Addressing your last point first, the article doesn't say anything about "avoiding a massive humanitarian disaster in Gaza" - just because it wasn't offered as an option in the poll, doesn't mean it "does not register as a responsibility to be concerned about". That statement is irresponsibly misleading and, while maybe not intentionally, dishonest. The majority of Israeli citizens, government officials, and Jews around the world have expressed concern over the lives of innocent Gazans. As for the poll, I don't find it surprising at all that Israelis are conflicted since Hamas has clearly stated they'll do it again and again ad infinitum. I don't know how I'd answer, to be honest.
it is true the entire heavily government financed Israeli propaganda machine backed by the mainstream western media is losing the information war and their genocidal policies are seen by virtually everyone outside Israel where their minds are closed tooutside media.
Pretty sure Israelis can get news from around the world, including Al Jazeera. Do you have a link to back this up?
The post you quoted referred to rockets fired by Hezbollah, which is a Lebonese terrorist organization.
I shouldn't have said "maybe", as I don't think it's in @durvasa to be intentionally dishonest. My bad.
The last part of the post (regarding Israeli leadership conducting the military operations, not citizens) was not me drawing conclusions based on the poll results. Sorry if that’s how it came across. It was me drawing conclusions based on Israeli actions in Gaza and quotes/arguments from Israeli officials. Also while certain individuals may profess some humanitarian sentiments, it is also abundantly clear that they consider the humanitarian disaster to be fully Hamas’s responsibility and not their own. Which is why I said I think it “does not register as a responsibility”.
Another one https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-785550#google_vignette Nearly half (47%) of Israeli residents believe returning the hostages taken by Hamas on October 7th is the highest priority of Israel’s war against Hamas – whereas 42% of Israelis said that toppling Hamas’ grip over the Gaza Strip should be Israel’s main priority, a poll published Tuesday by the Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI) discovered.
Are you really claiming that for 1,000 years, the population of "Palestine" has been 100% Arab? And that for 1,000 years, the population of the region has been a homogenous group of Arabs called "Palestinians" living on the land? This is crazy. Bro, the current Palestinian population is not even close to being genetically 100% Arab through DNA testing. Religiously and culturally, yes. Genetically, no. Recently, from 1780-1850, there was a huge influx of Egyptians who immigrated to ""Palestine." In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Egypt experienced significant waves of emigration to Palestine. One notable influx occurred in the 1780s due to a severe famine in Egypt. According to one estimate, approximately one-sixth of the Egyptian population migrated during this period, with many settling in Palestine. Between 1831 and 1840, during Muhammad Ali's conquests and later under his son, Ibraim Pasha, Egyptian settlers and army dropouts settled in Palestine. These immigrants primarily settled in well-established cities such as Jaffa and Gaza. From 1517-1917, there was a 400 year "occupation" of Palestine by the Ottomans, during which a large number of Turks moved into the region. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Palestine Before that, there was a Mongolian invasion of Palestine (led by Mongol leader Ghazan). The Mongol invasions during the thirteenth century triggered a large-scale movement of Kurds into Palestine. And so on and so on and so on. In no way was there ever a 100% Arab population in "Palestine" and there certainly wasn't a Palestinian nation or government during any of that time. The current Palestinian population is more closely related to Jews, who also show a genetic make-up composed of these multiple influxes of different ethnic groups due to 1,000 years (3,000 in actuality) of invasions & immigrations. I think where you are getting confused and what you meant to say is that during Ottoman rule, the population of the region was 90-95% Muslim. There is obviously a reason for that. You may also want to educate yourself on the conditions of "Palestine' during Pre-state Israel 1922-1947. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-arabs-in-palestine The rapid growth of the Arab population of "Palestine" was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states – constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel – by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem, and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem. Jewish Land Purchases Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. Jews went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” Ben-Gurion said, “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.” It was only after the Jews had bought all this available land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.
Since when did it become fashionable to put Palestine in quotes for historical discussions? This makes about as much sense to me as referring to the Atlantic Ocean as the “Atlantic” Ocean. Palestine is the common name that was used for the region for over a thousand years. I can understand wanting to abandon the name today in reference to the region, given that the name is also used to refer to the “state of Palestine”. But historically, it was Palestine (and, before that, Israel). I don’t recall Zionists of the early 20th century finding the need to dispute the legitimacy of the term Palestine by putting quotes around it.
Sorry. Not that big of a deal. Mainly, because this was a "historical" post and because it is a region that has never had enduring defined boundaries throughout history as a nation state and is, currently, a land mass whose borders and boundaries are constantly disputed. I sometimes refer to it as Israel/Palestine if that is suitable. Also, I see several references in the post where Palestine is not in quotes if that is alright. In a non-historical post when referring to present day Palestine, I would not put it in quotes. Ok?
Except for these which I wrote and were not "lifted from the link"... . From 1517-1917, there was a 400 year "occupation" of Palestine by the Ottomans, during which a large number of Turks moved into the region. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Palestine Before that, there was a Mongolian invasion of Palestine (led by Mongol leader Ghazan). The Mongol invasions during the thirteenth century triggered a large-scale movement of Kurds into Palestine. And so on and so on and so on. In no way was there ever a 100% Arab population in "Palestine"
Alright. Perhaps you felt the repeated use of Palestine in quotes would look excessive and silly (which you’d be right about). One instance in quotes in the paragraph was enough to make the point that you don’t consider Palestine a legitimate term. Anyway, I don’t think the quotes are necessary, and they are misleading given that Palestine was the common name for the region for quite a long time. If you don’t think it’s a big deal, I don’t wish to argue about it any further.
I apologize if that is not acceptable in your view. I explained the reason above and edited to add that In a non-historical post when referring to present day Palestine, I would not put it in quotes. The entire post was referencing the 1,000 year history of the region. It was referred to by different names during that time by the Arabs during the conquest, the Ottomans, Mamluks, Mongolians, Crusaders, , not just Palestine or Filistia, or Southern Syria, Mutasarrifate of Al-Quds, Israel or other names. We are talking about many different languages, at least one of which that didn't even have the letter P. Not everybody called the region "Palestine"
You don’t need to apologize. I just don’t understand the argument to put quotes around a historic term that was in common usage because various other names or spellings were used across various languages. Zionist writers in early generations did not dispute the use of the term Palestine, did they? When did this become a thing?
