Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[the_cliff]

First it's important to quote the question " So far, Arab states have not permitted the resettlement of Palestinians in their territory. What’s struck you most about their response to Israel’s war in Gaza? "

Now why would anyone that remotely cares for palestinians right to have a state ease the process of palestinians losing Palestine? Because facilitating an exodus is the best way to Israel to take even more land. It's also worth mentioning that the amount of palestinians that have already immigrated to these countries is pretty significant, it's roughly the same amount that remained in Palestine.

The other thing is that the point made isn't one, at least not when you take into account the fact that we are not talking about a new context, we are talking about more than half of century where the nations that actually have power have sided with Israel, there isn't actually much that Arab states can do they hold no power, they can't bribe their way into a better outcome and they can't fight their way into one either unless they want to be absolutely atomized by a US led coalition.

This is the only thing stopping a regional war, always has been.

 

[That_Bloke]

"You seem to to think that Arab countries constitute some kind of monolithic block when it really isn't the case. "

No, just no. I don't think that. Let's get that straight.

As for the rest of your post...eh? Lots of stuff that most, including myself, already agree with but I don't quite see the relevance of it towards the discussion between me and JPRouve.

Alright, I'll make it short then. Those were your questions, if I'm right.

1. How much do they care about Palestinians?
2. If they care, what options do they have for showing support?

1. The current Arab governments? They don't give a shit and even if some of them did, they've got no economic or military means to weigh in.
2. None. They can symbolically protest, even push the case to the UNSC and that's about it. Taking in more permanent refugees is out of the question, for the reasons I've mentioned above. They can act as local fixers though.

I don't understand why you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The center of decisions lies in the West, anything else is a red herring.

 

[JPRouve]

The bolded part: that's not how your posts came across (to me anyway).

As for the rest of your post, you seem to acknowledge the argument that some don't care and will follow their own agenda which the ambassador from the Politico article kinda suggested in the first place so it's not like his premise was completely wrong.

The premise is nonsensical. First because it acts as if Arab countries haven't taken refugees. And it's nonsensical because there is no symbolic or rhetorical actions that translate to a visceral concern, that's why they are defined as symbolic or rhetorical.
It also acts as if Arab countries are a monolith, if the point was that some are willing to make bigger sacrifices than others than there would be no issue but it's not what was done because the point was to villify Arab countries as aw hole and pretend that they actually have a meaningful say in that situation outside of supporting deportation. Also people should question the idea of deportation whether it concerns palestinians or israelis.

 

[VorZakone]

Alright, I'll make it short then. Those were you questions, if I'm right.

1. How much do they care about Palestinians?
2. If they care, what options do they have for showing support?

1. The current Arab governments? They don't give a shit and even if one of them did, they've got no means to weigh in.
2. None. They can symbolically protest, even push the case to the UNSC and that's about it. Without military and economic might, as you surely noticed, there's nothing you can realistically do internationally. They can act as local fixers though.

I don't understand why you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The center of decisions lies in the West, anything else is a red herring.

Why do you accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill? You yourself say some governments don't care. That's what me and JPRouve were discussing about. That's literally it, nothing more or less.

I only engaged with JPRouve because based on his posts, I concluded he disagreed with the mere observation that some governments aren't really invested in the Palestinian cause. An observation that I've heard Palestinians themselves make.

And his arguments weren't convincing enough for me, that's why I engaged him.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West opened out their arms to Ukrainians fleeing the country. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took refuge in Europe. What is the difference here?

There is no difference. No one has volunteered to take Gazans in. Because either they don't really care or they don't want them.

You continuously defend the slaughter of innocents simply because their limp bodies aren't wrapped in the correct flag. It's genuinely pitiful to watch the gradual deterioration in a persons morality without them even being able to notice. Here you are calling for Israel to be aided and abetted in committing ethnic cleansing. A crime against humanity.

Israel is currently destroying the open air prison they keep 2.5 million in. The other 3 million are herded between ever shrinking Bantustans as increasingly intolerable conditions are imposed upon them and you have the brass neck to try and smuggle responsibility for these outrages out of Israeli hands.

Meanwhile, laughably and genuinely without logic, you would confer responsibility for a small group of people being mean to a man holding a sign onto the entire 100k present and make it proof positive of an all encompassing antisemitism.

How easily you blame others, how impossible to fault Israelis. Surely you must see the moral and intellectual poverty of your own position. Are you really so far gone?

 

[JPRouve]

Why do you accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill? You yourself say some governments don't care. That's what me and JPRouve were discussing about. That's literally it, nothing more or less.

I only engaged with JPRouve because based on his posts, I concluded he disagreed with the mere observation that some governments aren't really invested in the Palestinian cause. An observation that I've heard Palestinians themselves make.

And his arguments weren't convincing enough for me, that's why I engaged him.

It wasn't a mere observation and it wasn't about some countries. It was an attempt to demonize Arab countries by claiming that they don't want to take refugees even though they have millions of them and it's also a way to deflect blame away from the nations that actually hold any power in that matter.

If the point was state that some countries care and others there wouldn't be any issues but it's not what the quote was about. Also the resettlement of palestinians isn't a sign of caring for palestinians not when it is exactly what Israel wants.

 

[Spark]

You continuously defend the slaughter of innocents simply because their limp bodies aren't wrapped in the correct flag. It's genuinely pitiful to watch the gradual deterioration in a persons morality without them even being able to notice. Here you are calling for Israel to be aided and abetted in committing ethnic cleansing. A crime against humanity.

Israel is currently destroying the open air prison they keep 2.5 million in. The other 3 million are herded between ever shrinking Bantustans as increasingly intolerable conditions are imposed upon them and you have the brass neck to try and smuggle responsibility for these outrages out of Israeli hands.

Meanwhile, laughably and genuinely without logic, you would confer responsibility for a small group of people being mean to a man holding a sign onto the entire 100k present and make it proof positive of an all encompassing antisemitism.

How easily you blame others, how impossible to fault Israelis. Surely you must see the moral and intellectual poverty of your own position. Are you really so far gone?

This is a well written response and acutely hammers home the trivialisation by many of the plight of Palestinians.

A trivialisation that were it reversed would be considered anti-semitic.

 

[VorZakone]

It wasn't a mere observation and it wasn't about some countries. It was an attempt to demonize Arab countries by claiming that they don't want to take refugees even though they have millions of them and it's also a way to deflect blame away from the nations that actually hold any power in that matter.

If the point was state that some countries care and others there wouldn't be any issues but it's not what the quote was about. Also the resettlement of palestinians isn't a sign of caring for palestinians not when it is exactly what Israel wants.

You are right on the part of refugees. There are millions of them already living in several countries. But that wasn't the crux of the discussion for me at all.

Based on your posts, it seemed to me you did take issue with the argument that some care and some don't, framing it somewhat as "they care but can't do anything". Can they not do anything or are they not interested in doing anything?

 

[That_Bloke]

Why do you accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill? You yourself say some governments don't care. That's what me and JPRouve were discussing about. That's literally it, nothing more or less.

I only engaged with JPRouve because based on his posts, I concluded he disagreed with the mere observation that some governments aren't really invested in the Palestinian cause. An observation that I've heard Palestinians themselves make.

And his arguments weren't convincing enough for me, that's why I engaged him.

Because the neighbouring Arab countries aren't the problem here and neither should they be. They don't have to take responsibility for what's essentially been a decades long colonial war with the clear goal of getting rid of an indigenous population, one way or another.

I've butted in because despite their massive flaws, the Arab countries have been unfairly scapegoated in the last months to distract people from the fact that Israel is currently using 10/7 to completely get rid of the Gazans. The idea of an ethnic cleansing for humanitarian reasons is dangerously growing stronger, and is more and more viewed as morally acceptable. By many who aren't as informed as you are, or unwilling to look past their own prejudices.

No matter their stance on the fate of Palestine, about which they can't do anything anyways, the Arab countries in the Middle-East refuse to take any more Palestinian refugees. They know the score. Israel will never let them go back and they don't want to be the ones who enabled it.

 

[JPRouve]

You are right on the part of refugees. There are millions of them already living in several countries. But that wasn't the crux of the discussion for me at all.

Based on your posts, it seemed to me you did take issue with the argument that some care and some don't, framing it somewhat as "they care but can't do anything". Can they not do anything or are they not interested in doing anything?

That's you reframing things in a way that wasn't said or even insinuated. My issue is with two things first the obvious deflection of blame and secondly the absolute claim that Arab countries as a monolith do not care. I don't think that the framing of this article around the concept of "Arab countries" is innocent, it wasn't a nuanced point and it was one that somehow purposely act as no arab country is willing to take refugees which is a lie and that fallacy is somehow telling according to the quote.

Other than that the question that I asked you about what they can do beyond rhetoric, I don't really see what they can do that goes beyond PR actions and frankly I really hoped that there something more than symbolism that I totally missed.

 

[gfactor86]

You continuously defend the slaughter of innocents simply because their limp bodies aren't wrapped in the correct flag. It's genuinely pitiful to watch the gradual deterioration in a persons morality without them even being able to notice. Here you are calling for Israel to be aided and abetted in committing ethnic cleansing. A crime against humanity.

Israel is currently destroying the open air prison they keep 2.5 million in. The other 3 million are herded between ever shrinking Bantustans as increasingly intolerable conditions are imposed upon them and you have the brass neck to try and smuggle responsibility for these outrages out of Israeli hands.

Meanwhile, laughably and genuinely without logic, you would confer responsibility for a small group of people being mean to a man holding a sign onto the entire 100k present and make it proof positive of an all encompassing antisemitism.

How easily you blame others, how impossible to fault Israelis. Surely you must see the moral and intellectual poverty of your own position. Are you really so far gone?

Israel are fighting a war in Gaza that Hamas started. If 7th October doesn't happen then this atrocious war doesn't happen.

Why can't you see that Hamas are the enemy of Israel and the Palestinians?

You expect Israel to sit by and just allow Hamas to indiscriminately fire missiles at Israel most days and kidnap innocent hostages?

Your condemnation should be of Hamas. Not of Israel who want to eradicate them.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

That's you reframing things in a way that wasn't said or even insinuated. My issue is with two things first the obvious deflection of blame and secondly the absolute claim that Arab countries as a monolith do not care. I don't think that the framing of this article around the concept of "Arab countries" is innocent, it wasn't a nuanced point and it was one that somehow purposely act as no arab country is willing to take refugees which is a lie and that fallacy is somehow telling according to the quote.

Other than that the question that I asked you about what they can do beyond rhetoric, I don't really see what they can do that goes beyond PR actions and frankly I really hoped that there something more than symbolism that I totally missed.

The one thing they might be able to collectively do is bring about an oil shock. Egypt could maybe close the Suez but the Houthis are already trying that. this twould cause considerable pain to themselves though. I think many countries are paralysed by the fear of a widening conflict.

 

[JPRouve]

The one thing they might be able to collectively do is bring about an oil shock. Egypt could maybe close the Suez but the Houthis are already trying that. this twould cause considerable pain to themselves though. I think many countries are paralysed by the fear of a widening conflict.

The Suez idea is a pretty good one especially if it's done peacefully. The oil shock is intriguing in the sense that it would be something that Saudi Arabia would do for their own benefit and have done in the past with their production cuts but they are all about business and I don't think that they do something like that without planning it with the other members of the OPEC, I could be totally wrong though. And yes the risk of a wider conflict is real and we already know who is going to lose.

 

[That_Bloke]

The one thing they might be able to collectively do is bring about an oil shock. Egypt could maybe close the Suez but the Houthis are already trying that. this twould cause considerable pain to themselves though. I think many countries are paralysed by the fear of a widening conflict.

That's never going to happen.

We're not in 1973 anymore and the OPEC Arab heavyweights are either destroyed (Irak and Libya), shadows of their former selves (Iran and Algeria), or firmly in the US camp (SA and Kuwait).

Back then Egypt had the backing of the Soviet Union, it's now Uncle Sam's obedient lapdog.

None of them have common interests.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Israel are fighting a war in Gaza that Hamas started. If 7th October doesn't happenhen this atrocious war doesn't happen.

Why can't you see that Hamas are the enemy of Israel and the Palestinians?

You expect Israel to sit by and just allow Hamas to indiscriminately fire missiles at Israel most days and kidnap innocent hostages?

Your condemnation should be of Hamas. Not of Israel who want to eradicate them.

You don't appear to even know who you are talking to or the position they hold. I know yours so I have the advantage. October 7th was a disgrace, Hamas bears responsibility. They are terrorists and their actions were unconscionable. The perpetrators deserve everything they get. They exist in a vast prison of 2.5 million people in conditions of squalor that Israel have imposed for decades. That too is an unconscionable disgrace, has gone on for far longer, created much more squalor, misery and terror and killed far more people. Israel's dealings with Palestinians has long been to treat them as subhuman. You want it one way, you are all too willing to condemn one but will not cast even a single, solitary thought towards the naked depravity of the other.

That is the chasm between us.

 

[Idxomer]

africanspur sums up the whole discussion about arab countries' involvement nicely here.

A couple of good points in the politico interview but I don't think it was that interesting and has obvious undertones of racism.

 

[Idxomer]

That's never going to happen.

We're not in 1973 anymore and the OPEC Arab heavyweights are either destroyed (Irak and Libya), shadows of their former selves (Iran and Algeria), or firmly in the US camp (SA and Kuwait).

Back then Egypt had the backing of the Soviet Union, it's now Uncle Sam's obedient lapdog.

None of them have common interests.

I wonder what happened here, I don't remember.

 

[VorZakone]

Because the neighbouring Arab countries aren't the problem here and neither should they be. They don't have to take responsibility for what's essentially been a decades long colonial war with the clear goal of getting rid of an indigenous population, one way or another.

I've butted in because despite their massive flaws, the Arab countries have been unfairly scapegoated in the last months to distract people from the fact that Israel is currently using 10/7 to completely get rid of the Gazans. The idea of an ethnic cleansing for humanitarian reasons is dangerously growing stronger, and more and more viewed as morally acceptable. By many who aren't as informed as you are, or unwilling to look past their own prejudices.

No matter their stance on the fate of Palestine, about which they can't do anything anyways, the Arab countries in the Middle-East refuse to take any more Palestinian refugees. They know the score. Israel will never let them go back and they don't want to be the ones who enabled it.

Ofcourse they aren't responsible for Israel's actions.

But that's not quite the crux of the discussion for me. It's about to which extent they're still invested in the Palestinian cause and by buying Israeli defence products or normalizing the relationship, it gives the impression that they're giving Palestinians the cold shoulder. The status quo seemed tolerable to them and in that status quo the Palestinians were still suffering.

This is not even really about moral lecturing. It's about observing to what extent the Palestinian cause is still important to the regional governments.

And how Palestinian leaders interpret this is an interesting follow-up question.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

At least 350,000 chronic patients, 60,000 pregnant women, and about 700,000 children in Gaza are exposed to serious health complications as a result of malnutrition, dehydration, and lack of medical facilities, according to the enclave’s health ministry.

 

[Kaos]

Ofcourse they aren't responsible for Israel's actions.

But that's not quite the crux of the discussion for me. It's about to which extent they're still invested in the Palestinian cause and by buying Israeli defence products or normalizing the relationship, it gives the impression that they're giving Palestinians the cold shoulder. The status quo seemed tolerable to them and in that status quo the Palestinians were still suffering.

This is not even really about moral lecturing. It's about observing to what extent the Palestinian cause is still important to the regional governments.

I think its important to draw a distinction between the regimes that govern the Arab states (almost all of which are autocracies), and the ordinary civilians they rule over. The former definitely have no interest in the wellbeing nor plight of the Palestinians, and simply use their cause as a convenient rod to distract their civilians from their nation's own shortcomings, but stopping short of doing anything tangible beyond lip service and a few pretty speeches at the UN. Jordan, Egypt and pretty much every Gulf Arab state except for perhaps Qatar are US stooges and will fall in line, whereas the likes of Turkey continue being a trade partner for Israel despite that crook Erdogan giving it the big un in his Trump like speeches, acting like he's the self-proclaimed Caliph of the Muslim world, harping wax lyrical on how Gaza needs to be free.

Though if you gauge the opinions of the average man/woman in the streets of Cairo, Istanbul or Jeddah, you'll hear a very different perspective and one that is very much outraged at the situation and are very much in solidarity with the Palestinians.

So this whole notion of the Arab states not caring is a bit of a fallacy. For starters because 6 million Palestinians were taken in by some of those states, and also because they're a bunch of autocracies who don't represent the real sentiment of their people, and would prefer not to risk upsetting their sponsors and those that consolidate them (the US), lest they end up facing a similar fate to those that did 'break rank' (The Saddams, Gaddafis, or what have you).

 

[VorZakone]

I think its important to draw a distinction between the regimes that govern the Arab states (almost all of which are autocracies), and the ordinary civilians they rule over. The former definitely have no interest in the wellbeing nor plight of the Palestinians, and simply use their cause as a convenient rod to distract their civilians from their nation's own shortcomings, but stopping short of doing anything tangible beyond lip service and a few pretty speeches at the UN. Jordan, Egypt and pretty much every Gulf Arab state except for perhaps Qatar are US stooges and will fall in line, whereas the likes of Turkey continue being a trade partner for Israel despite that crook Erdogan giving it the big un in his Trump like speeches, acting like he's the self-proclaimed Caliph of the Muslim world, harping wax lyrical on how Gaza needs to be free.

Though if you gauge the opinions of the average man/woman in the streets of Cairo, Istanbul or Jeddah, you'll hear a very different perspective and one that is very much outraged at the situation and are very much in solidarity with the Palestinians.

So this whole notion of the Arab states not caring is a bit of a fallacy. For starters because 6 million Palestinians were taken in by some of those states, and also because they're a bunch of autocracies who don't represent the real sentiment of their people, and would prefer not to risk upsetting their sponsors and those that consolidate them (the US), lest they end up facing a similar fate to those that did 'break rank' (The Saddams, Gaddafis, or what have you).

Yeah, good post.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

This is a well written response and acutely hammers home the trivialisation by many of the plight of Palestinians.

A trivialisation that were it reversed would be considered anti-semitic.

I completely agree. It's astonishing to me that people can read descriptions of what is happening right now from medical charities like Doctors Without Borders and not even bat an eyelid. If roles were reversed there's no doubt as to the lengths to which nations would stretch to halt the carnage.

 

[Kaush949]

Israel are fighting a war in Gaza that Hamas started. If 7th October doesn't happen then this atrocious war doesn't happen.

Why can't you see that Hamas are the enemy of Israel and the Palestinians?

You expect Israel to sit by and just allow Hamas to indiscriminately fire missiles at Israel most days and kidnap innocent hostages?

Your condemnation should be of Hamas. Not of Israel who want to eradicate them.

I do agree with you that HAMAS is an enemy of Israel and Palestine.

Now, I have a few questions for you.

1. So, are you 100% confident that this operation's sole purpose is only to eliminate Hamas? There is no ulterior motive?

2. Are you confident that Israel has no underlying motive to drive civilians out and occupy the territory permanently?

3. If Yes to above, what is giving you this confidence considering the way in which Israel has been continuing to push settlements in West Bank?

4. How morally do you justify the expansion of settlements in West Bank?

5. Are you convinced that the only one way to eliminate HAMAS is by flattening the entire region, killing 5% of the population and making the area unhabitable for any current residents?

6. If in a few months or year from now, Israel announces an official plan to build settlements in Gaza , how will that make you feel?

7. And last question - how many innocent palestinian lives are worth the life of 1 innocent jew? 1? 5? 100? Infinite? What's your line of thinking on this?

I would appreciate your honest, genuine response on these.

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Worth a read.

Spoiler: for posters who don't have twitter

 

[Maticmaker]

I would appreciate your honest, genuine response on this.

The reality is that the leadership of Hamas and the current Government in Israel are seeking mutual destruction. That's why no other government is willing to send its own people to die in order to try to separate warring factions.
The people of Palestine and the people of Israel have to rid themselves of their current leaders for there to be any hope for an end to the present situation, let alone moving towards a peaceful solution, can be attained.

 

[Giggsyking]

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West opened out their arms to Ukrainians fleeing the country. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took refuge in Europe. What is the difference here?

There is no difference. No one has volunteered to take Gazans in. Because either they don't really care or they don't want them.

Wow, you beyond imagination. Are you for real?

There tens of differences between the two cases, any human being with 2 braincells know that.

But to put the obvious one, because they already took 6 million refugees that Israel deny them the right to return home for 75 years

How about adressing the 6m refugees before you make a new wave, I can not believe I need to explain this.

 

[gfactor86]

I do agree with you that HAMAS is an enemy of Israel and Palestine.

Now, I have a few questions for you.

1. So, are you 100% confident that this operation's sole purpose is only to eliminate Hamas? There is no ulterior motive?

Yes

2. Are you confident that Israel has no underlying motive to drive civilians out and occupy the territory permanently?

Yes

3. If Yes to above, what is giving you this confidence considering the way in which Israel has been continuing to push settlements in West Bank?

N/A

4. How morally do you justify the expansion of settlements in West Bank?

I don't agree with it.

5. Are you convinced that the only one way to eliminate HAMAS is by flattening the entire region, killing 5% of the population and making the area unhabitable for any current residents?

Is there another way? I don't believe Hamas is interested in negotiation. They are extremists that want Israel destroyed.

6. If in a few months or year from now, Israel announces an official plan to build settlements in Gaza , how will that make you feel?

Wouldn't be supportive.

7. And last question - how many innocent palestinian lives are worth the life of 1 innocent jew? 1? 5? 100? Infinite? What's your line of thinking on this?

Hard to answer. All loss of life is tragic, whether Israeli or Palestinian. But imagine, you had a hostile neighbour who kidnapped your children in the night. Then the police told you the only way to reach them would involve innocent people dying. What is the cost you are willing to bear?


I would appreciate your honest, genuine response on these.

 

[Kaos]

The reality is that the leadership of Hamas and the current Government in Israel are seeking mutual destruction. That's why no other government is willing to send its own people to die in order to try to separate warring factions.
The people of Palestine and the people of Israel have to rid themselves of their current leaders for there to be any hope for an end to the present situation, let alone moving towards a peaceful solution, can be attained.

I think there's a bit of asymmetry to your argument. Hamas are clearly a bunch of fanatics who I'm sure would love to see the state of Israel being destroyed its in entirety, but lets be frank - that's simply impossible. The October 7th attacks are about as much damage as they can hope to inflict, and that was after Israel seemingly being unusually lax with security measures and warnings prior to the events. We're talking about a regional military superpower, backed by the world's strongest superpower, is armed with an arsenal of nukes and possesses sophisticated defence mechanisms like the iron dome. I suspect Hamas' actual goal was to sabotage normalisation efforts between Israel and neighbouring Arab states, which for the time being seems to have succeeded. Israel on the other hand are of course very capable of destroying the notion of Palestinian statehood, something which they've continuously boasted about and one that they're now publicly committing too. What makes them more nefarious is the fact the world's sole superpower is currently sponsoring and absolving them at every step, irrespective of any proverbial red lines they already have or will have crossed.

The other point to consider is Israel's atrocities have predated Hamas' existence. The Nakba ethnic cleansing happened over half a century ago and the descendents of those who've been forced out are condemned to a miserable existence, with no right to return. And since then Israel has continued to subjugate, humiliate and oppress Palestinians on a daily basis, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank where Hamas have no real power, as well as continuing to build settlements. The frank truth is that Hamas are merely a symptom of the sheer injustices the Israelis have inflicted on the Palestinians. If they were to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow, you'd see no concession from Israel regarding reaching a peaceful settlement, there'd be no cessations of settlements, and no appetite from the Israelis to allow the foundation of a Palestinian state. This was the case pre-Hamas, and it will certainly be the case in a post-Hamas scenario.

And then there's the question regarding Israel's cultural appetite for peace. While its easy to pinpoint Netanyahu as the culpable monster who's behind Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, if you were to gauge the sentiments of those who consider themselves to be leftists within Israeli society, you'd also hear equally distasteful takes, or at best a mere rejection of there being any notion of a Palestinian state.

Ultimately it comes down to one factor - the United States. So long as they continue to bail Israel out at every military, diplomatic and economical junction, Israel will continue its colonial aspirations within the territory, knowing that there would be no repercussions for continuing down that path. And thats regardless as to whether its Netanyahu or an Israeli Labour party cabinet at the helm, or whether Hamas continue to exist or not. All this conjecture about there being peace when Hamas puts down their weapons and Palestinians choose love instead of war is a known fallacy that's simply used as a convenient deflection from Israel's apologists to justify both their bloodlust in this conflict, as well as their adherence to the status quo of continued subjugation. The Palestinians tried the peaceful and secular approach in the past to no avail, hence why we have the likes of Hamas. The only way we're going to get peace is if Israel is sanctioned, isolated and treated as a rogue state until its serious about peace, declaring its borders and having a meaningful discussion about Palestinian statehood. Everything else is noise or deflection.

 

[RedTiger]

An incredibly powerful speech by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Secretary General Chris Lockyear to the UN security council:


Cliff quotes:

• Just 48 hours ago, as a family sat around their kitchen table in a house sheltering MSF staff and their families in Khan Younis, a 120mm tank shell exploded through the walls, igniting a fire, and killing two people and severely burning six others. Five of the six injured are women and children.
• We took every precaution to protect the 64 humanitarian staff and family members from such an attack...This morning...I am watching videos of rescue teams removing the charred bodies from the rubble.
• Israeli forces have attacked our convoys, detained our staff, bulldozed our vehicles and hospitals have been bombed and raided.
• We have watched the systematic obliteration of a health system we have supported for decades. We have watched our patients and colleagues be killed and maimed.
• This situation is the culmination of a war Israel is waging on the entire population of the Gaza strip - a war of collective punishment, a war without rules, a war at all costs.
• The laws and the principles we collectively depend on to enable humanitarian assistance are now eroded to the point of becoming meaningless.
• The humanitarian response in Gaza today is an illusion—a convenient illusion that perpetuates a narrative that this war is being waged in line with international laws.
• There is no health system to speak of left in Gaza. Israel’s military has dismantled hospital after hospital. What remains is so little in the face of such carnage. It is preposterous.
• Our patients have catastrophic injuries, amputations, crushed limbs, and severe burns. They need sophisticated care. They need long and intensive rehabilitation.
• Medics cannot treat these injuries on a battlefield or in the ashes of destroyed hospitals.
• Surgeons have had no choice but to carry out amputations without anaesthesia, on children.
• Women in labour cannot reach functional delivery rooms. They are giving birth in plastic tents and public buildings.
• Medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary: WCNSF— wounded child, no surviving family.
• The people of Gaza need a ceasefire not when “practicable,” but now. They need a sustained ceasefire, not a “temporary period of calm.” Anything short of this is gross negligence.
• Two days ago, MSF staff and families were attacked and died in a place they were told would be protected. Today our staff are back at work, risking their lives once again for their patients. What are you willing to risk? We demand the protections promised under International Humanitarian Law.

Spoiler: Full transcription

Madam President, excellencies, colleagues,

As I speak, more than 1.5 million people are trapped in Rafah. People violently forced to this strip of land in southern Gaza are bearing the brunt of Israel’s military campaign.

We live in fear of a ground invasion.

Our fears are rooted in experience. Just 48 hours ago, as a family sat around their kitchen table in a house sheltering MSF staff and their families in Khan Younis, a 120mm tank shell exploded through the walls, igniting a fire, and killing two people and severely burning six others. Five of the six injured are women and children. We took every precaution to protect the 64 humanitarian staff and family members from such an attack by notifying warring parties of the location and clearly marking the building with an MSF flag. Despite our precautions, our building was struck not only by a tank shell but by intense gunfire. Some were trapped in the burning building while active shooting delayed ambulances from reaching them. This morning, I am looking at photos that show the catastrophic extent of the damage and I am watching videos of rescue teams removing the charred bodies from the rubble.

This is all too familiar—Israeli forces have attacked our convoys, detained our staff, and bulldozed our vehicles, and hospitals have been bombed and raided. Now, for a second time, one of our staff shelters has been hit. This pattern of attacks is either intentional or indicative of reckless incompetence.

Our colleagues in Gaza are fearful that, as I speak to you today, they will be punished tomorrow.

Madame President, every day we witness unimaginable horror.

We, like so many, were horrified by Hamas’ massacre in Israel on 7 October, and we are horrified by Israel’s response. We feel the anguish of families whose loved ones were taken hostage on 7 October. We feel the anguish of the families of those arbitrarily detained from Gaza and the West Bank.

As humanitarians, we are appalled by violence against civilians.

This death, destruction, and forced displacement are the result of military and political choices that blatantly disregard civilian lives.

These choices could have been—and still can be—made very differently.

For 138 days, we witnessed the unimaginable suffering of the people of Gaza.

For 138 days, we have done everything we can to enact a meaningful humanitarian response.

For 138 days, we have watched the systematic obliteration of a health system we have supported for decades. We have watched our patients and colleagues be killed and maimed.

This situation is the culmination of a war Israel is waging on the entire population of the Gaza strip—
a war of collective punishment,
a war without rules,
a war at all costs.

The laws and the principles we collectively depend on to enable humanitarian assistance are now eroded to the point of becoming meaningless.


Madam President, the humanitarian response in Gaza today is an illusion—a convenient illusion that perpetuates a narrative that this war is being waged in line with international laws.

Calls for more humanitarian assistance have echoed across this Chamber.

Yet in Gaza we have less and less each day—less space, less medicine, less food, less water, less safety.

We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum.

Today in Gaza, efforts to provide assistance are haphazard, opportunistic, and entirely inadequate.

How can we deliver life-saving aid in an environment where the distinction between civilians and combatants is disregarded?

How can we sustain any type of response when medical workers are being targeted, attacked, and vilified for assisting the wounded?

Madam President, attacks on health care are attacks on humanity.

There is no health system to speak of left in Gaza. Israel’s military has dismantled hospital after hospital. What remains is so little in the face of such carnage. It is preposterous.

The excuse given is that medical facilities have been used for military purposes, yet we have seen zero independently verified evidence of this.

In exceptional circumstances where a hospital loses its protected status, any attack must follow the principles of proportionality and precaution.

Instead of adherence to international law, we see the systematic disabling of hospitals. This has left the entire medical system inoperable.

Since 7 October, we have been forced to evacuate nine different health facilities.

One week ago, Nasser Hospital was raided. Medical staff were forced to leave despite repeated assurances that they could stay and continue caring for patients.

These indiscriminate attacks, as well as the types of weapons and munitions used in densely populated areas, have killed tens of thousands and maimed thousands more.

Our patients have catastrophic injuries, amputations, crushed limbs, and severe burns. They need sophisticated care. They need long and intensive rehabilitation.

Medics cannot treat these injuries on a battlefield or in the ashes of destroyed hospitals.

There are not enough hospital beds, not enough medications, and not enough supplies.

Surgeons have had no choice but to carry out amputations without anaesthesia, on children.

Our surgeons are running out of basic gauze to stop their patients from bleeding out. They use it once, squeeze out the blood, wash it, sterilize it, and reuse it for the next patient.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has left pregnant women without medical care for months. Women in labour cannot reach functional delivery rooms. They are giving birth in plastic tents and public buildings.

Medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary: WCNSF— wounded child, no surviving family.

Children who survive this war will not only bear the visible wounds of traumatic injuries but the invisible ones, too—those of repeated displacement, constant fear, and witnessing family members literally dismembered before their eyes. These psychological injuries have led children as young as five to tell us they would prefer to die.

The dangers for medical staff are enormous. On a daily basis, we are making the choice to continue working, despite the increasing risks.

We are scared. Our teams are beyond exhausted.


Madam President, this must stop.

We, along with the world, are closely watching how this Council and its members have approached the conflict in Gaza.

Meeting after meeting, resolution after resolution, this body has failed to effectively address this conflict. We have watched members of this Council deliberate and delay while civilians die.

We are appalled by the willingness of the United States to use its powers as a permanent Council member to obstruct efforts to adopt the most evident of resolutions: one demanding an immediate and sustained ceasefire.

Three times this Council has had an opportunity to vote for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed and three times the United States has used its veto power, most recently this Tuesday.

A new draft resolution by the United States ostensibly calls for a ceasefire. However, this is misleading at best.

This Council should reject any resolution that further hampers humanitarian efforts on the ground and leads this Council to tacitly endorse the continued violence and mass atrocities in Gaza.

The people of Gaza need a ceasefire not when “practicable,” but now. They need a sustained ceasefire, not a “temporary period of calm.” Anything short of this is gross negligence.

The protection of civilians in Gaza cannot be contingent on resolutions from this Council which instrumentalize humanitarianism to blur political objectives.

The protection of civilians, of civilian infrastructure, of health workers and health facilities, falls first and foremost on the parties to the conflict.

But it is also a collective responsibility—a responsibility which rests with this Council and its individual members, as parties to the Geneva Conventions.

The consequences of casting international humanitarian law to the wind will reverberate well beyond Gaza.

It will be an enduring burden on our collective conscience.

This is not just political inaction—it has become political complicity.

Two days ago, MSF staff and families were attacked and died in a place they were told would be protected.

Today our staff are back at work, risking their lives once again for their patients.

What are you willing to risk?

We demand the protections promised under International Humanitarian Law.

We demand a ceasefire from both parties.

We demand the space to turn the illusion of aid into meaningful assistance.

What will you do to make this possible?

Thank you, Madam President.
https://www.msf.org/msf-briefing-gaza-un-security-council

I've been donating to MSF for over 20 years now, one of only two charities I donate to. If they're deliberately targeting MSF then there are no rules anymore.

 

[RedTiger]

It accelerates the Palestinian expulsion? Where will they go?

To a very early grave.

 

[gfactor86]

Wow, you beyond imagination. Are you for real?

There tens of differences between the two cases, any human being with 2 braincells know that.

But to put the obvious one, because they already took 6 million refugees that Israel deny them the right to return home for 75 years

How about adressing the 6m refugees before you make a new wave, I can not believe I need to explain this.

and the hundred's of thousands of refugees from Crimea who aren't able to return home.

 

[RedTiger]

and the hundred's of thousands of refugees from Crimea who aren't able to return home.

I just had a thought, you could fertilise the negev with all the rotting corpses. Win win.

 

[Denis79]

and the hundred's of thousands of refugees from Crimea who aren't able to return home.

You are shooting yourself in the foot mate. Israel are making the Russians look like saints.

 

[maniak]

God damn, I never thought fearless would have competition in the caf, but here we are...

 

[Maticmaker]

I think there's a bit of asymmetry to your argument.

Only in your mind set. The Arab nations in 1948 threatened to drive the Jewish nation into the sea, when the State of Israel was first recognised. Over the decades since multiple attempts by Egypt, Syria and the other surrounding Arab nations resulted in a number of wars which Israel not only survived, but grew stronger as a result. It's true that since then the occupation of the West Bank, among other illegal actions by Israel, reduced the wider support for these actions and presented the case to the World for Palestine to have its own recognised State, i.e. the two-state solution.

The only way a two-state solution will be established is when 'the drive them into the sea' * rhetoric is dropped by both sides. Also when both sides choose leaders who genuinely seek a fair peace. That seems like a pipe dream right now
[* note for @Pexbo and @Berbasbullet... quotations marks and italics.. enjoy ]

 

[Bert_]

and the hundred's of thousands of refugees from Crimea who aren't able to return home.

Those refugees are currently waging a war to retake their lost territories including Crimea. Heavily supported by NATO.

Should NATO provide the same support to the Palestinians to retake their lost territory?

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[neverdie]

The British Parliament, effectually (not by intent), has created a disgraceful meta-event. The topic is the rowdiness or general discontent within the HoC rather than the HoC condemning the Israeli invasion (as it continues to mount). That's all the news had to say (speaker, parties, internal row). Just a method, if you ask me, by some, though by no means all, in media and other circles, of avoiding the condemnation which was/is necessary.

 

[neverdie]

Only in your mind set. The Arab nations in 1948 threatened to drive the Jewish nation into the sea, when the State of Israel was first recognised. Over the decades since multiple attempts by Egypt, Syria and the other surrounding Arab nations resulted in a number of wars which Israel not only survived, but grew stronger as a result. It's true that since then the occupation of the West Bank, among other illegal actions by Israel, reduced the wider support for these actions and presented the case to the World for Palestine to have its own recognised State, i.e. the two-state solution.

The only way a two-state solution will be established is when 'the drive them into the sea' * rhetoric is dropped by both sides. Also when both sides choose leaders who genuinely seek a fair peace. That seems like a pipe dream right now
[* note for @Pexbo and @Berbasbullet... quotations marks and italics.. enjoy ]

Because there was no Jewish nation before roughly that precise date. How would you respond, as a tribal system, or series of tribes, if another tribe declared that your house, and land that it is/was on, is now no longer fit for you and your people to live in (just taking it). The European legacy is that it killed six million Jews and then didn't give much of a feck if the Jewish people of Israel killed that same number of Arabs and "Blacks" (post-colonialism - more EU direct, or US, here, than Israel, in Africa, of course).

Every nation ever invaded has declared they would, by hook or crook, drive the colonizing nation out. That is just simple empirical history. Not a fan of the whole murderous driving people out thing, but you cannot deny the sequence which leads to this moment and still malingers.