The United Nations said on Sunday Israeli tanks had burst through the gates of a base of its peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, the latest accusation of Israeli violations and attacks that have been denounced by Israel’s own allies.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the United Nations to evacuate the troops of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force from combat areas in Lebanon. Hours later, the force reported what it described as additional Israeli violations, including two Israeli Merkava tanks destroying the main gate of a base and forcibly entering before dawn that morning.
Soon after the tanks left, shells exploded 100 metres away, releasing smoke which blew across the base and sickened U.N. personnel, causing 15 to require treatment despite wearing gas masks, it said. It did not say who fired the shells or what sort of toxic substance it suspected.
It also accused Israel’s IDF military of halting a logistics convoy. The Israeli military did not immediately respond to the statement.
EDIT: After further research, and a few high-school level insults, I’m fairly certain, given the mind-boggling complexities of what went down in 1948, (like to what degree the British are to blame for however much of the violence, or how did the population of Arab-Jews factor into anything) that I am seriously under qualified to make the assessment that I made. I’m not sure anyone even can (although numerous books have written about it, one of which my Zionist parents tried to push on me), unless they were a truly neutral, on the ground observer at the time. (Maybe it’s another reason to have a different term, since saying it is loaded doesn’t even seem sufficient.)
I wish people would stop throwing around the term Zionist willy-nilly. It’s not accurate to the situation, and I don’t understand why it was twisted into this weird genocidal war-mongering meaning that has nothing to do with the word itself.Now, clearly, there is a large portion of the Israeli government/military/and I guess, population, that is intent on genocide and war mongering, and it’s sickening and they need to be stopped.
I just don’t like this term being used inaccurately. Maybe I’m being pedantic.The term “Zionist” itself does not inherently imply war-mongering or a desire for genocide. Zionism originally refers to the movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel, beginning in the late 19th century. It emerged as a response to centuries of persecution, including pogroms in Europe, and sought to create a safe, sovereign space for Jews.However, over time, some have associated Zionism, especially in its modern form, with certain political actions taken by the State of Israel. Critics of Israeli policies, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, may use “Zionist” to refer to those who support aggressive military actions or expansionist policies, which clearly are contributing to extreme violence and the attempted genocide of Palestinians. This is where the connotation of war-mongering or even genocidal intent comes into play, often in highly polarized or emotionally charged discussions.It’s important to note that many Zionists strongly reject these characterizations. They argue that Zionism is about self-determination for Jewish people. Equating Zionism with war-mongering or genocide often reflects political bias or misunderstanding of the broader spectrum of Zionist thought, which ranges from more moderate to more hardline positions.The term can thus be polarizing, with very different meanings and implications depending on the speaker’s perspective and the context.
Zionism is a settler colonial ideology that aims at creating a Jewish ethno-state in Palestine. It cannot exist without violence. You can’t colonize someone else’s land without violence, and you can’t commit this violence without rationalizing it through dehumanizing the colonized. The genocide against the indigenous Palestinians is the logical consequence of their dehumanization that spans now over more than a century.
You people are like leftist zombies, you just mindlessly repeat the same phrases over and over and over again. Of course you can’t engage with the issues beyond your catchphrases and clam up as soon as someone starts challenging you.
And you’re making such a compelling counter argument.
deleted by creator
I would love some citations, because my research did not indicate any kind of requirement for a Jewish ethno-state inside Gaza. Palestine and Israel are the same thing, so that’s what the settlement was about. Not Gaza.
Because you genuinely seem to care I think 10 myths about Israel by Ilan Pappe would be a relevant resource. I think it’s a nice compromise between working scientifically (I.e. citing sources where necessary) and being accessible. It’s not a scientific book but it’s written by a credible Israeli researcher.
I will be honest, it’s very biased in a sense that it’s anti-Zionist. But I think once you read about the history of Zionism it’s difficult to remain unbiased about it.
That being said, a lot of damage has been done by the British before the establishment of Israel and a lot of damage has been done since it’s establishment, but the book also offers a perspective for moving on.
This perspective would be the establishment of an actual democratic state with equal rights for everyone and an acknowledgment of the rights of Palestinians to their land, their culture, and their history. Such a democratic state is possible, and it would not favor any ethnicity or religion. And here’s the catch: it would go against the Zionist ideology because it wouldn’t be a „Jewish“ state anymore (more like ethno-supremacist).
I hope that makes sense and I think other commenters may have snapped at you too fast .
You are the second person to recommend this. Not only am I going to purchase a physical copy, but I’m going to craftily leave it sitting on my parents’ coffee table when I’m done.
The ethno-state problem exists regardless of where you draw the lines. A state cannot be both designed for ethnic superiority and treat those from other ethnicities as equals. You can’t maintain that inequality without violence.
Are you intentially being obtuse or just incredibly stupid? In order to create the Jewish ethno-state called “israel” the people who lived there were murdered, raped, and forcibly displaced. Furthermore, in the time since its creation, they have been excluded from having citizenship and representation in the government. This is known as apartheid. Within this ethno-state, these non-jews have continued to be evicted from their homes. And no, you subject changing genocide supporter, I am not talking about gaza or the west bank, though the crimes in those places are also numerous. So, again, I ask, when you make the claim that zionism is not a settler colonial belief, are you being intentionally obtuse or are you incredibly stupid?
So…that’s a no to any citations?
I’m not the same person, dumbass.
This is almost entirely false.
This isn’t about religion. Don’t use the word Jew or Arab. This is a conflict between Zionists and Palestinians.
Yes, there have always been Jews in Palestine. The creation of Israel was an act by European zionists and the UK. Yes, when a foreign invader arrives and declares their own state (this after the land was taken from the ottomans by the UK) the local population and supporting neighbors tend to fight back. Would you accept foreigners coming to your country demanding it be partitioned? When only 64% of the population is allowed to participate in the government, the vast majority of them from one ethnic group, there is a problem. There is no path to Israeli citizenship for those in Gaza or the West Bank.
You clearly are a supporter of the geonicide, the settlements, the throwing Palestinians out of their homes, burning their fields, killing, raping, spitting on them as they walk the street below in jerseleum, and the myriad of crimes isrealis commit daily. You can not dismiss these crimes by belittling me, that only reveals you without your mask on.
Precision in language is a worthy goal, and another thread and time would be a fine place for a discussion about Theodore Herzl being a gigantic piece of shit who was a wrecker for what may have been a nobler movement among successful high-status Jews in wealthier parts of the Pale of Settlement during one extremely narrow time and context.
Unfortunately, you can’t just start a conversation that’s the equivalent of “swastikas are good luck charms” without seeming like an asshole.
Oh I knew I would seem like an asshole. Fortunately this is the internet, and there aren’t really penalties for that (for better or worse). And yes, I am actually very intrigued by the discussion you propose. I’ve also been reading further after people started replying to my comment. I’m fairly certain, given the mind-boggling complexities of what went down in 1948, (like to what degree the British are to blame for however much of the violence, or how did the population of Arab-Jews factor into anything) that I am seriously under qualified to make the assessment that I made. I’m not sure anyone even can (although numerous books have written about it, one of which my Zionist parents tried to push on me), unless they were a truly neutral, on the ground observer at the time. I think I will append my comment, but leave it up, since I own what I said, despite how views can rapidly evolve.
Thank you for clarifying, and good luck on your quest. Arab Jews and local Palestinian Jews later termed Mizrahi were treated particularly awfully by the Zionists, there was even a false-flag Zionist militia bombing of an Iraqi Jewish synagogue.
For your earlier questions, I recommend chapters 1 through 6 of Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappé if you haven’t encountered it already.
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2430-ten-myths-about-israel