Repeat: Israel massacred more Palestinians from one family during one attack on Gaza than all projectiles had killed in Israel in 8 years
What they think they sound like:
“I’m so rational. The truth is somewhere in the middle, they’re both wrong. I’m so nuanced and enlightened with my views.”
What they actually sound like:
“History and context are things that do not exist to me. In whatever dimension I exist in, I believe that there is an equivalence between an advanced occupying army that is notorious for war crimes, and an occupied brutalized population.”
Anonymous said: How much land was actually "given" to the Israelis by the UN, as Israelis claim?
I take it you mean the 1947 partition plan. Alright, this might be a tad bit long, but let’s talk about that, shall we?
The 1947 partition plan, was a framework proposed by the UN in an attempt to divide historical Palestine into 2 states for 2 peoples. This was to be implemented at the end of the British Mandate of Palestine. There would be as they named it one “Arab state”, and one “Jewish state”. Jerusalem would remain an international city open for all.
Unsurprisingly, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs, refused this. Why? Let’s go over the basics. And I mean the very bare basics, you could write a book on this, so I’m just sticking to the essentials.
A common argument I see from a lot of pro-Israelis, is that Palestinians had the chance to have peace, and have a state of their own if they had just accepted this plan. The state we could have gotten, would have been much larger and all of this fighting would have been unnecessary.
As you know, historical Palestine has always had a Jewish community. This was never contested, there never were issues with the indigenous Jewish Palestinians.
No, the root of the matter truly began with Zionism. Zionism was an ideology developed by Theodor Herzl (and others) that promoted the creation of a Jewish state. This ideology in practice is basically very heavy on the settler colonialism. If you read any of Herzl’s books you will find them chock full of “White man’s burden” mimicry, and other examples that would make any colonial proud.
There were many candidates for the location of this Jewish state, including Argentina, but in the end they chose Palestine, despite the fact that Palestine was already inhabited.
The first significant waves of European Zionist migration began at the end of the 19th century. So in the 1880s upward. The partition plan was proposed in 1947. So by the time this plan came along, the vast majority of the Zionist population in Palestine had barely been on the land for a few decades, at most.
Despite this massive immigration to Palestine, the Zionist population was still a minority. The most generous of estimates are that they made up only a third of the population, and owned land no more than 6-7% of historical Palestine.
So what exactly were the specifics of the partition plan?
The “Arab” state, despite the Arab Palestinians being the vast majority, would receive ~43% of the land of historical Palestine, relegating them to the mountainous regions, a third of the coast, and losing any access to the red sea.
The “Jewish” state, despite the Zionists being a minority with not a single district outside of Yaffa having a Jewish population majority (port city, most immigrants off the boat ended there), were given around ~56% of the land of historical Palestine. With the majority of the coastline and fertile agricultural lands.
Btw, just to show how small the Zionist population was, even the “Jewish” state would have only had a 55% Jewish population.
So, answer me this: Why should the indigenous population give up more than half of their historical homeland? What sense would that make? And not only that, they’d be giving it up for a minority of newcomers fresh off the boat. Who in their right mind would not resist this?
This is not a question of living together peacefully, the only way Zionists could have their self determination in this context was to deny Palestinians their self determination. The only way they could have a Jewish state with a vast Jewish majority (A Zionist goal), was if the Palestinians were removed from the picture. And we were.
Just so you understand what I mean by this, here is but one example of a quote from David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel in 1948:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
So when people ask me why we didn’t accept the 1947 partition plan..the only thing I can think of is this line by Ghassan Kanafani:
“They rob you of your bread, but leave you a small chunk, they then command you to thank them for their generosity. Oh their audacity.”
xladylance said: i dont quite understand egypts support of zionism. could you help me out?
Egyptians have always had contempt for Palestinians, even back in the 1940s. The soldiers who occupied Gaza during that time period had a saying that was a play on the Arabic name for Palestine falasṭīn›: اولها فلس وآخرها طين ‹ˀawwalha falas w ˀāxerha ṭīn› “It begins with bankruptcy and ends with mud.”
Overall, however, Egyptians largely sympathized with the Palestinian people and their plight. However, after Sadat made Egypt an ally of Israel, the autocratic regime needed to justify this state of affairs to a population that opposed that move. So over the years, Egyptians have been inundated with anti-Palestinian propaganda. In recent years, the regime before and after 2011 has taken advantage of opposition to the MB to portray Gaza as an MB base. this is why many Egyptians have actually been celebrating the deaths of Palestinians.
Incidentally, if you google the Arabic phrase I mentioned above, you get modern-day Egyptians still repeating it. This article in Arabic, which regurgitates the worst zionist lies about us, is a prime example.
Finally, I would like to note that Egyptian antipathy to Palestinians isn’t unique to them. Other Arab states have also needed to justify their pro-Israel policies to their populations by racist propaganda, too. However, only the Egyptians are directly collaborating with the Israelis to blockade the Palestinians in Gaza, so their antipathy actually crosses the line into acts of war.
This is true and I’d like to elaborate on it because I don’t think many Egyptians are even consciously aware of this because what happens factually is often very different from the public opinion in Egypt, which is why most Egyptians are in complete denial that Egypt’s existence has been largely detrimental to Palestinians - because as far as they’re concerned, our country is nothing but supportive of Palestine.
I think the degrees of anti-Palestinian propaganda has definitely varied from post-Sadat to post-Mubarak, because Mubarak used the Palestinian cause as a way to detract from his own regime’s failures. Also, Mubarak was a war hero in a war against Israel. This was one of his winning points (and remains one of the military’s selling points until today.) For that reason, they never went on all-out anti-Palestine propaganda the way they do today, because it meant denying their past achievements. A very large part of the Social Studies and Arabic national curriculums detail Israel’s creation, Arab unity, our allegiance to both Palestinians and the inherent Arabness of Jerusalem and our obligation to ‘someday return it.’ I distinctly recall my childhood being very, very pro-Palestine to the point that Palestine’s liberation came as a primary goal for any Egyptian until the revolution and Mubarak couldn’t distract from Egypt’s problems any longer. Before the MB was a legitimate threat, Zionism was the way to go. And the way Mubarak to blame Israel and Zionism for his failures was often through both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda and scapegoating Palestinians (which is why today you have a bizarre situation where being either Jewish or Palestinian is not really safe here currently). So to many Egyptians, it seems absurd to accuse them of being anti-Palestine when Palestine was a fundamental part of their upbringing.
True, this came with the cognitive dissonance of recognising that Mubarak also had fuel deals with Israel, and that we had a peace treaty, but for some reason this in particular was never at the cost of demonising Palestinians - rather, it was usually blamed on Egypt’s economic failures (“we can’t afford to do otherwise”) and the imperialistic forces (“if we go to war with Israel it means going to war with America and we can’t afford that, either.”) The blockade in Rafah has always been excused through that, as well. (A good measurement of propaganda in Egypt has been the generational gap: my grandfather - Abd el Nasser - is very strongly anti-Israel, my parents - Sadat - seem easily inclined to blame Hamas for their troubles, and then my generation - Mubarak - is once again very strongly anti-Israel.)
The past year is the first year I have ever, ever heard the sort of outright anti-Palestine propaganda that exists currently, because the Muslim Brotherhood finally gave the military an excuse to do so. It was the first time Hamas was fully decried as a terrorist group, the first time anyone dared to demonise Palestinians (and Syrians) on public television and it was accepted by the public. I know this kind of thing existed before, but was tantamount to blasphemy before last year. A TV anchor who didn’t support Palestine would’ve automatically been labelled a traitor. Now it’s almost the reverse. It’s almost insane the way the propaganda machine worked. And of course, it’s great for Sisi because it allows him to collaborate with Israel at little cost to his image.
One of the biggest indicators to this is just the public response to the attacks on Gaza. In 2008, it was part of our life. We woke up, went to school, went to sleep every day of Operation Cast Lead with Gaza on our minds. I remember prayers and donations and neighbours collecting food to take to the border and a lot of doctors I knew personally going there for aid. We were angry about it, we were so angry about it. This past week? Maybe ten, twenty people collecting donations. Nothing on the news. And when it is discussed, “”“Hamas”“” takes precedence almost as much as it does in pro-Israel conversations. I don’t know if the propaganda is capable of sustaining itself, though, because they can’t keep blaming both Zionists and Palestinians forever. Or at least, I hope not.
Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza—Debunked -
Israel claims that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense, that Gaza is no longer occupied and that its recent attack was provoked by rocket fire from Hamas. Here’s what you need to know about these talking points.
1) Israel is exercising its right to self-defense.
As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.
Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.
I feel like I just leveled up on my geek cred. We were standing in the street talking when some guy walked by wearing a “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” t-shirt and I’m all “Hey, that’s Star Trek!” Thanks, Netflix.
Israel reminds me of one of those bullies that punches you with your own hand and then asks you why you’re hitting yourself.