Israel/Palestine thread

Yes, the only way I can see (say in the next 10-15 years) it ending is for a majority of Israelis to become sick of having essentially the same situation every 5 or so years and forcing some kind of accomodation

Even then I’m sceptical as I just can’t see the Palestinians getting even 80% of what they want, which would presumably keep the conflict going to some extent.

It’s just the rhetoric that Palestinians generally call for. There’s no point pretending that justice can co-exist with the continued operation of extreme ethno-nationalist institutions, many of which will be complicit in crimes against humanity


I see what you’re saying but not sure I agree 100%. The use of the word conflict doesn’t necessarily preclude the designation of one side as largely the oppressor the other as the oppressed.

And the Malala tweet is a retweet of a tweet specifically highlighting violence against Palestinan children.


When you say “the state of Israel” and “extreme ethno-nationalist institutions” are you using the technical definition of “state” (I.e. the governmental-administrstive apparatus such as Netanyahu administration, IDF, etc.) or referring to Israel as a country/collective of people?

I think it’s fairly clear I’m talking about the actual state apparatus.

Though we can’t ignore that many Israelis endorse the crimes committed in their name. But when I talk about ‘dismantling the state’ I’m obviously not talking about them.


Yeah that’s fair, but it does add a degree of ambiguity to the situation which isn’t necessary and lessens the Palestinian plight - maybe not to those interested and who dig deeper but to the casual disinterested westerner probably. A hundred comments on twitter referring to a conflict probably won’t illicit the same response as 100 comments referring an oppressive regime breaching human rights and enforcing an apartheid state.

Malala again, by avoiding who has committed the violence is obscuring the narrative - not deliberately i am sure but still, its vague.

(AS a child (child doing a lot of work here - well into my teens at least!) in a pre-internet world, without having any particular ‘interest’ in Israel/Palestine, if you would have asked me i would have probably said most of the trouble came from palestinian terrorists attacking israel due to something to do with some land. Thats because the whole narrative was/is always hamas fired rockets, hamas did this etc etc and then when you hear of violence in jerusalem, or tel-aviv and the headline is broad like “ten children die in jerusalem” then your thoughts go back to headlines about terrorists etc and assumptions of made. Israel are always painted as defending and to me at least, that is dangerous framing.)

Just thinking out loud mainly here.

I think more broadly with the Greta tweet (and to be clear i have no issue with her!) is just that she is saying she’s not against Israel or Palestinian but is against oppression from anyone. Perhaps a Palestinian would find that odd - ‘i am not against your oppressor but am against oppression’ Again, i think perhaps Palestinians want people to stand up for them a bit more.


Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think it’s as obvious as you think it is - a lot of genuine confusion happens on this issue because in lots of people’s minds the terms state and nation are assumed to mean the same thing.

Edit: this is something that is of course exacerbated by active efforts by governments across the world to present the state architecture and the nation it administers as the same thing


When you’re talking about the only Jewish nation state, one whose enemies talk about literally wiping it off the map, I think a little specificity goes a long way


I think saying ‘state’ and ‘institutions’ is quite unambiguously referring to states and institutions.

The website someone posted above is very helpful on some of the points being discussed.


It took me too long (probably my own failing) to fully grasp the history but if you are a bit unsure, then it’s worth noting that Nakba Day - the day to commemorate the Palestinian catastrophe is on the 15th May so its a good time to read up (the Israeli state came into being on the 15th May 1948).

Between 1947 and 1949, about 750,000 Palestinians out of a population of 1.9 million were expelled from their towns and villages to make way for the new Jewish immigrants.

Apologies for not having a quick link to hand

edit - from what i’ve read of it @the_ravens link had some good stuff in it (Israel/Palestine thread - #3 by the_ravens)

Twitter trending #israelunderattack

Language does matter.

I have no idea why I’m bothering to reply to an account that’s been registered specifically to discuss one of the most contentious topics going BUT, as noted above, the word ‘state’ itself absolutely matters in this context. I’m not looking to start a fight but I’m not the only person to whom the meaning wasn’t clear.


Don’t think we need to approach a new account like this unless they appear to be attempting to be deliberately inflammatory or something like that, new accounts should be able to post in any thread that’s open to them. It’s a contentious topic, but robespierre didn’t (to my reading) seem to be undermining that in any way.


That’s a fair point. It just seemed like a fairly dismissive comment to say the use of the terms was “quite unambiguous” when multiple users had written posts explaining exactly why, given the complexities and history of the topic, it wasn’t clear or obvious at first glance.

Felt a bit like “only an unintelligent person wouldn’t understand”

Edit: apologies to @robespierre if that wasn’t the intention

1 Like

Sorry but I’m not sure I entirely follow this. Is there a process for registering an account on here that I have missed?

I was just offering my own interpretation that I think the ordinary meaning of the word ‘state’ is quite clear. It doesn’t seem reasonable to read into it that someone meant the people of Israel should be dismantled (i.e. ethnic cleansing).

You are right that you are not alone in this interpretation. But the user in this case was using the language many Palestinians adopt in their struggle. Palestinians who call for a single, secular, multiethnic and democratic state from the river the to sea are often (wrongly) accused of promoting a situation that would result in bloodbath or the ethnic cleaning of Jewish Israelis. This exact point is one that comes up frequently - that criticism of the state of Israel slips into what is essentially advocating for ethnic cleansing. It is used to delegitimise and decentre Palestinians in their liberation struggle.


I don’t think the tone or language was any more aggressive or dismissive than other posts in the conversation. eg. the sarcasm of “Super-helpful rhetoric, this.”


To give more of an idea of how heavily police language is for Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity activists, I once had someone try to call me out for using the word “regime” to talk about the Israeli state (because they felt it had negative connotations).

Just my opinion (bit of a pointless caveat but feels necessary here) but if you stand in solidarity with Palestinians, I think as a minimum, you should let them decide on the language used and affirm it as far as possible.


this is quite a useful article


As the thread starter* I’d like to remind everyone to keep it respectful, to take a breath before posting, to post in good faith and assume that same good faith from other posters.

* obviously this means shit so it’s up to you how you take this :slight_smile:


You’re absolutely correct, of course. Apologies @robespierre, I was out of line.

We do disagree on the language point but hostility and antagonism won’t help and for that I am sorry.