2 Israeli embassy staffers killed in apparent 'targeted attack' in Washington, DC ; Perp shouted "Free Palestine", is in custody

[BCP1928]

The issue is that the lines are getting blurred between the "pro-Palestine" movement and antisemitism.

This is largely due to people trying to draw this massive distinction between "Palestinian" and "Hamas", when in fact, Palestinians are currently the most antisemitic group on the planet. (even without the presence of Hamas)

View attachment 365412

And I know people will say "current happenings are the cause of that", but even if we rewind back to before Israel's bombardment on the region...

Even a few years prior to that (when they were mostly on the defensive and just relying on Iron Dome to down missiles getting launched at them, they were at an index score of 92 (2nd only to Afghanistan).


The part that nobody wants to say out loud is that people can be legitimate victims of wrongdoing, while also having deeply troubling views and ideologies that shouldn't be cheered or celebrated.

Which is why I don't think people being encouraged to be "pro-Palestinian" is the proper anecdote to Israel's abusive/overreaching actions.

You realize that cuts both ways, don't you?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You realize that cuts both ways, don't you?

Absolutely, there are people who will take any criticism of Netanyahu's approach and conflate it for "anti-Jewish"

Where the delusion comes into play, is where people assume that if it weren't for the kinds of policies Netanyahu has, everything would be "lovey-dovey" over there...that's not the case.


This guy was arguably the most "Palestinian-friendly" Israeli leader in their nation's history.

Yitzhak Rabin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After the Oslo agreement was signed (up until the time of Rabin's death), there was actually an uptick in violence from Palestinian militant groups who were opposed to the peace process.

 

[BCP1928]

Absolutely, there are people who will take any criticism of Netanyahu's approach and conflate it for "anti-Jewish"

People like the Trump administration and it is now the law of the land. Why? Why would anyone do that?

Where the delusion comes into play, is where people assume that if it weren't for the kinds of policies Netanyahu has, everything would be "lovey-dovey" over there...that's not the case.

That seems to be the case with most of the conservative posters is this forum, It is telling that they refuse to discuss the actual history of the State of Israel prior to Oct 7--claiming that the attack was not only vicious and unjustifiable--which everybody agrees that it was--but that it came "out of the blue," so to speak.

View attachment 365464

 

[rjs330]

That seems to be the case with most of the conservative posters is this forum, It is telling that they refuse to discuss the actual history of the State of Israel prior to Oct 7

That's a flat out falsehood. Ive been discussing the history since the beginning. As have most other conservative posters. There has been no refusal to discuss the actual history.

I dont know why you would even say such nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People like the Trump administration and it is now the law of the land. Why? Why would anyone do that?

That seems to be the case with most of the conservative posters is this forum, It is telling that they refuse to discuss the actual history of the State of Israel prior to Oct 7--claiming that the attack was not only vicious and unjustifiable--which everybody agrees that it was--but that it came "out of the blue," so to speak.

The actual history is that Jews were getting to subjected to sub-part living conditions in a dozen different Arab states prior to them having their own nation.

The surrounding Arab states made it pretty clear "we don't when them living here", and then the international community carved out a piece of land the size of New Jersey for them to migrate to, they all (nearly in unison) said "Nah, we don't want them living there either"


While there's been a tit-for-tat conflict going on ever since then, the calls for peace from the progressive side of the aisle always seem to conveniently come at a time when Israel is retaliating, and almost never after an Islamic attack against the state of Israel.


Two-state solutions have been offered up
The idea of handing control of Gaza over to Egypt has been offered up

Both were rejected...


The proposal that the Clinton administration tried to help broker was about as fair of a proposal as one can imagine.

• The Palestinian state would include 94–96% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip.
• Palestinians would receive 2–4% of Israeli territory in land swaps in order to make Palestine a contiguous territory.
• Jerusalem would be an open and undivided city, serving as the capital of both Israel and Palestine.
• Israel would have sovereignty over the Western Wall; Palestinians would have sovereignty over the rest of the Temple Mount.
• Arrangements would be made for the "Historical Basin" (Old City and holy sites), ensuring freedom of worship for both religions.
• Israel and the US would be obligated to financially cover the burden of any resettlement that needed to take place (going in both directions)
  

...I can't think of a more fair deal than that.

You want to venture a guess at who shot the agreement down? (Hint: it wasn't then-Israeli PM Ehud Barak, he formally accepted the Clinton proposal)

 

[Gr8Grace]

I think we're getting some lines crossed here, if you read the remaining part of my post, you'll see that I think we're actually in somewhat agreement here. I noted that people are trying to draw a distinction between "Pro-Hamas" and "Pro-Palestine", but in many cases that's a distinction without a difference.


However, I don't think it's the media blurring the lines, I think it's a simply recognition that "if people hang out with radicals, the chances increase that they'll become more radicalized"





I would draw some parallels to the time in Northern Ireland known as "the Troubles" (for those who remember that)

More similarities than most people realize...
It was a dispute that (much like the Gaza conflict) also had nationalistic, religious, and territorial components to it.

One could reasonably say that many of the actions of the British (shooting civilians and then lying it and downplaying the numbers, internment without trial, denying medical care to wounded) were inexcusable human rights violations, agreed?

And one could also see why people would want to protest those things.


However, if one was looking to get organized to protest the actions of the Brits, and the only sources of protest mobilization/collective action just so happened to be sources that sympathized with the viewpoints of the IRA and had a huge ideological overlap with them, it's only a matter of time before a lot of those activists make "the leap" from merely being against what the Brits were doing, to being overtly Pro-IRA.

If during that time 93% of the people who expressed "pro-independence" also supported the viewpoints/actions of the IRA, I don't think anyone would object to the labelling that would make the two synonymous with each other.


But the key difference is, during the Troubles, only 16% of the Northern Ireland population (and only 30% of Northern Ireland Catholics) actually supported the IRA. As where, a large majority of Gazans supported Hamas (even prior to this latest iteration of the conflict)

Its antisemitism. Plain and simple.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its antisemitism. Plain and simple.

It is, but it's because there isn't much in the way of "criticize the Israeli government" that isn't "Hamas-Adjacent" and that's going to radicalize people.

For people to align with a reasonable middle ground, a reasonable middle ground first has to be available. I don't think we have one in the US.

It's either
"You support everything Netanyahu does without question, or you're an antisemite"
or
"Here's your Palestinian flag and keffiyeh, get out there and make some trouble and do some river to the sea chants"

And there's a large portion of people who feel pressured to go to one of those two corners.

 

[BCP1928]

That's a flat out falsehood. Ive been discussing the history since the beginning. As have most other conservative posters. There has been no refusal to discuss the actual history.

Just a denial of what it is.

I dont know why you would even say such nonsense.

How did you know I was thinking of you?

 

[bèlla]

It is, but it's because there isn't much in the way of "criticize the Israeli government" that isn't "Hamas-Adjacent" and that's going to radicalize people.

Bibi considers all criticism along those lines. It isn’t merely about the war. He expects support for his policies unquestionably by Americans. And when that doesn’t occur he leans on Washington.

I have no difficulty calling out wrong behavior on all sides including Trump’s. But I‘m not giving anyone a pass and calling the other the bad guy while people are dying needlessly. Ending the war is foremost and that’s been my position all along. Which includes the release of the hostages as well.

~bella

 

[BCP1928]

The actual history is that Jews were getting to subjected to sub-part living conditions in a dozen different Arab states prior to them having their own nation.

At least we now have a conservative who admits that there were Jews living in Ottoman Palestine before 1918.

The surrounding Arab states made it pretty clear "we don't when them living here", and then the international community carved out a piece of land the size of New Jersey for them to migrate to, they all (nearly in unison) said "Nah, we don't want them living there either"


While there's been a tit-for-tat conflict going on ever since then, the calls for peace from the progressive side of the aisle always seem to conveniently come at a time when Israel is retaliating, and almost never after an Islamic attack against the state of Israel.


Two-state solutions have been offered up
The idea of handing control of Gaza over to Egypt has been offered up

Both were rejected...


The proposal that the Clinton administration tried to help broker was about as fair of a proposal as one can imagine.

• The Palestinian state would include 94–96% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip.
• Palestinians would receive 2–4% of Israeli territory in land swaps in order to make Palestine a contiguous territory.
• Jerusalem would be an open and undivided city, serving as the capital of both Israel and Palestine.
• Israel would have sovereignty over the Western Wall; Palestinians would have sovereignty over the rest of the Temple Mount.
• Arrangements would be made for the "Historical Basin" (Old City and holy sites), ensuring freedom of worship for both religions.
• Israel and the US would be obligated to financially cover the burden of any resettlement that needed to take place (going in both directions)

...I can't think of a more fair deal than that.

You want to venture a guess at who shot the agreement down? (Hint: it wasn't then-Israeli PM Ehud Barak, he formally accepted the Clinton proposal)

I guess they just don't think it was a fair deal. But you're right: they should have given up long ago. After all, they had Gaza, which was a better reservation than some of our own indigenous people got.

 

[rjs330]

Just a denial of what it is.

No that's the left that does that. Typical lies about what has gone on.

How did you know I was thinking of you?

You were thinking about me?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Jews living in Ottoman Palestine before 1918.

I guess they just don't think it was a fair deal. But you're right: they should have given up long ago. After all, they had Gaza, which was a better reservation than some of our own indigenous people got.

There were Jewish populations spread out across a dozen or so Arab states historically, they were getting mistreated (or expelled) from almost all of them.

I suspect that if Israel was a Muslim population, Arafat would've taken the deal gladly.

And Arafat was on record as saying that his primary focus was getting Jewish people out of the region, above Palestine actually being it's own sovereign state (something even other Arab heads of state criticized him for)


That's why I drew the comparison to the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

Viewing it as purely a territorial dispute (when there are nationalism and religious components involved as well) has been the flawed approach diplomats have been taking for decades now.

"Land for peace" only works if "Land" is the primary concern.


Arafat's position was tantamount to saying "Well, if we can have our own country, great... BUT the most important thing is that they're NOT here"


And given the conflicts the Palestinians have had with (and in) other Arab states when they've lived there, it's pretty evident that their leadership has been notoriously difficult to reason with. And there's a reason why many other Arab states in the region have refused to take in Palestinian refugees over the years.

The Kingdom of Jordan and Lebanon have tried it, it didn't end well.

In Jordan, they took in a bunch of refugees, and within months, PLO members started using Jordan as a base for attacks against Israel... a chain of events that led to military conflicts between the Jordanian military and the PLO and an assassination attempt on King Hussein...ending in the Palestinians getting ousted from Jordan.

Lebanon then took them in, and within a few years, their presence led to the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil war. They ended up put putting restrictions in place for Palestinian refugees as well.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uneasy-ties-between-palestinians-arab-states-2025-04-07/

 

[rjs330]

I guess they just don't think it was a fair deal. But you're right: they should have given up long ago. After all, they had Gaza, which was a better reservation than some of our own indigenous people got.

They weren't given a reservation. They were offered their own country. More than once and they refused. Then they attacked Israel. Yes tgey absolutely should have given a long time ago trying to get rid of Israel and the Jews.
They should have created their own country and lived in peace with their neighbors. They could have had a flourishing country with a good economy by now. Instead they chose war and terrorism.

 

[BCP1928]

They weren't given a reservation. They were offered their own country. More than once and they refused. Then they attacked Israel. Yes tgey absolutely should have given a long time ago trying to get rid of Israel and the Jews.
They should have created their own country and lived in peace with their neighbors. They could have had a flourishing country with a good economy by now. Instead they chose war and terrorism.

You really don't get it, do you? Yes, they made a bad choice and have done a lot of harm over it. The Western Powers took possession of the land they lived in and set up a western-oriented secular state populated with European immigrants who graciously offered to let them live on the part of it they didn't want. Somehow, when the Ottoman Empire was carved up by France and England most of the rest of the indigenous Arabs got something like self-determination out of it, although they had to fight for it. Not the Palestinians, however. But in the end you are right. The Muslim Palestinians should have known better. There is plenty of history that shows what happens to indigenous people when the European powers move in.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Muslim Palestinians should have known better. There is plenty of history that shows what happens to indigenous people when the European powers move in.

With regards to that piece of territory, how far back do you want to go with the "who lived there first" iterations?

If Perplexity is accurate:

This is the sort of the game that gets played with regards to domestic conversations about the indigenous peoples and "settlers"

People seem to want to assign "ancestral rights to land" based on whoever had it last before "colonialist powers" got involved, while ignoring all of the previous iterations of conquest.

So, they'll ignore the previous 4 iterations of conquest and land takeovers between various Native American tribes, but then view the one iteration where it was Europeans doing it as the "theft".

And it seems as if many want to apply that same flawed logic to the Middle Eastern land dispute as well.


In this case, it was the Jews who were the "Native American" equivalent for that piece of territory, and several iterations of conquest took place (from the Romans, Greeks, Arabs), and the moment the "European Colonialists" got involved, then all of the sudden, that's the grave infraction and they say it should belong to whoever had it last right before "White guys got involved"

 

[rjs330]

You really don't get it, do you?

Yes I do get it. That land had bounced from one empire and country to another. All the way back to the days of the establishment of the first Israel, through Rome, and the Ottomans then finally to modern times.

So those who controlled it determined what happened with it. And they decided to make two states which the Arabs rejected. You know this very well.
Rhe argument has always been does Israel have a right to exist. The Arabs say no they don't. Well, Israel does exist. And they aren't going anywhere. It appears many here and the Arabs in the region don't get it.

I can't imagine what people in the US would do if the natives here started digging tunnels, launching missiles, and used suicide bombers to kill the citizens in the states. If they went into one of our cities and kidnapped over 200 people, and killed 1200 others, I doubt very much if we would be saying well we understand and we should just leave them alone because we deserved it.

And rhe Isrealis told the Arabs there they were welcome to stay and keep the land they had. And the ones who did kept their land. Then there were ones who left because they thought others would come and rid them of the Jews.

The Muslim Palestinians should have known better.

Absolutely. They habeen involved in colonialism their entire existence.

Only in this case it happened to be the Ottomans who held the land and gave it to someone else.

And the ancestral Jews were there before the Palestinian Arabs. So if you are going to make claims then you better go far enough back.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes I do get it. That land had bounced from one empire and country to another. All the way back to the days of the establishment of the first Israel, through Rome, and the Ottomans then finally to modern times.

So those who controlled it determined what happened with it. And they decided to make two states which the Arabs rejected. You know this very well.
Rhe argument has always been does Israel have a right to exist. The Arabs say no they don't. Well, Israel does exist. And they aren't going anywhere. It appears many here and the Arabs in the region don't get it.

I can't imagine what people in the US would do if the natives here started digging tunnels, launching missiles, and used suicide bombers to kill the citizens in the states. If they went into one of our cities and kidnapped over 200 people, and killed 1200 others, I doubt very much if we would be saying well we understand and we should just leave them alone because we deserved it.

And rhe Isrealis told the Arabs there they were welcome to stay and keep the land they had. And the ones who did kept their land. Then there were ones who left because they thought others would come and rid them of the Jews.

Absolutely. They habeen involved in colonialism their entire existence.

Only in this case it happened to be the Ottomans who held the land and gave it to someone else.

And the ancestral Jews were there before the Palestinian Arabs. So if you are going to make claims then you better go far enough back.

Yeah sure, whatever. But it is what it is. What the outside world sees is a settler state which they helped legitimatize is having trouble dealing with its indigenous people. It's Israel's problem to solve, but a lot of the world thinks they should be doing it with less collateral damage. Insisting that they should be allowed to get away with whatever they want introduces a new angle. The viciousness of the Oct 7th attack is beginning to fade comparared to what the IDF has done since.

 

[rjs330]

a lot of the world thinks they should be doing it with less collateral damage. Insisting that they should be allowed to get away with whatever they want introduces a new angle. The viciousness of the Oct 7th attack is beginning to fade comparared to what the IDF has done since.

A lot of the world us wrong because they are either anti-semetic or fools.

This kind of war CANNOT be fought without collateral damage. An urban war where the enemy dresses as civilians, uses civilians as shield, uses civilian homes as weapons storage, and places to fight from should be expected to have a LOT of collateral damage. An enemy who hides in civilian homes, hospitals and rides in ambulances is IMPOSSIBLE to fight without collateral damage. Isreal has done all they can under those circumstances to not do so, but its an impossible task under the circumstances given to them by their enemy.

Its the height of ignorance and foolishness to expect anything more than is being done. They have found and killed Hamas leaders who were hiding in refugee camps. How did they get there? They got there because tgey look like civilians and are hiding among them.

 

[BCP1928]

A lot of the world us wrong because they are either anti-semetic or fools.

That there are fools I can believe, but the blanket condemnations of "anti-semitism" by the Trump admiration come straight from Christian Zionism.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed. There have been reports of flaming, and this is a heated topic.

​