U.S. to Build Pier to Allow Aid Into Gaza by Sea(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.S. to Build Pier to Allow Aid Into Gaza by Sea
https://nytimes.com/live/2024/03/07/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/us-gaza-aid
100 comments
How about we just stop giving Israel more bombs until they agree to let aid in the normal way? I guess this pier is to avoid “putting conditions” on US support for Israel, but it’s literally admitting that Israel is a rogue state that cant be reasoned with. Why is the US giving this country weapons at all?
I think a better question is why do so many Americans identify so strongly with Israel despite it not being a Christian country.
Palestinians being mostly Muslim and non-white is negative for their image in the US no doubt. They're not even African American. If there were more news about white Christian children being killed there would be slightly more sympathy. Even then I'm not sure.
Palestinians being mostly Muslim and non-white is negative for their image in the US no doubt. They're not even African American. If there were more news about white Christian children being killed there would be slightly more sympathy. Even then I'm not sure.
Because people with vast amounts of money and power in the US either have relatives there or have cultural interests there. US foreign policy in the Middle East over the last fifty years becomes a lot less nonsensical if you think about it in terms of "what would benefit Israel the most"?
Jeez let me guess the Jews right? Wow they must have so much power, probably because they control the media
If the media has a pro-Israel bias it isn't massive, at least outside Fox News. I've seen decent coverage of various atrocities in Gaza on CNN, for example.
I hope its clear I was being sarcastic. Your earlier comment is suspiciously vague about who it is that is holding so much power to steer U.S policy. You seem to suggest that there's this unknown force in U.S politics that does what Israel wants it to do, which sounds conspiratorial to me.
Jewish people certainly punch above their weight when it comes to billionaires and political influence but I suspect most of the "mass" of it is white American evangelical beliefs. Even my own fairly moderate family's response to the conflict is "God gave the Jews that land, they can do whatever they want on it". Downright spooky.
Palestinians in the U.S also punch way above their weight, they are a fraction of the U.S population but have around 2 billion fellow Muslims around the world, some with very deep pockets, to help promote their agenda. They are also a much more political and cohesive group than Jews, Jews aren't that uniform in their political inclinations. Many Jews don't want to get involved at all and ideologically Jews are quite heterogenous.
US support is the only thing preventing Israel from doing what they really want to do: deport Palestinians to neighboring Arab countries. Isolating Israel will turn it into a rogue state with nukes. It would become North Korea of Middle East.
Deporting them where? Those many refugees could easily destabilize these governments so they are clearly pushing back (Egypt said it would gladly start a war before they were forced to accept refugees).
Israel is becoming the North Korea of the Middle East. Their population is openly racist, they celebrate airstrikes against Palestinians. The rest of the world is just finding out more clearly now. (North Korea would cease to exist if China weren't supporting them as a proxy so the analogy is deeper than just nukes).
Israel is becoming the North Korea of the Middle East. Their population is openly racist, they celebrate airstrikes against Palestinians. The rest of the world is just finding out more clearly now. (North Korea would cease to exist if China weren't supporting them as a proxy so the analogy is deeper than just nukes).
Arab countries don't want to let Palestinians in because it doesn't serve their long term strategic goal of eliminating Israel. From their point of view, the role of Palestinians is to hold Palestine for Arabs. That's the way they think.
Palestinians should get their land back. If Israel refuses to give it back then the US should take away their WMDs. Israel has undeclared nukes and the only active offensive biological and chemical weapons programs. This is unacceptable.
Also, I would like to point out just how outrageous it is to imply that the indigenous people of a land don’t have any right to it themselves because they have regional allies who support them. What a completely backwards and insane misrepresentation of the situation. Just using the word “hold” implies it doesn’t belong to them in the first place.
Also, I would like to point out just how outrageous it is to imply that the indigenous people of a land don’t have any right to it themselves because they have regional allies who support them. What a completely backwards and insane misrepresentation of the situation. Just using the word “hold” implies it doesn’t belong to them in the first place.
> Deporting them where? Those many refugees could easily destabilize these governments so they are clearly pushing back (Egypt said it would gladly start a war before they were forced to accept refugees).
If what Netanyahu says is to be believed, literally into the middle of the desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
If what Netanyahu says is to be believed, literally into the middle of the desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
> (North Korea would cease to exist if China weren't supporting them as a proxy so the analogy is deeper than just nukes).
I don't think this is a "river to the sea" equivalent, though, is it? Are other countries poised to eradicate North Korea? I thought it was more like economic support?
I don't think this is a "river to the sea" equivalent, though, is it? Are other countries poised to eradicate North Korea? I thought it was more like economic support?
> they celebrate airstrikes against Palestinians
Fwiw there are videos of Palestinians also dancing frenetically around the naked corpse or shani louk.
Fwiw there are videos of Palestinians also dancing frenetically around the naked corpse or shani louk.
But they are brown freedom fighters it's not the same thing
> Their population is openly racist
You're openly racist as well maybe you should relocate there
You're openly racist as well maybe you should relocate there
> US support is the only thing preventing Israel from doing what they really want to do: deport Palestinians to neighboring Arab countries.
The other neighboring Arab countries (in the case of Gaza, this means "Egypt") are doing more to prevent this than the US is.
The other neighboring Arab countries (in the case of Gaza, this means "Egypt") are doing more to prevent this than the US is.
I’m sure the same was said about Apartheid South Africa. Turned out that US support was the only think preventing South Africa from democratizing. As soon as the US dropped their support (which ironically Joe Biden argued for) the Apartheid regime fell.
You seem surprised that the U.S. supports nations with Western values, particularly against people that want to destroy Western nations.
> Western values
Like killing women sheltering inside churches? https://www.timesofisrael.com/christian-mother-daughter-kill...
Like killing women sheltering inside churches? https://www.timesofisrael.com/christian-mother-daughter-kill...
Reducing the entire intellectual history of the european enlightenment to the actions of one IDF soldier. Yeah that makes sense.
I suppose I should have added an /s… my point was, the actions of IDF soldiers are contrary to the "intellectual history of the european enlightenment".
Did the IDF punish that soldier they same way they would have punished a Palestinian doing the same thing to Jews? If not, then it wasn’t just the action of one soldier it was a policy of the Israeli government.
Western values is a dog whistle commonly used to mean non-white.
Israel shares a lot of values with Apartheid South Africa or (to a lesser extent) pre civil rights USA. It does not offer equal status to all its subjects, it maintains a prolonged occupation, it is highly militaristic (more so then 1950s USA), etc. If you think apartheid South Africa had more western values then modern day South Africa, then I get your point. The point being that the country must have a white ruling class.
Israel shares a lot of values with Apartheid South Africa or (to a lesser extent) pre civil rights USA. It does not offer equal status to all its subjects, it maintains a prolonged occupation, it is highly militaristic (more so then 1950s USA), etc. If you think apartheid South Africa had more western values then modern day South Africa, then I get your point. The point being that the country must have a white ruling class.
The situation for Arab Israeli citizens, fraught as it may be, is not comparable to that of Black Africans under Apartheid, or that of Black Americans in the 1950s. There are Arab Israelis in the Knesset.
I don't have a problem with people calling Israel an "apartheid state", given their occupation of Gaza. Fair enough. But you should be careful not to overplay those cards, because you'll end up making arguments that are easily refuted.
I don't have a problem with people calling Israel an "apartheid state", given their occupation of Gaza. Fair enough. But you should be careful not to overplay those cards, because you'll end up making arguments that are easily refuted.
I mention Apartheid South Africa three times in this thread. Once to demonstrate that USA withdrawing support can mean an end to an oppressive system and liberating their peoples (as opposed to turning it into a pariah state akin to North Korea). And here I mention it as point of comparison to which values Israel might hold (as opposed to the vague unspecified “western values” my parent was talking about). Later down I mention Apartheid South Africa for the third time to reinforce that USA’s values (should) support freedom from oppression.
Nowhere am I comparing the rights of the victims of various forms of Apartheid.
Here in particular I’m trying to get my parent to explain what they mean by “western values” and am using Apartheid South Africa as an example of what I believe the values of Israel resemble.
Nowhere am I comparing the rights of the victims of various forms of Apartheid.
Here in particular I’m trying to get my parent to explain what they mean by “western values” and am using Apartheid South Africa as an example of what I believe the values of Israel resemble.
You wrote "Israel shares a lot of values with Apartheid South Africa". No, not so much. If you want to call Israel an apartheid state, because of its occupation of the Gaza strip, I won't quibble. But no, I don't think you can make that specific comparison work.
I give three examples:
> It does not offer equal status to all its subjects, it maintains a prolonged occupation, it is highly militaristic.
These are all true points. And makes of kind of unique, which I would argue is a true display of values.
> It does not offer equal status to all its subjects, it maintains a prolonged occupation, it is highly militaristic.
These are all true points. And makes of kind of unique, which I would argue is a true display of values.
Let's not find creative ways to argue. If what I said was banal or didn't intersect your argument, we don't have a dispute. I took you to be saying something, but it sounds like you're saying you didn't mean that. Fair enough!
> The situation for Arab Israeli citizens, fraught as it may be, is not comparable to that of Black Africans under Apartheid, or that of Black Americans in the 1950s. There are Arab Israelis in the Knesset.
Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and William Dawson were in the US congress in the 1940s and 1950s.
Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and William Dawson were in the US congress in the 1940s and 1950s.
Apartheid South Africa also had the Tricameral Parliament[1] which gave “Coloured” and Indian people a minority seats at the legislator. Off course this type of representation was only performative and the only purpose was to give the appearance of democracy. Notable here—since we are now comparing the rights of victims of different apartheid systems—is the tiered system of giving separate peoples varying levels of—still performative—representation.
In Israel, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship (including Bedouin) do have a minority representation at their legislator, however Palestinians in the West Bank don’t, while Palestinians in Gaza effectively live in an unrecognized (and constantly terrorized) bantustan.
The systems of apartheid which Israel upholds are in many ways worse than South Africa’s (and in every way worse than Pre-civil rights USA). But in most way’s it is simply different. Which is kind of why we really shouldn’t be ranking apartheid systems (nor any form of oppression for that matter).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricameral_Parliament
In Israel, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship (including Bedouin) do have a minority representation at their legislator, however Palestinians in the West Bank don’t, while Palestinians in Gaza effectively live in an unrecognized (and constantly terrorized) bantustan.
The systems of apartheid which Israel upholds are in many ways worse than South Africa’s (and in every way worse than Pre-civil rights USA). But in most way’s it is simply different. Which is kind of why we really shouldn’t be ranking apartheid systems (nor any form of oppression for that matter).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricameral_Parliament
Israel didn't occupy Gaza. It completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The use of the word "occupation" in this context is newspeak.
Gaza used to be under Egyptian control until 1967. The term "occupation" in the context of Gaza and international law referred to it being occupied from Egypt by Israel in the six day war. The term "occupation" used by pro-Palestinians refers to the existence of Israel. They s/Israel/occupation/ and they refer to the Jewish presence anywhere in Mandatory Palestine and the middle east.
I'm not going to revisit the entire history of the conflict in this comment but the adoption of terminology like "apartheid", "genocide", "occupation", "resistance", "ghetto", "concentration camp", "nazis" etc. is intentional and insidious. The intent is not to criticize Israel. The intent is to dehumanize it and justify violence against it as a whole. The people using these terms are intentionally presenting falsehoods refuse to acknowledge the factual reality. The choice of terminology is to prevent dialogue.
We don't need new words for the status of people living in areas that are occupied. Everyone understands that people living in occupied territories (such as e.g. Germany post WW-II) don't receive the same rights as the people living in the country of the occupier. That is not Apartheid. Israel recognizes that it occupies the west bank (from Jordan btw. which also doesn't want the territory back) and has tried many times to resolve this issue.
tl;dr I do have a problem with people calling Israel an "apartheid state". Let's reserve that word to South Africa which is what it's supposed to mean. This is just wrong on so many levels. If you want to criticize Israel do it on a factual basis.
And btw, this was true pre-Oct 7th as well. I'd argue these people have contributed to the events of Oct 7th and are partly responsible for this terrible mess we're in today.
Gaza used to be under Egyptian control until 1967. The term "occupation" in the context of Gaza and international law referred to it being occupied from Egypt by Israel in the six day war. The term "occupation" used by pro-Palestinians refers to the existence of Israel. They s/Israel/occupation/ and they refer to the Jewish presence anywhere in Mandatory Palestine and the middle east.
I'm not going to revisit the entire history of the conflict in this comment but the adoption of terminology like "apartheid", "genocide", "occupation", "resistance", "ghetto", "concentration camp", "nazis" etc. is intentional and insidious. The intent is not to criticize Israel. The intent is to dehumanize it and justify violence against it as a whole. The people using these terms are intentionally presenting falsehoods refuse to acknowledge the factual reality. The choice of terminology is to prevent dialogue.
We don't need new words for the status of people living in areas that are occupied. Everyone understands that people living in occupied territories (such as e.g. Germany post WW-II) don't receive the same rights as the people living in the country of the occupier. That is not Apartheid. Israel recognizes that it occupies the west bank (from Jordan btw. which also doesn't want the territory back) and has tried many times to resolve this issue.
tl;dr I do have a problem with people calling Israel an "apartheid state". Let's reserve that word to South Africa which is what it's supposed to mean. This is just wrong on so many levels. If you want to criticize Israel do it on a factual basis.
And btw, this was true pre-Oct 7th as well. I'd argue these people have contributed to the events of Oct 7th and are partly responsible for this terrible mess we're in today.
For the record, there are currently two cases against Israel at the ICJ, one is for genocide, and the other is for apartheid[*]. These are the words which are used before the world court, it would be kind of silly to police the same usage on an internet forum. The intent here is the same as at the ICJ, to accuse Israel of an illegal, undemocratic, and inhumane practice.
Otherwise, tit-for-tat, if you want to use these words for what they were originally used, you should probably not use the term “terrorism” unless you are specifically referring to Irish nationalists using terrorism against the British colonial rule.
But onto your main point, that Israel does not practice apartheid because occupation is not apartheid (and there is no occupation in Gaza?)
When people refer to the policy of Apartheid which Israel imposes onto Palestinians, they are more likely referring to something like:
a) Separate freedom of migration: Israel is famous for their policy of granting citizenship for people of Jewish ethnicity, meanwhile Palestinians in exile are not even allowed to return to Gaza, let alone the West Bank, or Israel proper. Gazans are also not allowed to migrate to the West Bank although the reverse is allowed (if you never return). At the same time, Israelis or even American Jews, are allowed to move into areas in the West Bank.
b) Limitations on the freedom of movement: Palestinians living in the West Bank have to move between constant checkpoints to go between areas within the West Bank, they cannot go to Israel Proper, and Gaza has severe restrictions. Israelis living in the same areas do not have to go to these checkpoints and can travel freely between Israel and the West Bank.
c) Separate legal system: Palestinians in the West Bank are tried before a military court, while Israelis living in the same area guilty of the same crime are tried before a much more lenient civilian court.
d) Land grabs for Israelis: Israel allows settlements in vast areas inside the West Bank, Palestinians are not allowed to create settlements like that.
e) Access to water: Israel portions the water disproportionately to Israel, leaving Palestinians with less chances to e.g. farm profitably.
f) Settler terrorism: Israeli settlers constantly terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes stealing their houses, stealing their farmland, destroying their crops, killing their livestock, destroying their property. This is not government policy, and some of the settler terrorist do get punished in the Israeli civilian legal system (see (c)). However there are plenty of instances where the Israeli police or army has observed these terrorist attacks and done nothing to prevent them, sometimes they even participate in them.
---
*: More accurately the case only mentions policies and practices but several nations (including South Africa) have used the term “apartheid” in their oral testimonies.
Otherwise, tit-for-tat, if you want to use these words for what they were originally used, you should probably not use the term “terrorism” unless you are specifically referring to Irish nationalists using terrorism against the British colonial rule.
But onto your main point, that Israel does not practice apartheid because occupation is not apartheid (and there is no occupation in Gaza?)
When people refer to the policy of Apartheid which Israel imposes onto Palestinians, they are more likely referring to something like:
a) Separate freedom of migration: Israel is famous for their policy of granting citizenship for people of Jewish ethnicity, meanwhile Palestinians in exile are not even allowed to return to Gaza, let alone the West Bank, or Israel proper. Gazans are also not allowed to migrate to the West Bank although the reverse is allowed (if you never return). At the same time, Israelis or even American Jews, are allowed to move into areas in the West Bank.
b) Limitations on the freedom of movement: Palestinians living in the West Bank have to move between constant checkpoints to go between areas within the West Bank, they cannot go to Israel Proper, and Gaza has severe restrictions. Israelis living in the same areas do not have to go to these checkpoints and can travel freely between Israel and the West Bank.
c) Separate legal system: Palestinians in the West Bank are tried before a military court, while Israelis living in the same area guilty of the same crime are tried before a much more lenient civilian court.
d) Land grabs for Israelis: Israel allows settlements in vast areas inside the West Bank, Palestinians are not allowed to create settlements like that.
e) Access to water: Israel portions the water disproportionately to Israel, leaving Palestinians with less chances to e.g. farm profitably.
f) Settler terrorism: Israeli settlers constantly terrorize Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes stealing their houses, stealing their farmland, destroying their crops, killing their livestock, destroying their property. This is not government policy, and some of the settler terrorist do get punished in the Israeli civilian legal system (see (c)). However there are plenty of instances where the Israeli police or army has observed these terrorist attacks and done nothing to prevent them, sometimes they even participate in them.
---
*: More accurately the case only mentions policies and practices but several nations (including South Africa) have used the term “apartheid” in their oral testimonies.
So checking my dictionary:
- Apartheid: (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
- Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I don't think your argument on the language aspect of this holds water or at the very least your example is not equivalent. Nobody even knows if terrorism originates from Irish vs. British (which I doubt, references?) but everyone knows the word Apartheid refers to a specific South African situation and they are intentionally trying to evoke those images.
You are restating my point to suit yourself, I didn't ask the question of whether "Israel practices apartheid", I said the premise of this question is to paint Israel in a bad light and you've not refuted that. Are there other countries (e.g. China) where minorities (e.g. the Uighurs) are discriminated against? Do people routinely ask the question whether "China practices apartheid"? Google won't auto-complete that for me. Is there a case against China for Apartheid? I rest my case.
Re: your specific points
a) Sort of maybe true but partly no different than other countries. Does the Czech republic allow WW-II German refugees to return to their homes? Does Syria allow me to immigrate there? Does Switzerland? You're mixing different issues here which warrant their separate discussion. Israel is a country and it gets to decide who to award citizenship to, just like any other country. The West Bank and settlements is its own discussion. Freedom of migration is not a thing, there's no country with freedom of migration. When Germany was occupied post WW-II did Germans enjoy freedom of migration to the Allied countries?
b) Inaccurate. Israelis have to travel through the same checkpoints that Palestinians travel through in the west bank. They have worse restrictions on travel to west bank areas under PA control. Gaza internally has no severe restrictions (well, they have Hamas checkpoints but those don't interest you) and externally has similar restrictions to any border between countries on their Israeli and Egyptian borders (unfriendly countries or at war countries). Gaza in its current borders is exactly the area that would be Palestinian as part of a two state solution and the region considered "occupied" from Egypt in 1967 under international law. Some of the west bank checkpoints exist for security reasons because Palestinian "freedom" fighters go into Israel and kill civilians and generally they're still well within my observation that this is occupied territory under military rule.
c) Yes but both are subject to oversight by Israel's Supreme Court. This is in accordance with international law for occupied territories.
d) I'll give you a yes on this one though there are nuances and also the Palestinians could have gotten the west bank by now. Fwiw I agree the settlement activity is not good but the settlements can still be removed as part of a political solution (which looks impossible now).
e) Maybe. I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough on the water aspects. Israel desalinated water and generally invests in infrastructure but I can't really give an educated answer on this topic so I'll pass. I will repeat that there are many aspects of what's going on in the west bank where I oppose Israeli policy and that the fact that Israel is there is related to Palestinians refusal to settle the conflict.
f) Sure. This is wrong. Palestinians also terrorize settlers, shoot at their cars, throw stones at them (stones kill) etc. Still wrong but a part of the cycle/circle of violence. Many/most of these are what the "crazy settlers" call "tag mechir", i.e. "price", they are retaliating against attacks. E.g. Israeli civilians get killed, they go into a village and set a house on fire. This is medieval level "justice" which we don't want to practice today but just for context.
EDIT: I just want to expand more on the question of checkpoints. Before the first Intifada in 1987 there was relatively free movement of people between the Gaza and the West Bank and Israel. Israelis shopped in markets, went to dentists in the west bank etc. Lots of Israelis went there because prices were lower. Palestinians came to work in Israel, many in construction. Israeli cities were full of Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza. There was still political violence (aka terrorism) by Palestinians against Israeli civilians (e.g. by the PLO and other factions). I would say the biggest restrictions in place today, including the wall build around the west bank, are a result of the suicide bombing attacks of the early 2000's. Those saying that the violence of today is justified by the restrictions forget that the restrictions are in place because of the violence, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the Arab countries surrounding Israel at the time were at war with Israel and holding on to the west bank was a strategic necessity so you don't have hundreds of tanks and artillery 3km from your major cities. Israel was then, as is now, in a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. Ofcourse within that there is still colour and room for being critical of Israel.
EDIT2: Expanding on "Apartheid". Why is this term used when it's obviously incorrect/inappropriate? It serves a few purposes: To broadly paint Israelis and Jews as racists, to create an image of the Palestinians being the "Black" and the Israelis being the "White", to push for Israel to be treated by the world community like South Africa was treated, and more generally to justify indiscriminate violence against Israelis and Jews. It is a modern blood libel. There is no issue raising the specific issues you've raised against Israel, debating them, and for Israel to be held accountable (within reason and international standards). That's not what's going on here.
- Apartheid: (in South Africa) a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.
- Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
I don't think your argument on the language aspect of this holds water or at the very least your example is not equivalent. Nobody even knows if terrorism originates from Irish vs. British (which I doubt, references?) but everyone knows the word Apartheid refers to a specific South African situation and they are intentionally trying to evoke those images.
You are restating my point to suit yourself, I didn't ask the question of whether "Israel practices apartheid", I said the premise of this question is to paint Israel in a bad light and you've not refuted that. Are there other countries (e.g. China) where minorities (e.g. the Uighurs) are discriminated against? Do people routinely ask the question whether "China practices apartheid"? Google won't auto-complete that for me. Is there a case against China for Apartheid? I rest my case.
Re: your specific points
a) Sort of maybe true but partly no different than other countries. Does the Czech republic allow WW-II German refugees to return to their homes? Does Syria allow me to immigrate there? Does Switzerland? You're mixing different issues here which warrant their separate discussion. Israel is a country and it gets to decide who to award citizenship to, just like any other country. The West Bank and settlements is its own discussion. Freedom of migration is not a thing, there's no country with freedom of migration. When Germany was occupied post WW-II did Germans enjoy freedom of migration to the Allied countries?
b) Inaccurate. Israelis have to travel through the same checkpoints that Palestinians travel through in the west bank. They have worse restrictions on travel to west bank areas under PA control. Gaza internally has no severe restrictions (well, they have Hamas checkpoints but those don't interest you) and externally has similar restrictions to any border between countries on their Israeli and Egyptian borders (unfriendly countries or at war countries). Gaza in its current borders is exactly the area that would be Palestinian as part of a two state solution and the region considered "occupied" from Egypt in 1967 under international law. Some of the west bank checkpoints exist for security reasons because Palestinian "freedom" fighters go into Israel and kill civilians and generally they're still well within my observation that this is occupied territory under military rule.
c) Yes but both are subject to oversight by Israel's Supreme Court. This is in accordance with international law for occupied territories.
d) I'll give you a yes on this one though there are nuances and also the Palestinians could have gotten the west bank by now. Fwiw I agree the settlement activity is not good but the settlements can still be removed as part of a political solution (which looks impossible now).
e) Maybe. I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough on the water aspects. Israel desalinated water and generally invests in infrastructure but I can't really give an educated answer on this topic so I'll pass. I will repeat that there are many aspects of what's going on in the west bank where I oppose Israeli policy and that the fact that Israel is there is related to Palestinians refusal to settle the conflict.
f) Sure. This is wrong. Palestinians also terrorize settlers, shoot at their cars, throw stones at them (stones kill) etc. Still wrong but a part of the cycle/circle of violence. Many/most of these are what the "crazy settlers" call "tag mechir", i.e. "price", they are retaliating against attacks. E.g. Israeli civilians get killed, they go into a village and set a house on fire. This is medieval level "justice" which we don't want to practice today but just for context.
EDIT: I just want to expand more on the question of checkpoints. Before the first Intifada in 1987 there was relatively free movement of people between the Gaza and the West Bank and Israel. Israelis shopped in markets, went to dentists in the west bank etc. Lots of Israelis went there because prices were lower. Palestinians came to work in Israel, many in construction. Israeli cities were full of Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza. There was still political violence (aka terrorism) by Palestinians against Israeli civilians (e.g. by the PLO and other factions). I would say the biggest restrictions in place today, including the wall build around the west bank, are a result of the suicide bombing attacks of the early 2000's. Those saying that the violence of today is justified by the restrictions forget that the restrictions are in place because of the violence, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the Arab countries surrounding Israel at the time were at war with Israel and holding on to the west bank was a strategic necessity so you don't have hundreds of tanks and artillery 3km from your major cities. Israel was then, as is now, in a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. Ofcourse within that there is still colour and room for being critical of Israel.
EDIT2: Expanding on "Apartheid". Why is this term used when it's obviously incorrect/inappropriate? It serves a few purposes: To broadly paint Israelis and Jews as racists, to create an image of the Palestinians being the "Black" and the Israelis being the "White", to push for Israel to be treated by the world community like South Africa was treated, and more generally to justify indiscriminate violence against Israelis and Jews. It is a modern blood libel. There is no issue raising the specific issues you've raised against Israel, debating them, and for Israel to be held accountable (within reason and international standards). That's not what's going on here.
Also to comment further on my "Gaza is not occupied" point. You mention the movement of people to Israel (a different country) and movement of people to the West Bank (a piece of land occupied from a different country by a different country). I can only assume this is supposed to be some sort of supporting argument against my position.
Before 1967 when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan and both were at war with Israel there was also no free movement of people between those places. What exactly stopped Egypt and Jordan from creating this "two state solution", giving Palestinians their country in that territory, and facilitating all the other requirements?
Fast forward to today where again the international status of Gaza is territory occupied by Israel, from Egypt, in 1967. The Palestinians have no standing in there at all. Palestinians are asking for new rights, and they should obtain those rights via negotiations either with Israel or with Egypt and Jordan if they prefer to do so. There is no requirement under international law for Israel to allow for movement of people between those places (though in practice they do allow it, as you point out, because reality often trumps legality). It's also not generally true that people leaving the west bank cannot return and certainly people leaving Gaza (for example for training in Iran) can return. The situation in Israel vs. international law is somewhat unique. When Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it effectively for all practical purposes ended the status of that territory as being occupied. Because Egypt won't take it back and because of the complicated politics of the situation there are still some legal issues but from a practical perspective, that territory is not occupied.
When the Palestinians say "occupation" they mostly mean Jewish presence in Mandatory Palestine (A British territory following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire). I've even heard that term extend to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Spain and other places. That has nothing to do with the international law regarding occupied territories but that line is conveniently blurred.
Before 1967 when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan and both were at war with Israel there was also no free movement of people between those places. What exactly stopped Egypt and Jordan from creating this "two state solution", giving Palestinians their country in that territory, and facilitating all the other requirements?
Fast forward to today where again the international status of Gaza is territory occupied by Israel, from Egypt, in 1967. The Palestinians have no standing in there at all. Palestinians are asking for new rights, and they should obtain those rights via negotiations either with Israel or with Egypt and Jordan if they prefer to do so. There is no requirement under international law for Israel to allow for movement of people between those places (though in practice they do allow it, as you point out, because reality often trumps legality). It's also not generally true that people leaving the west bank cannot return and certainly people leaving Gaza (for example for training in Iran) can return. The situation in Israel vs. international law is somewhat unique. When Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 it effectively for all practical purposes ended the status of that territory as being occupied. Because Egypt won't take it back and because of the complicated politics of the situation there are still some legal issues but from a practical perspective, that territory is not occupied.
When the Palestinians say "occupation" they mostly mean Jewish presence in Mandatory Palestine (A British territory following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire). I've even heard that term extend to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Spain and other places. That has nothing to do with the international law regarding occupied territories but that line is conveniently blurred.
The crime of apartheid has been codified in International law, it has a precise definition at the ICC[1] and the ICJ[2]. In particular the ICC defines apartheid in Statute 99 part 2 article 7 paragraph 2(h), as:
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
Aside note here: Statute 99 is known as the Rome Statute, Palestine is a party to this statute but Israel is not (withdrew in 2002). Meaning if you practice apartheid in Palestine you can be tried at the ICC, while in Israel the ICC has no jurisdiction to trial you for this specific crime.
Even though the term was coined to describe the specific instance of South African apartheid, its modern day usage only keeps South Africa as a prototypical example. This is no different from how the “genocide” was coined with one prototypical example (the Armenian genocide) but has later been adopted into international law with a precise meaning laid out in the Genocide Convention[3].
Your dictionary definition is about the specific meaning of apartheid in South Africa (notice it says so in parenthesis; when looking up terms in a dictionary what is inside parentheses is for disambiguation and should be to ignored). And we are not talking about that. We are talking about apartheid in the same way that the UN does. If you want to argue that Israel does not practice South African apartheid, then that is a different argument, and I’m not gonna refute that, but then we are just arguing semantics.
Regarding the specific points (a)-(f) I provided them as examples of what we mean when we accuse Israel of practicing apartheid. I wasn’t looking to argue them. There is an ongoing trial at the ICJ which is going over all of these, and more, to figure out if any of them are justifiable, not true, etc. or if they constitute a crime against humanity. You believe the former, me the latter.
Finally, can you please not accuse us of “blood libel” for criticizing Israel. Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states (including China). The fact is that Israel is currently being charged for these crimes at the ICJ, the UN general assembly constantly votes to indict Israel of these crimes, respectable human rights organization accuse Israel of these crimes. Either the whole world is in some conspiracy against Israel, or—more likely—there is convincing evidence that Israel does indeed break some international humanitarian laws.
1: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm#art.7
2: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/07/19760718%2003-0...
3: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_...
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
Aside note here: Statute 99 is known as the Rome Statute, Palestine is a party to this statute but Israel is not (withdrew in 2002). Meaning if you practice apartheid in Palestine you can be tried at the ICC, while in Israel the ICC has no jurisdiction to trial you for this specific crime.
Even though the term was coined to describe the specific instance of South African apartheid, its modern day usage only keeps South Africa as a prototypical example. This is no different from how the “genocide” was coined with one prototypical example (the Armenian genocide) but has later been adopted into international law with a precise meaning laid out in the Genocide Convention[3].
Your dictionary definition is about the specific meaning of apartheid in South Africa (notice it says so in parenthesis; when looking up terms in a dictionary what is inside parentheses is for disambiguation and should be to ignored). And we are not talking about that. We are talking about apartheid in the same way that the UN does. If you want to argue that Israel does not practice South African apartheid, then that is a different argument, and I’m not gonna refute that, but then we are just arguing semantics.
Regarding the specific points (a)-(f) I provided them as examples of what we mean when we accuse Israel of practicing apartheid. I wasn’t looking to argue them. There is an ongoing trial at the ICJ which is going over all of these, and more, to figure out if any of them are justifiable, not true, etc. or if they constitute a crime against humanity. You believe the former, me the latter.
Finally, can you please not accuse us of “blood libel” for criticizing Israel. Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states (including China). The fact is that Israel is currently being charged for these crimes at the ICJ, the UN general assembly constantly votes to indict Israel of these crimes, respectable human rights organization accuse Israel of these crimes. Either the whole world is in some conspiracy against Israel, or—more likely—there is convincing evidence that Israel does indeed break some international humanitarian laws.
1: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm#art.7
2: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/07/19760718%2003-0...
3: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_...
You can criticize Israel all you want without making it a blood libel. As I said, that is not a problem. I will accuse people of blood libel when part of their strategy is the intentional misuse of language to intentionally deceive and misrepresent reality or if they spread lies. If you don't like it, don't do it. You may or may not be right about the international law usage, the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about.
This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country? What are its UN recognized borders? What does it even mean "if you practice apartheid in Palestine"?
You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, (EDIT: this list is endless but I can add to it) broke international laws? So I'll pick the "conspiracy against Israel" (or more like politics of the not free world mixed with antisemitism) until you can show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias. EDIT: Also note this is not the same as claiming that Israel broke no international laws, though I think in the specific cases you're referring to it does not.
EDIT: "Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states" -> totally agree.
EDIT2: Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means. So basically nobody understands the way you put it other then maybe some international law experts (including myself honestly, I'd have to spend time reading international law). But for the purpose of our "blood libel" topic if you say "I claim Israel practices apartheid within the occupied territories of the west bank that remain under their control, not like the south african apartheid which is how this word is commonly understood, but the crime of apartheid as defined by international law XXXX" then maybe it's something we can have an intelligent debate about and I won't automatically label it as "blood libel" like I would the generic usage of "apartheid state" without any other qualifiers.
EDIT3: "> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;"
I would need to read more details about the "inhumane acts" but it's worth pointing out that a) Israelis are not a racial group. Palestinians are also not a racial group. b) The Oslo agreements, the withdrawal from Gaza, and other peace efforts are proof that there's no "intention of maintaining that regime". Mostly it's the Palestinians that are intent on maintaining the regime. Again, I'm not going to deny what's going on in the west bank between (mostly Jewish) settlers and (mostly Arab) Palestinians but the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice and are not the way we make progress in this conflict. It's a choice of the Palestinians to not engage (and sure of the Israeli government as well) after they sabotaged the Oslo accords (and by they I mean Hamas mostly, who are, Palestinians).
This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country? What are its UN recognized borders? What does it even mean "if you practice apartheid in Palestine"?
You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, (EDIT: this list is endless but I can add to it) broke international laws? So I'll pick the "conspiracy against Israel" (or more like politics of the not free world mixed with antisemitism) until you can show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias. EDIT: Also note this is not the same as claiming that Israel broke no international laws, though I think in the specific cases you're referring to it does not.
EDIT: "Israel is a modern state which deserves the scrutiny we give other states" -> totally agree.
EDIT2: Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means. So basically nobody understands the way you put it other then maybe some international law experts (including myself honestly, I'd have to spend time reading international law). But for the purpose of our "blood libel" topic if you say "I claim Israel practices apartheid within the occupied territories of the west bank that remain under their control, not like the south african apartheid which is how this word is commonly understood, but the crime of apartheid as defined by international law XXXX" then maybe it's something we can have an intelligent debate about and I won't automatically label it as "blood libel" like I would the generic usage of "apartheid state" without any other qualifiers.
EDIT3: "> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;"
I would need to read more details about the "inhumane acts" but it's worth pointing out that a) Israelis are not a racial group. Palestinians are also not a racial group. b) The Oslo agreements, the withdrawal from Gaza, and other peace efforts are proof that there's no "intention of maintaining that regime". Mostly it's the Palestinians that are intent on maintaining the regime. Again, I'm not going to deny what's going on in the west bank between (mostly Jewish) settlers and (mostly Arab) Palestinians but the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice and are not the way we make progress in this conflict. It's a choice of the Palestinians to not engage (and sure of the Israeli government as well) after they sabotaged the Oslo accords (and by they I mean Hamas mostly, who are, Palestinians).
> You're seriously telling me that there's more convincing evidence that Israel broke international laws than that China, or Yemen, or Syria, or Russia, or the US, or the UK, broke international laws?
I never said that. We are talking about Israel here (and to a lesser extent Apartheid South Africa in sibling threads) not China, Yemen, Syria, nor Russia. Russia and China in particular have several trials at the ICJ and the ICC and have been accused of similar crimes against humanity. But we are not talking about those. Whataboutism gets you nowhere.
> show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias
Never claimed it was. There are indeed plenty of biases at the UN. Israel in particular gets a very lenient treatment by Western Countries (biased towards Israel) and bad treatment by many Arab countries (biased against). However taken as an aggregate most of the world (including Western countries) seems to have a problem with Israel’s human rights record. We should take that seriously and not discount it as blood libel.
> the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about.
You took issue with the fact that we used a particular term. I clarified—I hope—thoroughly what was meant by this term. If you have a problem with this particular usage of the term, I think you’ll find your self fighting a lot of windmills.
> Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means.
Ignorance of international humanitarian law does not excuse its practice, nor does it grant you freedom from scrutiny. Like I said earlier, if the world court can use this term, so can an internet forum.
> This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country?
I don’t approve of this question because I think you know and don’t need me to explain it to you. But I’ll do it anyway.
Palestine is an internationally recognized UN observer state with a population of about 5.5 million, with internationally recognized borders consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, formed on 15th of November 1988 and granted UN observer status on 29th of November 2012. 139 UN member states recognize Palestine as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
This apparent confusion about the state of Palestine also touches on your nibling post where you claim stuff like “Before 1967 when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan”, “Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005”, and “The Palestinians have no standing in there [Gaza] at all.”
None of this is true by the way. Gaza was never annexed by Egypt, merely occupied, Israel only withdrew settlers and ground forces, they still very much occupy the area, and the Palestinian Authority is an internationally recognized government of the state of Palestine that does have standing at the world stage (albeit with matters regarding Gaza they need cooperation with Hamas which controls the territory).
From what it looks like you refuse to believe that the state of Palestine has any recognition, or that you refuse to believe that such a state exists at all. However that is not true.
Regarding your EDIT3. I gave you the link to the definition of what constitutes inhuman acts. The segment is one paragraph long with 8 enumerated points and the text is highly legible (in general UN documents are meant for the general public to read and very seldomly contain legalese). This is HN and we assume a level of intellectual curiosity of each other. We also generally frown upon ideological battles and flamebates such as “the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice”. These kinds of points are a dead end with nothing to expand upon with interesting points.
I never said that. We are talking about Israel here (and to a lesser extent Apartheid South Africa in sibling threads) not China, Yemen, Syria, nor Russia. Russia and China in particular have several trials at the ICJ and the ICC and have been accused of similar crimes against humanity. But we are not talking about those. Whataboutism gets you nowhere.
> show me how the UN is indeed treating everyone with no bias
Never claimed it was. There are indeed plenty of biases at the UN. Israel in particular gets a very lenient treatment by Western Countries (biased towards Israel) and bad treatment by many Arab countries (biased against). However taken as an aggregate most of the world (including Western countries) seems to have a problem with Israel’s human rights record. We should take that seriously and not discount it as blood libel.
> the question is whether the person on the street understands it as such and whether you have clarified it enough that they can understand what you're talking about.
You took issue with the fact that we used a particular term. I clarified—I hope—thoroughly what was meant by this term. If you have a problem with this particular usage of the term, I think you’ll find your self fighting a lot of windmills.
> Even Israelis don't understand "apartheid state" to mean what you think it means.
Ignorance of international humanitarian law does not excuse its practice, nor does it grant you freedom from scrutiny. Like I said earlier, if the world court can use this term, so can an internet forum.
> This Palestine you're referring to, is that a country?
I don’t approve of this question because I think you know and don’t need me to explain it to you. But I’ll do it anyway.
Palestine is an internationally recognized UN observer state with a population of about 5.5 million, with internationally recognized borders consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, formed on 15th of November 1988 and granted UN observer status on 29th of November 2012. 139 UN member states recognize Palestine as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
This apparent confusion about the state of Palestine also touches on your nibling post where you claim stuff like “Before 1967 when Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordan”, “Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005”, and “The Palestinians have no standing in there [Gaza] at all.”
None of this is true by the way. Gaza was never annexed by Egypt, merely occupied, Israel only withdrew settlers and ground forces, they still very much occupy the area, and the Palestinian Authority is an internationally recognized government of the state of Palestine that does have standing at the world stage (albeit with matters regarding Gaza they need cooperation with Hamas which controls the territory).
From what it looks like you refuse to believe that the state of Palestine has any recognition, or that you refuse to believe that such a state exists at all. However that is not true.
Regarding your EDIT3. I gave you the link to the definition of what constitutes inhuman acts. The segment is one paragraph long with 8 enumerated points and the text is highly legible (in general UN documents are meant for the general public to read and very seldomly contain legalese). This is HN and we assume a level of intellectual curiosity of each other. We also generally frown upon ideological battles and flamebates such as “the UN/ICJ processes are just a political circus with no fairness or justice”. These kinds of points are a dead end with nothing to expand upon with interesting points.
It seems that you agree that Western values are important, so you couldn't attack that part of the argument, and instead had to twist my speech into something that I never said, so that you could then attack what I never said. You have no credibility.
Question: Why do you call then western values? What is so western about these values you are referring to?
When I google ”western values” I get Wikipedia pages for “History of Western Civilization” and “Western Culture” neither of which should qualify Israel as warranting support from the USA (and if they did, it would be a pretty racist thing to do). My first result which actually includes the term is a dumb article by an explicit Islamophobe[1].
There is a Wikipedia page titled “Western Values (West)”[2]. It is very short and very poorly written, and doesn’t actually explain what this means, just some vague notion of free market capitalism and liberal democracy. So I don’t get much information there either on why USA should support Israel.
Now, I know what you mean when you say “Western Values”, but this is HN and we are supposed to assume good faith, so I’m gonna assume you mean liberal democracy and universal human rights (these are actually universal values as specified in the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by all nations; not only Western nations, but lets ignore that). Then the USA really shouldn’t be supporting a state which practices apartheid, keeps a large population under occupation, strips away their democratic rights, commits war crimes, potentially a genocide, etc. In fact if USA supported what you call Western Values, they should help liberate the people of Palestine, just like how they (eventually) helped liberate the people from the subjugation of Apartheid South Africa.
IF we were still in the 19th Century your speech would make much more sense. In the 19th century, Europe had a full on colonial enterprise, fueled by racist believes of white supremacy, brutalizing and genociding whole nations for profit and own sense of superiority. This was justified by referring to something similarly vague as Western Values, and does indeed fit Israel’s present day conduct. However, the USA today does not endorse white supremacy, nor colonialism. And should therefor not support nations which engage in this outdated concept of “Western Values”.
All that said, when people usually say this term, it is a racist dog whistle. There was a pretty nice mr. Beat video about that recently[3].
1: https://westminster-institute.org/articles/the-superiority-o...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_values_(West)
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DUT4aCkeRA
When I google ”western values” I get Wikipedia pages for “History of Western Civilization” and “Western Culture” neither of which should qualify Israel as warranting support from the USA (and if they did, it would be a pretty racist thing to do). My first result which actually includes the term is a dumb article by an explicit Islamophobe[1].
There is a Wikipedia page titled “Western Values (West)”[2]. It is very short and very poorly written, and doesn’t actually explain what this means, just some vague notion of free market capitalism and liberal democracy. So I don’t get much information there either on why USA should support Israel.
Now, I know what you mean when you say “Western Values”, but this is HN and we are supposed to assume good faith, so I’m gonna assume you mean liberal democracy and universal human rights (these are actually universal values as specified in the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by all nations; not only Western nations, but lets ignore that). Then the USA really shouldn’t be supporting a state which practices apartheid, keeps a large population under occupation, strips away their democratic rights, commits war crimes, potentially a genocide, etc. In fact if USA supported what you call Western Values, they should help liberate the people of Palestine, just like how they (eventually) helped liberate the people from the subjugation of Apartheid South Africa.
IF we were still in the 19th Century your speech would make much more sense. In the 19th century, Europe had a full on colonial enterprise, fueled by racist believes of white supremacy, brutalizing and genociding whole nations for profit and own sense of superiority. This was justified by referring to something similarly vague as Western Values, and does indeed fit Israel’s present day conduct. However, the USA today does not endorse white supremacy, nor colonialism. And should therefor not support nations which engage in this outdated concept of “Western Values”.
All that said, when people usually say this term, it is a racist dog whistle. There was a pretty nice mr. Beat video about that recently[3].
1: https://westminster-institute.org/articles/the-superiority-o...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_values_(West)
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DUT4aCkeRA
> How about we just stop giving Israel more bombs until they agree to let aid in the normal way
How about Israel lets no aid in until Hamas lets aid and doctors in for the hostages? They won't even say which victims are still alive.
How about Israel lets no aid in until Hamas lets aid and doctors in for the hostages? They won't even say which victims are still alive.
>How about we just stop giving Israel more bomb
usa gives to israel precision munition. if it will stop, israel will use usual bombs (should have plenty in warehouses) which are still sufficiently precise .
usa gives to israel precision munition. if it will stop, israel will use usual bombs (should have plenty in warehouses) which are still sufficiently precise .
It's a pickle because any other conflict most of the civilians would have fled to refugee camps. The non boutique UN refugee organization is staffed with people who are very experienced in pulling that off. But the one specifically for Palestinians is just a grift operation.
Why does the US have to get involved? Wouldn’t Arab countries, be more suited to conduct such operations?
This action undermines Israel’s blockade, and could be seen as an act of war, so it’s important the US lead the effort.
The article does mention that other countries are participating and helping as well though.
What’s embarrassing here for the US is that they have to basically force the aid in. They don’t seem willing to use their full leverage to let the aid in the normal way
The article does mention that other countries are participating and helping as well though.
What’s embarrassing here for the US is that they have to basically force the aid in. They don’t seem willing to use their full leverage to let the aid in the normal way
> What’s embarrassing here for the US is that they have to basically force the aid in. They don’t seem willing to use their full leverage to let the aid in the normal way
This is part of the US exercising its "full leverage". Demonstrating that obstruction is ultimately futile is a component of leverage.
This is part of the US exercising its "full leverage". Demonstrating that obstruction is ultimately futile is a component of leverage.
Why should Arab countries fix a problem they haven't created?
This looks to me as a proxy war led by the US, Israel went too far with killing civilians, and now the US needs some PR to look good in the books of history.
This looks to me as a proxy war led by the US, Israel went too far with killing civilians, and now the US needs some PR to look good in the books of history.
Haven't Arab countries contributed to both sides of this conflict? One, by expelling all Jews in their countries to Israel. Two, by supplying arms and aid to Hamas.
yes, Arab countries will fight Israel to the last Palestinian.
In Romania, we let our Ukrainian neighbors take refuge with us.
Why won't Arabs allow Palestinian refugees in, so that Israel can pursue Hamas without collateral deaths?
Why won't Arabs allow Palestinian refugees in, so that Israel can pursue Hamas without collateral deaths?
Because Romanian authorities can reasonably believe many of these Ukrainian neighbors will be allowed to return once hostilities are over. In contrast, history has shown once and again that, once Israel manages to expel Palestinians and take their lands, none of them will be allowed to ever return. Taking refugees become the same as abetting ethnic cleansing.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
There'll be plenty of new contracts and aid money to go around.
There'll be plenty of new contracts and aid money to go around.
Sure, but I'm not convinced that, apart from annoying Israel or the US, those countries really care. Arms shipments to Hamas perhaps if they could get them in right now, but aid - not likely.
Maybe I'm wrong. I just haven't seen the other Arab or Muslim countries really do much when there wasn't a conflict.
Maybe I'm wrong. I just haven't seen the other Arab or Muslim countries really do much when there wasn't a conflict.
The US is partially responsible, they've sold Israel most of their armament
[deleted]
> Why does the US have to get involved? Wouldn’t Arab countries, be more suited to conduct such operations?
No, no other country is more suited to, on an emergency basis, construct a port like this.
No, no other country is more suited to, on an emergency basis, construct a port like this.
This is a blinkered and naive view of the rest of the world.
Sure, if they want to jump into a conflict with Israel. US can't be touched like they could. Also, situation is out of hand and US has been indirectly involved. On top of it, it's an election year and the lack of the US speaking up has hurt Biden's numbers.
Biden is losing support among the left (which he only tenuously had to begin with) for his support of Israel so he has to try to pivot and pretend to care about Palestinians.
His support of Israel is what allows him to pull moves like this, providing more aid to Palestinians than those who more directly support Palestine.
Israel is a essentially satelite of the US.
Some would say the US is a essentially satellite of Israel
I had an interesting conversation with some left-leaning friends about a month, who were very much anti-Israel in this. (We're British, educated, and Middle class, so statistically we all lean to the left on a scale of UK politics)
I was the only person to have ever been to Israel in the group (I've been to Israel and the West bank more times than I can count, and Gaza several times). They were shocked when I came out with a far more balanced view of the conflict than they had. To them it was black and white oppression of an innocent group of people, and nothing more. They had no concept of the generational hatred that people in Gaza are brainwashed with from birth, on the other hand they also didn't have any concept that there were some Israeli citizens who have spend the last 15 years I've been going there chomping at the bit to drive their tank's into gaza and flatted the entire place.
It's hard to blame the brainwashed children in Gaza, or to continue to blame them when they turn 18, but it's also hard to blame the majority of Israelis who are fully aware there are a million people who have been programmed to want to rip them from their beds and gut them in the middle of the night, or for the moderate ones just burn their house down and kick them out of the region.
The internet never comes out with any decent progression on the problem, and any subtlety is swiftly lost, but one thing is clear -- nothing is going to get better, and nobody is going to win, neither Palestinians nor for Israelis, for generations.
I had an interesting conversation with some left-leaning friends about a month, who were very much anti-Israel in this. (We're British, educated, and Middle class, so statistically we all lean to the left on a scale of UK politics)
I was the only person to have ever been to Israel in the group (I've been to Israel and the West bank more times than I can count, and Gaza several times). They were shocked when I came out with a far more balanced view of the conflict than they had. To them it was black and white oppression of an innocent group of people, and nothing more. They had no concept of the generational hatred that people in Gaza are brainwashed with from birth, on the other hand they also didn't have any concept that there were some Israeli citizens who have spend the last 15 years I've been going there chomping at the bit to drive their tank's into gaza and flatted the entire place.
It's hard to blame the brainwashed children in Gaza, or to continue to blame them when they turn 18, but it's also hard to blame the majority of Israelis who are fully aware there are a million people who have been programmed to want to rip them from their beds and gut them in the middle of the night, or for the moderate ones just burn their house down and kick them out of the region.
The internet never comes out with any decent progression on the problem, and any subtlety is swiftly lost, but one thing is clear -- nothing is going to get better, and nobody is going to win, neither Palestinians nor for Israelis, for generations.
You talk of Palestinians as if they have no agency.
Let me ask you this. Were Catholics in Northern Ireland brainwashed to hate the English? Or is it simply more plausible that living under occupation where the rulers of your state seem to not recognize your existence naturally develop hatred towards their occupiers.
And then, who do you consider your occupier is also a subjective matter. Surely many militant Sinn Féin members felt all English were guilty for the occupation, and wanted all Protestants of their lands. Similarly I have no doubt many Hamas members feel the same. But I’m equally sure much more Irish Catholics had much more complex feelings. Most probably made distinctions between involvements of the military, parliament, civilians, etc. and wanted some mix of control over their own affairs, equal rights, police reform, the British military off their lands, etc.
I actually don’t believe your simple narrative. The feelings Palestinians have of Israelis are equally complex as the feeling Irish Catholics had over the English. Nobody has been brainwashed (and frankly it is a bit racist to claim that) but rather have developed their own feelings with full agency.
Let me ask you this. Were Catholics in Northern Ireland brainwashed to hate the English? Or is it simply more plausible that living under occupation where the rulers of your state seem to not recognize your existence naturally develop hatred towards their occupiers.
And then, who do you consider your occupier is also a subjective matter. Surely many militant Sinn Féin members felt all English were guilty for the occupation, and wanted all Protestants of their lands. Similarly I have no doubt many Hamas members feel the same. But I’m equally sure much more Irish Catholics had much more complex feelings. Most probably made distinctions between involvements of the military, parliament, civilians, etc. and wanted some mix of control over their own affairs, equal rights, police reform, the British military off their lands, etc.
I actually don’t believe your simple narrative. The feelings Palestinians have of Israelis are equally complex as the feeling Irish Catholics had over the English. Nobody has been brainwashed (and frankly it is a bit racist to claim that) but rather have developed their own feelings with full agency.
[deleted]
Here is a headline from today:
> Blinken tells Israel that it must act urgently to boost Gaza aid
It sounds like an order to me. And considering that I think Israel is a US satellite, I think it will come to pass. Let's wait and see.
> Blinken tells Israel that it must act urgently to boost Gaza aid
It sounds like an order to me. And considering that I think Israel is a US satellite, I think it will come to pass. Let's wait and see.
No other US ally has as much sway in US politics as Israel, not Canada, not the UK, not Japan.
They get a lot of economic and military aid, but other than that?
>'End this war of aggression' in Ukraine, Blinken tells Russia's Lavrov at G20.
It sounds like an order to me
It sounds like an order to me
[deleted]
> Israel is a essentially satellite of the US.
Its not, though, and if it were, this wouldn't be necessary.
Its not, though, and if it were, this wouldn't be necessary.
What is getting flagged here?
Every news organization in the world is reporting the same story.
Something very strange about the HN choice of what to flag.
.
Every news organization in the world is reporting the same story.
Something very strange about the HN choice of what to flag.
.
People often flag topics that are guaranteed to descend into partisan shit-flinging.
Ask yourself these questsions:
- Why does the US need to air drop aid into Gaza?
- Why does the US need to bring in aid by sea and build a pier as a result?
- Why can't aid come in over land through Israel or Egypt?
In anytime in the last 5 months, the US could've ended this entire operation with a phone call or a press release.
- Why does the US need to air drop aid into Gaza?
- Why does the US need to bring in aid by sea and build a pier as a result?
- Why can't aid come in over land through Israel or Egypt?
In anytime in the last 5 months, the US could've ended this entire operation with a phone call or a press release.
The election?
Hopefully this really means 'deploy a mobile pier'. The starvation is rather too urgent to wait for a building project.
The United States playing both sides of the game
Gaza should have proper permanent ports. Perhaps managed by the U.S. or the U.N.
Nice civil discussion, I hope HN doesn't censor it
Risky for US personnel to get too close to the conflict within range of terrorist missiles
ftyhbhyjnjk(2)
Israel is entirely dependent on US for weapons needed for the war; and yet Biden admin prefers a risky operation like this to applying the slightest pressure to get Israel to allow aid in via land border crossings. Utter humiliation for USA
>Utter humiliation for USA
How do you figure? To me this is the US showing leadership and balance - we will both support our ally Israel while also providing humanitarian aid to people we believe have a right to their homeland too.
How do you figure? To me this is the US showing leadership and balance - we will both support our ally Israel while also providing humanitarian aid to people we believe have a right to their homeland too.
> Support our ally Israel
Aren't allies supposed to help each other out? US has given Israel billions in aid, but Israel refuses to do the bare minimum of allowing aid through its land borders with Gaza. The humiliation is Israel completely ignoring US concerns, and US not only letting them get away with it despite massive leverage at their disposal, but also putting American soldiers at risk to clean up their mess
Aren't allies supposed to help each other out? US has given Israel billions in aid, but Israel refuses to do the bare minimum of allowing aid through its land borders with Gaza. The humiliation is Israel completely ignoring US concerns, and US not only letting them get away with it despite massive leverage at their disposal, but also putting American soldiers at risk to clean up their mess
The US wants to have military bases in an friendly nation in a strategically important area (near the middle east oil producers, and near the Suez canal). Israel allows that. That's the main reason the US is so friendly to Israel, all the surrounding countries are far more hostile.
Israel does not allow the U.S. basing in Israel. We do have troops in Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia though.
> all the surrounding countries are far more hostile
… largely because of our relationship with Israel.
… largely because of our relationship with Israel.
Because it's transparent and obvious that US gets to use their muscle to have it both ways and profit off of the conflict. It is hard to believe that the aid expenditure will exceed the profit from weapons sales.
> Israel is entirely dependent on US for weapons needed for the war;
This may have been true 50 years ago, but it isn't true today.
Israel purchases the majority of its military weapons, and the amount of aid that the USA gives to Israel is small compared to Israels total military budget.
I think people forget that Israel has a very large tech sector and economy these days.
They also have nukes too, if their country was really threatened, but thats very unlikely given that no middle eastern military could stand up to Israels current military.
This may have been true 50 years ago, but it isn't true today.
Israel purchases the majority of its military weapons, and the amount of aid that the USA gives to Israel is small compared to Israels total military budget.
I think people forget that Israel has a very large tech sector and economy these days.
They also have nukes too, if their country was really threatened, but thats very unlikely given that no middle eastern military could stand up to Israels current military.
Israel is one of the world's largest weapons exporters. There a some areas that US pushed for a monopoly, like aircrafts and forced Israel to abandon it's own programs (Lavi jet fighter, similar to Canada's Arrow case). So Israel is entirely depended on US for F-35,F-16 ad Apachi helicopters and that's all..
> Utter humiliation for USA
Its proportional response. As in having the power to bully your way in but taking a measured approach anyways.
Its proportional response. As in having the power to bully your way in but taking a measured approach anyways.