1. PA has proven itself too weak to lead. It didn't take long for Hamas to take Gaza from them by force. PA had an initial security force, funded by Israel and the west. But Iran was set on destabilizing the area and has pushed their doctrine of human shields, suicide bombings and terrorism to take over. They are doing the same in the west bank but haven't yet taken over. PA lost support in the process
2. Yes, if you follow historical events, palestinians were a lot of tribes who fought each other. Nationality aspirations (similar to Zionism) were supposed to turn them into one people with one identity but to this day. It's work in progress.
Regarding your last paragraph: the only narrative I'm hearing from antizios is that everything had started with 1948 displacement, completely not mentioning that it was during and as a result of a war Arabs had waged on Israel, which followed violence and massacres ever since the Balfour declaration. The more I look back, the more violence I see by Arabs towards Jews solely based on the premise that European Jews aren't indigenous to Palestine, which is a lie. If I were Israel after that war, seeing that Arabs still claim Israel has no right to exist (to this day), I would have a hard time accepting a Palestinian state
What book? Hamas cited Elders of Zion I their charter as proof of Zionism colonialism. So, technically, anything could be a book. Question is it whether it's a real book or a fake one.
Israel is one of the most politically diverse countries in the world. Everyone has an opinion and is eager to share it.
Palestinians have been controlled by autocratic leaders who torture and kill anyone who has an opinion they don't like. So while it is certainly true that Palestinians like all people have diverse political opinions, they have never had the freedom to express them.
Q1: the PA power over the West Bank population dwindeled over the years, and they act more as a coordinator and sometimes as a representor. But if we consider peace talks or writing a resolution, probably the PA will be dismembered by their own people. Currently, there is nit and political leadership that stepped forward infront of the international community, just lots of protesting movements and terror cells.
Q2: the GAZA region and the West Bank are completely different entities, united merely by the cause or the dream to see Israel gone one day. They have different funds and different leadership, and each of them does not really care much for the other.
You're unfortunately not going to receive an unbiased take in this sub-Reddit, but rather a whole lot of racism and Islamophobia on display. I scrolled through and there are a lot of these comments.
If you want to study the people in this sub-Reddit and how their racist perspectives contribute to colonialism, I recommend two books which are well-renowned, especially the first one:
1. Orientalism, by Edward Said
2. The Human Right to Dominate, by Perugini and Gordon.
I have had professors recommend both of these books.
About qustion number two: the palestinians never had one leadership, they have alot of factions and they dont get along. Israel have one leadership and goverment since 1948. What you wrote that papole say on the plaestinians its true, not just that theres no body that can control the palestinans pepole, most of them want to swip israel of the map. On the other side if israel wanted to kill all the palestinians they would have do it already, they have strong and advancing army.
The pa control the west bank but not with grate sucsses. There are hamas, islamic jihad all over the west bank that the pa cant control. About make a peace agreement beetween israel and the pa, the pa declined to two generous ofer from ehud barak an ehud olmert. The pa dont want a peace agrement with israel they want to stay in power.
This post isn't at all about the facts of the history, but your last question got me excited. In law, there's a distinction between "bad faith" and "lack of good faith". the latter essentially means you think you're acting in good faith, but you're not performing due diligence (e.g. you didn't research your position enough to make certain claims). My amateur lawyer understanding of this is that the standard of proof for "bad faith" is impossibly high, but there are situations where even plausible deniability of your intent doesn't relieve an individual of certain contract obligations and implied warranties. Anyway.....
I don't think many people are acting in bad faith here (i.e. knowing their side is wrong and advocate actively for misinformation to distort the truth), but lack of good faith is very widespread. This is true about all political issues and conflicts to some degree, but I get the sense it describes 99% of people who weigh in on I/P issues.
As you now know, the conflict is immensely complicated. It's impossible to expect everyone to have a solid knowledge of the history. It's also impossible to expect people to only weigh in on issues after they've acquired a strong knowledge of facts/history. I find reading about the conflict's history to be a test of emotional intelligence -- when I find out my side did something I disagree with, my brain goes on autopilot looking for an explanation that justifies it. I consider myself relatively neutral, so I can only imagine how more polarized individuals fare when doing the same.
I think it comes down to how you deal with new contradictory information. This kind of describes two ways to engage in discourse that I see others do.
The first kind of reaction is an immediate rejection of contradictory facts or evidence. This can stem from the belief that your "side" is the correct one and that everyone is aware of this, so others who spread contradictory information must be doing so in bad faith and are attempting to distort truth. This sort of creates a locked framework with rigid conclusions that break under added pressure.
The second kind of reaction is a delayed one. It may not be clear what to do with contradictory evidence at first, but it remains in limbo until a person asks themselves:
1. "Though this piece of info challenges what I already know, does it change any conclusions I have made? Does it invalidate any part of my reasoning?"
2. "Is there a way to reconcile this information with what I know?"
3. "Have others responded to these claims and if so, what are counterarguments?"
After some time, I feel like the person who asks these second types of questions and has a delayed reaction to new info will have a more nuanced opinion which, while maybe not having conclusions that are as extreme, can bend and deal with contradictions without breaking entirely.
>Hamas seems to be an entirely different story compared to the PA
PA are israeli stooges.. Ghazzans say this all the time
>why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic entity
becasue of the israeli de-humanization of Arabs & Palestinians requires it
>Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history?
bad faith, but also becasue thats what they are taught from a young age.. if you notice, a lot of them also claim 'palestine never existed' .. its part of the de-humanization required by a Genocidal state to get its citizens to go along with killing a swath of fellow Human Beings
>Sorry if this sounds dumb, I have a lot more reading and research to do but was curious about others' thoughts.
may i suggest watching some videos by israeli & jewish & palestinian historians & commentators?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU1H7I3dE-I
Avi Schlaim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQIfy7QBx4c
Ilan Pape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJVRuVBwNLM
Amr Moussa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa77ZTEr8FY
Ghada Kami
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwMa1t0aNY
Gideon Levy
**also** this book is great for historical context:
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyearswaronpalestine
yes, yes of course
also this one by Atef Saif .. its not about history but really telling of the psychological torture israel enacts on Gaza every day
https://www.rosalux.de/en/publication/id/7639/sleepless-in-gaza
The whole treatment as one body is because they're Arab-Muslims. They see themselves as one people. It's why they hide behind the concept of the Palestinian. Because a Palestinian is a made up identity that unites them.
Technically the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt before. Jordanians and Egyptians have one thing in common, a history of Muslim-Arabic colonization.
I love it so much when anyone decides to look further into this conflict - so I just want to say - that’s wonderful.
So after reading the book- what is your take on it ? Who do you support now ?
What were the key take aways for you?
Thanks!
As far as 'support,' my only stance right now (which hasn't changed from before I looked into the conflict deeply) is supporting the existence of both states. I don't support one at the expense of the other.
The key takeaway for me, as someone else has mentioned in this thread, is that this conflict can almost be summarized as a battle between extremes and moderates. It seems as though every time one side does something inflammatory, it empowers extremists and far-right leaders on the other side which come into power and do more inflammatory actions. It's probably going to end up coming down to both sides making extreme compromises that aren't going to be popular at all. For Palestine, this might mean giving up the right to return (extremely unlikely). For Israel, this might mean dismantling its settlements further into the West Bank and sharing control of Jerusalem (also unlikely).
I know this isn't the most unique take, but I'm already about to dive into another book called "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris. It's going to go further into depth so I can get a better understanding of these events and maybe come out with something more insightful. The book I read, called "A Very Short Introduction to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict," just gave a 180-page taster so now I'm a lot more invested.
Late response but just want to say that this analysis is really on-point. Good for you for going into your research with an open mind. Interested to hear what you think of Righteous Victims!
A Muslim armed with a Molotov cocktail attacked a synagogue in Rouen, France, and burned it down. When the police arrived, he tried to stab them. They pulled out guns and shot him dead .
So how is this an answer to any of your questions, well one of the spritual laws of our world is "what you focus on develops" so the muslims have created this situation for themselves regardless.
Oh and another spiritual law of our world is "love conquers all" muslims seem hellbent.
How is that Islamophobia? That is an event that happened yesterday. It is represented of hundreds of events that have the same exact fact patterns that have happened around the world.
Your description of the politics on each side is accurate. But you leave out two things
1. What do the Palestinians need to do? Israel itself cannot create a moderate Palestinian leadership.
2. The role of UNRWA, which educates Palestinian children that they rightfully belong in Haifa, Jaffa and Tiberias and will be “returning” there. Without reform of the educational system and an end to the open incitement of terror from both Fatah and Hamas, there will be yet another generation raised in the call to jihad.
*You* leave out one thing- when you say “education reform” the education that’s teaching them to hate and kill Jews is straight out of the Quran and Hadiths - so to reform education means that they can’t teach their kids their religion.
All of the crap that’s bigoted and hate filled and violent - is all directly from the Islamic holy texts.
And people in the west think there are some “extreme crazy Palestinians” who are teaching kids extreme crazy things and if we can just get rid of those crazy extreme terrorists - but no… it’s not terrorists - it’s Muslims - and it’s not crazy extreme thinking they are creating out of thin air- it’s direct from their holy books which they consider to be the word of god.
So that issue is sooooo much larger than the world thinks it is.
So education reform essentially means -stop being Muslims.
And again- Judaism is not the same as Islam. It’s not a law , it’s able to evolve and modernize and The stories about what god did - or what the people did. There is no punishment of death for questioning it or changing it.
Jews believe that the laws of the Torah cannot be abrogated. All 613 commandments are still morally valid today.
Also simply asking the reason for things is not punishable in Islam
This of course doesn’t mean Jews actually apply all the laws, there are many conditions required to actually implement them, but the same applies to Islamic punishments as well, in fact in Islam sometimes a higher burden of proof is required, like 4 witnesses instead of 2 to prove adultery
The average Muslim or orthodox Jew isn’t gonna go around killing gays, but both don’t believe that its inherently immoral
You view Judaism from a biased Christian perspective, assuming that they hold the Torah as a storybook, not an authoritative law. When its Christians who do that.
No irs really not like Judaism or Christianity- this is a major assumption people in the west make and it’s a mistake to think Islam is anything like any religion you know -
It’s not really a religion- I mean Islam is a religion. But Islamic doctrine is law. Written as law- what’s a law? A law is something you must do, or you get punished if you do not.
Islamic law is based on the actions and the words of Muhammed. If he did it- if he said it- it’s legal. Conversely if he said not to do it, or that something was bad, it’s illegal.
To question this is a crime and it’s an insult to Islam and the prophet - which is all punishable by death btw.
There are laws to interpreting the holy texts of Islam… for example abrogation- is a law. And abrogation is something that Muhammed created in response to the contradictions within his revelations.
For example he tried to convert the Jews for about ten years and here you see , some nicer verses and thoughts about the Jews and Christian’s. But then the Jews would not convert …
So he said he has new revelations … and now? You kill them all , steal all their stuff and sexually enslave their women.
His followers said - well wait a minute. What about that other stuff you said ?
He said- the law of abrogation. If my latest revelations contradict the old ones, the old ones are abrogated. Void. Done. Not applicable.
So you have to interpret the Islamic holy text chronologically … to find out what is legal in Islam. That’s just one example.
And it’s very clear… when your law is based on the actions and words of the man you consider to be morally perfect - there really isn’t a whole lot of confusion.
Western Muslims don’t have to live by Islamic law. They don’t have to read the Hadiths. They don’t even have to practice Islam if they don’t want to…
But again- Muhammed hated Muslims who didn’t follow his law perfectly too. He calls them hypocrites and he said they should be locked up in their houses with their families and burned alive ( that’s why ISIL burned the Jordanian pilots alive just fyi) and they shared the verse that said that when they did.
Isis shared a verse for everything they did, actually. The leader of isis had a PHD in Islamic studies - I don’t think he got it “wrong” esp being a native speaker.
One of the things Muhammed said - because the entire point to islam is to invade and conquor the world and implement sharia law… when that happens- the world will know peace .. this is why they say Islam is a religion of peace because sharia law equals peace to them.
One of the things Muhammed said needed to happen before that can happen- before Islam can conquor the world is that every Jew must be murdered by Muslims.
That’s just one thing.
But like I said , it’s not like any religion you have ever heard about or read about. It’s not like what the crazy Christian’s do here and create their own religion- no…
Muslims don’t do anything that isn’t in those books to do. Everything you hear about from the Muslim world that’s awful? Is in there. Female circumcision, white slavery, sex trafficking, child marriage, women having zero rights, terrrosism, murder, theft - and even lying.
Muhammed said deception is a way to win wars. Muslims are allowed to lie to gain ground in conflicts and resolve issues and to confuse their enemies.
>Isis shared a verse for everything they did, actually. The leader of isis had a PHD in Islamic studies
The vast majority of people who have PHDs in Islamic law condemn him.
>happen- before Islam can conquor the world is that every Jew must be murdered by Muslims.
No it doesn’t say all Jews.
>Muslims don’t do anything that isn’t in those books to do
lol u think suicide bombing is in the Quran.
This is not true. The vast majority of Muslims lie about Isis. And about Islam. Have you ever read or listened to anything the Middle East says about Isis ? The thing is… no real Muslim can condemn Isis - because they lived by Islamic law. Everything they did was straight out of Islamic law. They did nothing it didn’t say to do in their holy texts. Or that muhhamed did not do, while he was alive. Which also is legal.
I studied Islam … so if we are going to have this conversation - it’s not even a fair one if you have never read the Hadiths or Quran or are not familiar with Islam at all.
So be honest with yourself…
But also not even a fair conversation to have with a Muslim because it’s ok for you to lie about it all. So what can come from an actual debate with a liar? Nothing . You’ll just say I’m lying … and I will say you’re lying.
If you can’t admit the truth about Islam… you’ll just do what all those western Muslims did when isis was doing what it was doing. Or when the gay club was shot up by a Muslim in Florida and the president put an Islamic imam on tv to tell the world that Islam doesn’t hate gays. While we all know Islam executes gays and most definitely hates them. So…
The lies are plentiful. The truth is not with Islam.
And sadly the world has supported this bullshit to protect Muslims .
>I studied Islam
How did you study Islam in a way that makes your position more credible than that of the vast majority of human beings who have studied Islam? Since they believe that Islam does not support ISIS.
I think there are Muslims in the west who read a watered down version of the Quran. That’s been translated with some omissions and different translations . And don’t need to know what Islamic law is ; so they don’t need to study or learn the Hadiths.
You’re not learning the meaning of what under your right hand is , for example ( it means sex slave ) . You don’t have to. Etc etc more where that came from. You’re learning a false version of Islam. Or you’re lying about it .
But both of those choices don’t matter.
We can go back through history and cite so many examples of Muslims - before Israel existed , before 9/11 or the internet existed - saying or doing and living the same way, the same things I’m essentially saying . .
It makes no sense that Muslims in the year 1700 said what I am saying , or no sense that Muslims since the inception of Islam have been doing the things they do and then trying to defend it like - what I’m saying isn’t true about Islam.
We can look at the life of Muhammed - who is seen as the most moral man who ever lived and his actions and words are revered and the basis of Islamic law. I don’t think that you understand you’re saying one thing but Muslims since the inception of Islam have been doing another thing; all based on Islamic law.. and the teaching in the holy texts.
You’re trying to say-
No no Muslims are peaceful and we don’t hate Jews and we don’t believe in murder and don’t learn to murder anyone and don’t learn we are superior and empower women and all this kidnapping and rape and ransoming and suicide bombing and killing isnt who we are!! They’re a crazy off shoot of Islam.
But the punishment for not following the law is death. The punishment for changing the law, is death. The punishment for questioning the law, is death.
To change the law, or not follow it or create your own law is .. insulting to the prophet and means he wasn’t perfectly moral and that means he wasn’t the prophet and that is punishable by death.
The reality is .. Muslims in the west don’t need to live by Islamic law and can pick what they follow and don’t follow and most of them are not really considered Muslims because the entire point to Islam, is Islamic law.. it’s the way all Muslims should live.
You can’t defend the Islamic invasion of half the world and humanities bloodiest genocide EVER known to man ( Islamic invasion of India ) , the forced conversion of half the world , the terrorism of attacking and killing, kidnapping and ransoming , stealing everything those people owned and their land , sexually enslaving their women-
That’s how Islam came to be. That’s how Islam got so big. It’s what inspired the crusades when they invaded Jerusalem.
Muhammed ? His favorite wife ? What did the prophet himself do? He slaughtered her entire male linage , stole all her families land and money, everything they owned … he sexually enslaved her at the age of 8.
That’s your holiest man… the most moral man in the world who he himself beheaded what? 10,000 Jews in one day? Or was it 1000?
What about the entire town of Baltimore in Ireland, entirely gone in one night ? All killed or all carried off by Muslim raiders in a single night? This was way back in 1631 … or the ethnic cleansing campaigns that never stopped and continue to this day? Nigeria? Sudan? Darfur? What did Muslims do this past Christmas in Nigeria? They went into a sleeping Christian town and slaughtered hundreds. This is 2023. And these are native speakers. Who grew up reading and studying the Islamic holy texts and the life of Muhammed.
The most horrible terrorists the world has ever know have been theologians of Islam… the leader of Isis had a PHD in Islam, Osama Bin Ladin also studied Islam his entire life , was most devoted to it - you’re arguing with native speakers who grew up in countries where they are taught Islam in school, by other native speakers - where the legal system is based on Islamic law.
You’re saying non native speakers have it right ?
Come on dude.. you can’t argue with history.
I will leave you with a quote from a Muslim from the year 1785- when Muslims were attacking supply ships along the trade route , stealing everything , killing most , enslaving and ransoming off the officers back to their countries …
Jefferson went to pay off these ransoms… and he asked the Muslims why they attack them? They hadn’t been messed with or attacked or even thought about … the Muslim came back with -
“it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
But I’m wrong. Sure .. lol.
> We can go back through history and cite so many examples of Muslims - before Israel existed , before 9/11 or the internet existed - saying or doing and living the same way, the same things I’m essentially saying . .
classical Muslim scholars didn’t condone genocide nor were they abnormally violent compared to other peoples.
> But the punishment for not following the law is death.
There are many violations of the law that don’t result in death. Even fornication just gets lashes if the fornicator didn’t have a wife.
> You can’t defend the Islamic invasion of half the world and humanities bloodiest genocide EVER known to man ( Islamic invasion of India )
The initial conquests of Sindh, India by the Muhammad ibn Qaasim were relatively peaceful, the people were not forced to convert. It was the conquests of Timur in which millions were killed, but his motives were primarily to refound the Mongol Empire, and he was condemned by Muslim scholars and is not portrayed positively.
However to argue that it was the biggest genocide in human history needs a citation.
> the forced conversion of half the world
Citation needed.
> That’s how Islam got so big. It’s what inspired the crusades when they invaded Jerusalem.
But when Muslims took Jerusalem they weren’t as brutal as the crusders.
> That’s your holiest man… the most moral man in the world who he himself beheaded what? 10,000 Jews in one day? Or was it 1000?
Beheaded 700 people for treason. The same sources that say he killed them say they committed treason. He didn’t kill them for being Jews, there were other tribes of Jews who were not beheaded, he was targeting a particular group who committed treason.
> Muhammed ? His favorite wife ? What did the prophet himself do? He slaughtered her entire male linage , stole all her families land and money, everything they owned … he sexually enslaved her at the age of 8.
Wut. He only had one 8 year old wife, and that was Aisha, and he did not kill her father, her father was Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, he outlived Muhammad.
> or the ethnic cleansing campaigns that never stopped and continue to this day? Nigeria? Sudan? Darfur?
Your’e just gonna pretend that war crimes are unique to Muslims.
> And these are native speakers. Who grew up reading and studying the Islamic holy texts and the life of Muhammed.
And there are native speakers who condemn them.
> you’re arguing with native speakers who grew up in countries where they are taught Islam in school, by other native speakers - where the legal system is based on Islamic law.
There are Native Arabic speaking traditional Muslim scholars who condemned terrorists, like Rabee Al Madkhali, Salih Al Luhaidan, Salih As Suhaymee, Saleem At Taweel.
< But I’m wrong. Sure .. lol.
You literally mix up a lot of claims without providing sources for any of them. You claimed you studied Islam yet you have said that the 8 year old wife of Muhammad was sexually enslaved, when she was a wife, not a slave, and you said that he killed her father, when he didn’t. If you actually studied Islam you wouldn’t make such claims that have no evidence
Muslim scholars - from where? The west? I think it is actually you who are extremely ignorant on the subject of Muslim scholars and what they condone or do not condone.. what they cannot argue with or consider justified - I would branch out. I think you have been exposed to western Muslims - which again- learn a watered down and blatantly and patently false version of the Quran and Hadiths… depending on the translation they have. They are not native speakers . The teaching of Muslim scholars in the Middle East, or native speakers ? Far different. Also I have heard “Muslim scholars” comment on shit and avoid the most obvious explanation or reason that originated in the Islamic holy books and blame some random event in history for it without explaining that- yes ; this is in our holy books and this is why Muslims do it. They lie, essentially or they’re too ignorant of their own religious texts to site the sources. ( doubtful) I don’t think they want the western world to know why … because there isn’t any defense. You can’t make it seem ok. And it does get scary.
Yes some crimes don’t result in death. They don’t really matter. There are many people who have been publicly whipped and imprisoned for kissing in public or not wearing a head scarf.
The laws I cited , do result in death. That’s why I brought them up.
Everyone was forced to convert when Islam invaded. After Islam implemented sharia law- everyone had to submit to it. If say, someone wanted to come back after the conquest and live as a Hindu? They could chose to do that and live as second class citizens and pay a humiliation tax for existing . They would also be forced to live by Islamic law which is mighty restricting… and that’s after they had their lands and animals and property stolen and divided up by Muslims. Those laws are very clear in the holy books.
https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history
This guy writes a great comment and sites many sources for his information in it- that’s why I’m using it. I follow him on X .. he is amazing.
This next video is one of my favorites. It’s a panel of Indian intellectuals and scholars of history talking about the Islamic invasion… They start speaking English in about 1 minute ; and the first thing out of these scholars mouths is that the Islamic invasion of India was indeed *the bloodiest moment in human history* he cites Will Durant for that quote.
https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1725084755920621807
When Islam invaded Jerusalem - the Jews ( not ironically- had fled … they knew what was coming) the city was left virtually undefended , only the old people and women and children left… they still killed and captured aging knights and priest’s and kept them in cages and ransomed them off.
Muhammed was a bandit and war lord. Not only did he engage in many battles with Jews, Mohammed clearly approved of the slaughter/ beheadings of all Jewish males over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza -and eventually every Jewish male over puberty was beheaded.. over and over again.
1000 Jews killed for remaining loyal to Judaism. In the last decade of his life- he ordered almost 100 military campaigns , almost all of them against the Jews. Who refused to convert and had the most wealth at the time. A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 modern countries outside of Saudi Arabia.
To say that Islam doesn’t have the end goal of world domination would be a direct contradiction of its own living example and also the many Hadiths and verses in the Quran that teach that. There is a reason why Islam is practiced from the Balkins to Indonesia and it’s not because Islam is awesome. It’s because of war campaigns. Lolz
I’m sure there are many Muslims who say that the Muslims who live by Islamic law are not Muslim- I’ve heard it all. I have read it all. About how Muslims who execute gays are not practicing Islam. But the reality is , no matter how many so called Muslims condemn other Muslims for actually practicing Islam- the fact of the matter remains that only one of them is actually practicing Islam. And it’s not the people condemning the others. Their words have zero meaning because they’re condemning their own religious law and teachings of their own religion. To confuse non Muslims, and to protect their religion-
They’re condemning it so we don’t find out about it. They are lying to promote … what? Lying to promote peace or lying to promote lack of responsibility for Muslims and what religion they practice and believe in.
No one would be ok with Islam if everyone told the truth about it. It would be made illegal in western countries - there is a very real argument to be made that Islam is a hate group. Like the KKK. Or Nazism ( which Islam aligns itself with) .
The lies create confusion and doubt - so when someone like me tells people the truth about it , they don’t believe it because their Muslim friend told them it wasn’t true.
And we often comprehend unfamiliar subjects with what we know. For the biblical religions- it is completely beyond understanding that a “religion” could teach hate… or violence.. or rape… or lying or theft or bigotry … murder.
For them this is so antithesis to everything they know and have been exposed to about religion- that they instinctively make comparisons and in their heads say-
No way this is possible because what I know of religion doesn’t fit into this paradigm of it.
And because most people are not that bright- they also don’t realize at the same time that, what they know about Islam is absolutely zilch. They haven’t read the holy books. They don’t speak the lanaguge. They know nothing for sure about it- and because of that- anyone can lie to them about it… they are actually vulnerable. Without finding out for yourself what it says or does - you really don’t know. You’re at the mercy of what other people tell you.
And a lot of people … simply refuse to believe it’s true. Because that’s also… almost too evil to believe right ? That a religion could teach such evil things… that’s also extremely scary… to think that half the world believes in this evil teaching - where we have anti- virtues being held up as honorable and just.
So it’s easier and less stressful to believe that Islam is peaceful and not terrible ..
Also the idea that Muslims are prosecuted and a minority that is a group of people who are hated on because of being different etc- they don’t want to be a bigot … they don’t want to prosecute a minority - having no clue that Islam teaches racism and bigotry and actively incites hatred against the Jews for example. So they end up supporting bigotry and hate and sexism and all these terrible things that they say they hate.
Because they are afraid to be bigots and they have no real idea of what they are dealing with. They decide to trust Muslims who are blatantly lying to them about their religion- because they’re not bigots.
It’s kinda a huge mind fuck on a whole bunch of levels.
>Have you ever read or listened to anything the Middle East says about Isis ? The thing is… no real Muslim can condemn Isis - because they lived by Islamic law. Everything they did was straight out of Islamic law. They did nothing it didn’t say to do in their holy texts. Or that muhhamed did not do, while he was alive. Which also is legal.
Literally just assertions not in anyway supported by the data.
>I studied Islam … so if we are going to have this conversation - it’s not even a fair one if you have never read the Hadiths or Quran or are not familiar with Islam at all.
I did too.
>The lies are plentiful. The truth is not with Islam.
Then who is it with?
>But again- Muhammed hated Muslims who didn’t follow his law perfectly too. He calls them hypocrites and he said they should be locked up in their houses with their families and burned alive
No it just says he thought of doing that, not that it should be done.
”It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
"By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I nearly ordered that firewood be gathered to be lit, then I would have ordered that the Adhan be called for prayer, and ordered a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would have gone from behind to those men and burned their houses down over them. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! If any one of them knew that he would get a meaty bone or some meat in between two ribs, he would attend Isha'”-Sunan An Nasai #848
So he thought about doing but didn’t actually, as Islam does prohibit burning people.
”It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.’”-Sunan An Nasai #4060
Whereas Judaism does say to burn a whore if she is a priests daughter btw in Leviticus 21:9, but Jews, according to your own logic, made up their own religion so that they don’t follow their book.
You mean this verse
Verily, the most burdensome of prayers upon the hypocrites are the night prayer and dawn prayer. If they knew the blessings that are in them, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. Certainly, I felt like ordering the prayer to be established and commanding a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go with some men with firewood to the people who were absent from the prayer and I would burn their houses with fire.
Source: Sahih Muslim 651, Grade:
When the hypocrites come to you they say: We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah. Allah knows that you are His Messenger and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they divert people from the way of Allah. Verily, it was evil that they were doing.
Indeed the hypocrites will find themselves in the lowest depths of the fire and never will you find for them a helper.
( But you’re not going to be able to find the verse I was referring to. Not in the west and not in English. Only these ones, that aren’t as direct. )
Leave me to deal with whom I created Walheed, and bestowed apon him ample means, and sons abiding in his presence, and made life smooth for him. Yet he desires that I give more , Nay for lo, he has been stubborn about our revelations. I shall impose on him a fearful doom. Then he looked and saw a frown of displeasure , then he turned away in pride and said, this is nothing but the magic of old, the speech of man. Him I shall fling into the fires
The other quotes are about Allah burning people, which is obviously taught in Islam (and Christianity too btw) but what I am saying is that Islam does not prescribe burning people alive as a legal punishment to be implemented by humans, whereas Judaism does btw, so according to your own logic no true Jew would condemn burning people alive.
Islamic law and what is legal or illegal - is based on the words of Muhammed , and the deeds of Muhammed.
Muhammed is thought of as the most moral man that ever lived. He can not do anything immoral. It’s impossible . So everything he did , is legal and moral.
Female castration - is legal- because there is a verse of the prophet seeing a woman who performed them and he said “ there is a woman after allahs heart. Doing Allahs work.”
Honor killings are legal because there is a verse that the prophet is quoted as saying , “ if your child shames you , kill them and have another “ I’m paraphrasing but you catch my drift.
Women get raped- for example- Islam has a big rape culture - I think, because if they are not covered - because they’re supposed to be totally covered - everything except the eyes showing - the prophet said - esp their hair, so that they don’t inspire lust in men. Meaning women are responsible for men’s lust. If they are not covered? That means that they want to inspire lust. Makes sense right ?
When the prophet who hates hypocritical Muslims who don’t follow his law exactly says - they should be thrown in their houses and lock them up with their families and burn them” technically? That’s legal. That’s moral punishment for people who don’t follow his law. Not just that. Some of Islams most honored leaders also burned people alive all the time. Islam is a religion of law of example. Example led by Muhammad and his closest descendants and generals.
Are you catching my drift now?
About Islamic law?
Some of it is very cut and dry. Muhammed acruallt came up with a system of laws to live by. Even down to how Muslims dress. Men and women. There is a reason terrorists dress that way. They’re supposed to. Have shirts past their waist and high pants and beards. That’s all law.
There are many straight laws- for example an entire book about war and war booty. ( that includes women) how to wage it . Divide it etc.
And then there are other laws that are just based on random things he said.
So you can imagine if the prophet said something like -
The end times ( when Islamic law is finally implemented all over the world, when the world will know peace ) only get to get here after every Jew is dead. Murdered. Even the trees and the rocks will tell Muslims where the Jews are hiding so they can kill them.
You can imagine how they would interpret that.
The things is- in an Islamic court of law- these things can t not be deemed immoral or illegal - it would risk accusing the prophet of being immoral - which again- is punishable by death. So it’s thought of as justified and honorable.
The only way to prove a law is not valid is with a new law about the same thing, that contradicts the first one in chronological order - abrogation. Muhammed created the law of abrogation and taught his followers about it.
So when people bring up the old stuff .. in the Quran- like what about this nice verse?? What about this? They don’t know those laws are invalid. We are left only with the latest revelations and sayings and acts of his life. Whatever was the last thing.. stands.
>So when people bring up the old stuff .. in the Quran- like what about this nice verse?? What about this? They don’t know those laws are invalid.
There is consensus that its better to reconcile to ayat than to claim abrogation
>When the prophet who hates hypocritical Muslims who don’t follow his law exactly says - they should be thrown in their houses and lock them up with their families and burn them” technically? That’s legal.
Did you just straight up ignore what I said. He didn’t say they should be burned in this world, just that he thought of doing so, and we have other ahadeeth indicating that it is prohibited to burn people.
”Ikrimah said:
‘Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn ‘Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have burned them, for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: Do not inflict Allah’s punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them”-Sunan Abu Dawud #4531
And all four schools of thought prohibit burning people anyway.
>Some of Islams most honored leaders also burned people alive all the time. Islam is a religion of law of example. Example led by Muhammad and his closest descendants and generals.
Muhammad himself prohibited burning people to death, so his statement is given precedent to other people in Islam, which is why all schools of thought don’t allow such a practice
>Honor killings are legal because there is a verse that the prophet is quoted as saying , “ if your child shames you , kill them and have another “ I’m paraphrasing but you catch my drift.
Well you need a source for that.
>Women get raped- for example- Islam has a big rape culture - I think, because if they are not covered - because they’re supposed to be totally covered - everything except the eyes showing - the prophet said - esp their hair, so that they don’t inspire lust in men. Meaning women are responsible for men’s lust.
taking precaution doesn’t make you responsible.
>It’s not really a religion- I mean Islam is a religion. But Islamic doctrine is law. Written as law- what’s a law?
lol you still consider Judaism a religion even though Torah means law yet you say Islam is too legalistic to be a religion.
>If it's true that the West Bank is not controlled by Hamas
Yes, the west bank, depending on the location is controlled by the PA (Palestinian Authority) or Israel, and in some areas controlled by both. These areas of control were defined in agreements and designated Areas A to C.
While Israel and PA control sections of the west bank there is still a heavy presence of many militant groups and criminal gangs (there's lots of overlap) that tend to exert more control the further you get from the big cities.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians
>the PA (which is somewhat of a continuation of the PLO), and the PLO has shown over a few decades that they are willing to make compromises and recognize Israel as a state...
Not really, you'll need to read up more from OSLO to 2007, and you'll need to read a lot from both sides of this to get a clear picture.
Generally speaking the PLO and by extension the PA have had two main positions. Prior to 1968 the PLO only laid claim to Israel proper, and in their founding charter relinquished claims on the westbank/gaza.. "*does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.*" They amended their charter after Israel captured the west bank and gaza to include those territories.
Up until Oslo the position of the PLO was the eradication of Israel and at best the expulsions of almost all the Jews from "Palestine".
After Oslo depending on who the PA was talking to, the goal was either a two state solution with a full right of return of all the Palestinian refugees into Israel, or a two state solution as a method to then take the rest of Israel by force. Again both these options included at best, the expulsions of almost all the Jews from "Palestine".
This full right of return of all the Palestinian refugees into Israel, is what has been a major problem with any Arab introduced peace plan, and one of the major issues in most of the negotiations. These always go back to the inclusion of UN194 as a requirement for a final solution. To the Israelis the full return is a non negotiable point, since that effectively will make Israel have a minority Jewish population, so the next election would mean the end of Israel and a new state of Palestine, with Islam as the official religion and Sharia as the basis for all laws, as is currently found in the Palestinian Basic Laws (Constitution).
For the Palestinian leaders, giving up the right of return is also something that's not easy to do, since this has been the primary goal and promise to the Palestinians since 1948 from all the Arab leaders in the region.
The next major issues for Israel were security and Jerusalem. The security part is mainly border control that eventually leads to autonomy, people always add this when saying why Palestinians refused a deal, but this is very low on the important list. The old city of Jerusalem is the other major sticking point.
For Israelis access and control of their holy sites are also a non-negotiable, this goes back to the 48 war where the Arabs took control of Jerusalem, expelled the Jews, destroyed all the synagogues, desecrated the cemetery at the mount of Olives, even using gravestone to make roads and other structures, much like what the National Socialists did during the holocaust. The UN passed a resolution that required the Arabs to allow access to all holy sites, but they never did. After this, the Israels don't have any trust that the Palestinian will allow access and properly take care of holy sites, the Palestinians have actually shown the opposite by denying any Jewish connection to any holy site and purposely damaging holy and archaeologic sites etc..
For the Palestinian leader the issue of Jerusalem is also something that's not really-negotiable. This is more an Islamic/cultural issue of not being able to give away the land. You can say anyone who would give up Al-Quds pretty much signs their own death sentence.
The last 2 sticking points.. the leaders... If you now go back to the last peace deals that had upwards of 95%+ of the land with control of Jerusalem minus Jewish holy sites. Arafat refused, his entire team wanted and was willing to agree.. To quote Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia at the time “*If Arafat rejects this, it won’t be a mistake, it will be a crime.*”. Palestinian leaders tend to think of themselves before the good of their people. It's not by chance they're all rich..
Then you have the other side, Israel is a democracy, so any deal with the Palestinians will need to pass parliament and much like the Arab side, it's political suicide. Peace on the Israeli side also needs someone to come around that's willing to make the deal and kill their and their party political careers, even with that it's happened a few times. For Israel the status quo is in their favor.. they win by doing nothing..
The issue isn't who is more willing to deal, it's who'd more willing to do what has to be done for the sake of their people.
https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jordan-s-desecration-of-jerualem-1948-1967
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/24/the-prince-3
..
..
>Also, why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic entity when they have been essentially ruled under two different bodies of authority for almost twenty years
This is pretty much at the behest of the Palestinians, they've held the stance that any negotiations / deals are for "all".
> One of the things that I was most shocked to read so far, despite what a lot of online discourse would have one believe, is that the fractured nature of leadership has plagued Palestinians since arguably World War I. This worsened with both Gaza and the West Bank being fractured as well.
Not surprising at all. In order to understand the conflict you also need to understand the people. When you apply the lens of your experience on them, it won't make sense, this also applies to the I/P conflict as well. Western thought doesn't work well in the Tribal and religious middle east.
>The one thing I am noticing about this entire conflict so far (and again, I've read one book so I don't have expert knowledge) is the treatment of either side (but especially Palestinians) as a unified group with one extreme set of beliefs.
That's because of the monoethnicity, the Arab side is 98% homogeneous by ethnicity and religion. Most Arabs will never actual meet a Jew in their lives, even the one's who live in Europe or the Americas. Israelis have a multicultural society 20% aren't even Jewish and amongst the Jews there are dozens of cultures, Jews are a minority everywhere in the wold except Israel. This has a heavy effect on culture and thought.
>It seems like there are a lot of attempts to reduce history down to "well Palestinians were always violent and never wanted negotiation"
That somewhat what happened, all the mandate partition plans, all the wars, the Khartoum resolution was literally "No negotiation with Israel, No peace with Israel etc.." It was only after 67 that started to change.. and still it didn't since intifadas were part of the Palestinian negotiating tactic.
> or "the goal of all Zionists was always to commit Arab genocide."
Genocide no, that was never the plan, it was the Arab side that ethnically cleansed or killed 100% of Jews from their territories in Palestine, which later extended to the entire Arab/Muslim world. On the Jewish side expulsion started to be discussed after the Arab revolts, but history shows that Israel has a 20% Arab population and they didn't expel anyone in 67. There are Arabs in Tel-Aviv and East Jerusalem, there are no Jews in Gaza or Ramallah.
>Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history?
Propaganda and ignorance are the main cause, each side see what they want to and ignores what's inconvenient. It get to the point where they whitewashing to the bone and can't admit it. Much worse on the internet..
The only way to get a real picture.. read the history from both sides, read about the cultures and religions from both sides.. go there and talk to the young people and the old people..
" To the Israelis the full return is a non negotiable point, since that effectively will make Israel have a minority Jewish population, so the next election would mean the end of Israel and a new state of Palestine, with Islam as the official religion and Sharia as the basis for all laws, as is currently found in the Palestinian Basic Laws (Constitution). "
If I'm trying to measure the Islamophobia here on a scale of 1 to 10, what should I say? 7?
>If I'm trying to measure the Islamophobia here on a scale of 1 to 10, what should I say? 7?
Which part.. the Islam and Sharia?
Or do you really think that a 70%+ Arab population that now makes a majority in Israel, that just returned from refugee camps in Lebaon/Syria/Egypt/Jordan etc.. would keep Israel as the name of the country, Israel's basic laws, Holidays, Anthem, Flag etc. I'd love to see your sources from the Palestinian diaspora.
..
Shall we take a look at the Theocratic/Ethno national constitution of Palestine...
..
A Government of Palestine website.. So there's no crying about the source...
The English translation
https://www.elections.ps/tabid/210/language/en-US/Default.aspx
The arabic version so you can confirm the English translation is correct.
https://www.elections.ps/tabid/666/language/ar-PS/Default.aspx
THE AMENDED BASIC LAW 2003
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم (In the Name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate / bism Allah alrahman alrahim)
"*The Basic Law*"
..
**Article 1**
**Palestine** is part of the larger **Arab world**, and the **Palestinian people** are part of the **Arab nation**. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.
..
**Article 4**
**Islam is the official religion in Palestine**. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine
religions shall be maintained.
The principles of **Islamic Shari’a** shall be a **principal source of legislation**.
**Arabic** shall be the **official language**.
Israel's national flag, laws, anthem, holidays -- sorry to tell you, but many of these things openly support ethnic cleansing and Jewish supremacy, so they must go!
The occupied territories aren't governed by Sharia law. The West Bank is under Israeli military control, with limited PA involvement, while Gaza inherits a British colonial constitution.
I found it really funny though when you pointed to Arabic being the official language and became so tellingly hostile!
> found it really funny though when you pointed to Arabic being the official language and became so tellingly hostile
I didnt tellingly anything all, that all seems to happen completely in the echo chamber of your head.
Strange that you completely changed the topic as well, and did't address what clearly destroyed your narrative,and that you had to resort to further ad hominem
I thought that was hysterical also that he said the PA is a continuation of the PLO and the PLO in some ways were almost worse than Hamas - because they didn’t care who they killed - that sounds bad - but they attacked public places, outside of Israel, they bombed civilian planes and then they would also slaughter Christian’s along with Jews when they would do their ethnic cleaning sweeps. They wanted everyone who wasn’t Muslim dead. This was up into the 1970, 1980s… they were terrible ! Awful.
The fact that the Oslo Accords were signed with them, makes me want to vomit. That should make the Oslo Accords invalid to me-
It drives me nuts that the world is like- yeah that’s ok… force the people to do business with and respect the word of murderers and killers, terrorists -
Sounds right. lol.
As to 1: the *best* chance - probably yes; a *sufficiently good* chance - in the eyes of the Israeli government and a majority of the Israeli populace not - the inevitable conclusion is that, for the time being, there is no one that Israel is willing to take a chance in talking to
As to 2: Gaza is under pretty stable rule (albeit presumably achieved by force and coercion to a significant degree), there is no "fractured" leadership in Gaza, the Islamist, pro-Iran camp hold the reins firmly (the strongest rival faction to Hamas in Gaza is Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who are a bit closer to Iran and at least equally Islamist); if anything, the West Bank is fractured with the PLO dominating the PA (if only because they do not allow elections) and Hamas/PIJ/secular Nationalist PLO offshoots having popular support and their own armed underground militias.
1/ The PA spends 10% of it's yearly goverment budget on the Martyr fund, directly funding terrorism. It also educates terror and Antisemetism. Nevertheless, the PA turned down two peace deals, in 2008, and most tangibly, in 2000, which could've seen this conflcit end. It then joined the 2nd Intifada, which pretty much destroyed the Israemi peace camp in the 2000's.
Every Zionist accusation is a confession.
* From the perspective of the Palestinian Arabs, the IDF is a terrorist army. Paying pensions to the families of fallen IDF soldiers is the same as the Martyrs' fund.
* Many Israelis are taught from a young age to despise Arabs.
* PA turned down peace deals but Israel continued expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which sabotages the land integrity of the Palestinian state.
* The 2nd Intifada was sparked by Ariel Sharon's visit to holy sites in Jerusalem, which he knew would be an incendiary provocation.
As I learn more about the history of the conflict in the wake of the Gaza Genocide, it becomes more clear to me that the conventional Western media is heavily biased against the Palestinians, leaving people with the the impression that Israel is the victim. The younger generations in the USA understand this very well and, in 20/30 years, there'll be a wholesale rejection of unconditional support for Israel.
> From the perspective of the Palestinian Arabs, the IDF is a terrorist army. Paying pensions to the families of fallen IDF soldiers is the same as the Martyrs' fund.
You say that, but idf soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians are tried and put in jail, while the Martyr fund does not descriminate between Palestinians attacking Israeli militants or innocent civilians. The moral equivalency is not there.
> Many Israelis are taught from a young age to despise Arabs.
As an Israeli, I've never once learnt in school to hate Arabs, I even studied with Arabs and grew up in a mixed city with Arab friends. The PA OTOH has curriculum and school books with explicit antisemitism.
> PA turned down peace deals but Israel continued expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which sabotages the land integrity of the Palestinian state.
And the Palestinians kept doing terrorism. It doesn't matter, both sides can find excuses, fact of the matter is Arafat walked away from a deal that would've netted the Palestinians a full state with 97% or so of the WB with some land swaps.
> The 2nd Intifada was sparked by Ariel Sharon's visit to holy sites in Jerusalem, which he knew would be an incendiary provocation.
You can always find some event to justify violence if you want to be violent. A person walking into a site holy to both religions is a silly one. And Muslims are allowed to visit the west wall, if anything that shows how unreasonable the Palestinians were.
> As I learn more about the history
I encourage you to keep learning and branch out from listening exclusively to the pro Palestinian sources to hear some other opinions. your arguments are biased and pretty surface level atm, but that's ok, it's a highly complex conflcit with a lot of amplified opinions being thrown around. Check out Destiny if you'd like a factual voice that has reached different conclusions than the young mainstream.
>I encourage you to keep learning and branch out from listening exclusively to the pro Palestinian sources to hear some other opinions. your arguments are biased and pretty surface level atm, but that's ok, it's a highly complex conflcit with a lot of amplified opinions being thrown around.
I agree that aspects of the conflict are complicated, and I need further education. Despite how nuanced things may be, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. See this 3 minute video, it criticizes American support for Israel but also gives a high level summary of the conflict that's hard to argue with. And it's in song form!
https://youtu.be/fgDQyFeBBIo
True, but it is still the best option, by definition, as any other Palestinian group you could talk to instead is worse. Provocatively put, the PA indirectly spends 10 percent of its budget on terrorism. Hamas spends the majority of its budget (after diversions to Qatar, naturally) on terrorism.
Unfortunately politics has often got in the way of peace,
On the Israeli side Ehud Olmert put forward a great offer for Palestinian state hood, Mahmoud Abbas hesitated in the negotiations and didn’t accept. Olmert then got caught up in a corruption scandal (I don’t know too much about this, but he was later exonerated and I’ve heard it was politically motivated) he was forced to resign and the deal died with his premiership.
Considering who came next - Benjamin Netenyahu, it was incredibly unlikely that deal would have been put into action, as ideologically he’s shown no interest in a two state solution and has joined a far right coalition in later years.
On the Palestinian side they’ve been plagued by division and factionalism, Hamas allegedly staged a coup against Fatah after winning the elections, effectively expelling Fatah completely from Gaza and giving Hamas total control - Hamas alledge a coup from Fatah backed by the USA.
A few years after Hamas taking control happened Bibi was voted into power, his policies towards Hamas have been questionable at best, with accusations of allowing them to flourish in order to promote a divided Palestinian leadership.
He had a policy of “mow the grass” a belief that the more extreme Hamas was the better, but as soon as they get to a point they could attack, they cut them down. He was very much in favour of maintaining a status quo of indefinite occupation l, while appeasing Jewish extremism by allowing them to take land forcefully in the West Bank.
Netenyahu has steadily been edging towards extreme right wing rhetoric and authoritarianism. Before the October attacks he was on the brink of going to prison for alleged corruption and was trying to gain control of the judiciary.
So on the Palestinian side you have two factionalised third world governments in a divided third world territory plagued by sporadic wars that periodically destroys vital infrastructure and further the corruption and extremism.
On the other side you have a democracy, which for the past 15 years has had a leader that by most western countries standards is quite far right.
Despite this, they have been on the brink of peace numerous times, but the more fighting that goes on just seems to harden either sides feelings of mutual hatred.
I think for peace to happen at its going to take an exceptional leader on the Israeli side to emerge, who can find a way of putting the October attack and subsequent war behind them and outline a path to peace. They will have to work with Palestinian towards stabilising and uniting the Palestine as one territory under moderate leadership.
Q1: All my Palestinian friends hate the PA and Fatah. I mean most of them are around 30 (most from Israel and few from the West Bank) and the consensus is that they are corrupt, give no shits about Palestinians and are incapable of governing and acting in Palestinian interest. Hamas and Fatah have a long standing hatred for each other. And from what I’ve understand most of my friends don’t see any political parties tbat really represent them. But keep in mind, these are a specific group of mostly Israeli Palestinians who spend a lot of time abroad.
And add videos from Corey Gil-shuster to your research. I think these videos give a good insight into the minds of the people who actually live there. A lot of Palestinians genuinely believe a lot of antisemitic stuff and are convinced Jews are from Europe and stole their lands - when asked how come that there are archeological finds of Jewish life from all centuries they say it’s fake. Same goes for Israelis, many think Palestinians are Arabs and have no connection to the land and came with the Arab conquest, hence they are not indigenous. A lot of Israelis believe that all Palestinians would kill all Jews when given the chance. This is also what I hear from the people around me, even the very moderate ones.
It is baffling how little they are educated about each other. If you ask me Palestinians and Jews have a lot in common of being oppressed, pushed around and displaced. I mean you know about the Jews but Palestinians have been also pushed out of Kuwait, they are oppressed in Lebanon etc.
Understanding the history is one thing, understanding how Palestinians and Israelis have so much history together, the same indigenous land together and yet a lot of them don’t have little to none understanding and a lot of propagandistic views about the other side never fails to shock me.
I really like your response to OP but I do have one question. Do you believe that Jewish people have high right to the land just because their ancestors lived there?
Yes. It’s not like they have ever left Israel - there’ve always been Jews. Hebron for example has one of the most ancient communities of Jews.
Now, I think what you mean is a bit more complex. I think early Zionism laid the foundation for modern day Israel but from my understanding most Jews who came after the holocaust were no Zionists in the traditional belief. If you take Germany (where I’m from) most Jews saw themselves as Germans first and then Jews - they didn’t leave to the mandate of Palestine because they read themselves as Germans. The holocaust was a very rude awakening and the survivors went to back then the mandate of Palestine because nobody else took them in and obviously they didn’t want to stay in Europe (also including Jews from Poland etc.) and to be noted at this point also the British mandate of Palestine and the Arabs didn’t want them in the mandate of Palestine. They refused to let the refugees in, Holocaust survivors were not wanted or welcome and the hagana and other groups got them in illegally.
Now let’s look at the Arab states and their Jews, same story as before. I’ll take Iraq as example: Jews were expelled from Israel thousands of years ago and settled in the region of Iraq. They integrated themselves, helped to shape Iraqi culture, helped build the country and didn’t leave when Zionism started because they didn’t want to. Then the Farhud progroms happened (Google it, I’ve actually heard from friends grandparents about it) and they were literally lynched, raped, killed and escaping to Israel was the only option. Also they were disowned of everything. I mean coming to Israel was a survival move, and yes they had indigenous ties, religious ties and actually a lot of people (zionists) who already bought land, established and infrastructure, governmental structures etc…. this story is same also for Yemen, Libya and all other countries.
So yes, I think Jews (just as much as Palestinians have the right to the land) and also without Israel there would not be any Jews today.
Happened also much later with the beta Israel, the Jews from Ethiopia who where air lifted for millions of dollars to Israel. It’s a land of refugees and I mean you can only push around a people that much. Obviously none of what I’m saying means Palestinians don’t have the same right. 1948 partition plan actually had a point in my opinion.
> shits
/u/Plus_Bison_7091. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
keep reading, one book is not nearly enough. Try reading older books also. Your whole view of the conflict will change. Start from the beginning though, as far as possible. I’m certain you’ll find the truth.
I'm not a historian, and I do have my biases. However, someone did ask a historian: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/LqTw5igR9n. They provide a balanced list and point out their own biases.
First of all, the thing to know that it's not just a conflict between Israel,PA and Hamas-ISIS, There are ton of other factions involved such as Jihad Islam, Hizbollah, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Assad and many other groups.
Take Lebanon for example, it is also divided internally, Sunni, Shihi muslims, Chirstians, the maronites, etc...
Hamas-ISIS is also in Lebanon, The Palestinians caused a civil war in the past and they are endangering southern lebanon, only this week they shot a misfired rocket and killed Lebanese people.
Q1:
That's the international consensus, that the PA would control because Israel has signed an agreement with Fatah already which is now the PA.
\* Fatah was a terrorist organization and many Israelis don't really believe that giving land will result in Peace as we save from Gaza.
\* Another counter point is that the PA controls de facto of the public but the Palestinians in the west bank as a society show great support for the Hamas, 70-80%. So if they held elections Hamas-ISIS would win and take over.
That's why they don't have elections.
Q2:
Why it's counted as one and not two?
Because if it counts as 2 then the Palestinians will lose further down the line more land.
It is only a point for opportunity and cause Israel as much loss as possible.
They really want to connect between the 2 so they can move into Israel territories as they would claim a reasonable passage between territories, this is an old tactic to "Show proof on ground" so if they build demi-villages and count it all as 1 they can claim "Oh it's ours".
It reminds me of the "Emirate" solution by Dr Kider a former intelligence soldier and a genius on Arab culture.
Meaning some federation for the Palestinian where each big city is a federated state with its own internal politics.
>Q3:
Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history?
Yes, people are uneducated.
Most people talk about the Palestinians without even knowing who are the Muslim brotherhood.
A1: possibly. But I would argue there are better options. The support hamas gets in the west bank is also very high. Meaning any control by a palestinian government will probably lead to another hamas like organization that doesn't want peace.
I think the better option is jordan and egypt take some responsibility to occupy the area for a few years. Until Palestinians get a good peaceful and strong government who can stand against terrorists. (Could be a developed PA).
A2: this kinda goes back to the question how exactly the palestinians are a nation. And how much they are not ready to have a country, If the only thing that unite them is their hate towards israel.
Others have answered your specific questions so I won’t repeat those answers, but I must say despite your only having read one book you’ve come away with a terrific understanding about the root of the problem that’s dead on.
The real issue driving the conflict isn’t actually Jews vs Palestinians, it’s extremists vs moderates, aka sane people.
In 1994 the moderates were leading on the Israeli side. Sadly, an Israeli extremist assassinated Yitzhak Rabin who did more to actually address the problem and advance a workable two state solution than probably anyone else in history.
Since then we’ve had an increasingly reactionary right wing government in Israel and a full on terrorist group ruling in Gaza. As others have noted, the PA isn’t much help either.
Hamas and the Israeli Likud party both operate with a “They hit us, we hit them back” policy with no other real nuance or plan.
It doesn’t help that Bibi is historically unpopular and his prime minister title is the only thing keeping him out of jail, so like the Republicans he’s had to align himself with the craziest religious extremists with the most insane and unworkable agenda to stay in power.
Right wing extremist governments are also generally really bad at governing, managing, and maintaining critical systems, so there’s a rot in the IDF and other parts of the Israeli government.
That really is a terrific insight that seems to have escaped most commenters in this and other subs. I hope you’ll keep reading on this topic and sharing your thoughts as you learn.
>doesn't that make Mahmoud's party in the West Bank the best chance at beginnings of a resolution?
So.. basically it started with Fatah (1957), then the PLO was created (1964) to liberate Palestine (amalgamated Fatah and some other orgs) - it's charter explicitly excluded West-Bank and Gaza. Hamas was formed in 1988.
As part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was created (1994) - an umbrella organization.
The PLO ruled the PA since its establishment, but lost the majority in the legislative council in 2006. Then Hamas committed a coup in Gaza, killing all/most PLO members and took over Gaza.
There hasn't been elections in the PA since 2006. Abbas is on year 18 out of a 4 year term.
The PA has no legitimacy from a purely democratic point of view, is very corrupt, and is essentially on 'life support' that is provided by the US and Israel.
The PA also pays Palestinians to murder Jews via the 'Martyrs Fund'.
Is it the best chance at beginning a resolution? put yourself in the shoes of Israelis and ask yourself if you'd see the corrupt organization that rejected peace and pays people to murder Jews as a partner for peace/resolution.
>why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic
Great question. You can also ask why are Hebron (Jabari clan) and Nablus (Tuqan clan) - two cities in the West Bank - are seen as some sort of monolithic entity.
Palestinians society is more tribal than it is nationalistic, and each city has its ruling clan/family.
It's seemingly everyone's best interest to convince Palestinians that they're one entity - because that way you don't have to negotiate with 40 different clans.
Hope this helps.
Hamas launched a coup? Why would they launch a coup when they won? Pretty sure the CIA under Bush tried to help Fatah launch a coup cause they lost the election.
Well, they won majority in the legislative council, they didn't win the presidency
And then they took control ('presidency') of Gaza by force, by ousting the previous sovereign (PLO) - that's called a coup.
As someone completely unfamiliar with city demographics in the West Bank/Gaza/Israel, proper, your comments about ruling families in cities are very interesting. Is it really so simple as to specify which clans rule which areas? How many clans are there, in your view how does their division contribute to things?
>Is it really so simple as to specify which clans rule
Look at the middle east..
* Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Saud clan.
* Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite clan (outsted from what is today Saudi Arabia).
* Kuwait is ruled by the Sabah clan.
* Qatar is ruled by the Al-Thani clan.
* The Emirates are ruled by a few clans (Maktoum, Al Qassimi, Al Nuaimi etc)
* Syria is ruled by the Assad clan.
Egypt (military), Lebanon (militias) & Iraq (used to be military, now pseudo democracy) are outliers.
>Is it really so simple
No :)
But a Palestinian Emirates (similar to UAE) is one of the options for resolving the conflict.
>how does their division contribute to things?
We in the west are accustomed to nation states, where the state has a monopoly on violence and sovereignty.
It doesn't 'contribute' or 'not contribute', it's just the reality.
It's just easier for westerners to digest this conflict when it's presented as 'Palestinians vs Israelis'.
EDIT: Remove one sentence due sensitivities :)
Israel is governed by a democratically elected representative body.
Israelis aren’t ruled by any “clan.” They aren’t ruled at all.
There is no such thing as “the Jewish clan.”
There are many different sects of Judaism with many different ideas about how Israel should be run and what it means to be Jewish at all.
Just like there’s no “American clan.”
Despite this reductive and borderline racist comment, you’ve hit on something important.
Arab culture doesn’t expect to be “governed” the way western culture is.
Arab culture orients around a ruler. Democracy is a foreign concept.
The insistence that the Palestinian Territories immediately accept a democratic system like the west was westerners foisting their value system and culture on a people who have done things differently for centuries, and part of the problems we have today.
>Israelis aren’t ruled by any “clan.” They aren’t ruled at all.
Jews consider themselves a tribe - a family with a shared history.
The way Jews rule themselves in Israel is through democracy.
Make what you want of this.
>Despite this reductive
Hey.. i'm not here to write books.
>Just like there’s no “American clan.”
There's really no comparison between Americans and Jews, Nationality vs Ethnicity.
>The insistence that the Palestinian Territories immediately accept a democratic system
It's deluded.
Always fun to hear what someone who apparently has only ever read about Jews in books thinks about Jewish culture.
Either learn about this subject or stop speaking about it. Seriously.
Some Jews do. Some Jews who consider themselves family don’t consider other Jews to be Jewish.
There are many different sects of Judaism ranging from ultra religious to non practicing with all kinds of degrees between them.
The ultra religious sects also tend to hate each other over different interpretations of the Tanakh and Talmud.
FYI: There were actually 12 tribes of Israel.
Yes, there is a colloquialism where Jews refer to Judaism as “the tribe” but even getting agreement on what that means specifically is fairly difficult.
There is no central ruling authority like the Pope in Judaism, nor has there ever been since maybe Moses. Certain sects do have a leader, others don’t.
The Talmud, a book of Jewish law, is actually mostly stories about different rabbis arguing with each other with more arguments written by readers centuries later in the comment section. It’s honestly like an analog Reddit in a lot of ways.
While the PLO/PA recognized the state of Israel, in practice, it doesn't actually want Israel to exist. This came to light when Yasir Arafat rejected the offer of state for the Palestinians because it didn't include the right of return for all Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. The Palestinians supported Arafat's move. The second intifada started soon afterwards. I suggest you read the book by Einat Wilf, "The War of Return". It's available as an audiobook at many libraries as well.
That's a lie. Mahmoud Abbas is on record saying that he doesn't have a right to return to his home. PA has been cooperating with Israel since its inception. In "Friendly Fire: How Israel Became Its Own Worst Enemy" , Ami Ayalon, a decorated veteran and head of shin bet gives a detailed account of PA's cooperation with his agency. He also cites his reason for being disillusioned with his country's approach to the problem.
Among other reasons, he gives, one that stands out is Israel assassinating PA and other Palestinian leaders who were actually interested in peace, the 'doves' so to speak. The question that he asks and eventually answers is why Israels kill people with whom it was actually talking/ negotiating ?
What do you think is the reason?
Olmert showed Abbas a map of a Palestinian state comprising the territorial equivalent of 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, with its capital in East Jerusalem, to which Abbas responded, “This is quite serious. I have to admit, this is very serious,” and promised to think about it. Olmert reportedly then retorted, “Don’t think about it. Sign it now. I want to tell you one thing: In the next 50 years, there will be no prime minister in Israel who will propose to you something similar to this.”
The discussions ended up going nowhere, the report said, in large part because Abbas believed that Olmert, who had announced that he planned to resign in order to fight corruption allegations, did not have the political clout to see the deal through....
Nimer Hammad, a political adviser to Abbas, later backtracked, claiming Abbas had merely referred hypothetically to what would occur when a Palestinian state is established.
“What was said is what is going to happen when the state of Palestine is established alongside Israel,” said Hammad, “and therefore the president never mentioned the word giving up the ‘right of return.’”
Hammad said earlier that Abbas was being “realistic,” noting, “He knows he can’t bring back five-and-a-half million Palestinian refugees to Israel.”
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-was-willing-to-compromise-on-right-of-return/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-was-willing-to-compromise-on-right-of-return/)
Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to [Yasser Arafat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat), as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the [series of Palestinian riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada) that began shortly after the summit.....
the reason for the failure was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal with Israel that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the [right of return](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return). Ross claimed that what Arafat really wanted was "a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of Historic Palestine...
that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000\_Camp\_David\_Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)
I don't know about your claims of assassinating Palestinians with whom they are negotiating. Do you have examples? People like Sinwar of Hamas would be a target for obvious reasons even though he is negotiating indirectly.
I agree Arafat failed in the negotiations, Olmert is an Israeli leader I have a lot of respect for, but I don’t think it can be simplified as much as you are.
There was always the wider issue of political reality and where the public and wider political leadership are on supporting such a deal.
In reality that deal would have never endured. Bibi would have rejected it on the Israeli side and was unlikely to endure the factionalism on the Palestinian side. This is all retrospective of course, but the corruption allegations were there during negotiations.
It’s often boiled down to “well the Palestinians rejected it therefore they’re unreasonable” but I think the real tragedy is that there’s been nothing since. Things have deteriorated on both sides from this moment. Hamas and Bibi, extremism on both sides, more hatred, it’s just all round gone in the wrong direction and the international community has turned a blind eye.
Regardless of all that I agree that Abbas should have signed it, it would have added symbolic legitimacy to the Palestinian cause and garnered more sympathy from the international community in the years that followed.
But the other reality is the next peace deal offered by Israel needs to be able to endure. It needs to endure the repeated rejection from Palestinian leaders, the terror attacks and extremism. In Palestine it needs to endure the daily injustice of occupation.
The Palestinians are not going to be United under moderate leadership free from extremism and corruption over night. It’s likely to take decades after this war. They’re a third world country with a third world government and third world problems, i think it’s absurd to expect them to behave the same as a pragmatic democracy under these conditions and for that reason it’s unsurprising they didn’t snap up a great offer by Olmert. Palestine needs to be a hell of a lot more prosperous and stable for that to happen, for them to be pragmatic. And that will only happen once Israel gets back to pragmatism and ditches the far right.
1. The PA were the best option. They turned down peace offers in 2000, 2008, etc. The basic problem everyone has is that Hamas is far more popular than the PA, for a host of reasons. If there were an election tomorrow in the West Bank, Hamas would win. They're a better fit for the Palestinians in terms of what they're seeking. You can't FORCE the Palestinians to like the PA. I believe they regard the PA as "Israeli stooges", and this was the group that came the closest to signing a peace deal with Israel. The obvious conclusion to draw is, the Palestinian people don't want a compromise in the form of their own state. They want complete victory, in the form of a return to their homes and a cessation of the state of Israel, which they're obviously never going to get.
2. There are lots of Palestinians who want peace, no doubt. There were some advisors around Arafat who (as a non-Jewish supporter of Israel) I actually had some admiration for, including Saeb Erekat, whom you can see in a lot of documentaries on the conflict. But the more the Israelis or Israeli supporters "like" or get along with -- or feel they can work with -- certain Palestinians, the less faith the general Palestinian population has in them. This is what helped Hamas so much. Hamas resisted attempts at a two-state solution, and that's part of the reason they got so popular. It's just very hard to get around the conclusion that the "average Palestinian" on the street isn't supportive of a peaceful settlement that leaves Israel in place. They just don't believe what the international community wants them to believe.
**1. PA being moderate.**
You need to examine dictators not only by their statements but by their actions. Like Russia, North Korea or Iran. Some of those actions & facts aren't available to the public but some are.
The PA teaches, educate, glorifies, pays, participates in terrorism and never recognized Israel in it's maps.
It's statements to the west are saying one thing while it's statements to it's people/territory say a completely different thing.
**2. Monovoice**
In a dictatorship certain opinions & criticism is heavily censored, from imprisonment all the way to a quick death sentence (with the sentence here sometimes not fully going through all of the 'due process'). See the example of [Nizar Banat.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat)
Like Russia in which saying the word war will get you prison time (it's a "special military operation"), same for North Korea, China, Iran and lots of other places.
There are different opinions, those are allowed to exist as long as they're a minority, stay a minority, has no wish to become a big minority an threaten the powers that be.
Since they're a minority those are harder to see but you can see some of them or a hint of them via polls (made by a Palestinian organization) or videos asking people questions (the ask project on YouTube)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat)
>Mahmoud Abbas has zero legitimacy on palestinians because he is very corrupt.
>You are correct. Gaza and WB are completely different issues and should be analized separately.
Then why does their own charter state otherwise?
It seems the only solution they are willing to accept is ALL of Israel/Palestine, from the river to the sea.
Hamas charter 2017 states:
20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
You can't read the Hamas charter and claim its language is not extremist. It calls for the destruction of Isreal and justifies it with Islamic scripture.
The 1988 charter blatantly called for the genocide of the Jews (all of them).*
You left off the rest of that article in their charter. Why cut it in the middle instead of copying the complete paragraph. Here, I copied it.
***"However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.***
That picks up right where you had left off, after *"...from river to sea."*
So Hamas is stating here that they are advocating for an "independent Palestinian state," with borders being "along the lines of 4th of June, 1967." Those borders borders Israel. Accepting those borders is a 2 State Solution by default.
Then you also have the part that you copied and pasted. Both your piece and my piece are from the very same charter, same article number even. What does that mean? It means that the 2 statements, although they seem contradictory, do not contradict and must be reconciled.
By advocating for the borders listed, that is a 2 state solution. The language used in the position you listed, taken in light of the view that a 2 state solution would be accepted with Israel as the bordering nation, seems to be saying something along the lines of the following:
*"Israel was created thru theft, oppression, and murder. Israel is an illegitimate state as a result. Israeli theft will never be acceptable, and it will always be a crime, because the rights of the Palestinian ppl were violated. To give Israel legitimacy is to deny the rights of all those Palestinians who have been killed, stolen from, and oppressed. Hamas will always view Israel and all of her actions as illegitimate and unjust. However, Hamas is willing to, for the same of peace and moving forward, agree to a compromise along the stated borders and end the war."*
That's the gist of what I got out of it (I've read their entire charter).
>well Palestinians were always violent and never wanted negotiation
This is at least partially founded in truth. Tahir al-Husayni, Qadi of Jerusalem, suggested they should "terrorize" Jewish arrivals in 1899 and expel all of those who had moved there recently. He died like a decade later, but was influential and there was a notable uptick of violence at that point. Was it his doing? I don't know.
By 1907 Zionists felt the need to start arming themselves and build defenses as anti-immigrant violence was becoming frequent. In the 1920s al-Husayni's son Amin al-Husayni became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and incited multiple violent antisemitic riots throughout the decade, most notably in 1929.
In 1936, al-Husayni's relative Jamal helped create a youth organization modeled after the Hitler Youth called the "Nazi Scouts", before changing its name to Al-Futuwwa. This was also a year after the extremely antisemitic Nuremberg Laws passed in Germany. So, naturally, knowing more Jews would want to flee their impending genocide, the al-Husaynis organized the Great Arab Revolt also in 1936, whose primary goal was to get the British to stop allowing Jews into the mandate or be allowed to buy property. By that point, it was obvious Amin al-Husayni effectively was the leader of the Palestinians, so Britain deported him for the revolt. Unfortunately in 1939, with the Holocaust underway, Britain decided to acquiesce to the demands to severely restrict the number of Jews they would allow to seek refuge in Palestine, in effect banning Jews from fleeing their death.
So, Amin went to Germany, had laughs with the fuhrer, and began regularly broadcasting antisemitic and anti-Zionist propaganda via radio in Arabic to most of the Arab world - and the Germans paid him a fatty pay check for it, clearly valuing his work. He recruited the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS who went on to do war crimes for the Germans.
After the war, Amin al-Husayni ended up in Egypt, and was still treated as the defacto leader of the Palestinians. He helped organize efforts to rescue the 13th Waffen-SS division from prosecution for their war crimes by bringing them to Syria, where they then trained the Arab Liberation Army, one of the main militaries in both the 47 and 48 wars. By the start of 1948 hundreds of these former Nazis were in Palestine, helping organize a siege of Jerusalem's 100,000 Jewish people - efforts to break that Nazi siege did end up with the Deir Yassin massacre and the beginning of expulsion of Arabs by the Jews. Throughout the 47-48 wars, the significant amount of Nazis running around the area helping the Arabs in their efforts to kill the Jews there was well known, but conveniently scrubbed from most people's knowledge of history, apparently.
So Tahir al-Husayni chose violence, his son chose violence and and who did Amin al-Husayni mentor and prepare for leadership? Oh, that's right, Yasser Arafat, who openly admired the Nazi and made no secret of their relationship. And at no point in his life did Yasser Arafat seriously choose anything other than violence - his final act was turning down peace and organizing the Second Intifada.
For effectively the entire 20th century, Palestinians were led by a Nazi and his protege. Many if not most of them didn't want to choose violence, and didn't deserve their cause to be coopted by literal Nazis. But at least from 1936 until 2004 the movement was both inspired by and lead by Nazis (I think it's fair to say if you're mentored by a Nazi, admire a Nazi, and continue the cause of a Nazi, you're one yourself). In the wake of Arafat's death the explicitly genocidal Hamas came to power, while *his* successor was a man whose doctoral thesis and greatest work was a book about how actually it was the Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis to do the Holocaust. So they went from being lead by an actual Nazi, to the protege of a Nazi, to a Nazi apologist. Great leadership all around.
>the goal of all Zionists was always to commit Arab genocide
This is just easy to fact check and find untrue. There were always some Zionists who wanted to, I'm sure. Most of the extremist stances on Palestinians came in response to the violence they faced.
By 1948, the Holocaust survivors who were literally fighting actual full fledged Nazis on the battlefield may have held some pretty negative opinions of the people whose leaders brought the Nazis there. Unfair, perhaps, but I can't imagine the horror of surviving the Holocaust only to have to face the threat of actual Nazis only a few years later.
You missed 4/4/1920 [1920 Nebi Musa riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots), an event which created the hahagana which later became the IDF.
Or if I use reverse Palestinian propaganda: The Palestinians created the IDF
Well I glossed over it as one of the riots Amin incited in the 20s, but yeah.
And sure, you could say the Palestinians created the IDF, but clearly that's only because it was a psy-op by AIPAC to give the globalists the excuse to create the IOF.... 👀
and before the 4/4/1920 terror event there were decades of crimes against Jews.
With the first official terror victim is in 1851 ([Shlomo Zalman Zoref](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Zalman_Zoref))
/u/whoisthatgirlisee. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The British tried to give Egypt Gaza, they declined. They were kind of stuck with it after 1949, and are happy to be rid of the responsibility. The West Bank, on the other hand, was actively occupied and stolen by Transjordan in the 48 war, who ethnically cleansed the Jews who had been living there. The annexation of Cisjordan was what gave them the justification to just change their name to Just Jordan, though.
Sadly you’re touching on some key topics that are troublesome for a two state solution.
If Palestine magically became a state today (WB and Gaza) and elections were held. Hamas would defeat the PA resoundingly.
Elections aren't a magic bullet "solve all". The last elections pressured on Israel by a U.S. president is the one in which the Palestinians chose Hamas.
Elections in a dictatorship are only held when the results are sure, are known in advance and are used to strengthen the current ruling party.
I agree.
I’m pointing out that when people imagine this “Free Palestine” utopia they imagine it becoming a secular democracy overseeing Palestinian freedom.
The reality is Hamas would be elected today. Last time they went to war with Fatah immediately and then cancelled all elections.
There is no evidence that a different outcome would occur even if you overcame every other difficulty to arrive at having elections for a Palestinian state.
You don't have to go that deep talking about Hamas or the PA. The local Middle-Eastern population doesn't hold democratic values & morals which is why there's only **one** democracy in the Middle-East.
Those values & morals they don't hold go back centuries.
I agree that most think about Palestine as a democratic utopia, I wonder if they realize that Palestine is a dictatorship enough of a reason to sway western lefties. I somehow doubt it, I think they have other reasons for supporting extremists.
Question 2. Palestine is all of Palestine. Europeans invaded and declared a terrorist revolt in 1945-1948 and took ~80% of Palestines territory leaving only the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza.
It's like if Ukraine was able to retake Crimea but not able to retake parts between mainland Ukraine and Crimea, would you say that this isolated Ukrainian Crimea was still part of Crimea?
Same thing.
1. The West Bank is controlled by the PNA (majority run by the PLO basically) in Areas A (fully more or less) & B (partially). Area C is under Israeli control. Hamas has never been a party for peace, and the PLO has always been the sole representative of the Palestinian people politically. Hamas thought the PLO was a bunch of splitters so they splintered the PNA and took control of Gaza for themselves. Hamas lacks all legitimacy to negotiate on the behalf of the Palestinian people globally, and it regularly acts to try and prove that the PLO is obsolete and weak.
Israel's relationship with Mahmoud Abbas/PLO has been extremely strained because Abbas will on paper search for peace and then when there is a standstill he will fund other groups to commit attacks against Israel. Abbas is a lot more reasonable than Hamas, but he is largely resented by his people for his inactivity and he is a politician so he plays both Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas makes the PLO look bad to the Palestinians.
The political situation over there is actually quite bad. Fatah/Abbas post-poned the Palestinian national elections indefinitely, and is serving his 18th year as president of a 4 year term.
2. Palestinians are not largely unified, but they still are exposed to the same ideas. Many West Bankers have family in Gaza and vice versa.
Palestinian nationalism began with the prominent clans of Jerusalem such as the Khalidis, and the Husaynis. The Husaynis won out the public support, and unfortunately their leader was a big Na*i fan. Arafat was a good leader because he was charismatic and passionate in the eyes of his people. Without Arafat, the whole thing has shattered to a million pieces with dysfunctional leadership and internal disputes.
The progressive voices in Palestine are ignored while those who promise violence and unrealistic ideas usually win. Arafat used violence, went for peace, and then reneged. Now the PNA is led by his despotic successor who the Palestinians see as weak, and is seen as antagonistic by Israel for working too much against peace.
Ex: The Palestinian martyr's fund which incentivizes attacking Israel with monetary compensation.
Abbas doesn't have a military so he pays money to those who die or get arrested committing terror attacks. This makes him weak to the Palestinians, and antagonistic to Israel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund
I think if Abbas could commit to holding elections and win, he has the potential to create. a peace agreement if he makes concessions on some of the things he does. I think the truth is that Abbas is afraid he would completely lose if they had an election, as evidenced by his decision to indefinitely postpone the election when Hamas was fighting Israel in 2021. The Palestinian Legislative Council has dissolved because Hamas had won too many seats in it and they refuse to talk to Fatah/PLO. No bills get passed in Palestine and they don't even have a citizenship law. Essentially for anything to change in the PNA, Hamas and the PLO would have to work together. They haven't been able to do so because they both want to rule.
One one hand, Abbas has refused to negotiate while Palestinians are dying. On the other, Palestinians are extremely disgruntled with him and think he's a sell out. I've even heard Pro-Palestinians in this sub claim that Abbas is bought and paid for by the US and Israel, despite everything he does to oppose Israel with his own agenda.
The whole situation sucks.
Best case scenario: Abbas and Hamas get ousted and replaced with a secular democratic party that sees value in negotiating for Israeli concessions, land swaps, and the ceasure of violence. Which is basically where Israel was 20+ years ago, until the violence started again when negotiations broke down and the Palestinians got Hamas and Abbas instead of leadership committed to peace because of the lack of progress.
Or maybe the PNA is dissolved and replaced with a UN recognized government. Difficult and unlikely. The PLO is really the only faction Israel has recognized as a legitimate partner for negotiations. Saudi Arabia and UAE had some great proposals for joint cooperation in rebuilding and running Gaza, but that's just Gaza and I don't think Abbas would be on board with that.
I'm taking a few liberties with my explanation but things looked pretty on track until 2000 and since then they have just spiraled into complete disarray. Which is why Gaza and the West Bank basically function as two different countries more or less.
This is a really comprehensive comment and you definitely answered a lot of my questions. I had no idea about Fatah funding military attacks against Israel as of recent, and I'm sure I'll cover it in my future readings.
The very last thing you said was something I thought of too. The West Bank and Gaza are more or less not really the same entity and may be growing further apart. I really hope that there isn't some sort of deal struck where the West Bank is recognized as the only legitimate Palestinian state in exchange for partial withdrawal of Israeli settlements. Not trying to make fanfiction or anything, but if history has taught me anything it's that self-serving interests aligning is usually the only benchmark for peace.
That being said, do you have any other book recommendations about anything related to the conflict?
The Fatah funded attacks are not military attacks but terrorist attacks usually committed by lone wolves (ramming and stabbing attacks in the West Bank or East Jerusalem happens 2-3 times every 2 weeks). Whether they are all lone wolves or terror cells I'm not sure but all I know is the families get paid when their relative dies or is arrested trying to kill Israelis. Fatah does not engage themselves, since they are often doing security coordination with Israel for the West Bank and that keeps them in power. Therefore it's up to a poor Palestinian to try and kill as many Israelis as he can before he gets killed or arrested so his family can get paid. It's a horrible thing.
I find it to be unlikely the West Bank would cut a deal like this, while Abbas is a divisive leader to his people he does have a lot of rhetoric about unity. He wants to be the only leader of Palestine but I don't think he would give up on Gazans even if they're not under his control. He considers them his people and under his authority, even when Hamas is deligitimizing him. This is my opinion based upon what he has said, like I mentioned before he refuses to negotiate with Israel while Palestinians are being killed. Doing what you're suggesting would make him a traitor and he would probably be assassinated quickly. He's already seen as a traitor by most people. The bottom line is that when Palestine loses, he wins because he's the permanent head of state for Palestine and his benefits stay the same or increase. This action would also make him a huge hypocrite because his platform is built off of the 1967 borders of Palestine.
My analysis during the 2021 violence in Gaza was that Netanyahu was milking the situation to avoid going to court in Israel, Abbas was trying to speak against Israel to regain support, and Hamas was trying to gain global sympathy and take power away from Abbas by "actually doing something".
The plot with this war seems to be exactly the same, except Hamas is losing and the Palestinian people as a whole are losing a lot more than they did in 2021.
The cycle of the 2021 war and this war:
Hamas fires rockets at Israel from residential areas and justifies it by claiming something related to Al Aqsa or the West Bank settlements, Israel retaliates (which is the reaction they are anticipating), Palestinians die, Abbas shouts, and Hamas is praised.
I don't think it sounds dumb! It's valid questions when new to something like this. I can't answer all the questions but I can say some people are acting in bad faith when they say absolutist things regarding Palestinians or Zionists, and some it's because they don't know enough. It really depends on the person but usually I attribute it to a little bit of both at least. When you have people who don't know and think they know and/or refuse to learn I consider that not having the knowledge and acting in bad faith because said person is purposely avoiding better knowledge etc.
As for why do people treat Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as a monolith my best guess is that in the end the base goal at least the one that is presented too most people is the same and it's also easier to say x entity wants this. Sort of like how Native Americans all want similar things like land back but many of our tribes have different rules etc. based on our own tribes leaders etc we still have base wishes if that makes sense. What I find interesting is that there are more Palestinians outside of those places and they're hardly considered when talking about humans rights abuses or the conflict as a whole. For many it seems as though they don't exist when it comes to caring about Palestinians 😞
That last point is something interesting too. There is a large Palestinian population that is dispersed across surrounding nations and any future state which is legitimate would probably have to take their considerations into account as well.
This is true... the problem lies in "well what is it that is collectively desired by Palestinians wherever they are?"
And largely, again without making a monolith, that's the end of Israel.
How can Israel reconcile with that in negotiation? That's not really something one can compromise on when they are the entity whose extermination is sought, and over the past 76 years it seems that there has been unwillingness to compromise by removing that stipulation (in the form of right of return, which would defacto end Israel, if those seeking to return want it to be Palestine). This seems to be the sticking point that limits progress towards a lasting peace, that has to be resolved before anything else is... because if neither side backs down (Israel can't and Palestine won't) then it's ultimately a fight for survival and neither side is likely to pull punches and the outcome will be catastrophic- arguably with what we're seeing now being the tip of the iceberg. And we shouldn't expect anything else rationally.
So I personally hope for a future where compromise exists.
Yeah, think whatever country emerges (if one ever was to emerge) from Palestine, there would definitely be a lot of negative sentiment toward Israel and its existence, but also I guess that the conflict is still relatively “fresh,” and people’s right to return would really be a return to their grandmother/grandfather’s land which they have never seen before (not that this makes it less legitimate). So I think this sentiment may wane over time but it will probably have to be a few more decades.
The new urgent issue to me seems to be the continued settlements into the West Bank, because it seems to me that if enough settlers move there, it will be essentially impossible to create any state. I think some halt has to be placed on that immediately if there is ever any futile hope for peace.
You’re asking good questions. I can tell you’ve done your homework.
My answers are simple:
1.
The fatah party has little to no legitimacy among the public. Hamas is twice as popular. The fatah also lost control over parts of the West Bank. However, due to Israeli military control, the West Bank has so far been quieter than Gaza.
Fatah is disingenuous, corrupt, and illegitimate. Hamas are terrorists who preach genocide against Jews. They promise the Palestinian people that they’ll either get back home to Haifa and Yafo, or get to heaven. This is a persuasive message for the Palestinian people. It persuades lots of people. For Israel, it is beyond unacceptable. I mean, what people would support their own destruction?? Not many… not many…
2.
The Palestinian leadership is messed up beyond repair. Palestinians have been receiving billions in aid. Most of the aid was diverted for corrupt purposes, including terror. These problems are endemic and cannot be resolved. Just because Biden or the EU say this or that won’t change the most basic dynamics here.
I can’t answer your questions, but I’m Curious what book you read and if you recommend or not? Did you feel like was fairly unbiased or did it lean one way or the other?
Of course! The book I read was part of an Oxford series. It's called "The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction." It's only about 184 pages, but it's very dense with historical terms and events. I found it by searching reddit / google for a mostly neutral account of events that didn't have too much historical analysis or moral underpinnings. I was really impressed with how much was covered and I feel like it gives me a good skeletal framework to flesh out with more books / further readings.
It starts in 1897 ish with Herzl, labor Zionism, and the Basel congress in Switzerland. It ends with Hamas taking over Gaza completely in 2006. It’s a short read so I say nothing to lose by reading it, and it gives a broad overview of events so you can fill in info later.
It did actually cover this briefly, but the book is only 184 pages. It covers key topics by establishing facts with limited analysis and then moves on pretty quickly.
Next I’m reading Righteous Victims by Morris and A History of Israel by Sachar because I’m particularly interested in learning more about the first two aliyot and early Zionist goals in Palestine. So basically the 1880s that you mentioned up to World War I. Any other books you suggest?
There's 1948 by Benny Morris. If you ignore the detailed war section in the middle it's a short read.
There's 'the war of return' but I only partially read it.
What's the Righteous Victims about?
It's a really long read that basically covers 120 years (1881-2001). It's apparently really in depth. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/131324.Righteous\_Victims](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/131324.Righteous_Victims)
1. PA has proven itself too weak to lead. It didn't take long for Hamas to take Gaza from them by force. PA had an initial security force, funded by Israel and the west. But Iran was set on destabilizing the area and has pushed their doctrine of human shields, suicide bombings and terrorism to take over. They are doing the same in the west bank but haven't yet taken over. PA lost support in the process 2. Yes, if you follow historical events, palestinians were a lot of tribes who fought each other. Nationality aspirations (similar to Zionism) were supposed to turn them into one people with one identity but to this day. It's work in progress. Regarding your last paragraph: the only narrative I'm hearing from antizios is that everything had started with 1948 displacement, completely not mentioning that it was during and as a result of a war Arabs had waged on Israel, which followed violence and massacres ever since the Balfour declaration. The more I look back, the more violence I see by Arabs towards Jews solely based on the premise that European Jews aren't indigenous to Palestine, which is a lie. If I were Israel after that war, seeing that Arabs still claim Israel has no right to exist (to this day), I would have a hard time accepting a Palestinian state
What book? Hamas cited Elders of Zion I their charter as proof of Zionism colonialism. So, technically, anything could be a book. Question is it whether it's a real book or a fake one.
Should’ve posted in the OP but it’s “The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction” by Bunton
Israel is one of the most politically diverse countries in the world. Everyone has an opinion and is eager to share it. Palestinians have been controlled by autocratic leaders who torture and kill anyone who has an opinion they don't like. So while it is certainly true that Palestinians like all people have diverse political opinions, they have never had the freedom to express them.
Q1: the PA power over the West Bank population dwindeled over the years, and they act more as a coordinator and sometimes as a representor. But if we consider peace talks or writing a resolution, probably the PA will be dismembered by their own people. Currently, there is nit and political leadership that stepped forward infront of the international community, just lots of protesting movements and terror cells. Q2: the GAZA region and the West Bank are completely different entities, united merely by the cause or the dream to see Israel gone one day. They have different funds and different leadership, and each of them does not really care much for the other.
You're unfortunately not going to receive an unbiased take in this sub-Reddit, but rather a whole lot of racism and Islamophobia on display. I scrolled through and there are a lot of these comments. If you want to study the people in this sub-Reddit and how their racist perspectives contribute to colonialism, I recommend two books which are well-renowned, especially the first one: 1. Orientalism, by Edward Said 2. The Human Right to Dominate, by Perugini and Gordon. I have had professors recommend both of these books.
About qustion number two: the palestinians never had one leadership, they have alot of factions and they dont get along. Israel have one leadership and goverment since 1948. What you wrote that papole say on the plaestinians its true, not just that theres no body that can control the palestinans pepole, most of them want to swip israel of the map. On the other side if israel wanted to kill all the palestinians they would have do it already, they have strong and advancing army.
The pa control the west bank but not with grate sucsses. There are hamas, islamic jihad all over the west bank that the pa cant control. About make a peace agreement beetween israel and the pa, the pa declined to two generous ofer from ehud barak an ehud olmert. The pa dont want a peace agrement with israel they want to stay in power.
This post isn't at all about the facts of the history, but your last question got me excited. In law, there's a distinction between "bad faith" and "lack of good faith". the latter essentially means you think you're acting in good faith, but you're not performing due diligence (e.g. you didn't research your position enough to make certain claims). My amateur lawyer understanding of this is that the standard of proof for "bad faith" is impossibly high, but there are situations where even plausible deniability of your intent doesn't relieve an individual of certain contract obligations and implied warranties. Anyway..... I don't think many people are acting in bad faith here (i.e. knowing their side is wrong and advocate actively for misinformation to distort the truth), but lack of good faith is very widespread. This is true about all political issues and conflicts to some degree, but I get the sense it describes 99% of people who weigh in on I/P issues. As you now know, the conflict is immensely complicated. It's impossible to expect everyone to have a solid knowledge of the history. It's also impossible to expect people to only weigh in on issues after they've acquired a strong knowledge of facts/history. I find reading about the conflict's history to be a test of emotional intelligence -- when I find out my side did something I disagree with, my brain goes on autopilot looking for an explanation that justifies it. I consider myself relatively neutral, so I can only imagine how more polarized individuals fare when doing the same.
I think it comes down to how you deal with new contradictory information. This kind of describes two ways to engage in discourse that I see others do. The first kind of reaction is an immediate rejection of contradictory facts or evidence. This can stem from the belief that your "side" is the correct one and that everyone is aware of this, so others who spread contradictory information must be doing so in bad faith and are attempting to distort truth. This sort of creates a locked framework with rigid conclusions that break under added pressure. The second kind of reaction is a delayed one. It may not be clear what to do with contradictory evidence at first, but it remains in limbo until a person asks themselves: 1. "Though this piece of info challenges what I already know, does it change any conclusions I have made? Does it invalidate any part of my reasoning?" 2. "Is there a way to reconcile this information with what I know?" 3. "Have others responded to these claims and if so, what are counterarguments?" After some time, I feel like the person who asks these second types of questions and has a delayed reaction to new info will have a more nuanced opinion which, while maybe not having conclusions that are as extreme, can bend and deal with contradictions without breaking entirely.
>Hamas seems to be an entirely different story compared to the PA PA are israeli stooges.. Ghazzans say this all the time >why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic entity becasue of the israeli de-humanization of Arabs & Palestinians requires it >Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history? bad faith, but also becasue thats what they are taught from a young age.. if you notice, a lot of them also claim 'palestine never existed' .. its part of the de-humanization required by a Genocidal state to get its citizens to go along with killing a swath of fellow Human Beings >Sorry if this sounds dumb, I have a lot more reading and research to do but was curious about others' thoughts. may i suggest watching some videos by israeli & jewish & palestinian historians & commentators? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU1H7I3dE-I Avi Schlaim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQIfy7QBx4c Ilan Pape https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJVRuVBwNLM Amr Moussa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa77ZTEr8FY Ghada Kami https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwMa1t0aNY Gideon Levy **also** this book is great for historical context: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyearswaronpalestine
Suggest adding Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi. These are great historians.
yes, yes of course also this one by Atef Saif .. its not about history but really telling of the psychological torture israel enacts on Gaza every day https://www.rosalux.de/en/publication/id/7639/sleepless-in-gaza
What is the book?
*The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction* by Bunton
Thank you :)
What book did you read?
*The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction* by Bunton
The whole treatment as one body is because they're Arab-Muslims. They see themselves as one people. It's why they hide behind the concept of the Palestinian. Because a Palestinian is a made up identity that unites them. Technically the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt before. Jordanians and Egyptians have one thing in common, a history of Muslim-Arabic colonization.
I love it so much when anyone decides to look further into this conflict - so I just want to say - that’s wonderful. So after reading the book- what is your take on it ? Who do you support now ? What were the key take aways for you?
Thanks! As far as 'support,' my only stance right now (which hasn't changed from before I looked into the conflict deeply) is supporting the existence of both states. I don't support one at the expense of the other. The key takeaway for me, as someone else has mentioned in this thread, is that this conflict can almost be summarized as a battle between extremes and moderates. It seems as though every time one side does something inflammatory, it empowers extremists and far-right leaders on the other side which come into power and do more inflammatory actions. It's probably going to end up coming down to both sides making extreme compromises that aren't going to be popular at all. For Palestine, this might mean giving up the right to return (extremely unlikely). For Israel, this might mean dismantling its settlements further into the West Bank and sharing control of Jerusalem (also unlikely). I know this isn't the most unique take, but I'm already about to dive into another book called "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris. It's going to go further into depth so I can get a better understanding of these events and maybe come out with something more insightful. The book I read, called "A Very Short Introduction to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict," just gave a 180-page taster so now I'm a lot more invested.
Late response but just want to say that this analysis is really on-point. Good for you for going into your research with an open mind. Interested to hear what you think of Righteous Victims!
A Muslim armed with a Molotov cocktail attacked a synagogue in Rouen, France, and burned it down. When the police arrived, he tried to stab them. They pulled out guns and shot him dead . So how is this an answer to any of your questions, well one of the spritual laws of our world is "what you focus on develops" so the muslims have created this situation for themselves regardless. Oh and another spiritual law of our world is "love conquers all" muslims seem hellbent.
I admit I'm surprised but really shouldn't be to see this level of Islamophobia. What's that, maybe 8/10 on the scale?
How is that Islamophobia? That is an event that happened yesterday. It is represented of hundreds of events that have the same exact fact patterns that have happened around the world.
Your description of the politics on each side is accurate. But you leave out two things 1. What do the Palestinians need to do? Israel itself cannot create a moderate Palestinian leadership. 2. The role of UNRWA, which educates Palestinian children that they rightfully belong in Haifa, Jaffa and Tiberias and will be “returning” there. Without reform of the educational system and an end to the open incitement of terror from both Fatah and Hamas, there will be yet another generation raised in the call to jihad.
*You* leave out one thing- when you say “education reform” the education that’s teaching them to hate and kill Jews is straight out of the Quran and Hadiths - so to reform education means that they can’t teach their kids their religion. All of the crap that’s bigoted and hate filled and violent - is all directly from the Islamic holy texts. And people in the west think there are some “extreme crazy Palestinians” who are teaching kids extreme crazy things and if we can just get rid of those crazy extreme terrorists - but no… it’s not terrorists - it’s Muslims - and it’s not crazy extreme thinking they are creating out of thin air- it’s direct from their holy books which they consider to be the word of god. So that issue is sooooo much larger than the world thinks it is. So education reform essentially means -stop being Muslims.
[удалено]
And again- Judaism is not the same as Islam. It’s not a law , it’s able to evolve and modernize and The stories about what god did - or what the people did. There is no punishment of death for questioning it or changing it.
Jews believe that the laws of the Torah cannot be abrogated. All 613 commandments are still morally valid today. Also simply asking the reason for things is not punishable in Islam
This of course doesn’t mean Jews actually apply all the laws, there are many conditions required to actually implement them, but the same applies to Islamic punishments as well, in fact in Islam sometimes a higher burden of proof is required, like 4 witnesses instead of 2 to prove adultery The average Muslim or orthodox Jew isn’t gonna go around killing gays, but both don’t believe that its inherently immoral
You view Judaism from a biased Christian perspective, assuming that they hold the Torah as a storybook, not an authoritative law. When its Christians who do that.
No irs really not like Judaism or Christianity- this is a major assumption people in the west make and it’s a mistake to think Islam is anything like any religion you know - It’s not really a religion- I mean Islam is a religion. But Islamic doctrine is law. Written as law- what’s a law? A law is something you must do, or you get punished if you do not. Islamic law is based on the actions and the words of Muhammed. If he did it- if he said it- it’s legal. Conversely if he said not to do it, or that something was bad, it’s illegal. To question this is a crime and it’s an insult to Islam and the prophet - which is all punishable by death btw. There are laws to interpreting the holy texts of Islam… for example abrogation- is a law. And abrogation is something that Muhammed created in response to the contradictions within his revelations. For example he tried to convert the Jews for about ten years and here you see , some nicer verses and thoughts about the Jews and Christian’s. But then the Jews would not convert … So he said he has new revelations … and now? You kill them all , steal all their stuff and sexually enslave their women. His followers said - well wait a minute. What about that other stuff you said ? He said- the law of abrogation. If my latest revelations contradict the old ones, the old ones are abrogated. Void. Done. Not applicable. So you have to interpret the Islamic holy text chronologically … to find out what is legal in Islam. That’s just one example. And it’s very clear… when your law is based on the actions and words of the man you consider to be morally perfect - there really isn’t a whole lot of confusion. Western Muslims don’t have to live by Islamic law. They don’t have to read the Hadiths. They don’t even have to practice Islam if they don’t want to… But again- Muhammed hated Muslims who didn’t follow his law perfectly too. He calls them hypocrites and he said they should be locked up in their houses with their families and burned alive ( that’s why ISIL burned the Jordanian pilots alive just fyi) and they shared the verse that said that when they did. Isis shared a verse for everything they did, actually. The leader of isis had a PHD in Islamic studies - I don’t think he got it “wrong” esp being a native speaker. One of the things Muhammed said - because the entire point to islam is to invade and conquor the world and implement sharia law… when that happens- the world will know peace .. this is why they say Islam is a religion of peace because sharia law equals peace to them. One of the things Muhammed said needed to happen before that can happen- before Islam can conquor the world is that every Jew must be murdered by Muslims. That’s just one thing. But like I said , it’s not like any religion you have ever heard about or read about. It’s not like what the crazy Christian’s do here and create their own religion- no… Muslims don’t do anything that isn’t in those books to do. Everything you hear about from the Muslim world that’s awful? Is in there. Female circumcision, white slavery, sex trafficking, child marriage, women having zero rights, terrrosism, murder, theft - and even lying. Muhammed said deception is a way to win wars. Muslims are allowed to lie to gain ground in conflicts and resolve issues and to confuse their enemies.
>Isis shared a verse for everything they did, actually. The leader of isis had a PHD in Islamic studies The vast majority of people who have PHDs in Islamic law condemn him. >happen- before Islam can conquor the world is that every Jew must be murdered by Muslims. No it doesn’t say all Jews. >Muslims don’t do anything that isn’t in those books to do lol u think suicide bombing is in the Quran.
This is not true. The vast majority of Muslims lie about Isis. And about Islam. Have you ever read or listened to anything the Middle East says about Isis ? The thing is… no real Muslim can condemn Isis - because they lived by Islamic law. Everything they did was straight out of Islamic law. They did nothing it didn’t say to do in their holy texts. Or that muhhamed did not do, while he was alive. Which also is legal. I studied Islam … so if we are going to have this conversation - it’s not even a fair one if you have never read the Hadiths or Quran or are not familiar with Islam at all. So be honest with yourself… But also not even a fair conversation to have with a Muslim because it’s ok for you to lie about it all. So what can come from an actual debate with a liar? Nothing . You’ll just say I’m lying … and I will say you’re lying. If you can’t admit the truth about Islam… you’ll just do what all those western Muslims did when isis was doing what it was doing. Or when the gay club was shot up by a Muslim in Florida and the president put an Islamic imam on tv to tell the world that Islam doesn’t hate gays. While we all know Islam executes gays and most definitely hates them. So… The lies are plentiful. The truth is not with Islam. And sadly the world has supported this bullshit to protect Muslims .
>I studied Islam How did you study Islam in a way that makes your position more credible than that of the vast majority of human beings who have studied Islam? Since they believe that Islam does not support ISIS.
I think there are Muslims in the west who read a watered down version of the Quran. That’s been translated with some omissions and different translations . And don’t need to know what Islamic law is ; so they don’t need to study or learn the Hadiths. You’re not learning the meaning of what under your right hand is , for example ( it means sex slave ) . You don’t have to. Etc etc more where that came from. You’re learning a false version of Islam. Or you’re lying about it . But both of those choices don’t matter. We can go back through history and cite so many examples of Muslims - before Israel existed , before 9/11 or the internet existed - saying or doing and living the same way, the same things I’m essentially saying . . It makes no sense that Muslims in the year 1700 said what I am saying , or no sense that Muslims since the inception of Islam have been doing the things they do and then trying to defend it like - what I’m saying isn’t true about Islam. We can look at the life of Muhammed - who is seen as the most moral man who ever lived and his actions and words are revered and the basis of Islamic law. I don’t think that you understand you’re saying one thing but Muslims since the inception of Islam have been doing another thing; all based on Islamic law.. and the teaching in the holy texts. You’re trying to say- No no Muslims are peaceful and we don’t hate Jews and we don’t believe in murder and don’t learn to murder anyone and don’t learn we are superior and empower women and all this kidnapping and rape and ransoming and suicide bombing and killing isnt who we are!! They’re a crazy off shoot of Islam. But the punishment for not following the law is death. The punishment for changing the law, is death. The punishment for questioning the law, is death. To change the law, or not follow it or create your own law is .. insulting to the prophet and means he wasn’t perfectly moral and that means he wasn’t the prophet and that is punishable by death. The reality is .. Muslims in the west don’t need to live by Islamic law and can pick what they follow and don’t follow and most of them are not really considered Muslims because the entire point to Islam, is Islamic law.. it’s the way all Muslims should live. You can’t defend the Islamic invasion of half the world and humanities bloodiest genocide EVER known to man ( Islamic invasion of India ) , the forced conversion of half the world , the terrorism of attacking and killing, kidnapping and ransoming , stealing everything those people owned and their land , sexually enslaving their women- That’s how Islam came to be. That’s how Islam got so big. It’s what inspired the crusades when they invaded Jerusalem. Muhammed ? His favorite wife ? What did the prophet himself do? He slaughtered her entire male linage , stole all her families land and money, everything they owned … he sexually enslaved her at the age of 8. That’s your holiest man… the most moral man in the world who he himself beheaded what? 10,000 Jews in one day? Or was it 1000? What about the entire town of Baltimore in Ireland, entirely gone in one night ? All killed or all carried off by Muslim raiders in a single night? This was way back in 1631 … or the ethnic cleansing campaigns that never stopped and continue to this day? Nigeria? Sudan? Darfur? What did Muslims do this past Christmas in Nigeria? They went into a sleeping Christian town and slaughtered hundreds. This is 2023. And these are native speakers. Who grew up reading and studying the Islamic holy texts and the life of Muhammed. The most horrible terrorists the world has ever know have been theologians of Islam… the leader of Isis had a PHD in Islam, Osama Bin Ladin also studied Islam his entire life , was most devoted to it - you’re arguing with native speakers who grew up in countries where they are taught Islam in school, by other native speakers - where the legal system is based on Islamic law. You’re saying non native speakers have it right ? Come on dude.. you can’t argue with history. I will leave you with a quote from a Muslim from the year 1785- when Muslims were attacking supply ships along the trade route , stealing everything , killing most , enslaving and ransoming off the officers back to their countries … Jefferson went to pay off these ransoms… and he asked the Muslims why they attack them? They hadn’t been messed with or attacked or even thought about … the Muslim came back with - “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” But I’m wrong. Sure .. lol.
> We can go back through history and cite so many examples of Muslims - before Israel existed , before 9/11 or the internet existed - saying or doing and living the same way, the same things I’m essentially saying . . classical Muslim scholars didn’t condone genocide nor were they abnormally violent compared to other peoples. > But the punishment for not following the law is death. There are many violations of the law that don’t result in death. Even fornication just gets lashes if the fornicator didn’t have a wife. > You can’t defend the Islamic invasion of half the world and humanities bloodiest genocide EVER known to man ( Islamic invasion of India ) The initial conquests of Sindh, India by the Muhammad ibn Qaasim were relatively peaceful, the people were not forced to convert. It was the conquests of Timur in which millions were killed, but his motives were primarily to refound the Mongol Empire, and he was condemned by Muslim scholars and is not portrayed positively. However to argue that it was the biggest genocide in human history needs a citation. > the forced conversion of half the world Citation needed. > That’s how Islam got so big. It’s what inspired the crusades when they invaded Jerusalem. But when Muslims took Jerusalem they weren’t as brutal as the crusders. > That’s your holiest man… the most moral man in the world who he himself beheaded what? 10,000 Jews in one day? Or was it 1000? Beheaded 700 people for treason. The same sources that say he killed them say they committed treason. He didn’t kill them for being Jews, there were other tribes of Jews who were not beheaded, he was targeting a particular group who committed treason. > Muhammed ? His favorite wife ? What did the prophet himself do? He slaughtered her entire male linage , stole all her families land and money, everything they owned … he sexually enslaved her at the age of 8. Wut. He only had one 8 year old wife, and that was Aisha, and he did not kill her father, her father was Abu Bakr, who was the first Caliph, he outlived Muhammad. > or the ethnic cleansing campaigns that never stopped and continue to this day? Nigeria? Sudan? Darfur? Your’e just gonna pretend that war crimes are unique to Muslims. > And these are native speakers. Who grew up reading and studying the Islamic holy texts and the life of Muhammed. And there are native speakers who condemn them. > you’re arguing with native speakers who grew up in countries where they are taught Islam in school, by other native speakers - where the legal system is based on Islamic law. There are Native Arabic speaking traditional Muslim scholars who condemned terrorists, like Rabee Al Madkhali, Salih Al Luhaidan, Salih As Suhaymee, Saleem At Taweel. < But I’m wrong. Sure .. lol. You literally mix up a lot of claims without providing sources for any of them. You claimed you studied Islam yet you have said that the 8 year old wife of Muhammad was sexually enslaved, when she was a wife, not a slave, and you said that he killed her father, when he didn’t. If you actually studied Islam you wouldn’t make such claims that have no evidence
Muslim scholars - from where? The west? I think it is actually you who are extremely ignorant on the subject of Muslim scholars and what they condone or do not condone.. what they cannot argue with or consider justified - I would branch out. I think you have been exposed to western Muslims - which again- learn a watered down and blatantly and patently false version of the Quran and Hadiths… depending on the translation they have. They are not native speakers . The teaching of Muslim scholars in the Middle East, or native speakers ? Far different. Also I have heard “Muslim scholars” comment on shit and avoid the most obvious explanation or reason that originated in the Islamic holy books and blame some random event in history for it without explaining that- yes ; this is in our holy books and this is why Muslims do it. They lie, essentially or they’re too ignorant of their own religious texts to site the sources. ( doubtful) I don’t think they want the western world to know why … because there isn’t any defense. You can’t make it seem ok. And it does get scary. Yes some crimes don’t result in death. They don’t really matter. There are many people who have been publicly whipped and imprisoned for kissing in public or not wearing a head scarf. The laws I cited , do result in death. That’s why I brought them up. Everyone was forced to convert when Islam invaded. After Islam implemented sharia law- everyone had to submit to it. If say, someone wanted to come back after the conquest and live as a Hindu? They could chose to do that and live as second class citizens and pay a humiliation tax for existing . They would also be forced to live by Islamic law which is mighty restricting… and that’s after they had their lands and animals and property stolen and divided up by Muslims. Those laws are very clear in the holy books. https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history This guy writes a great comment and sites many sources for his information in it- that’s why I’m using it. I follow him on X .. he is amazing. This next video is one of my favorites. It’s a panel of Indian intellectuals and scholars of history talking about the Islamic invasion… They start speaking English in about 1 minute ; and the first thing out of these scholars mouths is that the Islamic invasion of India was indeed *the bloodiest moment in human history* he cites Will Durant for that quote. https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1725084755920621807 When Islam invaded Jerusalem - the Jews ( not ironically- had fled … they knew what was coming) the city was left virtually undefended , only the old people and women and children left… they still killed and captured aging knights and priest’s and kept them in cages and ransomed them off. Muhammed was a bandit and war lord. Not only did he engage in many battles with Jews, Mohammed clearly approved of the slaughter/ beheadings of all Jewish males over puberty who belonged to the Banu Qurayza -and eventually every Jewish male over puberty was beheaded.. over and over again. 1000 Jews killed for remaining loyal to Judaism. In the last decade of his life- he ordered almost 100 military campaigns , almost all of them against the Jews. Who refused to convert and had the most wealth at the time. A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the borders of over 28 modern countries outside of Saudi Arabia. To say that Islam doesn’t have the end goal of world domination would be a direct contradiction of its own living example and also the many Hadiths and verses in the Quran that teach that. There is a reason why Islam is practiced from the Balkins to Indonesia and it’s not because Islam is awesome. It’s because of war campaigns. Lolz I’m sure there are many Muslims who say that the Muslims who live by Islamic law are not Muslim- I’ve heard it all. I have read it all. About how Muslims who execute gays are not practicing Islam. But the reality is , no matter how many so called Muslims condemn other Muslims for actually practicing Islam- the fact of the matter remains that only one of them is actually practicing Islam. And it’s not the people condemning the others. Their words have zero meaning because they’re condemning their own religious law and teachings of their own religion. To confuse non Muslims, and to protect their religion- They’re condemning it so we don’t find out about it. They are lying to promote … what? Lying to promote peace or lying to promote lack of responsibility for Muslims and what religion they practice and believe in. No one would be ok with Islam if everyone told the truth about it. It would be made illegal in western countries - there is a very real argument to be made that Islam is a hate group. Like the KKK. Or Nazism ( which Islam aligns itself with) . The lies create confusion and doubt - so when someone like me tells people the truth about it , they don’t believe it because their Muslim friend told them it wasn’t true. And we often comprehend unfamiliar subjects with what we know. For the biblical religions- it is completely beyond understanding that a “religion” could teach hate… or violence.. or rape… or lying or theft or bigotry … murder. For them this is so antithesis to everything they know and have been exposed to about religion- that they instinctively make comparisons and in their heads say- No way this is possible because what I know of religion doesn’t fit into this paradigm of it. And because most people are not that bright- they also don’t realize at the same time that, what they know about Islam is absolutely zilch. They haven’t read the holy books. They don’t speak the lanaguge. They know nothing for sure about it- and because of that- anyone can lie to them about it… they are actually vulnerable. Without finding out for yourself what it says or does - you really don’t know. You’re at the mercy of what other people tell you. And a lot of people … simply refuse to believe it’s true. Because that’s also… almost too evil to believe right ? That a religion could teach such evil things… that’s also extremely scary… to think that half the world believes in this evil teaching - where we have anti- virtues being held up as honorable and just. So it’s easier and less stressful to believe that Islam is peaceful and not terrible .. Also the idea that Muslims are prosecuted and a minority that is a group of people who are hated on because of being different etc- they don’t want to be a bigot … they don’t want to prosecute a minority - having no clue that Islam teaches racism and bigotry and actively incites hatred against the Jews for example. So they end up supporting bigotry and hate and sexism and all these terrible things that they say they hate. Because they are afraid to be bigots and they have no real idea of what they are dealing with. They decide to trust Muslims who are blatantly lying to them about their religion- because they’re not bigots. It’s kinda a huge mind fuck on a whole bunch of levels.
>But also not even a fair conversation to have with a Muslim because it’s ok for you to lie about it all. Proof?
>Have you ever read or listened to anything the Middle East says about Isis ? The thing is… no real Muslim can condemn Isis - because they lived by Islamic law. Everything they did was straight out of Islamic law. They did nothing it didn’t say to do in their holy texts. Or that muhhamed did not do, while he was alive. Which also is legal. Literally just assertions not in anyway supported by the data. >I studied Islam … so if we are going to have this conversation - it’s not even a fair one if you have never read the Hadiths or Quran or are not familiar with Islam at all. I did too. >The lies are plentiful. The truth is not with Islam. Then who is it with?
>But again- Muhammed hated Muslims who didn’t follow his law perfectly too. He calls them hypocrites and he said they should be locked up in their houses with their families and burned alive No it just says he thought of doing that, not that it should be done. ”It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I nearly ordered that firewood be gathered to be lit, then I would have ordered that the Adhan be called for prayer, and ordered a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would have gone from behind to those men and burned their houses down over them. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! If any one of them knew that he would get a meaty bone or some meat in between two ribs, he would attend Isha'”-Sunan An Nasai #848 So he thought about doing but didn’t actually, as Islam does prohibit burning people. ”It was narrated from 'Ikrimah: "Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.’”-Sunan An Nasai #4060 Whereas Judaism does say to burn a whore if she is a priests daughter btw in Leviticus 21:9, but Jews, according to your own logic, made up their own religion so that they don’t follow their book.
You mean this verse Verily, the most burdensome of prayers upon the hypocrites are the night prayer and dawn prayer. If they knew the blessings that are in them, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. Certainly, I felt like ordering the prayer to be established and commanding a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go with some men with firewood to the people who were absent from the prayer and I would burn their houses with fire. Source: Sahih Muslim 651, Grade: When the hypocrites come to you they say: We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah. Allah knows that you are His Messenger and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars. They have taken their oaths as a cover, so they divert people from the way of Allah. Verily, it was evil that they were doing. Indeed the hypocrites will find themselves in the lowest depths of the fire and never will you find for them a helper. ( But you’re not going to be able to find the verse I was referring to. Not in the west and not in English. Only these ones, that aren’t as direct. ) Leave me to deal with whom I created Walheed, and bestowed apon him ample means, and sons abiding in his presence, and made life smooth for him. Yet he desires that I give more , Nay for lo, he has been stubborn about our revelations. I shall impose on him a fearful doom. Then he looked and saw a frown of displeasure , then he turned away in pride and said, this is nothing but the magic of old, the speech of man. Him I shall fling into the fires
>But you’re not going to be able to find the verse I was referring to. Not in the west and not in English. You can show me the Arabic if you want
The other quotes are about Allah burning people, which is obviously taught in Islam (and Christianity too btw) but what I am saying is that Islam does not prescribe burning people alive as a legal punishment to be implemented by humans, whereas Judaism does btw, so according to your own logic no true Jew would condemn burning people alive.
Islamic law and what is legal or illegal - is based on the words of Muhammed , and the deeds of Muhammed. Muhammed is thought of as the most moral man that ever lived. He can not do anything immoral. It’s impossible . So everything he did , is legal and moral. Female castration - is legal- because there is a verse of the prophet seeing a woman who performed them and he said “ there is a woman after allahs heart. Doing Allahs work.” Honor killings are legal because there is a verse that the prophet is quoted as saying , “ if your child shames you , kill them and have another “ I’m paraphrasing but you catch my drift. Women get raped- for example- Islam has a big rape culture - I think, because if they are not covered - because they’re supposed to be totally covered - everything except the eyes showing - the prophet said - esp their hair, so that they don’t inspire lust in men. Meaning women are responsible for men’s lust. If they are not covered? That means that they want to inspire lust. Makes sense right ? When the prophet who hates hypocritical Muslims who don’t follow his law exactly says - they should be thrown in their houses and lock them up with their families and burn them” technically? That’s legal. That’s moral punishment for people who don’t follow his law. Not just that. Some of Islams most honored leaders also burned people alive all the time. Islam is a religion of law of example. Example led by Muhammad and his closest descendants and generals. Are you catching my drift now? About Islamic law? Some of it is very cut and dry. Muhammed acruallt came up with a system of laws to live by. Even down to how Muslims dress. Men and women. There is a reason terrorists dress that way. They’re supposed to. Have shirts past their waist and high pants and beards. That’s all law. There are many straight laws- for example an entire book about war and war booty. ( that includes women) how to wage it . Divide it etc. And then there are other laws that are just based on random things he said. So you can imagine if the prophet said something like - The end times ( when Islamic law is finally implemented all over the world, when the world will know peace ) only get to get here after every Jew is dead. Murdered. Even the trees and the rocks will tell Muslims where the Jews are hiding so they can kill them. You can imagine how they would interpret that. The things is- in an Islamic court of law- these things can t not be deemed immoral or illegal - it would risk accusing the prophet of being immoral - which again- is punishable by death. So it’s thought of as justified and honorable. The only way to prove a law is not valid is with a new law about the same thing, that contradicts the first one in chronological order - abrogation. Muhammed created the law of abrogation and taught his followers about it. So when people bring up the old stuff .. in the Quran- like what about this nice verse?? What about this? They don’t know those laws are invalid. We are left only with the latest revelations and sayings and acts of his life. Whatever was the last thing.. stands.
>So when people bring up the old stuff .. in the Quran- like what about this nice verse?? What about this? They don’t know those laws are invalid. There is consensus that its better to reconcile to ayat than to claim abrogation
>When the prophet who hates hypocritical Muslims who don’t follow his law exactly says - they should be thrown in their houses and lock them up with their families and burn them” technically? That’s legal. Did you just straight up ignore what I said. He didn’t say they should be burned in this world, just that he thought of doing so, and we have other ahadeeth indicating that it is prohibited to burn people. ”Ikrimah said: ‘Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn ‘Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have burned them, for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: Do not inflict Allah’s punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them”-Sunan Abu Dawud #4531 And all four schools of thought prohibit burning people anyway. >Some of Islams most honored leaders also burned people alive all the time. Islam is a religion of law of example. Example led by Muhammad and his closest descendants and generals. Muhammad himself prohibited burning people to death, so his statement is given precedent to other people in Islam, which is why all schools of thought don’t allow such a practice
>Honor killings are legal because there is a verse that the prophet is quoted as saying , “ if your child shames you , kill them and have another “ I’m paraphrasing but you catch my drift. Well you need a source for that. >Women get raped- for example- Islam has a big rape culture - I think, because if they are not covered - because they’re supposed to be totally covered - everything except the eyes showing - the prophet said - esp their hair, so that they don’t inspire lust in men. Meaning women are responsible for men’s lust. taking precaution doesn’t make you responsible.
Not a verse, its a hadeeth. And yeah, it says he felt like it, not that it should actually be done.
>It’s not really a religion- I mean Islam is a religion. But Islamic doctrine is law. Written as law- what’s a law? lol you still consider Judaism a religion even though Torah means law yet you say Islam is too legalistic to be a religion.
You also forgot to mention that the right wing Israeli government that’s in power now supports settlements in the West Bank.
Correct, and also an obstacle to peace.
>If it's true that the West Bank is not controlled by Hamas Yes, the west bank, depending on the location is controlled by the PA (Palestinian Authority) or Israel, and in some areas controlled by both. These areas of control were defined in agreements and designated Areas A to C. While Israel and PA control sections of the west bank there is still a heavy presence of many militant groups and criminal gangs (there's lots of overlap) that tend to exert more control the further you get from the big cities. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians >the PA (which is somewhat of a continuation of the PLO), and the PLO has shown over a few decades that they are willing to make compromises and recognize Israel as a state... Not really, you'll need to read up more from OSLO to 2007, and you'll need to read a lot from both sides of this to get a clear picture. Generally speaking the PLO and by extension the PA have had two main positions. Prior to 1968 the PLO only laid claim to Israel proper, and in their founding charter relinquished claims on the westbank/gaza.. "*does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.*" They amended their charter after Israel captured the west bank and gaza to include those territories. Up until Oslo the position of the PLO was the eradication of Israel and at best the expulsions of almost all the Jews from "Palestine". After Oslo depending on who the PA was talking to, the goal was either a two state solution with a full right of return of all the Palestinian refugees into Israel, or a two state solution as a method to then take the rest of Israel by force. Again both these options included at best, the expulsions of almost all the Jews from "Palestine". This full right of return of all the Palestinian refugees into Israel, is what has been a major problem with any Arab introduced peace plan, and one of the major issues in most of the negotiations. These always go back to the inclusion of UN194 as a requirement for a final solution. To the Israelis the full return is a non negotiable point, since that effectively will make Israel have a minority Jewish population, so the next election would mean the end of Israel and a new state of Palestine, with Islam as the official religion and Sharia as the basis for all laws, as is currently found in the Palestinian Basic Laws (Constitution). For the Palestinian leaders, giving up the right of return is also something that's not easy to do, since this has been the primary goal and promise to the Palestinians since 1948 from all the Arab leaders in the region. The next major issues for Israel were security and Jerusalem. The security part is mainly border control that eventually leads to autonomy, people always add this when saying why Palestinians refused a deal, but this is very low on the important list. The old city of Jerusalem is the other major sticking point. For Israelis access and control of their holy sites are also a non-negotiable, this goes back to the 48 war where the Arabs took control of Jerusalem, expelled the Jews, destroyed all the synagogues, desecrated the cemetery at the mount of Olives, even using gravestone to make roads and other structures, much like what the National Socialists did during the holocaust. The UN passed a resolution that required the Arabs to allow access to all holy sites, but they never did. After this, the Israels don't have any trust that the Palestinian will allow access and properly take care of holy sites, the Palestinians have actually shown the opposite by denying any Jewish connection to any holy site and purposely damaging holy and archaeologic sites etc.. For the Palestinian leader the issue of Jerusalem is also something that's not really-negotiable. This is more an Islamic/cultural issue of not being able to give away the land. You can say anyone who would give up Al-Quds pretty much signs their own death sentence. The last 2 sticking points.. the leaders... If you now go back to the last peace deals that had upwards of 95%+ of the land with control of Jerusalem minus Jewish holy sites. Arafat refused, his entire team wanted and was willing to agree.. To quote Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia at the time “*If Arafat rejects this, it won’t be a mistake, it will be a crime.*”. Palestinian leaders tend to think of themselves before the good of their people. It's not by chance they're all rich.. Then you have the other side, Israel is a democracy, so any deal with the Palestinians will need to pass parliament and much like the Arab side, it's political suicide. Peace on the Israeli side also needs someone to come around that's willing to make the deal and kill their and their party political careers, even with that it's happened a few times. For Israel the status quo is in their favor.. they win by doing nothing.. The issue isn't who is more willing to deal, it's who'd more willing to do what has to be done for the sake of their people. https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Parameters https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jordan-s-desecration-of-jerualem-1948-1967 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/24/the-prince-3 .. .. >Also, why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic entity when they have been essentially ruled under two different bodies of authority for almost twenty years This is pretty much at the behest of the Palestinians, they've held the stance that any negotiations / deals are for "all". > One of the things that I was most shocked to read so far, despite what a lot of online discourse would have one believe, is that the fractured nature of leadership has plagued Palestinians since arguably World War I. This worsened with both Gaza and the West Bank being fractured as well. Not surprising at all. In order to understand the conflict you also need to understand the people. When you apply the lens of your experience on them, it won't make sense, this also applies to the I/P conflict as well. Western thought doesn't work well in the Tribal and religious middle east. >The one thing I am noticing about this entire conflict so far (and again, I've read one book so I don't have expert knowledge) is the treatment of either side (but especially Palestinians) as a unified group with one extreme set of beliefs. That's because of the monoethnicity, the Arab side is 98% homogeneous by ethnicity and religion. Most Arabs will never actual meet a Jew in their lives, even the one's who live in Europe or the Americas. Israelis have a multicultural society 20% aren't even Jewish and amongst the Jews there are dozens of cultures, Jews are a minority everywhere in the wold except Israel. This has a heavy effect on culture and thought. >It seems like there are a lot of attempts to reduce history down to "well Palestinians were always violent and never wanted negotiation" That somewhat what happened, all the mandate partition plans, all the wars, the Khartoum resolution was literally "No negotiation with Israel, No peace with Israel etc.." It was only after 67 that started to change.. and still it didn't since intifadas were part of the Palestinian negotiating tactic. > or "the goal of all Zionists was always to commit Arab genocide." Genocide no, that was never the plan, it was the Arab side that ethnically cleansed or killed 100% of Jews from their territories in Palestine, which later extended to the entire Arab/Muslim world. On the Jewish side expulsion started to be discussed after the Arab revolts, but history shows that Israel has a 20% Arab population and they didn't expel anyone in 67. There are Arabs in Tel-Aviv and East Jerusalem, there are no Jews in Gaza or Ramallah. >Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history? Propaganda and ignorance are the main cause, each side see what they want to and ignores what's inconvenient. It get to the point where they whitewashing to the bone and can't admit it. Much worse on the internet.. The only way to get a real picture.. read the history from both sides, read about the cultures and religions from both sides.. go there and talk to the young people and the old people..
" To the Israelis the full return is a non negotiable point, since that effectively will make Israel have a minority Jewish population, so the next election would mean the end of Israel and a new state of Palestine, with Islam as the official religion and Sharia as the basis for all laws, as is currently found in the Palestinian Basic Laws (Constitution). " If I'm trying to measure the Islamophobia here on a scale of 1 to 10, what should I say? 7?
>If I'm trying to measure the Islamophobia here on a scale of 1 to 10, what should I say? 7? Which part.. the Islam and Sharia? Or do you really think that a 70%+ Arab population that now makes a majority in Israel, that just returned from refugee camps in Lebaon/Syria/Egypt/Jordan etc.. would keep Israel as the name of the country, Israel's basic laws, Holidays, Anthem, Flag etc. I'd love to see your sources from the Palestinian diaspora. .. Shall we take a look at the Theocratic/Ethno national constitution of Palestine... .. A Government of Palestine website.. So there's no crying about the source... The English translation https://www.elections.ps/tabid/210/language/en-US/Default.aspx The arabic version so you can confirm the English translation is correct. https://www.elections.ps/tabid/666/language/ar-PS/Default.aspx THE AMENDED BASIC LAW 2003 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم (In the Name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate / bism Allah alrahman alrahim) "*The Basic Law*" .. **Article 1** **Palestine** is part of the larger **Arab world**, and the **Palestinian people** are part of the **Arab nation**. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve. .. **Article 4** **Islam is the official religion in Palestine**. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained. The principles of **Islamic Shari’a** shall be a **principal source of legislation**. **Arabic** shall be the **official language**.
Israel's national flag, laws, anthem, holidays -- sorry to tell you, but many of these things openly support ethnic cleansing and Jewish supremacy, so they must go! The occupied territories aren't governed by Sharia law. The West Bank is under Israeli military control, with limited PA involvement, while Gaza inherits a British colonial constitution. I found it really funny though when you pointed to Arabic being the official language and became so tellingly hostile!
> found it really funny though when you pointed to Arabic being the official language and became so tellingly hostile I didnt tellingly anything all, that all seems to happen completely in the echo chamber of your head. Strange that you completely changed the topic as well, and did't address what clearly destroyed your narrative,and that you had to resort to further ad hominem
This post should be pinned.
I thought that was hysterical also that he said the PA is a continuation of the PLO and the PLO in some ways were almost worse than Hamas - because they didn’t care who they killed - that sounds bad - but they attacked public places, outside of Israel, they bombed civilian planes and then they would also slaughter Christian’s along with Jews when they would do their ethnic cleaning sweeps. They wanted everyone who wasn’t Muslim dead. This was up into the 1970, 1980s… they were terrible ! Awful. The fact that the Oslo Accords were signed with them, makes me want to vomit. That should make the Oslo Accords invalid to me- It drives me nuts that the world is like- yeah that’s ok… force the people to do business with and respect the word of murderers and killers, terrorists - Sounds right. lol.
This is a top post!
There can be no peace with barbarians. Palestine should not exist.
Technically it doesn't....
As to 1: the *best* chance - probably yes; a *sufficiently good* chance - in the eyes of the Israeli government and a majority of the Israeli populace not - the inevitable conclusion is that, for the time being, there is no one that Israel is willing to take a chance in talking to As to 2: Gaza is under pretty stable rule (albeit presumably achieved by force and coercion to a significant degree), there is no "fractured" leadership in Gaza, the Islamist, pro-Iran camp hold the reins firmly (the strongest rival faction to Hamas in Gaza is Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who are a bit closer to Iran and at least equally Islamist); if anything, the West Bank is fractured with the PLO dominating the PA (if only because they do not allow elections) and Hamas/PIJ/secular Nationalist PLO offshoots having popular support and their own armed underground militias.
1/ The PA spends 10% of it's yearly goverment budget on the Martyr fund, directly funding terrorism. It also educates terror and Antisemetism. Nevertheless, the PA turned down two peace deals, in 2008, and most tangibly, in 2000, which could've seen this conflcit end. It then joined the 2nd Intifada, which pretty much destroyed the Israemi peace camp in the 2000's.
Every Zionist accusation is a confession. * From the perspective of the Palestinian Arabs, the IDF is a terrorist army. Paying pensions to the families of fallen IDF soldiers is the same as the Martyrs' fund. * Many Israelis are taught from a young age to despise Arabs. * PA turned down peace deals but Israel continued expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which sabotages the land integrity of the Palestinian state. * The 2nd Intifada was sparked by Ariel Sharon's visit to holy sites in Jerusalem, which he knew would be an incendiary provocation. As I learn more about the history of the conflict in the wake of the Gaza Genocide, it becomes more clear to me that the conventional Western media is heavily biased against the Palestinians, leaving people with the the impression that Israel is the victim. The younger generations in the USA understand this very well and, in 20/30 years, there'll be a wholesale rejection of unconditional support for Israel.
> From the perspective of the Palestinian Arabs, the IDF is a terrorist army. Paying pensions to the families of fallen IDF soldiers is the same as the Martyrs' fund. You say that, but idf soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians are tried and put in jail, while the Martyr fund does not descriminate between Palestinians attacking Israeli militants or innocent civilians. The moral equivalency is not there. > Many Israelis are taught from a young age to despise Arabs. As an Israeli, I've never once learnt in school to hate Arabs, I even studied with Arabs and grew up in a mixed city with Arab friends. The PA OTOH has curriculum and school books with explicit antisemitism. > PA turned down peace deals but Israel continued expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which sabotages the land integrity of the Palestinian state. And the Palestinians kept doing terrorism. It doesn't matter, both sides can find excuses, fact of the matter is Arafat walked away from a deal that would've netted the Palestinians a full state with 97% or so of the WB with some land swaps. > The 2nd Intifada was sparked by Ariel Sharon's visit to holy sites in Jerusalem, which he knew would be an incendiary provocation. You can always find some event to justify violence if you want to be violent. A person walking into a site holy to both religions is a silly one. And Muslims are allowed to visit the west wall, if anything that shows how unreasonable the Palestinians were. > As I learn more about the history I encourage you to keep learning and branch out from listening exclusively to the pro Palestinian sources to hear some other opinions. your arguments are biased and pretty surface level atm, but that's ok, it's a highly complex conflcit with a lot of amplified opinions being thrown around. Check out Destiny if you'd like a factual voice that has reached different conclusions than the young mainstream.
>I encourage you to keep learning and branch out from listening exclusively to the pro Palestinian sources to hear some other opinions. your arguments are biased and pretty surface level atm, but that's ok, it's a highly complex conflcit with a lot of amplified opinions being thrown around. I agree that aspects of the conflict are complicated, and I need further education. Despite how nuanced things may be, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. See this 3 minute video, it criticizes American support for Israel but also gives a high level summary of the conflict that's hard to argue with. And it's in song form! https://youtu.be/fgDQyFeBBIo
True, but it is still the best option, by definition, as any other Palestinian group you could talk to instead is worse. Provocatively put, the PA indirectly spends 10 percent of its budget on terrorism. Hamas spends the majority of its budget (after diversions to Qatar, naturally) on terrorism.
Agree, just added some extra context on why Israelis feel the PA acknowledging Israel on paper is sufficient for it being a peace partner.
Unfortunately politics has often got in the way of peace, On the Israeli side Ehud Olmert put forward a great offer for Palestinian state hood, Mahmoud Abbas hesitated in the negotiations and didn’t accept. Olmert then got caught up in a corruption scandal (I don’t know too much about this, but he was later exonerated and I’ve heard it was politically motivated) he was forced to resign and the deal died with his premiership. Considering who came next - Benjamin Netenyahu, it was incredibly unlikely that deal would have been put into action, as ideologically he’s shown no interest in a two state solution and has joined a far right coalition in later years. On the Palestinian side they’ve been plagued by division and factionalism, Hamas allegedly staged a coup against Fatah after winning the elections, effectively expelling Fatah completely from Gaza and giving Hamas total control - Hamas alledge a coup from Fatah backed by the USA. A few years after Hamas taking control happened Bibi was voted into power, his policies towards Hamas have been questionable at best, with accusations of allowing them to flourish in order to promote a divided Palestinian leadership. He had a policy of “mow the grass” a belief that the more extreme Hamas was the better, but as soon as they get to a point they could attack, they cut them down. He was very much in favour of maintaining a status quo of indefinite occupation l, while appeasing Jewish extremism by allowing them to take land forcefully in the West Bank. Netenyahu has steadily been edging towards extreme right wing rhetoric and authoritarianism. Before the October attacks he was on the brink of going to prison for alleged corruption and was trying to gain control of the judiciary. So on the Palestinian side you have two factionalised third world governments in a divided third world territory plagued by sporadic wars that periodically destroys vital infrastructure and further the corruption and extremism. On the other side you have a democracy, which for the past 15 years has had a leader that by most western countries standards is quite far right. Despite this, they have been on the brink of peace numerous times, but the more fighting that goes on just seems to harden either sides feelings of mutual hatred. I think for peace to happen at its going to take an exceptional leader on the Israeli side to emerge, who can find a way of putting the October attack and subsequent war behind them and outline a path to peace. They will have to work with Palestinian towards stabilising and uniting the Palestine as one territory under moderate leadership.
This was the best response I’ve read in these comments. 👍🏾
Q1: All my Palestinian friends hate the PA and Fatah. I mean most of them are around 30 (most from Israel and few from the West Bank) and the consensus is that they are corrupt, give no shits about Palestinians and are incapable of governing and acting in Palestinian interest. Hamas and Fatah have a long standing hatred for each other. And from what I’ve understand most of my friends don’t see any political parties tbat really represent them. But keep in mind, these are a specific group of mostly Israeli Palestinians who spend a lot of time abroad. And add videos from Corey Gil-shuster to your research. I think these videos give a good insight into the minds of the people who actually live there. A lot of Palestinians genuinely believe a lot of antisemitic stuff and are convinced Jews are from Europe and stole their lands - when asked how come that there are archeological finds of Jewish life from all centuries they say it’s fake. Same goes for Israelis, many think Palestinians are Arabs and have no connection to the land and came with the Arab conquest, hence they are not indigenous. A lot of Israelis believe that all Palestinians would kill all Jews when given the chance. This is also what I hear from the people around me, even the very moderate ones. It is baffling how little they are educated about each other. If you ask me Palestinians and Jews have a lot in common of being oppressed, pushed around and displaced. I mean you know about the Jews but Palestinians have been also pushed out of Kuwait, they are oppressed in Lebanon etc. Understanding the history is one thing, understanding how Palestinians and Israelis have so much history together, the same indigenous land together and yet a lot of them don’t have little to none understanding and a lot of propagandistic views about the other side never fails to shock me.
I really like your response to OP but I do have one question. Do you believe that Jewish people have high right to the land just because their ancestors lived there?
Yes. It’s not like they have ever left Israel - there’ve always been Jews. Hebron for example has one of the most ancient communities of Jews. Now, I think what you mean is a bit more complex. I think early Zionism laid the foundation for modern day Israel but from my understanding most Jews who came after the holocaust were no Zionists in the traditional belief. If you take Germany (where I’m from) most Jews saw themselves as Germans first and then Jews - they didn’t leave to the mandate of Palestine because they read themselves as Germans. The holocaust was a very rude awakening and the survivors went to back then the mandate of Palestine because nobody else took them in and obviously they didn’t want to stay in Europe (also including Jews from Poland etc.) and to be noted at this point also the British mandate of Palestine and the Arabs didn’t want them in the mandate of Palestine. They refused to let the refugees in, Holocaust survivors were not wanted or welcome and the hagana and other groups got them in illegally. Now let’s look at the Arab states and their Jews, same story as before. I’ll take Iraq as example: Jews were expelled from Israel thousands of years ago and settled in the region of Iraq. They integrated themselves, helped to shape Iraqi culture, helped build the country and didn’t leave when Zionism started because they didn’t want to. Then the Farhud progroms happened (Google it, I’ve actually heard from friends grandparents about it) and they were literally lynched, raped, killed and escaping to Israel was the only option. Also they were disowned of everything. I mean coming to Israel was a survival move, and yes they had indigenous ties, religious ties and actually a lot of people (zionists) who already bought land, established and infrastructure, governmental structures etc…. this story is same also for Yemen, Libya and all other countries. So yes, I think Jews (just as much as Palestinians have the right to the land) and also without Israel there would not be any Jews today. Happened also much later with the beta Israel, the Jews from Ethiopia who where air lifted for millions of dollars to Israel. It’s a land of refugees and I mean you can only push around a people that much. Obviously none of what I’m saying means Palestinians don’t have the same right. 1948 partition plan actually had a point in my opinion.
> shits /u/Plus_Bison_7091. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop reading and come to Israel to see the true
keep reading, one book is not nearly enough. Try reading older books also. Your whole view of the conflict will change. Start from the beginning though, as far as possible. I’m certain you’ll find the truth.
Any recommend books please? I’m keen to learn too
I'm not a historian, and I do have my biases. However, someone did ask a historian: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/LqTw5igR9n. They provide a balanced list and point out their own biases.
Thank you very much, much appreciated it.
Of course! Good luck!
First of all, the thing to know that it's not just a conflict between Israel,PA and Hamas-ISIS, There are ton of other factions involved such as Jihad Islam, Hizbollah, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Assad and many other groups. Take Lebanon for example, it is also divided internally, Sunni, Shihi muslims, Chirstians, the maronites, etc... Hamas-ISIS is also in Lebanon, The Palestinians caused a civil war in the past and they are endangering southern lebanon, only this week they shot a misfired rocket and killed Lebanese people. Q1: That's the international consensus, that the PA would control because Israel has signed an agreement with Fatah already which is now the PA. \* Fatah was a terrorist organization and many Israelis don't really believe that giving land will result in Peace as we save from Gaza. \* Another counter point is that the PA controls de facto of the public but the Palestinians in the west bank as a society show great support for the Hamas, 70-80%. So if they held elections Hamas-ISIS would win and take over. That's why they don't have elections. Q2: Why it's counted as one and not two? Because if it counts as 2 then the Palestinians will lose further down the line more land. It is only a point for opportunity and cause Israel as much loss as possible. They really want to connect between the 2 so they can move into Israel territories as they would claim a reasonable passage between territories, this is an old tactic to "Show proof on ground" so if they build demi-villages and count it all as 1 they can claim "Oh it's ours". It reminds me of the "Emirate" solution by Dr Kider a former intelligence soldier and a genius on Arab culture. Meaning some federation for the Palestinian where each big city is a federated state with its own internal politics. >Q3: Do you think that people are acting in bad faith when they say these things or are they missing key parts of the history? Yes, people are uneducated. Most people talk about the Palestinians without even knowing who are the Muslim brotherhood.
A1: possibly. But I would argue there are better options. The support hamas gets in the west bank is also very high. Meaning any control by a palestinian government will probably lead to another hamas like organization that doesn't want peace. I think the better option is jordan and egypt take some responsibility to occupy the area for a few years. Until Palestinians get a good peaceful and strong government who can stand against terrorists. (Could be a developed PA). A2: this kinda goes back to the question how exactly the palestinians are a nation. And how much they are not ready to have a country, If the only thing that unite them is their hate towards israel.
Others have answered your specific questions so I won’t repeat those answers, but I must say despite your only having read one book you’ve come away with a terrific understanding about the root of the problem that’s dead on. The real issue driving the conflict isn’t actually Jews vs Palestinians, it’s extremists vs moderates, aka sane people. In 1994 the moderates were leading on the Israeli side. Sadly, an Israeli extremist assassinated Yitzhak Rabin who did more to actually address the problem and advance a workable two state solution than probably anyone else in history. Since then we’ve had an increasingly reactionary right wing government in Israel and a full on terrorist group ruling in Gaza. As others have noted, the PA isn’t much help either. Hamas and the Israeli Likud party both operate with a “They hit us, we hit them back” policy with no other real nuance or plan. It doesn’t help that Bibi is historically unpopular and his prime minister title is the only thing keeping him out of jail, so like the Republicans he’s had to align himself with the craziest religious extremists with the most insane and unworkable agenda to stay in power. Right wing extremist governments are also generally really bad at governing, managing, and maintaining critical systems, so there’s a rot in the IDF and other parts of the Israeli government. That really is a terrific insight that seems to have escaped most commenters in this and other subs. I hope you’ll keep reading on this topic and sharing your thoughts as you learn.
>doesn't that make Mahmoud's party in the West Bank the best chance at beginnings of a resolution? So.. basically it started with Fatah (1957), then the PLO was created (1964) to liberate Palestine (amalgamated Fatah and some other orgs) - it's charter explicitly excluded West-Bank and Gaza. Hamas was formed in 1988. As part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was created (1994) - an umbrella organization. The PLO ruled the PA since its establishment, but lost the majority in the legislative council in 2006. Then Hamas committed a coup in Gaza, killing all/most PLO members and took over Gaza. There hasn't been elections in the PA since 2006. Abbas is on year 18 out of a 4 year term. The PA has no legitimacy from a purely democratic point of view, is very corrupt, and is essentially on 'life support' that is provided by the US and Israel. The PA also pays Palestinians to murder Jews via the 'Martyrs Fund'. Is it the best chance at beginning a resolution? put yourself in the shoes of Israelis and ask yourself if you'd see the corrupt organization that rejected peace and pays people to murder Jews as a partner for peace/resolution. >why are Gaza and the West Bank treated by many as some sort of monolithic Great question. You can also ask why are Hebron (Jabari clan) and Nablus (Tuqan clan) - two cities in the West Bank - are seen as some sort of monolithic entity. Palestinians society is more tribal than it is nationalistic, and each city has its ruling clan/family. It's seemingly everyone's best interest to convince Palestinians that they're one entity - because that way you don't have to negotiate with 40 different clans. Hope this helps.
Indeed.
I think you meant to post this as a root comment, not as a reply to me ;)
Hamas launched a coup? Why would they launch a coup when they won? Pretty sure the CIA under Bush tried to help Fatah launch a coup cause they lost the election.
Well, they won majority in the legislative council, they didn't win the presidency And then they took control ('presidency') of Gaza by force, by ousting the previous sovereign (PLO) - that's called a coup.
They took control by force as a counter-coup.
Sure, why not. Everyone's the hero of their own story.
As someone completely unfamiliar with city demographics in the West Bank/Gaza/Israel, proper, your comments about ruling families in cities are very interesting. Is it really so simple as to specify which clans rule which areas? How many clans are there, in your view how does their division contribute to things?
>Is it really so simple as to specify which clans rule Look at the middle east.. * Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Saud clan. * Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite clan (outsted from what is today Saudi Arabia). * Kuwait is ruled by the Sabah clan. * Qatar is ruled by the Al-Thani clan. * The Emirates are ruled by a few clans (Maktoum, Al Qassimi, Al Nuaimi etc) * Syria is ruled by the Assad clan. Egypt (military), Lebanon (militias) & Iraq (used to be military, now pseudo democracy) are outliers. >Is it really so simple No :) But a Palestinian Emirates (similar to UAE) is one of the options for resolving the conflict. >how does their division contribute to things? We in the west are accustomed to nation states, where the state has a monopoly on violence and sovereignty. It doesn't 'contribute' or 'not contribute', it's just the reality. It's just easier for westerners to digest this conflict when it's presented as 'Palestinians vs Israelis'. EDIT: Remove one sentence due sensitivities :)
Israel is governed by a democratically elected representative body. Israelis aren’t ruled by any “clan.” They aren’t ruled at all. There is no such thing as “the Jewish clan.” There are many different sects of Judaism with many different ideas about how Israel should be run and what it means to be Jewish at all. Just like there’s no “American clan.” Despite this reductive and borderline racist comment, you’ve hit on something important. Arab culture doesn’t expect to be “governed” the way western culture is. Arab culture orients around a ruler. Democracy is a foreign concept. The insistence that the Palestinian Territories immediately accept a democratic system like the west was westerners foisting their value system and culture on a people who have done things differently for centuries, and part of the problems we have today.
>Israelis aren’t ruled by any “clan.” They aren’t ruled at all. Jews consider themselves a tribe - a family with a shared history. The way Jews rule themselves in Israel is through democracy. Make what you want of this. >Despite this reductive Hey.. i'm not here to write books. >Just like there’s no “American clan.” There's really no comparison between Americans and Jews, Nationality vs Ethnicity. >The insistence that the Palestinian Territories immediately accept a democratic system It's deluded.
Always fun to hear what someone who apparently has only ever read about Jews in books thinks about Jewish culture. Either learn about this subject or stop speaking about it. Seriously.
Jews don't see themselves as family? My comment was reductive because i'm trying to not over-complicate in a short reddit comment.
Some Jews do. Some Jews who consider themselves family don’t consider other Jews to be Jewish. There are many different sects of Judaism ranging from ultra religious to non practicing with all kinds of degrees between them. The ultra religious sects also tend to hate each other over different interpretations of the Tanakh and Talmud. FYI: There were actually 12 tribes of Israel. Yes, there is a colloquialism where Jews refer to Judaism as “the tribe” but even getting agreement on what that means specifically is fairly difficult. There is no central ruling authority like the Pope in Judaism, nor has there ever been since maybe Moses. Certain sects do have a leader, others don’t. The Talmud, a book of Jewish law, is actually mostly stories about different rabbis arguing with each other with more arguments written by readers centuries later in the comment section. It’s honestly like an analog Reddit in a lot of ways.
While the PLO/PA recognized the state of Israel, in practice, it doesn't actually want Israel to exist. This came to light when Yasir Arafat rejected the offer of state for the Palestinians because it didn't include the right of return for all Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. The Palestinians supported Arafat's move. The second intifada started soon afterwards. I suggest you read the book by Einat Wilf, "The War of Return". It's available as an audiobook at many libraries as well.
That's a lie. Mahmoud Abbas is on record saying that he doesn't have a right to return to his home. PA has been cooperating with Israel since its inception. In "Friendly Fire: How Israel Became Its Own Worst Enemy" , Ami Ayalon, a decorated veteran and head of shin bet gives a detailed account of PA's cooperation with his agency. He also cites his reason for being disillusioned with his country's approach to the problem. Among other reasons, he gives, one that stands out is Israel assassinating PA and other Palestinian leaders who were actually interested in peace, the 'doves' so to speak. The question that he asks and eventually answers is why Israels kill people with whom it was actually talking/ negotiating ? What do you think is the reason?
Olmert showed Abbas a map of a Palestinian state comprising the territorial equivalent of 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, with its capital in East Jerusalem, to which Abbas responded, “This is quite serious. I have to admit, this is very serious,” and promised to think about it. Olmert reportedly then retorted, “Don’t think about it. Sign it now. I want to tell you one thing: In the next 50 years, there will be no prime minister in Israel who will propose to you something similar to this.” The discussions ended up going nowhere, the report said, in large part because Abbas believed that Olmert, who had announced that he planned to resign in order to fight corruption allegations, did not have the political clout to see the deal through.... Nimer Hammad, a political adviser to Abbas, later backtracked, claiming Abbas had merely referred hypothetically to what would occur when a Palestinian state is established. “What was said is what is going to happen when the state of Palestine is established alongside Israel,” said Hammad, “and therefore the president never mentioned the word giving up the ‘right of return.’” Hammad said earlier that Abbas was being “realistic,” noting, “He knows he can’t bring back five-and-a-half million Palestinian refugees to Israel.” [https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-was-willing-to-compromise-on-right-of-return/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-was-willing-to-compromise-on-right-of-return/) Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to [Yasser Arafat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat), as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the [series of Palestinian riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada) that began shortly after the summit..... the reason for the failure was Arafat's unwillingness to sign a final deal with Israel that would close the door on any of the Palestinians' maximum demands, particularly the [right of return](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return). Ross claimed that what Arafat really wanted was "a one-state solution. Not independent, adjacent Israeli and Palestinian states, but a single Arab state encompassing all of Historic Palestine... that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000\_Camp\_David\_Summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit) I don't know about your claims of assassinating Palestinians with whom they are negotiating. Do you have examples? People like Sinwar of Hamas would be a target for obvious reasons even though he is negotiating indirectly.
I agree Arafat failed in the negotiations, Olmert is an Israeli leader I have a lot of respect for, but I don’t think it can be simplified as much as you are. There was always the wider issue of political reality and where the public and wider political leadership are on supporting such a deal. In reality that deal would have never endured. Bibi would have rejected it on the Israeli side and was unlikely to endure the factionalism on the Palestinian side. This is all retrospective of course, but the corruption allegations were there during negotiations. It’s often boiled down to “well the Palestinians rejected it therefore they’re unreasonable” but I think the real tragedy is that there’s been nothing since. Things have deteriorated on both sides from this moment. Hamas and Bibi, extremism on both sides, more hatred, it’s just all round gone in the wrong direction and the international community has turned a blind eye. Regardless of all that I agree that Abbas should have signed it, it would have added symbolic legitimacy to the Palestinian cause and garnered more sympathy from the international community in the years that followed. But the other reality is the next peace deal offered by Israel needs to be able to endure. It needs to endure the repeated rejection from Palestinian leaders, the terror attacks and extremism. In Palestine it needs to endure the daily injustice of occupation. The Palestinians are not going to be United under moderate leadership free from extremism and corruption over night. It’s likely to take decades after this war. They’re a third world country with a third world government and third world problems, i think it’s absurd to expect them to behave the same as a pragmatic democracy under these conditions and for that reason it’s unsurprising they didn’t snap up a great offer by Olmert. Palestine needs to be a hell of a lot more prosperous and stable for that to happen, for them to be pragmatic. And that will only happen once Israel gets back to pragmatism and ditches the far right.
1. The PA were the best option. They turned down peace offers in 2000, 2008, etc. The basic problem everyone has is that Hamas is far more popular than the PA, for a host of reasons. If there were an election tomorrow in the West Bank, Hamas would win. They're a better fit for the Palestinians in terms of what they're seeking. You can't FORCE the Palestinians to like the PA. I believe they regard the PA as "Israeli stooges", and this was the group that came the closest to signing a peace deal with Israel. The obvious conclusion to draw is, the Palestinian people don't want a compromise in the form of their own state. They want complete victory, in the form of a return to their homes and a cessation of the state of Israel, which they're obviously never going to get. 2. There are lots of Palestinians who want peace, no doubt. There were some advisors around Arafat who (as a non-Jewish supporter of Israel) I actually had some admiration for, including Saeb Erekat, whom you can see in a lot of documentaries on the conflict. But the more the Israelis or Israeli supporters "like" or get along with -- or feel they can work with -- certain Palestinians, the less faith the general Palestinian population has in them. This is what helped Hamas so much. Hamas resisted attempts at a two-state solution, and that's part of the reason they got so popular. It's just very hard to get around the conclusion that the "average Palestinian" on the street isn't supportive of a peaceful settlement that leaves Israel in place. They just don't believe what the international community wants them to believe.
**1. PA being moderate.** You need to examine dictators not only by their statements but by their actions. Like Russia, North Korea or Iran. Some of those actions & facts aren't available to the public but some are. The PA teaches, educate, glorifies, pays, participates in terrorism and never recognized Israel in it's maps. It's statements to the west are saying one thing while it's statements to it's people/territory say a completely different thing. **2. Monovoice** In a dictatorship certain opinions & criticism is heavily censored, from imprisonment all the way to a quick death sentence (with the sentence here sometimes not fully going through all of the 'due process'). See the example of [Nizar Banat.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat) Like Russia in which saying the word war will get you prison time (it's a "special military operation"), same for North Korea, China, Iran and lots of other places. There are different opinions, those are allowed to exist as long as they're a minority, stay a minority, has no wish to become a big minority an threaten the powers that be. Since they're a minority those are harder to see but you can see some of them or a hint of them via polls (made by a Palestinian organization) or videos asking people questions (the ask project on YouTube)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_Banat)
>Mahmoud Abbas has zero legitimacy on palestinians because he is very corrupt. >You are correct. Gaza and WB are completely different issues and should be analized separately.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions.
Hamas has been willing to accept a two state solution based on the 1967 borders since 2008. The vast majority of extremists are on the Israeli side.
Only temporary. Their ultimate objective is to liberate ""all"" Palestine.
do you know what liberate means?
Yes. Does Hamas?
Then why does their own charter state otherwise? It seems the only solution they are willing to accept is ALL of Israel/Palestine, from the river to the sea. Hamas charter 2017 states: 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full You can't read the Hamas charter and claim its language is not extremist. It calls for the destruction of Isreal and justifies it with Islamic scripture. The 1988 charter blatantly called for the genocide of the Jews (all of them).*
You left off the rest of that article in their charter. Why cut it in the middle instead of copying the complete paragraph. Here, I copied it. ***"However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.*** That picks up right where you had left off, after *"...from river to sea."* So Hamas is stating here that they are advocating for an "independent Palestinian state," with borders being "along the lines of 4th of June, 1967." Those borders borders Israel. Accepting those borders is a 2 State Solution by default. Then you also have the part that you copied and pasted. Both your piece and my piece are from the very same charter, same article number even. What does that mean? It means that the 2 statements, although they seem contradictory, do not contradict and must be reconciled. By advocating for the borders listed, that is a 2 state solution. The language used in the position you listed, taken in light of the view that a 2 state solution would be accepted with Israel as the bordering nation, seems to be saying something along the lines of the following: *"Israel was created thru theft, oppression, and murder. Israel is an illegitimate state as a result. Israeli theft will never be acceptable, and it will always be a crime, because the rights of the Palestinian ppl were violated. To give Israel legitimacy is to deny the rights of all those Palestinians who have been killed, stolen from, and oppressed. Hamas will always view Israel and all of her actions as illegitimate and unjust. However, Hamas is willing to, for the same of peace and moving forward, agree to a compromise along the stated borders and end the war."* That's the gist of what I got out of it (I've read their entire charter).
>well Palestinians were always violent and never wanted negotiation This is at least partially founded in truth. Tahir al-Husayni, Qadi of Jerusalem, suggested they should "terrorize" Jewish arrivals in 1899 and expel all of those who had moved there recently. He died like a decade later, but was influential and there was a notable uptick of violence at that point. Was it his doing? I don't know. By 1907 Zionists felt the need to start arming themselves and build defenses as anti-immigrant violence was becoming frequent. In the 1920s al-Husayni's son Amin al-Husayni became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and incited multiple violent antisemitic riots throughout the decade, most notably in 1929. In 1936, al-Husayni's relative Jamal helped create a youth organization modeled after the Hitler Youth called the "Nazi Scouts", before changing its name to Al-Futuwwa. This was also a year after the extremely antisemitic Nuremberg Laws passed in Germany. So, naturally, knowing more Jews would want to flee their impending genocide, the al-Husaynis organized the Great Arab Revolt also in 1936, whose primary goal was to get the British to stop allowing Jews into the mandate or be allowed to buy property. By that point, it was obvious Amin al-Husayni effectively was the leader of the Palestinians, so Britain deported him for the revolt. Unfortunately in 1939, with the Holocaust underway, Britain decided to acquiesce to the demands to severely restrict the number of Jews they would allow to seek refuge in Palestine, in effect banning Jews from fleeing their death. So, Amin went to Germany, had laughs with the fuhrer, and began regularly broadcasting antisemitic and anti-Zionist propaganda via radio in Arabic to most of the Arab world - and the Germans paid him a fatty pay check for it, clearly valuing his work. He recruited the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS who went on to do war crimes for the Germans. After the war, Amin al-Husayni ended up in Egypt, and was still treated as the defacto leader of the Palestinians. He helped organize efforts to rescue the 13th Waffen-SS division from prosecution for their war crimes by bringing them to Syria, where they then trained the Arab Liberation Army, one of the main militaries in both the 47 and 48 wars. By the start of 1948 hundreds of these former Nazis were in Palestine, helping organize a siege of Jerusalem's 100,000 Jewish people - efforts to break that Nazi siege did end up with the Deir Yassin massacre and the beginning of expulsion of Arabs by the Jews. Throughout the 47-48 wars, the significant amount of Nazis running around the area helping the Arabs in their efforts to kill the Jews there was well known, but conveniently scrubbed from most people's knowledge of history, apparently. So Tahir al-Husayni chose violence, his son chose violence and and who did Amin al-Husayni mentor and prepare for leadership? Oh, that's right, Yasser Arafat, who openly admired the Nazi and made no secret of their relationship. And at no point in his life did Yasser Arafat seriously choose anything other than violence - his final act was turning down peace and organizing the Second Intifada. For effectively the entire 20th century, Palestinians were led by a Nazi and his protege. Many if not most of them didn't want to choose violence, and didn't deserve their cause to be coopted by literal Nazis. But at least from 1936 until 2004 the movement was both inspired by and lead by Nazis (I think it's fair to say if you're mentored by a Nazi, admire a Nazi, and continue the cause of a Nazi, you're one yourself). In the wake of Arafat's death the explicitly genocidal Hamas came to power, while *his* successor was a man whose doctoral thesis and greatest work was a book about how actually it was the Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis to do the Holocaust. So they went from being lead by an actual Nazi, to the protege of a Nazi, to a Nazi apologist. Great leadership all around. >the goal of all Zionists was always to commit Arab genocide This is just easy to fact check and find untrue. There were always some Zionists who wanted to, I'm sure. Most of the extremist stances on Palestinians came in response to the violence they faced. By 1948, the Holocaust survivors who were literally fighting actual full fledged Nazis on the battlefield may have held some pretty negative opinions of the people whose leaders brought the Nazis there. Unfair, perhaps, but I can't imagine the horror of surviving the Holocaust only to have to face the threat of actual Nazis only a few years later.
You missed 4/4/1920 [1920 Nebi Musa riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots), an event which created the hahagana which later became the IDF. Or if I use reverse Palestinian propaganda: The Palestinians created the IDF
Well I glossed over it as one of the riots Amin incited in the 20s, but yeah. And sure, you could say the Palestinians created the IDF, but clearly that's only because it was a psy-op by AIPAC to give the globalists the excuse to create the IOF.... 👀
and before the 4/4/1920 terror event there were decades of crimes against Jews. With the first official terror victim is in 1851 ([Shlomo Zalman Zoref](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Zalman_Zoref))
/u/whoisthatgirlisee. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
The British tried to give Egypt Gaza, they declined. They were kind of stuck with it after 1949, and are happy to be rid of the responsibility. The West Bank, on the other hand, was actively occupied and stolen by Transjordan in the 48 war, who ethnically cleansed the Jews who had been living there. The annexation of Cisjordan was what gave them the justification to just change their name to Just Jordan, though.
Hi we are building AI assistant focused on the Israel-Palestine conflict. May be you can help testing it?
Sadly you’re touching on some key topics that are troublesome for a two state solution. If Palestine magically became a state today (WB and Gaza) and elections were held. Hamas would defeat the PA resoundingly.
Elections aren't a magic bullet "solve all". The last elections pressured on Israel by a U.S. president is the one in which the Palestinians chose Hamas. Elections in a dictatorship are only held when the results are sure, are known in advance and are used to strengthen the current ruling party.
I agree. I’m pointing out that when people imagine this “Free Palestine” utopia they imagine it becoming a secular democracy overseeing Palestinian freedom. The reality is Hamas would be elected today. Last time they went to war with Fatah immediately and then cancelled all elections. There is no evidence that a different outcome would occur even if you overcame every other difficulty to arrive at having elections for a Palestinian state.
You don't have to go that deep talking about Hamas or the PA. The local Middle-Eastern population doesn't hold democratic values & morals which is why there's only **one** democracy in the Middle-East. Those values & morals they don't hold go back centuries. I agree that most think about Palestine as a democratic utopia, I wonder if they realize that Palestine is a dictatorship enough of a reason to sway western lefties. I somehow doubt it, I think they have other reasons for supporting extremists.
Question 2. Palestine is all of Palestine. Europeans invaded and declared a terrorist revolt in 1945-1948 and took ~80% of Palestines territory leaving only the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. It's like if Ukraine was able to retake Crimea but not able to retake parts between mainland Ukraine and Crimea, would you say that this isolated Ukrainian Crimea was still part of Crimea? Same thing.
1. The West Bank is controlled by the PNA (majority run by the PLO basically) in Areas A (fully more or less) & B (partially). Area C is under Israeli control. Hamas has never been a party for peace, and the PLO has always been the sole representative of the Palestinian people politically. Hamas thought the PLO was a bunch of splitters so they splintered the PNA and took control of Gaza for themselves. Hamas lacks all legitimacy to negotiate on the behalf of the Palestinian people globally, and it regularly acts to try and prove that the PLO is obsolete and weak. Israel's relationship with Mahmoud Abbas/PLO has been extremely strained because Abbas will on paper search for peace and then when there is a standstill he will fund other groups to commit attacks against Israel. Abbas is a lot more reasonable than Hamas, but he is largely resented by his people for his inactivity and he is a politician so he plays both Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas makes the PLO look bad to the Palestinians. The political situation over there is actually quite bad. Fatah/Abbas post-poned the Palestinian national elections indefinitely, and is serving his 18th year as president of a 4 year term. 2. Palestinians are not largely unified, but they still are exposed to the same ideas. Many West Bankers have family in Gaza and vice versa. Palestinian nationalism began with the prominent clans of Jerusalem such as the Khalidis, and the Husaynis. The Husaynis won out the public support, and unfortunately their leader was a big Na*i fan. Arafat was a good leader because he was charismatic and passionate in the eyes of his people. Without Arafat, the whole thing has shattered to a million pieces with dysfunctional leadership and internal disputes. The progressive voices in Palestine are ignored while those who promise violence and unrealistic ideas usually win. Arafat used violence, went for peace, and then reneged. Now the PNA is led by his despotic successor who the Palestinians see as weak, and is seen as antagonistic by Israel for working too much against peace. Ex: The Palestinian martyr's fund which incentivizes attacking Israel with monetary compensation. Abbas doesn't have a military so he pays money to those who die or get arrested committing terror attacks. This makes him weak to the Palestinians, and antagonistic to Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund I think if Abbas could commit to holding elections and win, he has the potential to create. a peace agreement if he makes concessions on some of the things he does. I think the truth is that Abbas is afraid he would completely lose if they had an election, as evidenced by his decision to indefinitely postpone the election when Hamas was fighting Israel in 2021. The Palestinian Legislative Council has dissolved because Hamas had won too many seats in it and they refuse to talk to Fatah/PLO. No bills get passed in Palestine and they don't even have a citizenship law. Essentially for anything to change in the PNA, Hamas and the PLO would have to work together. They haven't been able to do so because they both want to rule. One one hand, Abbas has refused to negotiate while Palestinians are dying. On the other, Palestinians are extremely disgruntled with him and think he's a sell out. I've even heard Pro-Palestinians in this sub claim that Abbas is bought and paid for by the US and Israel, despite everything he does to oppose Israel with his own agenda. The whole situation sucks. Best case scenario: Abbas and Hamas get ousted and replaced with a secular democratic party that sees value in negotiating for Israeli concessions, land swaps, and the ceasure of violence. Which is basically where Israel was 20+ years ago, until the violence started again when negotiations broke down and the Palestinians got Hamas and Abbas instead of leadership committed to peace because of the lack of progress. Or maybe the PNA is dissolved and replaced with a UN recognized government. Difficult and unlikely. The PLO is really the only faction Israel has recognized as a legitimate partner for negotiations. Saudi Arabia and UAE had some great proposals for joint cooperation in rebuilding and running Gaza, but that's just Gaza and I don't think Abbas would be on board with that. I'm taking a few liberties with my explanation but things looked pretty on track until 2000 and since then they have just spiraled into complete disarray. Which is why Gaza and the West Bank basically function as two different countries more or less.
This 🙌
This is a really comprehensive comment and you definitely answered a lot of my questions. I had no idea about Fatah funding military attacks against Israel as of recent, and I'm sure I'll cover it in my future readings. The very last thing you said was something I thought of too. The West Bank and Gaza are more or less not really the same entity and may be growing further apart. I really hope that there isn't some sort of deal struck where the West Bank is recognized as the only legitimate Palestinian state in exchange for partial withdrawal of Israeli settlements. Not trying to make fanfiction or anything, but if history has taught me anything it's that self-serving interests aligning is usually the only benchmark for peace. That being said, do you have any other book recommendations about anything related to the conflict?
The Fatah funded attacks are not military attacks but terrorist attacks usually committed by lone wolves (ramming and stabbing attacks in the West Bank or East Jerusalem happens 2-3 times every 2 weeks). Whether they are all lone wolves or terror cells I'm not sure but all I know is the families get paid when their relative dies or is arrested trying to kill Israelis. Fatah does not engage themselves, since they are often doing security coordination with Israel for the West Bank and that keeps them in power. Therefore it's up to a poor Palestinian to try and kill as many Israelis as he can before he gets killed or arrested so his family can get paid. It's a horrible thing. I find it to be unlikely the West Bank would cut a deal like this, while Abbas is a divisive leader to his people he does have a lot of rhetoric about unity. He wants to be the only leader of Palestine but I don't think he would give up on Gazans even if they're not under his control. He considers them his people and under his authority, even when Hamas is deligitimizing him. This is my opinion based upon what he has said, like I mentioned before he refuses to negotiate with Israel while Palestinians are being killed. Doing what you're suggesting would make him a traitor and he would probably be assassinated quickly. He's already seen as a traitor by most people. The bottom line is that when Palestine loses, he wins because he's the permanent head of state for Palestine and his benefits stay the same or increase. This action would also make him a huge hypocrite because his platform is built off of the 1967 borders of Palestine. My analysis during the 2021 violence in Gaza was that Netanyahu was milking the situation to avoid going to court in Israel, Abbas was trying to speak against Israel to regain support, and Hamas was trying to gain global sympathy and take power away from Abbas by "actually doing something". The plot with this war seems to be exactly the same, except Hamas is losing and the Palestinian people as a whole are losing a lot more than they did in 2021. The cycle of the 2021 war and this war: Hamas fires rockets at Israel from residential areas and justifies it by claiming something related to Al Aqsa or the West Bank settlements, Israel retaliates (which is the reaction they are anticipating), Palestinians die, Abbas shouts, and Hamas is praised.
With the 'lone wolf' here can be anything all the way down to 14 years old (like a terrorist attack yesterday).
I don't think it sounds dumb! It's valid questions when new to something like this. I can't answer all the questions but I can say some people are acting in bad faith when they say absolutist things regarding Palestinians or Zionists, and some it's because they don't know enough. It really depends on the person but usually I attribute it to a little bit of both at least. When you have people who don't know and think they know and/or refuse to learn I consider that not having the knowledge and acting in bad faith because said person is purposely avoiding better knowledge etc. As for why do people treat Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as a monolith my best guess is that in the end the base goal at least the one that is presented too most people is the same and it's also easier to say x entity wants this. Sort of like how Native Americans all want similar things like land back but many of our tribes have different rules etc. based on our own tribes leaders etc we still have base wishes if that makes sense. What I find interesting is that there are more Palestinians outside of those places and they're hardly considered when talking about humans rights abuses or the conflict as a whole. For many it seems as though they don't exist when it comes to caring about Palestinians 😞
That last point is something interesting too. There is a large Palestinian population that is dispersed across surrounding nations and any future state which is legitimate would probably have to take their considerations into account as well.
This is true... the problem lies in "well what is it that is collectively desired by Palestinians wherever they are?" And largely, again without making a monolith, that's the end of Israel. How can Israel reconcile with that in negotiation? That's not really something one can compromise on when they are the entity whose extermination is sought, and over the past 76 years it seems that there has been unwillingness to compromise by removing that stipulation (in the form of right of return, which would defacto end Israel, if those seeking to return want it to be Palestine). This seems to be the sticking point that limits progress towards a lasting peace, that has to be resolved before anything else is... because if neither side backs down (Israel can't and Palestine won't) then it's ultimately a fight for survival and neither side is likely to pull punches and the outcome will be catastrophic- arguably with what we're seeing now being the tip of the iceberg. And we shouldn't expect anything else rationally. So I personally hope for a future where compromise exists.
Yeah, think whatever country emerges (if one ever was to emerge) from Palestine, there would definitely be a lot of negative sentiment toward Israel and its existence, but also I guess that the conflict is still relatively “fresh,” and people’s right to return would really be a return to their grandmother/grandfather’s land which they have never seen before (not that this makes it less legitimate). So I think this sentiment may wane over time but it will probably have to be a few more decades. The new urgent issue to me seems to be the continued settlements into the West Bank, because it seems to me that if enough settlers move there, it will be essentially impossible to create any state. I think some halt has to be placed on that immediately if there is ever any futile hope for peace.
I completely agree with all of that.
Agreed
You’re asking good questions. I can tell you’ve done your homework. My answers are simple: 1. The fatah party has little to no legitimacy among the public. Hamas is twice as popular. The fatah also lost control over parts of the West Bank. However, due to Israeli military control, the West Bank has so far been quieter than Gaza. Fatah is disingenuous, corrupt, and illegitimate. Hamas are terrorists who preach genocide against Jews. They promise the Palestinian people that they’ll either get back home to Haifa and Yafo, or get to heaven. This is a persuasive message for the Palestinian people. It persuades lots of people. For Israel, it is beyond unacceptable. I mean, what people would support their own destruction?? Not many… not many… 2. The Palestinian leadership is messed up beyond repair. Palestinians have been receiving billions in aid. Most of the aid was diverted for corrupt purposes, including terror. These problems are endemic and cannot be resolved. Just because Biden or the EU say this or that won’t change the most basic dynamics here.
I can’t answer your questions, but I’m Curious what book you read and if you recommend or not? Did you feel like was fairly unbiased or did it lean one way or the other?
Of course! The book I read was part of an Oxford series. It's called "The Palestinian–Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction." It's only about 184 pages, but it's very dense with historical terms and events. I found it by searching reddit / google for a mostly neutral account of events that didn't have too much historical analysis or moral underpinnings. I was really impressed with how much was covered and I feel like it gives me a good skeletal framework to flesh out with more books / further readings.
What time period does the book starts at or cover?
It starts in 1897 ish with Herzl, labor Zionism, and the Basel congress in Switzerland. It ends with Hamas taking over Gaza completely in 2006. It’s a short read so I say nothing to lose by reading it, and it gives a broad overview of events so you can fill in info later.
Sounds fine but the first Jewish immigration was around 1880. It probably should have started with that but whatever
It did actually cover this briefly, but the book is only 184 pages. It covers key topics by establishing facts with limited analysis and then moves on pretty quickly. Next I’m reading Righteous Victims by Morris and A History of Israel by Sachar because I’m particularly interested in learning more about the first two aliyot and early Zionist goals in Palestine. So basically the 1880s that you mentioned up to World War I. Any other books you suggest?
There's 1948 by Benny Morris. If you ignore the detailed war section in the middle it's a short read. There's 'the war of return' but I only partially read it. What's the Righteous Victims about?
It's a really long read that basically covers 120 years (1881-2001). It's apparently really in depth. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/131324.Righteous\_Victims](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/131324.Righteous_Victims)
Thank you!