Famine is Very Near in Gaza Again

Iranian writes:
"
It takes a special kind of historical illiteracy to brand a people as "colonizers" while standing on the ruins of their ancestors' temples. When we strip away the modern political jargon and look at the forensic evidence, the accusation collapses under the weight of archaeology.
As an Iranian, I look at the history of Judea and I do not see a dispute over real estate. I see a crime scene that looks painfully familiar. My own ancestors watched their Zoroastrian Fire Temples destroyed or buried beneath mosques. The method of Islamic expansion has always been building directly on top of the indigenous holy sites to demonstrate that the new power has crushed the old.
This is exactly what happened in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock sits upon the Jewish Temple Mount not by accident, but by design. It was a deliberate act to assert dominance over the preceding faith. Ironically, by building on top of Jewish ruins, the conquerors permanently cemented the proof of who was there first.
If you dig into the soil of this land, you find Hebrew coins, ancient scrolls, and the foundations of synagogues dating back three millennia. You do not find the artifacts of a lost "Palestinian" nation. For centuries, pilgrims and travelers recorded their encounters here. They wrote of Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Druze. Yet there is no record of a distinct "Palestinian" people prior to the twentieth century. That identity is a modern construct, appearing only after the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty.
As the denial of this history becomes a requirement for social acceptance, those who dare to speak the truth are being systematically silenced or intimidated. We have a community where we refuse to capitulate to this pressure and engage in rigorous political analysis, which you can join by visiting" https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/about

 

For fun I thought I'd look up deflecting argument definition. Here's what I found. I deleted some tactics that didn't apply.

Deflecting an argument means shifting blame, focus, or responsibility away from the point under discussion, often using tactics like changing the subject, attacking the other person's character (gaslighting), bringing up past mistakes, or whataboutism to avoid accountability or vulnerability. Instead of addressing the issue, the person redirects the conversation, making the other person feel guilty or confused, and preventing any real resolution.

Common Deflection Tactics:

• Changing the subject: Abruptly switching topics to distract.
• Shifting blame: Pointing fingers at the other person, saying things like, "I only did it because you...".
• Gaslighting: Making the other person doubt their own perceptions, e.g., "You're being too dramatic".
• Whataboutism (Tu Quoque): Responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation of the same nature, e.g., "You're accusing me of lying when you lied last week!".

I think you nailed it NotJoe. A perfect description of the discussion.

 

Typical anti-Israel propoganda.

I’ve seen this pattern a lot in debates about Israel:
once the specific claims are challenged, the conversation shifts from evidence to labeling.

That doesn’t make the original claim stronger — it just ends the discussion prematurely.

If you ever want to return to the issues themselves rather than meta-accusations about motives or tactics, I’m here for that. For now, I’ll let the readers decide which side actually argued the points and which side decided to stop when pressed.

 

HAHAHAHA What total and complete nonsense. You were the one that refused to talk about it. You instead deflected the conversation to how terrible the Palestinians and Hamas are and refusing to address the discriminations against West Bank Palestinians. I'm the one that had to apply your posts to the topic at hand which were the discriminations that opened/allowed the argument that apartheid was occuring. That's exactly how you address any criticism of Israeli actions taken in Gaza by deflecting the conversation by discussing how terrible Hamas is. You've done this so many times that folks here have called it tiresome. Tiresome is the perfect description of my feelings as well.

 

Bill, this is exactly backwards.

I did address the discrimination claims — point by point — and explained why they don’t meet the definition of apartheid.
I went through land/zoning, military courts, movement restrictions, water agreements, family reunification, and settler violence. All of that was on-topic.

You’re now rewriting the conversation as if I only talked about Hamas, which is simply not true.
I discussed Hamas only where it directly explains why certain security measures exist — which is part of the context whether we like it or not.

You’re also accusing me of deflection for addressing the definition of apartheid itself.
But if someone uses a term as serious as “apartheid,” the definition is the discussion.
Ignoring that definition doesn’t make your argument stronger.

The moment I challenged whether the term actually fits, the conversation suddenly became “tiresome,” “stupid,” and “nonsense.” That’s not deflection on my part — that’s frustration on yours.

You’re free to disagree with my conclusion, but the claim that I refused to address the topic just doesn’t line up with what was actually written. I responded on substance. You shifted to talking about motives and tactics.

If you want to debate the issues themselves, I’m always willing.
If the conversation is just going to be accusations of deflection instead of arguments, then there’s nothing left to discuss.

 

the 1973 Apartheid Convention
the Rome Statute of the ICC
South African jurisprudence
because those are binding definitions, not casual ones.

Under those definitions, apartheid requires:

one group racially dominating another

for the purpose of maintaining racial superiority

through permanent, institutionalized oppression


That simply does not apply here:

Israeli Arabs (same ethnicity) have full rights

Palestinians in the West Bank are under a territorial/military regime, not racial separation

No serious organizations arguing the West Bank is apartheid cite Merriam-Webster.

So if we stick with the legal meaning → it’s not apartheid.
If we expand to the dictionary’s metaphorical meaning → the word becomes so vague it applies to half the world.

 

Arabs literally cant buy or lease publicly owned land that Jews can.

 

Inside Israel, Arab citizens absolutely can buy, sell, and lease private land.
Tens of thousands do. There are Arab buyers in mixed cities like Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Lod, Ramla, Jerusalem, etc. There is no blanket ban on Arabs purchasing property in Israel.

In the West Bank, the situation is different because the territory is not part of sovereign Israel and is governed by a military/Oslo framework.
Land allocations there depend on:

Oslo’s division into Areas A, B, and C

Security classification

Protection of survey land, firing zones, and nature reserves

Administrative legal status dating back to Ottoman, Jordanian, and British Mandate laws

None of this is a “Jews can buy, Arabs can’t” racial rule. It’s a mix of historical land law + Oslo agreements + security restrictions + unresolved sovereignty.

4. Meanwhile, Jews cannot buy land in 17 Arab countries at all — by law — simply because they are Jewish.
That is actual ethnic discrimination.
But I don’t see anyone here calling that “apartheid.”

So the claim that “Arabs literally can’t buy or lease publicly owned land that Jews can” is not only inaccurate — it erases the legal complexity and the court rulings that have already required equal treatment in sovereign Israel.

 

I specified public land. Land owned and controlled by the government for which I and many other NGOs are accusing of apartheid.

 

The issue you’re referring to is with certain state-owned or Jewish National Fund (JNF) lands, which are a specific subset of land parcels — not “all publicly owned land.”

Even then, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that state land cannot be leased in a discriminatory way, and the government has had to adjust policies accordingly (Kaadan case, 2000).

 

I never said all land. The majority of publicly owned land is inaccessible to non-Jewish people for lease or ownership.

Israel is an ethno-suprematist society practicing apartheid.

 

No apartheid in Israel, you are spreading lies and anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel is unique and due to Arab-Israeli wars and conflicts there are security measures, and since it's the only designated Jewish state on the planet, it has unique structure.
What do you want, Qatar or Saudis to buy all the land of Israel? Not going to happen.
There is discrimination, but It's noting to compare to Arab countries where there are no Jews, if there are a few, they can't own property or land.

 

It’s a demographic fact that Bethlehem has undergone one of the most dramatic Christian population declines in the region.
In 1950, Christians made up roughly 75–80% of the city.
Today, they are well under 10% — even according to the Palestinian Authority’s own census data.

That didn’t happen in a vacuum.

Local Christian leaders themselves (not Israel, not “Zionists”) have repeatedly warned that under PA governance they face:

Extortion and land theft

Pressure from Islamist groups

Lack of legal protection in disputes with Muslims

Systematic emigration because Christians simply don’t feel secure


This is why Bethlehem — the birthplace of Jesus — is rapidly losing its Christian community.

There’s almost no global outrage. No UN emergency sessions. No headlines. Because the story doesn’t fit the preferred narrative of “Israel = oppressor” and “Palestinians = victims.”

The plight of Palestinian Christians is ignored because acknowledging it would require admitting that the problem is internal governance and intolerant actors, not “occupation.”


If people want to talk about human rights in the region, maybe they should start by asking why Christians are disappearing from areas run by the Palestinian Authority — while Christian communities in Israel are growing, enjoy full legal rights, and have some of the highest levels of Christian educational attainment in the Middle East.

 

Why are Christians leaving occupied Palestine. Have you seen Gaza? Quite a question.

 

The reply the Christian Arabs provide is almost unanimous.
Abuse by Palestinian Atority (Palestinain Atrosity more line it)

Extortion and land theft

Pressure from Islamist groups

Lack of legal protection in disputes with Muslims

Systematic emigration because Christians simply don’t feel secure.

As to Gaza, same problem.
Jihadists sacrificed the Gazans, in the name of Jihad.

Unfortunatly for Christians in Bethlehem, Israel does not govern Bethlehem and therefore cannot directly protect its Christian population.
Since 1995, under the Oslo II Agreement, Bethlehem has been under full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) — not Israel.
Very sad indeed.

 

Israel bombed a catholic church in Gaza.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/17/nx-s1-5471391/israel-hamas-war-gaza-catholic-church-priest

 

That’s unrelated — the incident you mentioned occurred during active combat against Hamas terrorists.
In a war zone, tragic mistakes can happen, regardless of the building’s faith affiliation.
If there had been a synagogue in that area, it likely would have been hit too.
Bringing that up only deflects from the real issue: the systematic mistreatment and intimidation of Arab Christians in Bethlehem under the Palestinian Authority and Islamist influence. That’s a long-term, internal problem, not a wartime casualty.

 

Hamas has been accused of hoarding tonnes of baby food to heap diplomatic pressure on Israel by worsening hunger in Gaza.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hamas-hoarded-baby-milk-manufacture-154623052.html
"A video has emerged purporting to show a warehouse strewn with boxes containing infant formula and nutritional drinks.

It was shared by Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a US-based Gazan activist and researcher, who is a fellow at the respected Atlantic Council think tank.

He said activists had documented a number of similar finds, indicating that: “During the worst of the days of the hunger crisis in Gaza in the past six months, Hamas deliberately hid literal tons of infant formula and nutritional shakes for children by storing them in clandestine warehouses belonging to the Gaza ministry of health.”"

 

Yes, the stupid Netanyahu administration fell for about every Hamas evil trick. What did the USA do when we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, we sent them extra food to make sure that what happened to the stupid Netanyahu administration didn't happen to us. Of course, we didn't want the civilian populations to "disappear". That's another difference.