#anti all of them tbh | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

purpleshadow-star · 1 year

Text

Here's the actual analysis as to why El is just as bad of a romantic partner to Mike as Mike is to her (and why they just don’t work romantically in general).

(this is going to include both reasons why El is not a good romantic partner and just general observations as to why Mike and El don’t work romantically)

Relationships work two ways. Mike and El don't work not only because Mike can't love El the way she wants to be loved but also because El hasn't ever proved that Mike can confide in her and be vulnerable with her, which is important for a relationship. We have literally never seen El comfort Mike about anything, or even ask if he’s okay or how he’s doing. We've seen Mike try to comfort El in S4, but we've never seen it the other way, not even in the slightest.

Let's start at the beginning.

This lack of mutual trust and this weariness to be vulnerable with each other stems from the fact that Mike and El never established a proper friendship before getting together. Friendship is where people get to know each other and learn to trust each other. Friendship is the foundation to any good romantic relationship.

Mike has proved that he can be there for El from the beginning. He took her in when they found her, he gave her a place to stay, and he protected her, despite the fact that it was dangerous for him to do any of this.

Mike and El met, knew each other for a week, and then were separated. During that week, Mike did his part to establish the beginning of a friendship. El didn't even know what it was to have friends, so obviously, she was slower in reciprocating the friendship completely.

El was able to establish the beginnings of a true friendship with everyone in the party, so they all considered her their friend, and she considered them her friends, but they never really got to know each other. Mike and El in particular were torn apart before they could get to know each other well enough to develop true romantic feelings, and it didn't help that people such as Lucas and Nancy gave Mike the idea that he should be interested in El romantically. The fact that Mike kissed El was a major setback for their platonic relationship.

Because they were never able to establish a good, strong, platonic relationship first, and since they never really go to know each other, this set up a very shaky foundation for any other relationship they tried to build.

During their year apart, El watched a lot of romance shows and movies, to the point where she could quote the TV. She gained this idea of love that isn't realistic, but since she and Mike kissed, and the people in love on the TV kissed, and she cared for Mike, she probably rationalized that her positive feelings for him must be romantic, just like the people on TV.

Because of this, when they reunited in season 2, El already had it in her mind that their relationship should be romantic. She wasn’t trying to be his friend anymore, not like with the rest of the party. She thought that they should be romantic. Boyfriend and girlfriend. Like the people on TV. This is shown when she tried to kiss him before she left with Hopper to go to the lab in season 2. El made that move, not Mike. Mike didn’t even lean forward. And then the Snowball happened, and Mike kissed El once again, and (presumably) that night, they established their romantic relationship.

(It is important to note that Max and Lucas also got together at the Snowball, and they had the same amount of time to get to know each other (About a week and the one month time skip at the end of season 2). The only difference is that we saw Lucas and Max actually talking about themselves and getting to know each other. We didn’t see that with Mike and El in season 1)

We really start to see the result of that shaky foundation in season 3. In the beginning, we saw Mike and El make out and seemingly have a good time together. Mike left, and then we saw that their make-out session caused Mike to be late to meet up with the rest of the party.

As the season went on, we saw how Mike and El’s relationship affected everyone else. We learn that they’d been ditching their friends (causing Will and Dustin to be noticeably upset), and they’re being disrespectful to Hopper.

We also saw that El didn’t really like Mike’s idea of fun. He tried to be silly and have fun in the first make-out scene, and she stopped him and pulled him back into making out. We learned through Will that they hadn't played DnD in a while, and he implied that they hadn’t really been doing anything fun lately. Mike had essentially given up the things he liked to do in order to hang out with El.

As far as we saw, Mike and El spend most of their time making out and not actually doing anything else that the two of them enjoy together, such as listening to music (to enjoy it, not just as background noise while making out), playing games (like El and Max do later), reading comics (also like El and Max do later), watching TV together, or even just talking. It’s almost like making out is the only thing they both know the other likes to do.

(Also note that a lot of this has to do with their age. For the most part, dating is the stage to get to know someone before making it official, but because Mike and El are so young, they don’t know this. They have a set idea of what dating and relationships means in their minds, and they don’t have the life experience to know that dating means getting to know one another, not just spending all your time together making out (especially El, who was in a lab for almost her whole life and mostly learned about other people and the world through romance TV). Usually, you go on dates, then, if you like each other, you enter a relationship. Dating people who you didn’t know before is basically the “being friends” stage. They seem to skip the dating part entirely, and they go straight into a relationship. For anyone, but especially kids that young, a good relationship needs to be built on a good friendship)

When Mike lied to El, she broke up with him, which was completely fair since he kept on lying. Then, she went on with Max and didn’t think about him too much after that. We saw that the breakup didn’t really affect her.

During the rest of the season, we saw Mike in danger multiple times. We saw Mike get concerned for El, but we never once saw El ask Mike how he was doing. We never saw El check up on Mike. Not like how Jonathan checked up on Nancy after she was attacked by the Mind Flayer, despite him having been injured to the point that he almost passed out only a few minutes prior. Not like how Joyce was concerned about and took care of Hopper after he was beat up by the Russian soldier.

At the end of season 3, El told Mike that she loved him and it was heavily implied that she said this because she overheard Mike say it in the other room earlier in the season, but Mike didn’t say it back.

Mike never told El he loved her to her face. She was the first (and only) one to say it face-to-face.

Remember that.

In season 4, we learn from El’s letter that she was lying to Mike. She was completely lying, not just leaving out the bad parts of her life in California. When Mike arrived in California, we saw that El was a bit upset with Mike for writing “From Mike” on the flowers instead of “Love Mike,” but she brushed it off. Then, the roller rink happened, and El’s lies were exposed. Instead of coming clean, she even tried to convince Angela to play it off as a joke. Then, later that night, she retreated, and she isolated herself.

The next day, we saw Mike try to comfort El. He didn’t get upset about the fact that she had lied to him. He simply asked for an explanation. He tried to help her feel more comfortable telling the truth by reminding her that he’s been bullied his whole life. He told her he understood, and he opened up to her and reminded her about his own traumatic memories, only for her to tell him that he didn’t understand. She disregarded his experiences and said that he didn't understand, even though she literally watched him almost kill himself because of a bully.

And still, even after she dismissed his experiences with bullying, he didn’t get mad. He asked for her to explain. Then, she opened up about her own insecurities, and she said that she thought everyone, including him, looked at her like she’s a monster. When Mike tried to reassure her, when he told her he cared for her, El decided to move the conversation off of herself and onto Mike.

Mike is understandably taken off guard by this. El then proceeds to insist that, just because Mike didn’t write the word “love” in his letters, that meant he didn’t love her, despite his reassurances.

Now, obviously, Mike is also in the wrong in this conversation. He lied and said that he did say that he loved her when he didn’t, and he really didn’t handle the situation well after they moved onto the topic of him loving her (ex: saying she was being ridiculous, etc.), but that doesn’t change the fact that El continued pushing this topic that he clearly wasn’t comfortable with. She never considered that maybe he wasn’t ready to say it yet. Again, remember, Mike hadn’t actually said he loved her to her face yet, so really, there should not be any expectation that he should be saying it to her face, or even writing it, right now.

All in all, so far, we’ve seen El lie to Mike, not apologize for lying for months, invalidate his bullying experiences, and get upset with him for not saying something that really shouldn’t have been an expectation yet.

None of this got resolved.

El got arrested. Then, when they reunited, there was no time to really talk about the fight until they made it to Surfer Boy’s Pizza. That little talk they had before Argyle came with the pizza would have been the perfect time for El to apologize for lying and for what she said about his bullying during the fight, but that didn’t happen. So, El never apologized for lying, even after Mike apologized for not saying he loved her more.

None of this means that El is a bad person. El and Mike just don't work romantically because they aren't able to be vulnerable around each other. The one time they talk about how they feel with each other, they end up with a fight that never truly gets resolved. It wasn't resolved with the monologue, not only because Mike’s truthfulness in the monologue was questionable, but also because the argument started with the fact that El lied to Mike, not the issue of Mike not saying he loved her, and that never got resolved.

El hasn’t once shown Mike that he can confide in her, and that, along with many other factors, is why their relationship isn’t going to work out. They needed to establish that platonic bond first. They needed to establish a friendship to fall back on when things in the romantic aspect of their relationship got shaky. If they had established that friendship first, they would be more comfortable going to each other and opening up about their troubles.

With a more solid friendship, they would have been able to go to each other for comfort or reassurance, the same way Mike was able to go to Will, his best friend first and foremost, and talk to him when he was upset and feeling insecure. Also, the same way Max went to Dustin, her friend, when she was worried about the Eddie/Chrissy situation instead of trying to go to Lucas.

Max and Lucas had the same amount of friendship time as Mike and El, and even though they had a better pre-romance friendship, it ultimately wasn't enough to save their relationship. The difference is that Max and Lucas spent season 4 building their friendship back up and solidifying that foundation so that when they do get back together, they’ll be stronger than ever. Mike and El (well, mostly Mike) spent season 4 trying to save their romantic relationship, which is why it still isn’t very strong, even at the end of the season.

Again, this doesn’t make either of them awful people. This all just shows that they are not good for each other romantically, and they never really have been.

So, to conclude my long rambling, as much as Mike idolizes El and her powers, as much as Mike can’t tell El he loves her to her face or without being prompted, as much as Mike can’t show El that he loves her and make her feel loved, El also is completely uninterested in the things that make Mike happy, El never apologized for lying to Mike for months, El invalidated Mike’s traumatic experiences with bullying, and El has never shown Mike that he can go to her for comfort and reassurance.

312 notes · View notes

autismserenity · 2 months

Text

Me, looking through books on Palestine: "Ilan Pappé wrote one called 'The Biggest Prison On Earth?!' People in Gaza hate it being called a prison. There's an entire hashtag for it. There's been an account dedicated to collecting pics and videos of #TheGazaYouDontSee for 6 years.

"Is Pappé even Palestinian? oh god wait I can tell already. this is gonna be an 'Israeli apologist' isn't it." Internet: "Yeah, Pappé's Israeli."

Me: "For fuck's--- so people will believe Israelis unquestioningly if they're shit-talking Israel, but in all other situations, Israelis are all liars?"

Internet: "Pretty much. Also, at best, Ilan Pappé must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians."

Me, admittedly in full schadenfreude now: "What?!?!"

Internet: "Benny Morris. That historian who's extremely hard-core about primary source documentation, who wrote that detailed book about how and why each group of Palestinian refugees left in 1947-9. He reviewed three books about Palestine."

Me: "Holy shit. And the book by Pappé is about the Husaynis. The family that Nazi war criminal Amin al-Husseini came from, the guy who fucked absolutely everything up for both Israel and Palestine."

Internet: "That's the one. Morris wrote, 'At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two.'"

Me: "Why??"

Internet: "He says, 'Here is a clear and typical example—in detail, which is where the devil resides—of Pappe’s handiwork. I take this example from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'....

"Blah blah blah, basically in 1947 the UN voted to partition the land into Palestine and Israel, and extremist militias started shooting at Jewish towns and people. David Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish community there, and his journal describes a visit from a scientist named Aharon Katzir, telling him about an experiment codenamed "Shimshon." Morris gives us the journal entry:

...An experiment was conducted on animals. The researchers were clothed in gas masks and suit. The suit costs 20 grush, the mask about 20 grush (all must be bought immediately). The operation [or experiment] went well. No animal died, the [animals] remained dazzled [as when a car’s headlights dazzle an oncoming driver] for 24 hours. There are some 50 kilos [of the gas]. [They] were moved to Tel Aviv. The [production] equipment is being moved here. On the laboratory level, some 20 kilos can be produced per day.

"Morris says, 'This is the only accessible source that exists, to the best of my knowledge, about the meeting and the gas experiment, and it is the sole source cited by Pappe for his description of the meeting and the "Shimshon" project. But this is how Pappe gives the passage in English:

Katzir reported to Ben-Gurion: 'We are experimenting with animals. Our researchers were wearing gas masks and adequate outfit. Good results. The animals did not die (they were just blinded). We can produce 20 kilos a day of this stuff.'

"'The translation is flecked with inaccuracies, but the outrage is in Pappe’s perversion of "dazzled," or sunveru, to "blinded"—in Hebrew "blinded" would be uvru, the verb not used by Ben-Gurion—coupled with the willful omission of the qualifier '"for 24 hours."'

"'Pappe’s version of this text is driven by something other than linguistic and historiographical accuracy. Published in English for the English-speaking world, where animal-lovers are legion and deliberately blinding animals would be regarded as a barbaric act, the passage, as published by Pappe, cannot fail to provoke a strong aversion to Ben-Gurion and to Israel.

"'Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. So I should add, to make the historical context perfectly clear, that no gas was ever used in the war of 1948 by any of the participants. [Or, he later notes, by either Israel or Palestine ever.] Pappe never tells the reader this.

"'Raising the subject of gas is historical irrelevance. But the paragraph will dangle in the reader’s imagination as a dark possibility, or worse, a dark reality: the Jews, gassed by the Nazis three years before, were about to gas, or were gassing, Arabs.'"

Me: "Uuuuggghhhhhhhhh. Yeah, it will."

Internet: "He does say, 'Palestinian Dynasty was a good idea.' Then he does some really detailed historian-dragging about the lack of primary sources and reliance on people's interpretations of what they say instead.

"'Almost all of Pappe’s references direct the reader to books and articles in English, Hebrew, and Arabic by other scholars, or to the memoirs of various Arab politicians, which are not the most reliable of sources. Occasionally there is a reference to an Arab or Western travelogue or genealogy, or to a diplomat’s memoir; but there is barely an allusion to documents in the relevant British, American, and Zionist/Israeli archives.

"'When referring to the content of American consular reports about Arab riots in the 1920s, for example, Pappe invariably directs the reader to an article in Hebrew by Gideon Biger—“The American Consulate in Jerusalem and the Events of 1920-1921,” in Cathedra, September 1988—and not to the documents themselves, which are easily accessible in the United States National Archive.

"'Those who falsify history routinely take the path of omission. They ignore crucial facts and important pieces of evidence while cherry-picking from the documentation to prove a case.

"'But Pappe is more brazen. He, too, often omits and ignores significant evidence, and he, too, alleges that a source tells us the opposite of what it in fact says, but he will also simply and straightforwardly falsify evidence.

"'Consider his handling of the Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 1920s.

"'Pappe writes of the “Nabi Musa” riots in April 1920: “The [British] Palin Commission... reported that the Jewish presence in the country was provoking the Arab population and was the cause of the riots.” He also quotes at length Musa Kazim al-Husayni, the clan’s leading notable at the time, to the effect that “it was not the [Arab] Hebronites who had started the riots but the Jews.”

"'But the (never published) [Palin Commission Report], while forthrightly anti-Zionist, thereby accurately reflecting the prevailing views in the British military government that ruled Palestine until mid-1920, flatly and strikingly charged the Arabs with responsibility for the bloodshed.

"'The team chaired by Major-General P.C. Palin wrote that “it is perfectly clear that with... few exceptions the Jews were the sufferers, and were, moreover, the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.” The inquiry pointed out that whereas 216 Jews were killed or injured, the British security forces and the Jews, in defending themselves or in retaliatory attacks, caused only twenty-five Arab casualties.'"

Me: "Yeah. I'm looking at that report right now and it says there had been an explosion, and then people were looting Jewish stores and beating Jews with stones, and in one case stabbing someone. Some people said that some Jews got up on the roof of a hotel and retaliated by throwing stones themselves.

"And then it literally says, 'The point as to the retaliation by Jews is of importance because it seems to have impressed the Military and led them to imagine that the Jews were to some extent responsible for provoking the rising.' That's the only thing it really says about anyone blaming the Jews.

"Except.... the very beginning gives some historical context. And it does say that when the Balfour Declaration came out, Muslims and Christians 'considered that they were to be handed over to an oppression which they hated far more than the Turk's and were aghast at the thought of this domination....

"'If this intensity of feeling proceeded merely from wounded pride of race and disappointment in political aspirations, it would be easier to criticise and rebuke: but it must be borne in mind that at the bottom of all is a deepseated fear of the Jew, both as a possible ruler and as an economic competitor. Rightly or wrongly they fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history....

"'The prospect of extensive Jewish immigration fills him with a panic fear, which may be exaggerated, but is none the less genuine. He sees the ablest race intellectually in the world, past-masters in all the arts of ousting competitors whether on the market, in the farm or the bureaucratic offices, backed by apparently inexhaustible funds given by their compatriots in all lands and possessed of powerful influence in the councils of the nations, prepared to enter the lists against him in every one of his normal occupations, backed by the one thing wanted to make them irresistible, the physical force of a great Imperial Power, and he feels himself overmastered and defeated before the contest is begun.'

"Wow! What a great fucking example of how 'positive' stereotypes are actually used to fuck people over! We're not antisemitic, we actually think Jews are the smartest, most powerful, richest group with tremendous global power! So positive!! Not at all being used here to justify antisemitic violence!

"Also, immigration from all over the world actually meant that different agricultural and manufacturing techniques were brought into the region, and yes, financial investments to start businesses sometimes, which meant that Arab Palestinians there had the highest per capita income in the Middle East, the highest daily wages, and started a lot of businesses of their own. But go off, I guess."

"Anyfuckingway.... it basically says that the Muslims and Christians were angry and scared, the Jews were too quick to set up the functioning government that the Brits were supposed to be there to help both sides create -- and which the Arab leaders completely refused to create for Palestine, because (1) fascists and (2) didn't want Jews nearby -- and that they were "ready prey for any form of agitation hostile to the British Government and the Jews." Then it says the movement for a United Syria was agitating them real hard, and so were the Sherifians.

"Is that what Ilan Passe, I mean Pappe, meant by the Palin Report blaming the Jews?! That when it says it's understandable the Arabs were freaking out, because antisemitism, Pappe thinks it's saying the Jews were provoking them?!"

Internet: "I don't know. I kinda tuned out after the first hour you were talking."

Me: "OGH MY GOD"

Internet: "So anyway, then Morris ALSO says, 'About the 1929 “Temple Mount” riots, which included two large-scale massacres of Jews, in Hebron and in Safed, Pappe writes: “The opposite camp, Zionist and British, was no less ruthless [than the Arabs]. In Jaffa a Jewish mob murdered seven Palestinians.”

Me: "What the ENTIRE FUCK? There was no united 'Zionist and British' camp! The Brits would barely let any Holocaust refugees in, ffs!"

Internet: "Morris says, 'Actually, there were no massacres of Arabs by Jews, though a number of Arabs were killed when Jews defended themselves or retaliated after Arab violence.

"'Pappe adds that the British “Shaw Commission,” so-called because it was chaired by Sir Walter Shaw (a former chief justice of the Straits Settlements), which investigated the riots, “upheld the basic Arab claim that Jewish provocations had caused the violent outbreak. ‘The principal cause... was twelve years of pro-Zionist [British] policy.’”

"'It is unclear what Pappe is quoting from. I did not find this sentence in the commission’s report. Pappe’s bibliography refers, under “Primary Sources,” simply to “The Shaw Commission.” The report? The deliberations? Memoranda by or about? Who can tell?

"'The footnote attached to the quote, presumably to give its source, says, simply, “Ibid.”

"'The one before it says, “Ibid., p. 103.”

"'The one before that says, “The Shaw Commission, session 46, p. 92.”

"'But the quoted passage does not appear on page 103 of the report.

"In the text of Palestinian Dynasty, Pappe states that “Shaw wrote [this] after leaving the country [Palestine].” But if it is not in the report, where did Shaw “write” it?'"

Me: "I'M ON IT. [rapid-fire googling] OMG. This is.... Not the first time. In 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,' he reported that in a 1937 letter to his son, David Ben-Gurion declared: 'The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.'

"It's not in the source he gave. It's not in any of the three different sources he's given for it.

"He apparently has never responded to any requests for an explanation, either from the journal he published in, or from other historians. But it says he did "obliquely [acknowledge] the controversy in an article in Electronic Intifada, in which he portrayed himself as the victim of intimidation at the hands of “Zionist hooligans.”'

"This is absolutely fucking wild. THEN it says the chair of the Ethics Committee where he was teaching eventually said that the second part of the quote ('but one needs,' etc) was a (combined?) paraphrase of a diary entry and a speech Ben-Gurion gave, and that the first half is 'based on' a letter to his son.

"And it's so convincing! The chair says, 'Shabtai Teveth[,] Ben Gurion’s biographer, Benny Morris and the historian Nur Maslaha have all quoted this letter. In fact their translation was stronger than the quotation from Professor Pappé: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’ Professor Pappé has documentary evidence of these quotations and the source will ensure that this is correctly cited in any future editions of the publication or related studies.'

"And IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?!

"Ben-Gurion's actual diary entry (not a letter) says the opposite.

“'We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.... All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout all our activity – that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.'

"Benny Morris misquoted it as "We must expel the Arabs and take their places" in the English version of his 1987 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, although it was correct in the Hebrew version. He corrected himself in the 2001 book Righteous Victims.

"Teveth also misquoted it in the English version of his 1985 book Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, but again, had it correct in the Hebrew edition.

"And both Morris and Teveth explicitly point out the rest of the entry. The part about all their aspiration being built on the assumption and experience that there was enough room in the country for everyone.

"Historian Efraim Karsh’s 1997 book Fabricating Israeli History pointed out and corrected their mistakes.

"This is apparently a very well-known issue among historians of Israel and Palestine. It was a big deal in 2003, when an evangelist Christian publisher put out a book FULL of disinformation, which not only used the same quote as Pappe does, but also could not give a real source for it.

"But Pappe STILL USED THE MISQUOTE AND DOUBLED DOWN ON IT EVERY SINGLE TIME."

Internet: "Are you done? I know all this already."

Me: "Also, there are literally only two places where the phrase 'twelve years of pro-Zionist policy' shows up online, and they're both about Pappe making quotes up.

"NOW I'm done."

Benny Morris wasn't, though. The review continues at the link below. And the next part starts, "To the deliberate slanting of history Pappe adds a profound ignorance of basic facts. Together these sins and deficiencies render his “histories” worthless as representations of the past, though they are important as documents in the current political and historiographic disputations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Pappe’s grasp of the facts of World War I, for example, is weak in the extreme."

#i hate people misrepresenting history in general #i extra hate it when people do it with malice aforethought #ilan pappe #is a lying liar and people need to stop recommending his bullshit when it's been so thoroughly debunked #this is a good example of anti-Zionism being antisemitism tbh. I have yet to see anti-Zionist accounts of history that are accurate #like if you have to victim-blame people who were baked in ovens during an anti-Jewish riot you are PROBABLY in the wrong #I was looking for a piece explaining the 1920 and 1929 anti-Jewish riots that I could link here that wasn't from an explicitly Jewish sourc #because I don't trust people to take an article from the Jewish Virtual Library or whatever without being like “this is Zionist propaganda!#even if it's about an extremely violent massacre of Jews #so I clicked specifically on the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Question and similar sources #and what all of them did was gloss right over the massacres and violence and just vaguely mention “the demonstrations in 1920”#or not mention them at all of course #I guess that makes sense but wow. now I understand more of how ignorant people are about the entire history here #not only has it all been presented to you as “this started in 1947 or 48! the Jews stole all the land! it's been genocide ever since!”#so that people literally tell me “they invaded in 1947 and kicked out the Palestinians and took their land”#but also you have to fill in anything before that yourself #and the only propaganda you have access to usually is this myth that everyone was perfectly happy together until Israel... killed everyone?#it's really super weird to see people say that Jews and Muslims and Christians all lived happily together before this #like what do you think happened? everyone was happy and suddenly the jews were like “fuck you we're taking over and killing everyone?”#that probably is what people think happened tbh #they don't need for there to be any motivation or for that to make sense because they've bought the idea that it's just pure evil ig #for some reason people have to reverse-engineer hamas's massacre and imagine that israel did even worse to justify it #a terrorist group doesn't come out of nowhere! i don't think you know what terrorism is tbh #but they're happy to assume that whatever they think israel did came out of nowhere #god i'm fucking tired #anyway fuck ilan pappe #there are WAY BETTER HISTORIES OF PALESTINE #i've heard good things about Gaza: A History but of course that's not all of palestine #long post #such a long post

20 notes · View notes