As Gazans Scrounge for Food and Water, Hamas Sits on a Rich Trove of Supplies
As Gazans Scrounge for Food and Water, Hamas Sits on a Rich Trove of Supplies
Hamas has spent years stockpiling desperately needed fuel, food and medicine, as well as ammo and weapons, in the miles of tunnels it has carved out under Gaza.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Am I wrong? Is the Nakba not how it started?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4upvoxP9-kg
It's.... complicated. There is a back and forth through out history.
I'd say the British are the most responsible for the current situation, but it really doesn't matter. People need to just be able to live, and nobody should have the right to claim land for a religion to the exclusion of anyone else.
This land is for religion X and nobody else... these people are wrong, and only create violence. (yes, that includes most of our current participants in today's war).
The thing is the morality of the issue is not that complicated.
It's as complicated as the genocide of native americans and their expulsion into "reservations" where they still lack the same access to infrastructure, healthcare, education as the rest of the country today.
As complicated as apartheid south africa or the irish republicans.
The history is complicated in the sense that it is war with many atrocities and injustices. But the root of the issue, the cause for all these atrocities that the colonialists suffer in retaliation is colonialism.
Sure, there was a wronged party, and many students will get their PhDs in analyzing guilt and documenting atrocities.
The USA is still in no hurry to give back land to the Native Americans. They are as sorry as all heck... but the practical reality is they want to continue to exist, and are not willing to give up anything strategic for historical purposes.
The key to life is, the past is informative, but not important, the future is what is important. Living in peace but wronged is better then dying right in war.
Right, but when someone asks me who I stand with on these conflicts, it's not the English, the Boers or the English (again).
The native americans, the Zulu, the IRA all committed terrible things on the colonialist civilians as well. And yet when you ask today who was in the right to fight the war that was fought, it's those parties. Never the colonialists.
Are you asking for Palestinians to accept apartheid?
Clearly not, the only solution is to work toward equal rights and shared economic development for all people living in the same area.
Religious wars, ethnocentric states, apartheid are unsustainable and only lead to violence.
The problem is that you're Americanising this conflict.
There are Israeli Arabs, Druze and Bedouin that lived in the region for centuries and are now happy to identify as Israeli (look online for Arab Israelis for Israel. Get out of the echo chambers). There are Jewish families that have been there since the Roman empire.
On the flip side there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that migrated to the region in the 1930's and 40's, their family names today still indicate their family origins in Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq etc.
If you really want to dive down the historical rabbit hole of the region we'll be here for hours, but trying to frame this conflict as a white colonisers vs indigenous people is historically and factually incorrect.
But is it incorrect? You have people from Staten island and California move into an arab families home today and the IDF will protect them and the family whose home just got occupied better not twitch a muscle too abruptly. You're painting this as if I have to draw from long settled history to support my argument, I don't.
But this displacement has been going on for close to a hundred years now. The establishment of the State of Israel had the zionist militias empty out villages and force the people into the desert trail of tears style. Like the establishment of any other colonial state and not just the US, but like the examples I mentioned before so I don't know where this "americanising" is coming from, South Africa, Ireland, Congo, Haiti and many many many other countries before Israel.
You're mixing Gaza and the west bank.
This is about Gaza and Hamas. The IDF had no presence in Gaza for 20 years now and Israel has not displaced anyone from there since 1967.
Unless your argument is that Hamas represents all the Palestinians everywhere?
I am not mixing anything you said yourself that the gazans are displaced people.
Really? that's odd, where did I say that?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=4upvoxP9-kg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That really depends on how far back in history you want to go. We can even start with Muhammad and the Jewish tribes massacres (Banu Qurayza for example).
But honestly, I don't think that that's a productive approach. This is a live, dynamic and constantly changing conflict. The things that defined it 100 or even 50 years ago are no longer relevant.
The israeli people living there today have no ancestry back to mohammedan times. They're 99% converts. But really, you wanted to go back to the start. As if you are going to find some historical excuse that could justify the use of white phosphorus, bombing of hospitals, the bombing of roads that the population were told to take to move south by the very same army doing the bombardment. Some point in time where you can point to and claim "See, this is why the israeli's are justified in starving and bombing and terrorizing these people in an open-air prison".
69ish% of modern Israeli jews are natives to the region. The group labeled "zionists" or "colonizers" describes about 30%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world about as many or more than the Nakbah got expelled.
Well yeah, this is what you got from ethnic cleansing. Does it make it right? Nope.
The israeli people living there today have no ancestry back to mohammedan times
I don't understand this claim. Can you explain?
You're diverting, arguing with a straw man and pushing propaganda. Everything you said can be disproved by a quick Google search.
I'm going to pull the "no u" card here, because you're the one who brought up "how this war started" to divert from the ongoing genocide.
I was referring to the attack on 7/10.
You framed it as a battle in an ongoing war that been going since Israel was founded.
I answered that if we want to look at the history of the Jewish Arab conflict it can be traced to the early days of Islam.
Your response to that was false propaganda.
Yes you were referring to the Al-Aqsa flood. As a means to distract from the ongoing genocide that the Israeli government feels it is entitled to do. You refer to it as if this is the start of the chain of causalities and not a link on the ongoing war thats been going on since Israel was founded. You grasp for a context that will make the ongoing cruelty and savagery at least understandable, perhaps even seem justified. No such context exists.
I see.
A few days ago a group of Israelis tortured, killed and then burned the bodies of a couple Palestinians. They said that it's in revenge of the events of 7/10.
Do you also understand and perhaps even justify it?
My point isn't the litigation of every single event, neither the Al-Aqsa flood nor the settlers response to it. My point is the reason for this war is colonialism. This is what I said in my other comment:
The history is complicated in the sense that it is war with many atrocities and injustices. But the root of the issue, the cause for all these atrocities that the colonialists suffer in retaliation is colonialism.
And there is no context in which the systematic oppression of the native Palestinians by the Israeli Apartheid state is understandable or justified.
And I'm saying that you're wrong. The Arab-Jewish conflict can be traced long before Israel and many Jews lived or arrive to the area before many of the Palestinians.
It's a very complex conflict, that it's currently deadlocked and unsolvable. The colonisation in the west bank is just one small part of it, and the easiest one to solve. Presenting it as if it's the main or only issue is what I meant by Americanising the conflict.
I believe we are going in circles here. Whenever the point of how the state of Israel was established comes up you want to skip a few centuries back as if that makes any difference to the genocide that has been perpetrated by the israeli militants since 1947. And like I said in my other comment, the history is complex but the morality is not. I stand against colonialism even in the face of cruel action against the colonialist settlers. There is nothing to justify ongoing colonialism.
As for unsolvable, it isn't. But since it would involve the israeli people to look at what they did, the extremists using their religion as a means to an end to be silenced and for many israelis to give up some of their privileges it isn't a solution that will come by peacably.
If you really are interested in the historical context of certain actions I would recommend Noam Chomsky's tome "The fateful triangle". And it really is like Edward Said says in its foreword about Chomsky's claim
Israel and the United States - especially the latter - are rejectionists opposed to peace, whereas the Arabs, including the PLO, for years have been trying to accommodate themselves to the reality of Israel.
http://goodtimesweb.org/documentation/2012/Noam-Chomsky-Fateful-Triangle.pdf