Modern day Hitler.
failed to load media
Is there a mirror anywhere?
You’re not missing much. The post title is basically disinformation. He says of Jews v. Ancient Rome that “we lost that one. We have to win the next one” in a short clip providing no hint whatsoever as to who he thinks “the next one” will be fought against. Presumably not ancient Rome.
Seems pretty clear to me
Removed by mod
Israel is doing to palestinians what the roman did to jews. Shame of you , you scum
It’s really quite disgusting to see people explaining the motivations of the criminal wanted by the ICC that leads the country indicted by the ICJ for the crime of Genocide, the same country that has already been found by the ICJ to be in breach of Article 3 (condemnation of Apartheid) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in terms of some legitimate fear of being annihilated.
Removed by mod
You’re doing more than explaining his motivation, you’re asserting the premise of his motivation as true. You’re not saying “Bin Laden thinks America is threatening Islam so he wants jihad”, you’re saying “America threatens Islam; that’s why Bin Laden wants jihad”. This makes any subsequent discussion premised on the threat and centers the question of what is the best way to counter it, jihad or something else. It’s a loaded premise that centers the counterfactual.
I really don’t care about the alternate timeline of the woulds and the ifs. In this timeline, that alternate timeline is used to justify genocide. The factual is more important than the counterfactual.
Edit, responding here to not fracture the thread. That your don’t think Hamas is in a position to carry out the threat is irrelevant. It still centers the counterfactual, loads the premise of any subsequent discussion with the concern of what Hamas might or might not do, when Israel is actively pursuing genocide.
I repeat: here’s your way out of this argument: reformulate to say “Netanyahu believes Hamas would do X, so he makes analogy Y”, as opposed to “Hamas would do X. This is why Netanyahu makes analogy Y”.
Subtle logical point but important.
Stop supporting zionazi terrorism.
Comparing Hamas to the Roman empire is a bit strange, given how the balance of power is the polar opposite. I think op concluded that a “the next fight between Jews and Rome” in the current day would mean Israel vs. Europe. At least that’s the impression I got.
They are not at all comparable in their power, structure or ideology. But the Hamas would eradicate Israel if they had the power to do so, like the Romans did.
In Netanyahu‘s view of the world, he is surrounded by enemies and under constant attack, which makes the comparison
Romans = destroyed Judea
Hamas = would destroy Israel
quite reasonable from his POV.
Romans destroyed Judea. Israel is destroying gaza therefore Israel is what should be compared to romans
Right, but not if you’re the guy trying to justify genocide against Palestinians, it’s always good to paint yourself as the victim.
Hamas, alongside many other factions, are resistance groups born out of the apartheid with the goal of liberation from the apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
De-development via the Gaza Occupation
Between July 1971 and February 1972, Sharon enjoyed considerable success. During this time, the entire Strip (apart from the Rafah area) was sealed off by a ring of security fences 53 miles in length, with few entrypoints. Today, their effects live on: there are only three points of entry to Gaza—Erez, Nahal Oz, and Rafah.
Perhaps the most dramatic and painful aspect of Sharon’s campaign was the widening of roads in the refugee camps to facilitate military access. Israel built nearly 200 miles of security roads and destroyed thousands of refugee dwellings as part of the widening process.’ In August 1971, for example, the Israeli army destroyed 7,729 rooms (approximately 2,000 houses) in three vola- tile camps, displacing 15,855 refugees: 7,217 from Jabalya, 4,836 from Shati, and 3,802 from Rafah.
- Page 105
Through 1993 Israel imposed a one-way system of tariffs and duties on the importation of goods through its borders; leaving Israel for Gaza, however, no tariffs or other regulations applied. Thus, for Israeli exports to Gaza, the Strip was treated as part of Israel; but for Gazan exports to Israel, the Strip was treated as a foreign entity subject to various “non-tariff barriers.” This placed Israel at a distinct advantage for trading and limited Gaza’s access to Israeli and foreign markets. Gazans had no recourse against such policies, being totally unable to protect themselves with tariffs or exchange rate controls. Thus, they had to pay more for highly protected Israeli products than they would if they had some control over their own economy. Such policies deprived the occupied territories of significant customs revenue, estimated at $118-$176 million in 1986.
- page 240
In a report released in May 2015, the World Bank revealed that as a result of Israel’s blockade and OPE, Gaza’s manufacturing sector shrank by as much as 60% over eight years while real per capita income is 31 percent lower than it was 20 years ago. The report also stated that the blockade alone is responsible for a 50% decrease in Gaza’s GDP since 2007. Furthermore, OPE (combined with the tunnel closure) exacerbated an already grave situation by reducing Gaza’s economy by an additional $460 million.
-
Page 402
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development - Third Edition by Sara M. Roy
Blockade, including Aid
Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.
After the ‘disengagement’ in 2007, this turned into a full blockade; where Israel has had control over the airspace, borders, and sea. Under the guise of ‘dual-use’ Israel has restricted food, allocating a minimum supply leading to over half of Gaza being food insecure; construction materials, medical supplies, and other basic necessities have also been restricted.
The blockade and Israel’s repeated military offensives have had a heavy toll on Gaza’s essential infrastructure and further debilitated its health system and economy, leaving the area in a state of perpetual humanitarian crisis. Indeed, Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, the majority of whom are children, has created conditions inimical to human life due to shortages of housing, potable water and electricity, and lack of access to essential medicines and medical care, food, educational equipment and building materials.
- Amnesty International Report pg 26-27
Peace Process and Solution
Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Palestine As A Name Commonly Used Throughout Ancient History
First documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3200 years ago, the name Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Arabic: , Filastin), is the conventional name used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands. This work explores the evolution of the concept, histories, identity, languages and cultures of Palestine from the Late Bronze Age to the modern era. Moreover, Palestine history is often taught in the West as a history of a land, not as Palestinian history or a history of a people. This book challenges colonial approach to Palestine and the pernicious myth of a land without a people (Masalha 1992, 1997) and argues for reading the history of Palestine with the eyes of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine; their local roots are deeply embedded in the soil of Palestine and their autochthonous identity and historical heritage long preceded the emergence of a local Palestinian nascent national movement in the late Ottoman period and the advent of Zionist settler-colonialism before the First World War.
- Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History - - Nur Masalha Introduction
From Philistia To Provincia ‘Syria Palaestina’ (135 AD‒390 AD)
The administrative province of Roman Palestine During Roman rule in Palestine, and more specifically between 135 AD and 390 AD, Palestine became one of the Provincias of the empire. This is also a period from which many written records were preserved in a variety of languages – Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew –and also covered in the annals and texts of the new religion of Christianity. By this time the name ‘Palestine’ was more than a millennium old and had substantial currency. During the Roman period the official/administrative name of ‘Palestine’ was consolidated and popularised in Latin and Greek, which were the two lingua francas of the Roman Empire and Eastern Mediterranean. These two languages affected trade, administration, education, religion, architecture, diplomacy, coinage and key place names throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
- Palestine, A Four Thousand Year History - - Nur Masalha Chapter 3
There was a province surrounding Jerusalem called Judea (or Yehud province ) by the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans. After the Bar-Kokhba-Uprising, the Romans called it Syria Palaestina. I‘m not trying to say who is allowed to live there and who isn’t. My initial point was, that I don’t believe Netanyahu is threatening to go to war with Europe, because there is no reason to.
Who gives a dsmn Judea was destoyed. It no longer exists. Gaza exists, the west bank exists and is fully palestinian under international law
Judea is a part of the country that is atm called Israel, just like California is a part of the US or Szechuan is a Part of China. I did not claim that Gaza doesn’t exist nor did I claim any „housing rights“ for anyone just based on the name of a province.
The hell are you talking about. I didn’t mean to say that you deny the existence of Gaza but you seems to deny the existence of the west bank since Judea no longer exists it stop existing when Roman destroyed it and Netanyahu and many Zionists refer to the west bank as Judea.
It’s like saying we should refer to Iran as Persia or the Chinese Turpan city as the destroyed city of Jiaohe destroyed by the Mongols . Your logic is so dumb . I am no longer surprised by settler colonial defenders like you
I read a bit more about it and I didn’t know that „Judea“ is used as a propaganda term by Israelian right-wingers. I genuinely thought it was just the name of a region.
I just want to affirm that it’s pretty clear to anyone with 1st grade level reading comprehension that you’re not defending Netanyahu but just pointing out that the title of the post is incorrect. Some of these replies are wild.
I just want to affirm that it’s pretty clear to anyone with 1st grade level reading comprehension that they are defending Netanyahu and spreading Zionist talking points in other comments across this thread. Some of these replies are spot-on.
They are casting Netanyahu’s supposed fears as legitimate. It would be OK if they said that Netanyahu thinks this and that. It is quite a different thing to cast what that deranged criminal thinks as an obvious truth.
I repeat: if they had written “Netanyahu believes that there is a danger of Israel being annihilated and therefore draws a parallel with the Bar-Kochba uprising”, that would have been perfectly fine. What they wrote instead was “Israel is in danger of being annihilated. That’s why Netanyahu draws the parallel”. That is abso-fucking-lutely defending Netanyahu’s ends, even if they say they disagree with his means.
What I wrote was: „Hamas would destroy Israel if they could.“ I‘am absolutely certain they don’t have the military power to do so.
