keeping the comment under Hen’s because please let the record show: “Gwynocide.” these ghouls do not actually care about this conflict. they’re just fueled by the high of hatred.
The lawyers of a Palestinian Gazan man have made a formal submission to the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor demanding that 14 Hamas leaders be investigated for crimes committed against the Palestinian people.
To date, the ICC has not charged even one Hamas leader with any crimes committed against their own civilians. This is despite the fact that the ICC has charged leaders of Hamas and Israel with crimes committed against each other’s populations during the Israel-Hamas War.
This submission, therefore, marks the first such filing by a Palestinian against Hamas.
One of the two American attorneys, Elliot Malin, revealed this exclusively to The Jerusalem Post on Friday. Malin was joined by Eli Rosenbaum, a former senior US Justice Department war crimes prosecutor, and French attorney Sarah Scialom.
The 40-page article demands that 14 named Hamas leaders be investigated for crimes committed against the Palestinian people, with an eye toward the issuance of warrants for their arrest.
The client is a Palestinian civilian from Gaza who lost his wife, children, and other family members in the war in Gaza.
The submission demonstrates that if Hamas had not committed these war crimes and other crimes against the Palestinian people, the client’s family and countless other Palestinians would be alive today.
The submission includes the following war crimes: utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons as human shields; attacking civilians; intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects; willfully causing great suffering; destruction and appropriation of property; excessive incidental death, injury, or damage; attacking protected objects; committing outrages upon personal dignity; using, conscripting, or enlisting children; sentencing or execution without due process.
The submission also includes the following crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, torture, and persecution.
The lengthy submission documents that the best known of Hamas’s premeditated crimes, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and indeed human sacrifices, was the war crime that was principally responsible for the high death toll and extensive destruction experienced in Gaza.
This crime is in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention.
The Hamas leaders identified in the submission are Izz al-Din al-Haddad, Khaled Mashaal, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Mohammed Odeh, Muhannad Rajab, Khalil al-Hayya, Mousa Abu Marzook, Ghazi Hamad, Izzat al-Rishq, Fathi Hamad, Nizar Awadallah, Husam Badran, Zaher Jabarin, and Basem Naim.
'Palestinian people deserve justice'
“The Palestinian people, including our client, deserve justice for the atrocities committed against them by Hamas, with the full backing of Iran’s leaders,” said Malin.
“To this day, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has not investigated, let alone sought warrants for, crimes cynically committed by Hamas and its accomplices against Palestinians during the war.”
Malin continued that “pursuing such justice goes to the heart of the mission of the OTP and the International Criminal Court, which it serves. Failing this mission means failing to deliver equal access to justice for those whom the court has ruled fall under its jurisdiction.”
Malin said that, if the Prosecutor and International Criminal Court refuse to seek justice for Palestinians who have been victimized by Hamas, the court “must ask OTP why the Gazan victims of Hamas inhumanity are being denied full justice.”
“Had Hamas’s fighters instead fought in compliance with longstanding international law rather than by hiding behind and underneath Gazan civilian men, women, and children, the civilian death toll would undoubtedly have been only a fraction of what it was,” Rosenbaum said.
“The credibility of international criminal justice rests on its ability to deliver swift accountability for crimes of this magnitude,” said Scialom.
“OTP’s continuing failure to pursue justice on behalf of Hamas’s deceased and displaced Palestinian victims in Gaza helps incentivize the repeated commission of such crimes as an effective geopolitical strategy, and it keeps the victimized Gazan community in the dark about essential facts of their victimization.”
Scialom said she is honored to represent the Palestinian client, whose family “tragically suffered enormous losses during the Gaza war.”
(I tried to screencap all of this thread from the source, but Threads mysteriously removed the 13th and 14th posts, so I had to rely on Dana’s stories).
danaaliyalevinson:
You all already know my stance:
Both Jews and Palestinians are not going anywhere and that any solution requires actually building bridges between these two groups not advocating for totalitarian eliminationist ideologies that seek the destruction of one of these two populations.
And that most of what I see these days passing for "peace activism" is the latter... calls for more war, more death, for cycles of violence to continue, only advocacy for a different side to be "winning".
Anyway, if you want to understand the realpolitik that's going on in the Jewish community both in diaspora and in Israel...
This thread is a good place to start...
yvngfrevd:
There is something deeply dishonest about the way the world discusses Jews, Israel, and this conflict. The conversation begins from premises that already assume Jewish power is uniquely suspect, Jewish fear is exaggerated, and Jewish self-defense must constantly justify itself in ways no other people on earth are expected to.
There are roughly 15 million Jews in the world. That is it. Fewer Jews exist today than existed before the Holocaust.
Meanwhile there are nearly 2 billion Muslims globally and dozens of Muslim-majority states. Jews are told endlessly that they are paranoid, tribal, dramatic, or "weaponizing antisemitism," while simultaneously watching mobs chant for intifada, celebrate October 7th, vandalize synagogues, attack visibly Jewish people in the street, and excuse it all as anti-colonial resistance. At a certain point, Jews are no longer obligated to pretend they are imagining what is directly in front of them.
People love speaking about this issue as though it began in 1948, as though Jews simply arrived one day from Europe and invented a state at the expense of peaceful natives. That framing erases almost the entire Jewish historical experience. Jews were expelled, massacred, subordinated, forcibly converted, ghettoized, humiliated, or exterminated across Europe, North Africa, the Levant, and the broader Middle East for centuries. Entire Jewish civilizations vanished. Salonica. Baghdad. Aleppo.
Cairo. Yemen. Izmir.
Communities that existed for hundreds or thousands of years either fled or were destroyed. Then Europeans annihilated six million Jews while much of the world either participated, looked away, or shut its doors.
And after all of that, Jews are lectured about the dangers of sovereignty.
The reality is that Israel did not emerge in a vacuum. Israel emerged because Jewish minority existence failed repeatedly across civilizations.
That does not mean every host nation was equally evil or every period equally violent. It means Jews learned through accumulated historical experience that dependence on the tolerance of others is not a survivable long- term strategy.
And this is where the conversation becomes especially dishonest: people constantly reduce the conflict to territory and economics while refusing to grapple with ideology, theology, and civilizational attitudes toward Jews.
Yes, not every Muslim is an extremist.
Not every Palestinian wants violence. That is obvious and does not need to be repeated every thirty seconds like a nervous ritual disclaimer. The point is not that every Muslim secretly wants to murder Jews. The point is that enough people do, enough institutions tolerate it, enough clerics preach it, enough states fund it, and enough crowds celebrate it that Jews are entirely rational to take it seriously.
People act as though Jews are irrational for noticing patterns that are stated openly.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler in 1941. Nazi propaganda was translated into Arabic and broadcast throughout the region. Islamist and Arab nationalist movements absorbed aspects of European antisemitic thought and fused them with older religious hostilities and modern revolutionary ideology. That does not mean Islam "is Nazism." It means there are ideological continuities that people are terrified to discuss honestly because they fear sounding prejudiced.
But reality does not disappear because people become uncomfortable naming it.
When organizations like Hamas explicitly invoke hadith about killing Jews behind rocks and trees, Jews are expected to sit there and be told it is merely “contextual,” “symbolic,” or “misunderstood.” Yet these same groups operationalize those texts politically and militarily. They are not obscure medieval manuscripts buried in a library somewhere.
They are quoted in charters, sermons, television broadcasts, classrooms, and militant rhetoric.
And then Western observers say: "Well, most Muslims don't interpret it that way."
But from a Jewish survival perspective, that is not the relevant question.
The relevant question is whether enough people interpret it that way to create an existential danger.
Jews are a tiny minority population.
Even a tiny fraction of 2 billion people radicalized around eliminationist ideology creates numbers that are difficult for any minority population to safely ignore. This is part of why Israelis think the way they do. They do not have the luxury of assuming every threat is rhetorical until proven otherwise. Jewish history is filled with examples where people said "they don't really mean it," right up until they did.
And there is another uncomfortable truth people refuse to acknowledge: many revolutionary Islamist movements are not merely fighting over borders or checkpoints. They are driven by theological and eschatological worldviews. Some of these leaders genuinely believe they are participating in sacred history. Martyrdom is not metaphorical to them. Jihad is not always metaphorical to them. The destruction or humiliation of Israel is not simply a policy preference. It is woven into a cosmic narrative.
Western secular people constantly underestimate this because they assume everyone is fundamentally motivated by material conditions. They think if living standards improve, the hatred disappears. Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes ideology itself is the engine.
This does not mean Palestinians are uniquely evil or incapable of peace. It means the conflict cannot be honestly understood if every religious or ideological dimension is dismissed as mere reaction to occupation.
And still, despite all this, Jews are expected to maintain perfect moral composure at all times while people who openly celebrate violence against them are framed as misunderstood revolutionaries.
A man throws a Molotov cocktail at an elderly Jewish woman while shouting "Free Palestine," and somehow Jews are still expected to wonder whether antisemitism is "really" involved. Synagogues are surrounded by mobs. Jewish students are harassed. Hostages are mocked online.
October 7th footage circulates with celebration. And the burden somehow remains on Jews to prove they are not overreacting.
No other tiny minority on earth is expected to normalize this level of hostility indefinitely while being told that serious self-defense measures are morally suspicious.
That does not mean every Israeli policy is correct. It does not mean Palestinian civilians deserve suffering. It does not mean Muslims as a whole are reducible to extremists.
But Jews are under no obligation to gaslight themselves about the existence of ideologies and movements that openly articulate anti-Jewish hatred and repeatedly act upon it.
The irony is that Jews are often accused of tribalism precisely when they refuse to return to the powerless condition history repeatedly punished them for inhabiting.
Israel exists because Jews decided they would no longer entrust their survival entirely to the conscience of others.
And after everything that happened to the Jewish people across centuries, it is very difficult to argue that this instinct emerged from nowhere.
danaaliyalevinson:
Once again, I know I'm a broken record but actually resolving this conflict means building bridges and understanding between all the inhabitants of the land, including Jews and Israelis.
The minimization of Jewish history, and concerns, which are informed by very material and real threats both past and present, sends a message that one is not seriously or thoughtfully engaging in efforts at conflict resolution.
No Jewish person with any kind of real institutional power who could work meaningfully to resolve the conflict (from all over the political spectrum) is going to buy "trust me bro, you'll be fine as a minority again without political sovereignty and your rights and safety will be secure in an Arab majority state." Too much actual history says otherwise. And refusing to engage with that lived reality and this dimension of realpolitik inherently means that one is not driving at real solutions.
And obviously there is realpolitik in the reverse and issues with Israeli policy and violence exacerbating conditions that perpetuate cycles of violence as well. But as I'm not Palestinian and immersed in Palestinian community, I'm not going to speak with authority on it.
Honestly I've found it so depressing how much energy has been poured into "activism" that is absolutely going to perpetuate the conflict for decades to come. And anyone I know who has spent even an iota of time doing actual coalition building work in this space since Oslo, both Jews and Palestinians, knows it and is feeling the same.
What sticks out to me is just. The eagerness in which the left threw out Jews. A couple people maybe accused valid critics of Israel of antisemitism and all of the sudden the left has decided they never have to care about Jewish safety anywhere ever again. The left has found a way to even dismiss Jewish antizionist critiques of antisemitism if there's even a silver of expression that anyone in Israel might be a human being, or that Judaism should center Jews. Like I know the left isn't immune to bigotry but it's just the sudden openness of "yeah I don't give a single fuck about the lives of one of the world's most vulnerable minorities. I'm actually an uncritical terrorist supporter now" that's just completely drained my faith in humanity
I do also think it's important to emphasize that these people are anti-Israel, antisemitic, and antizionist, rather than let them claim that they're "just pro-Palestinian", because it doesn't matter what you actually believe about Palestine or Palestinian sovereignty. You're only defined as part of the in-group if you're saying "IOF" "Israhell" or "Isnotreal" (ignore the fact that you, antizionist, often live in a settler state yourself), you're not even allow to use the right terms for things without suspicion. Like the Palestinians are secondary
This has been active in left spaces forever, but really took on a few new dimensions in 1970 when Soviet Antizionism took off like a brushfire in dry wood, and then again in the 2000s with the 'trendy global culture' of 'antizionism' as exemplified by... All of Durban.
I personally encountered a bunch of this during the Occupy era and basically dropped out of a lot more of the leftier spaces I was in when more conspiracy shit rolled out.
The talking points are the same. What has changed IMO is the tools and machines. deployment of them as not just 'memes' in both senses of the word, but as part of a consumerist fandom spread in intimate social media spaces, and algorithmically targeted with a wide net.
Jew-hate is simultaneously sexy and transgressive, and dopamine-rewarding because now you have a bunch of attractive, socially acceptable people on your phone telling you you're a good person for 'letting your empathy radicalize you.
It is easy, and it makes you feel like you're 'doing something' when you're feeling scared and powerless because Jews ('zionists) are both sinister and hidden, and instantly accessible.
the-orion-scribe asked:
Smth else I'm curious: do you think it would be necessary for Israel to give up making Jerusalem as its capital in a two state solution?
h4ganah answered:
If it was necessary to give up Jerusalem to have peace, then I don’t want peace.
That’s my honest opinion. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and it will always be. It is the holiest place in all of judaism - much more so than for either islam and christianity. To claim that it is equally holy for all three religions is laughable and insulting.
I’ll add a corollary, which is: I believe that Israel should give away the same % of Jerusalem as it gets of Mecca.
Not because Mecca has Jewish significance, yes because there are Israeli Muslims and Baha’i for whom Mecca is sacred and who have difficulty visiting it because of hostility against anyone with an Israeli passport, but mostly because that’s fucking ridiculous, right? You intuitively get it.
It could well be the third holiest site to Israelis since they’re like 30% Muslim. But why should they get someone else’s first holiest site? 
And that’s before you factor in Arab destruction of Jewish holy sites, including but not limited to Jordan using ancient synagogues as livestock pens or garbage dumps where it did not entirely destroy them the last time any part Jerusalem was under Arab rule.
#not even get ownership of mecca atp let us INTO mecca#can you believe if israel stopped allowing muslims and christians to enter jerusalem?? can you imagine the outcry this would cause?#but silence when it comes to mecca apparently
We don’t even have to imagine it! There WAS an outcry quite recently when Israeli police and the IDF wouldn’t let Christians in Jerusalem celebrate Easter as they liked - even though they did that because they couldn’t guarantee the physical safety of those Christians, because there’s a war going on and the part of Jerusalem that has most of the Christian churches doesn’t have bomb shelters!
can someone explain what a Zionist is?? Cause people talk about it in a negative light but I search it up and google paints it in a good way so please someone explain it please
Zionism is the national idea that Jews get to have a state in their land of origin, which is roughly the shape the modern country of Israel occupies (Zion being a sacred hill in Jerusalem that has long been used as a synecdoche for historic Land of Israel as a whole). It arose in 19th century amidst the second wave of national movements in Europe and the ingrained antisemitism of Christian societies; a cultural longing for restoration of their ancestral kingdom has long existed among Jews (that's what happens when you expel a population en masse in 2nd century, cast them as perpetual outsiders and don't repatriate them in large numbers), but this was that being put over nationalist conceptions of the time.
This was put into practice since second half of 19th century when Jews from beyond started settling in that area of what was then Ottoman Syria (and then British Mandatory Palestine); this helped to revitalise the region and attract more Jewish and Muslim settlers in turn - the place was underpopulated. Tensions and attacks inevitably arose, not in least part because of ingrained Muslim antisemitism and European colonial powers' preference for Arabs in political matters in the region (Britain has separated Transjordan, now Jordan, from Mandatory Palestine and supported development of its political structure and army); Hebron Massacre of 1928, where a hundred Jews who have been living there since before start of European Jewish settlement have been killed by Arab mobs, is one of big negative spots of this.
Alas the anti-Zionist voice among Jews themselves has been largely silenced in the Holocaust, both the systematic murder of industrial scales of people by Nazi Germany, who had racial antisemitism as its core ideology (and which also had its fingers among Arab political figures in British Palestine), and systematic disinterest to help Jews by basically all other countries in the Western world. This has inevitably resulted in Jews moving into Mandatory Palestine despite British restrictions. This all had spilled out in War of 1948, when Britain divesting from British Palestine and Israel declaring its independence (and acceptance of all ethnic groups) resulted in Jordan, Syria and Egypt invading the region with explicit goal of destruction of Israel... and soundly lost to Israelis, bar retaining a few portions that became known as West Bank (under Jordanian control, the east bank was part of Jordan already) and Gaza Strip (under Egyptian control). Following that, Muslim-majority countries have expelled massive numbers of Jews from their territories, which have, naturally, flocked to Israel; thus, the slim majority of Jews in Israel today are of various groups broadly labelled Mizrahi ("Eastern") like Mesopotamian Jews, Yemeni Jews, Moroccan Jews etc.
That's arguably where historical existence of Zionists ends, because the goal of Zionism has been accomplished and defended. The war of '48 and subsequent wars are absolutely not smooth goodie Jews vs. baddie Arabs and there are horrible incidents and war crimes on both sides, but Israel had managed to develop into a Western-style country, ally with USA in '60s and fairly remarkably integrate itself into the world. Israeli politics are absolutely not perfect, with groups ranging from people seeking reconstruction of socialist values of Jewish settlement and active reconciliation with Palestinians (which hadn't become known as such until '70s, because before that this what they called Israelis in the West, as opposed to Arabs) to those seeking to wage active war on Palestine and enshrine Jewish supremacy on religious or secular ground, and current Israeli government certainly plays more to the latter. But, talking about "Zionists" within Israel is like talking about "proponents of national Irish movement" within Ireland; that's already happened and the whole society exists with that as a premise, even as there are continuous border and ownership issues.
As such, when outsiders talk about "Zionists", it usually just means "Jews doing dastardly Jewish things", as it always has been. Western right-wingers, sorely upset at failure of all Jews dying, latch onto Zionism as the new word for "Jews controlling the world." Soviet Union, which is totally not Russian Empire in a red coat of paint and upset at Israel aligning with the West, aggressively promoted "Zionism" as active threat to Near East and compared it to South African apartheid (which, uh, isn't exactly the case? Israel has Arabs within its border, not to mention minorities that are near universally discriminated against in Arab countries, enjoying the privileges of Israeli citizens, while Palestinians were separated from it by borders); this is where the Western left-leaning opinions (which as anything to do with Soviet Union should never be viewed without utter hypocrisy of taking the Soviet Union at its word) about Israel dominating Tumblr discourse stem. Among Arab and Muslim countries themselves, the ingrained Muslim antisemitism, as well as unexamined Nazi and Soviet influence, continue to shape perceptions of Israel; and with militant Islamofascist regimes like Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, who see Muslim rule of Jerusalem and oppression of Jews as their god-given right, prospects of lasting peace within the region remain slim.
Israel's actions in this bout of warfare, no matter the death and destruction, do not result in proportionate amount of condemnation. Legitimate criticism of Israeli government, Israeli national mythology, Israeli history is most likely to come from Israel itself, only to be spun into vision of Israel as a wound upon the world by outsiders invested in its (unlikely, at this point) destruction. Once again, rather than examining Jewish/Israeli issues as real issues involving real people who live in their own context, it becomes centerpoint of others' insecurities - colonialism, racism, fear and hatred inherent to high-control forms of religions, social and economic failures. Add to this the complete detachment from actual threats to peace across the world that any given war causes - which IMO was already evident with world response to Russian invasion here in Ukraine - and it becomes hip and cool to "DNI Zionists" among people who believe they are into landback and punching Nazis, but can't actually invest into learning about complexities of situations across the world rather than mashing it all into their own personal political drama of the soul.
#can’t wait to see how the ‘antizionists’ justify torching ambulances
My money’s on good old “by doing good works in society they were normalizing Jews Israel”.
Anonymous asked:
something i still don’t understand is how palestine became jordan and israel but now palestine wants to be israel and jordan wants nothing to do with palestine. can you help me make sense of this?
why go nuts for palestine if palestine is jordan ?
unsolicited-opinions answered:
I’ll try to answer this question reasonably well while keeping it simple enough to be digestible to someone learning this history for the first time. Fair warning: Nuance will be lost to brevity.
—
Under the control of the British Empire from 1917–1948, the land was called the British Mandate for Palestine.
- It included what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Transjordan.
- At the time, the term Palestinian referred broadly to all inhabitants - Jews, Arabs, Christians - everybody and anybody living in the territory.
In 1946, Britain carved off the eastern ~75% of Mandate Palestine to create an Arab kingdom called Transjordan (meaning “across/beyond the Jordan River.” Transjordan would drop the “trans” and rename itself to “Jordan” in 1949.)
The remaining ~25% of British Mandate Palestine was still called “Palestine.”
1948, the UN proposed a two-state solution - with a Jewish state and an Arab state - in the remaining ~25% of the full British Mandate.
This would have given the Jews ~55% of what remained of Mandate Palestine after Transjordan was created. Put another way, this proposed a Jewish state in about 14% of what had been the full Mandate before Transjordan was created.
Another ~44% of what remained after Transjordan was created (~11% of what had been the full Mandate) was proposed to be a new Arab state.
About 1% of the land, including Jerusalem and Bethlehem, was proposed to be under UN administration.
- Jews accepted this and declared independence as Israel.
- Arab leaders both within the Mandate and outside of it rejected the plan and five Arab armies invaded the just-born Israel.
The war did not go as the Arab armies had planned.
At the end of the war:
- Israel had not only fended off all five armies, but now controlled ~77% of the non-Transjordan part of the Mandate.
- Jordan occupied and controlled the West Bank (called that because it’s the land on the West Bank of the Jordan river) and East Jerusalem.
- Egypt occupied Gaza.
- The Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN was not created.
From 1949–1967, Jordan ruled the West Bank, granting many living there Jordanian citizenship…but Jordan didn’t create a Palestinian state in the West Bank in that ~19 years.
The people of the West Bank did not seek an independent state from Jordan.
Similarly, the people of Gaza did not seek an independent state from Egypt.
According to Wikipedia:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the Jordanian government, including King Hussein and other officials, promoted the slogan “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.” This reflected the Hashemite strategy to integrate Palestinians into Jordanian society and to present the populations on both sides of the Jordan River as a single, unified group. The regime aimed to prevent the emergence of a separate Palestinian identity and power base.
The Six-Day War (June 1967) started after weeks of rising tension and military moves by Arab states that made war all but inevitable.
- Egypt signed military pacts with Syria, Jordan, and Iraq.
Look at the map and imagine it: Egypt in the south, Syria in the north, and Jordan and Iraq in the east…and they all mobilized. Israel was ridiculously outnumbered. - Arab leaders made open, public threats of annihilation.
- Egypt’s Nasser: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.”
- Other leaders spoke of pushing Jews into the sea.
Once again, the war did not go as the Arab armies had planned.
Less than a week after is started, Israel had captured:
- The entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt
- The West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan
- The Golan Heights from Syria
Arabs in those areas began to call themselves “Palestinians” and have sought an independent state in those territories, which they referred to as the “Occupied Territories.”
So…finally back to Anon’s question: is Palestine Jordan?
No…and yes…but probably not in the way you mean.
- Jordan was created out of the eastern part of British Mandate Palestine.
- Many Palestinians live in Jordan — some estimate up to 60% of the population.
- But Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have claimed their own national identity as Palestinians which they regard as separate from Jordan, and have their political leadership (like the Palestinian Authority and Hamas)…which haven’t had elections in the last 20 years.
- Jordan gave up all claims to the West Bank in 1988, saying it’s up to Palestinians to decide their own future.
Wait, what? Why did Jordan do that? Anon is partly asking: Why doesn’t Jordan want the West Bank back?
- Jordan had already fought the PLO (which is now, essentially, the Palestinian Authority) in the 1970s during Black September and expelled the PLO from Jordan.
- By the 1980s, Palestinians didn’t trust Jordan to represent them and they wanted the PLO as their voice.
- In December 1987, the First Intifada broke out in the West Bank and Gaza. It wasn’t led by Arab states - it came from people in Gaza and the West Bank themselves, especially younger generations. This made it clear to King Hussein that Palestinians wanted self-determination, not rule from Amman (Jordan’s capital).
- Jordan also didn’t want to absorb millions of Palestinians or get involved in a bitter conflict with Israel or the Palestinian factions. It already had a large Palestinian population.
- Jordan publicly favors a two-state solution: Israel and a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
So why, asks Anon, ‘go nuts’ for Palestine?
Anon, this is sort of at the core of the conflict and it depends both on who you ask and who you think is 'going nuts.’
Full disclosure: We’re now going to take some big steps away from mostly geography and basic facts, stroll through a neighborhood of opinion, then end our amble with pure polemics.
For many people - especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds and in parts of the Western far left - Palestine has been held up as a symbol of anti-colonialism and resistance to the West.
This symbolism, in my view, often ignores history and complexity.
- Arab states helped block Palestinian statehood for decades
- Jordan and Egypt occupied Palestinian land for ~19 years without creating a Palestinian state
- The biggest obstacles to peace today are political infighting, terrorism, and Arab rejectionism - not Israel.
Increasingly, many Israel supporters (including former Israeli peaceniks) seem to believe that the Palestinian national movement was never actually about statehood.
In my view, this is where we need to briefly discuss Palestinianism, because I think it’s the only framing through which the facts make sense to me.
So…what’s Palestinianism?
It’s believing what Zuheir Mohsen, a senior PLO leader, said clearly in a 1977 interview:
“The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity… Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons”
Palestinianism is the idea that Palestinian national identity is defined not by a shared and unique culture, territory, or political vision for statehood - but by opposition to the existence of a Jewish state.
There’s never been a country called Palestine. That’s not an opinion, but a verifiable, undeniable, incontestable fact.
- Under the Ottomans: it was just part of “southern Syria.”
- Under the British: it was a Mandate, not nation.
- Under Arab rule: nobody made it a country - no one was interested in a country…for ~19 years.
But once Israel showed up - boom! Instant national identity. It’s like discovering your purpose in life is to be mad that someone else is alive.
What did the Palestinian leadership want in 1947?
To not have a Jewish neighbor.
The UN offered two states: one Jewish, one Arab.
Jews: It’s not ideal, but we’ll take it.
Arabs: We prefer war.
And when they lost? They blamed colonialism, Zionism, and…wait for it…Jordan, which then annexed the West Bank - a move nobody called an occupation...seemingly because it wasn’t done by Jews.
Look at the history and ask yourself: Did Palestinians want a state?
- 1967 — Post-Six-Day War, the “Three No’s” of Khartoum
The Offer: Israel signals willingness to negotiate land for peace.
The Response: The Arab League votes “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations.” - 2000 — Camp David Summit
The Offer: Arafat is offered 90–95% of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem as capital.
The Response: He walks away without a counteroffer, then the Second Intifada explodes. - 2001 — Taba Summit
The Offer: Even sweeter deal than Camp David. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators reportedly got very close.
The Response: Talks collapse, Arafat ghosts again. - 2008 — Olmert-Abbas Offer
The Offer: 93.7% of the West Bank, land swaps, Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, international administration of holy sites.
The Response: Abbas never responds. Literally. Never. Responds. - 2014 — Kerry Framework
The Offer: U.S.-brokered framework for final status negotiations. Israel signs on in principle.
The Response: Abbas walks away again and signs with Hamas.
If a state had ever been the goal of the leadership, they’d have a state.
When did the Palestinians start demanding their own state?
Not until 1967, when Israel ended up with Gaza and the West Bank and Egypt and Jordan wouldn’t take them back.
Arabs: Give us our state back!“
Historians:You…you had no state before. Jordan and Egypt ruled you for 19 years…
Arabs: Shhhh! Details make the narrative messy!
But isn’t Palestinian nationalism real?
Does a legitimate nationalist movement have no constitution, no attempt at building infrastructure or an economy, no unified leadership - but three security forces, two authoritarian governments which haven’t had elections in 20 years, and a fan club in Berkeley which somehow thinks authoritarian theocracy, kleptocracy, and misogyny are 'liberation’?
Why do peace plans keep failing?
Because the offer always includes Israel still existing, and for Palestinianism, that’s a dealbreaker.
Imagine someone offers you 95% of what you’ve asked for, your capital in East Jerusalem and billions in aid…and your response is: But the Jews still get to have a country…? Hard pass.
You’d think after decades of rejecting statehood, losing wars, and watching corrupt leaders embezzle billions, someone would say:
"Hey… maybe we should try…building something…?”
But no. The brand is resistance. The goal is symbolic victory by pushing the Jews into the sea.
The slogan is still:
من المية للمية فلسطين عربية
From water to water, Palestine will be Arab.
_____
Hope that answered your question, Anon!
Asks are open for other questions
Also worth noting:
Western leftists hold up the idea of Palestine being a decolonization process, but the name "Palestine" literally derives from the Hebrew word for "invaders."
The view is incorrect for all the reasons OP mentions, but also like...basic linguistic history proves it's all a lie. You can't claim to be indigenous to an area and proudly use the name "invaders." It doesn't work that way.
Why is this now labeled "mature"? Is it because the terrorists hiding behind the "pro-Palestine" label (who are not pro anything except their own bloodlust) aren't grownup enough to handle actual facts and history?
Hang on, let's not gloss over the Palestinian relationship with the Jordanian throne between '67 and 70. The non-Jordanian Palestinians were the worst houseguests ever. They kept attacking Israel from Jordanian territory, tried assassinating King Hussein twice, and even talked 20,000 Syrian Army troops into invading Jordan in support of the Palestinians. Then the Palestinians hijacked four airliners bound for New York and London, then flew them "home" to Jordan, who wanted no part of this shit.
Look up the "Dawson's Field Hijackings."
So anyway, the Jordanian Army rounded them up and deposited them in Lebanon, where they promptly started the Lebanese Civil War instead.
Palestinianism is the idea that Palestinian national identity is defined not by a shared and unique culture, territory, or political vision for statehood - but by opposition to the existence of a Jewish state.
There's never been a country called Palestine. That's not an opinion, but a verifiable, undeniable, incontestable fact.
Under the Ottomans: it was just part of "southern Syria."
Under the British: it was a Mandate, not nation.
Under Arab rule: nobody made it a country - no one was interested in a country...for ~19 years.
But once Israel showed up - boom! Instant national identity. It's like discovering your purpose in life is to be mad that someone else is alive.
So:
Palestinian national identity is not a definitionally stable, ahistorical state of being, but a sociopolitical category born out of the existence of a Jewish state etc.
Well shit, that definition of indigeneity makes so much more sense in light of this.
@cthulhudundee2 put their finger on a fundamental, absurd dishonesty of "settler-colonialist studies," but I want to make it clearer.
If Indigeneity is, as suggested by tapping the sign, "born out of the experience of settler-colonialism," a people have no identity until they are oppressed.
Does that sound familiar? It should.
This definition, of course, ignores archaeology, linguistics, and continuous presence. If a group's connection to the land predates the "colonial" encounter by 3,000 years, defining them solely by a 20th-century political framework isn't sociology, it's dishonest historical erasure, politically-driven, and ahistorical horseshit.
It also suggests that if a people are successful or gain sovereign power, they somehow lose their Indigeneity.
In this logic, an Indigenous person is only "Indigenous" as long as they are a victim. This is a double standard that isn't applied to any other identity. You don't lose your ethnicity or your history simply because you establish a state or win a war.
If Palestinians drove the Jews into the sea, the Palestinians living between the River and the Sea would, by this logic, cease to be indigenous.
The definition states: "The settler-colonists cannot be indigenous because the very act of being settler-colonists sets them in opposition to indigeneity."
This is a logical fallacy which assumes the conclusion in the premise.
By pre-labeling a group as "settlers," it automatically disqualifies their ancestral ties, regardless of how deep they go. It defines the "who" by the "how," which ignores the actual history of the people involved.
Over here in the real world, Indigeneity is about genetic and cultural continuity. If you take a person's DNA, their prayers, their language, and their calendar, and they all point to a specific geography, that is a biological and historical reality.
A theoretical "sociopolitical category" is a fluid social construct used to move the goalposts of who belongs where to fit one's politics and preferred narrative.
Indigeneity is an intrinsic characteristic of a people's origin, not a extrinsic status granted by their relationship to a colonial power. To claim that power or statehood negates Indigeneity is to argue that history only begins when the 'conflict' begins-which is the very definition of revisionism.
By all means, tap your sign, kids - but it's contents don't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
"Settler-Colonial studies" isn't scholarship. It's a dishonest, revisionist political project.
Western leftists are so fucking stupid man. I saw that tweet about the map of the "Arab World" thats being put up in schools in NY or whatever and are people are not looking at that like, wait, this is an empire? Can you imagine the outrage if we hung up maps in classrooms labeled "the british empire" because that's exactly what that map of the "Arab world" is. Completely ignoring the non-arab Indigenous peoples of each country (Jews, Samaratins, Karaites, Persians, Assyrians, Sundanese, Amazigh, Nubians, Egyptians, Bedouin, Druze, I'm sure there are far more I can't remember off the top of my head) who have had their cultures devastated by Arab colonisation and Islamic imperialism.
Its like western leftists are so obsessed with racialising people that they see every major region of the world as a kind of monolithic culture. To western leftists, Middle East and North Africa = Arabs, so they must be indigenous. Jews so far are the only ones who have been able to muster the strength to reclaim their land and people have somehow decided this is priviledge, and that Jews must be white invaders, no matter how deeply ingrained Jerusalem and the surrounding areas are in Jewish culture, history, writings, art, religion, and so on, because of course Arabs are the indigenous people, its the middle east!
You have literally fallen for imperialist propaganda.
I (almost) have a masters degree in politics, and I cannot explain what in the name of God Iran was thinking when they attacked the Gulf states.
Let's be clear, Iran bombed:
- Bahrain
- Iraq
- Jordan
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
That's huge. And so, so fucking dumb.
Iraq, if you didn't know, has been an Iranian ally, verging on an Iranian client state, since the end of the Iraq War. And they BOMBED them.
Oman has pursued a policy of 'friend to all, enemy to none' for like, decades by this point and as such, has very limited US military ties and relatively positive relations with Iran. And Iran BOMBED them.
Iran bombed more Arab states in the last 48 hours than Israel has in nearly 80 years.
Like, the Gulf states are stunned right now. Iran just undid 20 years of careful indirect maneuvering and gentleman's agreements and plausible deniability and semi-alliances in a day. Iran has collapsed decades of calibrated proxy strategy, unified the Gulf Cooperation Council, and triggered the largest interstate Middle Eastern war since 1991. Iran targeted hotels, airports, residential areas, and all kinds of civilian infrastructure in the Gulf.
I really don't know what the hell they were thinking. It's baffling to me. So baffling I've heard people theorizing Iran lost control of its military in the aftermath of the decapitation strike conducted by the US and Israel and Iranian military units just unloaded on the Gulf out of revenge.
The only stupider things Iran could do would be detonate a dirty bomb or attack Turkey and draw NATO into the conflict.
Basically, all this is to say, Iran's regime seems intent on burning down as many bridges as it can on its way out.
What's especially nuts to me is how preventable and self inflicted this is. You know what the Gulf states would probably be doing right now if Iran hadn't attacked them out of the blue? They'd probably decline to let the US use its bases and would be petitioning Washington and Jerusalem to negotiate and get a ceasefire going. Instead, now they're letting the US use their bases and shooting down Iranian drones and missiles.
All because Iran shot itself in the foot.
foreign policy pro tip from a random internet user: do not bomb neutral states
This IS Bernieworld. this IS the US left because they aren't addressing their downwardly-mobile rich dickwad Staffer-cum-Pundit problem.
Rich dickwads who can't cook for themselves and are terrified of work and cleaning. STOP. PUTTING THEM. IN CAMPAIGNS AND ADMINISTRATIONS. SHOW ME SOMEONE WHO CAN FUCKING COOK AND CLEAN FUCKSSAKE!
She's their standard bearer. Anyone who worked for them should be rigorously background checked and vetted.
Sanders, The Hill, Grayzone and The Intercept. She should just tattoo the RU tricolor on her forehad at this point. Maybe some swastikas around it given her other proclivities.
Alright. Deep breath here:
I cannot stand Briahna Joy Gray’s opinion about anything, especially about Jews (she has a load of wild shit she’s said)
AND I can understand what she’s saying since part of one of those tweets wasn’t cut off - for people with executive function problems, chopping and dishes can make the difference.
I’ve laid down in front of my dishwasher for 45 minutes summoning the will to unload it. When you are totally spent from everything else going on, that’s a struggle. And any additional steps DOES get in the way.
That said, the fact that she’d say butter, olive oil, salt, and pepper are all you need… that’s a level of struggle I haven’t had. Which points to executive function problems AND not knowing shit about cooking.
IMO it's not a dysfunction thing as much as a fanbase signaler. "Door Dash/Grub Hub HAS to be a moral issue because they use it and their friends use it and they need to justify it." So we have endless lists of therapyspeak around why it's good and should be free/cheap for all without paying attention to the economics or externalities involved.
I would love it if she and her coterie could just be in extensive therapy instead of making her bullshit everyone else's problem.
We live in an era of the BEST and most nutritious frozen/ready meals possible. You can supplement Insert Frozen Entree with a bag salad or fresh veggies if you don't want to reheat frozen. Or vice versa, Cook predone meat do fresh veggies!
The strides made in the last 10 and 20 years are incredible!
And like. Asian people aren't going to fucking spice markets for everyday dinner! There are soup mixes and bullion and all kinds of stuff. It's just that now Doordash needs to be legislated as some kind of moral right because it used to be cheap, got expensive under Biden, and the media, which she is a part of, fixated on that and brain-broke a bunch of aging millenials and now-aging zoomers who need to defend Burrito Taxi like it's a moral fucking imperative for the dispossessed they Simply Must Speak For or some shit.
"you should advise them" There are a ZILLION youtube cooking channels! We are free from the tyranny of mediocre recipes!
Like. I'm not a No War But Class War person but holy shit, how are these people so vocal about socialism and so class blind to the actual costs and issues with delivery food, or struggling with the idea that, yeah, it's a fucking luxury!
You've got people admitting with their whole chests they spend $300+ a week on DoorDash. Those are not working-class people. Working class people cook, even those who have executive dysfunction, because they don't have a choice.
Yep. I have the kind of executive dysfunction that not infrequently goes "spaghetti too complicated, come back later". I also am on disability, so regular DoorDash is right out. Shelling out for pizza delivery is something I might do once in a month. But I can stick a frozen dinner in the microwave. Or heat up a can of soup. Hell, if nothing else, I can pour a bowl of fucking cereal. (Or my personal favorite, cooking more than I need on the good days, and chucking 3/4 in the fridge/freezer for later.) Are there people who can't manage even that? Sure. But in those cases, what we need is "how to provide caretaking and accommodations for this population" not "subsidize private burrito taxis."
Princeton University is offering a new course in Spring 2025-2026 titled “Gender, Reproduction, and Genocide” that lists as its central focus “the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” according to a Jewish Onliner review of Princeton’s official course offerings. The course description states students will explore “how genocidal projects target reproductive life, sexual and familial structures, and community survival,” comparing Gaza to “the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and genocide against Black and Indigenous populations.”
The instructor is Dr. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, whom Princeton named its Global South Visiting Scholar in October 2024—six months after she was briefly arrested in Israel for suspected incitement.
The appointment comes as Princeton navigated a federal funding freeze over antisemitism concerns, with the Trump administration having frozen approximately $210 million in April 2025.
From Arrest to Ivy League
Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s path to Princeton began with mounting controversy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where she had been a professor. In October 2023, just weeks after the Hamas attacks of October 7th and shortly after Israel’s ground incursion into Gaza began, she signed an open letter accusing Israel of genocide.
In March 2024, Hebrew University suspended her after she appeared on Israeli television and stated: “It’s time to abolish Zionism. It can’t continue, it’s criminal.” In the same interview, she cast doubt on reports of Hamas’ sexual violence on October 7th, saying: “They will use any lie. They started with babies, they continued with rape, and they will continue with a million other lies.”
Hebrew University said her statements “took advantage of her academic freedom of expression for incitement and to create division,” making suspension necessary to “ensure a safe and conducive environment for our students on campus.”
One month later, Israeli police arrested Shalhoub-Kevorkian on suspicion of incitement, though released her after a court found insufficient evidence to extend her detention.
In August 2024 she retired from Hebrew University. Shalhoub-Kevorkian was appointed Princeton University’s Global South Visiting Scholar in October 2024 and is featured in both the Anthropology and Gender and Sexuality Studies departments of the university website. She first taught a six-week graduate seminar in Fall 2024 titled “Monstrosity and Colonialism.”
Glorifying Former PFLP Leader
Two weeks after her suspension from Hebrew University, on March 26, 2024, Shalhoub-Kevorkian posted on Facebook a tribute to Ghassan Kanafani, featuring his photograph and a quote from one of his books.
The post did not mention that Kanafani was one of the leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which the U.S. State Department designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its role in numerous terrorist attacks, including airline hijackings. The group began executing suicide bombing attacks during the Second Intifada, a violent uprising in which over 1,000 Israelis were murdered.
According to Time Magazine, in 1972, “It was Kanafani’s office which in May dispassionately bragged of the P.F.L.P.’s role in the Lod Airport massacre,” an attack that killed 26 people, including 17 Americans.
A Curriculum of “Reproductive Genocide”
The course’s sample reading list centers on a framework called “reproductive genocide”—though the Princeton University Bookstore’s course page states: “Textbooks are still being determined for this course. Please check back.”
Examples from the sample reading list include Sarah Ihmoud’s “Countering Reproductive Genocide in Gaza.” Published in March 2025, the work applies this framework directly to Gaza, with the abstract stating: “Israel’s genocidal project, hypervisible now in the intensification of warfare against the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip, but also unfolding across occupied Palestinian territory since the 1948 Nakba, should be understood centrally as reproductive genocide, a systematic assault on Palestinian reproductive health, and an attempt to prevent the reproduction of present and future generations of Palestinian lives.”
An additional reading listed is Hala Shoman’s “Reprocide in Gaza,” which introduces the concept of “reprocide,” defined as “the systematic targeting of a group’s reproductive capacities, both biological and social, as a deliberate strategy of erasure.”
Princeton’s Promotion During Federal Freeze
The timing of Princeton’s embrace of Shalhoub-Kevorkian overlaps with federal investigations into multiple universities and funding freezes over their handling of antisemitism on campus. In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14188, directing agencies to “combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools.” The order specifically instructed the Department of Homeland Security to monitor “alien students and staff” for terrorism-related activities.
Three months later, in April 2025, the Trump administration froze approximately $210 million in federal funding to Princeton—about half the university’s federal grants. The freeze came from NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy, with no explanation provided.
The freeze was part of a broader crackdown: Columbia lost $400 million and was forced to pay a $200 million fine; Penn saw $175 million frozen; Harvard faced review of $9 billion in grants. About half of Princeton’s funding was restored in August 2025.
During this period of heightened federal scrutiny, Princeton’s Anthropology Department published a glowing 5,000-word interview with Shalhoub-Kevorkian. In it, she repeatedly referred to “the genocide” in Gaza, stating: “The current genocide has underscored for students the necessity of engaging in deeper analytical inquiry.”
She described her fall course “Monstrosity and Colonialism” as “shaped and impacted by the genocide” and said her spring course would help students “connect what happened, for example, in Yugoslavia and in the Yugoslav War, to the genocide today in Gaza.”
Princeton did not respond to requests for comment on how Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s course—which the university’s official registrar describes as exploring “the ongoing genocide in Gaza”—aligns with President Eisgruber’s April 2025 pledge to combat antisemitism.
I don't have any idea how you can argue that Israel is targeting Palestinian reproduction.
Now, maybe I am uninformed and there have been cases of sterilization against Palestinians, but last I checked, their population was growing. It might have slowed or decreased because of the war, but in the 70+ years of Israel and Palestine being separate political entities, the Palestinian population has increased exponentially.
This is not comparable to the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, genocide of indigenous Americans, and slavery, which all involved rape and coercive pregnancy, and often involved forced sterilizations and abortions.
In terms of current events, if I wanted to discuss “reprocide”, I’d personally look to China’s forcible sterilization of Yughurs or to Russia’s systematic kidnapping and indoctrination of Ukrainian children before I’d consider Gaza…
This is both Antisemitic and Christophobic all at the same time
I'm a Christian and this is not Christophobic in the slightest. It's not remotely antisemitic either lol
"im a christian and this is not christophobic in the slightest"
okay so this is the part when you should've ended the post! if you're not a jew, you dont define what is antisemitic!
Following that logic, OP would also not be qualified to determine what is Christophobic. Regardless, the Balfour Declaration says "Palestine", not Judea or Israel.
free palestine used to be a zionist slogan lmao. because it was always understood that jews were indigenous to the land people called palestine (which was never a country, mind you).
that's what the region was named after it was colonized by the romans?
ain't nobody claiming a region named palestine never existed, just that claiming jesus was palestinian shows a significant misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of history.
also the balfour declaration literally has nothing to do with jesus being PaLeStiNiaN lmfaoaoao.
Jews aren't indigenous even in their own Scripture. You are gravely wrong but I see you also don't particularly take this seriously either so why should anyone care what you have to say?
have you even read our scripture or have you just read parts of the old testament with a christian lens? because contrary to popular belief, they aren't the same thing
also. even if you dont believe the bible. there is archeological evidence to support jews being indigenous to palestine. like. lol.
Genesis 12:1
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃
יהוה said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.
Genesis 12:4-5
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵחָרָֽן׃
Abram went forth as יהוה had commanded him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran.
וַיִּקַּ֣ח אַבְרָם֩ אֶת־שָׂרַ֨י אִשְׁתּ֜וֹ וְאֶת־ל֣וֹט בֶּן־אָחִ֗יו וְאֶת־כׇּל־רְכוּשָׁם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָכָ֔שׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָרָ֑ן וַיֵּצְא֗וּ לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אַ֥רְצָה כְּנָֽעַן׃
Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and the persons that they had acquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they arrived in the land of Canaan,
1 Chronicles 11:4-5
וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ דָּוִ֧יד וְכׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל יְרוּשָׁלַ֖͏ִם הִ֣יא יְב֑וּס וְשָׁם֙ הַיְבוּסִ֔י יֹשְׁבֵ֖י הָאָֽרֶץ׃
David and all Israel set out for Jerusalem, that is Jebus, where the Jebusite inhabitants of the land lived.
וַיֹּ֨אמְר֜וּ יֹשְׁבֵ֤י יְבוּס֙ לְדָוִ֔יד לֹ֥א תָב֖וֹא הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּלְכֹּ֤ד דָּוִיד֙ אֶת־מְצֻדַ֣ת צִיּ֔וֹן הִ֖יא עִ֥יר דָּוִֽיד׃
David was told by the inhabitants of Jebus, “You will never get in here!” But David captured the stronghold of Zion; it is now the City of David.
<there is no such thing as a "Christian" lens. It's obvious they weren't indigenous.>
"there is no such thing as a christian lens"
oh brother. spoken like a true christian.
anyway indigenous doesn't just mean "where your earliest ancestor lived" because then we're all indigenous to africa. like this is basic knowledge. and it also doesnt refer to just any point where your ancestors were, because then all indigenous americans would actually just be russian or the maori would be indigenous to tahiti or whatever. but they're not, obviously
a group is usually called indigenous to a region if they:
- have lived there for a very long time
- maintained continuous cultural, social, and historical ties to that land
- were present before later migrations or colonization
abraham is described as coming out of modern-day iraq and then migrating. abraham is a foundational figure, not a population. indigenous status applies to peoples. many indigenous people trace their origin back to migration stories.
anyway, there's no evidence that abraham actually existed as a person. many groups have origin stories. that doesn't mean abraham doesn't definitively exist, just that there's no archaeological evidence for him. abraham is to the jews what romulus was for the romans.
what matters and there is archaeological evidence for is where people formed and maintained a continuous presence as a distinct culture.
jewish identity formed in israel. israelite culture, religion, law, and language fundamentally developed there. jewish practices are centered around the levant. archaeology shows jewish presence in the region since the bronze age.
abraham being in ur/mesopotamia/iraq/whatever doesn't means jews are indigenous to there because jewish culture didn't form there, jews didn't develop as a people there, there was no continuous presence there. so we can't be indigenous to there.
No, Jewish identity is formed by Torah. If "lived there a long time" is all that counts, Palestinians already win. Ben Gurion and the other terrorists in the proto-IOF had to work too hard to kick their asses out for you to pretend otherwise.
did you even read what i wrote or are you just illiterate?
you're not jewish lmfaoaoaoao you dont decide what jewish identity is lmfaoaoaoa you cannot be serious.
palestinian identity cannot be indigenous because their identity did develop in the levant. their religion, culture, language, and customs all developed in arabia.
I didn't decide who to give the Torah to; God did.
not the christian g-d.
There's only one God.
1 Kings 8:60 that all the peoples of the earth may know that YHWH, He is God; there is none else.
i understand that you believe the jewish g-d and the christian god are the same person/being/identity/whatever.
jews don't believe that. we don't believe in the christian god at all. just because yall decided to take our text and make it your own doesnt mean that we need to accept yours as ours.
like jews dont even use the tetragrammon to refer to g-d. like judaism is not just christianity before jesus.
It is actually. He's the King of the Jews and the only one who actually performed the Law correctly. Even secular historians agree about His life and the historical evidence that exists of Him. You just don't accept Jesus Christ as Messiah, which is your right. God did give us free will at a high cost to Himself. How did not following Torah work out for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah again?
once again, i understand that you believe jesus is the king of jews.
according to jews, he isn't. not sure why this is a difficult concept for you.
also what is this lmfaoaoao are you trying to guilt trip me into accepting jesus. like idk bruh what happened to the crusaders? didn't work out too well for them either.
You know… if @poetebertram is going to claim that Abraham was Iraqi because that’s what it says in the Torah? I think they should also acknowledge that G-D GAVE THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS because it says *that* in the Torah, too, I’m pretty sure.
A gunman fired 20 bullets into the home of a Jewish family in Redlands, California, on Saturday [December 13, 2025]...
The family shared a statement with Jewish outlet Community News: “My family just survived an antisemitic drive-by shooting in Redlands. My family and I decorated our house for the Jewish holiday Hanukkah; many of the decorations include light-up “Happy Hanukkah” signs and inflatable Jewish symbols.
“We had just gotten home from eating dinner out and saw a car parked a few houses down. The driver in the car verbally accosted us as we entered our house. Three minutes later the shooter made a drive past the house, discharged 20 rounds, and shouted “fuck Jews” before driving away.”
The family confirmed that the shooter has not yet been apprehended.
Some 50 gunshots were heard at a mass shooting in Bondi Beach, Australia, local media reported on Sunday.
A member of the Jewish community spoke to The Jerusalem Post and stated the shooting occured at a Hanukkah party.
Jeremy Leibler, President of the Zionist Federation of Australia, told the Post, "The Jewish community is in shock. There were 2,000 members of the Jewish community celebrating Hanukkah, lighting the first candle together at Bondi Beach. We are at high alert."
Shia Brauner was at a pro-Israel conference a couple of minutes walk from the site of the shooting when they received the news.
He told the Post that everything was in lockdown, but according to multiple people, there was at least one fatality.
“We are still asking people in the area to take shelter until we can determine what is happening," local police wrote.
According to Australian reports, there are multiple casualties, and others are hiding.
This is a developing story.
"Shockingly" Hamas doesn't want peace and never has, lol.
“The time has come for the ummah [the Islamic nation] to commit to the liberation of Jerusalem as the banner and symbol of freeing Palestine; to cleansing the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque; and to reclaiming Islamic and Christian holy sites,"
“The resistance and its weapons are the ummah’s honor and pride,” he continued. “A thousand statements are not worth a single projectile of iron.”
he admits it is not a handful of palestinians against the much greater power of israel, but the whole might of the islamic world against the much smaller jewish state
Or at least, that’s what he wants to believe. One hopes (if not perhaps *expects*) that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations that have backed this peace deal feel differently.
Also admits that "a thousand statements” isn’t going to make Hamas ever keep its promises.
Holocaust museums are “false propaganda,” and Israel has blackmailed the world with the Holocaust, said Osama Abu Irshaid, national director of American Muslims for Palestine, in a speech published to YouTube last week.
Irshaid, who also serves on the board of the nonprofit United States Council of Muslim Organizations, said, “Israel has blackmailed the world with the Holocaust” and that “if you call what is happening in Gaza a Holocaust, you are labeled antisemitic.”
He went on to criticize Holocaust museums as a project of the “Zionist lobby.”
“Friends of mine who are Palestinian activists in America said that they went to the Holocaust museum in Washington, DC, and left crying; they were influenced by this false propaganda."
The article also talks about how they're under investigation for links to hamas
Anonymous asked:
is it true that israel made offers to palestine for a palestinian state and palestinians turned it down? why?
unsolicited-opinions answered:
Yes, that’s true, the Palestinians were offered a state many times. Here are just some of them.
1937 - Peel Commission Proposal
- Context: British plan during the Mandate period.
- Offer: First-ever partition proposal. Would have created a small Jewish state (17%) and a larger Arab state, with population transfers.
- Palestinian Response: Rejected. Palestinian Arab leadership (under Haj Amin al-Husseini) opposed partition outright.
- Jewish Response: Zionist leaders accepted it in principle as a basis for negotiation.
1947 - UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181)
- Context: End of British rule. Plan to divide Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.
- Offer: Roughly 55% of land for a Jewish state, 45% for an Arab state. Jerusalem internationalized.
- Jewish Response: Accepted
- Palestinian/Arab Response: Rejected. Palestinian Arab leaders and surrounding Arab states launched a war on Israel.
2000 - Camp David Summit
- Offer: 91%-95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, shared Jerusalem, land swaps, limited refugee return.
- Palestinian Response: Yasser Arafat rejected the offer and made no formal counteroffer. The Second Intifada (145 suicide bombings) began shortly thereafter.
2001 - Taba Talks
- Offer: Even more generous terms than Camp David with up to 97% of the West Bank, land swaps, limited refugee return, shared Jerusalem.
- Palestinian Response: Talks were constructive but ended without an agreement. Arafat never signed or formally accepted.
2008 - Olmert-Abbas Proposal
- Offer: ~94-96% of the West Bank, 1:1 land swaps, shared Jerusalem (international administration for holy sites), resettlement of ~5,000 refugees.
- Palestinian Response: Mahmoud Abbas did not accept or sign, citing lack of written documents and refugee concerns. Abbas doesn’t say yes. Doesn’t say no. Just… leaves.
2014 - Kerry Framework (U.S.-backed proposal during Netanyahu-Abbas talks)
- Offer: U.S. framework to resume final-status negotiations; based on two states, with security and recognition clauses.
- Palestinian Response: Abbas walked away from the talks after a unity agreement with Hamas. No agreement was reached.
Why did Palestinian leaders turn each of these down?
Because every single offer, from 1937 to 2008, had one condition they couldn’t accept: that Israel would still exist.
They could have had borders. They could have had a capital in East Jerusalem. They could have joined the UN, flown their flag, signed their treaties, and printed their passports.
But the price was always the same. They had to say yes to a future where Israel didn’t go away.
The offers weren’t rejected because of settlements, checkpoints, or disagreements over how maps were drawn.
The thing they wouldn’t accept was Israel’s continued existence.
"#i really wonder what the results would have been if the Palestinian public had been consulted on this#did these leaders represent the desires of everyone? or were they acting in their own interests?#i/p"
My understanding is that the Palestinian public by and large has not been consulted at more or less any point in this process and has essentially the same degree of trust in their leaders that we do in their leaders if not less since we don't have to actually live under the bastards.
I've read that a big part of why the Oslo process went nowhere and froze was that the average Palestinian's opinion of the people in the PA 'negotiating on their behalf' was "you're a bunch of corrupt oligarchs making deals with Israel to benefit yourselves with no regard for how it affects any of us" and as a result negotiations kept being hampered by desperate counterproductive efforts salvage legitimacy, although given that this is like fourthhand do not take that as gospel.
Remember in 2007-2008, how Gaza had elections for the first time, and the plurality of the vote went to Hamas? Insofar as I'm aware, that was essentially the same situation as the United States' own election in 2016 and 2024. "The people currently in power are miserable failures who break every promise and are out to enrich themselves rather than help us, I'm going to vote for Literally Anybody Else, preferably a Literally Anybody Else with the most fiery and angry possible rhetoric to reflect how angry I am and throw a wrecking ball into the corrupt institutions" with predictable "the people with the angriest possible rhetoric were not in fact a better alternative" and "throwing a wrecking ball into corrrupt institutions that are keeping you alive makes it harder to survive" consequences that the American people, too, are currently suffering if to a lesser degree for now.
If it was put to a vote tomorrow, and precautionary measures were taken to protect them from any potential reprisals, I'd imagine that most Palestinians would take any one of these previously offered deals.
Mostly in a "Fuck it, let's put this terrible ordeal behind us and rebuild something resembling a life" way. But that still works.
You imagine a Palestinian public opinion position based on...what, exactly?
No snark. Genuinely asking.
The innate human desire to not starve to death, die pointlessly, and just generally being tired of all this.
I'm sure antisemitism and Israel-hate are common feelings among Palestinians, but those feelings won't put food on the table or keep you warm at night.
Hamas may value their hatred above their survival, but the rest of the people...?
It might be a little naive of me, but I have to believe that the majority of a population won't value mindless hate over their own survival and the survival of their children.
"Naive" isn't the right word.
Right now you're making a claim about the way things ARE based on nothing but imagination.
If you were to replace 'imagine' with 'hope,' you could graduate to merely naive.
Hopes are wonderful. Aspirations are essential. Dreams are the first step towards building better futures.
It is vitally important to avoid confusing hopes, aspirations, and dreams with realities which can be supported by evidence and reason.
The Arabs of the Levant have consistently valued the effort to destroy Israel over the survival of their children.
This isn't a subjective opinion and this isn't bigotry. This is fact.
This has been demonstrated every day, by every available measure, for decades. Let me know if you're like a list of the ways this has been said, performed, demonstrated, and made into official public policy, religious doctrine, and public opinion.
I think those of us in the West who treasure our liberal values need to finally wrap our heads around the reality that not all cultures share our most basic, fundamental, humanist values. We are not all the same. We do not all want the same things for our kids. It's a horrifying thing to realize, but it must be grasped and grappled with
Some people (and some governments and some cultures) are moved more by their hatred than by their love for their children.
My heart is with you, @strawberry-wizzard. I'd like to believe what you imagine to be true - but there's no evidence to support that belief.
I... think this is slipping closer to dehumanizing Arabs than I'm comfortable with, frankly.
It's not that they don't love their children; it's that they're religiously indoctrinated to think it's BETTER for their children to be "martyred" than to live a long, fruitful life that will reap a lesser reward from God at the end. This is not a belief that's unique to Muslims, and it's not incompatible with love.
Not to mention the political indoctrination that says your children won't get the choice of long life on earth unless Israel is eradicated.
Which. It's disturbing to me that anyone could believe it's better for their own child to die. But it's not MORE disturbing when the parents are Islamists than when they're, say, Western antivaxxers.
I... think this is slipping closer to dehumanizing Arabs than I'm comfortable with, frankly.
I haven't dehumanized anyone. You agree with what I've written, you're just squeamish about acknowledging how uncomfortable this reality is:
It's not that they don't love their children
At no point did I say that the Arabs of Gaza and West Bank do not love their children.
I said: "Some people (and some governments and some cultures) are moved more by their hatred than by their love for their children."
I stand by that as not just true, but supported by enormous amounts of evidence.
...it's that they're religiously indoctrinated to think it's BETTER for their children to be "martyred" than to live a long, fruitful life that will reap a lesser reward from God at the end.
Correct, and this agrees precisely with what I wrote.
We're all indoctrinated, @doomhamster.
My indoctrination (and yours) values human life, humanist ethics, representative government, and pluralism. Their indoctrination sees virtue and reward in hatred, violence, and murder.
It isn't dehumanizing to acknowledge this fact.
t isn't dehumanizing or bigoted to say that I prefer our cultural values to theirs not only due to indoctrination, but due to the measurable, undeniable benefits of living in a culture which shares such values.
This is not a belief that's unique to Muslims...
I didn't bring up Islam at all. Please ask yourself why you did.
...and it's not incompatible with love.
I think this is a semantically vacant thing to say, and only got brought up when you falsely asserted I claimed they don't love their children.
Not to mention the political indoctrination that says your children won't get the choice of long life on earth unless Israel is eradicated.
You're still agreeing with me.
It's disturbing to me that anyone could believe it's better for their own child to die.
Same. You're agreeing with me.
But it's not MORE disturbing when the parents are Islamists than when they're, say, Western antivaxxers.
Why is it more disturbing?
Either way, the parent's poor judgement does tremendous harm to their child, strangers their child will encounter, and the society in which their child lives.
Both parents, driven by ideology instead of rationality, are doing great harm. Both should be thoroughly condemned.
Is it more disturbing merely because Islamists openly praise/seek/support/endorse/worship violence?
I said it’s NOT more disturbing when done by Islamists than antivaxxers.
And no, I’m not agreeing with you. I may not be DISagreeing with you to your extremely exacting standard, for which I am *terribly* sorry, but rest assured I am not just “squeamish about acknowledging the reality”.
tavina-writes
