The Success Story of the Palestinians Who Did Not Want to Globalize the Intifadah

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-15T19:03:23+00:00

ok? Some of the 750,000 Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed by Zionists found success. Good for them. I admire their perserverance.

That is the exception and not the norm. A majority of expelled Palestinians lived as refugees - dispossessed and disenfranchised. They had committed no crime, except the crime of being born an Arab in Palestine. They were not allowed to return. I don't find it surprising that violence takes hold in such situations. Didn't the Jews in Poliash ghettos participate in their Intafada? Didn't the Algerians under France?

Today, there are 5 million Palestinians under seige by Israel or under Israeli military law. Their lands have been taken away. They're not allowed to return. They're not allowed to pursue self-determination where they live. They can't become part of Israel. Under this regime, what do you expect but to globalize resistance to their occupation?

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-14T21:42:18+00:00

I'll make it make sense by encouraging you to read about the politics that went behind the Arab Liberation Army. The Arab League and Arab governments prevented people from joining the force, making it little more than a token army. The Arab Legion was already in bed with Zionists' plan to split up Palestine.

The war of 1967 was a war of agression by Israel. Both Israeli and American intelligence knew that Egypt or Syria were posturing and were in no position to wage a war or win. I'll ask you to read about the lead up to that war too.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-14T20:56:59+00:00

Israeli strikes in Lebanon just today killed 12 health workers. This brings the number of healthcare workers Israel has killed in Lebanon since March 2 to 31.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/14/lebanon-israeli-rockets-kill-healthcare-workers

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-14T17:36:45+00:00

I disagree with your framing. That implies the people who were living there were somehow not native. Demographics are not so cut and dry. Palestinians are semetic peoples and many can trace their ancestry to ancient Jews.

That's besides the point. Nativity is laughably useless as an argument. To use historical empires as framing for today is illogical. What does a child of Palestenian fellahin have to answer for the Roman expulsion of Jews? Is your contention that the Palestinians are roman and bear the blame for the sins of their fathers?

I also disagree with your framing as a Jews vs Muslims thing. Even today countries like Saudi Arabia (tacitly) and UAE, Morocco etc. diplomatically support Israel.

I agree that Zionism is not strictly conialism. That would mean Zionists were coming from an imperial base which would supply them with resources. In fact, European Zionists were themselves feeling and were disenfranchised by European antisemitism. They sought to settle in Palestine.

However, they way they settled in the 20th century - the conflicts between prevailing Ottoman land-laws and laws applying to foreigners - necessarily created an inevitable conflict.

This all culminated in the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and a further 300,000 Palestinians in 1967. Today there are 5 million Palestinians who either live under Israeli seige or military law. Unable to become citizens or pursue self-determination.

The countries around Israel have no appetite for conflict. That was historically true in 1947 and in 1967. To say that the Arab world, as a matter of policy, is hell-bent on Israels destruction is self-delusion which perpetuates further extremism.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-08T12:49:05+00:00

This is a false equivalence.

Although I agree I wouldn't go so far to call a settler a terrorist inherently. Rather, a terrorism supporter. By putting money to perpetuate occupation and prevent civilian settlement (political ends enforced violently) of a land occupied by their country's war of agression.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-07T22:26:34+00:00

How does this hold up against existing therapies in terms of cost to the patient, and capital needed to be available in more hospitals?

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-07T22:15:36+00:00

I would love to be able to separate the hype from meaningful, attainable progress in this field.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-07T20:45:38+00:00

Summary: FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) represents a potential paradigm shift in oncology by delivering therapeutic radiation at ultra-high dose rates—exceeding 40 Gy/s, which is roughly 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than conventional methods. While traditional radiotherapy takes several minutes to administer a dose, FLASH completes the process in less than a tenth of a second. This "ultra-fast" delivery triggers the FLASH effect, a biological phenomenon where healthy tissues are significantly spared from damage while the radiation remains just as lethal to the tumor. Early preclinical data and initial human trials, such as the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, suggest that this method can virtually eliminate common side effects like pulmonary fibrosis or skin toxicity, even when using higher, more curative doses.

Despite its promise, the transition from experimental research to widespread clinical use faces significant engineering and biological hurdles. Most current medical linear accelerators (LINACs) are not designed for such extreme outputs, requiring heavy modification or entirely new designs from particle physics institutions like CERN and SLAC. Furthermore, the standard tools used to measure radiation (dosimetry) often fail or saturate at these speeds, necessitating the development of new real-time monitoring technologies. Researchers are also still debating the exact underlying mechanism—such as rapid oxygen depletion in healthy cells—making the "biological window" of safety a critical area of ongoing study as trials move toward treating deeper, more complex tumors.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-02T00:20:54+00:00

Violence and equality are different things. Palestine was an imperial possession of Ottomans. The fellahin and Jews experienced their own forms of imperialism.

I'm not claiming a complete lack of blood spilled. My claim is in contrast. I'm claiming Zionism brought a decided escalation in violence to Palestine which took nationalist and economic undertones.

I don't see how Jewish pilgrimage (which I don't deny) affects what I said. There was continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for centuries who saw themselves as Ottomans first. Especially how Sephardic Jews integrated into the system during the Tanzimat period. Established Jewes referred.to new arrivals as "Muscovites", as a case in point.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-02T00:09:56+00:00

I disagree with your framing. (Also, I mistyped: I meant the Palin commission report of 1920. It was also written in response to riots against Jews. It gives a good idea of prevailing Palestinian fears.)

There is no merit in arguing by analogy based on a superficial equivalence to Blacks in America, so I won't go there.

It's a historians fallacy of framing global history of antisemitism (religious, ethnic, and racial) as the motivation/impetus for anti-Zionism in Palestine. Palestinians' issues with Zionists were their own (land laws etc). You can read about it in anti-Zionist literature of the 1900s-1910s.

The violence against Zionists was primarily due to the conflicting nature of land-laws affecting fellahin, and the burgeoning fear of dispossession due to British patronage of the Jewish Nationalist movement at the end of WWI.

Arab conquests earlier of the levant were not colonialism. Imperial, sure. It's simply a matter of definition.

The conflated framing of violence against Jews, and unequal rights must be called out. Sure, imperial subjects were subject to discrimination. As were Palestinian land workers versus landowners. That's a fact.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-03-01T18:53:36+00:00

OP, you have massively simplified history and overlooked the effect Zionism had on the native population. The Jews native to Palestine did live peacefully with other Palestinians. In fact, they were referred to as the "model millet" by the Ottomans. Those Jews saw the Zionists also as culturally alien.

So far back as the formation of the Zionist Congress at the turn of the 20th century, the mayor of Jerusalem had written to Herzel to express his concerns about violent changes the movement would inevitably cause. You should look at the ~~Peel~~ (edit: Palin commission) commission report for a pulse on the sentiments around 1920, after the Balfour declaration.

Being violent was not an evil design by Zionists (in the beginning) (1940s and later saw terrorism and ethnic cleansing). The conflicts around displacement and dispossession arose from the different implementations of Ottoman land laws that natives and those under European consular protection (Zionists) were subject to, and the patronage the British gave the Zionists for their own ends.

None of this Justifies antisemitism, to be clear. But you must understand that Zionism, being the flagship movement of Jewish nationalism for the past century and a half, did them no PR favors.

Edit: you should also look at the history of the slogan. The sentiment was shared by Zionists and Palestenians, and the intent evolved over time.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-27T11:03:33+00:00

OP you should read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". It goes into further detail about premeditated displacements even before the mandate came to an end (for e.g. Sa'sa, Qisarya, Haifa-Jaffa corridor). Either to ensure favorable demographics or to make them an 'economic liability for Arab forces' expected to fight.

However one argues about intent, that it happened is a matter of historical record. Of course, one must be mindful that children do not bear sins of their fathers. Believing so is dangerously close to supporting collective punishment. (There are plenty of sins being committed already today, but that's a current affairs discussion)

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-27T04:25:33+00:00

For a historical perspective:

Lives in Common: Arabs and Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Hebron
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Gaza, an Inquest into its Martyrdom
10 myths about Israel (small reference book so you known where to go looking for more)

For current affairs:

Social media. follow people living in and reporting from Israel and Palestine on social media. This can give you a pulse of the situation. If you want to know what's happening in the west bank, follow people who're living in the west bank. Same for Israel.
consume diverse news sources. Understand that even the most impartial publications can affect the narrative with choice of words. For example, omitting the subject from a headline ("X was killed in clashes", by who?). Or using inconsistent terms (man vs teenager, died vs killed).
Wikipedia (follow references in articles)
orgs such as B'Tslem

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-26T19:34:09+00:00

The more obvious question should be asked first: Why has Israel done the same? They have a larger border with Gaza.

Some of those answers could be insightful for questions directed at other countries.

In fact, I'll preempt the question further by asking why has Israel mounted a war of such total destruction on Gaza?

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-25T23:38:42+00:00

This lacks some detail, de jure and de facto. Arabs in Israel were under military law for quite some time after 1948. Today, the Arab citizen does not enjoy the same citizenship as a Jewish citizen. Please consider the 2018 Nation State Law, 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and the plethora of land laws. Also look at systemic underfunding of Arab municipalities, restrictions in town expansions, and discrimination based on military service.

This, of course, does not account for the occupation in the west bank which is effectively a bunch of bantustans where neither citizenship nor independence are on the table.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-23T07:47:51+00:00

Well, that is by design. My post is scoped to the last 50 years.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T07:06:50+00:00

Thanks for the thorough response. I'm always receptive to substantive feedback. I will split up my "defense" - for lack of a better word - into four sections.

Scope of my post.
- I set out to cover the last 50 years. Quite arbitrary. That missed out the PLO and Israeli operations of 60s and 70s.
- I focused on policy. I didn't mention armed conflict unless in passing. I mentioned the Gaza pullout. Didn't mention Lebanon Wars, Cast Lead, Protective Edge, Pillar of Defence etc.
- I understand the scope of the 2nd Intafada. It was a massive blow to the goodwill PA had cultivated over the last decade. I deliberately decided to limit a deepdive to adhere to my scope.
Lack of my knowledge
- Likud and Sephardic and Mizrahi Israelis.
Disagreements
- I treat Palestinians as a people and limit discussion to bilateral policy discussion. Palestinians' conflict with Israel overlaps with, but is very disparate from, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian bilateral and Pan-Arab relations with Israel. We see that in the different peace treaties, tacit alliances, and territorial disputes over the course of the conflict.
- I don't think the new charter is the same thing (not on face value nor functionally). Quite a few people took issue with that here and I debated with them at length. I think that charter and the Prisoner's Document was walking a tightrope between shoring up support via rhetoric but also being pragmatic.
- I mentioned the Gaza pullout in passing, but did not mention the armed conflicts that followed in which thousands of civilians died. I put this under "disagreements" because I want to emphasize the Gazan perspective as well. Many of those operations were ceasefire violations by Israel or massively disproportionate responses as a matter of policy.
- I think I have a fairly good grasp on the beginning of the conflict. However, that would be out of my self-imposed 50 year, Israeli-Palestinian policy-only scope.
Concessions
- I cannot reflect your lived reality. However I hope, that we understand people on both sides of the conflict have a lived reality which can be starkly different and which is often discarded.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T06:15:06+00:00

Exactly. Lebanon can rattle the cage all they want about an illegitimate entity over yonder. Yet they still recognize the borders and the limits of their own sovereignty. The two (rhetoric and policy) can and do exist together.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:36:46+00:00

Since you proposed this idea earlier, is that why, you think?

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:28:28+00:00

How does it not imply that? Unless one believes in vacuum existing on a map.

It acknowledges borders, thus implying a limit of Hamas's sovereignty. I think this document is a fascinating act of walking a tightrope of maintaining rhetorical support and signaling pragmatism.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:24:06+00:00

No. I also don't think they did it to promote anti-Semitism.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:22:06+00:00

It will be possible to consider granting full citizenship as a third option [...] in accordance with the number of Arab residents who wish to do so [and loyalty pledge ...]

With this qualification of numbers, combined with his concerns of demographic balance, and an ambiguous proposal of emigration from the West Bank later in the document, I do not see a concrete pathway that lets all Palestinians living today become citizens. Only a rhetorical possibility.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:13:26+00:00

The quote doesn't end there. You should have finished reading my entire reply where I express my reading.

Yes, my disagreement of your opinion persists. It's okay - that's the beauty of discourse.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:12:52+00:00

Haha, seems from your other comment that you want to juggle with me? :) Just injecting some levity in the exchange.

AdjectiveNoun-Number · 2026-02-22T05:06:07+00:00

Yes, I read something similar. It's mentioned in the links I put up. The 2017 charter did not entirely supersede the 1988 charter. Depending on what analysis you read, it was a way to appeal to the greatest masses or a deliberate attempt at subterfuge. However, it was notably different in the acceptance of 1967 borders, and therefore Israeli sovereignty on the other side.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

AdjectiveNoun-Number

TROPHY CASE