264

Israel’s military has claimed it has encircled Gaza City and divided the besieged coastal strip into two, as Gaza came under its third total communications outage since the start of the war.

“Today, there is north Gaza and south Gaza,” Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari told reporters on Sunday, calling it a “significant stage” in Israel’s war against Hamas.

Israeli media reported that troops are expected to enter Gaza City within 48 hours. Strong explosions were seen in northern Gaza after nightfall.

But the “collapse in connectivity” across Gaza reported by internet access advocacy group NetBlocks.org and confirmed by the Palestinian telecom company Paltel made it even more complicated to convey details of the new stage of the military offensive.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago

What do you mean "all of historic Palestine"? Palestine was never a state. Do you mean that Palestine should replace whole Israel? Where would the Izraelis go then?

[-] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This wasn't meant to be a political statement. Historic Palestine is a term for what is technically known as Mandate Palestine (or according to Wikipedia, Mandatory Palestine). This was the region defined as Palestine by the League of Nations between 1920 and is a convenient way to refer to all the area that is contested by Israel and Palestinians.

I'm sorry if it was unclear. I meant that Israel should incorporate the occupied territories formally and legally, and afford the residents full citizenship in the combined state so that both Israelis and Palestinians can live an work anywhere in the combined region. That's what the "One-State Solution"means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The region was called philistia since the 10th century bc. Why are we so focused on the modern nation state, a concept that didn’t really exist until the last couple hundred years?

That land has always been referred to by their population. Philistia, land of the philistines. Then the name morphed into Palestine. It’s always been Palestine.

[-] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I just want to point to my response to @samokosik@lemmynsfw.com . This wasn't meant to be a political statement, I was just using a formal term to refer to the entire region that includes Israel and the occupied territories.

[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 1 year ago

It has never been Palestine lol.

Even before your Philistia, there were Jews occupying the land if you want to make judgement based on who was there first. Then the land became Roman and jews were expelled. Later it became part of the Ottoman Empire and the after WW1, Britain got it. Throughout the history there was never a state called "Palestine".

There could have been one if they had accepted a compromise proposed by UN in 1948. They didn't, so the result was no state for Palestine :/

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I just explained to you how it was known as that for centuries. Both the philistines and canaanites (of which the Jewish kingdoms grew from) lived in the area as part of the population.

They lived there at the same time, Jews weren’t first. You’re arrogant and wrong, the worst combo.

And you’re still hung up on nation states, the fact that ottomans conquered and ruled the Palestinians/Philistines doesn’t mean those people haven’t lived there constantly for centuries. The idea of a nation state didn’t exist until the 18th century. It has no bearing on whether a population should have self determination.

You also forget that in WW1 the British promised the Palestinians the entire territory for their assistance. So if frame it as Palestinians opposed the Brit’s changing the deal to move a bunch of Europeans into the territory they were promised. The west threw their resources secured through global empire to force this colony on the locals. Framing it as not resisting western colonization is deceptive and obfuscates the motives leadership expressed.

[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 1 year ago

Yes, they lived there at the same time, still Jews came in 13th century BC whilst Philistines not sooner than 12th. In addition, Phillistines were a tribe from an area close to Greece/Macedonia.

However, I agree that there were promises both to Jews and Palestinians. Hence why a compromise had to be made. Israel accepted, Palestine did not (several times).

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

So they came in you say? So it sounds like by your logic it doesn’t belong to them either, huh? Maybe we should track down the descendants of ancient Canaanites and give them the territory. After all the Israelites were pastoralists east of the levant before they moved into conquer the territory.

More manipulative framing. The Brit’s told Palestinians they could have their land. Then told European Jews they’d give them Palestinians land. A colonial empire took land from Palestinians to give to Europeans. And by “took from” I mean they removed people from their ancestral homes to move in colonists.

Palestinians were told to give up their homes to European immigrants and those immigrants were told they could only colonize half of Palestinian territory. That’s a compromise the same way taking one eye instead of letting you keep both is. I don’t care if you promised someone else both of my eyes, they aren’t your eyes to give away.

[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago

One state solution would be nice but do you think they could agree on that?

Arab school or having a state is very different compared to the way Israel works. Whilst none of the Arab countries respects the basic human rights, israel allows registered partnerships and even adoptions by LGBTI people. I am not really sure how this would work.

Another problem could be the extremely radical Jews/Arabs who could maybe threaten the democracy of the one state solution and accept strictly religious decisions.

[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 1 year ago

Comparison to 2 eyes is very inaccurate as: a) there already were jews leaving Europe for obvious reasons, they had to go somewhere b) at some point, the land belonged to both jews and arabs

I agree with you that the way of distributing the land was very terrible.

[-] TheDankHold@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

They “had to go somewhere” is only true if you decide Europe can’t fix its own antisemitism.

Regardless, they didn’t have to displace people from their homes. The US, especially in the 40s, has tons of space for new communities to form.

There was no need to kick locals out of their homes so you can ship in foreigners.

Also don’t separate Arab and Jew. There are Arab Jews and they lived alongside Palestinians for centuries. The land was lived in by Arabs and Europeans came in and kicked most of them out of half of their homelands.

Britain promised the Arabs (which had members of all three main abrahamic sects) that they could rule the land they lived in. Then after the war they promised some Europeans that they could have all of that territory. The analogy fits just fine.

[-] samokosik@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 1 year ago

The question is how many exactly left because the Arab leaders proposed and how many were actually kicked out. Today, Israel has 20% of Arab citizens which have exactly the same right as Jewish ones, so I doubt to believe every single Arab was expelled by IDF because they were not jews.

There was even a speech by Ben Gurion that asked Arabs to stay where they were.

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
264 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39040 readers
1015 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS