[abusada]

Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking, let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!

and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

[EvgeniyZh]

> and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone

Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

> if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better. For the same reasons, the right of return for every descendant won't work. We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations? Do you think any side is ready to give up West Jerusalem or their right of return stance?

> let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank.

I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza (even before 7/10), and more importantly, there are ways to improve it.

> how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

I don't justify the settlement expansion; I think it is a wrong practice. Do you think removing settlements (plus, say, some territory exchange where removal is too complicated) would solve all West Bank problems?

[abusada]

In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history, and of course being Palestinian myself i am biased, but I think the Israelis in particular need to learn their history, have you watched the documentary Tantura btw? you can find it here https://archive.org/details/tantura_2022.

Israel needs to first admit that it's establishment was on the expense of another people that are still suffering until today, without that, it's difficult to move forward, as well as continuing this conversation.

> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

Maybe, I don't know what else can it be! the slogan is not calling for killing anyone, FREEDOM = Dignity, Human Rights, I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone....

Why not?

>The right of return for every descendant won't work

Why not?

[EvgeniyZh]

> In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history

Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems. It is possible to live a good life without returning to grandpa's home from 80 years ago. And while Israel did shitty things in 1948, I don't think Jordan or other Arab countries did better. It's impossible to say, but if the proposed borders were accepted, I'm pretty sure there would be much less suffering from both sides.

> I personally just want to be able to go to the beach and travel from an airport nearby.

But other Palestinians want more. You could get your beach in Camp David, any peace attempts included as much, and the disagreement never was around freedom of movement of Palestinians.

> Why not?

Because that would mean to displace people currently living there. Two wrongs do not make a right. And Jews were minorities in many different countries, and it turned out not that good many times. Specifically, Jews had to flee multiple Arabic countries not that long ago. How can we be sure it won't happen again?

[khazhoux]

> > In order to be able to live together we need to learn our history

> Strong disagree. History is important, but we need to solve present problems.

I'll go a step further. All history surrounding this must be forgotten, to move forward. There are grievances and counter-grievances, ancestral claims and counter-claims, and conflicting divine proclamations. Those have to all be thrown away, and instead consider only the current situation.

[stefan_]

There was a war, you lost. There is no right to return for you anymore than I have a right to return to nowadays Polish Silesia. We had a term for these people in Germany - the "forever refugees", there aren't many left because even then people rightly realized to break the chain of violence is to build your life in the circumstances you found yourself in.

(And guess what, now I can go to Polish Silesia anytime I want! Not that I ever would, because my connection to that place is as tenuous as yours to Israeli land)

[Qem]

> But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone, and the earlier we understand it, the better.

South Africa managed to pull it, and end apartheid. Why wouldn't it work for Israel?

[mupuff1234]

I wouldn't cite south africa as an example of a successful nation, or of a successful integration.

Israel should end the apartheid in the west bank, but israel proper (67' borders) is a liberal democracy, there's no reason to give that up.

[khazhoux]

> Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

Reminds me of "Defund the police." Led to people having to constantly explain that they didn't actually mean that police should have zero funds and be abolished. But, except, a lot of people on Twitter countered that they did mean exactly that, and that all cops are bad and they're all racist. :facepalm:

[I-M-S]

Any slogan will be denounced by people who hold opposing views. See how "Black Lives Matter" was perverted into "All Lives Matter" by detractors. It's not possible to satisfy people acting in bad faith, nor should one try to do so.

[khazhoux]

"Defund the police" was a particularly bad slogan, since it's ambiguous as written. I think actually the original intent was "Eliminate all police," and it was softened down by others.

But yes, I agree that detractors will co-opt language. It's an effective tactic.

[pydry]

>Don't you think it may be useful to use a different slogan from the people who mean and do that?

They're not responsible for what supporters of Israel infer from this phrase.

>But we can't. There won't be a one-state solution that satisfies everyone

Those who are unsatisfied with not living within a racist ethnostate would be welcome to leave and doubtless many would.

Many South Africans packed their bags and left after apartheid.

>We need to come up with a meaningful two-state solution, but that failed multiple times. So what's left? What solution do you think both sides may agree on, assuming good faith negotiations?

The two state solution failed many times because of a lack of good faith on Israel's side. They supported the creation of Hamas as an Islamist bulwark against the PA precisely to stymie a two state solution.

The only thing that would get them to negotiate in good faith is losing American support. That is key.

>I think the situation in West Bank is much better both for Israelis and Palestinians than the situation in Gaza

They are oppressed and murdered at a far lower tempo. If youve ever seen the way Israelis in, say, Hebron treat Palestinians (i.e. like subhuman scum) you wouldnt ever say that they had it good.

[xkekjrktllss]

A so-called "2 state solution" is an oxymoron. A state, by definition, has a sovereign monopoly on violence. Your 2 states already exist and they are inevitably at war.

[EvgeniyZh]

It's the "solution" part that is important, i.e., agreeing on the border that satisfies both, solving other claims towards each other, removing the presence of each state from the other state's territory, etc.

[xkekjrktllss]

Mere "peace" is absolutely not the meaning of the phrase. If it were, the phrase would be unnecessary.

The phrase was dreamt up by Western Israeli allies to promote an oppressive pipe-dream border arrangement that was not even remotely acceptable by any reasonable standards. Only propagandized westerners even speak of it.

This is done so the Western media can frame Palestinians as uncooperative.

[scelerat]

What is an alternate solution to the decades-long conflict which is not a "two state solution"?

[xkekjrktllss]

a democratic state, which can only be achieved if the ruling class wants (they don't) it or the working class demands it.

[cymian]

And how many Jews live in any of the neighboring Muslim ruled countries? As you say "if my brother ... killed my children I will fight him just the same". The very reason for the wall between Israel and Gaza is because people from Gaza have repeatedly sent terrorists to kill people in Israel. Before Oct 7th (and continuing up to this day) they continually launch rockets that would have killed tens of thousands of Israelis were it not for the Iron Dome.

[abusada]

1. What i know is that before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, many Arab jews lived peacefully in neighbouring Arab countries (Yemen, Iraq and Palestine). after the war many of them moved to Israel and probably because it wasn't an easy living anymore, but never had their been antisemitism in the arab world any close to that in Europe! (but i'm not very well educated on this part so correct me if you know better)

2. Did you ask yourself why people in Gaza fight Israel? it helps to know how much you know about this subject in order to know how to reply to you

[khazhoux]

I feel like you are not actually responding to any of the content of what he actually wrote. His point was that his anger is not tied to religion.

[IMTDb]

> but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!

The Hamas charter that was used during the last elections in Palestine explicitly calls for the total destruction of Israel. To reach that goal, unrestricted jihad is necessary. Negotiated resolution are considered unacceptable. Hamas won those elections.

Hamas has since revised that charter in 2017; but retained the goal of completely eliminating Israel - it is till a constitutive element of their political beliefs.

> we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

You might have a personal interpretation, but make no mistake about the intentions of the elected representatives of the Palestinian population when they chant that.

[tim333]

I'm not an expert on this but from watching the odd documentary I get the impression that 90%+ of Palestinians think similar to yourself but a minority, maybe 1% are into the hardline islam must defeat the jews type position which Hamas seems to adopt. And then while the others try to live somewhat peacefully the minority unfortunately do October 7 massacre type things which then of course causes retaliation. I'm not sure how this ends unless they drop that?

[thomastjeffery]

> I'm not sure how this ends unless they drop that?

I can't imagine the average Palestinian person having the headroom to do anything about those 1%.

Does that mean that Israel should implement whatever response they feel like? That is what we are watching play out, and it's an ugly scene.

What if, alternatively, the average Palestinian person was actually in a position to help? What would that look like?

--

What this really seems to boil down to is that no Palestinian person gets a say about what happens in Palestine, except for that violent 1%. That's a pretty obvious motivator for people to join that 1% group. It's also a motivator that might potentially be eliminated without violence. It seems to me like that would be worth a try.

[dotancohen]

  > Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking,

Israeli here, and I'm glad to see you here.

  > let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

Makes sense. I happen to agree with you.

I should address "stole your house" and "killed your children" separately. The "stealing houses" issue started during the 1948 war - what you call Nakba and I call Independence. The UN partitioned the holy land, and the Arabs were unsatisfied so started conquering land. Their specific intention was to "steal houses" or "steal land" or however else you want to phrase it. Ergo, this things happened though it did not turn out how they intended. Likewise, no fewer Jews than Arabs had their houses stolen. How many Jews remained in the West Bank after the 1948 war? Zero. How many Arabs remained in the new state of Israel? Hundreds of thousands. And do not forget the houses stolen from the Jews of Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunis, and other Arab states.

As for the "killed your children" there are so many ways that children both Palestinian and Jewish have been killed. Do you agree with me that Palestinian children are often involved in violence? I'll tell you that the first time I ever saw an Arab with a rifle he was shooting it in one arm (in the air, but towards Israels myself included) and a small child, maybe four or five, in the other. And I've seen enough similar things myself since. I have no doubt that innocent children have been killed - no doubt at all. But I do dispute the idea that the Israeli state is deliberately killing children. I served in the army, and anybody who would ever say anything remotely stupid to the hint of deliberately hurting a civilian was disciplined severely. I'm sure the entire army is not as my small battalion was, but I do believe that my battalion was representative.

  > let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

Just to make you aware, despite all the resistance to Israelis building homes in the West Bank, it is in fact not only legal under international law, but actually encouraged by Ottoman law which nobody today has the authority to change. This is pretty much a copy-paste of a previous comment of mine. League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the West Bank today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.

Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.

[g8oz]

Many Israelis seem to live in an alternate world with alternate histories and alternate facts. Read Ilan Pappé to break out of that bubble.

[dotancohen]

A single author with his own alternate histories and alternate facts did not constitute a new history. With what part of my post do you disagree?

[mupuff1234]

Is it really worth fighting over a piece of land for generations?

It's just dirt, there's nothing special about it. Almost all borders are the results of war and conquest throughout history, it's better to accept that and move on.

[squidbeak]

It's their home and they have nowhere else to go. Wouldn't you want to preserve your community, culture and homeland?

[mupuff1234]

They have a home in Gaza and the west bank - most of Palestinians today have never been inside the 67' borders so how exactly is it their home?

I'm pro a 2 state solution based on the 67' borders, fighting over some "right of return" to a place you've never been for generations just seems like a waste of life.

And if you even take the very long term view, a 2 state solution could eventually lead to open borders, and an implicit "right of return" (after decades of peace and building trust).

[lazyasciiart]

There are millions of people in Africa who have been born and grown up in refugee camps, and you are arguing that they should all simply give up and consider themselves settled there forever because they’ve never been to the places their parents or grandparents fled? For one thing, they might believe that an entire farm would be better to live in than a single flattened apartment?

And then you argue for the ‘67 borders: that’s 50 years ago, what makes those the borders we should roll back to when almost no Palestinians of today were alive before then?

[mupuff1234]

> and you are arguing that they should all simply give up and consider themselves settled there forever

I can't comment on all the situations because I have very little familiarity with refugees in africa, but assuming they don't have a state to return to and they can form a new state where they are? Then yes, 100% yes.

The 67' borders are internationally recognized, so I'm saying accept that and move on.

My grandparents lived in eastern Europe before the Holocaust, I'm not crying to return there because I have a new home.

Throughout history humans have been nomadic and moved from place to place. If you take any person and go up along their ancestry line at some point you'd probably encounter some ancestor that was displaced (by another tribe, nation, lord, just some bastard, etc), and yet we don't dwell on that.

[lazyasciiart]

The ‘67 borders may be internationally recognized but they are not currently in existence, which is why I am confused by your conflating the ideas of just accepting where you are now and returning to the borders that existed 50 years ago.

[HDThoreaun]

Well no, the vast majority of palestinians have never lived in Israel, it is not there home.

[abusada]

Sure, move on to where? do what? I'm curious, how much do you know about the situation here?

[mupuff1234]

Stay put. Palestinians should get a state in Gaza and the west bank.

I'd like to think I have a somewhat decent understanding of the situation, but flawed and with its own biases of course.

[xkekjrktllss]

Where do you suggest they go?

[mupuff1234]

Gaza and the west bank, where they currently live.

And israel should remove the settlements of course.

[sam1994]

I don't think you even understand the gravity of the situation.

Not only did Palestinians were forcibly evicted in 1948 (The Nakba), they're being continuously occupied by an apartheid, racist and terrorist regime.

This is not a matter of conquest my friend. Because look. And bear with me. This might be long. But it's worth it. The Muslims conquered the lands of Jerusalem in 638 AD where the first Islamic Caliphate, Umar Ibn Khattab, besieged the city and the Christians surrendered. He took over without bloodshed. When Umar Ibn Khattab asked them, where are the Jews? He was surprised to hear they were all slaughtered or driven away by the Byzantine Christians sometime around 138-150 AD. He said, bring 20 Jewish families and establish them here. No lands were stolen, nothing was taken, no forced conversions were made. Jews Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then the Christian crusaders came in the 11th century and SLAUGHTERED everyone, Muslims AND Jews. Then, Islamic leader Salahuddin came 150-200 years later and liberated Jerusalem. Again, same thing. No lands were taken, no forced conversions. He even spared the Christians who slaughtered everyone 150 years ago. Then the Ottomons came and ruled over from 14 or 15th century and implemented the Millet system where every religious community had their own government. Again, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed. Then it allll went down hill from 1917 onwards. I won't go into details but it lead to the Nakba in 1948, where British soldiers were commanded to evict Palestinians. 750K Palestinians displaced. Tens of thousands were killed. Women were raped (watch Tarantulla, watch the Jewish soliders ADMIT TO THIS). So mate, there's a massive difference. It's not just a piece of land. It's generations upon generations of families. And their homes being stolen. They're being KICKED off their lands. Generations where they've experienced so many atrocities. Atrocities that are being committed still to this day.

And if you want to understand even an ounce of the terrorism that Israeli soldiers commit against Palestinians in occupied territory, what better way than to listen straight from the mouths of ex-IDF soldiers? Well, good news for you, ex-IDF soliders in early 2000 created an org called "Breaking the silence". Look it up. THere you'll find over 300 video confessions + 200 text confessions of IDF confessing to acts of terrorism. Examples include occupying a home just to watch the World Cup, or to sleep in it while ALL the family sits in one room. Using children as human shields to do their search operations. They literally coined the term "neighborhood procedure" where they use Palestinians to knock on suspected "terrorists" homes to scout them out (Such cowards). You'll come across videos of soldiers confessing to killing an innocent man on the rooftop bc he looked at them weird. Or killing a child 40 min after he threw a molotov. I mean the list goes on and on. All that I described are from the video confessions. No propaganda. No BS. All straight from ex-IDF soldiers. Watch the videos on "Breaking the silence" and then come tell me if they can just "accept and move on". So it's not just about land my friend. It's about occupation, oppression, etc.

[mupuff1234]

1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started so not quite one sided as you portray.

Did Israel commit some crimes during 1948? Sure, but it's kinda silly to expect Israel to not use a war that was forced upon them to better their situation, especially when when the Arab nations tried to wipe out Israel.

You can't start a war to wipe someone out, lose that war and later call foul play on such a response.

And again, I think Israel should stop the occupation in the west bank, which is what "breaking the silence" is all about, I'm not trying to protect israel's actions.

And if it's not about land and all about peace and prosperity, what's the issue with a two state solution?

And why didn't you go all the way back to the kingdom of judea in your history lesson?

[sam1994]

I specifically said it's not ONLY about land...

Well, there have been many proposals for a 2-state solution but at many times, both sides have jeopardized and rejected offers.

Better their situation? Really? At the expense of displacing almost a million people? Come on man, are you hearing yourself? Not only have they displaced them, they've killed tens of thousands of them. On top of that, they've been taking more and more land as the decades have gone by. Not to mention the acts of terrorism they've inflicted on Palestinians in occupied territory.

1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.

[mupuff1234]

> Come on man, are you hearing yourself

Yes I am. Do you think international borders around the world have been the same since the beginning of time? All nations have done the same and have shaped their own border through wars, in this case the war was a defensive one which makes it one of the more righteous ones.

Do you dispute the right to exist of the US or Australia? Why not? If anything jews are actually indigenous to the land.

Are you aware that not all of those 700k were displaced by israel? A large percentage of them fled on their own, and some also listened to the advice from arab nations and left their homes.

> 1948 was a result of a war that Arab nations started? Can you elaborate on that? Why did they start it? Please elucidate me.

Are you claiming that they didn't start it?

[sam1994]

Hahahaha Jews are indigenous to the land? Really? Dude, I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Do you know who Abraham is? Yeah. It all starts from him. Earliest historical records show, he was born in present day Iraq. And he emigrated to the land of Canaan. According to both historical records AND the Old testament. It literally says in the Old Testament that the Caananites were in the land where Abraham traveled to and also says God will promise the land to the children of Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). T

So what I've told you alone tells you that Jews were NOT indigenous to present day Israel. It was the Caananites man. Like bro. You saying that alone discredits anything you know so far because you're quite literally just parroting sh*t you hear without doing any research. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Seriously. Open a book. And read. Do more research.

[sam1994]

Dude, you're making straw-man arguments. You're saying "All nations have done the same and have shaped their own border through wars".

Like that makes it okay? And man, you don't even realize that you don't know what you're talking about. You keep making orthogonal points. Here's what I'm saying, land keeps getting taken. By Israelis. That's an international crime. Quite literally. The UN was established at the time. And guess what. The Israelis were promised a certain percentage of Palestinian land by the British, but they took more. And kept taking more and more with illegal settlements man. Even to this day man. They've kicked Palestinians off in 1948 and they continue to do that. That's what you don't understand and you keep glossing over it as if it's been done. It's happening NOW man.

A large percentage of them fled on their own? I don't know how true that is but that's effectively the same thing as being driven away. What compelled them to do that? You do realize tens of thousands were killed too right...? Like dude, I don't think you even hear yourself. Why wouldn't they leave on their own if they were being killed? And chased away? The British soldiers physically evicted Palestinians. Don't you know that? Why did they also leave on their own? Like don't you think about these things? You can ask the same questions to Jews when Muslims ruled over them. The Jews didn't leave when Muslims ruled over them. So why didn't the Jews leave when Muslims took over Spain? Hmm? Why didn't the Jews leave when Islamic ruler, Salahuddin conquered Jerusalem back in the 13th century? Why did they come back? Why did Umar Ibn Khattab, the first Caliphate of Islam, establish 20 Jewish families in Jerusalem when he conquered Jerusalem and found out the Jews were driven and slaughtered by the Christian? You see where I'm getting at? When Muslims ruled, Jews were protected. They weren't displaced. They kept their own lands. No displacement. And then the colonial British came and **ed everything up. Thanks Britain. Thanks a lot.

[Aerbil313]

Great writing. People seem to forget history, which they were probably never taught.