Say no to authoritarianism, say yes to socialism. Free Palestine 🇵🇸 Everyone deserves Human Rights

  • 125 Posts
  • 1.01K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 18th, 2023

help-circle



  • Anti-immigrant sentiment has always been thinly veiled racism in America. Islamophobia, which is normalized in America, hasn’t even been thinly veiled, it’s just been straight up racist. But Americans have been conditioned into just thinking it’s just normal, dehumanizing Muslims and all non-white immigrants without being aware of it (It’s intentional to the US State Department ofc, to justify it’s imperialism)

    I hope this is the catalyst for Americans to confront this for the racism it is. I feel like many still think racism has been ‘solved’ in America since the Civil Rights Movement, but the reality is that it simply shifted and still needs to be addressed seriously


  • Hezbollah wants to destroy Zionism, that includes ending Israeli occupation of any people, from Lebanese to Syrian to Palestinian. Hezbollah only exists because of Israel.

    1982

    The 1982 Lebanon war began on 6 June 1982, when Israel invaded again for the purpose of attacking the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Israeli army laid siege to Beirut. During the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, mostly civilians.

    On 16 February 1985, Shia Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared a manifesto in Lebanon, announcing a resistance movement called Hezbollah, whose goals included combating the Israeli occupation. During the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) the Hezbollah militia waged a guerrilla campaign against Israeli forces occupying Southern Lebanon and their South Lebanon Army proxies.

    Israeli Withdrawal

    Throughout the painstaking process of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, Hizballah was at pains to declare its commitment to recovering the last millimeter of Lebanese territory, but it also acknowledged that it would not act hastily to reinitiate violence. In sum, Hizballah’s behavior and deference to state authority have worked to its political advantage. It reaped recognition in an unprecedented meeting between Nasrallah and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who praised Hizballah’s restraint and its promise of cooperation. The meeting with Annan offers a remarkable contrast with Hizballah’s earlier days, when it was hostile to the UN and especially to the UN force in the south.

    Without an agreement between Syria and Israel, there will be little pressure on Hizballah to disarm. Syria’s calculated strategy is to allow Hizballah to serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of continuing to occupy the Golan Heights.This is a role that Hizballah is happy to play, given its enmity toward Israel. At the same time, it remains profoundly aware of the political costs of bringing destruction down on the heads of its supporters, and this further reduces the prospect that Hizballah will initiate attacks on Israel

    It’s difficult to quote from the article, so read the full paper for more context and details

    2006

    The doctrine is named after the Dahiya suburb of Beirut, where the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has its headquarters, which the Israeli military leveled during its assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 that killed nearly 1,000 civilians, about a third of them children, and caused enormous damage to the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants, sewage treatment plants, bridges, and port facilities.

    It was formulated by then-General Gadi Eisenkot when he was Chief of Northern Command. As he explained in 2008 referring to a future war on Lebanon: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.” Eisenkot went on to become chief of the general staff of the Israeli military before retiring in 2019.

    While it became official Israeli military doctrine after Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, Israel’s military has used disproportionate force and targeted Palestinian, Lebanese, and other civilians since Israel was established in 1948 based on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians, including dozens of massacres to force them to flee for their lives.

    Hezbollah’s ideology is both Anti-zionist and anti-judiaism, which Amal Saad-Ghorayeb can analyze and describe far better than I can. The anti-Judaist sentiment should absolutely be condemned and called out.

    Anti-Zionism and Israel (Chapter 7)

    Hizbu’llah’s reluctance to grant Israel recognition is rooted in its rendition of the origins of the Israeli state, which it unequivocally portrays as a ‘rape’ or ‘usurpation’ of Palestinian land, there by rendering it a state which ‘is originally based on aggression’. By extension, the continued existence of the Israeli state constitutes ‘an act of aggression’, insofar as it represents a perpetuation of the original act of aggression. Therefore, Hizbu’llah ‘does not know of anything called Israel’. It only knows a land called ‘occupied Palestine’. In fact, the party never refers to the state of Israel as such, but to ‘occupied Palestine’ or ‘the Zionist entity’.

    • pg 134

    Based on the party’s delegitimisation of the Israeli state, its excoria-tion of Israeli state and society and its emphasis on the Zionist essence of both, certain existential elements of Hizbu’llah’s conflict with Israel can be readily discerned. Upon closer examination of these elements, the following three existential themes emerge: the party’s legitimisation of the use of violence against an essentially Zionist society; its rejection of the notion of a negotiated peace settlement with the Israeli state; and its pursuit of the liberation of Palestine.

    • pg 142

    According to the party, this aspiration to return ‘every grain of Palestinian soil’ to its rightful owners necessitates Israel’s ‘oblit-eration from existence’. Put simply, the reconstitution of one state is contingent upon the annihilation of another. The only way that the Palestinians can return to Jerusalem, and the ‘original Palestineof 1948’ generally, is for all Jews, with the exception of those native to Palestine, to ‘leave this region and return to the countries from whence they came’

    • pg 162
    Anti-Judaism (Chapter 8)

    Although Zionism and Judaism are synonymous in Hizbu’llah’s lexicon, the resulting confluence of the party’s anti-Zionism and anti-Judaism does not render the latter contingent upon the former. While there may be some truth in the contention propounded by some scholars that the conflict with Zionism has been the chief cause of Arab anti-Semitism, in the case of contemporary Islam, and Hizbu’llah in particular, it would be more appropriate to state that Zionism has greatly impacted on an existing, yet latent, anti-Judaism. Although this might be hard to determine, especially since Hizbu’llah owes its birth to Israel’s occupation of Lebanon, and hence to Zionism, the anti-Judaism of Hizbu’llah is detached from Zionism insofar as Islam is staunchly anti-Judaic.

    If we are to employ Lewis’ criteria for anti-Semitism, we would be led to the ineluctable conclusion that Islamic anti-Judaism closely resembles anti-Semitism in that it both demonises the Jews and, according to at least to one Qur’anic verse, accuses them of conspiring against humanity. The following excursus will strive to illustrate Islam’s deep-rooted animosity towards the Jews by examining several Qur’anic verses which pertain to the Jews or the Children of Israel. The objective of this analysis is to show that, while Hizbu’llah’s anti-Judaism is to a considerable extent influenced by Zionism, it is not contingent upon it.

    • pg 174


  • Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place. Israel has been the only one to reject the UN Resolution 3-Stage Permanent Ceasefire put forth by the US. So how do you think that both sides don’t want peace? One side wants the end of a violent apartheid settler colonialist occupation, the other wants the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people from Palestine.

    Quote

    During the current war, Hamas officials have said that the group does not want to return to ruling Gaza and that it advocates for forming a government of technocrats to be agreed upon by the various Palestinian factions. That government would then prepare for elections in Gaza and the West Bank, with the intention of forming a unified government.

    Before that, 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

    Israel has always been the obstacle for peace, because it is a Settler Colonialist Ethnostate founded on, and ever continuing, ethnic cleansing

    Settlements

    Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

    This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.

    The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:

    Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:

    While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements

    The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

    State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.

    The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.

    One or Two State Solution

    The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.

    • Avi Shlaim

    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

    Hamas officials should be held accountable for all war crimes committed, same as all Israeli officials. That said, there are many parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Gaza.

    In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai, an Israeli, has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video




  • Haaretz is still reviewed by Israel before publication, like all Israeli and even Western Media Outlets, but they can still put out credible news. I’d say when it comes to Israeli News Coverage, Haaretz and 972+ Magazine put out the most credible coverage of what’s going on. However within Israel they have a very small audience compared to the main Right Wing News Outlets, that may be why they get away with being more critical of the Israeli Government. However that doesn’t mean Haaretz is immune to posting misinformation.

    They are good to use for many subjects on Israel - Palestine, but it also shows the importance of using multiple sources. Cross referencing articles with works of Historians, like Ilan Pappe or Avi Schlaim to name a couple, and also Human Rights Organizations like B’TSelem or Amnesty, is critical for getting a comprehensive view of the situation.










  • That’s not addressing the root cause. Decriminalization wasn’t the issue. Not also providing free and readily available access to mental health and addiction social services was the issue.

    Quotes

    With the backing of psychologists and other health-care professionals, the law decriminalized the use and possession of up to 10 days’ worth of narcotics or other drugs for individuals’ own use. (Dealers still go to jail.) Instead of facing prison time and criminal records, users who are caught by police go before a local three-person commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction, a panel typically composed of a lawyer plus some combination of a physician, psychologist, social worker or other health-care professional with expertise in drug addiction.

    The commission assesses whether the individual is addicted and suggests treatment as needed. Nonaddicted individuals may receive a warning or a fine. However, the commission can decide to suspend enforcement of these penalties for six months if the individual agrees to get help—an information session, motivational interview or brief intervention—targeted to his or her pattern of drug use. If that happens and the person doesn’t appear before the commission again during the six-month period, the case is closed.

    Shifting from a criminal approach to a public health one—the so-called Portugal model—has had dramatic results. According to a New York Times analysis, the number of heroin users in Portugal has dropped from about 100,000 before the law to just 25,000 today. Portugal now has the lowest drug-related death rate in Western Europe, with a mortality rate a tenth of Britain’s and a fiftieth of the United States’. The number of HIV diagnoses caused by injection drug use has plummeted by more than 90 percent. Delegates from the United States and other nations—including APA’s Amanda Clinton, PhD, senior director for international affairs—arrive regularly to see the model firsthand.

    “You cannot work with people when they’re afraid of being caught and going to prison,” says psychologist Francisco Miranda Rodrigues, president of the Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses. “It’s not possible to have an effective health program if people are hiding the problem.”



  • NERMEEN SHAIKH:

    Lara Bitar, so, if you could tell us a little bit more about how you think Hezbollah might respond to a possible invasion? And also explain Resolution — U.N. Resolution 1701, because the U.N. secretary-general, speaking Wednesday, he warned that Lebanon is at the brink, calling for an urgent ceasefire, but he also called for the implementation of U.N. Resolutions 1559 and 1701.

    LARA BITAR:

    I can’t really predict how Hezbollah will respond, but what we know is that, so far, Hezbollah has continuously tried to deescalate. Hezbollah is not targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure. They have consistently aimed their weapons at military infrastructure and sites and soldiers, even after the pager attack, the walkie-talkie attack, repeated campaigns on Dahieh. Just a few minutes ago, before I joined you, Dahieh was yet again bombarded by the Israelis. I think this is the eighth attack on the Lebanese capital. Despite all of this escalation from the Israeli side, Hezbollah remains restraint, continues to try to deescalate. And the only ask here, which is not a really unreasonable ask, is for Israel to immediately end its war on the Palestinian people of Gaza after 11 months.

    As far as U.N. resolutions, for the most part, they’re not legally binding. For the most part, they’re not respected. The 1701 Resolution, that was adopted after the 2006 war, is habitually, if not daily, violated by the Israelis in a variety of different ways. That’s why the majority of the Lebanese population is not holding its breath waiting for a U.N. resolution or for the Security Council or even for the international community. I think not just the people in Lebanon, but people around the world have completely lost faith in the so-called international order, the rule of law.

    So, right now we can only expect things to get significantly worse. So long as the international community does not take any action to halt the insanity and the barbarism of the Israeli state, so long as the Western world continues to supply the Israelis with weapons, with support, with diplomatic cover, we have very little chance of seeing an end to this campaign anytime soon.

    But on the other hand, what people can do, people anywhere can boycott Israel, can put pressure on their institutions, on their universities, on the corporations in which they work, and to divest from Israel. The only chance that we have is for the world and for comrades around the world to put this kind of pressure on their governments and on their institutions to isolate Israel, because Israel will only stop this campaign and this war around the region if it becomes too costly for it. And right now it’s not paying any kind of price for its actions.