Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

BlG_DlCK_BEE t1_j9l5i0t wrote

I mean every Human Rights organization has labeled Israel as an apartheid state and tried to bring to light their crimes and violations of human rights but they keep getting shouted down, de-platformed and canceled for anti-semitism. I hope they can be held accountable but I’m not holding out too much hope.

156

Medium-Magician9186 t1_j9lsjkw wrote

There is nothing more antisemitic then imply that the racist genocidal state of Israel represents Judism.

24

zeshtorm t1_j9lftyl wrote

Wow, not one comment mentioning that 7 of the Palestinians have been claimed by recognized terrorist organizations as being one of their members?

70

ishitfrommymouth t1_j9liuda wrote

Is 7 out of 100 really an achievement?

34

zeshtorm t1_j9ljja4 wrote

7 out of 10. You can see videos of Palestinians blind shooting at Israelis and other Palestinians watching the scene. Sad and scary. To be clear, they (IDF) came in to arrest members of terror organization and came under heavy fire.

59

thoughtsofmadness t1_j9lo10d wrote

So you are just going to put on blinders and completely ignore the 100 other people who didn't die but were injured by Israel's attack?

26

zeshtorm t1_j9lq7u1 wrote

I don't, it's sad for sure.

BUT: 1) There is no knowing how many of those 100 were actually injured, and how many got a tiny nick that the Palestinian media counted as an injury to inflate the count.

  1. There is no knowing how many of those wounded were also militants or involved in the firefight, and

  2. It's hard to place the blame squarely on Israel as people here are doing. They have been going in to arrest members of terror groups that they have good intelligence are planning attacks on Israel. Just letting them be is not an option if they have good intelligence. I also can't much blame the militants for not wanting to go quietly. However, they are the ones that made the decision to start a firefight in middle of their own neighborhoods. It's a given that the IDF will return fire, and it's also a given that an extensive shootout in middle of your neighborhood will result in innocent people getting hurt.

−24

Imhopeless3264 t1_j9lnqxn wrote

To quote my mother: “I don’t care who started it! Keep your hands to yourselves and don’t step on each other’s shadow!”

−29

Ben_Jahmin t1_j9l4uye wrote

Israel is a terrorist state sucking on the tits of the US

68

lurker627 t1_j9k808a wrote

Typical apartheid state stuff.

57

[deleted] t1_j9kmzwh wrote

[removed]

−34

ChasmDude t1_j9ksmcd wrote

We can debate the usefulness of the term apartheid to no end, but it's a fact that Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to Israeli military courts, whereas settlers and other Israelis retain the benefits of civilian courts.

Israeli settlement is counterproductive for Israel as well. Weakening the legitimacy of the internationally recognized representatives of the the would-be Palestinian state increases the likelihood that Palestinians will gravitate towards support of more extreme actors. The thought process can be summarized as follows: I am subject to violence by the Israelis, who do not respect our legitimate representatives, who have renounced violence, the denial of the right of Israel to exist and which even cooperates with Israel on some security matters. Notwithstanding the corruption of the Palestinian Authority also impacting its legitimacy, the Israelis make the international situation worse and contribute to an upward spiral of violence.

None of what I have said should be taken as an endorsement of violence or a dismissal of Israel's right to security. However, Israel's salami slicing of territory which was supposed to be reserved for a future Palestinian state, their implementation of a military justice system conferring fewer civil rights on Palestinians than Israelis occupy the same territory and their excessive use of violence in an often punitive way clearly shows that Israel is not an innocent victim of aggression in the conflict. Israel is also an aggressor and contributes to its international reputation as an oppressor.

So you may not like the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state, but its behavior towards the Palestinians lends itself to such a characterization. The conflict will continue forever until one side completely pushes the other out or both acknowledge their part in preventing the establishment of more peaceful relations and, hopefully, an end to the conflict.

35

lurker627 t1_j9kno1r wrote

Hmm, I suppose this might be a little more apartheid than usual...

10

Risley t1_j9koqq3 wrote

Simple question, does anyone know what the end goal is for Israel? I don’t know anymore. Do they want a unified state? Two states? Take all land and deport all Palestinians?

Every year it’s the same shit but I never see any direction. What does Netanyahu want?

2

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9ksm4f wrote

They want peace and nothing to do with the Palestinians. The people who were killed were part of terrorist groups if you read the article. The question is what do the Palestinians want? They reject all peace, they stopped supporting the only political party of theirs that supported peace in favor of Hamas who specifically does not support peace and wants terrorism. Israel is moving further to the right, which will complicate peace, however at points Israel has offered entirety of WB, if Palestinians stopped terrorist attacks and rocket attacks, there would be peace tomorrow.

−10

MC_chrome t1_j9lghim wrote

This would have never been an issue to begin with if the British and Americans had included Palestinians at the negotiating table from the beginning, and had established a dual state/party solution as well.

5

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9lhymp wrote

I'm not sure what table you are talking about? Beginning meaning when? If you are talking about the creation of Israel, America had nothing to do with that, the British effectively left, there was a proposal that Israel said yes to and Palestinians said no to, the Palestinians and Arabs attacked the Jews and then the Jews won. They have always been included, I am not sure what you are saying?

−7

MC_chrome t1_j9ljjxj wrote

>America had nothing to do with that

Per the US State Department’s own website, this is objectively not true

Basically, Britain was in favor of supporting Arabs in Palestine because it suited their interests better, while America was more in favor of displaced Jews from World War II having a place to live.

9

onecrazyguy1 t1_j9llcye wrote

It's actually objectively true. All the US did was recognize them as a country, negotiation would have done nothing. Thee had been plenty of negotiation for many years since way before the Holocaust or WWII. The Arabs and Jews were effectively in civil war, every compromise was rejected no matter what, which is exactly what the Arabs said they would do. There was never going to be a one state solution, neither side was willing to do that, decades of mandate histoiry show why that is a ridiculous idea. Israel looks the way it does because the Palestinians attacked and lost, no negotiations would change that, even if the UN did not vote, there would still be a state of Israel, it had been brewing for decades. All the British did was punt the League of Nations question from WWI to the UN.

−7

WeaselTeamSix t1_j9kafkk wrote

Another headline that leaves out the whole "cause and effect" aspect of such incidents.

42

serpentechnoir t1_j9kdh3t wrote

Cause: israel state sponsored terrorism.effect: Palestinians living in a shrinking prison.

45

[deleted] t1_j9kn1eu wrote

[removed]

−20

TheRainStopped t1_j9l0f1n wrote

Palestinian babies are born on the wrong side of a wall put there by Israeli authorities. They grow up knowing nothing but restriction of their rights for the sole crime of being born. Several human rights organizations have described Gaza and the West Bank as an open air prison.

Ironically, you spamming copy/paste comments is actually really telling of your own laziness, lol

23

[deleted] t1_j9l50fu wrote

[removed]

−6

TheRainStopped t1_j9l6b9e wrote

Notice how you try to excuse the building of the wall instead of deny that those babies are born in a prison. Now THAT'S telling.

17

chyko9 t1_j9l05b3 wrote

Unfortunately, this is only a partial answer. Antisemitic violence in the region predates Israel's establishment by decades, and would still exist even if Israel did not. Assuming that fundamentalist Palestinian militancy is merely/solely a result of their territorial losses on the battlefield in the past, and/or only a function of Israeli policy since the 1960s, is historically disingenuous to the extreme. It severely detracts from the agency of Palestinian fundamentalist militants, reducing them to a one-dimensional, reactionary force, and ignores the much greater complexity and maximalist aims of their driving ideology.

−22

shurfire t1_j9lfr9e wrote

I mean, there was a secular non-religous Palestinian armed group. It was actually led by a Palestinian Christian.

25

mxassasin t1_j9k7l02 wrote

Yet we still blindly support them.

18

lironi1111 t1_j9kd9w3 wrote

Of course the title would omit the fact that most of them were terrorists or human shields for them

−23

karkahooligan t1_j9kg52n wrote

> the fact that most of them were terrorists or human shields for them

Good thing you're here to provide proof. Right?

43

chyko9 t1_j9kg9w3 wrote

You don’t have to rely on any assumptions or guesswork, PIJ and Lion’s Den literally claimed them as members.

I assume this is the part where the goalposts move, and you say “well yea ok they were militants… but they’re freedom fighters!!11!!!”

25

karkahooligan t1_j9khtng wrote

> I assume this is the part where the goalposts move, and you say “well yea ok they were militants… but they’re freedom fighters!!11!!!”

No, this is where I ask for a source, and point out that OP quite clearly states "most of them were terrorists or human shields for them" without providing any evidence at all. And what exactly does most mean? You may be ok with believing anything you read on the internet, but I don't.

12

chyko9 t1_j9kqrm9 wrote

Ok here. From 28 minutes ago as of 10:16am PST.

"Various Palestinian militant groups claimed six of the dead — including the three from Lion’s Den targeted in the raid — as members."

https://apnews.com/article/politics-nablus-israel-west-bank-b29ffacdfefb473aae06542b01e0fded

It is a tragedy that others, including two old men, were killed as well. But let's not pretend like this was some random, unprovoked attack on unsuspecting, undeserving Palestinian civilians.

33

thoughtsofmadness t1_j9loc5f wrote

>It is a tragedy that others, including two old men, were killed as well. But let's not pretend like this was some random, unprovoked attack on unsuspecting, undeserving Palestinian civilians.

I mean, does it matter? You seem to really be fixed on the 6 while happily completely disregarding the other 100+ casualties.

12

karkahooligan t1_j9kuliq wrote

> It is a tragedy that others, including two old men, were killed as well.

And over a hundred wounded. Why did you omit that little detail?

> But let's not pretend like this was some random, unprovoked attack on unsuspecting, undeserving Palestinian civilians.

Over 100 wounded on top of the innocents killed. What exactly did over a hundred civilians do to "deserve" being killed or maimed?

8

[deleted] t1_j9kzbmg wrote

[removed]

24

janethefish t1_j9ljek4 wrote

Neither you nor op specified "dead" up until this point.

Additionally, to nitpick, OP stated "terrorist," while the AP only mentioned claims by "militant" groups.

8

dogoodsilence1 t1_j9l6i56 wrote

Lmao this is an AP news source. It reads like in the 60s and 70s in the US against the Black Panther Movement. You sound so naive lol. For fuck sakes two unarmed men were shot dead along with the Military firing missiles into the building. Any way you look at it, it is a humanitarian crisis. It’s like the 1985 Move Bombing

−1

BlG_DlCK_BEE t1_j9l6l0a wrote

Well it’s good to know that Israel is fine with killing “human shields”. We already knew they were fine with killing journalists, children and “accidentally” killing civilians, but intentionally killing “human shields? That’s quite an admission.

Israel has closed and/or attacked 31 news organizations and has had no problem labeling anyone they like as terrorists. They literally attacked the offices of AP and Al Jazeera.

I’m sorry if people are running out of faith in their narrative.

8

Medium-Magician9186 t1_j9l1mgw wrote

Occupied peoples have a moral obligation to fight against their occupiers. You can call them terrorists all you want, but because they are under racist belligerent occupation, they have to fight, they do not have a choice, the only people with choices are the occupiers.

The only way for the violence to end in Palestine is for Israel to stop causing it. That is the objective truth.

−3

chyko9 t1_j9l3cu3 wrote

>Occupied peoples have a moral obligation to fight against their occupiers.

The problem here is that Palestinian fundamentalist militants are not just fighting to end the occupation of the West Bank - they are fighting to end Israel as a state, because they believe de jure Israeli territory is just as much "occupied land" as the West Bank is.

>The only way for the violence to end in Palestine is for Israel to stop causing it. That is the objective truth.

The objective truth is that Israel could withdraw to the 1967 or even the 1948 borders, and Palestinian militants would only consider it a "partial success", because they view all of Israel as "occupied territory" that needs to be "liberated". There is no evidence that the violence would stop if Israel withdrew from the West Bank - why? Because when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, the violence did not stop, and only increased. This is the only data point that we, and the Israelis, have with which to reasonably predict what would happen if they end the occupation of the West Bank. No state in existence can reasonably expected to undertake an action like that, which it believes will place potentially tens of thousands of its civilians at risk.

There aren't really any concessions that Israel can offer to these militant groups, besides its own destruction, that will satisfy them. This is a serious problem and a major obstacle to peace.

21

[deleted] t1_j9le755 wrote

[removed]

1

chyko9 t1_j9ljv75 wrote

>it’s all stolen land

Aside from this being both a falsification of geopolitical history and an abject denial of Jewish history & identity, as well as a tacit endorsement of ethnic cleansing, it is a completely politically insolvent sentiment today as well.

There are no concessions that Israel can offer people like you, aside from its own destruction, that will be satisfactory. So, why would Israel listen to people like you when you demand a withdrawal from the West Bank? It isn’t like you’d actually be satisfied if they did that; you want them to cease to exist.

This is just one reason why there is no benefit to listening to or paying even the slightest lip service to zero-sum sentiments like yours.

7

[deleted] t1_j9ldbba wrote

[removed]

2

Medium-Magician9186 t1_j9lhomn wrote

I spoke no lie. your cut and paste defamation is as pitiful as it is stupid.

5

[deleted] t1_j9lk6ud wrote

[removed]

−1

Medium-Magician9186 t1_j9ln9gw wrote

shame to racism, shame to occupation, shame to genocide, and shame to all the pitiful and stupid people who encourage such depravity.

6

[deleted] t1_j9lo074 wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j9lojb3 wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j9lpbdm wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j9lpkww wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j9lpr98 wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j9lq8bv wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j9lqgwm wrote

[removed]

−2

varsity14 t1_j9l6flz wrote

>objective truth.

I don't think you understand what either of those words mean.

−1

Medium-Magician9186 t1_j9la9ik wrote

Again, because they are under racist belligerent occupation, they have an obligation to fight against the racist belligerent occupation they suffer under. This is a object truth of humanity. There is no honest way to spin it in any other light.

10

Petersaber t1_j9ky1ho wrote

Because terrorist organisations are a trustworthy source, eh? No way they're just trying to score free range martyrs for the cause? The fact that multiple groups claim "ownership" should trigger a red flag or two.

−9

chyko9 t1_j9l1awc wrote

How else do you propose that the identity of the dead are obtained? If we can't trust what the IDF says, because they want to maximize the number of militants killed, and we can't trust Palestinian fundamentalists, because they also want to maximize the number of "martyrs" killed, then we're at an informational bottleneck here. However, I don't think the solution in the face of an over-abundance of caution on identifying the dead is just to revert to calling every single person killed in the raid a "civilian" - that is arguably more disingenuous than going off of potentially false numbers from either side.

14

Petersaber t1_j9lb3xf wrote

There are third-party sources.

> that is arguably more disingenuous than going off of potentially false numbers from either side.

No. It's better than calling every casuality a "military aged male", or outright "terrorist", which shuts down any investigation.

2

dogoodsilence1 t1_j9l8f44 wrote

It’s funny you take an American news source for what it’s worth lol. It’s like the 60s propaganda in the US against Civil Rights. If you knew anything about such state labeled “terrorist groups” like the naive user above mentions the Lions Den which was found in August 2022 after two individuals were killed by Israel forces. It’s called fighting back. David vs Goliath because Goliath (the fascist state) is trying to occupy land in the West Bank to build condos for Israel. Sounds very similar how many minorities were treated in the US back in the day to build highways and new subdivision through minority run communities

3

Petersaber t1_j9lb26w wrote

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

My relatives were terrorists too... While they were hiding in Warsaw underground back in 1944.

2

Kahzootoh t1_j9l2scp wrote

>The Israeli military said it entered the city to arrest three wanted militants suspected in previous shooting attacks in the West Bank. It said it tracked down the men in a hideout.

Might need to check your math there, unless you’re suggesting that the Israeli military is trying to disguise dead terrorists as civilian bystanders?

6

Cold-Reflectionz t1_j9l68zd wrote

Yeah, these articles should refer to Israeli forces as terrorists, I agree.

5