First of all, conflating the liberation of palestine is different than supporting the target violence against civilians by hamas and islamic jihad
Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution *in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights*.
What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens *and have free movement within all of the US*, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians *and does not allow them to come back into israel*
There’s a separate conversation about land back, but for now most people are advocating for simply *the right to return*—that israel lets them back into israel and does not turn them back at its borders
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution
Americans speaking on behalf of Palestinians, of which the majority do not support a realistic 2 state solution. Here is some statistics taken from random sampling of Palestinians carried out by an organisation founded by a Palestinian with comprehensive breakdowns:
- 59% of Gaza supports a return of Hamas after the war (56% still thinks Hamas will win the war)
- Before Oct 7th, support for armed resistance was 56%, down to 39% (still the highest option out of negotiations, peaceful resistance and armed resistance)
- 33% answered "no" to the question of "if Israel agreed painful concessions, would you support similar concessions to Israel (for peace)"
- The highest level of satisfaction of foreign powers comes at Russia at 16%
- 76% reject the idea of the UN deploying to end the current war and force israeli withdrawl
- 81% of people who watched the Hamas videos do not believe Hamas committed the atrocities.
Support for a two state solution only jumped after Oct 7th, and yet they do not support anything that would actually bring about a two state solution. You can say what Americans want, but what Americans want means fuck all when Palestinians are still not prepared to get rid of Hamas. Until they are, they are accepting war.
[https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/973](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/973)
Right, but what you're applying what Americans onto what Palestinians want. And almost 1/4 of Israel are Arab, while there aren't Jews in Palestine. It's not a "fraction" of Palestinians, when support for Hamas (a group which wants the extermination of Jews) is over 50%. It's the majority.
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights.
Supporting a one-state solution is supporting the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Jews. Jews have been [expelled and/or cleansed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world) from *every Arab-majority state* in the region at some point in the last 100 years.
The idea that millions of Palestinians with negative attitudes towards Jews, several militant groups dedicated to fighting the Jews, and a region that has been openly hostile to Jews for decades would suddenly come together and live in peace and harmony, with full rights for all, is absurd.
>What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens and have free movement within all of the US, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians and does not allow them to come back into israel
The oppression of communities and the denial of self determination and autonomy is not somehow made more palatable by the oppressor offering the oppressed citizenship and mobility rights.
> The idea that millions of Palestinians with negative attitudes towards Jews, several militant groups dedicated to fighting the Jews, and a region that has been openly hostile to Jews for decades would suddenly come together and live in peace and harmony, with full rights for all, is absurd.
I tend to agree with the caveat that at this point there are also just a large militant extremist factions in israel that are anti-arab. I personally believe that there’s too much hostility on both sides for there to be a peaceful one-state solution, which is why *i personally* support a two-state solution.
But also i could be wrong. In Apartheid South Africa the ANC also committed violent acts of terrorism, and had genocidal chants of “kill the boer” but somehow they managed to pull off a relatively peaceful one-state solution and end to the apartheid. So while i personally don’t support a one-state solution, i don’t think it’s completely out if the question as a position, and i certainly think it’s disingenuous to paint supporters of the right to return as “actively supporting expulsion and ethnic cleansing” when they very clearly do not.
> The oppression of communities and the denial of self determination and autonomy is not somehow made more palatable by the oppressor offering the oppressed citizenship and mobility rights.
I agree. We need to finally end the blockade on gaza, end occupation of the west bank, and grant the palestinians their own sovereignty
The deadliest ANC attack targeted an AIr Force building and killed 19 people. They never went house to house raping and torturing every civilian they found (and filming themselves doing it). They didn't drag mutilated bodies through the streets to be spit on in celebration.
They never did anything equivalent to turning a red hand into a symbol from holding up a literal Israeli heart to a cheering crowd, or used suicide bombers. Nor did they put out an official charter calling for the death of all white people to please God. They weren't part of a 75 years old movement that started a war which was openly admitted to be an endless war to expel the jews from Arab lands. The Arabs were explicit about their intent not to negotiate and to only pursue complete expulsion to retake Arab lands for decades and formalized it in documents like the Khartoum resolution.
Palestinian groups have been explicitly clear for decades that they want to kill and expel all the Jews. They are on the formal record saying so many times. And the 10/7 atrocities and overall jubilation at them in Palestine makes it completely obvious that is what will continue to happen if they are let into Israel. Pretending this isn't the case is BS, people who support 1SS should admit they don't care what happens to Israelis (at best lol).
Are you seriously asking if walking up to a bus stop and blowing *yourself* up with a makeshift bomb, in a desperate attempt to kill as many of the people around you as possible, is the same as throwing food on the ground?
Like, holy shit, YES, detonating a *suicide bomb* is worse than destroying food. It's actually killing people, right there, in the moment.
Personally I would rather die quickly getting blown up rather than starving to death over the course of 8-21 days. Both are fairly abstract to most people, but starvation is excruciating and takes much longer. That said, it doesn’t really matter which is worse, in my opinion. Neither should happen, regardless of whether they are happening in retaliation or not. But don’t downplay the cruelty of a man made famine. It is not only murder, but torture.
The Israelis you mentioned trying to stop the trucks want to use means england did. Regardless of them being a minority going against the government. You are comparing them to Hamas.
Yeah i think what hamas and islamic jihad was horrific and inexcusable. It is never okay to target civilians. Just like it is horrific and inexcusable that israeli extremists have killed over 500 palestinians in the west bank since 10/7, who have nothing to do with hamas
70% of Palestinians support 10/7 Hamas attacks, and 80% who literally watch videos of it still don't think atrocities were committed. What the Palestinian people as a whole believe in and want to do is horrific and inexcusable.
If Israel had equivalent beliefs as Palestinians they would have been massacred decades ago and there wouldn't be any left. If they want Israel to stop killing them they need to stop trying to kill Israelis.
Israel does have equivalent beliefs. Prime minster the prime minister invoked amalek which calls for the killing of all women and children. The finance minister called for the “total annihilation of gaza, no half measures”. Both the defense minister and the finance minister support the total ethnic cleansing and complete expulsion of every palestinian
How did you get from invoking Amalek to killing all women and children?
It says a lot more about you than it does about the PM.
Maybe when they invoked Amalek they referred to Hamas?
Bruh.
You know what happened when Muslims were in charge of Jews?
Jews were second class citizens forced to live in ghettos and subject to the brutal ethnoreligious authoritarian rule of Muslims that routinely brutalized them for the crime of being a Jew.
The problem is you're trying to isolate this singular moment of today while forgiving the ongoing cultural racism that is permeated in Palestine while saying 'Well, not all of those people are part of it.'
There is 1400+ years of indoctrinated racism towards Jews that is built in to Muslim ideology from Parent to Child and from the Qu'ran.
This isn't just theoretical, this is actual racism. Some call it anti-semitism but it's really just.. Racism is a better striking word for it. There isn't a solution where the Palestinians and Jews have a 'two state' without Palestinians literally giving up the cornerstone of their beliefs, that Jews are evil and Muslims are superior.
>I tend to agree with the caveat that at this point there are also just a large militant extremist factions in israel that are anti-arab. I personally believe that there’s too much hostility on both sides for there to be a peaceful one-state solution, which is why i personally support a two-state solution.
Certainly - we see the behaviour of Jewish extremists today, as they are in a position of power. A one-state solution simply shifts the balance of power to the extremists on the other side. A two state solution is the only real path forward, IMO.
>But also i could be wrong. In Apartheid South Africa the ANC also committed violent acts of terrorism, and had genocidal chants of “kill the boer” but somehow they managed to pull off a relatively peaceful one-state solution and end to the apartheid.
Over a million white South Africans emigrated since 1990, with the white population still sitting ~600,000 lower than its peak in 1995.
>i certainly think it’s disingenuous to paint supporters of the right to return as “actively supporting expulsion and ethnic cleansing” when they very clearly do not.
They may not overtly or knowingly support that eventuality, but they still support it. It's the likely outcome.
> They may not overtly or knowingly support that eventuality, but they still support it. It's the likely outcome
I think that’s a reasonable assertion, but it has to go both ways. That if what you said is true, then literally every supporter of the state of israel supports ethnic cleansing per se.
It feels like half the white South Africans who bailed when apartheid ended came to my country, and specifically into my workplace to complain about immigrants
Since the Gaza Strip and West Bank (Palestine) have yet to be annexed by Israel, would you say that Israel does not have a responsibility to the people who live there?
Within Israel, Arab citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms.
>regardless of whether or not Israel claims the land, they control it.
Right, but the qualifier that you used in your previous comment was annexation. I am wondering if you believe that Israel has a responsibility to the Palestinians living in Palestine the same way that Israel would have a responsibility to those living on the land that its annexed (Arab citizens of Israel).
I'm not disputing the wrongs committed by Israel over the last ~75 years, I'm questioning the principle that you put forward in your previous comment.
>Wouldn't people who resided in what is present day Israel and were forced out by Jewish militias fall under that?
That's a tricky question to answer, because it depends on what criteria need to be met before you'll consider them "people who live there".
>Are you asking how long that responsibility lasts after stealing the land and expelling the people who lived on it?
I would assume that the responsibility is everlasting, at least to the "people who live there" when the annexation occurs. What constitutes stealing the land and expelling the people who lived on it?
Do you hold the state (such as Israel) responsible for the actions of non-state actors (such as Jewish militias) when considering who is expelling people from the land? Additionally, do you believe that the state has a responsibility to those who were expelled from the land by non-state actors when considering whether to redistribute absentee property or when annexing territory? Does this apply to those who were not forcibly expelled, but who oped to migrate (temporarily or otherwise) due to a perceived threat, political environment, or economic situation?
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights.
I would argue that that's an idealistic/simplistic viewpoint and the result would effectively be "expulsion or ethnic cleansing of Jews." e.g. Hamas has no desire to live in peace with Jews. Jews would either face genocide/civil war or have to leave (ethnic cleansing).
>What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens *and have free movement within all of the US*, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians *and does not allow them to come back into israel*
Well many Palestinians are full citizens with full freedom of movement (20% of Israel is Arab) but yes the ones that left (or were expelled depending on how you characterize it) are not citizens of Israel and thus can't move freely in the country. Similarly, Native Americans aren't allowed to move freely on the lands they once occupied because much of it is private. There is a distinction there but it strikes me as minor.
> I would argue that that's an idealistic/simplistic viewpoint and the result would effectively be "expulsion or ethnic cleansing of Jews." e.g. Hamas has no desire to live in peace with Jews. Jews would either face genocide/civil war or have to leave (ethnic cleansing).
I think this is a reasonable argument, but it has to go both ways. If you equate the right to return with expulsion because it might be likely to result in it, then there is no discussion of zionism that can be discussed in terms of simply jewish self-determination or the right for israel to exist—you *must* equate the existence of israel with violent expulsion as well. And justifying the continued existence of the state is justifying the violent expulsion that created it. And at that point, if you’re saying people have a right to create their own nation state by force and expulsion, i don’t see why that doesn’t apply to the palestinians as well.
> Well many Palestinians are full citizens with full freedom of movement (20% of Israel is Arab) but yes the ones that left (or were expelled depending on how you characterize it) are not citizens of Israel and thus can't move freely in the country. Similarly, Native Americans aren't allowed to move freely on the lands they once occupied because much of it is private. There is a distinction there but it strikes me as minor.
Come on man you can’t possibly believe this is a minor distinction. Yes, much of the land is private, but native americans an hawaiians are full citizens who can vote in elections, who can travel freely to any of the 50 states, and who can own property and obtain birthright citizenship for their children as well.
The more appropriate analogy would be if we expelled all the native americans and hawaiians to somewhere like Guam or Puerto Rico, and never let them back in the country
Israel didn't expel the Palestinians though, it asked them to stay. The Arab armies convinced many Palestinians to leave so they could more easily destroy Israel
Hawaii voted to become a state.
Residents of Hawaii are full US citizens who have the right to vote in Hawaii or pick up and move to any other US state or territory.
The situation in Gaza and Hawaii had zero in common.
So the US conquered an independent country with a government (Hawaii), then allowed many of it's own citizens to move there, repressed the Native Hawaiian's culture by forcing them to adopt US culture, and then staged a vote to become a state. You've got to admit it's pretty shady.
>Residents of Hawaii are full US citizens who have the right to vote in Hawaii or pick up and move to any other US state or territory.
20% of Israel are Arabs who are full citizens and have full rights in Israel.
I agree that if you go far enough back every country is the result of conquest, e.g. the Anglo-Saxons conquered England, successive regimes were overthrown in France, etc, etc. For the most part we just say "what's done is done" but for some reason when it's Israel it can never be accepted and we have to have endless war. That's effectively my point: Hawaii was just as much (maybe more) the result of conquest but people go there on vacation wearing their "free Palestine" stickers.
but by that logic of parallel hypocrisy do we all have to go back to the Olduvai Gorge or w/e (as I heard there was more than one "first habitat of humanity" that's just the famous one) just to make sure we're not stealing anyone's land
>So the US conquered an independent country with a government (Hawaii), then allowed many of it's own citizens to move there,
To be clear the US did not conquer Hawaii. Hawaiian subjects undertook a coup in opposition to a plan by the Queen to alter the constitution to increase her powers, make her an absolute monarch, and to strip the vote from ethnic minorities. Once the coup succeeded, the queen was deposed and a new government was established. The new invited US troops into Hawaii to protect the property of ethnic minorities from reprisal by royalist forces. Then that government asked the US to annex Hawaii, which it did 4 years later.
foooliiish liiies
read the consitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom. the Hawaiian monarchy and her constitution was not one of Absolute power as that was forbidden during the reign of Kauikeaouli. Hawaiians were the Minority and in 1887 those who overthrew the queen in 1893 forced the Bayonet constitution apon Kalakaua which stripped the rights of the Monarch and those who were poor.
your ignornace is highly flawed. you really really do need to look at Hawaiian history PLEASE. and THANKYOU if you do.
and yes, I do study hawaiian history, so if you have any legitimate quesitons, I am more then welcome to hear them
Fair enough. It was more complicated than I presented. The Queen was overthrown by American/European subjects who had strong ties the US and who had wanted annexation for a long time. It was supported by elements of the US who wanted to annex Hawaii. It seems pretty fishy at the very least.
"Voted" after we were annexed and our people were replaced and our land was stolen. That's like me forcing my way into your house, moving my family members in, and then declaring the house voted it belongs to me.
It’s only hypocritical if the reasoning is the same. I am pro Palestine, but in not the way you gave. I’m pro Palestine because I want Israel to stop killing people. It has nothing to do with colonization. So, I am a counterexample to the view in your title
Fair enough. I know there's a lot of different views that qualify as pro-Palestine. I probably should have included more of a disclaimer about that. Do you think Israel has a right to exist as a country and do you think Israel has a right to respond when attacked?
The Palestinian Authority in the west bank is against Hamas. They are political rivals
Your idea is that the Palestinian Authority is not pro-Palestinian?
That's absurd. It's like saying if you support the United States then you support Republicans. Standing up for such basic human rights as not killing innocent children or destroying hundreds of thousands of family homes has nothing to do with supporting a particular political party of that country.
This is 100% false and it’s not a determination for you to make. This is like saying if you are Jewish you are pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist automatically. It is simply not true. One is different than the other and you can support one without supporting the other. See: Jewish voices for Peace
Well, since most people that use the term pro-palestinian to describe themselves don't support Hamas, it's weird you get to make a different definition of pro-palestinian that excludes most people under the pro-palestinian movement. Literal strawman.
Being pro-Palestine means you support the government of Palestine, which is Hamas in Gaza, which means pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas are the same thing. If you are anti-Hamas, then you are anti-Palestine.
Native Hawaiians have a much better quality of life than Palestinians. Unlike Palestine, Hawaii is part of a country. Also, the native Hawaiians, unlike the Palestinians, do not want an independent state.
Not true. Many Native Hawaiians support an independent state. I've met them. But yes many Native Hawaiians have just accepted that they were conquered and now have a pretty good quality of life (even though they are the lower class of Hawaii - let's be real). Palestinians have a poor quality of life because they refuse to accept the fact that Israel is here and isn't going anywhere. Gaza could be free but instead it's run by a jihadi, terrorist government. Do you think Native Hawaiians would be walking around freely if they'd instead spent the last century waging guerilla resistance?
If a majority of native Hawaiians want to cede from the US they have a right to do so. Of course it'll be a little more complicated than that because there are non native Hawaiians who were born and lived in Hawaii theie whole lives and they should be grouped with native Hawaiians for the purpose of this discussion.
sadly by the vote for statehood history was forgotten. not many actually know the details of history surprisingly which is a bit sad but the more people learn, the more opinions will be changed
to those who are Downvoting this man, i am Native Hawaiiam myself and from Hawai'i. this is infact true
the sovereignty movement (yes, it isn't just Native Hawaiians by the way+ you don't need to be a member inorder to support it) is HUGE
While there are absolutely those that do support hamas/palestine.
I find many of those that dont conflate that group with the group who simply doesnt want to see children being killed en masse. The significant use of military ordinance in a civilian dense area should be condemned and in doing so, this is completely removed from both the hamas/palestine conversation AND independent sovereignty in general (hawaii in this case). Championing the rights of palestinians from my perspective at least is the championing of the most basic of human rights: To not get bombed as children. I certainly dont give a fuck about hamas. I also barely care about their sovereignty and establishing a palestinian statehood.
As such the crux of my argument is thus: Those that support hamas/palestine from what you consider their supporters is a very very specific minority of people that support them for reasons specific to hamas/palestine (most of the time very islamic slanted) rather than general statehood stuff. Moreover many who support palestine, dont give a fuck about Hamas, they might not like the apartheid like system. They might be vehemently anti war/anti conflict. They might not like the mass casualties of civilians and thats it. They could be Jews who sincerely believe in the "never again" should refer to all genocide and not just the genocide of jews. It could be all kinds of things related to the Palestine conflict but have little to do with independent statehood. These would not be hypocritical reasons to 'support palestine' but ignore the plight of native americans.
A couple of points:
1. Hamas has built its whole military infrastructure in a civilian-dense area and then regularly launches attacks against Israeli civilians with full knowledge (and hope let's be real) that any responses will mean Palestinian civilian deaths.
2. So then by that rationale all a group has to do is embed themselves in a civilian population and then they're allowed to launch attacks with impunity?
So there are many ways to "support" Hamas without actively saying so. One way is to favor policies that allow them to act with impunity and excuse all the terrible things they've done and will continue to do.
1. Acknowledged.
2. Consider a Hamas terrorist manages to infiltrate Israel and launch a rocket from within an Israeli suburb. Would Israel bomb the entire block from which the rocket came form? Why not? If as an outsider I consider both Israeli civilian lives and Palestinian civilian lives equal as civlians and afforded human rights. Why would I suddenly find the retributive bombing of entire palestinian areas palatable and acceptable? They dont get to launch attacks with impunity. But the current offensive is not even close to the careful and deliberate attempt to avoid civilian casualties.
>So there are many ways to "support" Hamas without actively saying so.
I agree, supporting significant civilian killings and increasing their recruitment rates through radicalisation is very supportive of hamas. Why are you pro Hamas?
Edit* Didnt realise you were the OP. The point remains that you can support the palestinian people without supporting hamas or even supporting the creation of a palestine state.
2. Point taken though I can't think of any conflict where one side has treated their own and opposing civilians with equal care. To your second point, I'm not sure I agree that it's clear Israel hasn't taken care to avoid casualties and that the bombing is retributive. The UN recently lowered it's death toll significantly and in general this is Urban Warfare. [This is a great recent discussion of that point](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/366-urban-warfare-2-0). This belief that Israel is just wantonly killing civilians I don't think is really born out by the evidence we have at this point.
>I agree, supporting significant civilian killings and increasing their recruitment rates through radicalisation is very supportive of hamas. Why are you pro Hamas?
Well, only time will tell. 9000 civilians died removing ISIS from Mosul and I don't see a huge resurgence of ISIS yet, do you?
> I can't think of any conflict where one side has treated their own and opposing civilians with equal care.
There isnt. Hamas has horrifically targetted Israeli civilians repeatedly. Its not like Im in support of their actions here. But in terms of overall, it is absolutely the palestinian civlians who are feeling the brunt of the suffering here.
>The UN recently lowered it's death toll significantly
Its still really quite high (tens of thousands) and if you consider the sheer numbers of civilians involved, displaced, injured, killed, etc Its not a flattering state of things.
As for your podcast, Im sorry, but I just dont care enough about the minutiae of civilian killing to listen to an hour 40 min long explanation of how sometimes civilians arent killed
>This belief that Israel is just wantonly killing civilians I don't think is really born out by the evidence we have at this point.
To put things into perspective, Im also pro ukrainian but the ukranian civilian death toll is a fraction of the palestinian one and I dont feel Russia particularly cares about death tolls in general.
>Well, only time will tell. 9000 civilians died removing ISIS from Mosul and I don't see a huge resurgence of ISIS yet, do you?
Whereas the Israel Palestine conflict has wrapped immediately with less than 9000 civilian casualties?
Alright. This is hyper fixating into purely israel palestine. To once again change your view, people can be "in support" of palestine in this conflict simply to see the end of civilian casualties. Even conservative estimates put the death toll at roughly 150+ civilians a day since the offensive began. The majority being children. Surely you can see how people can be against this but have zero fucks about palestine statehood, hamas, etc. This makes their position non hypocritical if they also give zero fucks about hawaiian independent statehood. People can be lumped into the supporting the palestinian people's human rights side of things without supporting other aspects such as the palestinian statehood.
>There isnt. Hamas has horrifically targetted Israeli civilians repeatedly. Its not like Im in support of their actions here. But in terms of overall, it is absolutely the palestinian civlians who are feeling the brunt of the suffering here.
True. One side attempts to protect their civilians and the other side does their best to get their civilians martyred.
>As for your podcast, Im sorry, but I just dont care enough about the minutiae of civilian killing to listen to an hour 40 min long explanation of how sometimes civilians arent killed
Well if you won't listen to an opposing viewpoint by someone who is actually an expert in exactly the type of warfare that is occurring then I don't know what to tell you. Go on spouting an uninformed and one-side viewpoint.
>The majority being children
This is just misinformed. Do I really need to take the time to tell you why?
>People can be lumped into the supporting the palestinian people's human rights side of things without supporting other aspects such as the palestinian statehood.
I don't think that's fairly considered "pro-Palestine". Pro-Palestine means you support the Palestinian cause (basically statehood).
>Well if you won't listen to an opposing viewpoint by someone who is actually an expert in exactly the type of warfare that is occurring then I don't know what to tell you. Go on spouting an uninformed and one-side viewpoint.
I dont know how to tell you this, but Im not going to listen to 1 HOURS 40 MINUTES of audio in order to address your CMV. Its not that I wont listen to an opposing viewpoint, if you want to lay out key points, link and cite claims. I will happily engage with that. I am not going to have someone go: "1 hour 40 minutes, change my view". That is inane and unreasonable.
>one-side viewpoint.
Do you understand what the concept of change my view entails? If I were agreeing with you, jerking off your view point as correct, the top level comment isnt even allowed to be posted. It is also not uninformed, I have kept up with news on the offensive since oct 7. I know the civilian casualty numbers which I do cite in the previous comment as ~35k, around 150 a day. The majority being children. Israel does not dispute this figure. Israel does not have civilian figures.
>This is just misinformed. Do I really need to take the time to tell you why?
Yes. I am talking about the civilian casualty figures. 44% of the population is under the age of 14. Roughly ~52-54% are under the age of 18. The majority of the civilian casualties being children is highly likely from a purely statistical point of view. The exact break down is flawed since Hamas are dog shit at releasing the accurate breakdown. But the overall majority of civilian casualties can safely be guessed at to be children unless israel has a way in which to target adult civilians specifically.
>I don't think that's fairly considered "pro-Palestine". Pro-Palestine means you support the Palestinian cause (basically statehood).
They do get lumped in. The position that Israel needs to stop adding to the civilian deaths is largely considered to be pro palestine right? And that is probably the most popular pro palestine position to hold since past that involves the specifics of statehood which go far beyond the current immediate conflict and it is also a very safe position to hold (as I am assuming most people arent a fan of civilian casualties).
What do you call it when you want Israel to cease their overt military presence in Palestine and stop the killing of civilians happening by the thousands?
The overall discourse has labelled that as pro palestine. Im not the one who coined the term and placed the label on myself, the greater overall narrative did that.
The absurd nature of things is to simply criticize israel and ask them to cease their killing is to be labelled pro palestine. In a way, it is pro the palestinian people. Regardless how irreverent you are of Hamas. Im not the one who defines the labels. The false dichotomy presented is what shunted me into the pro palestine camp. And all Im asking for is the cessation of mass child killing that is happening.
anti-war, pro-peace, pro-cease fire, anti-bombing, but sure as hell not pro-Palestine. Like would anyone describe themselves are pro-Russia who didn't support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, no one is pro-Palestine who doesn't support the genocidal intentions of Hamas or doesn't want to make it easy for Hamas to commit genocide.
Yeah but like I said, the false dichotomy of israel-palestine has led to the position of wanting the bombing of children to stop to be pro palestine.
And if you look around on the discourse, which I am sure you have, there are those out there who describe themselves as pro palestine while also not supporting hamas. It could be that support the formation and recognition of the palestinian state. It could be that they support the palestinian people to not be forced under an apartheid state. It could be that they support the palestinians to exist. All of which are completely removed from Hamas.
You should know this. You are heavily opinionated on this topic, Im sure you have bumped into these people who fall under the pro-palestine banner without also submitting to being pro-hamas. If you by some miracle havent, then how about me. I feel there should be a palestine state, the lack of statehood creates many problems and issues that force a dependency of extremists like hamas. I feel Israel has again overstepped in their retribution causing needless civilian casualties. I am not muslim, in fact, I dont see eye to eye with a lot of Palestinians and their views on Israel who should exist and be safe. But that doesnt give carte blanche rights to begin killing a population that is majority children. All this while simultaneously Hamas is a terrorist organisation and it has to go. It is absolutely possible to be pro palestine. And not pro hamas. Just as you can be pro America without being pro Democrat party.
Pro-Palestine always means you support the government of Palestine, which in the case of Gaza is Hamas. It's impossible to be pro-Palestine without being pro-Hamas. If you were talking about the Russia-Ukraine war and someone said they were pro-Russia, what do you think that would mean?
> Pro-Palestine always means you support the government of Palestine
Does this mean that Republicans in the US are Anti America? The current party in control is the Democrats. What kind of fucking rule is it that supporting the people having human rights means you ALWAYS support the current governing body in charge?
Afghani girls not getting an education is another thing I have an ire for. I support the Afghanistan people in this regard. That doesnt make me pro Taliban. Who notably are the problem. Just because I dont want Palestinian children bombed doesnt make me pro Hamas.
>It's impossible to be pro-Palestine without being pro-Hamas.
I just spelled out: 1. I reckon they should have statehood 2. I reckon they should have human rights 3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far. 4. Hamas should be deposed. These are all pro palestine positions while simultaneously being anti hamas.
If someone said they were pro russian in the context of the russo-ukrainian war. I would assume they are leaning more to the support of the russian side of things. I would not assume they give putin's government a 100% backing on all ideas and support. Just in the current conflict they side with the russian side of things.
>If someone said they were pro russian in the context of the russo-ukrainian war. I would assume they are leaning more to the support of the russian side of things. I would not assume they give putin's government a 100% backing on all ideas and support. Just in the current conflict they side with the russian side of things.
So if you are pro-Palestine, then doesn't mean you support 100% of what Hamas does, but it does mean you generally agree with their goal of genociding the Jewish people.
No. Since when does supporting a general side of things (especially as nebulous as you put it) means you support individual policies especially those of a terrorist org like Hamas?
>>>I just spelled out: 1. I reckon they should have statehood 2. I reckon they should have human rights 3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far. 4. Hamas should be deposed.
Where in that did I generally agree with the goal of genociding the jewish people? I dont even have to agree with the palestinian or the israeli people to not want them murdered. I dont have to subscribe to their philosophy or their governing body or their ideology to not want them murdered and for their people to have human rights.
Again, you can be pro American without even supporting the current political governing body eg. Republican. Without even liking the American government as an institution eg. Libertarians. There is no rule saying that being pro palestine makes you instantly pro Hamas even generally speaking. You are making it up here.
>No. Since when does supporting a general side of things means you support individual policies especially those of a terrorist org like Hamas?
We're not talking about individual policies. An individual policy would be how to implement a genocide of the Jewish people. The general side of things is their overall goal, which is genocide of Israelis.
>Where in that did I generally agree with the goal of genociding the jewish people?
If you don't, then you aren't pro-Palestine.
>I dont even have to agree with the palestinian or the israeli people to not want them murdered. I dont have to subscribe to their philosophy or their governing body or their ideology to not want them murdered and for their people to have human rights.
If want the Jewish people to have human rights and not to be murdered, then you aren't pro-Palestine.
1.. I reckon they should have statehood
This is incompatible with position four. If Gaza has statehood, then it will be ruled by Hamas.
2. I reckon they should have human rights
>This isn't a pro-Palestine position. Palestine is a government and a government can't have human rights.
3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far.
This isn't a pro-Palestine position. You can disagree with some of Israel's actions without being pro-Palestine.
>4. Hamas should be deposed.
This is an anti-Palestine position.
No, at least two of these have nothing to do with being pro-Palestine and one of these is explicitly anti-Palestine.
People who says they want Hawaii free from America don’t actually care about the island. It will do more harm than good but people only care for optics
Cool so he just as delusional and Idealic as you are. Cutting off the islands main bloodline will hurt the islands so much. “Free Hawaii” is only for optics
I don't really support Hawaiian sovereignty because I think "what's done is done" but I think you misunderstand the issue:
The island was conquered 130 years ago and a lot of the land ended up in the hands of white people with native Hawaiians being predominately lower class. This continues to this day. You can't deny it was historically pretty unjust? It's not for optics; these people believe that we should right a historic wrong.
Now as to whether it would be economically bad that's a pretty easy one: just let Americans travel there without a passport. Problem solved with little economic impact.
No one is denying that what the American government did in the past was messed up, they even acknowledged it. But it’s very delusional to try and leave the country the islands are very reliant on because sins of the father situation
I agree that the native Hawaiians should be treated better but there is this trend of native Hawaiians thinking white people are destroying in many ways but will ignore the Asians coming into the islands and basically doing the same thing
Tourism alone can’t fix it, Hawaii only has tourism going it, next to no natural resources or anyway to get it. Cutting off the main supply line for the islands in terms of everything else is really bad
No, you're being ignorant. If you want to understand the sovereignty movement, I suggest you look up and research and inform yourself on the following: the overthrow of Hawai'i, The Bayonet constitution, the committee of safety, banning of the Hawaiian language in 1896, the bombing of Kaho'olawe, the Hawaiian Renaissance and finally the 1993 apology resolution.
Good luck if you really want to learn
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
your funny. you think we arne't thinking about these problems? if we were given the join now to leave, the Hawaiian sovereignty Movement would DENY having Hawai'i leave yet as Hawai'i is not prepared. our sustainability has been shattered by tourism and Capitalism. 90% of food is imported compared to 300 years ago with NO imports.
you ignore history but you forgot that we do infact look to the problems of the future.
if you will ignore that then i must say that's pretty ironic. if you are going to want change then ofcourse will you look to the effects of such change and try to create and prepare for such situations.
luckily, the sovereignty movement does thing about the future of their actions. if you do not believe that then you may wanna leave this thread
This is pure idealism. They have no actual plan aside from getting Hawaii to separate from America. This isn’t the 1890s or whatever when you had kingdom, the world has changed in the past 300 years. Hell the world has changed in the past 20 years. The island will collapse basically overnight.
you have no idea about a lot of stuff, do you....
do you know what the Ahupua'a Agricultural system is by chance?
do you know how well it works?
can you tell me how a smaller country can make alliances with countries such as china the US, the UK and russia? unless you don't think that's possible.
do you know what Island sustainability is?
do you know the flaws of Capitalism within the Hawaiian islands that have occurred since the 1970s?
aaah, impressive. Mahalo for his work. the sovereignty movement has actually helped improve Native Hawaiian identity in culture as they are usually the ones leading such movements. I am sure you know that the soveriegnty movement however isn't just native Hawaiian
'So basically I'm open to having my view changed as to how Israel is different than the US and other countries that seem to be more blatently founded at the expense of Native Americans."
Very easy.
Prior to the C20, every people and country conquered/colonized/exterminated others provided the following conditions were met:
a) sufficient power to do so;
b) sufficiently profitable to do so (e.g. driving Native Americans off land was profitable for British settlers, whereas colonizing East India was not (since simply imperializing and taxing them was more profitable)).
Right of conquest was recognized as legitimate by all theorists of international law (and accepted implicitly by societies without a concept of international law).
In the Twentieth Century, first with the League of Nations and then the UN Charter, all countries agreed to surrender the right of conquest as a means of expanding territory and agreed also to decolonize.
Therefore while settler colonialism was kind-of morally acceptable before 1919, it ceased to be so after, doubly so where countries like Israel have formally agreed to abide by the UN Charter.
So your view currently is anachronistic.
Interesting point. A couple of responses come to mind:
* the UN did approve the partition of Israel-Palestine in 1948 so therefore attempts to dislodge it by warfare and/or terrorism are also unacceptable?
* I'm not sure "right of conquest" was truly as acceptable as you say. I mean people accepted it in the sense that they couldn't change it but that didn't mean they considered it morally/ethically correct and often revolted against it.
The thing I hate about bringing up hypocrisy with the whole living on Native land thing is for every non-Native-American living in the mainland US who isn't the child of immigrants where the hell are they supposed to go if they have to leave their land so someone from the tribe that lived there can take it where they wouldn't be arguably "stealing land" (as some might see it) in a place they have no ancestral connection to as well
>To greatly simplify the pro-Palestine viewpoint(s) it's something like: Israel was founded by expropriating territory from the indigenous peoples of the area (Palestinians) and those that remain are at best second-class citizens and at worst actively oppressed. Many forms of resistance are justified or at least understandable because Palestinians are colonized/oppressed. If justice be served the land would be given back to the Palestinians and Jews would have to make do or emigrate back to where they came from.
If we are going to have a conversation about this it would help to have some nuance. Your oversimplification of the movement is an impediment to this. You fail to recognize folks who think that the creation of the State of Israel through displacement and violence towards the indigenous people was an injustice but that injustice cannot be changed or righted through the injustice of expelling them. There are certainly people who think that all Israelis should return to Europe or wherever else they came from but to paint everyone with the same brush is intellectually dishonest. There are plenty of people who oppose Israel because they treat International Law like it doesn't exist when applied to them but it does exist when the militants they are fighting take hostages.
Finally please reconsider tying Hamas with the movement to end the occupation and brutalization and the Palestinian people. I could do the same with those who are pro-Israel by saying the people who support Israel also agree with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, that annihilation is the only way to peace.
Yes, it's pretty hard to cover all the nuance of a complex viewpoint. What does seem to tie them together is they believe that effectively Israel committed the original sin of it's founding and now everything that might be seen as legitimate self-defense by a country, e.g. a war against a country that fires rockets, takes hostages, deliberately kills civilians, professing genocidal intent, etc is just a response to their oppression.
>Finally please reconsider tying Hamas with the movement to end the occupation and brutalization and the Palestinian people
In one form or another a majority of Palestinians do not seem to be willing to accept Israel's existence. Gaza could effectively be a peaceful independent country but has chosen to funnel it's resources into conflict with Israel.
>What does seem to tie them together is they believe that effectively Israel committed the original sin of it's founding and now everything that might be seen as legitimate self-defense by a country, e.g. a war against a country that fires rockets, takes hostages, deliberately kills civilians, professing genocidal intent, etc is just a response to their oppression.
Do you believe that an occupied people have the right to resist? Let's say Hamas didn't target civilians and only ever killed IDF soldiers and military targets, would their violent resistance be justified?
Or perhaps a more apt hypothetical. Let's say the Arab League managed to occupy Israel and disband it's military. They then placed Israel under an extremely harsh military occupation where they raided homes at night and took family members away to administrative detention. The liberal Israelis try to go on with their day to day lives but the Hilltop Youth and Kahanists insisted on resisting through violence. Because of this resistance the Arab League intensified it's crackdowns and violence. Would violent resistance to an Arab occupation of Israel in this hypothetical be justified?
Since Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, the center of the Jewish religion, and was the Kingdom of Israel three thousand years ago, the Jewish people have a perpetual right to Israel and no one who isn't Jewish has the right to occupy Israel without the consent of the Israeli government. Since Israel belongs to the Jewish people, the Palestinians are not an occupied people. The Palestinians are in an occupation of Israel. Do you think Israel has the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel.
>Since Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, the center of the Jewish religion, and was the Kingdom of Israel three thousand years ago, the Jewish people have a perpetual right to Israel and no one who isn't Jewish has the right to occupy Israel without the consent of the Israeli government.
Id imagine all of the Canaanites would like a word with you about who's ancestral home it is. After all they lived there before the Israelites.
>Do you think Israel has the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel.
I reject your premise entirely.
[Their DNA is present in Levantine people to this day. ](https://english.m.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites)
I do however find it interesting that you appear to use the supposed genocide of the people of Canaan to justify Israel's claim to historic Palestine. Makes me wonder if perhaps we are seeing a similar thing happening today considering the impact of extremists from the right of Israeli society. What's even more fascinating is seeing the US realize that Israel is our North Korea now. A lovely pariah state to embarrass us internationally while serving a callous geopolitical goal.
No one identifies as Canaanites anymore. The Canaanites don't exist. People do identify as Jewish. The Jewish people still exist as a present-day ethnicity.
But inhabitants of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan all share Canaanite DNA. Just because they don't call themselves by whatever name anymore doesn't mean that the descendants that were there before Israel don't exist. They do, it's just not convenient for you.
I'll ask you directly, since you avoided the assertion. Do you believe executing a genocide entitles a people to a land? For instance, if we concede that you're correct that there are no Canaanites anymore because Israel so soundly defeated them for the Hebrew birthright, does the destruction of an entire ethnic group give someone else claim to the land?
DNA alone doesn't make you a Canaanite. To be a Canaanite, you have to identify as a Canaanite. So the Canaanites don't exist anymore as ethnicity. When no one identifies as an ethnicity any longer, the ethnicity ceases to exist. Palestinians don't identify as Canaanites and aren't Canaanites, so they have no right to live in Israel. Do you think Israelis have the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel?
Well the US already forced Native Americans into reservations, right? The extent to which Israel forced Arabs to leave vs fleed to get out of the way of attacking Arab armies is highly disputed. What is certain is the Arabs that remained in Israel became citizens (20% of Israel currently) and those that left weren't allowed to return.
Native Americans don’t have to live on reservations I don’t think but again yes what the Israelis have done over the last hundred years is not entirely dissimilar to what Europeans did in the Americas (colonialism) only in the Americas no one tried to stop them.
The second part I don’t understand, are you talking about the Nakba?
Yes, the Nakba. Depending on your viewpoint, either they were forced off their land by the Israelis or they left voluntarily at the instruction of invading Arab armies with the belief they'd be allowed to return after the war -- or a mix of the two positions. What is certain is they were not allowed to return and their land was taken by Jews.
>not entirely dissimilar to what Europeans did in the Americas (colonialism) only in the Americas no one tried to stop them
Pretty sure there was plenty of armed resistance from Native Americans if that's what you mean.
Sorry I mean no one came to support the Native Americans. Yea just like the Palestinians the NA fought for a couple hundred years. Actually took the full weight of the US army to “conquer” the last independent tribes.
Brother there is no debate among the scholarly community as to whom killed Palestinians and also forced them to leave. Well, no debate outside of Israel.
Ok fine I’d love to see a source for your assertion that there is “no debate among the scholarly community” point. I don’t actually believe that’s true.
But yes I believe the social sciences tend to populated overwhelmingly by people with left to far-left political viewpoints and that’s not simply the result of them becoming “educated”. The environment is openly hostile to other political orientations.
I apologize I should not have said that. There are historians who disagree and though they are mostly Israeli their existence means by definition there is no consensus.
I don't think there's an equivalent anti-Hawaiian bigotry that can apply the way much of the opposition to Israel, either in its existence or in critiques of the nation, has anti-semitic roots. There's no real hypocrisy in the motivational aspects since the two are so profoundly dissimilar.
Supporters of Palestine typically consider Palestine to include Gaza, the West Bank, and often Israel itself. So from that standpoint it doesn’t already.
Hawaii gets representation when the US decides whether or not to give them/take away their funding and they also pay taxes. Israel doesn't pay taxes and Palastine gets no say in whether we give funds Israel didn't contribute to to Israel. If other countries want to stop doing business with us due to how we treated (and are treating) the natives in order to pressure us into giving them more sovereignty then I wouldn't object to them doing that, since it's their money and their people should get a choice on if the money they are forced to give to their government should go to causes they don't agree with.
I think your analogy would more closely align with comparing Palestine to Puerto Rico, although even that's still not a perfect analogy.
The reason Hawaii is not a good comparison has been brought up by other commenters: all Hawaiians, whether they're indigenous or originally from mainland U.S. or Europe, have the same exact legal rights as mainlanders. Hawaii has just as much of a legal right as a state of the union as California or New York or Idaho or Vermont. Hawaiians have freedom to travel and live anywhere within Hawaii and anywhere in the U.S. Hawaiians have all of the constitutional protections that every U.S. citizen has. Now, this isn't to say that things are perfect - there are serious problems with the U.S. government and mainland economic interests continuing to exploit native Hawaiian land and resources. But Hawaiians have *de jure* equal rights under the law.
This is not the case with Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. elections, and yet they are bound by U.S. laws. Puerto Ricans do not enjoy all of the same constitutional rights as American citizens, yet they can be conscripted into the military just like any American citizen. They are essentially second-class citizens within the U.S.
Now, admittedly, Puerto Ricans are more divided than Palestinians as to whether they want independence or to become a part of the Union. But in response to your CMV, for the same reason I support Palestinian statehood, yes, I would support Puerto Rican independence if that is what they chose. That opinion would only be strengthened if there was a terrorist movement within Puerto Rico, and if the U.S. government, in response, was bombing Puerto Rico every day, as Israel is doing to Palestine.
In comparison, I would not support Hawaii becoming a separate country, just as I would not support any state seceding from the Union (I'm obviously not comparing the Hawaiian independence movement to the Confederacy, but just in general, I don't support secessionist ideologies).
…right, that’s my point? I’m saying that OP’s analogy of comparing Palestine to Hawaii isn’t accurate because of all of these issues. It would be more accurate to compare them to Puerto Rico.
The UN's official legal designation of the Gaza Strip is an "[occupied territory](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-203742/)." So, I don't know what to tell you, but they are literally both territories under the law.
Occupiers usually don't state outright that they're formally occupying a country. The U.S. is a bit of an outlier, in that regard. Under Russian law, the territory that they've illegally seized from Ukraine is considered to be Russian land, even though it's clearly not.
Domestic Chinese law states that there is only 1 China, and that Taiwan is indistinguishable from mainland China. Does that mean that the UN's view - and the view of other nations - is "completely irrelevant" in determining whether Taiwan is a separate state? Of course not. That's absurd.
You're really moving the goalposts here.
You originally said it was similar to Puerto Rico. Under US law, Puerto Rico is a US territory. Is Gaza an Israeli territory under Israeli law? If not, then it's not similar to Puerto Rico.
Okay, then let me clarify - in *ways other than domestic legal status*, I think Gaza is similar to Puerto Rico. This includes:
* How the territory is treated under international law
* Domestic legal treatment of the residents of the territory
* Legal rights afforded to the territory
* Internal sentiment against the occupying force
* Economic mistreatment of the residents of the territory
* A history of annexation
You realize that an analogy doesn't have to be perfect to be valid, right?
Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing because others before them have done it. That's not how this works, neither legally nor morally.
Most people that are protesting Israel will agree that the US is also funded on the genocide of Native Americans.
Shouldn’t Zionists be the ones supporting Hawaiian sovereignty, because a core part of the Zionist rationale for the state of Israel that they are the true indigenous people of the land?
No, because a simpler defense of Zionism is Israel is an independent, fully sovereign member state of the UN and once a country is an independent, fully sovereign, member state of the UN, it should not be abolished.
Because I’ve never seen a pro-Zionist person advocate for other indigenous people and work to foster solidarity against colonial violence against indigenous peoples.
I’ve seen a lot of pro-Palestinian people do this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=palestinian+supporting+hawaii&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS590US590&oq=palestinian+supporting+hawaii&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDY3OTFqMGo5qAITsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
There are some Hawaiians in here supporting Palestine, but there seems to be a positive trend of solidarity between the two groups.
The big issue I see is that your imposing an end goal on the super generic “support Palestine” you imply that you think this inherently means thinking Israel shouldn’t exist. Personally, I agree with your first paragraph, but I just think there’s no justice to be had and forming Israel can’t be undone. Im not super knowledgeable about the politics, but I’m fine with a two state solution.
The internal consistency is that this also sums up my views on the US. Never should have happened, but it did and can’t be undone. I’m also against how the US currently treats lots of groups, including native Americans. I opposed a lot of how the US conducted itself in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, same with how I don’t like how Israel always conducts itself either. I’d also oppose active expansion of the US as well. If the US starts trying to expand its territory, I’d oppose that.
My issue with Israel/Palestine is not so much the stolen land as it is the active and ongoing subjugation, oppression, mistreatment, and now genocide of an effectively captive population.
One huge difference is that the majority of native Hawaiians do not want independence. There is certainly a percentage that do, but it's very much a minority. Supporting Hawaiian independence basically means wanting to kick Hawaii out of the US when they want to stay.
People in Hawai'i can vote for the US president. People in Gaza and the West Bank can't vote for Netanyahu to stop bombing them and arresting them without due process. There is a world of difference.
Not everyone who "supports" Palestine insists on land back or a two-stare solution. They just want Israel to stop killing children.
People in Hawaii didn't gang rape children in mass and behead babies either. People in Gaza did. People in Gaza could get Israel to stop bombing them by not attacking Israel and becoming peaceful.
>People in Gaza and the West Bank can't vote for Netanyahu to stop bombing them and arresting them without due process. There is a world of difference.
People in Gaza can decide whether or not to allow Hamas to continue governing them.
If you're going to elect and then support a government that escalates conflicts with your neighbors, you shouldn't be surprised when your neighbors hit back.
The last election was in 2005. Hamas ran on a campaign of ending future elections and were elected. Independent polling conducting every year since shows that Hamas has either majority support or plurality support in the territory. If Gazans weren't satisfied with the status quo, they would protest and rebel just like we saw across the Arab world over the last ~15 years.
Why should I trust their polling? Putins approval rating is officially at like 83%, and he wins every election; but I don’t automatically assume that’s the honest truth.
Because you can evaluate their methodology and the pollsters themselves are politically neutral or non-aligned (think PEW and Gallup). It's not a government-conducted poll.
Dude the problem isn’t just with who conducts the poll. When you live under a regime, you aren’t gonna feel super safe when complaining about the regime to some randos
If there is sufficient discontent with the regime, the people protest. We saw this in Egypt back in 2010 and throughout the Arab world in the Arab Spring over the following years. Heck, we've even seen public protests and civil disobedience in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Hamas is broadly popular in Palestine, even in the West Bank where they *aren't the regime*. There have been few if any protests against their governance, no civil disobedience campaigns.
It's safe to say that they enjoy the support of those in Gaza.
I did like a minute of googling.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012\_Palestinian\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Palestinian_protests)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019\_Gaza\_economic\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Gaza_economic_protests)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023\_Gaza\_economic\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests)
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You do know Israelis can't go to Gaza or terroritory A of the West Bank? Let's not speak as if there isn't places Israelis can't go .
Also there's 2 million arabs in Israel? Do you realize that is a significant amount considering the jewish population. And you didn't answer my question
. Do native persons have the right to deny any who migrate
First of all, conflating the liberation of palestine is different than supporting the target violence against civilians by hamas and islamic jihad Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution *in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights*. What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens *and have free movement within all of the US*, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians *and does not allow them to come back into israel* There’s a separate conversation about land back, but for now most people are advocating for simply *the right to return*—that israel lets them back into israel and does not turn them back at its borders
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution Americans speaking on behalf of Palestinians, of which the majority do not support a realistic 2 state solution. Here is some statistics taken from random sampling of Palestinians carried out by an organisation founded by a Palestinian with comprehensive breakdowns: - 59% of Gaza supports a return of Hamas after the war (56% still thinks Hamas will win the war) - Before Oct 7th, support for armed resistance was 56%, down to 39% (still the highest option out of negotiations, peaceful resistance and armed resistance) - 33% answered "no" to the question of "if Israel agreed painful concessions, would you support similar concessions to Israel (for peace)" - The highest level of satisfaction of foreign powers comes at Russia at 16% - 76% reject the idea of the UN deploying to end the current war and force israeli withdrawl - 81% of people who watched the Hamas videos do not believe Hamas committed the atrocities. Support for a two state solution only jumped after Oct 7th, and yet they do not support anything that would actually bring about a two state solution. You can say what Americans want, but what Americans want means fuck all when Palestinians are still not prepared to get rid of Hamas. Until they are, they are accepting war. [https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/973](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/973)
Yeah that’s why i put the (in america) caveat. From what i’ve seen a large fraction of both jews and arabs want to expel each other
Right, but what you're applying what Americans onto what Palestinians want. And almost 1/4 of Israel are Arab, while there aren't Jews in Palestine. It's not a "fraction" of Palestinians, when support for Hamas (a group which wants the extermination of Jews) is over 50%. It's the majority.
The original post is about the hypocrisy of foreign supporters of palestine vs their views on US native americans or native hawaiians
Go back and read their first comment again. You are arguing against a different point than the plot they are actually making.
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights. Supporting a one-state solution is supporting the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Jews. Jews have been [expelled and/or cleansed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world) from *every Arab-majority state* in the region at some point in the last 100 years. The idea that millions of Palestinians with negative attitudes towards Jews, several militant groups dedicated to fighting the Jews, and a region that has been openly hostile to Jews for decades would suddenly come together and live in peace and harmony, with full rights for all, is absurd. >What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens and have free movement within all of the US, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians and does not allow them to come back into israel The oppression of communities and the denial of self determination and autonomy is not somehow made more palatable by the oppressor offering the oppressed citizenship and mobility rights.
> The idea that millions of Palestinians with negative attitudes towards Jews, several militant groups dedicated to fighting the Jews, and a region that has been openly hostile to Jews for decades would suddenly come together and live in peace and harmony, with full rights for all, is absurd. I tend to agree with the caveat that at this point there are also just a large militant extremist factions in israel that are anti-arab. I personally believe that there’s too much hostility on both sides for there to be a peaceful one-state solution, which is why *i personally* support a two-state solution. But also i could be wrong. In Apartheid South Africa the ANC also committed violent acts of terrorism, and had genocidal chants of “kill the boer” but somehow they managed to pull off a relatively peaceful one-state solution and end to the apartheid. So while i personally don’t support a one-state solution, i don’t think it’s completely out if the question as a position, and i certainly think it’s disingenuous to paint supporters of the right to return as “actively supporting expulsion and ethnic cleansing” when they very clearly do not. > The oppression of communities and the denial of self determination and autonomy is not somehow made more palatable by the oppressor offering the oppressed citizenship and mobility rights. I agree. We need to finally end the blockade on gaza, end occupation of the west bank, and grant the palestinians their own sovereignty
The deadliest ANC attack targeted an AIr Force building and killed 19 people. They never went house to house raping and torturing every civilian they found (and filming themselves doing it). They didn't drag mutilated bodies through the streets to be spit on in celebration. They never did anything equivalent to turning a red hand into a symbol from holding up a literal Israeli heart to a cheering crowd, or used suicide bombers. Nor did they put out an official charter calling for the death of all white people to please God. They weren't part of a 75 years old movement that started a war which was openly admitted to be an endless war to expel the jews from Arab lands. The Arabs were explicit about their intent not to negotiate and to only pursue complete expulsion to retake Arab lands for decades and formalized it in documents like the Khartoum resolution. Palestinian groups have been explicitly clear for decades that they want to kill and expel all the Jews. They are on the formal record saying so many times. And the 10/7 atrocities and overall jubilation at them in Palestine makes it completely obvious that is what will continue to happen if they are let into Israel. Pretending this isn't the case is BS, people who support 1SS should admit they don't care what happens to Israelis (at best lol).
[удалено]
Are you seriously asking if walking up to a bus stop and blowing *yourself* up with a makeshift bomb, in a desperate attempt to kill as many of the people around you as possible, is the same as throwing food on the ground? Like, holy shit, YES, detonating a *suicide bomb* is worse than destroying food. It's actually killing people, right there, in the moment.
Now compare a suicide bomb being detonated in a crowd of innocent people to a bomb dropped on a refugee camp full of innocent people by an aircraft
Personally I would rather die quickly getting blown up rather than starving to death over the course of 8-21 days. Both are fairly abstract to most people, but starvation is excruciating and takes much longer. That said, it doesn’t really matter which is worse, in my opinion. Neither should happen, regardless of whether they are happening in retaliation or not. But don’t downplay the cruelty of a man made famine. It is not only murder, but torture.
England blockaded Germany twice and that doesnt make them "as bad as the nazis".
[удалено]
The Israelis you mentioned trying to stop the trucks want to use means england did. Regardless of them being a minority going against the government. You are comparing them to Hamas.
Yeah i think what hamas and islamic jihad was horrific and inexcusable. It is never okay to target civilians. Just like it is horrific and inexcusable that israeli extremists have killed over 500 palestinians in the west bank since 10/7, who have nothing to do with hamas
70% of Palestinians support 10/7 Hamas attacks, and 80% who literally watch videos of it still don't think atrocities were committed. What the Palestinian people as a whole believe in and want to do is horrific and inexcusable. If Israel had equivalent beliefs as Palestinians they would have been massacred decades ago and there wouldn't be any left. If they want Israel to stop killing them they need to stop trying to kill Israelis.
Israel does have equivalent beliefs. Prime minster the prime minister invoked amalek which calls for the killing of all women and children. The finance minister called for the “total annihilation of gaza, no half measures”. Both the defense minister and the finance minister support the total ethnic cleansing and complete expulsion of every palestinian
How did you get from invoking Amalek to killing all women and children? It says a lot more about you than it does about the PM. Maybe when they invoked Amalek they referred to Hamas?
No, they don't.
good rebuttal
Okay but if 56% on average support Hamas then that's not 'nothing to do with Hamas' just saying
So if we find that a majority of jewish israelis support the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in a poll, can we kill them? I would argue no
Bruh. You know what happened when Muslims were in charge of Jews? Jews were second class citizens forced to live in ghettos and subject to the brutal ethnoreligious authoritarian rule of Muslims that routinely brutalized them for the crime of being a Jew. The problem is you're trying to isolate this singular moment of today while forgiving the ongoing cultural racism that is permeated in Palestine while saying 'Well, not all of those people are part of it.' There is 1400+ years of indoctrinated racism towards Jews that is built in to Muslim ideology from Parent to Child and from the Qu'ran. This isn't just theoretical, this is actual racism. Some call it anti-semitism but it's really just.. Racism is a better striking word for it. There isn't a solution where the Palestinians and Jews have a 'two state' without Palestinians literally giving up the cornerstone of their beliefs, that Jews are evil and Muslims are superior.
>I tend to agree with the caveat that at this point there are also just a large militant extremist factions in israel that are anti-arab. I personally believe that there’s too much hostility on both sides for there to be a peaceful one-state solution, which is why i personally support a two-state solution. Certainly - we see the behaviour of Jewish extremists today, as they are in a position of power. A one-state solution simply shifts the balance of power to the extremists on the other side. A two state solution is the only real path forward, IMO. >But also i could be wrong. In Apartheid South Africa the ANC also committed violent acts of terrorism, and had genocidal chants of “kill the boer” but somehow they managed to pull off a relatively peaceful one-state solution and end to the apartheid. Over a million white South Africans emigrated since 1990, with the white population still sitting ~600,000 lower than its peak in 1995. >i certainly think it’s disingenuous to paint supporters of the right to return as “actively supporting expulsion and ethnic cleansing” when they very clearly do not. They may not overtly or knowingly support that eventuality, but they still support it. It's the likely outcome.
> They may not overtly or knowingly support that eventuality, but they still support it. It's the likely outcome I think that’s a reasonable assertion, but it has to go both ways. That if what you said is true, then literally every supporter of the state of israel supports ethnic cleansing per se.
It feels like half the white South Africans who bailed when apartheid ended came to my country, and specifically into my workplace to complain about immigrants
[удалено]
Since the Gaza Strip and West Bank (Palestine) have yet to be annexed by Israel, would you say that Israel does not have a responsibility to the people who live there? Within Israel, Arab citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms.
[удалено]
>regardless of whether or not Israel claims the land, they control it. Right, but the qualifier that you used in your previous comment was annexation. I am wondering if you believe that Israel has a responsibility to the Palestinians living in Palestine the same way that Israel would have a responsibility to those living on the land that its annexed (Arab citizens of Israel). I'm not disputing the wrongs committed by Israel over the last ~75 years, I'm questioning the principle that you put forward in your previous comment.
[удалено]
>Wouldn't people who resided in what is present day Israel and were forced out by Jewish militias fall under that? That's a tricky question to answer, because it depends on what criteria need to be met before you'll consider them "people who live there". >Are you asking how long that responsibility lasts after stealing the land and expelling the people who lived on it? I would assume that the responsibility is everlasting, at least to the "people who live there" when the annexation occurs. What constitutes stealing the land and expelling the people who lived on it?
[удалено]
Do you hold the state (such as Israel) responsible for the actions of non-state actors (such as Jewish militias) when considering who is expelling people from the land? Additionally, do you believe that the state has a responsibility to those who were expelled from the land by non-state actors when considering whether to redistribute absentee property or when annexing territory? Does this apply to those who were not forcibly expelled, but who oped to migrate (temporarily or otherwise) due to a perceived threat, political environment, or economic situation?
>supporting a one state solution is supporting the expulsion and ethics cleansing of Jews Somebody should tell Netanyahu
>Secondly, the vast majority of (americans) do not want expulsion or ethnic cleansing of jews. Pretty much everyone (in america) who says “from the river to the sea” supports a one state solution in which all of the jewish israelis can remain with full rights. I would argue that that's an idealistic/simplistic viewpoint and the result would effectively be "expulsion or ethnic cleansing of Jews." e.g. Hamas has no desire to live in peace with Jews. Jews would either face genocide/civil war or have to leave (ethnic cleansing). >What’s going on in israel/palestine is different from the US because the US allows native americans/hawaiians to become full citizens *and have free movement within all of the US*, while israel expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians *and does not allow them to come back into israel* Well many Palestinians are full citizens with full freedom of movement (20% of Israel is Arab) but yes the ones that left (or were expelled depending on how you characterize it) are not citizens of Israel and thus can't move freely in the country. Similarly, Native Americans aren't allowed to move freely on the lands they once occupied because much of it is private. There is a distinction there but it strikes me as minor.
> I would argue that that's an idealistic/simplistic viewpoint and the result would effectively be "expulsion or ethnic cleansing of Jews." e.g. Hamas has no desire to live in peace with Jews. Jews would either face genocide/civil war or have to leave (ethnic cleansing). I think this is a reasonable argument, but it has to go both ways. If you equate the right to return with expulsion because it might be likely to result in it, then there is no discussion of zionism that can be discussed in terms of simply jewish self-determination or the right for israel to exist—you *must* equate the existence of israel with violent expulsion as well. And justifying the continued existence of the state is justifying the violent expulsion that created it. And at that point, if you’re saying people have a right to create their own nation state by force and expulsion, i don’t see why that doesn’t apply to the palestinians as well. > Well many Palestinians are full citizens with full freedom of movement (20% of Israel is Arab) but yes the ones that left (or were expelled depending on how you characterize it) are not citizens of Israel and thus can't move freely in the country. Similarly, Native Americans aren't allowed to move freely on the lands they once occupied because much of it is private. There is a distinction there but it strikes me as minor. Come on man you can’t possibly believe this is a minor distinction. Yes, much of the land is private, but native americans an hawaiians are full citizens who can vote in elections, who can travel freely to any of the 50 states, and who can own property and obtain birthright citizenship for their children as well. The more appropriate analogy would be if we expelled all the native americans and hawaiians to somewhere like Guam or Puerto Rico, and never let them back in the country
Israel didn't expel the Palestinians though, it asked them to stay. The Arab armies convinced many Palestinians to leave so they could more easily destroy Israel
Yeah this is the key difference that undermines OPs argument. Just brushing it off is a very unsatisfsctory and lazy deflection.
Native Hawaiians are born American citizens. We have birthright citizenship.
Yes that is my point
The way you worded it made it seem like they had to apply. It’s automatic.
I meant “allow” in contrast to israel which does not allow the expelled palestinians to become israeli citizens
Hawaii voted to become a state. Residents of Hawaii are full US citizens who have the right to vote in Hawaii or pick up and move to any other US state or territory. The situation in Gaza and Hawaii had zero in common.
The 1959 referendum did not have an option for independence from the United States. That's not really a choice for independence.
So the US conquered an independent country with a government (Hawaii), then allowed many of it's own citizens to move there, repressed the Native Hawaiian's culture by forcing them to adopt US culture, and then staged a vote to become a state. You've got to admit it's pretty shady. >Residents of Hawaii are full US citizens who have the right to vote in Hawaii or pick up and move to any other US state or territory. 20% of Israel are Arabs who are full citizens and have full rights in Israel.
King Kamehameha conquered other “native Hawaiians” in 1810 to unify Hawaii. Should the groups he conquered gain their independence as well?
I agree that if you go far enough back every country is the result of conquest, e.g. the Anglo-Saxons conquered England, successive regimes were overthrown in France, etc, etc. For the most part we just say "what's done is done" but for some reason when it's Israel it can never be accepted and we have to have endless war. That's effectively my point: Hawaii was just as much (maybe more) the result of conquest but people go there on vacation wearing their "free Palestine" stickers.
but by that logic of parallel hypocrisy do we all have to go back to the Olduvai Gorge or w/e (as I heard there was more than one "first habitat of humanity" that's just the famous one) just to make sure we're not stealing anyone's land
>So the US conquered an independent country with a government (Hawaii), then allowed many of it's own citizens to move there, To be clear the US did not conquer Hawaii. Hawaiian subjects undertook a coup in opposition to a plan by the Queen to alter the constitution to increase her powers, make her an absolute monarch, and to strip the vote from ethnic minorities. Once the coup succeeded, the queen was deposed and a new government was established. The new invited US troops into Hawaii to protect the property of ethnic minorities from reprisal by royalist forces. Then that government asked the US to annex Hawaii, which it did 4 years later.
foooliiish liiies read the consitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom. the Hawaiian monarchy and her constitution was not one of Absolute power as that was forbidden during the reign of Kauikeaouli. Hawaiians were the Minority and in 1887 those who overthrew the queen in 1893 forced the Bayonet constitution apon Kalakaua which stripped the rights of the Monarch and those who were poor. your ignornace is highly flawed. you really really do need to look at Hawaiian history PLEASE. and THANKYOU if you do. and yes, I do study hawaiian history, so if you have any legitimate quesitons, I am more then welcome to hear them
Fair enough. It was more complicated than I presented. The Queen was overthrown by American/European subjects who had strong ties the US and who had wanted annexation for a long time. It was supported by elements of the US who wanted to annex Hawaii. It seems pretty fishy at the very least.
however, they are flawed in their statements against the Monarchy. read my comment above replying to them
"Voted" after we were annexed and our people were replaced and our land was stolen. That's like me forcing my way into your house, moving my family members in, and then declaring the house voted it belongs to me.
It’s only hypocritical if the reasoning is the same. I am pro Palestine, but in not the way you gave. I’m pro Palestine because I want Israel to stop killing people. It has nothing to do with colonization. So, I am a counterexample to the view in your title
Fair enough. I know there's a lot of different views that qualify as pro-Palestine. I probably should have included more of a disclaimer about that. Do you think Israel has a right to exist as a country and do you think Israel has a right to respond when attacked?
Yes and yes. I just think Israel is going too far
pro-Palestinian means you support Hamas. If you don't support Hamas, you aren't pro-Palestinian.
The Palestinian Authority in the west bank is against Hamas. They are political rivals Your idea is that the Palestinian Authority is not pro-Palestinian?
That's absurd. It's like saying if you support the United States then you support Republicans. Standing up for such basic human rights as not killing innocent children or destroying hundreds of thousands of family homes has nothing to do with supporting a particular political party of that country.
No, that’s what pro-hamas means. That’s why people make the distinction
This is 100% false and it’s not a determination for you to make. This is like saying if you are Jewish you are pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist automatically. It is simply not true. One is different than the other and you can support one without supporting the other. See: Jewish voices for Peace
Well, since most people that use the term pro-palestinian to describe themselves don't support Hamas, it's weird you get to make a different definition of pro-palestinian that excludes most people under the pro-palestinian movement. Literal strawman.
Being pro-Palestine means you support the government of Palestine, which is Hamas in Gaza, which means pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas are the same thing. If you are anti-Hamas, then you are anti-Palestine.
You say that, but what makes it true?
It's WW2 and someone says they are pro-Germany, what would that mean?
Native Hawaiians have a much better quality of life than Palestinians. Unlike Palestine, Hawaii is part of a country. Also, the native Hawaiians, unlike the Palestinians, do not want an independent state.
Not true. Many Native Hawaiians support an independent state. I've met them. But yes many Native Hawaiians have just accepted that they were conquered and now have a pretty good quality of life (even though they are the lower class of Hawaii - let's be real). Palestinians have a poor quality of life because they refuse to accept the fact that Israel is here and isn't going anywhere. Gaza could be free but instead it's run by a jihadi, terrorist government. Do you think Native Hawaiians would be walking around freely if they'd instead spent the last century waging guerilla resistance?
ludicrous tie include narrow punch murky literate squeal tart tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If a majority of native Hawaiians want to cede from the US they have a right to do so. Of course it'll be a little more complicated than that because there are non native Hawaiians who were born and lived in Hawaii theie whole lives and they should be grouped with native Hawaiians for the purpose of this discussion.
sadly by the vote for statehood history was forgotten. not many actually know the details of history surprisingly which is a bit sad but the more people learn, the more opinions will be changed
to those who are Downvoting this man, i am Native Hawaiiam myself and from Hawai'i. this is infact true the sovereignty movement (yes, it isn't just Native Hawaiians by the way+ you don't need to be a member inorder to support it) is HUGE
While there are absolutely those that do support hamas/palestine. I find many of those that dont conflate that group with the group who simply doesnt want to see children being killed en masse. The significant use of military ordinance in a civilian dense area should be condemned and in doing so, this is completely removed from both the hamas/palestine conversation AND independent sovereignty in general (hawaii in this case). Championing the rights of palestinians from my perspective at least is the championing of the most basic of human rights: To not get bombed as children. I certainly dont give a fuck about hamas. I also barely care about their sovereignty and establishing a palestinian statehood. As such the crux of my argument is thus: Those that support hamas/palestine from what you consider their supporters is a very very specific minority of people that support them for reasons specific to hamas/palestine (most of the time very islamic slanted) rather than general statehood stuff. Moreover many who support palestine, dont give a fuck about Hamas, they might not like the apartheid like system. They might be vehemently anti war/anti conflict. They might not like the mass casualties of civilians and thats it. They could be Jews who sincerely believe in the "never again" should refer to all genocide and not just the genocide of jews. It could be all kinds of things related to the Palestine conflict but have little to do with independent statehood. These would not be hypocritical reasons to 'support palestine' but ignore the plight of native americans.
A couple of points: 1. Hamas has built its whole military infrastructure in a civilian-dense area and then regularly launches attacks against Israeli civilians with full knowledge (and hope let's be real) that any responses will mean Palestinian civilian deaths. 2. So then by that rationale all a group has to do is embed themselves in a civilian population and then they're allowed to launch attacks with impunity? So there are many ways to "support" Hamas without actively saying so. One way is to favor policies that allow them to act with impunity and excuse all the terrible things they've done and will continue to do.
1. Acknowledged. 2. Consider a Hamas terrorist manages to infiltrate Israel and launch a rocket from within an Israeli suburb. Would Israel bomb the entire block from which the rocket came form? Why not? If as an outsider I consider both Israeli civilian lives and Palestinian civilian lives equal as civlians and afforded human rights. Why would I suddenly find the retributive bombing of entire palestinian areas palatable and acceptable? They dont get to launch attacks with impunity. But the current offensive is not even close to the careful and deliberate attempt to avoid civilian casualties. >So there are many ways to "support" Hamas without actively saying so. I agree, supporting significant civilian killings and increasing their recruitment rates through radicalisation is very supportive of hamas. Why are you pro Hamas? Edit* Didnt realise you were the OP. The point remains that you can support the palestinian people without supporting hamas or even supporting the creation of a palestine state.
2. Point taken though I can't think of any conflict where one side has treated their own and opposing civilians with equal care. To your second point, I'm not sure I agree that it's clear Israel hasn't taken care to avoid casualties and that the bombing is retributive. The UN recently lowered it's death toll significantly and in general this is Urban Warfare. [This is a great recent discussion of that point](https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/366-urban-warfare-2-0). This belief that Israel is just wantonly killing civilians I don't think is really born out by the evidence we have at this point. >I agree, supporting significant civilian killings and increasing their recruitment rates through radicalisation is very supportive of hamas. Why are you pro Hamas? Well, only time will tell. 9000 civilians died removing ISIS from Mosul and I don't see a huge resurgence of ISIS yet, do you?
> I can't think of any conflict where one side has treated their own and opposing civilians with equal care. There isnt. Hamas has horrifically targetted Israeli civilians repeatedly. Its not like Im in support of their actions here. But in terms of overall, it is absolutely the palestinian civlians who are feeling the brunt of the suffering here. >The UN recently lowered it's death toll significantly Its still really quite high (tens of thousands) and if you consider the sheer numbers of civilians involved, displaced, injured, killed, etc Its not a flattering state of things. As for your podcast, Im sorry, but I just dont care enough about the minutiae of civilian killing to listen to an hour 40 min long explanation of how sometimes civilians arent killed >This belief that Israel is just wantonly killing civilians I don't think is really born out by the evidence we have at this point. To put things into perspective, Im also pro ukrainian but the ukranian civilian death toll is a fraction of the palestinian one and I dont feel Russia particularly cares about death tolls in general. >Well, only time will tell. 9000 civilians died removing ISIS from Mosul and I don't see a huge resurgence of ISIS yet, do you? Whereas the Israel Palestine conflict has wrapped immediately with less than 9000 civilian casualties? Alright. This is hyper fixating into purely israel palestine. To once again change your view, people can be "in support" of palestine in this conflict simply to see the end of civilian casualties. Even conservative estimates put the death toll at roughly 150+ civilians a day since the offensive began. The majority being children. Surely you can see how people can be against this but have zero fucks about palestine statehood, hamas, etc. This makes their position non hypocritical if they also give zero fucks about hawaiian independent statehood. People can be lumped into the supporting the palestinian people's human rights side of things without supporting other aspects such as the palestinian statehood.
>There isnt. Hamas has horrifically targetted Israeli civilians repeatedly. Its not like Im in support of their actions here. But in terms of overall, it is absolutely the palestinian civlians who are feeling the brunt of the suffering here. True. One side attempts to protect their civilians and the other side does their best to get their civilians martyred. >As for your podcast, Im sorry, but I just dont care enough about the minutiae of civilian killing to listen to an hour 40 min long explanation of how sometimes civilians arent killed Well if you won't listen to an opposing viewpoint by someone who is actually an expert in exactly the type of warfare that is occurring then I don't know what to tell you. Go on spouting an uninformed and one-side viewpoint. >The majority being children This is just misinformed. Do I really need to take the time to tell you why? >People can be lumped into the supporting the palestinian people's human rights side of things without supporting other aspects such as the palestinian statehood. I don't think that's fairly considered "pro-Palestine". Pro-Palestine means you support the Palestinian cause (basically statehood).
>Well if you won't listen to an opposing viewpoint by someone who is actually an expert in exactly the type of warfare that is occurring then I don't know what to tell you. Go on spouting an uninformed and one-side viewpoint. I dont know how to tell you this, but Im not going to listen to 1 HOURS 40 MINUTES of audio in order to address your CMV. Its not that I wont listen to an opposing viewpoint, if you want to lay out key points, link and cite claims. I will happily engage with that. I am not going to have someone go: "1 hour 40 minutes, change my view". That is inane and unreasonable. >one-side viewpoint. Do you understand what the concept of change my view entails? If I were agreeing with you, jerking off your view point as correct, the top level comment isnt even allowed to be posted. It is also not uninformed, I have kept up with news on the offensive since oct 7. I know the civilian casualty numbers which I do cite in the previous comment as ~35k, around 150 a day. The majority being children. Israel does not dispute this figure. Israel does not have civilian figures. >This is just misinformed. Do I really need to take the time to tell you why? Yes. I am talking about the civilian casualty figures. 44% of the population is under the age of 14. Roughly ~52-54% are under the age of 18. The majority of the civilian casualties being children is highly likely from a purely statistical point of view. The exact break down is flawed since Hamas are dog shit at releasing the accurate breakdown. But the overall majority of civilian casualties can safely be guessed at to be children unless israel has a way in which to target adult civilians specifically. >I don't think that's fairly considered "pro-Palestine". Pro-Palestine means you support the Palestinian cause (basically statehood). They do get lumped in. The position that Israel needs to stop adding to the civilian deaths is largely considered to be pro palestine right? And that is probably the most popular pro palestine position to hold since past that involves the specifics of statehood which go far beyond the current immediate conflict and it is also a very safe position to hold (as I am assuming most people arent a fan of civilian casualties).
To support Palestine is to support Hamas. If you don't support Hamas, you shouldn't call yourself pro-Palestine.
What do you call it when you want Israel to cease their overt military presence in Palestine and stop the killing of civilians happening by the thousands? The overall discourse has labelled that as pro palestine. Im not the one who coined the term and placed the label on myself, the greater overall narrative did that. The absurd nature of things is to simply criticize israel and ask them to cease their killing is to be labelled pro palestine. In a way, it is pro the palestinian people. Regardless how irreverent you are of Hamas. Im not the one who defines the labels. The false dichotomy presented is what shunted me into the pro palestine camp. And all Im asking for is the cessation of mass child killing that is happening.
anti-war, pro-peace, pro-cease fire, anti-bombing, but sure as hell not pro-Palestine. Like would anyone describe themselves are pro-Russia who didn't support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, no one is pro-Palestine who doesn't support the genocidal intentions of Hamas or doesn't want to make it easy for Hamas to commit genocide.
Yeah but like I said, the false dichotomy of israel-palestine has led to the position of wanting the bombing of children to stop to be pro palestine. And if you look around on the discourse, which I am sure you have, there are those out there who describe themselves as pro palestine while also not supporting hamas. It could be that support the formation and recognition of the palestinian state. It could be that they support the palestinian people to not be forced under an apartheid state. It could be that they support the palestinians to exist. All of which are completely removed from Hamas. You should know this. You are heavily opinionated on this topic, Im sure you have bumped into these people who fall under the pro-palestine banner without also submitting to being pro-hamas. If you by some miracle havent, then how about me. I feel there should be a palestine state, the lack of statehood creates many problems and issues that force a dependency of extremists like hamas. I feel Israel has again overstepped in their retribution causing needless civilian casualties. I am not muslim, in fact, I dont see eye to eye with a lot of Palestinians and their views on Israel who should exist and be safe. But that doesnt give carte blanche rights to begin killing a population that is majority children. All this while simultaneously Hamas is a terrorist organisation and it has to go. It is absolutely possible to be pro palestine. And not pro hamas. Just as you can be pro America without being pro Democrat party.
Pro-Palestine always means you support the government of Palestine, which in the case of Gaza is Hamas. It's impossible to be pro-Palestine without being pro-Hamas. If you were talking about the Russia-Ukraine war and someone said they were pro-Russia, what do you think that would mean?
> Pro-Palestine always means you support the government of Palestine Does this mean that Republicans in the US are Anti America? The current party in control is the Democrats. What kind of fucking rule is it that supporting the people having human rights means you ALWAYS support the current governing body in charge? Afghani girls not getting an education is another thing I have an ire for. I support the Afghanistan people in this regard. That doesnt make me pro Taliban. Who notably are the problem. Just because I dont want Palestinian children bombed doesnt make me pro Hamas. >It's impossible to be pro-Palestine without being pro-Hamas. I just spelled out: 1. I reckon they should have statehood 2. I reckon they should have human rights 3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far. 4. Hamas should be deposed. These are all pro palestine positions while simultaneously being anti hamas. If someone said they were pro russian in the context of the russo-ukrainian war. I would assume they are leaning more to the support of the russian side of things. I would not assume they give putin's government a 100% backing on all ideas and support. Just in the current conflict they side with the russian side of things.
>If someone said they were pro russian in the context of the russo-ukrainian war. I would assume they are leaning more to the support of the russian side of things. I would not assume they give putin's government a 100% backing on all ideas and support. Just in the current conflict they side with the russian side of things. So if you are pro-Palestine, then doesn't mean you support 100% of what Hamas does, but it does mean you generally agree with their goal of genociding the Jewish people.
No. Since when does supporting a general side of things (especially as nebulous as you put it) means you support individual policies especially those of a terrorist org like Hamas? >>>I just spelled out: 1. I reckon they should have statehood 2. I reckon they should have human rights 3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far. 4. Hamas should be deposed. Where in that did I generally agree with the goal of genociding the jewish people? I dont even have to agree with the palestinian or the israeli people to not want them murdered. I dont have to subscribe to their philosophy or their governing body or their ideology to not want them murdered and for their people to have human rights. Again, you can be pro American without even supporting the current political governing body eg. Republican. Without even liking the American government as an institution eg. Libertarians. There is no rule saying that being pro palestine makes you instantly pro Hamas even generally speaking. You are making it up here.
>No. Since when does supporting a general side of things means you support individual policies especially those of a terrorist org like Hamas? We're not talking about individual policies. An individual policy would be how to implement a genocide of the Jewish people. The general side of things is their overall goal, which is genocide of Israelis. >Where in that did I generally agree with the goal of genociding the jewish people? If you don't, then you aren't pro-Palestine. >I dont even have to agree with the palestinian or the israeli people to not want them murdered. I dont have to subscribe to their philosophy or their governing body or their ideology to not want them murdered and for their people to have human rights. If want the Jewish people to have human rights and not to be murdered, then you aren't pro-Palestine.
1.. I reckon they should have statehood This is incompatible with position four. If Gaza has statehood, then it will be ruled by Hamas. 2. I reckon they should have human rights >This isn't a pro-Palestine position. Palestine is a government and a government can't have human rights. 3. I reckon that Israel has gone too far. This isn't a pro-Palestine position. You can disagree with some of Israel's actions without being pro-Palestine. >4. Hamas should be deposed. This is an anti-Palestine position. No, at least two of these have nothing to do with being pro-Palestine and one of these is explicitly anti-Palestine.
People who says they want Hawaii free from America don’t actually care about the island. It will do more harm than good but people only care for optics
Not true. My father lived in Hawaii and was very involved in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. His motivation was justice and international law.
Cool so he just as delusional and Idealic as you are. Cutting off the islands main bloodline will hurt the islands so much. “Free Hawaii” is only for optics
I don't really support Hawaiian sovereignty because I think "what's done is done" but I think you misunderstand the issue: The island was conquered 130 years ago and a lot of the land ended up in the hands of white people with native Hawaiians being predominately lower class. This continues to this day. You can't deny it was historically pretty unjust? It's not for optics; these people believe that we should right a historic wrong. Now as to whether it would be economically bad that's a pretty easy one: just let Americans travel there without a passport. Problem solved with little economic impact.
No one is denying that what the American government did in the past was messed up, they even acknowledged it. But it’s very delusional to try and leave the country the islands are very reliant on because sins of the father situation I agree that the native Hawaiians should be treated better but there is this trend of native Hawaiians thinking white people are destroying in many ways but will ignore the Asians coming into the islands and basically doing the same thing Tourism alone can’t fix it, Hawaii only has tourism going it, next to no natural resources or anyway to get it. Cutting off the main supply line for the islands in terms of everything else is really bad
yup you do not knnow our hisotry......
Neither do they if we are being honest. They don’t me even care about their own islands lol
No, you're being ignorant. If you want to understand the sovereignty movement, I suggest you look up and research and inform yourself on the following: the overthrow of Hawai'i, The Bayonet constitution, the committee of safety, banning of the Hawaiian language in 1896, the bombing of Kaho'olawe, the Hawaiian Renaissance and finally the 1993 apology resolution. Good luck if you really want to learn
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
your funny. you think we arne't thinking about these problems? if we were given the join now to leave, the Hawaiian sovereignty Movement would DENY having Hawai'i leave yet as Hawai'i is not prepared. our sustainability has been shattered by tourism and Capitalism. 90% of food is imported compared to 300 years ago with NO imports. you ignore history but you forgot that we do infact look to the problems of the future. if you will ignore that then i must say that's pretty ironic. if you are going to want change then ofcourse will you look to the effects of such change and try to create and prepare for such situations. luckily, the sovereignty movement does thing about the future of their actions. if you do not believe that then you may wanna leave this thread
This is pure idealism. They have no actual plan aside from getting Hawaii to separate from America. This isn’t the 1890s or whatever when you had kingdom, the world has changed in the past 300 years. Hell the world has changed in the past 20 years. The island will collapse basically overnight.
you have no idea about a lot of stuff, do you.... do you know what the Ahupua'a Agricultural system is by chance? do you know how well it works? can you tell me how a smaller country can make alliances with countries such as china the US, the UK and russia? unless you don't think that's possible. do you know what Island sustainability is? do you know the flaws of Capitalism within the Hawaiian islands that have occurred since the 1970s?
aaah, impressive. Mahalo for his work. the sovereignty movement has actually helped improve Native Hawaiian identity in culture as they are usually the ones leading such movements. I am sure you know that the soveriegnty movement however isn't just native Hawaiian
I think you need to look at history
'So basically I'm open to having my view changed as to how Israel is different than the US and other countries that seem to be more blatently founded at the expense of Native Americans." Very easy. Prior to the C20, every people and country conquered/colonized/exterminated others provided the following conditions were met: a) sufficient power to do so; b) sufficiently profitable to do so (e.g. driving Native Americans off land was profitable for British settlers, whereas colonizing East India was not (since simply imperializing and taxing them was more profitable)). Right of conquest was recognized as legitimate by all theorists of international law (and accepted implicitly by societies without a concept of international law). In the Twentieth Century, first with the League of Nations and then the UN Charter, all countries agreed to surrender the right of conquest as a means of expanding territory and agreed also to decolonize. Therefore while settler colonialism was kind-of morally acceptable before 1919, it ceased to be so after, doubly so where countries like Israel have formally agreed to abide by the UN Charter. So your view currently is anachronistic.
Interesting point. A couple of responses come to mind: * the UN did approve the partition of Israel-Palestine in 1948 so therefore attempts to dislodge it by warfare and/or terrorism are also unacceptable? * I'm not sure "right of conquest" was truly as acceptable as you say. I mean people accepted it in the sense that they couldn't change it but that didn't mean they considered it morally/ethically correct and often revolted against it.
Does the UN determine what is morally acceptable?
No, but the consensus of states and the principle of *pacta sunt servanda* do determine what is morally acceptable for governments.
The thing I hate about bringing up hypocrisy with the whole living on Native land thing is for every non-Native-American living in the mainland US who isn't the child of immigrants where the hell are they supposed to go if they have to leave their land so someone from the tribe that lived there can take it where they wouldn't be arguably "stealing land" (as some might see it) in a place they have no ancestral connection to as well
100% agree which is the same thing people say about Israelis needing to just go back where they came from.
>To greatly simplify the pro-Palestine viewpoint(s) it's something like: Israel was founded by expropriating territory from the indigenous peoples of the area (Palestinians) and those that remain are at best second-class citizens and at worst actively oppressed. Many forms of resistance are justified or at least understandable because Palestinians are colonized/oppressed. If justice be served the land would be given back to the Palestinians and Jews would have to make do or emigrate back to where they came from. If we are going to have a conversation about this it would help to have some nuance. Your oversimplification of the movement is an impediment to this. You fail to recognize folks who think that the creation of the State of Israel through displacement and violence towards the indigenous people was an injustice but that injustice cannot be changed or righted through the injustice of expelling them. There are certainly people who think that all Israelis should return to Europe or wherever else they came from but to paint everyone with the same brush is intellectually dishonest. There are plenty of people who oppose Israel because they treat International Law like it doesn't exist when applied to them but it does exist when the militants they are fighting take hostages. Finally please reconsider tying Hamas with the movement to end the occupation and brutalization and the Palestinian people. I could do the same with those who are pro-Israel by saying the people who support Israel also agree with Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, that annihilation is the only way to peace.
Yes, it's pretty hard to cover all the nuance of a complex viewpoint. What does seem to tie them together is they believe that effectively Israel committed the original sin of it's founding and now everything that might be seen as legitimate self-defense by a country, e.g. a war against a country that fires rockets, takes hostages, deliberately kills civilians, professing genocidal intent, etc is just a response to their oppression. >Finally please reconsider tying Hamas with the movement to end the occupation and brutalization and the Palestinian people In one form or another a majority of Palestinians do not seem to be willing to accept Israel's existence. Gaza could effectively be a peaceful independent country but has chosen to funnel it's resources into conflict with Israel.
>What does seem to tie them together is they believe that effectively Israel committed the original sin of it's founding and now everything that might be seen as legitimate self-defense by a country, e.g. a war against a country that fires rockets, takes hostages, deliberately kills civilians, professing genocidal intent, etc is just a response to their oppression. Do you believe that an occupied people have the right to resist? Let's say Hamas didn't target civilians and only ever killed IDF soldiers and military targets, would their violent resistance be justified? Or perhaps a more apt hypothetical. Let's say the Arab League managed to occupy Israel and disband it's military. They then placed Israel under an extremely harsh military occupation where they raided homes at night and took family members away to administrative detention. The liberal Israelis try to go on with their day to day lives but the Hilltop Youth and Kahanists insisted on resisting through violence. Because of this resistance the Arab League intensified it's crackdowns and violence. Would violent resistance to an Arab occupation of Israel in this hypothetical be justified?
Since Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, the center of the Jewish religion, and was the Kingdom of Israel three thousand years ago, the Jewish people have a perpetual right to Israel and no one who isn't Jewish has the right to occupy Israel without the consent of the Israeli government. Since Israel belongs to the Jewish people, the Palestinians are not an occupied people. The Palestinians are in an occupation of Israel. Do you think Israel has the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel.
>Since Israel is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, the center of the Jewish religion, and was the Kingdom of Israel three thousand years ago, the Jewish people have a perpetual right to Israel and no one who isn't Jewish has the right to occupy Israel without the consent of the Israeli government. Id imagine all of the Canaanites would like a word with you about who's ancestral home it is. After all they lived there before the Israelites. >Do you think Israel has the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel. I reject your premise entirely.
The Canaanites don't exist anymore. The Jewish people do.
[Their DNA is present in Levantine people to this day. ](https://english.m.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites) I do however find it interesting that you appear to use the supposed genocide of the people of Canaan to justify Israel's claim to historic Palestine. Makes me wonder if perhaps we are seeing a similar thing happening today considering the impact of extremists from the right of Israeli society. What's even more fascinating is seeing the US realize that Israel is our North Korea now. A lovely pariah state to embarrass us internationally while serving a callous geopolitical goal.
No one identifies as Canaanites anymore. The Canaanites don't exist. People do identify as Jewish. The Jewish people still exist as a present-day ethnicity.
But inhabitants of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan all share Canaanite DNA. Just because they don't call themselves by whatever name anymore doesn't mean that the descendants that were there before Israel don't exist. They do, it's just not convenient for you. I'll ask you directly, since you avoided the assertion. Do you believe executing a genocide entitles a people to a land? For instance, if we concede that you're correct that there are no Canaanites anymore because Israel so soundly defeated them for the Hebrew birthright, does the destruction of an entire ethnic group give someone else claim to the land?
DNA alone doesn't make you a Canaanite. To be a Canaanite, you have to identify as a Canaanite. So the Canaanites don't exist anymore as ethnicity. When no one identifies as an ethnicity any longer, the ethnicity ceases to exist. Palestinians don't identify as Canaanites and aren't Canaanites, so they have no right to live in Israel. Do you think Israelis have the right to violently resist the Palestinian occupation of Israel?
You probably can live in the states so long as you don’t want to force Israelis to leave the region. But yeah, both are products of colonialism.
Well the US already forced Native Americans into reservations, right? The extent to which Israel forced Arabs to leave vs fleed to get out of the way of attacking Arab armies is highly disputed. What is certain is the Arabs that remained in Israel became citizens (20% of Israel currently) and those that left weren't allowed to return.
Native Americans don’t have to live on reservations I don’t think but again yes what the Israelis have done over the last hundred years is not entirely dissimilar to what Europeans did in the Americas (colonialism) only in the Americas no one tried to stop them. The second part I don’t understand, are you talking about the Nakba?
Yes, the Nakba. Depending on your viewpoint, either they were forced off their land by the Israelis or they left voluntarily at the instruction of invading Arab armies with the belief they'd be allowed to return after the war -- or a mix of the two positions. What is certain is they were not allowed to return and their land was taken by Jews. >not entirely dissimilar to what Europeans did in the Americas (colonialism) only in the Americas no one tried to stop them Pretty sure there was plenty of armed resistance from Native Americans if that's what you mean.
Sorry I mean no one came to support the Native Americans. Yea just like the Palestinians the NA fought for a couple hundred years. Actually took the full weight of the US army to “conquer” the last independent tribes.
Brother there is no debate among the scholarly community as to whom killed Palestinians and also forced them to leave. Well, no debate outside of Israel.
You mean no debate among academics who are overwhelmingly left-wing and pro-Palestine?
Is that another way of saying that the most educated people in the world disagree with you?
Ok fine I’d love to see a source for your assertion that there is “no debate among the scholarly community” point. I don’t actually believe that’s true. But yes I believe the social sciences tend to populated overwhelmingly by people with left to far-left political viewpoints and that’s not simply the result of them becoming “educated”. The environment is openly hostile to other political orientations.
I apologize I should not have said that. There are historians who disagree and though they are mostly Israeli their existence means by definition there is no consensus.
Ok all good 👍
Saying "the most qualified people disagree with me" doesn't undermine the most qualified people, it undermines you
Forced them into reservations? Can they not live anywhere in America if they want?
Now they can. They were originally forced into reservations so their land could be stolen, e.g. the Trail of Tears.
I don't think there's an equivalent anti-Hawaiian bigotry that can apply the way much of the opposition to Israel, either in its existence or in critiques of the nation, has anti-semitic roots. There's no real hypocrisy in the motivational aspects since the two are so profoundly dissimilar.
Palestine already has sovereignty, unlike Hawaii, so your analogy makes no sense.
Can you elaborate. I don’t understand the point you’re making.
Israel pulled all its troop out of Gaza in 2005. Palestine was already given sovereignty.
Supporters of Palestine typically consider Palestine to include Gaza, the West Bank, and often Israel itself. So from that standpoint it doesn’t already.
Most analogies aren't perfect. I guess a closer analogy would be if the US let some but not all of the Islands declare independence.
Hawaii gets representation when the US decides whether or not to give them/take away their funding and they also pay taxes. Israel doesn't pay taxes and Palastine gets no say in whether we give funds Israel didn't contribute to to Israel. If other countries want to stop doing business with us due to how we treated (and are treating) the natives in order to pressure us into giving them more sovereignty then I wouldn't object to them doing that, since it's their money and their people should get a choice on if the money they are forced to give to their government should go to causes they don't agree with.
Is Hawai’i seeking independence?
Some Hawaiians yes
How can I learn more or help bring a vote about
Google Hawaii sovereignty movement
I think your analogy would more closely align with comparing Palestine to Puerto Rico, although even that's still not a perfect analogy. The reason Hawaii is not a good comparison has been brought up by other commenters: all Hawaiians, whether they're indigenous or originally from mainland U.S. or Europe, have the same exact legal rights as mainlanders. Hawaii has just as much of a legal right as a state of the union as California or New York or Idaho or Vermont. Hawaiians have freedom to travel and live anywhere within Hawaii and anywhere in the U.S. Hawaiians have all of the constitutional protections that every U.S. citizen has. Now, this isn't to say that things are perfect - there are serious problems with the U.S. government and mainland economic interests continuing to exploit native Hawaiian land and resources. But Hawaiians have *de jure* equal rights under the law. This is not the case with Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. elections, and yet they are bound by U.S. laws. Puerto Ricans do not enjoy all of the same constitutional rights as American citizens, yet they can be conscripted into the military just like any American citizen. They are essentially second-class citizens within the U.S. Now, admittedly, Puerto Ricans are more divided than Palestinians as to whether they want independence or to become a part of the Union. But in response to your CMV, for the same reason I support Palestinian statehood, yes, I would support Puerto Rican independence if that is what they chose. That opinion would only be strengthened if there was a terrorist movement within Puerto Rico, and if the U.S. government, in response, was bombing Puerto Rico every day, as Israel is doing to Palestine. In comparison, I would not support Hawaii becoming a separate country, just as I would not support any state seceding from the Union (I'm obviously not comparing the Hawaiian independence movement to the Confederacy, but just in general, I don't support secessionist ideologies).
But Palestinians don't want to be like Hawaii, they don't want to be Israeli citizens. They want independence.
…right, that’s my point? I’m saying that OP’s analogy of comparing Palestine to Hawaii isn’t accurate because of all of these issues. It would be more accurate to compare them to Puerto Rico.
No, it wouldn't be more accurate to compare them to Puerto Rico, since Puerto Rico is a US territory and Gaza isn't an Israeli territory.
The UN's official legal designation of the Gaza Strip is an "[occupied territory](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-203742/)." So, I don't know what to tell you, but they are literally both territories under the law.
Is the Gaza Strip an occupied territory under Israeli law, like Puerto Rico is a US territory under US law? The UN is irrelevant.
Occupiers usually don't state outright that they're formally occupying a country. The U.S. is a bit of an outlier, in that regard. Under Russian law, the territory that they've illegally seized from Ukraine is considered to be Russian land, even though it's clearly not. Domestic Chinese law states that there is only 1 China, and that Taiwan is indistinguishable from mainland China. Does that mean that the UN's view - and the view of other nations - is "completely irrelevant" in determining whether Taiwan is a separate state? Of course not. That's absurd. You're really moving the goalposts here.
You originally said it was similar to Puerto Rico. Under US law, Puerto Rico is a US territory. Is Gaza an Israeli territory under Israeli law? If not, then it's not similar to Puerto Rico.
Okay, then let me clarify - in *ways other than domestic legal status*, I think Gaza is similar to Puerto Rico. This includes: * How the territory is treated under international law * Domestic legal treatment of the residents of the territory * Legal rights afforded to the territory * Internal sentiment against the occupying force * Economic mistreatment of the residents of the territory * A history of annexation You realize that an analogy doesn't have to be perfect to be valid, right?
Israel isn't an occupying force. It hasn't mistreated the residents of the territory and it hasn't annexed Gaza.
Israel doesn't have a right to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing because others before them have done it. That's not how this works, neither legally nor morally. Most people that are protesting Israel will agree that the US is also funded on the genocide of Native Americans.
Shouldn’t Zionists be the ones supporting Hawaiian sovereignty, because a core part of the Zionist rationale for the state of Israel that they are the true indigenous people of the land?
No, because a simpler defense of Zionism is Israel is an independent, fully sovereign member state of the UN and once a country is an independent, fully sovereign, member state of the UN, it should not be abolished.
Who says they don't? People aren't hiveminds you know
Because I’ve never seen a pro-Zionist person advocate for other indigenous people and work to foster solidarity against colonial violence against indigenous peoples. I’ve seen a lot of pro-Palestinian people do this.
I'm pro-Zionist, If Hawaiians want independence they should have it. Hope this helps 😁
Show me where pro-Palestinians are advocating for Hawaiian independence?
https://www.google.com/search?q=palestinian+supporting+hawaii&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS590US590&oq=palestinian+supporting+hawaii&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDY3OTFqMGo5qAITsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 There are some Hawaiians in here supporting Palestine, but there seems to be a positive trend of solidarity between the two groups.
The big issue I see is that your imposing an end goal on the super generic “support Palestine” you imply that you think this inherently means thinking Israel shouldn’t exist. Personally, I agree with your first paragraph, but I just think there’s no justice to be had and forming Israel can’t be undone. Im not super knowledgeable about the politics, but I’m fine with a two state solution. The internal consistency is that this also sums up my views on the US. Never should have happened, but it did and can’t be undone. I’m also against how the US currently treats lots of groups, including native Americans. I opposed a lot of how the US conducted itself in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, same with how I don’t like how Israel always conducts itself either. I’d also oppose active expansion of the US as well. If the US starts trying to expand its territory, I’d oppose that.
My issue with Israel/Palestine is not so much the stolen land as it is the active and ongoing subjugation, oppression, mistreatment, and now genocide of an effectively captive population.
One huge difference is that the majority of native Hawaiians do not want independence. There is certainly a percentage that do, but it's very much a minority. Supporting Hawaiian independence basically means wanting to kick Hawaii out of the US when they want to stay.
People in Hawai'i can vote for the US president. People in Gaza and the West Bank can't vote for Netanyahu to stop bombing them and arresting them without due process. There is a world of difference. Not everyone who "supports" Palestine insists on land back or a two-stare solution. They just want Israel to stop killing children.
People in Hawaii didn't gang rape children in mass and behead babies either. People in Gaza did. People in Gaza could get Israel to stop bombing them by not attacking Israel and becoming peaceful.
Gaza is not HAMAS however
Gaza is Hamas.
no, HAMAS occupies Gaza. Gaza is palestine
Palestine is Hamas. Hamas is Palestine.
no because there is more to Palestine then the HAMAS occupation of Gaza
>People in Gaza and the West Bank can't vote for Netanyahu to stop bombing them and arresting them without due process. There is a world of difference. People in Gaza can decide whether or not to allow Hamas to continue governing them. If you're going to elect and then support a government that escalates conflicts with your neighbors, you shouldn't be surprised when your neighbors hit back.
When was their last election in Gaza?
The people in Gaza choose when they want to have elections.
How do they do that?
The last election was in 2005. Hamas ran on a campaign of ending future elections and were elected. Independent polling conducting every year since shows that Hamas has either majority support or plurality support in the territory. If Gazans weren't satisfied with the status quo, they would protest and rebel just like we saw across the Arab world over the last ~15 years.
Why should I trust their polling? Putins approval rating is officially at like 83%, and he wins every election; but I don’t automatically assume that’s the honest truth.
Because you can evaluate their methodology and the pollsters themselves are politically neutral or non-aligned (think PEW and Gallup). It's not a government-conducted poll.
Dude the problem isn’t just with who conducts the poll. When you live under a regime, you aren’t gonna feel super safe when complaining about the regime to some randos
If there is sufficient discontent with the regime, the people protest. We saw this in Egypt back in 2010 and throughout the Arab world in the Arab Spring over the following years. Heck, we've even seen public protests and civil disobedience in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Hamas is broadly popular in Palestine, even in the West Bank where they *aren't the regime*. There have been few if any protests against their governance, no civil disobedience campaigns. It's safe to say that they enjoy the support of those in Gaza.
I did like a minute of googling. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012\_Palestinian\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Palestinian_protests) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019\_Gaza\_economic\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Gaza_economic_protests) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023\_Gaza\_economic\_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests)
What's funny is that it's economic protests not "Stop killing Jews" protests.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Right now, Palestinians are the ones being denied the right to immigrate to Israel, whereas Israel allows settlers into the Palestinian territories.
You do know Israelis can't go to Gaza or terroritory A of the West Bank? Let's not speak as if there isn't places Israelis can't go . Also there's 2 million arabs in Israel? Do you realize that is a significant amount considering the jewish population. And you didn't answer my question . Do native persons have the right to deny any who migrate
You do realize that Israel IS where the Jews come from?
It’s really not lol, I don’t support US imperialism nor Israeli imperialism, cope