During the last month there were not 1, not 10, not 100 but 807 alerts in Israel for missile attacks. Some of them weren’t fired by Hezbollah, and some might have been the same alert in different areas, but that’s still about 7 missile PER DAY even if we assume only 1 in 4 alerts was due to an attack by Hezbollah (side note: during the entire war, about 2,000 missile were launched from Lebanon to Israel, that’s an average of about 6 per day). In addition to this, there were 452 aircraft intrusion alerts. Most of these attacks are against civilian targets.

Right now, there are about 79 thousand people (around 0.8% of total population) who are still evicted for nearly a year from northern Israel.

And just in case it needs to be said - the first attack was made by Hezbollah (on Oct. 8th) and without any provocation by Israel.

Not only is this a situation no sovereign country can stand, but it’s also a violation of the Lebanon-approved UN Security Council’s resolution 1701, that was the basis for ending the 2006 Lebanon War. Hell, just having missiles in the area is by itself a violation of the resolution.

Regarding political reasoning - A war in Lebanon is actually bad for Netanyahu. His interest is a slow-burning war so he can prolong the current situation as much as possible (once the war is over, the pubic will demand an election). In fact, that’s probably the main reason you had “a missile here and a bomb there” and not an actual war.

No no, they meant first of many unfulfilled promises.

Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.

Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.

Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).

You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.

The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.

Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?

To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid  a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.

Hi, Israeli here.

I’ll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I’ve left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who’s interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.

The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I’ll refer to as “Israelis” for simplicity’s sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.

Saying “I don’t see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide” forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) “I didn’t see any signs that talk about ‘all life matters’ in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives”, so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it’s some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.

So, let’s go:

Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn’t get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to “own the libs”. There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.

However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that’s shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:

1. The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren’t “citizens”, “people” or even “fellow Jews”. They’re “The niece of my dentist”, “My ex’s uncle”, “The daughter of friends of my colleague” etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who’s been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that’s free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn’t that the hostages “should” be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That’s important for later).

2. Hamas must be destroyed. If they’re allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).

These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.

3. What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it’s absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).

I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn’t nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.

Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left  leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn’t really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).

Oh, wait, just one other thing - There’s a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man “you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?” The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says “Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this” he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue “is the synagogue where I wouldn’t be caught dead in”. Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian’s The People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front. So when I say “there are two groups”, it’s more like “there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps”.

You’d think this leads to a society that’s fractured on many levels so that it can’t really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.

So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what’s happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole “putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal” and the “The hostages must be returned”? That’s the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That’s the reason you won’t see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters’ minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don’t really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon’s “law and order” campaign would have failed and he’d have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I’m wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they’re saying “You don’t have to join us because you’re a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that’s what’s best for our country”.

I’d like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says “The IDF is killing innocent people”.

So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I’d like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.

I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the “genocide” unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don’t agree with Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don’t believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don’t understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).

I’d like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there’s a “minimum casualty” that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?

Not saying that’s the case, but that’s what I was able to come up with. Maybe I’m missing some context.

And before you say that’s just whataboutism - I don’t think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).

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.

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.

Andromeda really picks up in season 2. Not a amazing, but it’s very good.

There’s a bit of confusion between owning a company and owning the shares. A company can buy shares of itself, but that does not grant it control of itself. Let’s say Cute Puppies inc. has 200 shares (so 200 shares = 100% ownership). You and I have 50 shares each, and the rest is distributed among many other holders (we’ll call them “the public”). So, we each own 25% of the company and the public collectively owns 50%. Now Cute Puppies inc. bought all shares held by the public, so it has 100 shares and we each have 50 shares. But a company can’t control itself by definition (it still has the shares and can sell them, but it can’t use those shares to vote, appoint directors etc.), so now we each own 50% of the company.