face of the earth.
It’s called war. People die in wars. UK was in war with Germany (including bombing civilians). Was it immoral war?
> Now, the Israeli Defense Minister has proposed building a giant concentration camp for 600,000 Palestinians in southern Gaza. Is that moral?
If such concentration camp would be built it would be immoral.
I am not surprised that someone who values people lives with two different sets of rules to not see that one (state’s military) is more moral than state sponsoring its own citizens (not even its own armed forces, which still would be less moral) to kill civilians (not even armed personnel) of the other side.
The Oslo Accords specifically avoided mentioning anything about a Palestinian state. Why do you think that is? It's because the Israeli negotiators refused to agree to any framework that explicitly called for a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian negotiators at Madrid were shocked to learn that behind their backs, in secret, the PLO had negotiated an agreement with Israel that contained no mention of a Palestinian state, no commitment by Israel to end the expansion of illegal settlements, etc.
This is really basic history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that you should know.
> It’s called war. People die in wars. UK was in war with Germany (including bombing civilians).
First, this has nothing to do with war any more. This is one-sided slaughter and destruction of everything, which has sadistically been carried on for nearly two years now. Second, why is it that defenders of Israel always point to war crimes from WWII to justify what Israel is doing? Do you really think that makes Israel look better? Third, nobody except for the most strident Israeli partisans think it's the Palestinians who are analogous to the Nazis in this conflict.
> If such concentration camp would be built it would be immoral.
Then what do you think it says about Israel that the Defense Minister, a major political and governmental figure, is calling for the creation of a concentration camp for Palestinians in Gaza?
Israel would not have been able to turn the war around without the massive US airlift. As I said, the Israelis were literally running out of ammunition by the time the US airlift began. Without the airlift, they would have had to cease offensive operations and conserve ammo. The airlift enabled them to wage an entirely different type of war, without fear of running out of ammunition, tanks, airplanes, etc.
What Egypt proved in the war was that it was a serious military threat to Israel. Six years after the Six-Day War, which was a complete humiliation for the Arab forces, Egypt successfully pulled off a sophisticated crossing of the Suez Canal. It broke through the IDF's fortified line, and then decimated a large Israeli armored counter-attack, knocking out hundreds of Israeli tanks. That was a huge psychological shock to the Israelis.
Even though the Israelis turned the tide of the war, they were acutely aware that they had been caught with their pants down and had needed massive American aid to get through the war. Nobody could guarantee that the next round would end the same way. That was the major motivation to seek peace with the Egyptians.
There were other factors involved as well, like the American moves to woo Egypt away from the USSR, but the key thing that broke the deadlock and convinced the Israelis that they should negotiate with Egypt was the Israeli realization of their own vulnerability.
> And that is the basis of all this fighting, why doesn't Israel stick to the initial borders they agreed to?
You mean the ones that Palestinians do not want to stick to?
There's a very simple reason Israel doesn't give the Palestinians citizenship: Israel wants to make sure the large majority of voters are Jewish. It wants the land, but not the people who live there.
The period we are talking about had no Israel either, so I am not sure what was supposed to happen there in your view.
> There's a very simple reason Israel doesn't give the Palestinians citizenship: Israel wants to make sure the large majority of voters are Jewish.
Of course. We all (1) see what happens to non-muslims in other middle eastern countries, and (2) saw what happened to the middle eastern jewry after 1948. I doubt that Iraqi jews living in Israel want to live under Islamic rule again.
> It wants the land, but not the people who live there.
This is false. Israel multiple times traded land for peace. The latest one was leaving Gaza in 2005.
Why are you keeping twisting the facts to suit your narrative?
And you think that's legitimate? Keeping millions of people under permanent rule of a state with no rights whatsoever?
I'm not going to get into your historical claims, except to note that the reason why the situation for Middle Eastern Jews changed so drastically after 1948 was because a bunch of people claiming to represent all Jews conquered a strip of land in the Middle East and expelled the native population. That did not go down well elsewhere in the Middle East, and the fact that the new state was proclaimed "the Jewish state" painted a target on the back of Jews throughout the region, who had had nothing to do with the founding of Israel.
> Israel multiple times traded land for peace. The latest one was leaving Gaza in 2005.
Israel left Gaza in 2005 so that it could concentrate on the settlement of the West Bank. It was a strategic move to conserve their forces.
The only "land for peace" deal that Israel has made is with Egypt. Israel did that because it did not want to risk another war like 1973 with a serious military opponent.
They do have rights. Why are you lying? They have PA, and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA.
> I'm not going to get into your historical claims, except to note that the reason why the situation for Middle Eastern Jews changed so drastically after 1948 was because a bunch of people claiming to represent all Jews conquered a strip of land in the Middle East and expelled the native population.
I see. So if some Jews in Israel do something, then the Arabs everywhere else are allowed to ethnically cleanse the Jews in other places. Thank you for clarifying this. Well, now we know where you stand on collective punishment :)
> Israel left Gaza in 2005 so that it could concentrate on the settlement of the West Bank. It was a strategic move to conserve their forces.
How does it change the choice that Palestinians made in Gaza?
> The only "land for peace" deal that Israel has made is with Egypt. Israel did that because it did not want to risk another war like 1973 with a serious military opponent.
So? It was a smart move, and proved itself.
Like man, you just showed with this reply alone that you don’t care about human rights, you just don’t like Jews.
I'd actually turn that around and ask you the very same question. You know that Palestinians in the West Bank have no rights whatsoever, and I don't understand what you're playing at with your obvious gambit here.
> They have PA, and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA.
The PA is totally powerless, as I'm sure you know. It gets to take out the trash and run the schools. The Israelis hold all the real power in the West Bank, and they do whatever they want, wherever they want. The IDF wants to invade a Palestinian city nominally under PA jurisdiction? No problem. The IDF wants to cut off the tax revenue of the PA? No problem. The IDF wants to nab someone in the middle of a Palestinian city? No problem. The PA is just as powerless as the Warsaw Judenrat was.
> So if some Jews in Israel do something, then the Arabs everywhere else are allowed to ethnically cleanse the Jews in other places.
I never said anything of the sort. The Jews of the Arab world were treated horribly after the founding of Israel. They suffered because of what people they had no control over (European and American Zionists) did.
> How does it change the choice that Palestinians made in Gaza?
It directly contradicts your claim that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was an attempt to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. You're just changing the subject now.
> So? It was a smart move, and proved itself.
The "So what?" is that this undermines your claim that Israel is willing to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. They only traded land for peace with Egypt because Egypt was a credible military threat (which the Palestinians are not).
> Like man, you just showed with this reply alone that you don’t care about human rights, you just don’t like Jews.
I'm Jewish.
But this is how every conversation with a Zionist ends, in my experience. After they pull out all the talking points they learned at summer camp, they fall back to their last line of defense: "You just hate Jews." Or its cousin: "You're just a self-hating Jew." As if loving oneself requires one to support a little ultranationalist state on the other side of the world that's currently carrying out a genocide.
The problem is when people drag the rest of the country into it. And that's mostly a problem because the US is this weird international country now so we have to make all these compromises.
They absolutely have rights. For example, they can marry, they can buy things, go to work, sell things, they have a lot of rights. So, stop lying.
> The PA is just as powerless as the Warsaw Judenrat was.
I’m sure the Jews in Warsaw ghetto got their tax revenue and used it to fund martyrs fund to kill innocent polish civilians. Quite a novel discovery about the history of Warsaw Ghetto!
> I never said anything of the sort. The Jews of the Arab world were treated horribly after the founding of Israel. They suffered because of what people they had no control over (European and American Zionists) did.
Another novel historical take: Jews lived peacefully in Muslim lands for generations! It’s all fault of some other Jews thousands of miles away that Jews of Iraq were attacked by Arabs. It was not the decision of the Arabs in Iraq to attack their fellow countrymen, it was… hm…
So, you would be totally fine to attack ethnic group X in america if the same ethnic group somewhere else does something you may disagree with? Gotcha!
> It directly contradicts your claim that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was an attempt to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. You're just changing the subject now.
No it doesn’t. The same time Israel disengaged with Gaza it also cleaned up and removed numerous settlements in the West Bank. For example, a couple of them were near Nablus. Which kinda makes it illogical — how can one focus on settling West Bank if the actions are quite the opposite?
However, it’s going to be a third novel historical tale by you, so everything tracks.
> The "So what?" is that this undermines your claim that Israel is willing to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. They only traded land for peace with Egypt because Egypt was a credible military threat (which the Palestinians are not).
See above. Perhaps you should read more on the subject, but not Wikipedia.
> I'm Jewish.
Of course you are.
> But this is how every conversation with a Zionist ends, in my experience. After they pull out all the talking points they learned at summer camp, they fall back to their last line of defense: "You just hate Jews." Or its cousin: "You're just a self-hating Jew." As if loving oneself requires one to support a little ultranationalist state on the other side of the world that's currently carrying out a genocide.
Talking points? Man, you make up history as we speak. Make factually incorrect claims. And I’m the one with talking points?
Your values are not universal, they are conditioned on who is the subject, you apply different standards to Israelis and Palestinians, and you telling me about “zionists” and talking points? Hilarious.
Every claim you make is not rooted in reality, and shows just surface level understanding of what is going on.
And they can be killed by Israeli soldiers or settlers, imprisoned and tortured by Israel with no trial or charges, or have their homes demolished by Israel. They can't travel more than a few kilometers without having to go through Israeli military checkpoints, where they can be humiliated, stopped for no reason at all, or taken captive. They are subjected to pogroms by Israeli settlers, while the IDF stands by and watches (or even sides with the settlers). But they can marry one another, so I guess everything is fine, right? Do you hear yourself? As a Jewish person, you should be ashamed to be justifying extreme oppression of an ethnic minority like this. It's a complete betrayal of Jewish history and values.
> I’m sure the Jews in Warsaw ghetto got their tax revenue and used it to fund martyrs fund to kill innocent polish civilians. Quite a novel discovery about the history of Warsaw Ghetto!
First, this is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that the PA is as powerless as the Judenrat in the Warsaw Ghetto was. You want to go on a tangent about the existence of Palestinian terrorism (which is a response to Israeli state violence). If we start talking about the widespread use of terrorism by the Zionists / Israelis during the establishment of their state in the 1930s-40s, you will, of course, suddenly have nothing to say.
> No it doesn’t. The same time Israel disengaged with Gaza it also cleaned up and removed numerous settlements in the West Bank.
Settlement activity in the West Bank continued apace. If you look at a graph of the number of Israeli settlers over time, the Gaza disengagement does not even create a blip. The numbers kept increasing, year after year. There are now 70% more Israeli settlers than there were just before the Gaza disengagement.
> Another novel historical take: Jews lived peacefully in Muslim lands for generations! It’s all fault of some other Jews thousands of miles away that Jews of Iraq were attacked by Arabs. It was not the decision of the Arabs in Iraq to attack their fellow countrymen, it was… hm…
Of all the countries you could have chosen to talk about, Iraq is the absolute worst for your argument. In Iraq specifically, there have consistently been strong suspicions by historians that the Israeli intelligence services carried out attacks on the Jewish community in order to spur emigration to Israel, and more evidence of that has come out in recent years. The Israelis played extremely dirty, driven by an ideology that says the ends justify the means.
My historical take here is not novel at all. It's just a historical fact that antisemitism was historically much worse in Europe than in the Middle East, and that the founding of Israel and the expulsion of the Palestinians by the self-proclaimed "Jewish state" dramatically increased antisemitism in the entire region.
> Talking points? Man, you make up history as we speak. Make factually incorrect claims. And I’m the one with talking points?
I haven't made anything up. You weren't even aware of Operation Nickel Grass, the massive US resupply effort to Israel in 1973, and you claimed it was made up. Before accusing others of making things up, you should learn the basic history.
> Your values are not universal, they are conditioned on who is the subject, you apply different standards to Israelis and Palestinians, and you telling me about “zionists” and talking points? Hilarious.
It's precisely because I have universal values that, unlike you, I don't form my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on my Jewish ethnicity.
Kind of.
> and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA.
The PA doesn't administer Gaza (because of the civil war Israel actively facilitated, and because even though the parties came to an agreement on all-Palestine elections to resolve it, Israel has blocked them), and much of the West Bank (not just the Israeli settlements, but places where Palestinians live) is administered by Israel, not the PA.
And even the parts administered by the PA are subject to regular (and accelerated in the last couple years, with almost no international attention thanks to the focus on the part of the Israel-Palestine war taking place in Gaza) arbitrary violence by Israel, rendering "rights" determined by the PA moot in practice.
I can accept not wanting to be part of that. But in that case, whining about missing democratic representation is just silly, of course you won't be represented if you chose not to be, no matter the reason.
> Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians
You seem to assume that all children are always civilians, but that is wrong. The articles of war don't put an age limit on being an enemy combatant. If you take up arms, you are a legitimate target, no matter your age. Many armies use child soldiers, and it is totally OK to shoot those child soldiers in a war.
If they are killed while they are in uniform and holding a gun during a gunfight, then they are soldiers.
Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the option of becoming Israeli citizens, except under rare circumstances.
Its laughable that when you say that there are investigations. The number of incidents of journalists, medics, hospital workers being murdered and even children being shot in the head with sniper bullets is shockingly high.
One case is the murder of Hind Rajab where more 300 bullets were shot at the car she was into. Despite managing to call for an ambulance, Israel shelled it killing all the ambulance crew and 6 year old Hind Rajab.
Another example is the 15 ambulance crew murdered by Israel forces and then buried.
Even before the genocide, the murder of the Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was proved to have been done by Israel, after they repeatedly lied and tried to cover it up. Another case was this one, where a soldier emptied his magazine in a 13 year old and was judged not guilty (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2)
The examples and many others are many and have been documented by the ICC and other organisations. Saying that it's not nothing is a distinction without a difference
Marriage laws have nothing to do with apartheid, a system that uses race to differentiate peoples.
There are plenty of countries where marriage is done on religion basis and there is no civil marriage at all. What does it have to do with Palestinians?
So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?
Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?
Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?
Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism. In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.
> Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?
> Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?
If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.
Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).
But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.
> In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.
The same way numerous NGOs help migrants today to move and settle in the EU. I am willing to bet $100 you do not see them as colonizers, right?
> If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.
You are twisting facts and lying again. The purchase of lands happened way before the British mandate even. Are you saying it never happened?
> Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).
How can jews be white when they were never considered the same class citizens in Europe at the time? LOL
Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?
Yes they did, this was the Nakba, as documented by Israeli historians like Illan Pappe and Bennhy Morris
The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied and upon Palestinians clamouring for their own state, it was decided to take territory by force.
White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.
> Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?
You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism. The narrative is based on historical evidence. I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
Gotcha. So, refugees are colonizers then, right?
> The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied
Palestinians owned about 8%. The rest was owned by the Ottomans and later by the British mandate.
> White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.
You are contradicting yourself. White supremacy is either about race (ie white) or not. If it’s not about race at all, then how can it determine racial hierarchy???
> You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism.
I don’t care who you are. I argue about your claims, and not ethnic or cultural or ancestral background. You can be the Moses himself and still be wrong.
> The narrative is based on historical evidence.
You are not.
> I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
What does it even mean? Are you saying Jews are nazis?
Once you start making natives refugees themselves and oppressing them, yes
> Palestinians owned about 8%. The rest was owned by the Ottomans and later by the British mandate.
So not owned by Jews either. Also most of African colonies were not owned by Africans themselves so by your argument they could not own the land they had been living on for generations? Really bad argument there
> You are contradicting yourself. White supremacy is either about race (ie white) or not. If it’s not about race at all, then how can it determine racial hierarchy???
Because what constitutes a race shifts according to what is convenient for the powers that be. Since early Zionist Jews in Palestine were primarily European, they were considered worthy, because it was suitable.
> I don’t care who you are. I argue about your claims, and not ethnic or cultural or ancestral background. You can be the Moses himself and still be wrong.
You asked me in your previous comment "Man, why are you like that?", so I answered.
> The narrative is based on historical evidence.
Multiple historians, including Israeli ones have researched the subject and even there are differences on some points, they broadly agree that the Nakba existed. To deny it is the same thing as denying the Holocaust.
> I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.
I'm simply saying that I'm not making a special case for Jewish people committing war crimes. I don't think Jews are Nazis, but I do think that zionist rhetoric and methods, especially in Gaza, shares disturbing similarities to the Nazis.
List them.
> you cannot marry between faiths
Which law bans this. C'mon show it.
> Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the option of becoming Israeli citizens
Because they're a different country, remember?
There's actually 65 apparently https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/19/five-ways-israeli-l...
> Because they're a different country, remember?
They are being occupied illegaly for decades, remember? by a supremacist ethno state, remember?
Similar law exists in Palestinian Authority -- no land can be owned by Jews. Selling land to jews is punishable offense.
> They are being occupied illegaly for decades, remember?
Who? You have to be specific.
> by a supremacist ethno state, remember?
Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.
Source? but even if true, I suspect this is an act of resistance against settlers who are already encroaching on Palestinian land through intimidation and terror tactics (poisoning goats, burning trees, cars, houses and evening murdering palestinians, with the protection of the IOF). In any case, the PA is a puppet dictatorship controlled by Israel, so these laws are essentially powerless to stop the stealing of land by Israel. This argument ignores the fact that Israel is gradually ethnically cleansing the rest of Palestine by seizing more and more land every year.
> Who? You have to be specific. Palestinians are being occupied by Israel, the West Bank since 1967 more specifically.
> Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.
Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.
Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel. Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals. Given the current genocide, and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-05-28/ty-article-ma...
Here you go: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/article/962044#:~:text=The%20conc...
> but even if true, ...
Continues to justify discriminatory laws.
> Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.
Stop shifting goal posts. The fact that Israel is a jewish state does not mean that it is a "supremacist" state (what does it even mean?). There are plenty of countries around the globe that have priority for specific ethnic group. For example, Spain, Poland, Austria, etc. Are these all "supremacist ethnostates" as well?
> Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel.
Ah, right. So, why are you focused on Israel though? Don't you think that there is a bigger fish to fry in all these other countries, where minorities by law are disenfranchised?
> Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals.
This is a lie. For example, during the invasion to Iraq, allied forces prosecuted teenage fighters as well. Why do you lie? Like, all your claims are easily disputed with a simple google search. It seems to me you are obsessed with human rights violations only when they are done by Israeli forces.
> Given the current genocide,
There is no genocide. There are plenty of conflicts with even higher civilian casualty rate, with a clear intent to destroy the population as a whole that the current iteration of a war in Gaza. I know that today, for some reason, everyone expects wars have no civilian casualties, but in reality is not achievable.
> and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.
Waging wars tells you nothing about the tolerance of a country and its populace. If I were to use your line of argument then I can say that any society that engages in war is intolerant, which is absolute bs.
It would be hard to demand love to Gazans from Israelis after October 7th. And if you do, then I can make the same argument and ask the Palestinians to stop their "resistance" and simply be friends with everyone around them.
They're under military occupation by a country that uses the presence of Jewish people as a justification for annexing Palestinian land. There are American billionaires who are pouring tons of money into buying up Palestinian property and giving it to Jewish settlers, so that Israel can lay permanent claim to the land.
Of course the Palestinians are trying to stop that.
You see, this is why it’s so easy to see through your claims — they are not rooted in universal values, but rather in double standards, which are easy to call out.
There are over two million Arab citizens of Israel. What ethnicity do they belong to?
A country who government was chosen by its inhabitants could be quite different. I know many states allow voting from abroad, but my home country doesn't and nobody ever questions its democratic credentials.
(I make no comment on the justice or long-term stability of the system in general or specifically in Israel, that has been done at length elsewhere.)
They are not though. They are citizens of PA, where they vote and pay taxes.
Israeli Arabs get full citizenship like any other ethnic/religious minority in Israel.
Israel does recognize Palestinian Authority.
> ergo all Palestinians are considered permanent residents of Israel
Palestinians are not permanent citizens of Israel. And they are not considered ones.
Why do you invent things that are easily verifiable online?
> but not given any right, which is the issue.
They have all their rights within Palestinian Authority!
The issue is that Oslo accord were not finalized and military occupation never ended.
> Palestinians are not permanent citizens of Israel. And they are not considered ones.
> Why do you invent things that are easily verifiable online?
The distinction between citizen and resident is a sharp and significant one in many jurisdictions!
They're certainly humans worthy of rights and dignity, citizens of the world, and most are citizens of the (partially recognised, limited authority) Palestinian state. But I think it's clear what we are talking about, that the Israeli state is "democratic" in the sense that it has a conventional (if unfair) idea of who its population/demos is, and those are the people eligible to vote for the representatives at the State level.
The situation you describe actually did happen to me, and many others in states without jus soli which are nonetheless widely considered democratic. This is typical in Western Europe, for example.
They live their entire lives in a country that refuses them citizenship, and they have no other country. They have no rights. They're treated with contempt by the state, which at best just wants them to emigrate. They're subjected to pogroms by Jewish settlers, who are allowed to run wild by the state.
This isn't like you not having French citizenship during your gap year in France. This is the majority of the native population of the country being denied even basic rights. Meanwhile, I could move to Israel and get citizenship almost immediately, simply because of my ethnicity.
I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs, except that I don't feel I'm making any comparison or absurdity.
I'm not talking about extended holidays. I don't like giving much detail about my own life here, but I didn't get automatic citizenship in the country of my birth due to being from a mixed immigrant family. I have lived, worked, and studied for multiple years around Europe and North America. I've felt at times genuinely disenfranchised, despite paying taxes, having roots, and being a bona fide member of those societies.
All that said, I never had to live in a warzone, and even the areas of political violence and disputed sovereignty have been Disneyland compared to Gaza. This isn't about me though!
I am merely arguing that Israel can reasonably be called a democracy by sensible and customary definition which is applied broadly throughout the world. I don't mean I approve, or that I wouldn't change anything, I'm just trying to be precise about the meaning of words.
(I think your efforts to advocate for the oppressed may be better spent arguing with someone who doesn't fundamentally share your position, even if we don't agree on semantics.)
Almost everything you said is technically true, but with a degree of selective reasoning that is remarkably disingenuous. Conversely, the top comment is far less accurate but captures a feeling that resonates much more widely. Netanyahu is one of the most disliked politicians in the world, and for some very good and obvious reasons (as well as some unfortunately much less so, which in fact he consistently exploits to muddy the water to his advantage)
From a broad reading on the subject it’s obvious to me why this is the top comment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Jews_from_Spain