CerealKiller01

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant's not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you're from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err... that's just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it's policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I'm from Israel, and no one is using "Zionism" in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say "real Zionism" is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say "real Zionism" is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That's like a US democrat saying a "true patriot" would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a "true patriot" would support a small government that doesn't restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that's basically where it came from.

To help the people caught in the middle, from both sides, one has to understand the interests of the Israeli government and Hamas. I think the last actions Biden did have the best chance of stopping the war.

Hamas's interests are a full retreat of Israeli forces and keeping as many hostages. They don't really care what happens to the general population. The "political" leaders in Qatar also have an interest of staying there. They are also OK with keeping the war going since as time goes by the public opinion turns more and more against Israel. The latter part can be dealt with by not letting Hamas of the hook for what's going on in Gaza (if you want to say "But no one is saying they're not to blame!" - yes, but most aren't stating clearly the ARE to blame. In practical terms, that's about the same). Also, pressure can be put on Qatar so they can put pressure on the political leadership, as Biden has reportedly done.

The Israeli government is a bit more complex, as it's a coalition with three "legs" - Netanyahu/Likud, that mainly want to stay in power and nothing else (the war is good for them, since they don't have to answer for their part in how it started), the far right that want to take over Gaza (and therefor welcome international sanctions, as it "proves" that the whole world hates Israel and therefore the only solution is to disregard what the world thinks), and the ultra orthodox parties that want to keep certain privileges for their voters.

The international arrest warrants, while not desirable on Netanyahu's part, actually increase his power. He spins them as warrants against "the entire country". And in fact, right after they were issued Likud rose in the polls.

So what can be done regarding the Israeli government? Well, Netanyahu is playing all sides against the middle, telling everyone different things while trying to change the situation, no matter what the situation actually is, as little as possible (since any change can result in him losing power). Biden, by stating the offer currently on the table came from Israel tore the mask from Netanyahu's double speak and makes it harder for him to keep the current situation.

Small children (under 6-7) are exempt from Jewish law. Making breast milk kosher isn't exactly neccsery, but it makes things much easier (how to keep it, making sure it won't get mixed with other foods by mistake, what happened if it does etc.) The neat part is that breast milk isn't considered milk accordingly to Jewish law, so it can be drunk with/right after/before eating meat (otherwise forbidden). This means a person can, and I know at least one who actually did, add breast milk to their coffee after eating meat.

Err... Yes?

I mean, if the cops can't actually come into your city, having them waiting outside the city limits with signs saying "if you'll come out we'll arrest you!" probably isn't the best course of action for you.

No, what I'm saying is:

a. The immediate goal shouldn't be to punish Netanyahu for war crimes, rather solve (at least improve) the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

b. Arrest warrants against Netanyahu will not help improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if anything they'll make the situation worse (There are already calls from far-right members of Knesset to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza as a response).

Therefor, this is uplifting news for anyone who hates Netanyahu/Israel more than they want to help Palestinians.

Right, so it's not "smart", it's just, you know, what he should have done regardless.

Preferably even before asking for warrants against Netanyahu and Galant. That way it won't look like the warrants against Hamas leaders are to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and Galant, like the person I replied to seems to imply.

If that's the reason behind the arrest warrens for Hamas, doesn't it make the ICC's chief request in bad faith? Like "I really want to issue warrants only for Netanyahu, but I know this will be unfair, so I'll issue warrants for both sides, so I'll seem balanced"?

"Conservatives" is a misnomer here. "Conservative" isn't right and "Progressive" isn't left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to "not rock the boat" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today's Republicans aren't actually conservatives rather regressive. That's almost literally what "make America great again" means. That's also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that's what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying "Conservatives were the people who defended King George." as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying "Progressives on the 18th century were for women's suffrage, they have no business talking about equality".

Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say "hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let's hear what they have to say", and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.

Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, "developed" is mind boggling.

Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

First of all, you got the gist of what I'm saying. There are a few things I'd say were a bit off, but most of it isn't worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you've actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where...).

You're absolutely correct saying the two camps I've described are not left-right. Notice I didn't say "left", rather "left-leaning".

The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to "Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?" Or, how it's usually framed, "Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?". If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian "Is Israel a partner for peace?", which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

It's also correct to say that in the last year there's been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there's A LOT of historical context I'm not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I'm all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren't protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don't understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel's invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a "free pass" since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a "free pass" as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side's violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it "the cycle of bloodshed"). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas's foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as "aparthide"). I'm saying this not to try and convince you that "the Palestinians started it!", but to explain why "They started it!" is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying "October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel" is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians''. That's blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

"The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith." Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on "How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution". The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that "Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden", and Netanyahu saying "Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas".

Regarding Israel being a "bad ally" to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don't know what Israeli news sources you're following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don't provide Israel with support?

To finish, I'd like to address the use of "apartheid" when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I'm saying "Arab" to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as "ethnically" Palestinians who don't identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren't citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that's more akin to the way black people are ("are", not "were") treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so "apartheid" doesn't apply. We're left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn't race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as "living under occupation" and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as "the occupation" (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than "apartheid", especially considering that "apartheid" is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid  a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that's one of the reasons the distinction between "occupation" and "apartheid" is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.