Gaza was a part of Egypt and the west bank was a part of Jordan until 67. Israeli Arabs (not saying “Israeli Palestinians” as some of them don’t identify as such) were under martial law till the 60s, but still had many rights deprived from other Palestinians and even some minorities in western countries (for example, they had the right to vote).

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

Small children (under 6-7) are exempt from Jewish law. Making breast milk kosher isn’t exactly neccsery, but it makes things much easier (how to keep it, making sure it won’t get mixed with other foods by mistake, what happened if it does etc.) The neat part is that breast milk isn’t considered milk accordingly to Jewish law, so it can be drunk with/right after/before eating meat (otherwise forbidden). This means a person can, and I know at least one who actually did, add breast milk to their coffee after eating meat.

I think we’re on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

First, Ask the colleague why she feels her way is better.

If she says something like “it just is”, reply that while you’re open to other ways to do things, you have a way that currently works for you, and would need a reason to switch your workflows.

If she gives an actual answer, consider it. Maybe it is better than what you’re use to. maybe it’s possible to incorporate both ways to have the best of both worlds. Assuming you still think you way is better, say something along the lines of (I’m basing this on something I said to a co-worker in order not to be too abstract): “I get that doing it your way [is simpler and requires less troubleshooting], but it can also [give wrong results if a thing changes and we forget to correct for it]. My way [corrects for it automatically]. For me, eliminating the risk of [forgetting to manually correct] is worth the need to [do some troubleshooting]. Maybe that’s because you have [better memory] and I’m better at [technical stuff], so we each have a way that works for us, but will not work for the other. I appreciate that you took the time and explained your way of thinking, and I hope you understand why my way is better for me”.

After that, if she still insists, tell her you clearly aren’t able to come to an agreement among yourselves, so maybe it’s better you both talk to the charge nurse if manager or whatever.

The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.

You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.

I think there are a few things that should be taken into account:

1. Hamas stated time and time again that their goal is to take over all of the land that is currently Israel and, to put it extremely mildly, make nearly all the Jewish population not be there.
2. The Oct. 7th attack has shown that Hamas is willing to commit indiscriminate murder, kidnapping and rape to achieve this goal. Some of the the kidnapped civilians are currently held in Gaza.

Israel had no real choice but to launch an attack against Hamas in order to return the kidnapped citizens and neutralize Hamas as a threat. You could say “Yes, that’s because Because of the aforementioned illegal occupation”, but just like the citizens in Gaza have a right to be protected against bombings regardless of what their government did, Israeli citizens have the right to be protected from being murdered, raped or kidnapped.

So, any true solution has to take both these considerations into account. Right now, the Israeli stance is that once Hamas will no longer control Gaza, the war could end (citizens on both sides will be protected). The Hamas stance is that Israel should cease hostilities so they can work on murdering, raping or kidnapping more Israeli citizens. That isn’t to say Israel is just, rather that Israel is willing to accept a solution that stops the killing of both citizen populations, while Hamas is not. The just solution is for the international community to put pressure on both parties to stop hostilities. The problem is that the parts of the world who would like to see a just solution (Eurpoe, the US etc.) are able to put pressure on Israel, while the parts who don’t hold humane values (Iran, Qatar etc.) support Hamas.

Now, regarding the massive civilian casualties in Gaza:

3. Hamas has spent many years integrating their military capabilities into civilian infrastructure. This was done as a strategy, specifically to make it harder for Israel to harm Hamas militants without harming civilians.

I’m not trying to say that all civilians killing in Gaza are justified, rather that it’s extremely hard to isolate military targets. Most international law regarding warfare states that warring parties should avoid harming civilians as much as possible. Just saying “Israel is killing TWICE as many innocent civilians as Hamas, therefore they’re attacking Palestinian people as a whole” doesn’t take this into account what’s possible under in the current situation.

What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

So about that Amnesty report…?

Anyway, after calling me a “cartoon villain Nazi” I don’t really think this discussion can go anywhere. so I’ll go a bit off-topic and say something other readers might find interesting:

About a month ago, I spoke with a Palestinian work-buddy (yes, Palestinian Israelis work with Israeli Jews. In the the same jobs and with the same pay. Apartheid).

I asked him how he’s doing, as he’s not only living in Israel (and therefor a missile can hit his family as well as mine. Yet another area where Palestinian-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis are no different), he has the added bonus of fearing some psycho Jewish supremacist attacking him. He mentioned that the police are monitoring social media, and summoning for investigation Israeli-Palestinian influences who show support for Hamas, threaten them with charges and release them. Me, a cartoon villain Nazi bleeding heart liberal: “wow, I don’t think anyone in their right mind should support Hamas, but summoning people and releasing them without charges just to threaten them… yeah, that’s rough”.

He replied “No, you don’t understand, that wasn’t a criticism. I’m saying that’s a good thing. If that’ll help stop a replay of two years ago [social networks played a large part in encouraging Palestinians to riot. The riots caused a surge in anti-Palestinian violence among Jews], I’m all for it” . I’m still not sure how I feel about that.

Not saying every Palestinian is like him and every Jew is like me. Just… yeah, it’s complicated.

On what basis?

Again, I didn’t see any Israeli source referring to them as “combatants”.

State security - OTHER is indeed not a real charge at all.

What does that mean? It appears in the Israeli law, so it’s as “real” as any other charge. You could say it’s not a justifiable charge, but that wasn’t her claim. She didn’t say “I was arrested for an unjustifiable charge”, rather “I was arrested without charge”.

The word espionage exists as a charge, it is not in her charge.

I think that’s like saying “The word Murder exists as a charge, it is not in her charge” when talking about homicide. Not sure though.

Jailing someone for even 3 months without process is completely insane

Not “without process”, “without trail”. It’s not uncommon for prisoners being held 3 months only to have the charges dropped (regardless of nationality).

Afterwards you go on a journey dismissing this heinous court system as okay

“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. Not saying there aren’t any issues with the way Palestinians are treated in the Israeli court system, but you made some specific claims that I disagree with, and didn’t give any evidence.

Don’t look up the Amnesty report damming Israel for killing their hostages without process in jail.

Sorry, but I actually did try to look it up, and wasn’t able to. Could you please link to it?

The closet thing I was able to find is this, which refers to Palestinian prisoners as, well, prisoners. So even if it’s not the right report, it would seem Amnesty themselves don’t refer to Palestinian prisoners as “hostages”. Could we at least agree on that?

BTW, I didn’t read through the full report, but I find myself agreeing to most of the thing said (most weren’t news to me).

I’m not trying to say Israel did nothing wrong. Israel has done PLENTY of immoral things, and is currently doing plenty of immoral things. I’m saying that Israel isn’t some devil that wants to kill all Palestinians, and has zero regard for their lives (though some Israeli are). It’s extremely complicated.

The op in this thread said: “The Palestinians are getting combatants who were arrested for other attacks by and large."

Right, but you said “The misinformation is calling all the released Palestinians combatants. That seems like the Israeli’s talking point here, which is a fabrication.” I have no reason to assume OP is Israeli. But even if he is, he isn’t representative of most Israeli sources (to the best of my knowledge).

Is there an index for which apartheid states are better than others? That seems like an interesting index.

I was referring to the The Economist Democracy Index. As of 2022, Israel is in the high end of flawed democracies (between Portugal and the US). Not saying that’s the end-all-be-all of democratic Indices, but it is the most widely known and commonly used, so it’s a good rule of thumb.

You’re right, calling all the released prisoners “Palestinians combatants” would be wrong. Can you please point me to a source calling them that? I only saw something similar in far right Israeli news sites, who call them “terrorists” (all other sites call them “prisoners”).

Yes, all of these people are charged by the Israeli state, an apartheid state oppressing the Palestinian people. They can make up whatever charges they want. Who believes them?

If we assume a state-wide conspiracy, any state can make up whatever charges it wants. There’s no real way to prove that’s wrong. However, there are a few indicators I can think of - what’s the democracy index of said state? is that state’s judiciary system regarded internationally as being generally good? Do other democratic states believe said state? Has said state been caught in many lies regarding its judiciary system?

Going by these indicators, Israel’s status is at least OK. Not perfect, and if you’d like I can point out quite a few issues, especially regarding the treatment of Palestinians, but they do not “make up” charges as a general modus operandi.

Yeah, I’d like to address that.

This message turned out a bit longer than I intended, but I really tried to give the best answer I can.

First off, the video takes statements from the Palestinians released and conveyed them as-is. It’s extremely hard to verify things like that, so there’s absolutely no basis saying my comment is a “blatant lie” unless you automatically assume every Palestinians statement is the objective truth. If that’s the case, feel free to skip the rest of this post as there’s nothing I can say to make you re-evaluate your position.

I could just say “If you claim Palestinians have been kidnapped without any evidence or charges and held as hostage, please show me some evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims made by a party who has a vested interest in making false claims”. I thing that’s a valid claim, but as you can see, I do have a bit more to say. I’ve actually tried to check her statement when the video was posted earlier (not so I could argue about it, just to be informed).

First off, many of the Palestinians approved for release have been charged with serious crimes (some, though they might not have been release yet, as Israel is trying to release them from least serious to most serious). Even Al-Jazeera said most Palestinians released were charged with “small” crimes such as throwing rocks. So which is it - Are Palestinians being kidnapped without charges, or are they being charged with minor crimes? If some were kidnapped and some were legally arrested, would calling them “hostages” not be as inaccurate as calling them “prisoners”?

There’s only one Palestinian who said she was held without charges, not “many” as you claimed. It’s also worth noting she said she was “due to be released in October”, so I think it’s odd calling her a “hostage” (hostages usually don’t get released if a certain time has passed. that’s more correctly called a “detainee”).

Going from her age and arrest date, there’s only one 24yo female Palestinian who was detained in October and approved for release. I won’t try to write her name in English, as there’s 0% chance I’ll get it right, but in Hebrew it’s רגד נשאת צלאח אל פני (copy-paste the name to find her details, which can be translated via google translate).

Assuming that’s her, she was charged with “State security - other”, which is a general charge that can include espionage, giving information to the enemy, inciting violence and more. I will admit it’s a general charge, and the fact she was due to be released shows the Israeli state wasn’t able to make it stick.

So why did she say she was being held without a charge? Don’t know. Maybe in her mind “state security” isn’t a valid charge. Maybe she was exaggerating. Maybe she’s lying (yes, even oppressed people can lie). Maybe she was told her charge would be amended (that makes sense. As I said, “State security” is a general crime). Or maybe I found the wrong person. The point is, I did really try to find more information based on the video, and was unable to substantiate her claims. If you have any other source for similar claims, I’d be very interested to hear about them.

I live in Israel, and I’ll agree that a lot of times Palestinians are treated badly. I’m even prone to think the person in the video should have been freed after 3 months instead of 12. That said, there’s a far cry from that to saying Palestinians are kidnapped without evidence and being held without trial.

The question was about why are Palestinians in Israel are called “prisoners” and Israelis in Gaza are “hostages”, in the context of the people exchanged during the truce. The person I replied to said some “prisoners” in Israel are held without trial, to which I replied they are not called “prisoners”, and are not part of the exchange.

So… could you explain the point you’re trying to make? If that’s just some general point about Israel treating Palestinians unjustly, that’s fine (I actually agree with you to some extent), but I don’t see how that has to do with the difference between two specific groups of Palestinians and Israelis.

Yes, but also no.

Palestinians who are held without trial are held in administrative detention, that’s usually done if the person poses an immediate danger, but the evidence isn’t up to the legal standard (a judge still has to approve the arrest). It’s also used against Jewish citizens (though admittedly much less. IIRC there are two Jews held in administrative detention right now).

Absolutely none of the Palestinians held in administrative detention are about to be set free, and they aren’t regarded as “standard” prisoners (they are always referred as “administrative detainees”, never “prisoners”).

Hi, Israeli here. You didn’t really point out any misinformation, the linked article just gives some (IMO wrong and even misleading) context.

The majority of the rest of the names are of boys aged 16-18. However, there are also boys as young as 14 on the list.

The 14 year old kid was charged for hostile sabotage activity, gathering or association, attacking a police officer under serious circumstances, throwing stones, negligence and general recklessness, maliciously or negligently causing damage to property, arson on nationalistic grounds, weapons/ammunition/explosives. Also, it’s worth noting his trial was ongoing.

Prisoners have been convicted of crimes including carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Other common offenses detailed in Israel’s list include […]

Ehh… technically true, but very misleading. Usually, there are a few charges, some more serious than others. The 14yo kid could be described as “charged with negligence and general recklessness”, but that wouldn’t be the whole picture. Here’s a link to a list of 300 prisoners due to be released. It’s in Hebrew, but copy-pasting into google translate is good enough to understand the charges:

https://www.gov.il/he/departments/dynamiccollectors/is-db?skip=0

In the first page, there are 2 prisoners charged with carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Both are also charged with attempted murder (one is 17 years old, btw).

And regarding “associating with hostile/unknown organisations”, from what I could tell, this means that the prisoner was charged with being affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Not to mention they massacred more than 1,000 citizens). So this might be my Israeli bias speaking, but… what’s unreasonable with throwing them to prison? Would being affiliated with ISIS or Al-Qaeda not carry a prison sentence?

“The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children,” said a report published in July by children’s rights organisation, Save the Children.

Yes, “can carry”. A 20 year sentence is only applicable if the rocks were thrown at a moving vehicle with intent to cause harm. without proving intent, the sentence is 10 years. Children are not explicitly mentioned (though the reality is that most rock throwers are minors). In practice, the courts try to avoid sentencing minors who are charged mainly with rock throwing to prison, and even when they are sentenced to prison it’s for a few months.