For people who say I stand with Israel

[sprinklesprinkle]

What does that mean to you? Especially for Jewish people who are happy to answer.

I know what Free Palestine means - it has always meant freedom for Palestinians, peace, basic human rights such as water, the right to life essentially.

I Stand with Israel - what exactly does this mean?

I am genuinely not being 'goady" to use a MN word but I want to learn & understand. I know many will say not to have Israelis attacked at a festival or for the hostages to be released but what is the long term goal for those that support what the Israeli government is doing. What do you want for Palestinians?

I don't know why people keep bringing the troubles up as an analogy. The two conflicts have absolutely nothing in common

@HeidiInTheBigCity

The idea that nationalism, or the nation-state system, is worse than what preceded it is Garden of Eden stuff. What preceded it in the Middle East was a system of religious supremacist imperialism. The West is not the centre of the universe, for either good or evil.

I think it's because the post-1960's IRA was part of a global leftwing anti-imperialist movement and it trained with jihadists. They were seen as fellow freedom-fighters against colonialism. That's also why Ireland today remains one of the most pro-Palestinian places in the western world.

Try Canadian intelligence. Al Jazeera reported that Canada is confident Israel not behind deadly blast at Gaza Hospital.

I stand with Israel because I will never justify or support terrorism, and most especially will never justify the rape and murder of women and children no matter what the cause.

I’m also a historian who knows a lot about the long history of the conflict, and the situation is by no means morally clear-cut. But I think Israel has a right to exist, and to exist without the threat of antisemitism annihilation, no matter which Israeli government is in charge. A two state solution would be ideal. There have been plenty of opportunities to achieve it; and it isn’t the Israelis who have consistently blocked it. And the rest of the Arab world needs to take on a problem that is very substantially of their own making.

I also will not support or excuse religious or nationalist terrorism under any circumstances — whether it’s the IRA, jihadists, whatever. It’s undeniable that Hamas could achieve a Palestinian state peacefully at any time they wanted. Right now, in fact. All they needed to do would be to commit to a peaceful two-state solution, disarm, and stop all terrorist attacks and rocket fire. They don’t want to. The PLO didn’t want to either, no matter how many deals were brokered.

Just like Hamas could stop this in a moment by giving back the hostages, disarming and agreeing to peace talks. That’s the reality: are those buying the Hamas propaganda pretending not to know this?

I have no liking for the current Israeli administration, or any support for Israeli settlers going beyond originally agreed borders. But this terrorism has been going on whatever Israeli governments have done or offered over the last decades, from rocket shelling to suicide bus bombers. And really, those who think the conflict is simple and easy, with one side “genociding” the other, have simply very little knowledge of the historical situation; and, moreover, seem to believe just about anything they like that floats around social media and seems to fit in with their “side”. And all too often it’s clearly a thin cover for a delight in socially approved antisemitism — because you can bet your ass the same posters aren’t getting in a snit about oppression in China, Iran or Afghanistan or most other places.

No-one who has any residue of humanity, empathy or decency in them could say those actions are proportionate. I'm appalled you think they could be. Genuinely I am.

And I was not talking about Hamas in my quote. I was talking about those over here ( UK and elsewhere) and how they have turned their faces away from the Jewish victims. I do think that is a deep, probably unconscious for many, anti-semitism. I don't think they would have responded like that to a massacre of any other group of people.

Israel has kept Palestinians in the largest open air prison. They have no way in and no way out. They have nothing. Settlers keep stealing their land so Gaza has drastically reduced in size over the past decades. IDF constantly arrest small children and imprison them. Palestinians are constantly attacked by settlers and their homes and businesses destroyed. The frustration and anger has finally boiled over. These people have nothing compared to Israelis living in luxury and having the most powerful army. Israel are now indiscriminately killing innocent children and destroying whatever these poor people had.

I did not say it was! what I DID say was that the concept - specifically its rise! - was potentially relevant historical context!

Specifically as in: Zionism is a direct expression thereof! As, for that matter, is the rise of a distinct Palestinian national identity in the late 19th/early 20th century!

I did not say I this was wrong (or right, for that matter). Just that it was potentially relevant - whereas I did not particularly think we ought to be debating based on ancient history!

The frustration and anger has finally boiled over.

Is that how you see the atrocities committed by Hamas?

Everything @Namechangeagain2023 said on page 1.

Hamas are not in the West Bank. They have no control over the West Bank. Why are innocent Palestinians losing their homes and land to illegal settlers. So many innocent Palestinians have been killed in West Bank. Nothing to do with Hamas. This is totally wrong. There would not be peace because illegal settlers keep stealing homes and land.

Thanks Namechangeagain2023

So do you think it’s okay for men to settle their land disputes and religious obsessions by raping and killing women and children and taking them hostage? Is it fine for Hamas to keep the hostages? Should they just kill them or keep them forever, maybe marry them or keep them as servants or something? Maybe all global conflicts should be solved by some extremist men parachuting in and raping and pillaging some ordinary women? Do that and get your political demands sorted out - sounds great, doesn’t it? I can’t think why we wouldn’t stand with that.

Freedom should never be achieved through terrorism or violence. Only a few decades ago ordinary people spoke with reverence of Gandhi and non-violent resistance and pacifism; nowadays, bloodthirsty violent revolution seems back in fashion. Well, lots of Europeans were also seduced by this romantic idea in the first few decades of the twentieth century: there was no shortage of starry-eyed leftist revolutionaries admiring bloody revolution in Russia or anywhere else. (They were mostly roundly disabused of that idea after the realities of war in Europe. Are we going to get another one before we all decide again that bloody terrorism isn’t romantic freedom-fighting?)

Seems like currently, especially on social media, and especially from the young and naive (though not, of course, limited to the young), the idea that some rape, murder and violence is quite justifiable, even admirable, if you personally like the ideal or the cause, is back in vogue.

So is rampant antisemitism, anti-feminism, quasi-religious beliefs about sex and gender, and a whole shit-tonne of daft and fanciful ideas about nationalism, land, ownership, beautiful causes and the like. Hello 2023; meet 1923 (again)!

Also, just want to say: someone could steal my “land” and I still wouldn’t go and behead a baby no matter what. Funnily enough, the vast majority of refugees and people in even the most dire poverty don’t, either. So why are terrorist “freedom fighters” so admired for doing so? Why wouldn’t it be a million times better for Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to say: we’ll commit to a nonviolent peace process led by the UN right now, because the most important thing is the ordinary Palestinian people? Ask yourself — why don’t they? They could have done so at any point for decades now.

Do some research. I watched Gaza on Netflix last night. 2014.

They don’t have nothing because of Israel, but because they’d rather spend the aid money they do get on bombs and weapons to attack Israel, rather than infrastructure, water, power, food, jobs and secondary and tertiary industries. Wouldn’t you try to stop people who want to kill you from doing so? Especially if they were so committed to it they’d rather live in squalor just to maybe have one more bomb. Not the leaders though, they live in mansions in Qatar.

No you didn't merely say it was potentially relevant historical context. You said:

'you could argue that - had we not had the extraordinarily stupid (in hindsight) idea of inventing the concept of nationalism back in the Romanticist era, not only would we not be looking at this particular problem - we could have also averted myriad other bloody conflicts.'

You said nationalist was an extraordinarily stupid idea. And that without it the current conflict would have been averted.

There probably was less conflict under the imperialist religious supremacist system imposed after the Islamic conquest. So technically yes if it had been left in place there might be less conflict now. You can suppress the conflicts caused by multiculturalism through sheer authoritarianism. Or through imposing a strict hierarchical system in which one religion/culture is superior to all others and the rest are suppressed and controlled.

The British and French, in fairness to them, were trying to aim a little higher with their 'stupid' idea of nation-states for everybody. The Arabs were more than happy to take theirs, provided the ex-dhimmi Christians and Jews weren't also getting ones.

To add to the pp above — nationalism was definitely not just a Romantic/Enlightenment ideal. We in the U.K., and indeed in the rest of Europe, had it going on since well before the Reformation (any ideas why Henry really wanted to be free of the Church of Rome?) In the Mediterranean, nationalism and imperialism has been in full swing for millennia. (Imperial rule often had a commitment to proto-nationalism at the heart of it.)The ideal of the nation-state was certainly one cemented by the Enlightenment; but any history of Britain makes clear that it very much pre-dates it.

You are so very wrong. Free Palestine means they should be free of the threat of their children being arrested by IDF. It means they should have their own airport. They shouldn’t have to live in an open air prison. Year after year the Palestinians are bombed and attacked. Their land has been reduced and illegally occupied by settlers. Settlers with guns kill unarmed civilians every day. They through Palestinians on to the street and steal their homes. How many children have been imprisoned and no talk of their release. The illegal use of white phosphorus bombs is abhorrent. The list goes on. Israel are openly talking about indiscriminately killing all Palestinians. The only exit into Egypt was bombed several times. The list goes on. The Palestinians have suffered at the hands of IDF and Israelis government for long enough

This question from @asterel is basically the core question here. Is anyone from the Free Palestine club going to answer it?

Why wouldn’t it be a million times better for Hamas or the Palestinian Authority to say: we’ll commit to a nonviolent peace process led by the UN right now, because the most important thing is the ordinary Palestinian people

live in an open air prison. Year after year the Palestinians are bombed and attacked. Their land has been reduced and illegally occupied by settlers. Settlers with guns kill unarmed civilians every day. They through Palestinians on to the street and steal their homes. How many children have been imprisoned and no talk of their release

Is this true?

If that’s really what it means, then why haven’t the Palestinians got a state by now? This has been offered over and over again during the last fifty years, as long as the terrorist attacks on Israel stop, and the Palestinians and the Arab world recognises a two-state solution?

What’s your answer for why it hasn’t happened already, if they only want peace and a Palestinian state?

Proven by who? Isreal? Or Canada? Why would I believe intelligence from a country that's purposely breaks international law?

It’s six of one half a dozen of the other. The poster is not acting in good faith but ramping up the rhetoric. It’s straight out the Hamas playbook- minimise their own anti semitic genocide while magnifying and embellishing the idf’s defence policy. Because no one can in good conscience deny that Palestine is a place of suffering and violence. But ask yourself why Egypt and Jordan have closed the borders to them too. Ask why there is plenty of money for bombs, but none for social security. Why the population is so young and why Hamas choose to hide weapons and munitions under schools and hospitals. Why they can say what happened on the 7th of October is justified but the consequences they could have predicted aren’t. My heart breaks for the women and children suffering because of this mess. But armchair white saviours whipping up emotion just fuels division and antisemitism. Which is just what Hamas want.

Actually, from an international law perspective, I think matters are rather uncontroversial (insane propagandists notwithstanding).

1. No, attacks (by either party!) on civilians are actually never okay.
2. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks - within the confines of international law (according to which several things that have already happened - excluding the much debated Al Shifa hospital episode - are clearly illegal).
3. Palestinians do have a right to resist their occupation - including by violent/military means. They, too, however, are bound by international law, e.g., "no deliberate targeting of civilians".
4. In this view, it is arguable that both the Hamas attack and Israeli actions such as large-scale evacuation orders or cutting Gazans off from food, water, electricity are arguably severe violations!

Again, none of this is particularly controversial, if you manage to not let yourself be ideologically blinkered!

Seems like currently, especially on social media, and especially from the young and naive (though not, of course, limited to the young), the idea that some rape, murder and violence is quite justifiable, even admirable, if you personally like the ideal or the cause, is back in vogue.

While I would whole-heartedly agree, I am not sure this is particularly new! I remember (yes, predominantly the young - specifically young MEN!) having some serious "Islamic Jihad fangirl" issues 20 years ago! I used to tear them a new one and tell them I suggested they get into video gaming if they really enjoyed the notion of bloody murder so much!

In the same vein, I am truly astonished at all the staunch allies and true friends the state of Israel seems to have all of a sudden! And how saddened and deeply concerned your friendly neighbourhood rabid racist suddenly seems to be by anti-semitism.

In the German speaking world (I do a lot of business, follow closely) there is a veritable onslaught of outrage over all the anti-semitism - and how bad, bad, bad it is that we have allowed for it to be "imported" ... as though European antisemitism had somehow, magically, vanished in 1945 and we needed to re-import us some.

The irony! It burns!

(For the record, and because it is all such a powder keg: needless to say I am vehemently opposed to both antisemitism and other racism! I am just also despairing at one being misused to express the other!)