Fantastic work. Yes they do target civilians and they started targeting them at the advent of Zionism -something many in the west aren’t familiar with - which is the impetus for the conflict. We are watching colonialism perpetuated by Zionism, not Judaism. That’s the elephant in the room those in the west don’t want to address.
Hey Gordon. I’m referring to the eastern european movement that dates back to the late 1800s that posits european Jews deserve their own state, which often comes at the expense of the current land owners. I won’t plug here but I wrote a recent article about the conflict.
Arab Muslims, Jews and Christians previously lived together in the land now known as Israel for many centuries. Zionism -a european movement- ended up garnering international support and Jerusalem became the place where many German Jews were sent based on the idea it was their land per biblical precedent.
This started the displacement of existing Muslims, Christians and Jews. It got worse during the holocaust as many countries including the United States refused to take German refugees; many fearful of Nazi spy agents entering. But the issue was forced on Palestine.
Early 1900s the British and French worked together to divide the middle east in a secret treaty and it was that treaty that started the mass emigration of european Jews into the area of Palestine. This led to many revolts from the Palestinians with each revolt concluding with the Palestinians losing more land under apartheid conditions. The Jews originally owned 6% of the land but now 85%.
There’s history here and even the Hamas charter calls out their beef with Zionism across Arab lands which leaves them displaced. Their beef isn’t with Jews but with the state of Israel and the land being colonized by them based on biblical precedent; which clearly they -including most Palestinians- disagree with.
Point of note: I’m emphasizing “european” Jews to draw the distinction because many people don’t realize there are middle eastern Jews who lived in that area previously and still do.
This is at the core of the conflict. Until Palestine gets their own state with equal resources, support and removal of the apartheid system this will never end. But the history needs to be addressed instead of ignored.
First off Terrence, I agree with you that until the Palestinians have their own state, this will never end. Here’s my take on how that can happen (to preview, it’s basically Taba with the U.S. essentially forcing the Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and then leading an international peacekeeping mission that will ensure demilitarization):
Would be interested in your reaction to this take, including the thoughts on justice.
Meanwhile, I thought your history was basically accurate, although I have a different perspective on one point. When you write “the land being colonized by them (Israel) based on biblical precedent”, I don’t think that’s really true. Certainly, the biblical attachment and the fact that Jews have always lived in the area is the reason Zionism settled on Israel as the location of a future Jewish state. But except the settlers and others who claim “Judea and Samaria” for the Jews (a group that is a significant minority of the Israeli population), Israel’s legitimacy is not based on a biblical claim to the land. It’s the fact that Jews had always lived there, that many settled there in second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th, acquired land, convinced the powers who controlled the area at the time that they should be granted a state in that land, convinced the world in the aftermath of the Holocaust that a Jewish state was both necessary and appropriate, fought and won multiple wars (none of which they started) where they acquired additional territory, and had to incorporate more than 500k Jews from others area of the Middle East who were oppressed and forced to flee their native countries. Israel’s claim to the land is ultimately based on this history, not on the Bible.
Not sure you really answered my questions about examples of the targeting of civilians at the advent of Zionism and who Israel is a colony of or for, but I’m also not sure I really care. Your response was ultimately more interesting.
Finally, please do link to the article you mentioned. I’d be interested in reading it. And if you can’t plug something you wrote in a Substack comment, where can you? :)
Hey Gordon, forgive the late reply. I read your article and agree with the ideas of demilitarization and the establishment of a sovereign state. According to the latest poll (June 2023) of Palestinians in that area only about 1/3 support a 2 state solution but that might be due to the lack of trust towards Israel. It seems the majority want three main things first; for Israel’s occupation to end so Palestinian refugees can return home, for the creation of an independent judicial system, and for the dismantling of Hamas and groups alike as >70% believe they are corrupt.
As for my comment on biblical precedence, maybe my language was unclear. My point was that Zionism was created out of a religious/biblical precedent not so much as the state of Israel. But Zionism led to the state of Israel being created. Zionism also started before the Holocaust as well as the issue of European Jews displacing Palestinians. The Holocaust simply exacerbated the issue. Unfortunately the Holocaust gets directly tied to the conflict which isn’t exactly correct.
Also, something to ponder, European Jews weren’t denied access to Palestine before the mass immigration so they could have moved there any time. Plus, there are many generations between the destruction of Rome and the subsequent ancient Jewish diaspora and the advent of the Germanic Jew. So I’m not sure about the “return to home” concept for the European Jews. This is like me claiming I’m returning to an Africa country due to being Black despite being born in America. I can’t just claim an African land because 10+ generations ago my ancestors were African no more than a European Jew can claim they’re returning home to a land they nor 10 generations of their family
ever set foot in Palestine. This ideology is predicated on religious grounds as it can’t be supported on ancestry.
So the issue wasn’t that European Jews weren’t allowed, it was that they were massively immigrated into a land that economically could not handle them, by armed Zionist, displacing existing Palestinian Muslims, Jews and Christians from their homes; with international support I might add. This ties to colonialism which is why Israel is viewed as the occupier. The establishment of Israel colonized existing land with European Jews under the banner of Zionism.
Terrence: First off, no worries on the delayed response (which I have now matched). Lots of things in life should be prioritized over Substack comments. 🙂
But I do have a few disagreements with your comment.
First, I think it’s important to understand that for most Jews, Zionism was fundamentally about creating a Jewish state that was safe for the Jewish people, not about reclaiming Biblical lands. That is why other places like Uganda and Argentina were actually considered as the location for this state. It’s also the reason that Jewish immigration to what became Israel consisted mainly of Russian and Eastern European Jews from 1880-1930 who were fleeing from pogroms and then from Germany and Central Europe in the 1930s because of the rise of Nazism. Now that is not to say that the fact that Jerusalem and the area around it has always been regarded as the historical homeland of the Jewish people was irrelevant. Ultimately, Zionists chose the land that is now Israel instead of Uganda or other options because of the biblical and historical connection and the fact that Jews had always lived there. And it’s also true that there are some folks who chose to come to Israel purely for religious reasons. But for the vast majority of Jewish immigrants to Israel, they were just fleeing from persecution and trying to build a homeland where they could feel safe (and to make one ancillary point, beginning in the 1930s and especially after 1938, to its shame the British government DID try to stop Jewish immigration to Israel, at the very time when the Nazis persecution of Jews across central Europe began to reach its height).
Anyway, the reason I’m saying all this is to make the point that the Jewish claim to Israel is NOT based on it being the Jews ancestral homeland; it’s based on fact that they were refugees who fled to the area, peacefully settled it on land they legally acquired (before 1937, virtually all violence in the territories was Arab violence against Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine), and then formed a state following the legal process that existed at the time. In that (legal) sense, neither the historical/biblical attachment nor the Holocaust matter. That being said, in a moral sense they, of course, matter and are obviously part of the reason the U.N. backed the creation of 1948. Zionism was an ideology that formed in Europe at the turn of the 19th century out of the belief that Jews would never be truly safe until they had their own homeland. Has any belief ever proven to be more terribly, horribly prescient? It was clear in the wake of World War II that the Jews needed their own state. And was there any place in the world that made more sense at that time than what became Israel.
Having said all that, that was unfortunate for the Palestinians who fled their homes in the Nakba. And it’s true that while some fled because they were asked to do so by the Arab states that declared war on Israel or to avoid the violence that would likely be part of that war, many also fled because of the massacres that were committed (by both sides) in the run-up to that war. As I wrote here (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians), I think it’s fair for the Palestinians refugees of 1948 to feel that they were treated unfairly by history.
Having said that, as I also point out in that article, that same claim can be made by many people (including, I might add, virtually all the Jews in Israel in 1948, as well the 850k Jews who were expelled or fled Arab countries after 1948). In the wake of World War 11, literally tens of millions of people around the world had been forced to flee their homes with nothing. Frankly, what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 was far less tragic than the suffering of most of the people of Europe and Asia in the 1940s.
The unique tragedy of the Palestinian people is not 1948. It’s that after 1948, they were forced into refugee camps rather than being granted citizenship in the Arab countries they fled to, that Jordan claimed the land that was supposed to become the Palestinian state, that Jordan lost that land by joining the other Arab states that attacked Israel in 1967, and that rather than taking the opportunity to regain most of the West Bank in 2000 and 2007 they walked away from these offers until it was too late. And now they are suffering a new tragedy in Gaza because the people there are ruled by terrorist group that has committed an enormous atrocity and is hiding amongst innocent civilians.
These were all tragedies that were the result of the Arab states or Palestinians choosing (or at least allowing themselves to be ruled by) rulers who made terrible decisions. Now none of this means that Israel is right to settle the West Bank, and the world should do what is necessary to both Israel out of the vast majority of the West Bank, ensure that Palestinians have a viable state, while also ensuring that attacks on Israel from Palestinans end (or the Palestinians should lose that state permanently).
Interesting thread, but i find it unforgivable that creation of Israel displacement, oppression and mistreatment of Palestinians. It’s ironic and more than distasteful, if you take your opinion, that Israel was created as a safe place for Jewish people fleeing the pogroms, who then went on to persecute and brutalise another people.
Clearly the solution is Egypt and Jordan welcome all of their Muslim brothers.
Ohh wait, they won’t?
WTH?? Only Israel needs to make peace or offer land? Like the five offers before?
When the charter of an organization includes the destruction of a people, that organization is evil.
When the Palestinian people realize they are the bait and the fodder, for the PLO to enrich themselves(Yasser ring a bell?), hopefully they will wake up and leave.
Colter: Someone linked me to this post. Appreciate the historical background.
Nevertheless, to be upfront, I'm one of those folks who does believe there is a significance difference between the deliberate slaughter of civilians that happened on October 7th and killings of civilians that is happening as the result of Israel's retaliation against Hamas. I believe that ultimately Hamas is responsible for all those deaths given they are deliberately hiding among civilians.
Meanwhile, here are my thoughts about 2018 and 2014:
- Having done only about 5 minutes of research after reading the post above, I certainly wouldn't make strong claims, but I suspect if we dove into the details of lots of these cases, the story would be more complicated than the one told above:
- That said, I am also confident that some of these killings were truly wrong. Some of that I would attribute to the kinds of deaths and injuries that happen whenever protesters clash with the military and police. When that happens, a combination of anger and fog of war can lead to violence (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests)
- But I'd also acknowledge that some of these deaths were likely flat out murders by damaged individuals. As Baruch Goldstein most memorably demonstrated, there are some Israelis who are just as twisted and murderous as Hamas. Some of them are doubtless in the army, and I would not be shocked if they took the opportunity to take unnecessary shots at people because it was a situation where they could get away with it.
Having said all that, the most important point I would make about 2018 is that there were 189 deaths over a period of nine months of protests (or less than one a day). That, of course, is 189 tragedies for the affected families, but I think it's also proof that these deaths were not the result of an IDF policy to deliberately kill civilians. If that had truly been the policy, the number of deaths would obviously have been much, much higher.
I think a similar dynamic holds for Operation Protective Edge in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War). If Israel had been targeting civilians, I think far, far more than 2000 Palestinians would have died in seven weeks of bombing if that had been the goal. Also, I think some stats that Colter didn't include are important. While he's right that far, far more Palestinians died than Israelis, it's also true that 4,000 rockets and mortars were launched at Israel from Gaza during this seven week period. I also think it's problematic that Colter lists the number of deaths of Israeli kids at "1", when the conflict was triggered by the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teen-agers.
Anyway, coming back to today, I'd conclude by noting that Hamas managed to kill more than 1,400 Israelis in one day in a relatively sparsely populated area of Israeli using mostly hand held weapons. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth, and Israel (even setting aside its nuclear arsenal) has some of the most powerful weapons of any military. Given these facts, I'd argue that the death toll in Gaza would already be in the hundreds of thousands if the IDF were deliberately targeting civilians.
How about this, why not read this book only a few hundred pages. You seem like a typically intelligent ashkenazi jew should take you a saturday morning. try to imagine yourself as a palestinian while reading
"Having said all that, the most important point I would make about 2018 is that there were 189 deaths over a period of nine months of protests (or less than one a day). That, of course, is 189 tragedies for the affected families, but I think it's also proof that these deaths were not the result of an IDF policy to deliberately kill civilians. If that had truly been the policy, the number of deaths would obviously have been much, much higher."
Why do Zionists keep parroting this claim? The goal isn't always reduction in population size, sometimes deliberate murders are done with the intend of intimidation.
If you would like to "complicate" the IDF DELIBERATE slaughter of civilians we can do the same with Hamas and argue most killings were collateral or as a result of Israelis Hannibal Doctrine
"I also think it's problematic that Colter lists the number of deaths of Israeli kids at "1", when the conflict was triggered by the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teen-agers."
This is a very silly game of arbitrarily picking the point here or there that Israelis used as a pretext to slaughter tons of Palestinians and strike more terror into their subjugated population so they can steal more land. There is more than enough evidence that Israelis intend full land theft and dispossession.
- Do you believe there is a way for Israel to fight back against Hamas without killing innocent Gazans? If so, how? If not, is your belief that Israel shouldn't respond militarily to attacks from Hamas if they hide among civilians? What do you think their response to October 7 should be?
- I've tried to describe what I think is a viable path to a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians at the link below. Would be interested in your reaction to that piece:
Does Israel target civilians? Of course the do. Most IDF reservists start as police in Gaza beating women and children. It's a shame that our government has been taken over by jews. Without the U.S Israel could not do what it does.
There are plenty of questions the Israeli government needs to be held accountable to answer.
Like, are they using the much controversial white phosphorus mutation, especially in densely populated civilian areas.
“The UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980 prohibits the use of weapons which cause a lot of injury or whose effects are indiscriminate. This means that white phosphorous ammunition is banned under this converion. Some people think that because it is highly toxic, white phosphorous bombs may be a chemical weapon. This means that they would be banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
-Wikipedia
Our political leaders , radio and tv pundits all say the same thing:Israel has a right to defend itself. However, is this self-defense against Hamas or outright slaughter of the Palestinian people?
The scriptures refer to this time as “the days of vengeance.” (KJV)
The fulfillment of scriptures highlight the sign of the times.
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.”
Fantastic work. Yes they do target civilians and they started targeting them at the advent of Zionism -something many in the west aren’t familiar with - which is the impetus for the conflict. We are watching colonialism perpetuated by Zionism, not Judaism. That’s the elephant in the room those in the west don’t want to address.
Terrence: When you say "they started targeting them at the advent of Zionism", what are you referring to?
Also curious when you say "colonialism perpetuated by Zionism", who you think Israel is a colony of or for/
Hey Gordon. I’m referring to the eastern european movement that dates back to the late 1800s that posits european Jews deserve their own state, which often comes at the expense of the current land owners. I won’t plug here but I wrote a recent article about the conflict.
Arab Muslims, Jews and Christians previously lived together in the land now known as Israel for many centuries. Zionism -a european movement- ended up garnering international support and Jerusalem became the place where many German Jews were sent based on the idea it was their land per biblical precedent.
This started the displacement of existing Muslims, Christians and Jews. It got worse during the holocaust as many countries including the United States refused to take German refugees; many fearful of Nazi spy agents entering. But the issue was forced on Palestine.
Early 1900s the British and French worked together to divide the middle east in a secret treaty and it was that treaty that started the mass emigration of european Jews into the area of Palestine. This led to many revolts from the Palestinians with each revolt concluding with the Palestinians losing more land under apartheid conditions. The Jews originally owned 6% of the land but now 85%.
There’s history here and even the Hamas charter calls out their beef with Zionism across Arab lands which leaves them displaced. Their beef isn’t with Jews but with the state of Israel and the land being colonized by them based on biblical precedent; which clearly they -including most Palestinians- disagree with.
Point of note: I’m emphasizing “european” Jews to draw the distinction because many people don’t realize there are middle eastern Jews who lived in that area previously and still do.
This is at the core of the conflict. Until Palestine gets their own state with equal resources, support and removal of the apartheid system this will never end. But the history needs to be addressed instead of ignored.
First off Terrence, I agree with you that until the Palestinians have their own state, this will never end. Here’s my take on how that can happen (to preview, it’s basically Taba with the U.S. essentially forcing the Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and then leading an international peacekeeping mission that will ensure demilitarization):
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
Would be interested in your reaction to this take, including the thoughts on justice.
Meanwhile, I thought your history was basically accurate, although I have a different perspective on one point. When you write “the land being colonized by them (Israel) based on biblical precedent”, I don’t think that’s really true. Certainly, the biblical attachment and the fact that Jews have always lived in the area is the reason Zionism settled on Israel as the location of a future Jewish state. But except the settlers and others who claim “Judea and Samaria” for the Jews (a group that is a significant minority of the Israeli population), Israel’s legitimacy is not based on a biblical claim to the land. It’s the fact that Jews had always lived there, that many settled there in second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th, acquired land, convinced the powers who controlled the area at the time that they should be granted a state in that land, convinced the world in the aftermath of the Holocaust that a Jewish state was both necessary and appropriate, fought and won multiple wars (none of which they started) where they acquired additional territory, and had to incorporate more than 500k Jews from others area of the Middle East who were oppressed and forced to flee their native countries. Israel’s claim to the land is ultimately based on this history, not on the Bible.
Not sure you really answered my questions about examples of the targeting of civilians at the advent of Zionism and who Israel is a colony of or for, but I’m also not sure I really care. Your response was ultimately more interesting.
Finally, please do link to the article you mentioned. I’d be interested in reading it. And if you can’t plug something you wrote in a Substack comment, where can you? :)
Hey Gordon, forgive the late reply. I read your article and agree with the ideas of demilitarization and the establishment of a sovereign state. According to the latest poll (June 2023) of Palestinians in that area only about 1/3 support a 2 state solution but that might be due to the lack of trust towards Israel. It seems the majority want three main things first; for Israel’s occupation to end so Palestinian refugees can return home, for the creation of an independent judicial system, and for the dismantling of Hamas and groups alike as >70% believe they are corrupt.
As for my comment on biblical precedence, maybe my language was unclear. My point was that Zionism was created out of a religious/biblical precedent not so much as the state of Israel. But Zionism led to the state of Israel being created. Zionism also started before the Holocaust as well as the issue of European Jews displacing Palestinians. The Holocaust simply exacerbated the issue. Unfortunately the Holocaust gets directly tied to the conflict which isn’t exactly correct.
Also, something to ponder, European Jews weren’t denied access to Palestine before the mass immigration so they could have moved there any time. Plus, there are many generations between the destruction of Rome and the subsequent ancient Jewish diaspora and the advent of the Germanic Jew. So I’m not sure about the “return to home” concept for the European Jews. This is like me claiming I’m returning to an Africa country due to being Black despite being born in America. I can’t just claim an African land because 10+ generations ago my ancestors were African no more than a European Jew can claim they’re returning home to a land they nor 10 generations of their family
ever set foot in Palestine. This ideology is predicated on religious grounds as it can’t be supported on ancestry.
So the issue wasn’t that European Jews weren’t allowed, it was that they were massively immigrated into a land that economically could not handle them, by armed Zionist, displacing existing Palestinian Muslims, Jews and Christians from their homes; with international support I might add. This ties to colonialism which is why Israel is viewed as the occupier. The establishment of Israel colonized existing land with European Jews under the banner of Zionism.
Also you can find my article here -> https://defeatinggiants.com/p/the-israel-hamas-war-and-the-giants
Terrence: First off, no worries on the delayed response (which I have now matched). Lots of things in life should be prioritized over Substack comments. 🙂
But I do have a few disagreements with your comment.
First, I think it’s important to understand that for most Jews, Zionism was fundamentally about creating a Jewish state that was safe for the Jewish people, not about reclaiming Biblical lands. That is why other places like Uganda and Argentina were actually considered as the location for this state. It’s also the reason that Jewish immigration to what became Israel consisted mainly of Russian and Eastern European Jews from 1880-1930 who were fleeing from pogroms and then from Germany and Central Europe in the 1930s because of the rise of Nazism. Now that is not to say that the fact that Jerusalem and the area around it has always been regarded as the historical homeland of the Jewish people was irrelevant. Ultimately, Zionists chose the land that is now Israel instead of Uganda or other options because of the biblical and historical connection and the fact that Jews had always lived there. And it’s also true that there are some folks who chose to come to Israel purely for religious reasons. But for the vast majority of Jewish immigrants to Israel, they were just fleeing from persecution and trying to build a homeland where they could feel safe (and to make one ancillary point, beginning in the 1930s and especially after 1938, to its shame the British government DID try to stop Jewish immigration to Israel, at the very time when the Nazis persecution of Jews across central Europe began to reach its height).
Anyway, the reason I’m saying all this is to make the point that the Jewish claim to Israel is NOT based on it being the Jews ancestral homeland; it’s based on fact that they were refugees who fled to the area, peacefully settled it on land they legally acquired (before 1937, virtually all violence in the territories was Arab violence against Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine), and then formed a state following the legal process that existed at the time. In that (legal) sense, neither the historical/biblical attachment nor the Holocaust matter. That being said, in a moral sense they, of course, matter and are obviously part of the reason the U.N. backed the creation of 1948. Zionism was an ideology that formed in Europe at the turn of the 19th century out of the belief that Jews would never be truly safe until they had their own homeland. Has any belief ever proven to be more terribly, horribly prescient? It was clear in the wake of World War II that the Jews needed their own state. And was there any place in the world that made more sense at that time than what became Israel.
Having said all that, that was unfortunate for the Palestinians who fled their homes in the Nakba. And it’s true that while some fled because they were asked to do so by the Arab states that declared war on Israel or to avoid the violence that would likely be part of that war, many also fled because of the massacres that were committed (by both sides) in the run-up to that war. As I wrote here (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians), I think it’s fair for the Palestinians refugees of 1948 to feel that they were treated unfairly by history.
Having said that, as I also point out in that article, that same claim can be made by many people (including, I might add, virtually all the Jews in Israel in 1948, as well the 850k Jews who were expelled or fled Arab countries after 1948). In the wake of World War 11, literally tens of millions of people around the world had been forced to flee their homes with nothing. Frankly, what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 was far less tragic than the suffering of most of the people of Europe and Asia in the 1940s.
The unique tragedy of the Palestinian people is not 1948. It’s that after 1948, they were forced into refugee camps rather than being granted citizenship in the Arab countries they fled to, that Jordan claimed the land that was supposed to become the Palestinian state, that Jordan lost that land by joining the other Arab states that attacked Israel in 1967, and that rather than taking the opportunity to regain most of the West Bank in 2000 and 2007 they walked away from these offers until it was too late. And now they are suffering a new tragedy in Gaza because the people there are ruled by terrorist group that has committed an enormous atrocity and is hiding amongst innocent civilians.
These were all tragedies that were the result of the Arab states or Palestinians choosing (or at least allowing themselves to be ruled by) rulers who made terrible decisions. Now none of this means that Israel is right to settle the West Bank, and the world should do what is necessary to both Israel out of the vast majority of the West Bank, ensure that Palestinians have a viable state, while also ensuring that attacks on Israel from Palestinans end (or the Palestinians should lose that state permanently).
Interesting thread, but i find it unforgivable that creation of Israel displacement, oppression and mistreatment of Palestinians. It’s ironic and more than distasteful, if you take your opinion, that Israel was created as a safe place for Jewish people fleeing the pogroms, who then went on to persecute and brutalise another people.
Spectacular work....needs to be shared everywhere. Well done man.
It's hard to label this article with a heart being heartbroken by such blind violence against innocent civilians
With a heart being rightfully disgusted and enraged.
Clearly the solution is Egypt and Jordan welcome all of their Muslim brothers.
Ohh wait, they won’t?
WTH?? Only Israel needs to make peace or offer land? Like the five offers before?
When the charter of an organization includes the destruction of a people, that organization is evil.
When the Palestinian people realize they are the bait and the fodder, for the PLO to enrich themselves(Yasser ring a bell?), hopefully they will wake up and leave.
Why should they assist Israelis in land theft?
"When the charter of an organization includes the destruction of a people, that organization is evil."
That's Likuds charter, voted in by Israelis. The rest are more quiet about their aims against Palestinians.
Yes
Brilliant piece, a true breath of fresh air amidst some of the garbage I've recently read.
Colter: Someone linked me to this post. Appreciate the historical background.
Nevertheless, to be upfront, I'm one of those folks who does believe there is a significance difference between the deliberate slaughter of civilians that happened on October 7th and killings of civilians that is happening as the result of Israel's retaliation against Hamas. I believe that ultimately Hamas is responsible for all those deaths given they are deliberately hiding among civilians.
Meanwhile, here are my thoughts about 2018 and 2014:
- Having done only about 5 minutes of research after reading the post above, I certainly wouldn't make strong claims, but I suspect if we dove into the details of lots of these cases, the story would be more complicated than the one told above:
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/inconvenient-truths-for-the-un-analysis-of-information-ignored-by-the-2019-commission-of-inquiry-on-gaza/
- That said, I am also confident that some of these killings were truly wrong. Some of that I would attribute to the kinds of deaths and injuries that happen whenever protesters clash with the military and police. When that happens, a combination of anger and fog of war can lead to violence (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests)
- But I'd also acknowledge that some of these deaths were likely flat out murders by damaged individuals. As Baruch Goldstein most memorably demonstrated, there are some Israelis who are just as twisted and murderous as Hamas. Some of them are doubtless in the army, and I would not be shocked if they took the opportunity to take unnecessary shots at people because it was a situation where they could get away with it.
Having said all that, the most important point I would make about 2018 is that there were 189 deaths over a period of nine months of protests (or less than one a day). That, of course, is 189 tragedies for the affected families, but I think it's also proof that these deaths were not the result of an IDF policy to deliberately kill civilians. If that had truly been the policy, the number of deaths would obviously have been much, much higher.
I think a similar dynamic holds for Operation Protective Edge in 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War). If Israel had been targeting civilians, I think far, far more than 2000 Palestinians would have died in seven weeks of bombing if that had been the goal. Also, I think some stats that Colter didn't include are important. While he's right that far, far more Palestinians died than Israelis, it's also true that 4,000 rockets and mortars were launched at Israel from Gaza during this seven week period. I also think it's problematic that Colter lists the number of deaths of Israeli kids at "1", when the conflict was triggered by the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teen-agers.
Anyway, coming back to today, I'd conclude by noting that Hamas managed to kill more than 1,400 Israelis in one day in a relatively sparsely populated area of Israeli using mostly hand held weapons. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth, and Israel (even setting aside its nuclear arsenal) has some of the most powerful weapons of any military. Given these facts, I'd argue that the death toll in Gaza would already be in the hundreds of thousands if the IDF were deliberately targeting civilians.
How about this, why not read this book only a few hundred pages. You seem like a typically intelligent ashkenazi jew should take you a saturday morning. try to imagine yourself as a palestinian while reading
https://archive.org/details/stateofterrorhowterrorismcreatedmodernisraelthomassuarez/page/n51/mode/2up
"Having said all that, the most important point I would make about 2018 is that there were 189 deaths over a period of nine months of protests (or less than one a day). That, of course, is 189 tragedies for the affected families, but I think it's also proof that these deaths were not the result of an IDF policy to deliberately kill civilians. If that had truly been the policy, the number of deaths would obviously have been much, much higher."
Why do Zionists keep parroting this claim? The goal isn't always reduction in population size, sometimes deliberate murders are done with the intend of intimidation.
If you would like to "complicate" the IDF DELIBERATE slaughter of civilians we can do the same with Hamas and argue most killings were collateral or as a result of Israelis Hannibal Doctrine
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/27/israels-military-shelled-burning-tanks-helicopters/
"I also think it's problematic that Colter lists the number of deaths of Israeli kids at "1", when the conflict was triggered by the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teen-agers."
This is a very silly game of arbitrarily picking the point here or there that Israelis used as a pretext to slaughter tons of Palestinians and strike more terror into their subjugated population so they can steal more land. There is more than enough evidence that Israelis intend full land theft and dispossession.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Some questions for you Colter.
- Do you believe there is a way for Israel to fight back against Hamas without killing innocent Gazans? If so, how? If not, is your belief that Israel shouldn't respond militarily to attacks from Hamas if they hide among civilians? What do you think their response to October 7 should be?
- I've tried to describe what I think is a viable path to a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians at the link below. Would be interested in your reaction to that piece:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
Does Israel target civilians? Of course the do. Most IDF reservists start as police in Gaza beating women and children. It's a shame that our government has been taken over by jews. Without the U.S Israel could not do what it does.
There are plenty of questions the Israeli government needs to be held accountable to answer.
Like, are they using the much controversial white phosphorus mutation, especially in densely populated civilian areas.
“The UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980 prohibits the use of weapons which cause a lot of injury or whose effects are indiscriminate. This means that white phosphorous ammunition is banned under this converion. Some people think that because it is highly toxic, white phosphorous bombs may be a chemical weapon. This means that they would be banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
-Wikipedia
Our political leaders , radio and tv pundits all say the same thing:Israel has a right to defend itself. However, is this self-defense against Hamas or outright slaughter of the Palestinian people?
The scriptures refer to this time as “the days of vengeance.” (KJV)
The fulfillment of scriptures highlight the sign of the times.
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.”
Luke 21:20-22 (NIV)
Wrong question ..