Conservatives in this forum don't understand the Israel-Palestine conflict

[Starlight]

Conservative posters in this forum seem to fundamentally not understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, and many are on the side of evil as a result of their ignorance.

The best analogy I can draw your attention to, is early colonization of the US and the pioneer interactions with native Americans. The settlers in the US bought land, stole land, killed the natives, got raided by the natives, pushed the natives into Reservations, and arguably in some instances did genocide of the natives.

The situation in Israel-Palestine, of a massive number of Jews moving to the area where Palestinians were living, and taking land from the Palestinians already living there, is having much the same results.

The people who were previously living in the area are upset at the new immigrants seizing their land and pushing them off it. They're upset at the new immigrants killing them. They've got justified grievances. So groups of them fight back, in numerous kinds of ways. It's a parallel situation between the early US pioneers, and the current Israeli colonization.

The October 6th attack on Israel by the Palestinians should be understood in much the same way a band of horse-riding "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer settlement in the early US should be understood.

Using that analogy, I encourage conservatives to understand why the following types of comments about the situation betray a fundamental lack of understanding. Imagine saying these sorts of things about the US natives attacking the pioneers:

"They're just doing it because they hate Christianity. It's all about religion. The native Americans just hate Christianity and want to kill Christians."

"It's all about race, they just want to kill whites all around the world because they hate the white race. People in Britain are in danger from these savages who want to kill whites."

"They're just fundamentally bad people, they just love doing bad things because they're bad people. Killing, rape, etc they're just doing it because they're bad people and love to do bad things."

Saying anything of the sort would just reveal that you didn't understand the situation at all in early America. I see conservatives on this board revealing they don't understand the situation in Israel-Palestine when they say similar things about the current conflict there.

Both conflicts are about one group stealing another group's land, pushing them into Reservations, and killing them. And the people who are being victimized, fighting back.

Some other types of comments I see that are fundamentally not relevant to the conflict, and reveal a basic lack of understanding:

"The pioneers have a democratic government, the natives don't have a democratic government."

"The government of the pioneers is nicer towards its own people overall, than the government of the natives is to its own people."

Such statements are simply not relevant to the overall conflict between the settlers and the natives. The conflict is about stolen land and displaced people, not a referendum on which group happens to have the more pleasant government.

Similarly, a couple of statements that are not very helpful:

"The Braves attacking the pioneer settlements are Terrorists."

Using terror to fight back, is indeed "terrorism". But it doesn't mean those doing it didn't have justified grievances. It's 100% rational to think those Braves who attacked the settlement did a bad thing, while also thinking that the pioneers who stole the land and built the settlement there in the first place did a bad thing. If the pioneers launch a reprisal attack on the nearby native village and butcher women and children in the attack, it's rational to think that's the pioneers doing a bad thing.

"The Settlers should end the violence by destroying the natives so thoroughly that they'll never ever be able to launch any attack on the settlers again."

Such statements either call for genocide (and thus are evil), or are foolish because the natives are always going to be able to fight back and its not possible to remove their ability to do so. In fact, the more you attack them, the more you motivate them to fight back, so suggesting the way to stop them fighting back ever again is to attack them hard, is silly.

In short, the situation in Israel-Palestine boils down to immigrants stealing people's land, displacing them, killing them, and the reprisal attacks that has caused. Just as the friction between the US settlers and native Americans did.

The current situation has been the equivalent of the "Indian Braves" attacking a pioneer village due to their anger at past wrongs done to them by the pioneers, and the pioneers responding with a genocide of the native Americans in which they slaughter hundreds of times the number the natives had killed. To which much of the world is now responding: "Genocide is bad, don't do that."

So to those conservatives here, who are weighing in on the situation out of ignorance I plead: Think twice before getting out your pom-poms and cheerleading for genocide. Please don't be actively atrociously evil.

The Palestinian attack on Israel justified a response, but it doesn't justify the response it has gotten.

You can, in the longer conflict over the decades, choose to side with the pioneer immigrants over the natives if you want. Though I think you would be wrong to do so, because I generally think stealing people's land, shoving them into Reservations, and killing them, is morally wrong. And I think such people have an entirely morally justified right to fight back against their oppressors in self-defence. But if you are going to side with the immigrants over the natives in the longer conflict over the decades, I would ask that you at least try to understand the conflict. It's a conflict about stolen land, and displaced and wronged people, it's not primarily a conflict over race or religion, and when I see posters here talking in racial or religious terms I realize they fundamentally don't understand the situation.

[NorrinRadd]

"We don't have the same understanding that you have" is not the same as "We don't understand."

[Starlight]

"We don't have the same understanding that you have" is not the same as "We don't understand."

That's true. Unfortunately it's the latter and not the former in this case.

[Cow Poke]

I actually started to write a response, and had a good 5 or 6 paragraphs finished -- then I realized to whom I was responding.

[tabibito]

That's true. Unfortunately it's the latter and not the former in this case.

To understand what is happening, it would be necessary to first attempt to understand the Israeli government's thinking.

It has become apparent that the Israeli government cares no more for Palestinian civilians than they do for ants - which would not be the case if the said government were intent on genocide.

To all appearances, the Israeli government's focus is on Hamas military infrastructure - as long as anything bigger than a pebble remains, the onslaught will continue. The presence of civilians or civilian property standing between Israel and Hamas' military infrastructure will simply be ignored.

Future generations' hatred for Israel isn't a factor in the Israeli government's concerns - the Palestinian civilian attitude will not be made significantly worse than it already is by Israel's action.

However, the increase in hatred won't see Palestinians dancing in the street in celebration of the latest Hamas atrocity. Those who don't head for shelter will be looking to lynch Hamas' leadership.

[Starlight]

Tabibito, you write the strangest things on this topic. Your takes seem completely random, not in agreement with any commentators, neither liberal nor conservative, that I have ever seen. You rarely say anything on the topic I think is accurate, or have ever seen any evidence for. I have to ask... are you just making it up as you go?

It has become apparent that the Israeli government cares no more for Palestinian civilians than they do for ants - which would not be the case if the said government were intent on genocide.

I disagree. Firstly, one can decide one has an ant infestation and want to eradicate it, so it isn't true that thinking of them as ants stops genocide. Secondly, the claim that the government views them as ants seems random and unfounded.

[qutoe]To all appearances, the Israeli government's focus is on Hamas military infrastructure[/quote]I have no idea what causes you to think that. I have never seen anyone put forth any evidence for that.

the Palestinian civilian attitude will not be made significantly worse than it already is by Israel's action.

If you look at opinion polls of whether the Gazans support violence against Israel, those have shifted substantially as a result of the conflict, and not in Israel's favor. So, contrary to what you say, it has made it worse. Before the conflict, the majority of Gazans wanted peace. They don't now.

Those who don't head for shelter will be looking to lynch Hamas' leadership.

On the contrary, support for Hamas has gone way up among Gazans as a result of what Israel has done. That was predictable: Israel has killed so many people's family members that the survivors are angry with Israel and support fighting back against Israel.

[tabibito]

Tabibito, you write the strangest things on this topic. Your takes seem completely random, not in agreement with any commentators, neither liberal nor conservative, that I have ever seen. You rarely say anything on the topic I think is accurate, or have ever seen any evidence for. I have to ask... are you just making it up as you go?

My assessment might be wildly inaccurate, but there seems to be a dearth of noticeably neutral commentators. Maybe there are some, but the vast majority are partisan. Partisan commentators, whether conservative or liberal, can't be expected to draw the same conclusions as neutral commentators.

I disagree. Firstly, one can decide one has an ant infestation and want to eradicate it, so it isn't true that thinking of them as ants stops genocide. Secondly, the claim that the government views them as ants seems random and unfounded.

The claim that I claim the Israeli government sees Palestinians as ants is unfounded. The level of concern for Palestinian civilians was at issue, not how the people are perceived. For the most part, with a few exceptions, Israeli forces are acting as though the Palestinian civilians don't exist - that is not consistent with a campaign of genocide.

To all appearances, the Israeli government's focus is on Hamas military infrastructure

I have no idea what causes you to think that. I have never seen anyone put forth any evidence for that.

Patterns of attack point to a focus on military infrastructure and personnel. The objectives will be destroyed, and anything that happens to be present along with them. The problem being that the tunnel system and other Hamas military sites are so ubiquitous that other things are almost always in the way.

If you look at opinion polls of whether the Gazans support violence against Israel, those have shifted substantially as a result of the conflict, and not in Israel's favor. So, contrary to what you say, it has made it worse. Before the conflict, the majority of Gazans wanted peace. They don't now.

They wanted peace, undoubtedly - on whose terms? If my assessment is correct, a few months after the military action has ceased, the Palestinian people won't just be wanting peace, they will be demanding it.

On the contrary, support for Hamas has gone way up among Gazans as a result of what Israel has done. That was predictable: Israel has killed so many people's family members that the survivors are angry with Israel and support fighting back against Israel.

The current level of support for Hamas and violence against Israel is high, but that is during attacks - that level of support can be expected to radically diminish a few months after all the shooting stops. The cost of kicking a sleeping tiger hasn't been calculated into their thinking yet.

I am taking one historically repeated pattern among several as a guide. I may be mistaken, but insofar as I can tell, commentaries aren't reflecting observable circumstances.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The following extracts are from the Introduction in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948: Eds. Eugene L Rogan & Avi Shlaim .

Avi Shlaim is no stranger to being regarded as a second-class citizen by the Ashkenazi elite in Israel. As Mizrahi Jews his family experienced condescension towards themselves and those other Jews from the east and he recalls his shame that initially he spoke Arabic and that his father struggled to learn Hebrew and continued to speak Arabic.

These extracts deal with the myths on both sides of the divide.

In this section the Introduction is referring to the 1982 war in Lebanon and Begin's justification for Israel's actions.

Significantly, in defending the actions of his government, then-Prime Minister Menahem Begin referred to the policies of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, in 1948. Begin claimed that the only difference between them was that Ben-Gurion had resorted to subterfuge, whereas he was carrying out his policy openly. He cited Ben-Gurion’s plan to divide Lebanon by setting up a Christian state north of the Litani River, his relentless efforts to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and, during the 1948 War, his wholesale destruction of Arab villages and townships within the borders of Israel and the expulsion of their inhabitants from the country – all in the interest of establishing a homogeneous Jewish state.

Begin’s remarks inadvertently set in motion a reassessment of Israel’s origins. The War of Independence, as the 1948 War is called in Israel, had always transcended controversy. Researchers, motivated in many cases to clear Ben-Gurion’s name and discredit Begin, began to look into these charges of wholesale destruction of villages and expulsions. They were aided by a liberal archival policy by which government documents are released to public scrutiny after the passage of thirty years, which made available a vast quantity of documentation on the 1948 War and its aftermath. The Israeli archives proved most revealing.

Simha Flapan set the agenda when he reduced the historiography on the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 to seven myths: that the Zionists accepted the UN partition resolution and planned for peace; that the Arabs rejected the partition and launched the war; that the Palestinians fled voluntarily intending reconquest; that the Arab states had united to expel the Jews from Palestine; that the Arab invasion made war inevitable; that a defenseless Israel faced destruction by the Arab Goliath; and that Israel subsequently sought peace but no Arab leader responded.

The Arab side likewise has its own myths including a degree of shifting criticism to other Arab states, which Arab scholarship on the topic has failed to eradicate, as the Introduction continues:

A critical tradition has always existed in the Arab histories of 1948, though the criticism in any given country was more often directed against the actions of other Arab states. Arab intellectuals have, since the immediate aftermath of the war they dubbed "the catastrophe" (al-Nakba) sought to explain their defeat in the shortcomings of Arab society generally. Constantine Zurayq, Sati’ al -Husri, Musa al’ -Alami and George Hanna were among the most influential of these intellectuals, and their works gained wide circulation in the Arab world. “Yet these books,” Walid al-Khalidi argues, “were not able to eradicate and bury forever our myths of what took place in the 1948 War, in spite of their wide circulation.” While Khalidi characterizes both the Israeli and the Arab historiography of the 1948 War in similar terms, his summary of the Arab myths is worth citing at length. The most prominent of the Arab myths of the 1948 War, most of which continue to be be circulated down to the present day. portray the Zionist forces as mere terrorist gangs which had been surrounded in all directions by the Arab armies in the first phase of the war (15 May -11 June). The Egyptian vanguard had reached the southern suburbs of Tel Aviv, the Iraqi advanced forces had come very close to the Mediterranean coast to the west of Qalqiliya and Tulkarm , and the Jordanian Arab League had reached the eastern suburbs of Tel Aviv. All that was needed was a few more days to deal the enemy the mortal blow that would decide the matter once and for all, when international pressure escalated into threats and menaces and imposed the first truce on the Arabs. Thus the Zionist entity snatched victory from the jaws of inevitable defeat.

As a result of re-examining their own nation's historiography, some Israeli academics have turned to that of the Arabs and Avraham Sela notes the parallels between the Israeli and Arab narratives both of which are based more on collective memory than critical historiography.

Emmanuel Sivan, in his analysis of Arab political myths, considered such recurrent themes as the Crusades as a symbol of an on-going battle between Muslim Arabs and their enemies in the holy land of Palestine, and the symbolic significance of Jerusalem, as two examples of particular relevance to Arab thought in the aftermath of the Palestine War. Avraham Sela, who has studied the Arab historiography of 1948 most extensively, has drawn parallels between Arab and Israeli narratives. Like the earlier Israeli histories of 1948, he argues, “Arab historiography of the 1948 war consists predominantly of non-scholarly literature based more upon collective memory than critical historiography.” Unable to reach military parity with Israel or to fulfill its Arab nationalist agenda of liberating Palestine, Sela argues, “the history of the 1948 war is an essential part of the ‘unfinished business’ of Arab nationalism.”

[seer]

The best analogy I can draw your attention to, is early colonization of the US and the pioneer interactions with native Americans. The settlers in the US bought land, stole land, killed the natives, got raided by the natives, pushed the natives into Reservations, and arguably in some instances did genocide of the natives.

The situation in Israel-Palestine, of a massive number of Jews moving to the area where Palestinians were living, and taking land from the Palestinians already living there, is having much the same results.

First, you can not colonize your ancestral homeland. A land where many Jews never left. It is more that the Arabs (and others) colonized the Jewish state over the centuries. Second, there was never a 'Palestine state' in history. Third, they had a real chance for a statehood with the UN partition of 48, the Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it and started a war. It was after that that many Arabs suffered the most. But that was war, then again in 67. And I'm not sure what you have against colonization Star, you live happily on colonized land - or have you turned your home and property over to the Māori people? I mean you would not accept your living condition, but deny the same thing for one of the most persecuted peoples of human history - the Jews? That would be hypocritical.

[Sparko]

The Indians were here first. The Palestinians were not there first. The land belonged to the Jews for thousands of years since Abraham. The land doesn't belong to the Palestinians. But they do have a right to live there. Peacefully.
The Israeli's get along with the Arabs in Israel and in the surrounding countries as long as the Arabs treat them with respect and don't attack them. They even have Arabs in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament).
When attacked, Israel will attack back. And they will win. Hamas attacked Israel. Again.
They withdrew from Gaza (in 2005 I think?) and allowed the Palestinians there to govern themselves. They keep choosing terrorists as their government.
If they would have just lived there peacefully and not kept attacking Israel over and over, culminating in Oct 7, Israel would have left them alone.

Hamas still has Israeli hostages. They continue to attack Israel. They steal their own people's aid and use their own people as cannon fodder and human shields. Hamas is the real enemy of the Palestinian people. Yet the Palestinians keep them in power and do not rebel.

[CivilDiscourse]

Starlight , Hypatia_Alexandria

I'm certain you agree with the ICC on asking for warrants for the Hamas Leadership for their war crimes:

Source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-netanyahu-sinwar-icc-2f59ab4e649301af6ca5115ca69640c5

THE HAMAS LEADERS

The Hamas officials — Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif — are accused of planning and instigating eight war crimes and crimes against humanity, among them extermination, murder, taking hostages, rape and torture.

“The crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas,” the decision released today by the ICC stated.

“There are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity.”

Hamas rejected the accusations.

Sinwar and Deif are believed to be hiding in Gaza. Haniyeh, the supreme leader of Hamas, is based in Qatar.

© Copyright Original Source

I suspect you would like to see Qatar hand over the foreign terrorist on their soil, who the ICC has asked for as well, correct?

[Mountain Man]

It's always amusing when liberals point to the US government's treatment of Native Americans as an example of displacing an indigenous people while seeming blissfully ignorant of the fact that the Native American tribes themselves were often in a constant state of tension and war, with parcels of land frequently changing hands across generations. It just so happened that the US government was the more powerful tribe.

[seer]

It's always amusing when liberals point to the US government's treatment of Native Americans as an example of displacing an indigenous people while seeming blissfully ignorant of the fact that the Native American tribes themselves were often in a constant state of tension and war, with parcels of land frequently changing hands across generations. It just so happened that the US government was the more powerful tribe.

The real problem is that the 'natives' were displaced and beaten by white European males...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Starlight , Hypatia_Alexandria

I'm certain you agree with the ICC on asking for warrants for the Hamas Leadership for their war crimes:

Yes.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-netanyahu-sinwar-icc-2f59ab4e649301af6ca5115ca69640c5

THE HAMAS LEADERS

The Hamas officials — Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif — are accused of planning and instigating eight war crimes and crimes against humanity, among them extermination, murder, taking hostages, rape and torture.

“The crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas,” the decision released today by the ICC stated.

“There are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity.”

Hamas rejected the accusations.

Sinwar and Deif are believed to be hiding in Gaza. Haniyeh, the supreme leader of Hamas, is based in Qatar.

© Copyright Original Source

I suspect you would like to see Qatar hand over the foreign terrorist on their soil, who the ICC has asked for as well, correct?

Yes and Israel can hand over any sex offenders who have fled justice from other countries.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes.

Good.

Yes and Israel can hand over any sex offenders who have fled justice from other countries.

Such an odd sort of tit-for-tat type of response. I'm Unsure what the latter has to do with the former. Is it really connected in any way? Is Israel notorious for this? Are they outliers when it comes to countries in regards to this sort of behavior?