• Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    There was a moral imperative in 1948 & 1967 to support Israel against outside aggression who openly stated they wanted to end Israel. There’s now a moral imperative to protect Gazans and their land as was agreed to in Oslo II.

    Enjoy your mess Joe, you sleepwalked into this one, crisis by crisis by believing Bibi unconditionally until very recently. Because now Egypt is getting testy:

    Netanyahu’s words have also alarmed Egypt which has said that any ground operation in the Rafah area or mass displacement across the border would undermine its 40-year-old peace treaty with Israel. The mostly sealed Gaza-Egypt border is also the main entry point for humanitarian aid.

    That’s a big fucking issue, if Egypt is throwing that language around I doubt Jordan is far behind them. I’ll say it again, is the alliance with Israel worth it, if it jeopardizes US relations with literally every other nation in the gulf?

    • abuttandahalf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There was a moral imperative to protect Israel when it was massacring and ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians from their land in 1948? No. There was and continues to be a moral imperative to do everything in order to end the existence of the Zionist entity.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I don’t have the energy to dive into the pre-1948 history of Palestine beyond to say this;

        • The Nakba was (and remains) a stain on humanity, as a direct result of European nations like Poland, France, and the UK callously using the holocaust as cover for their own anti-Semitic motivations to ‘offload’ their Jewish population into Palestine, at the expense of the locals
        • The British especially, but the Allied powers as a whole, undermined the crumbing Ottoman Empire by promising self-determination to the Arab rebels, all while having already assigned and divided that land for themselves and their Allies after WW1
        • Irgun and other Jewish militias were doing A LOT of terrorism, against both the British in charge during Mandatory Palestine, and the existing Arab population and civilians

        While acknowledging the above, the fact is that in 1948 there was a Jewish population there, who were facing a second genocide attempt that decade. The powers that be washed their hands of it, not unlike the Fall of Saigon or Afghanistan, yet we don’t learn from our interventionism. To unwind this problem requires either a robot peace that both sides want, or one of the two getting ethnically cleansed.

        • abuttandahalf@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wrong. There was a white supremacist colonialist Zionist presence in Palestine, which aimed to sieze the country for itself and dispossess its natives, which it did through massacres and ethnic cleansing. There was no “second genocide attempt”. There was only Palestinian and Arab self defence in the face of an armed, murderous society that sought to dispossess and erase the Palestinian people entirely. The solution is the destruction of the settler colonialist state and that is what will happen.

          • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            > 'It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea. Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha, 1948

            Idk that certainly sounds like “kill them all”

            I’m not denying the origins of Israel, that it was created by colonial powers at the expense of Arabs & Palestinians, nor that it displaced a significant Palestinian population after an organized and protracted campaign of Zionist, Jewish terrorism. However in 1948 the reality is the Jews were there, and the rhetoric from the top was of elimination and eradication - and that is a genocidal act

            • abuttandahalf@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The quote from Alec Kirkbride’s memoirs:

              “when I asked him for his estimate of the size of the Jewish forces, [he] waved his hands and said: 'It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.”

              It is clear this is referring to the Zionist armed forces that were in fact committing the massacres. This was after the Zionist forces actually pushed the Palestinians of Haifa into the sea under rifle fire. In other instances, the same official declared that equality between Jewish settlers and Palestinians was to be implemented.

              All this being said, I will not mince words, the Palestinian people have every right to remove the Zionist colonial presence from their land, and they had that right in 1948 when this militarized settler society put into action its goal of dispossessing the entire Palestinian people.

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              But one genocide is not better than another. There’s no ethical way to take sides here. What we should really do is end our involvement. The obvious way to avoid being complicit in murder is to stop taking part in it. We should end all support for Israel, no weapons no money. They can get humanitarian aid if need be, but no f-16s or cruise missiles.

              Isreal can either make friends with their neighbors on their own, or they can risk getting wiped out, their choice.

              • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                There is absolutely an ethical side - pro-civilian.

                Walking away completely, right now, would just leave a broken Gaza being strangled by blockade, fractured West Bank constantly being raided by the IDF and/or Zionist mobs or eaten away gradually by an illegal settlements with Israeli state support, and the Golan Heights a contested low intensity battlefield. Palestinians and Arabs in Israel would continue to live under an apartheid ethnostate as second class citizens.

                Retaining the status quo doesn’t solve any of the harms done by Israel, it’s the easy out.

                • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Honestly, if we ended US financial support for Israel, I think it would make a pretty big difference. Isreal would likely be forced to focus more on stabilizing relations with their hostile neighbors. And any attempt to do that would require employing a very different strategy with Palestine.

    • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I hate Israel more than the next guy, but those nations likely wouldn’t be sympathetic to the west’s form of government anyways.

      Israel is not a colony we created because we felt bad for Jewish people. Israel is a colony we created to be able to project power in the middle east.

      So, it’s not about getting Arab nations to like us. It’s about having a place to park stealth bombers those countries don’t have the technology to shoot down. It’s about having a Mafia group willing to do our dirty work so we don’t look that bad doing it