A major problem is that the Gazan people have very legitimate problems with Israel, and this leads to a situation in which enough of them become militant to cause serious problems. Solving that seems like it needs a more wholistic approach than simply trying to get rid of the militants at the cost of causing everyone else to have an even bigger beef with Israel.
I fully accept that many Palestinians are motivated to take up arms against the Israelis by a justifiable sense of grievance, but the issue of anti-Semitism long pre-dates the establishment of Israel and exists far beyond the Palestinian Territories. I really don't want to understate this point - from an outside perspective, it is almost impossible to comprehend the depth of hatred against Jews that exists across the Middle East.
Improving the living conditions of Palestinians is almost certainly a necessary precondition to lasting peace, but it is far from sufficient. Unfortunately, we are now stuck in a very stubborn vicious cycle - the Israel-Palestine conflict perpetuates anti-Semitism, which perpetuates the conflict.
>the issue of anti-Semitism long pre-dates the establishment of Israel
From your second source that seems to not be the case, at least not in serious degree. "Traditionally, Jews in the Muslim world were considered to be People of the Book and were subjected to dhimmi status. They were afforded relative security against persecution, provided they did not contest the varying inferior social and legal status imposed on them under Islamic rule. While there were antisemitic incidents before the 20th century, during this time antisemitism in the Arab world increased greatly." And later, "The situation of Jews was comparatively better than their European counterparts, though they still suffered persecution." There is more detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...
Anecdotally, I've heard that before the establishment of Israel, relations between the two groups were much less hostile. Muslims and Jews would, for example, have their Jewish or Muslim neighbors watch over their kids during holy days when they'd have to go to mosque/temple. There is also a long history of Jews being treated fairly well in the Arab/Muslim world - better indeed than they were in Christian lands where pogroms were much more common (it's astonishing how many times Germany, in a state of high fervor, decided that the most appropriate thing to do would be to massacre the Jews again). Again, anecdotally, the "depth of hatred against Jews" in the Arabs I've spoken with has little to do with Jews and much to do with the actions of the state of Israel and what it does in the name of Jews.
Jews were legal second class citizens and were treated terribly, e.g. being banned from wearing shoes in Morocco, and when the ban was overturned, so many Jews were murdered in riots that the community asked for shoes to be banned again.
And it's not just Morocco; Yemen for example had official state policy of kidnapping Jewish orphans to forcibly convert them to Islam. Baghdad massacred Jews starting in the 1820s, long before Israel existed. The Damascus affair was in 1840: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_affair
Dhimmi status is bad! It's not as bad as being pagan in Muslim countries historically, where you could just legally be killed if you didn't convert to Islam. And at times it was better than Europe, which more-frequently murdered its Jews. But it was bad, and it was bad long, long before Israel. There's a reason Mizrahi Jews form the right-wing base in Israel — it's not because it was good.
Except that doesn't seem to the be the case in the context of the time for specifically the Jewish communities living in Muslim-controlled regions? Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - "Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character. That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population." There's a section on Jews on that page that seems unanimous in the view that while dhimmi status was not as good as being a muslim citizen, it was a better than what they had either before the Muslims took over or what they had available elsewhere. It's weird to label what is generally an improvement in living conditions/social regard as stemming from deep-seated discrimination.
Per atrocities - of course there were atrocities committed against Jews. Just as there were atrocities committed by basically every long-lived group against every long-lived group in their territories. No one is stupid enough to say that Muslims have never persecuted Jews, just as they wouldn't say that Christians have never persecuted Jews, or that Muslims never persecuted Christians, or that Christians never persecuted Muslims, or that those groups never persecuted themselves in schisms and internicine warfare. But the impression that Islam is fundamentally and necessarily opposed to the practice of the Jewish faith is fairly contradicted by even the history of dhimma. As the first paragraph of that Wikipedia page states; 'Dhimmī... is a historical term for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with legal protection. The word literally means "protected person", referring to the state's obligation under sharia to protect the individual's life, property, as well as freedom of religion, in exchange for loyalty to the state and payment of the jizya tax, in contrast to the zakat, or obligatory alms, paid by the Muslim subjects. Dhimmi were exempt from certain duties assigned specifically to Muslims if they paid the poll tax (jizya) but were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract, and obligation.'
On the other hand, look at how the Jews were treated during the Islamic Golden Age in Spain; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_i... ("The golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, which coincided with the Middle Ages in Europe, was a period of Muslim rule during which, intermittently, Jews were generally accepted in society and Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life flourished."). It's hard to square that with the idea that there is this deep-seated hatred among Muslims towards Jews as the GP stated.
My point is that conflict between the two sides is not inevitable, nor is this idea of extreme latent anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world really true. Purges and persecution that people bring up are probably not caused by ancestral hatred, but rather the same thing that causes every society to suddenly fall into itself in violence and accusation; uncertain economic conditions, unstable political environments, natural disaster, epidemics, war, idiotic rulership, etc.
Except that doesn't seem to the be the case in the context of the time
I think not being allowed to wear shoes and being murdered in mass riots when the Sultan allows you to wear shoes is bad. To my eyes there is very little difference between the level of hatred then and now, it's just that the power dynamic has changed, so I think blaming the Muslim world's anti-Semitism on Israel's existence (like the OP did) isn't really based in historical fact. There was anti-Semitism long before Israel existed, and it's not like it was getting better prior to its establishment — the stuff in Yemen was happening through the 20th century, under Ottoman rule (and plenty of other bad stuff, e.g. "Dung Gatherer" laws requiring Jews to perform latrine servicing for Muslims).
This does not address any of the points I raised. You're just reiterating what you already wrote. Here's an abbreviated summary of the history;
1. Jews exist in a region.
2. Muslims take over. Conditions improve for the Jews.
3. Time passes.
4. Muslim civilization declines.
5. Internal strife and conflict. Among others, Jews are blamed.
6. Commenters 1000 years later; "This was caused by incipient hatred of Jews by Muslims."
This does not explain why conditions improved when Muslims originally rose to power in various regions. Again, the persecution of minority population is an expected result of the decline of civilizations. From the Wikipedia article your Twitter source is quoting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Moroccan_Jews: "Morocco's instability and divisions also fueled conflicts, for which Jews were frequent scapegoats. The First Franco-Moroccan War in 1844 brought new misery and ill treatment upon the Moroccan Jews, especially upon those of Mogador (known as Essaouira). When the Hispano-Moroccan War broke out on September 22, 1859, the Mellah of Tetuan was sacked, and many Jews fled to Cadiz and Gibraltar for refuge. Upon the 1860 Spanish seizure of Tetouan in the Hispano-Moroccan War, the pogrom-stricken Jewish community, who spoke archaic Spanish, welcomed the invading Spanish troops as liberators, and collaborated with the Spanish authorities as brokers and translators during the 27-month-long occupation of the city." This is a nation in decline, lashing out at every perceived cause of trouble, like plague-stricken Europeans slaying cats and dogs and flagellating themselves.
Here are some other quotes from that article;
"The golden age of the Jewish community in Fez lasted for almost three hundred years, from the 9th to 11th centuries. Its yeshivot (religious schools) attracted brilliant scholars, poets and grammarians. This period was marred by a pogrom in 1033, which is described by the Jewish Virtual Library as an isolated event primarily due to political conflict between the Maghrawa and Ifrenid tribes."
"The position of the Jews under Almoravid domination was apparently free of major abuses, though there are reports of increasing social hostility against them – particularly in Fes. Unlike the problems encountered by the Jews during the rule of the Almohads (the Almoravids' successor dynasty), there are not many factual complaints of excesses, coercion, or malice on the part of the authorities toward the Jewish communities."
"During Marinid rule, Jews were able to return to their religion and practices, once again outwardly professing their Judaism under the protection of the dhimmi status. They were able to re-establish their lives and communities, returning to some sense of normalcy and security. They also established strong vertical relations with the Marinid sultans. When the still-fanatic mobs attacked them in 1275{note; no source for this on the Wikipedia page, no link; unable to find what this is referring to}, the Merinid sultan Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Abd Al-Haqq intervened personally to save them. The sovereigns of this dynasty benevolently received the Jewish ambassadors of the Christian kings of Spain and admitted Jews among their closest courtiers."
This is not what I would expect of a civilization that is fundamentally racist towards Jews. I would not expect, for example, a Louisiana governor in the 18th century to appoint a black man to be his advisor, yet we see Jews in the position of vizier in Morocco. This does not square.
Racism is not the most useful lens to view this relationship through. The culture of the Middle East is low-trust compared to post-Enlightenment Western societies. There remain sharp social divisions based on old tribal allegiances in even developed nations there (unsurprising, perhaps; there remain living people who remember that this tribe used to be slavers and that tribe killed our uncle and so on). Lashing out at neighbors who one thinks are being treated too favorably has little to do with race or religion, in my experience, and more to do with envy. It is the narcissism of small differences writ large and exacerbated by actual stakes.
“In 638, Palestine came under Muslim rule with the Muslim conquest of the Levant. One estimate placed the Jewish population of Palestine at between 300,000 and 400,000 at the time.[87] However, this is contrary to other estimates which place it at 150,000 to 200,000 at the time of the revolt against Heraclius.[88][89] According to historian Moshe Gil, the majority of the population was Jewish or Samaritan.[90] The land gradually came to have an Arab majority as Arab tribes migrated there. Jewish communities initially grew and flourished. Umar allowed and encouraged Jews to settle in Jerusalem. It was the first time in about 500 years that Jews were allowed to freely enter and worship in their holiest city. In 717, new restrictions were imposed against non-Muslims that negatively affected the Jews. Heavy taxes on agricultural land forced many Jews to migrate from rural areas to towns. Social and economic discrimination caused significant Jewish emigration from Palestine, and Muslim civil wars in the 8th and 9th centuries pushed many Jews out of the country. By the end of the 11th century the Jewish population of Palestine had declined substantially.”
You make it sound like they were treated like equals and then only discriminated against many centuries later in a decline. But really, history shows us that they were initially treated well for a few years as they had just been conquered (a classic historical power solidification move) but were then treated terribly the entire rest of the time under Muslim conquest.
"On 15 July 1099, the crusaders made their way into the city through the tower of David and began massacring large numbers of the inhabitants, Muslims and Jews alike. The Fatimid governor of the city, Iftikhar Ad-Daulah, managed to escape.[16] According to eyewitness accounts the streets of Jerusalem were filled with blood. How many people were killed is a matter of debate, with the figure of 70,000 given by the Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (writing c.1200) considered to be a significant exaggeration; 40,000 is plausible, given the city's population had been swollen by refugees fleeing the advance of the crusading army.[17]
The aftermath of the siege led to the mass slaughter of thousands of Muslims and Jews which contemporaneous sources suggest was savage and widespread and to the conversion of Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount into Christian shrines.[18][19]
Atrocities committed against the inhabitants of cities taken by storm after a siege were normal in ancient[20] and medieval warfare by both Christians and Muslims. The crusaders had already done so at Antioch, and Fatimids had done so themselves at Taormina, at Rometta, and at Tyre. However, it is speculated that the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, both Muslims and Jews, may have exceeded even these standards."
And yes, the various Muslim powers at the time were in steep decline; if they weren't, they should easily have been able to defeat an army as poorly organized as the First Crusade was. The fact that just before the crusaders arrived, every powerful leader in the region died is basically the closest they came to actual divine intervention.
I don't think you can excuse anti-Semitism in the last 200 years because 1000 years ago there was less anti-Semitism, or conclude that because 1000 years ago was less anti-Semitic that "racism is not the most useful lens to view this relationship through;" after all, European anti-Black racism was much better 1000 years ago, too (a Black military commander was not even particularly unusual in the 1600s, as evidenced by Shakespeare!), and your Louisiana example is from the same time period that the Muslim world's anti-Semitism was running rampant, too. Your theory of economic decline being the reason for anti-Semitism doesn't hold water for the examples I gave of the Ottoman Empire, whose precipitous decline came in the 20th century, yet whose anti-Semitism arose in the 19th century. [1] Scholars don't blame the Ottoman anti-Semitism on economic malaise, but instead point to it being imported by Christian Arabs from Europe:
Historian Martin Gilbert writes that it was in the 19th century that the position of Jews worsened in Muslim countries.[38] According to Mark Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized").
You realize that the evidence you bring up actually proves the argument I've been making, don't you?
>Scholars don't blame the Ottoman anti-Semitism on economic malaise, but instead point to it being imported by Christian Arabs from Europe
So this was not a latent feature of Islam or Muslim culture, but an import from a more anti-Semitic culture (of course, the word Semitic here is not quite correct, given that Arabs are also Semites - I don't know why that word is preferred when the actual meaning being conveyed is anti-Jewish). The original poster I was responding to said this;
>the issue of anti-Semitism long pre-dates the establishment of Israel
Perhaps that poster only meant that anti-Jewish sentiment rose in the region a few decades previous, but the most common way I have heard of that belief, it comes from a "clash of civilizations" mindset that holds that the region has been rabidly anti-Jewish for many centuries.
Also, to your point that the Ottoman Empire only began declining in the 20th century, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/decline-of-the-Ottoman-Empi...: "But the grandeur of the Ottoman Empire did not last, and Süleyman’s rule was followed by a slow and arduous decline that spanned nearly four centuries."
Anti-Semitic refers specifically to anti-Jewish racism [1], "Arabs are also Semites so..." isn't an accurate understanding. English isn't Latin, combining roots can form a word with new meaning.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say things about "latent feature of Islam or Muslim culture." I do not think cultures are predetermined by hidden latent variables unique to them and are unrelated to their environments, and so that if something was introduced to the culture environmentally it somehow doesn't count. Similarly, European culture was once much less anti-Black a thousand years ago, and so anti-Black racism isn't a "latent feature" by the same standard. Nonetheless we can look at how cultures are
1. today, and
2. in the recent past
And see that anti-Black racism is now endemic. Similarly, anti-Semitism has been common for hundreds of years in Muslim societies, and blaming it on Israeli statehood is a non-sequitur since it has existed for less than a hundred.
If you insist on searching for hidden variables that are independent, I will point out that the Quran says that Jews are majority treacherous and "you will always find deceit on their part, except for a few" [2]. But of course, much of the Quran is simply a reference to the Christian Bible (e.g. references to the Jews killing Jesus [3], who Islam considers a prophet), so is it truly "latent" or is it an import from Christianity? Ultimately cultures are not machine learning models trained independently from each other on separate hardware; everyone steals from everyone else, so I think the distinction isn't meaningful. There has been significant anti-Semitism in the Muslim world for a long time, and it was endemic long before Israel existed. I reject victim-blaming the Jews for Muslim anti-Semitism due to the Jews creating Israel.
And this is exactly why the point about Semites comes into play; Arabs and (Middle-Eastern) Jews are functionally the same race. A Jewish person who converted to Islam would no longer be dhimmi, and would no longer pay the jizya or any other tax levied against non-Muslim populations. None of the discrimination noted would legally apply to him or her. It is not a status built on the race of the individual, but on their religion. Hence, it is literally not racist in the most basic way imaginable - it is not based on race! It's like calling ancient Spartan oppression of helots racism, or the British discrimination against the Irish sexism, or South African apartheid transphobia; it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what those words mean. This is why I said that racism is not the most useful lens to view the relationship between the groups through. They are the same race, with differing religions.
I mean, racism is a fairly fuzzy term and not based on hard science; plenty of people refer to the condition of Palestinians in Israel as "racism" (or in fact do use the word "apartheid"), but to invert what you're saying here — they can just convert to Judaism [1], so should the term apply? Anyway, regardless of whether we want to call it racism, Muslim societies were definitely anti-Semitic.
Sure, and the people of Iraq had very legitimate problems with NATO. Nonetheless the West dismantled ISIS. People can have legitimate grievances without committing mass murder and rape, and in fact I think the mass murder and rape committed by Hamas have been very counterproductive for the lives of Gazans.
What would you have Israel do, that you think would result in it not getting continually attacked by Hamas? Recall that when Israel dismantled its Gazan settlements and withdrew its own citizens at gunpoint nearly 20 years ago — in the hope that would help solve the problem — that's when Hamas took power...
ISIS-K just carried out the worst terrorist attack in Iran (and it was primarily Iran's Q Solemani who dismantled ISIS; later killed by the US Army). Taliban rules Afghanistan again.
> What would you have Israel do, that you think would result in it not getting continually attacked by Hamas?
Negotiate, like they did with PLO before?
> withdrew its own citizens at gunpoint
Yeah, cause settlements are a clear breach of International Law. It was no charity.
> that's when Hamas took power...
Democratically elected, then subsequently undermined and later blockaded.
IDK what your point is with the Taliban, since they're a different group in a different country that isn't allied with ISIS. (And are unrelated to Israel and Gaza.)
Negotiate, like they did with the PLO before?
The PLO was willing to negotiate and Hamas is not. Hamas has repeatedly said they are not willing to agree to a permanent peace deal with Israel, and have said that they intend to carry out these attacks repeatedly until Israel is destroyed. In this situation, not a hypothetical one where Hamas wants peace, what exactly do you think Israel can do to prevent being attacked?
Democratically elected...
They won the legislative elections but not the prime ministership and subsequently started a massive civil war with the rest of the PA, which ended up in the PA maintaining control of the West Bank and Hamas controlling Gaza. Which is why Israel and Gaza have gone to war many times, but Israel and Ramallah have not — Israel and the PA mutually recognize each other, albeit with a fair amount of mutual enmity.
> ISIS was defeated in Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
Yeah and who defeated them in Syria? There were two coalitions. French/US led and Syria/Iran led.
> The PLO was willing to negotiate and Hamas is not.
In 2014, in a meeting in the UAE post war, Hamas encouraged PLO to reach a political arrangement with Israel on 67 borders. Then in 2017, ratified their charter again to make that point clear. In 2021, Hamas offered to join the PLO and conduct elections, which almost happened only for Israel to not let East Jerusalem residents vote.
> subsequently started a massive civil war
US and Israel encouraged a coup by Fatah by arming and training the Presidential Guard in opposition to Hamas.
> Israel and Ramallah have not
Israel has razed Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus just this past month with over 50+ dead.
> Israel and the PA mutually recognize each other
PA is a puppet with bare minimum control over economy, trade, and security of its own people.
>Hamas encouraged PLO to reach a political arrangement with Israel on 67 borders
And then to continue the war from these borders. Duh.
> ratified their charter again to make that point clear.
The one which opposes recognition of Israel and promises to continue the war?
>which almost happened only for Israel to not let East Jerusalem residents vote.
This isn't true at all. Israeli opposes PA polling stations there. There are other ways to vote (like having the stations inside the EU consulates, or by mail). Which they already used in 2006, so PA is actually fine with this. It's that Abbas will lose to Hamas and everyone knows it, so he needs an lie that uninformed people would swallow.
>Israel has razed Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus
These cities aren't razed by any normal definition of 'razed'. Some people wanted to start another front and got crushed.
> The entire article is about how nobody buys Abbas...
You read it?
Egypt & Jordan:
The heads of the Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence services, Abbas Kamel and Ahmad Hosni, visited the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority to meet with Abbas in mid-January. The two officials hoped to dissuade Abbas from proceeding to elections...
Israel:
Meanwhile, Israel strongly opposes any potential Hamas victory in Palestinian elections. In March, the Israeli government dispatched Nadav Argaman, head of the Shin Bet security service, to meet Abbas in his headquarters in Ramallah. Seeing data predicting a huge victory for Hamas and resounding loss for Fatah, Israel made a final effort to persuade Abbas to backtrack on the election move.
> the other link is similarly not relevant
For almost a year, Jenin refugee camp has been at the centre of Israel's escalating military crackdown... its residents continue to be subjected to relentless military raids which amount to collective punishment.
Israel continues to enjoy total impunity for the system of apartheid it imposes on Palestinians – a system which is partly maintained through violations like unlawful killings.
Abbas declared he would postpone elections on the basis of Israel’s refusal to allow them to be held in East Jerusalem. Palestinians overwhelmingly denounced Abbas’ decision. Voters argue other options for timely elections — without a full postponement — exist, and the postponement is merely an excuse to extend Abbas’ hold on power.
Furthermore, Israel declared that it never notified the Palestinian Authority of its refusal to hold elections in Jerusalem. The European Union, the mediator for this election dispute, also rejected Abbas’ postponement rationale on the same basis. On the procedural level, representatives of the Palestinian Central Elections Committee were reportedly aware of alternative election sites in East Jerusalem. The options are said to have included polling stations in United Nations facilities or European embassies in Jerusalem or facilitating electronic voting for Jerusalemite voters. But despite the array of options to encourage timely elections, the Palestinian Authority — under Abbas’ leadership — rejected all offers.
As we can see, this has nothing to do with E.Jerusalem voting, and a lot with Abbas - and everyone else - not wanting Hamas to win.
I'm really not sure why it matters who gets to claim credit in Syria. The point is that the US and its allies used the same tactics as Israel is using in Gaza to defeat ISIS, and I think it's silly to say that the U.S. or Iran or whoever should've just tried dialogue with ISIS. The same is true for Hamas.
In 2014, in a meeting in the UAE post war, Hamas encouraged PLO to reach a political arrangement with Israel on 67 borders. Then in 2017, ratified their charter again to make that point clear. In 2021, Hamas offered to join the PLO and conduct elections, which almost happened only for Israel to not let East Jerusalem residents vote.
None of these things are Hamas willing to make a permanent peace deal with Israel, which they have repeatedly stated they are not willing to do. After being frustrated by your off-topic or entirely inaccurate responses, I realized I remembered your username, and you have previously tried to claim to me that Hamas was willing to make peace deals and continually failed to back up your claims, along with similar unsourced claims and irrelevant debate points as I'm noticing in this back-and-forth. I am not really interested in having this "discussion" again!
Just as then, it is still the case that Abbas cancelled the elections, not Israel, even according to Hamas. I cited Hamas's own public statements, Wikipedia, etc and you are still making this same unsourced assertion that somehow Israel did it. But that's not even relevant! Hamas is very clear that they do not want a permanent peace deal with Israel!
By the way, the "PLO" stopped existing a long time before 2014. It's the PA now.
Israel has razed Jenin...
No, it didn't "raze" Jenin or any other city in the West Bank in "the past month," nor has it razed any city in the West Bank since the end of the Second Intifadah other than its own settlements. It fought a small group of Hamas-aligned terrorists with minimal casualties, agreed upon with the PA.
PA is a puppet with bare minimum control over economy, trade, and security of its own people
The PA is just the reformed PLO, that you were just saying should supposedly be emulated by Israel and Hamas. And objectively it is doing far better on literally all of those axes — economy, trade, and security — for its own people than Hamas.
Anyway, once again I point out: you are unable to say what Israel can actually do to prevent Hamas from repeatedly attacking it, given that Hamas does not want a permanent peace deal with Israel.
And their 2017 charter didn't say they were willing to make peace with Israel; in fact it only stated that it was justified to continue fighting Israel as it claims it's an occupying power. Hamas views all of Israel to be "occupied," not just 1967 borders, so that is a call for permanent war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
Running in PA elections doesn't mean anything about their "peace" plans; they ran in 2006 and certainly had no peace plans then either: they had a charter that literally called for the genocide of the Jews (not Israelis! Not "Zionists." Jews).
Brooklyn doesn't get to decide that
I am not from Brooklyn, nor is any government involved here based in Brooklyn, so I can only assume you're being rabidly antisemitic here.
You said Palestinians in the West Bank were objectively "far better", which is completely disregarding their plight against anti-Arab far-right Kahanists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Kahane originally from Brooklyn) that control those lands.
> so I can only assume you're being rabidly antisemitic here
Yeah, if you ctrl-f "peace" on that page, you'll see it doesn't appear in the charter at all, not sure why you're copy-pasting the link and saying "ctrl-f" as if it were a gotcha. Similarly, posting random articles about Jewish settlers supposedly stealing someone's home is not an argument for why your very weird "Brooklyn" statement wasn't just rabid antisemitism.
Good luck; not going to keep responding to you.
Edit: I see you have now stealth-edited your comment and are pretending that "Brooklyn doesn't get to decide that" as a response to me saying that the PA is doing better economically and in terms of the security of its people, is supposedly referencing Kahanists. I am not a Kahanist, and am not from Brooklyn, and this is literally the first time you've brought up Kahanists in this discussion (and no, Kahanists do not control the PA, or Ramallah, or Jenin, or whatever), so nice try but not especially convincing.
Stealth edited? That literally was the point I was making and since it flew over your head, I had to make it explicit. Anyways, good luck with the advocacy and/or intimidation. Need plenty of it given the blowback: https://archive.is/blQkz
> The PLO was willing to negotiate and Hamas is not.
The last negotiations between thr PA and Israel were broken off by Israel because the the PA and Hamas both agreed that Hamas should be involved.
And then Israel specifically targeted and assassinated Hamas leaders that were leading the internal support for negotiations.
> Which is why Israel and Gaza have gone to war many times, but Israel and Ramallah have not
This is false; Israel is waging a significant campaign in the West Bank now as well as Gaza, and has essentially every time they have engaged in active combat in Gaza.
It’s not “against Ramallah" in the same way as it is “against Gaza” because Gaza is essentially a single administrative zone where, when Israel is “withdrawn”, is continguous and able to be centrally administered, and can effectively be controlled by someone during that time. The West Bank has parts administered directly by Israel, while the parts nominally administered by the PA are divided into 79 tiny noncontiguous areas separated by Israeli-administered areas. The PA innthe West Bank is sructurally impotent, but that doesn't stop Israel from going to war against the Palestinians there as well as in Gaza.
Israel is waging a significant campaign in the West Bank now as well as Gaza
Israel is not launching airstrikes or displacing millions or doing anything remotely similar in the West Bank. There is targeted fighting as there often is with tens of Hamas-aligned militants dead. Every time there has been a major war in Gaza for like the past 20 years there has been nothing similar happening in the West Bank, and that's because Hamas does not control the West Bank and Israel is fighting Hamas. Ramallah does not look like Mosul right now and it hasn't in any of these repeated conflicts with Hamas, and Gaza has and does.
The last negotiations between the PA and Israel were broken off by Israel because the the PA and Hamas both agreed that Hamas should be involved.
No, Hamas never agreed to be part of peace negotiations. Israel broke off talks when Fatah and Hamas talked about merging governments in 2014 — not Hamas agreeing to be part of peace talks, which they never have — while the Hamas charter still included explicit calls for genocide of the Jews. Hamas has never stated that they are willing to make a permanent peace deal with Israel, and if they had, I would love to see one of you provide a source from Hamas saying that they are willing to make a permanent peace deal: I've been very willing to provide sources for Hamas official's frequent calls for the total destruction of Israel, e.g. https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims...
> The PLO was willing to negotiate and Hamas is not.
The last negotiations between thr PA and Israel were broken off by Israel because the the PA and Hamas both agreed that Hamas should be involved.
And then Israel specifically targeted and assassinated Hamas leaders that were leading the internal support for negotiations.
> Which is why Israel and Gaza have gone to war many times, but Israel and Ramallah have not
This is false; Israel is waging a significant campaign in the West Bank now as well as Gaza, and has essentially every time they have engaged in active combat in Gaza.
It’s not “against Ramallah" in the same way as it is “against Gaza” because Gaza is essentially a single administrative zone where, when Israel is “withdrawn”, is continguous and able to be centrally administered. The West Bank has parts administered dirextly by Israel, while the parts nominally administered by the PA are divided into 79 tiny noncontiguous areas separated by Israeli-administered areas. The PA innthe West Bank is sructurally impotent, but that doesn't stop Israel from going to war against the Palestinians there as well as in Gaza.
A supermajority of all Gazans are too ever to have voted (in part because Hamas, which won the 2006 election by throwing PA supporters off rooftops, hasn't allowed another election since). It is not reasonable to say that Gazans elected Hamas.
If Hamas held new elections, they'd likely win easily, because they are so popular with Palestinians in Gaza. From the perspective of the average Gazan, Hamas massacres the hated Israeli oppressor, Fatah collaborates with them. Even Gazans who dislike certain aspects of Hamas rule - the corruption and the ultra-rigid interpretations of Islam – mostly still approve of the October 7 atrocity [0]. I suppose, if Israeli soldiers had killed my father or mother or sister or brother or son or daughter – whatever the rights or wrongs of that military action in the abstract – I might also find it hard to resist that temptation.
The PA refuses to hold new elections in the West Bank, because they know if they do, Hamas will very likely win. The US makes some noises every now and again about demanding the PA to hold new elections, but it is questionable if they really mean it, because they also know what the outcome of any fair election is likely to be, and it is not an outcome they would welcome.
Israel needs to treat Palestinians as equals. This should start with not blockading Gaza, rolling back settlements in the West Bank, and so on.
Furthermore, supporting those who oppose Hamas instead of playing the dangerous game that now cost tens of thousands of lives.
Also, it's important to note that there are no guarantees. Even if Israel (famous hive mind, of course) did everything right there could have been provocation from/via Iran and whatnot.
Israel dismantled all of its Gazan settlements in 2005 and there had never been a blockade at that point, which is exactly what I just referenced in the post you were responding to. Then Hamas took over Gaza, and Israel and Egypt jointly started blockading it. You can't place the blame for Hamas's rule on the blockade — the blockade (and the settlements) didn't exist when they took power.
Hamas' rule is the result of many factors over decades. Obviously the blockade and every other security measure was, at best, short-term responses to Hamas' radicalization, but overall simply one more blow to the fragile illusion of peace, and simply more heat under the pressure cooker of Gaza.
It is reasonable for adjoining countries to control their borders, e.g. Egypt and Israel's borders with Palestine. Countries get to control their borders.
Israel takes it a step further and blockades Palestinian access to Palestinian sea routes, something which isn't just a declaration of war, it's an act of war.
> Solving that seems like it needs a more wholistic approach than simply trying to get rid of the militants at the cost of causing everyone else to have an even bigger beef with Israel.
Like giving NGOs money which get funneled into overt terrorists groups by the corrupt politicians planted by the same terrorists? Aka the status quo for multiple decades well before Netanyahu was ever prime minister.
It’s notable none of the surrounding Muslim countries want anything to do with being the neutral power brokers to temporarily help run the state because they know as well as everyone else it’s a never ending hornets nest, that they’ll have as little control of it as Fatah and the various other iterations of “stable” Palestinian governance, who had little ability or interest to quell the extreme violent fringes. Which in every other country in history means control via police, courts, or worst case military… not tacit appeasement and turning a blind eye.
Their legitimate problems with Israel stem from their illegitimate problem with Israel: that Arabs rejected a two-state solution at inception and repeatedly tried to wipe Israel off the map. More fundamentally, the whole problem stems from Arabs refusing to want to give up any of the territory they acquired during their wars of conquest in the 700s. Palestine is always going to be a proxy for that. (Which is why Qatar is hosting Hamas leadership.)
Even ignoring whether you’re right or whether you are simplifying in a fair or unfair manner, I think it’s unhelpful to treat people as though they are mere continuations of their predecessors.
All living Gazans were born after the 700s. The vast majority were born after 1948. Most were born after 1967.
Telling people that their very real problems may stem from the misbehavior of dead, long dead, and extremely long dead people, even if those people are their ancestors, doesn’t change the fact that actual living Gazans have very real problems.
> I think it’s unhelpful to treat people as though they are mere continuations of their predecessors.
Those groups exist, and see themselves as continuations of their predecessors. When October 7 happened, my cousin posted a picture of the Dome of the Rock with the caption that it was the first step in retaking Jerusalem. An aunt posted about the Ummah. They aren’t even Arabs—just wannabes. Zooming out, Arabs who are happy to bomb the shit out of fellow Arabs (like Saudi does to Yemen) lend political and monetary support to the idea of an undivided Palestine (from the river to the sea—without Israel), and to Hamas, because they cling to a notion of territorial integrity of the lands considered by their ancestors in the 700s. In 1947, the Arab League and leaders of the Arab states opposed the UN partition plan and went to war with Israel precisely because of that idea.
You can’t hope to understand what’s actually happening in the Middle East by viewing people as individuals. The grievance of the people of Gaza, as a group, isn’t just that their life sucks materially, which is something you could fix. That may be the case for some individuals, but that’s not the case for the group and what the group does collectively. The group’s grievance is that Israel exists on what should be Arab land from the river to the sea.
For every Israeli Jewish civilian, there is an equivalent Palestine refugee living in a camp (~7mil). Israeli can only exist as a Jewish majority state as long as the original inhabitants remain displaced. So the Gazans are probably not going to be pro-Israeli any time soon.
I find this argument to be problematic. The world contains an enormous number of descendants of displaced people. I imagine that most of the US population is in this category, for example. (Most people of Native American heritage. The descendants of the Puritans. Most American Jews (displaced from different places, even). The Palestinian-Americans. Descendants of slaves. Many others.)
Yet most of these people do not consider themselves to still be displaced! I certainly feel no particular desire to reconquer the (multiple!) places from which my ancestors were displaced. (There’s a lot of nuance here. Plenty of people, for example, think that Native Americans and their descendants should have better treatment, especially in land that remains Native American.)
But somehow Palestinian refugees, in particular, have unusual, highly politicized issues. The UN agency involved is a different agency than the one that nominally handles every other refugee situation worldwide. There are multigenerational Palestinian refugee camps in countries that do not grant citizenship to the refugees, and there are people who argue that granting citizenship would do them a disservice. (I don’t know whether the people arguing this are doing so in good faith.)
Also…
> Israeli can only exist as a Jewish majority state as long as the original inhabitants remain displaced.
Stories and written records about the Israel go back a long time. If the stories are all true, essentially all Jews worldwide are the descendants of those displaced from Israel. Control of Jerusalem in particular has changed quite a few times, and there are surely plenty of people around, Jews and otherwise, whose ancestors have been displaced multiple times, hundreds of years apart, from the area. (It’s not just Jews and Arabs. Jesus was killed in Jerusalem. Wars have been fought there repeatedly: the Muslim Conquest of the Levant, the Crusades, etc.)
Trying to keep score of the number of living descendants of the various groups who have been displaced from Israel seems unlikely to give any sensible moral answer for who ought to control what part of it, except insofar as maybe the entire place would be better off with a genuine non-religious government, along the lines of how the US nominally works. Good luck!
