There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

NoiseColor ,

Israel can’t just overtake it. There is too many people there. They already tried that tactic for the last 30(?) years when gaza was a prison.

I don’t think they know what they want and can even achieve in this campaign. I don’t think they will invade Lebanon.

YourPrivatHater ,

Thats not true Israel knows exactly what they want and are doing and about 2 million (gaza) aren’t that many the remaining parts of Palestinia aren’t that many people either. A takeover of much larger places has been done in history several times.

NoiseColor ,

I see you disagree with everything I said and I think you are wrong. Let’s just leave it at that.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

I don’t think they know what they want

What would YOU want if you were a military leader of Israel there? (NOT a political one, just a soldier)

I think that they want exactly that. A military goal, not a political one.

For example “kill everybody there who takes a weapon and aims it at Israel, and then take this weapon away from his corpse.”

NoiseColor ,

Militarily? I don’t think anyone can expect they can achieve any kind of real military goal.

Maybe what you said, to kill some combatants and many times the amount of civilians with them. But that’s not really a military goal.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

I don’t think anyone can expect they can achieve

I wasn’t talking about achieving, but only about wanting.

gedaliyah ,
@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

It’s been clear and consistent since day 1 of the war. Israel wants the return of the hostages taken on Oct 7, the removal of Hamas from power, and the inability for Hamas or any other group to repeat a deadly attack within Israel.

That was the goal on Oct 7, that’s still the goal. Anything else is just politics and propaganda.

Now, how effectively they have done so, and the methods they’ve employed are another discussion entirely.

NoiseColor ,

Yes well we would all like impossible things, but that’s not really an achievable goal and everybody on all sides are aware of that.

Monument ,

They control the borders and they are systematically destroying infrastructure while stealing the land to be ‘settled’ by right wing Israelis. (They done let liberal folk become settlers.)

The right wingers have no issue with being bad neighbors or otherwise murdering Palestinians. And they are backed up by the military. Any resistance is returned 10-fold, with an associated grab for land.

If a cease fire can be forged, the control of the border will mean that the they will continue their existing blockade on imports of building materials such as cement, so new infrastructure cannot be built. They are even using construction equipment to remove or bury rubble, so it cannot be repurposed/recycled.

The plan is to do to Gaza what they have already done to the West Bank. Turn it into fragmented enclaves that lack access to basic resources. It’s clear they even want to block total access to the beach, to prevent fishing for food. It’s why they are literally selling the land that is currently being bombed. They want to make it impossible to live there if you’re Palestinian. They want everyone that isn’t part of their theocracy to die off, or emigrate.

Not related, but totally related.
I’ve watched these interviews with white supremacists in the U.S. who talk/fantasize about the creation of a ‘white’ ethnostate. They always talk about how there will be a nonviolent transition to this, saying that people who don’t match their racial parameters will be relocated to places outside of the state, or those who won’t have children will be allowed to live out their lives, etc. And that’s widely regarded with a ‘sure buddy’ and you know they’re full of crap. People don’t want to move away from their homes. They don’t want to go where they don’t know anyone. They don’t want to lose their jobs, their savings, all their stuff, the land they own and the effort they’ve pored into their home and land or the resources their home/land offers them.

But the situation in Palestine is literally that. People are ‘voluntarily’ relocating (after their homes, jobs, neighborhoods, and often, families) have been blown up by bombs. Or they’re staying and living out the rest of their lives - until they’re shot or a bomb goes off, or they die from malnutrition, thirst, or contaminated water. Hm.
I suppose it’s (relatively) nonviolent to the aggressor.

NoiseColor ,

Sure, that’s the long term goal. I don’t think you can call that a goal of this war campaign.

This one clashes with short term goals of Netanyahu of staying in power.

Monument , (edited )

But after 30 years of lack of movement, this situation offers pretext for war without restraint. I don’t believe they plan to stop.

They don’t have to kill each person to achieve their aims. Sometimes just making sure the water is undrinkable is enough to kill tens of thousands or force many times that number to leave and never return.
2 Days Ago: Israeli strike kills Gaza workers trying to restore drinking water – The National.

SleezyDizasta ,

Wtf are you on? There were already settlements in Gaza that dated back before the Israel independence, and Israel continued to support them up until 2005 when they unilaterally existed. The hope was that exist would foster peace between Gaza and Israel, but the first thing Gazans did was elect Hamas and the rest is history. It doesn’t make sense for Israel to go back into Gaza. They already gave it up, which means there’s no strategic value there. They have nothing to gain from such a move.

Monument ,

Why are Jews settling Palestinian land in the first place?

Maybe, after forcing them from their major cities, laying claim to the most fertile land in their country, and then refusing their right to assert their own statehood (and using a superpower to back them up in that), then spending 70 years depriving them of ever-increasing amounts of their country, and blockading imports (why blockade spices for traditional foods?!?), that the presence of anything taking more of their land in the open air prison they’ve been forced into to offer a ‘peace settlement’ is not welcome.

What are you on? Is there no ability for inductive reasoning there, or are you hoping that for all your words, there’s no logic, facts, or grounding in reality?

SleezyDizasta ,

They’ve already invaded Lebanon before and every time it was for the same reason, and that was to prevent the Hezbollah terrorists from committing terrorist attacks against Israel. This time is no different

NoiseColor ,

Everytime it’s a bit different.

SleezyDizasta ,

The point is that even if they invade Lebanon again, it will be similar to the prior military operations they’ve had before. They’re not going to capture Lebanese territories like they did with Golan Heights. Otherwise they would’ve done it since they’ve had multiple opportunities to do so.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Hmm... For a more realistic answer not necessarily. This isn't the first time they invaded Lebanon. I'm admittedly not aware of why they left the first time, but from what I know at least in the short term they're mostly content with the territory they currently control. Of course "currently control" including Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan heights; ethnically cleansing those was always the plan. Also when Egypt inevitably collapses as a state I could see them trying to go for Sinai.

YourPrivatHater ,

Israel doesn’t want territorial gains but to get rid of terrorists that shoot their civilians. They invaded Egypt as well and are now on relatively good terms with their government.

And there is no so called ethnic cleansing.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Uh... Have you heard of the word "settlement"?

Keeponstalin ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a04a90d3-a2f3-43c5-9f90-4c315cb2bb04.jpeghttps://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f857ba88-e4b5-4264-ba4a-f296d42b5b2f.png

YourPrivatHater , (edited )

Sources: aljazeera a known hamas sympathizing or straight up part of them media outlet, and a website called visualizing Palestinie, without any actual sources.

Btw

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cuGS07FXgAY/UtgioNazApI/AAAAAAAAAHA/RNpM1ozF7jg/s1600/land-for-peace.jpg

The official land given to Israel by UK is the blue part left. …wikipedia.org/…/End_of_the_British_Mandate_for_P…

SOMETHINGSWRONG ,

We’re going to remember people like you when this is all over.

YourPrivatHater ,

Your entire account is what i would call a shit post.

SleezyDizasta ,

Remember what, that he’s right?

SleezyDizasta ,

Literally the same exact thing happened to Jewish villages, towns, and populations in cities in Palestine.

That’s what the1920 Nebi Musa riots against Jews in Jerusalem or the 1921 Jaffa riots or the Jaffa deportations by the Ottomans in 1917 or the 1929 riots and massacres (including the Hebron Massacre which destroyed the ancient community there). Not to mention the nearly 1 million Jews who were exiled from the islamic world to Israel for no other than being Jewish.

Keeponstalin ,

No, they weren’t the same thing. Zionist Land Purchases were unlike anything prior, leading to the forced expulsion of over hundreds thousand Palestinians under the British Mandate. This, along with the Zionist leadership being very open about the Concept of Transfer since the 1880s, stocked Palestinian fears of being violently forced out of their homes by these new arrivals. There is a lot of context that gets ignored during these events, and it’s not easy to summarize. I’ll include a few paragraphs but if you want more context I suggest you read the whole chapter.

The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

The fear over control of the Temple Mount and a failure by leadership on both sides to quell the fears (and instead, incite them) sparked the terrible pogroms of Jewish Settlements.

In 1928, this meant simultaneously calling for the defence of Jerusalem and discouraging direct action on the ground. But the Palestinian masses found this kind of co-opted nationalism impossible. They lived near the holy places and saw Jews praying there in unprecedented numbers, which they saw as part of a larger scheme to ‘de-Islamize’ Palestine. A minor incident concerning prayer arrangements near the Wailing Wall, the western wall of the Haram, sparked violence that soon swept through Palestine as a whole in 1929. In all, 300 Jews and a similar number of Palestinians were killed.

The spillover of anger from Jerusalem into the countryside and other towns was not a co-ordinated plan by the leadership. Rather, it started with uprooted Palestinians who had lost their agricultural base for various reasons, including the capitalization of crops and the Jewish purchase of land. These former peasants lived on the urban margins, from where they participated in what to them was their first ever political, and violent, action. Their dismal conditions were not the fault of Zionism, but it was easy to connect Zionist activity in Jerusalem with the purchase of land or with an aggressive segregationist policy in the labour market.

The British army was slow to respond to the unrest. The 1920s had been quiet, apart from limited outbursts of violence in Jerusalem in 1920 and Jaffa in 1921. These had seemed inevitable in a mixed community, and quite normal in the vast British Empire. But the events of 1929 exceeded the level of containable violence, and the British government decided in 1930 to appoint a commission of inquiry, the Shaw Commission. After touring the country, its members pointed out the deterioration in the peasants’ living conditions and reported the growing frustration among a large number of Palestinians with British pro-Zionist policy.

  • Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine Pg 138

1929 Riots: Forward and 972Mag

Shaw Commission

Peel Commission Report

The 1936-39 revolt began as a protest against the British Mandate and Zionist Expansion, and escalated in violence as the protests were met with lethal force.

One of the problems was the leadership vacuum in rural Palestine, and the failure of most attempts to fill it. One of these attempts was that of Izz al-Din al-Qassam, a Syrian preacher who settled in Haifa in the mid 1920s. Many history books assert that Izz al-Din al-Qassam ignited the 1936 revolt by fusing Islamic dogmas with national ideology. But his recipe for revolution was welcomed only among a particular segment of the population. This was the poor of the cities and the unfortunate inhabitants of harat al-tanc, the shanty neighbourhoods that surrounded towns such as Haifa. In 1933, Izz al-Din al-Qassam initiated a guerrilla war in the north, recruiting fighters from around Haifa and leading them to the surrounding hills, attacking any Jews or British soldiers they encountered on the way. In 1935, al-Din al-Qassam was killed by the British army, but this was enough to make him a martyr and provide an example of a new kind of resistance.

While the expansion of Zionist settlement gave the nationalist notables a chance to reach a wider audience, there was still no genuine solidarity with the peasants, apart from rare displays of unity and firmness of purpose. Such a moment took place in March 1933 in Jaffa, where leaders of all the political factions joined in a united call for a concrete campaign of sustained pressure on the British government to change its policy. Five hundred representatives of the Palestinian elite, in a rare show of resolve, declared their intention of boycotting British and Zionist commodities, and for the first time ever rejected the legitimacy of the Mandate in the land of Palestine.

In May 1936, the Arab Higher Committee declared a general strike and organized nationwide demonstrations, the principal one held in Jerusalem, where about 2,000 demonstrators gathered inside the walls of the Old City. The demonstrations became more violent three weeks later, when British police opened fire on demonstrators in Jaffa.

At first the magnitude and nature of the protests impressed the British. They appointed a commission of inquiry, headed by Lord Peel, who visited Palestine in 1937 before making his recommendations. His commission recommended the annexation of most of Palestine to Transjordan, and urged the maintenance of a direct British presence in vital strategic positions such as Haifa and the newly built airport in Lydda, as well as in the Negev. A small portion of the land was designated as a future Jewish state. This plan was rejected, not of course by Prince Abdullah in Transjordan; but in a way it was endorsed by Ben-Gurion, who had the foresight to understand that you take what you are given when the balance of power is not yet in your favour. For Ben-Gurion, the proposal was a basis for negotiations, not a final map, hence his willingness to be content with such a small portion of Palestine.

  • Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine Pg 156-159

1936-1939 Revolt: JVL, Britannica, MEE

The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world was also not the same

bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

Keeponstalin’s comments are always top notch, and I just want to add a bit more info about the exerpt that reads:

A minor incident concerning prayer arrangements near the Wailing Wall, the western wall of the Haram, sparked violence that soon swept through Palestine as a whole in 1929.

The “minor incident” went as follows:

On 15 August 1929, Tisha B’Av, the Revisionist youth leader Jeremiah Halpern and three hundred Revisionist youths from the Battalion of the Defenders of the Language and Betar marched to the Western Wall proclaiming “The Wall is ours”. The protesters raised the Zionist flag and sang the Hatikvah.[13] The demonstration took place in the Muslim Maghribi district in front of the house of the Mufti.

Two days later, in raised tensions caused by a 2000-strong Muslim counter-demonstration after Friday prayers the day before, a Jewish youth, Avraham Mizrahi, was killed and an Arab youth picked at random was stabbed in retaliation.[14] Subsequently, the violence escalated into the 1929 Palestine riots.

SleezyDizasta ,

There is a lot of context that gets ignored during these events, and it’s not easy to summarize. I’ll include a few paragraphs but if you want more context I suggest you read the whole chapter.

It’s interesting you say this because, ironically, you conveniently leave out a lot of context and ignore many events. I’ll include a few paragraphs as well, but there’s just so many of these events that I’m afraid Lemmy’s character limit won’t allow to give you anywhere near a comprehensive list. This very, very brief list will have to do for now:

West Bank:

The Hebron massacre was the killing of sixty-seven or sixty-nine Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[1] The event also left scores seriously wounded or maimed. Jewish homes were pillaged and synagogues were ransacked. Some of the 435 Jews in Hebron who survived were hidden by local Arab families,[2] although the extent of this phenomenon is debated.[3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Jordan:

According to an Israeli complaint, Jordan undertook systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many synagogues.[34] Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites.[35] Between 40 000 and 50 000 tombstones from ancient Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery were desecrated.[36] In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed after the end of fighting. The Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue was destroyed first, which was followed by the destruction of famous Hurva Synagogue built in 1701, first time destroyed by its Arab creditors in 1721 and rebuilt in 1864.[37][38][39]

Abdullah el Tell, a commander of the Arab Legion, remarked: For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem

Bahrain:

Bahrain’s tiny Jewish community, mostly the Jewish descendants of immigrants who entered the country in the early 20th century from Iraq, numbered between 600 and 1500 in 1948. In the wake of 29 November 1947 U.N. Partition vote, demonstrations against the vote in the Arab world were called for 2–5 December. The first two days of demonstrations in Bahrain saw rock-throwing against Jews, but on 5 December, mobs in the capital of Manama looted Jewish homes and shops, destroyed the synagogue, beat any Jews they could find, and murdered one elderly woman.[218]

en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_…

Syria:

After the vote in favour of the partition of Palestine, the government abetted and organised Aleppo’s Arab inhabitants to attack the city’s Jewish population.[3][4][5] The exact number of those killed remains unknown, but estimates are put at around 75, with several hundred wounded.[1][5][6] Ten synagogues, five schools, an orphanage and a youth club, along with several Jewish shops and 150 houses were set ablaze and destroyed.[7] Damaged property was estimated to be valued at US$2.5m.[8][9] During the pogrom the Aleppo Codex, an important medieval manuscript of the Torah, was lost and feared destroyed. The book reappeared (with 40% of pages missing) in Israel in 1958.[10]

en.wikipedia.org/…/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Alep…

The subsequent Syrian governments placed severe restrictions on the Jewish community, including barring emigration.[196] In 1948, the government banned the sale of Jewish property and in 1953 all Jewish bank accounts were frozen. The Syrian secret police closely monitored the Jewish community. Over the following years, many Jews managed to escape, and the work of supporters, particularly Judy Feld Carr,[197] in smuggling Jews out of Syria, and bringing their plight to the attention of the world, raised awareness of their situation.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_…

Yemen:

The Aden riots of December 2–4, 1947 targeted the Jewish community in the British Colony of Aden. The riots broke out from a planned three-day Arab general strike in protest of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), which created a partition plan for Palestine.[1] The riots resulted in the deaths of 82 Jews,[1][2] 33 Arabs, 4 Muslim Indians, and one Somali,[1] as well as wide-scale devastation of the local Jewish community of Aden.[2][3] The Aden Protectorate Levies, a military force of local Arab-Muslim recruits dispatched by the British governor Reginald Champion to quell the riots, were responsible for much of the killing.[1][4]

en.wikipedia.org/…/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden…

Egypt:

Until the late 1930s, the Jews, both indigenous and new immigrants, like other minorities tended to apply for foreign citizenship in order to benefit from a foreign protection.[170] The Egyptian government made it very difficult for non-Muslim foreigners to become naturalized. The poorer Jews, most of them indigenous and Oriental Jews, were left stateless, although they were legally eligible for Egyptian nationality.[171] The drive to Egyptianize public life and the economy harmed the minorities, but the Jews had more strikes against them than the others. In the agitation against the Jews of the late thirties and the forties, the Jew was seen as an enemy[168]

en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_…

The 1948 bombings in Cairo, which targeted Jewish areas, took place during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, between June and September, and killed 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200. Riots claimed many more lives.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Cairo_bombings

Five Egyptian Jews and one Muslim policeman were killed in Alexandria, hundreds were injured in both Alexandria and Cairo, and an Ashkenazi synagogue was burned down.[1] The Greek Orthodox patriarchate, Catholic churches and a Coptic school were also damaged in the riot.[1] The police reacted quickly but were unable to prevent much of the violence.[1] However further demonstrations planned for the following day were largely suppressed.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/…/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Egyp…

Libya:

The 1945 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania was the most violent rioting against Jews in North Africa in modern times. From November 5 to November 7, 1945, more than 140 Jews were killed and many more injured in a pogrom in British-military-controlled Tripolitania. 38 Jews were killed in Tripoli from where the riots spread. 40 were killed in Amrus, 34 in Zanzur, 7 in Tajura, 13 in Zawia and 3 in Qusabat.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/…/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Trip…

The 1948 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania were riots between the antisemitic rioters and Jewish communities of Tripoli and its surroundings in June 1948, during the British Military Administration in Libya. The events resulted in 13–14 Jews and 4-30 Arabs dead and destruction of 280 Jewish homes. The events occurred during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

en.wikipedia.org/…/1948_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Trip…

Tunisia:

On April 11, 2002, a natural gas truck fitted with explosives drove past security barriers at the ancient El Ghriba synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba.[1] The truck detonated at the front of the synagogue, killing 14 German tourists, three Tunisians, and two French nationals.[2] More than 30 others were wounded.[3][4][5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghriba_synagogue_bombing

Iraq:

Under Iraqi nationalists, Nazi propaganda began to infiltrate the country, as Nazi Germany was anxious to expand its influence in the Arab world. Dr. Fritz Grobba, who resided in Iraq since 1932, began to vigorously and systematically disseminate hateful propaganda against Jews. Among other things, Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was published and Radio Berlin had begun broadcasting in Arabic language. Anti-Jewish policies had been implemented since 1934, and the confidence of Jews was further shaken by the growing crisis in Palestine in 1936. Between 1936 and 1939 ten Jews were murdered and on eight occasions bombs were thrown on Jewish locations.[115]

en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_…

Farhud (also Farhood; Arabic: الفرهود) was the pogrom or the “violent dispossession” that was carried out against the Jewish population of Baghdad, Iraq, on 1–2 June 1941, immediately following the British victory in the Anglo-Iraqi War. The riots occurred in a power vacuum that followed the collapse of the pro-Nazi government of Rashid Ali while the city was in a state of instability.[2][3][4] The violence came immediately after the rapid defeat of Rashid Ali by British forces, whose earlier coup had generated a short period of national euphoria, and was fueled by allegations that Iraqi Jews had aided the British.[5] More than 180 Jews were killed[6] and 1,000 injured, although some non-Jewish rioters were also killed in the attempt to quell the violence.[7] Looting of Jewish property took place and 900 Jewish homes were destroyed.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

Baghdad Radio invited citizens to Liberation Square on January 27 to “come and enjoy the feast”,[3] being brought in on buses.[2] 500,000 people reportedly attended the hangings, and danced and celebrated before the corpses of the convicted spies.[1]

Nine of the fourteen hanged were from the Iraqi Jewish community, three from the Muslim community and two from Christian communities.[1] Three other members of the Iraqi Jewish community that were arrested at the same time were executed seven months later, on 26 August 1969.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Baghdad_hangings

The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world was also not the same

You’re absolutely right, it wasn’t the same. The Jewish exodus from the muslim world was way worse.

Keeponstalin , (edited )

Those weren’t ignored, they were addressed with the last link. Palestinians are not responsible for the Jewish exodus. Your argument is trying justify the Israeli Apartheid and Genocide by conflating Palestinians with all Arabs/Muslims and conflating all Jewish people with Israel.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

Forced expulsion of Palestinians has been central to Zionism since the 1880’s

There are a lot of factors of the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but your conflating of the two as justification or minimization of the Nakba doesn’t work; unless you somehow think all Arabs or Muslims are the same. But it’s pretty clear your racist towards Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims when your argument boils down to ‘they are violent primitives and deserve to die,’ just going straight to dehumanization and ignoring all material conditions of Apartheid

Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, speaking of the wave of Iraqi Jewish migration to Israel, concludes that, even though Iraqi Jews were “victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict”, Iraqi Jews aren’t refugees, saying “nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted.” He restated that case in a review of Martin Gilbert’s book, In Ishmael’s House.

Yehuda Shenhav has criticized the analogy between Jewish emigration from Arab countries and the Palestinian exodus. He also says “The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation.” He has stated that “the campaign’s proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a ‘right of return’ on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of ‘lost’ assets.”

Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that while there is a superficial similarity, the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are entirely different. Porath points out that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the “fulfilment of a national dream”. He also argues that the achievement of this Zionist goal was only made possible through the endeavors of the Jewish Agency’s agents, teachers, and instructors working in various Arab countries since the 1930s. Porath contrasts this with the Palestinian Arabs’ flight of 1948 as completely different. He describes the outcome of the Palestinian’s flight as an “unwanted national calamity” that was accompanied by “unending personal tragedies”. The result was "the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_…

SleezyDizasta ,

Those weren’t ignored, they were addressed with the last link.

You didn’t address anything. You posted 3 unsourced paragraphs from 3 random historians that contain cherrypicked statements that confirm your biases. This isn’t the smoking gun evidence you think it is. Their opinions have no bearing on the actual events that happened, assuming that these are their opinions or that their opinions are credible, both of which are big ifs. I actually linked over a dozen examples of actual events and their aftermath in over half a dozen countries, including the Palestinian territories. I actually provided context, you provided confirmation bias.

Palestinians are not responsible for the Jewish exodus. Your argument is trying justify the Israeli Apartheid and Genocide by conflating Palestinians with all Arabs/Muslims and conflating all Jewish people with Israel.

The Palestinians had their own ethnic cleansing of Jews, but that’s besides the point. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not contained to just Israel and Palestine. It is much bigger than that, and it has affected way more people. Disingenuous people like you try to box in the conflict to specific parameters to push propaganda fueled narratives, like you brought up about apartheid and genocide. The fact that this is how you’re choosing to frame things just shows that you don’t actually have an interest in the truth, but rather your interest lies in satisfying the narratives you’ve subscribed to. You can’t oversimplify the conflict. You can’t erase the coalition wars the Arabs waged against Israel or the million Jews that were exiled from the islamic world or the havoc that the Palestinian refugees caused in the Arab countries that invited them or so on. If this conflict was localized to just Israel and Palestine then it would be such a big global conflict. It would’ve been thought of in the same light as the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict or the Morocco-Sahrawi conflict… but it’s not… for a reason.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

I’m not sure what you were trying to achieve here, but I already know the definition of ethnic cleansing.

Forced expulsion of Palestinians has been central to Zionism since the 1880’s

Literally 21% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and another 6% is neither Jewish or Arab.

There are a lot of factors of the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but your conflating of the two as justification or minimization of the Nakba doesn’t work;

That’s not what I’m doing. You’re trying very hard to push this idea, but it’s not going to work. If you actually scroll up and read my original statement, I simply claimed that the violence and ethnic cleansing went both ways… which is undoubtably true.

unless you somehow think all Arabs or Muslims are the same.

No, but the conflict is broader than what you’re trying to make it out to be. Take Jordan for example. This country has taken part in multiple coalition wars against Israel on behalf of Palestine, spent decades supporting Palestine militarily/economically/politically, had governed the West Bank, ethnically cleansed Jews from it’s land, ethnically cleansed Jews from East Jerusalem, lost both to Israel, had taken in a lot of Palestinians, kicked out those Palestinians when they tried to overthrow the government (black September), expelled the PLO to Lebanon, took in Palestinians again afterwards, became the second Arab country to recognize Israel, and the list goes on and on. This is a history that runs deep with the conflict. It’s not just Jordan, but also Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and so on. You can’t pretend that this history doesn’t exist. No, not all Arabs or muslims are the same and not all Jews are the same, but this conflict is interwoven with these identities, at least to a degree.

But it’s pretty clear your racist towards Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims

I’m literally Arab, I’m Iraqi. But I’m sure you know more about Arab world than I do.

when your argument boils down to ‘they are violent primitives and deserve to die,’ just going straight to dehumanization and ignoring all material conditions of Apartheid

When did I do that exactly? I have at no point argued anything even remotely close to that. I merely challenged the brain dead and blatantly false narrative that you and your propaganda driven friends here are harping on, which is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one sided and always has been when that’s very clearly not true. I then proceeded to give examples that disprove this notion. It’s clear you don’t actually have a case to present. You try to sound smart, but once you scratch the surface the facade disappears and you reveal yourself to be a pretentious . If you’re going to lie and put words in my mouth then I have no interest in talking with you.

Keeponstalin ,

I added the link, those quotes show why most historians consider the comparison of the Nakba and Jewish exodus from the Muslim world to be a false equivalence. While there were certainly pogroms, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants were able to sell their possessions and willingly move. This is in contrast to the Nakba, where all 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed by a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign. Whether you recognize it or not, when you bring up the exodus as a reaction to the Nakba with the conclusion that both sides are bad, the point of that argument is a justification for the Nakba.

If you’re Iraqi, how do you not see that all the different Arab countries have their own interests? While there was some semblance of pan-Islamism and pan-arabism during the British Mandate, it ultimately was a failed project. Jordan, Egypt, and other countries were not operating on the ‘behalf of Palestine,’ and their actions are not the fault of Palestinians.

You bring up the 1913 Pogroms and the 1930s Riots in Palestine in reaction to the Nakba too, as if they were fueled by Antisemitism instead of anti-settler-colonialism. Even the commissions done by the British disagree with that.

The Concept of forcible transfer the native Palestinians population was central to Zionism since the 1880s when Palestine was chosen as the location. During the British Mandate, around a 100,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced by land purchases (unlike previous land purchases, where peasants would normally continue working and living on the land). Ben-Gurion used Partition as a tactic to dissuade the British from considering a Bi-National Secular State, and instead create a causi-belli for the beginning of a Jewish ethnostate within Palestine. The Nakba, or Plan Dalet, was deliberately planned for over a year. That ethnic cleansing campaign is directly responsible for the Palestinian Occupied Territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The 1967 war was a deliberate tactic for Israel to take control of those areas and begin the never ending occupation, once those policies were practiced on the Palestinian population that remained in the Green Line after the Nakba.

So what are you trying to agrue? Because none of that is false.

The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

1967 war: Haaretz, Forward

Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967

SleezyDizasta ,

I added the link, those quotes show why most historians consider the comparison of the Nakba and Jewish exodus from the Muslim world to be a false equivalence

No, you can’t make up claims like this. Your quotes do NOT show that most historians have this opinion. It only shows that those very specific individuals hold this opinion, that is all. In fact the very Wikipedia article that you linked provides examples of historians who disagree with this narrative. If you want to prove that most historians hold this opinion then you’re going to need evidence that actually supports that claim like a survey or a poll.

While there were certainly pogroms, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants were able to sell their possessions and willingly move.

Interesting you say that because the very article you linked disproves your claims:

Various estimates of the value of property abandoned by the Jewish exodus have been published, with wide variety in the quoted figures from a few billion dollars to hundreds of billions.[326]

The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) estimated in 2006, that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued at more than $100 billion, later revising their estimate in 2007 to $300 billion. They also estimated Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).[7][327][328][329]

Clearly the situation is much more complex given how the situation differed from country to country, from culture to culture, and from community to community. The sheer scale of this exodus prevents it from being entirely uniform. However, despite that, it still does disprove the notion that the Jewish exodus went all fine and dandy like you’re making it out to be. Even the most conservative estimates range in the billions. That is an insane amount. Even if we become ultra skeptical about this particular estimate and cut the figures by a factor of 10 due to exaggeration from bias, that would still put the amount somewhere between $10 and $30 billion. The amount lost per person on average is somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000. Even if we cut this estimate by a factor of 100, that would still be a high amount. So while some Jews might’ve been lucky enough to sell their property and voluntarily move, that wasn’t the case for many.

This is in contrast to the Nakba, where all 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed by a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign.

Yes, this was bad. I never argued against the Nakba. I’m not having a juvenile competition about which is worse. I’m just proving the point that the violence and ethnic cleansing isn’t one sided. It went both ways.

Whether you recognize it or not, when you bring up the exodus as a reaction to the Nakba with the conclusion that both sides are bad, the point of that argument is a justification for the Nakba.

No, that’s not a coherent line of thought. The point is to showcase that the one sided narrative that you’re pushing for is false. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to good vs bad. You’re trying to spin these historical events in way that disregards so much context that it renders your renditions of them to be historically inaccurate and misleading. You’re doing it now by trying to pretend that the Jewish exodus from the muslim world wasn’t bad at all. That’s simply not true.

When the UN proposed the partition plan in 1947, the Jews rejoiced while the Arabs protested and rioted. This turned in to the 1947-1948 civil war which lead both sides to lose about 1000 lives each. This escalated when the Arab Liberation Army infiltrated Palestinian population areas and started organizing attacks on Jews. This eventually culminated in the Arab Liberation Army blockading the 100,000 or so Jews in Jerusalem. The Jewish army tried to send supplies in but the Arab militants killed all who tried to get through. This event caused the US to withdraw it’s support from the partition plan, which embolden the Arab Liberation Army into thinking that it could end the partition plan all together. In the meantime, there were talks between the Arab countries on militarily intervening on behalf of Palestine. The Jews who were fighting were struggling, but their leadership ordered them to hold ground as much as possible until they could come up with a new strategy that defended the Jews in anticipation of the impending Arab invasion.

That strategy eventually came, and it was called plan Dalet. The plan was to basically secure the Jewish settlements, unify them into a single cohesive unit, remove the Palestinians in between, and declare the independence of a new Jewish state. This was the beginning of what the Palestinians called the Nakba. This plan lasted about a month or two, and on May 14th, 1948, a day before the British Mandate ended, the Jews declared independence. The US and USSR both recognized the new state, but the Arab countries refused and decided to form a coalition army and invade. The Arab world was already hostile to Jews due to the antisemitic hatred that descends from islam, the situation in the British Mandate, and their close relations to Nazi Germany (which were spurred by their mutual hatred of Jews). The Jews in the muslim world faced constant discrimination, violence, and harassment, but after the Arab countries invaded? The rhetoric and propaganda were dialed up to max. This was the beginning of the Jewish exodus from the muslim world.

Back to the invading Arab countries, while their numbers were great, they were pretty incompetent. Armies had poor communication among themselves, there was poor coordination among the different countries, and the leadership made poor decisions. This led the Arab forces to lose ground to the Israeli army. As Israel was making gains, it was basically continuing plan Delat on the new territory that it acquired. Which caused more displacement of Arabs. Meanwhile, the Arab countries increased their propaganda and nationalist rhetoric even more at home to compensate for their losses, which caused even more discrimination, harassment, and violence against Jews which forced more of them to flee. These events kept going until 1949, when Israel pretty much won and signed armistices with the invading countries. The end result? Over 6,000 dead Jews, over 10,000 dead Arabs, over 700,000 displaced Arabs, and around 1 million Jews were displaced. It should be noted that the violence, displacement, and aggression didn’t stop from either the Jews or the Arabs, and things kept going, at a slightly slower pace, until things boiled over again in 1967.

That’s so much history happening in such a short span of time that affected so many people. There was no moral side and there was no unjust cause. It’s a lot complicated than that. But that’s my point. You can’t brush off all this context. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to comic book superhero storylines. You can’t disregard historical information because you subscribed to an inaccurate narrative. Pointing out the complexity of the situation is not a justification of anything, it’s merely pointing out the complicated reality.

If you’re Iraqi, how do you not see that all the different Arab countries have their own interests? While there was some semblance of pan-Islamism and pan-arabism during the British Mandate, it ultimately was a failed project. Jordan, Egypt, and other countries were not operating on the ‘behalf of Palestine,’ and their actions are not the fault of Palestinians.

Back then, the idea of different Arab nations hasn’t really set in yet. There were different Arab states, but the Arab world viewed itself as one big nation and thought that eventual unification was inevitable. That’s why they went to such great lengths to try and help establish Palestine. Each state acted in it’s own interests, yes, but they were all pursuing the same goals. Not to mention that the Palestinian leadership called on them for help, so they didn’t go in uninvited. Of course, you can’t blame this on civilians, but these states did act on behalf of the Palestinian state that they wanted to take place. All of these ideas are less true today because so much time and history has passed that the different states were able to form their own national identities. Even though Arabs still view themselves as one people (this is slowly but surely decreasing in popularity), idea of unification is now seen as farfetched and even as undesirable.

bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

I see your point. It’s not wrong when it happens to Arabs but wrong when it happens to Jews. Can you help me fill in the blanks?

R A _ _ S _

Spoilerracist ass motherfucker

SleezyDizasta ,

I’m literally Arab (Iraqi), but okay

SleezyDizasta ,

How can you comment on something you don’t understand? Israel already took control of the Sinai when Egypt declared war on them and lost. Israel voluntarily gave it up in exchange for recognition. Egypt has kept their word, so why would Israel break theirs? Egypt and Israel are actually good allies.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Uh... I think you missed the part that said "when Egypt inevitably collapses".

SleezyDizasta ,

It already has, numerous times. Nothing happened.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Huh? Are we having the same conversation?

SleezyDizasta ,

I’m pointing that Egypt has already collapsed since Israel captured the Sinai and returned it in exchange for recognition. You claimed that when this Egyptian government collapses, or rather if it does, then Israel will seize the opportunity to do so. But they’ve had this opportunity presented to them already. For example, in 2011… but they didn’t do anything, so why would they now?

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Uh... Egypt did not collapse in 2011. That was a regime change. I'm talking about a Libya or Syria-style failure to keep existing as a sovereign state.

SleezyDizasta ,

Government collapses tend to count as state collapses, but using your definition it’s pretty hard for Egypt to end up in that state. Unless an extremely powerful empire like the British or the Ottomans takes over. Egypt’s geography makes it very hard for the country to be divided and fall into civil war. Virtually all Egyptians live on the Nile or its delta, and those areas are completely packed with a fairly homogenous population. There’s isn’t a big demographic rift or a clear ideological divide. There’s the Coptic Christians who make up 10% of the population, but they aren’t large enough to do anything and there’s the islamic fundamentalists, who do cause trouble, but they either swing the whole country in that direction or don’t have enough influence to do anything.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

You only say that because you don't know how Egypt is looking like right now. Egypt's economy is the worst it's ever been in decades because of mismanagement, and it's not getting better. We're seeing the government build new bridges and cities using our tax pounds while people can't buy food. They're borrowing money at absurd rates to try to keep the whole thing from collapsing and paying back by selling the counter piecemeal to gulf states while refusing to actually fix anything. People keep having to find places to cut back on food and other essentials just so they don't starve. We can't get enough fuel for the country so blackouts have been going on for a while and it's killing newborns in hospitals. Hell, a guy I know had a 9-hour long blackout recently.

Egypt's economy is in free fall right now and there's not much more room for falling before people starve. Some kind of revolution is going to happen within the next few decades (because people don't like to die of starvation) and you know what happens when the people try taking back control from a military dictatorship. Where exactly it'll be on the Frenchrevolution-Syrian civil war (which started because the Syrian government refused to give up its power) spectrum I don't know, but given what I've seen from other examples in the region and the behavior of Egypt's government I am very much not optimistic.

SleezyDizasta ,

I am well aware that Egypt’s economy is in shambles because of Al Sisi’s vanity project in building the new capital city with money the country doesn’t have. I agree with you that some kind of revolution is bound to happen at this rate, and I actually think it’ll happen in the next few years because the situation is pretty grim. I’m not Egyptian, but I’ve talked to Egyptians who say their families in Egypt are struggling to the point where they find it difficult to buy rice and sugar. I don’t think a revolution is a few decades away with conditions like that. With that being said, is there any indication that the upcoming revolution will end in civil war? Egypt can’t be compared to the other countries in the region because it’s a unique country due to its geography and high population. Based on recent Egyptian history, which I think is the best comparisons we can make, the country has had a few dictators and revolutions but it hasn’t had any civil wars, at least not any that I could recall. Is there something on the ground that is not apparent in the media our Egyptian diaspora?

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Is there something on the ground that is not apparent in the media our Egyptian diaspora?

Not really; it's just that I doubt the army will give up power peacefully. Hence civil war or violent revolution. And in both cases it wouldn't be strange if Israel decided to expand into Sinai during the chaos.

SleezyDizasta ,

Not really; it’s just that I doubt the army will give up power peacefully. Hence civil war or violent revolution.

There’s also a good possibility that one of the high ranking military officers will use the opportunity that will arise from the chaos to orchestrate a coup and put themselves in power.

And in both cases it wouldn’t be strange if Israel decided to expand into Sinai during the chaos.

But think about it from an objective point of view. Israel has already taken control of the Sinai twice. Once from October 1956 to March 1957 and again from June 1967 to April 1982. The second time, it held the Sinai for 15 years. That’s not a small amount of time and Israel even had a few settlements set up. However, it gave all of them up and handed back the Sinai in 1975 as a part of the Egypt Israel peace treaty. This treaty has been active for 50 years, what would Israel gain from destroying it?

Unlike the previous times where Egypt was the aggressor, that excuse can’t be used by Israel if it occupied the Sinai again. The occupation would immediately be seen as unprovoked aggression. Why? Because Israel is the one that’s very clearly hostile and violating the treaty. Egypt has been keeping it’s part of the deal since 1975. It has allowed for Israeli ships to pass through the Suez, it has kept the Sinai largely demilitarized, and it has recognized Israel. If Israel invades, it would be a pariah like Russia when it invaded Ukraine. Unlike it’s war with Hamas or Hezbollah, the US won’t be backing Israel on this. Egypt is not a terrorist group and it’s not an aggressor, and Israel would have blatantly violated a US brokered treaty. Backing Israel would be a massive blow to the credibility of American diplomacy and no US president would risk American soft power for an ally that’s not willing to respect them or keep their words. They would have to back Egypt, or at the very least condemn Israel’s aggression. If the US abandons Israel, you can be sure the EU will follow.

But it actually gets worse for Israel, because all the other Arab countries that established relations with it will immediately sever relations again. Why wouldn’t they? Not only is Egypt a fellow Arab country, but it is the most populated Arab country and a key ally to all the other Arab countries. It’s in their interest to back up their fellow Arab country that’s in the right. After all, if Egypt, who has kept their part of the deal for 50 years, still ended up getting attacked, what’s there to stop the other Arab countries from being next? Clearly Israeli treaties are worthless since they won’t even bother to honor them and they’re hellbent on violent conquest.

You can also be certain that the moment Egypt declares war back on Israel, the Palestinian terrorist groups and the Iranian backed terrorist groups are going to go wild. They’ll attack Israel from every direction. Hell, I wouldn’t even be surprised if the bordering Arab countries joined the war alongside Egypt. I’m sure Syria would love to get Golan Heights back, Jordan and Lebanon would want Israel eliminated as a threat, and the other Arab countries would want a decisive victory to end this long conflict. In the off chance that Israel does win another war against an Arab coalition by itself, it would have gained the Sinai at the cost of all of it’s diplomacy and it would have to start again from scratch.

And what for exactly? A piece of largely inhospitable desert that bares no security threat from a country that’s both peaceful and cooperative with Israel. Israel has already given up the Sinai twice because it doesn’t hold enough strategic value. The things it gained from making peace with Egypt is far greater than anything the peninsula had to offer.

So let’s summarize Israel loses it’s valuable alliances with the US and the West, it loses all the recognition and diplomacy it worked for in the Arab world, it risks fighting another coalition war by itself, and it’ll become a pariah state all for an empty piece of desert that poses no threat, has little strategic value, and it has given up twice before. So I ask again, what would Israel gain from doing this?

I just don’t see it happening.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

There's also a good possibility that one of the high ranking military officers will use the opportunity that will arise from the chaos to orchestrate a coup and put themselves in power.

That is, admittedly, a possibility I hadn't considered.

This treaty has been active for 50 years, what would Israel gain from destroying it?

If the treaty remains active then makes sense, but I doubt anyone will care about a peace treaty with a failed state. You know how when a country just falls apart its neighbors go after the pieces? That's the sort of scenario I'm envisioning here. Admittedly my thinking might be overly simplistic, and I should've considered more orderly possibilities, but at least in the Syria-style absolute chaos situation I'm imagining (which after thinking about it isn't as likely as I thought) of I don't see why they'd honor the sovereignty of a state that ceased to exist, in the same way nobody really cares about Syria as a sovereign state anymore.

Varyk , (edited )

Completely occupying Palestinian land has been the plan for over half a century.

With this terrorist attack, Israel is trying to wrap it up.

They could have completed their colonization under the guise of righteous vengeance, but:

That now has very little chance of succeeding because of three important factors 1) it’s taking much too long 2)they’re indisputably committing witnessed, recorded and shared war crimes and 3) the goodwill they’ve accumulated for 70 years as a stabilizing ally is wearing off pretty quickly.

There’s more support for Palestine now than there has been with these same Israeli attacks occurring for the past 70 years.

Palestine is officially recognized by 145 countries or so at this point.

So, likely scenario is there’s going to be a ceasefire eventually and a similar paltry amount of land will be given to a nascent “official” Palestinian authority under the practical authority of Israel, which is not ideal, but it might actually result in the beginning of a two-state solution that’s been suggested since Israel became a country.

In practical terms, Palestine getting a “country”, not much will change between Israel and Palestine because the establishment of Palestine doesn’t affect the fundamental religious conflict between the two.

That’s where it looks like it’s headed.

I hope I’m wrong and something better happens.

Nougat ,

Palestine being a wholly recognized nation with borders would make it so much easier for the world community to use its leverage on both Israel and Palestine for any of their shenanigans. As it stands now, it’s still arguably “an internal conflict.”

That’s a lot different from “attacking a sovereign nation.”

Varyk ,

Exactly.

YourPrivatHater ,

Yeah but that will not happen because the “sovereign nations” government is Hamas and they did attack Israel…

Hamas has the majority in Gaza and would get the majority in the other parts of the autonomous region Palestine in a election (wich is why the current government of this region is not doing elections)

SleezyDizasta ,

No it wouldn’t because the problem isn’t with borders, it’s with government. The Palestinian government has squandered every opportunity and has done everything it could to stop progress. Its Arab allies have been dedicated for decades to do everything in their power to act on the behalf and in the best interest of Palestine from going to wars to destroy Israel to islamic world organized boycotts and sanctions against Israel to diplomatic pressure on the west to do something to providing their own peace proposals to giving them arms to taking them in as refugees to giving them billions in humanitarian aid annually and the list goes on and on… But every time, their efforts blew up in their faces. There’s a reason why these countries are starting to recognize Israel.

gedaliyah ,
@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

Fact check: Israel left Gaza in 2005, removing all Israeli settlements and military installments.

Varyk , (edited )

That refers to an agreement by the Israeli military to stop officially invading and colonizing Palestine after successfully colonizing over 90% of their territory.

Unofficially, government invasion continued and the usrael government did nothing to stop illegal civilian Israeli invaders and colonizers.

Israel also continued to bomb civilian establishments and execute civilians up until the present day!

SleezyDizasta ,

Source: dude, trust me

YourPrivatHater ,

How dare you state the truth in our antisemitic arguments about how evil Israel is…

SOMETHINGSWRONG ,

Unironically defending genocide by using “antisemitism” as an excuse, implying by your own admission that all Jews are genocidal

Who do you think you’re fooling, bud? Fucking Nazi.

YourPrivatHater ,

Unironicaly thinking that there is a genocide even after the ICJ said there is none… Blocked you nazi.

SleezyDizasta ,

You’re talking out of your ass. Israel has no plans to take over Gaza. They already had it and even had settlements there going back all the way before Israel gained its independence. But they voluntarily existed in 2005 in hopes of fostering peace with the Gazans… Instead the first thing they did was elect Hamas and commit terrorist attacks.

Varyk ,

So if you rewind another 50 years or so, you’ll understand the statement I made a little better.

The israeli conquest of Palestinian land started quite a ways before 2005.

SleezyDizasta ,

I literally don’t care, you made a false statement. Israel unilaterally left Gaza. They don’t have settlements there anymore and they don’t plan to. Making up stuff doesn’t make you sound smart.

Varyk ,

You might want to care, since your false claims are entirely based on a woefully inaccurate and incomplete historical understanding of the conflict.

SleezyDizasta ,

Nothing that I have said is false. In fact I can source every single one of my claims. I know a propaganda fueled drone such as yourself can’t do the same, which is why you came back with this drivel instead of providing substance

Varyk ,

You claimed:

“I literally don’t care”.

Sure doesn’t seem to jive with your histrionics.

Also, the history of Israel and Palestine is incredibly well documented. Going back 75 years.

You could literally search on any engine and find it instantly. You don’t even need a particular source to figure out how old this conflict is.

Which is probably where you should start.

SleezyDizasta ,

If you actually took into account the context, it’s very obvious that I said I don’t care about your claim that conflict is old and goes back many years. Nobody is disputing that. My point is that you made specific claim, which is that Israel wants to annex the Palestinian territories entirely as their ultimate goal, however, that is blatantly false because Israel literally gave up their settlements in Gaza voluntarily in 2005 and unilaterally existed. If their ultimate goal is complete conquest, why would they have done such a move? This event contradicts your thesis and disproves your claim.

Varyk , (edited )

Paraphrased: “After decades of colonization, why would Israel publicly state that they were ending all illegal ongoing colonization?”

  1. Because Israel already took most of the land(see picture) and didn’t have to give any back.
  2. Because there was a lot of complaints about them colonizing Palestine, especially as the internet became more popular and people became more aware of the illegal Israeli colonization of Palestinian land.
  3. By publicly stating that Israel would no longer annex Palestinian land, they didn’t have to give up any of the land they already colonized over the past half century, civilians could continue to colonize Palestinian land because it wasn’t official government or military colonization, and people would be mollified.

And it worked.

You apparently aren’t aware that Israelis are still colonizing Palestine because 19 years ago they put out a press release that said “no backsies, but some of us will stop officially colonizing this country after 60 years”.

The civilians are still settling Palestinian land(they never stopped) that has been now evacuated because, you know, they’re killing all the Palestinians.

aljazeera.com/…/israeli-settlement-expansion-in-p…

aljazeera.com/…/how-israeli-settlers-are-expandin…

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/8430d4cd-da15-4eb3-a901-f2df4bac1a0d.jpeg

SleezyDizasta ,

A lot of unnecessary fluff, but you do have a question hidden down there.

What fluff? I wrote 5 sentences lmao

Paraphrased: “After decades of colonization, why would Israel publicly state that they were ending all illegal ongoing colonization?”

Yeah, this isn’t going to fly by me. This is just the strawman fallacy. That is NOT what I asked. I asked a very simple and straight forward question:

If their ultimate goal is complete conquest, why would they have done such a move?

This is clearly in reference to their unilateral exit in 2005 from Gaza. If you want to have a discussion with me then at least have the decency to be honest. I won’t respond to an answer about a question I didn’t ask, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt to answer the actual question I asked. If you can’t help but be disingenuous then I’m afraid this discussion will end with my comment here.

aljazeera.com/…/israeli-settlement-expansion-in-p…aljazeera.com/…/how-israeli-settlers-are-expandin…

Al Jazeera is literally a state sponsored propaganda outlet that is owned by the authoritarian theocracy of Qatar. This outlet is a bad source in general, but it’s notorious for it’s misinformation and outright when it comes to this specific conflict. If this is where you get your information then I’m not surprised why your talking points are nothing than inaccurate propaganda.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/721f755c-c6d7-4538-bacb-9a2eaa385452.png

This image is a prime example of what propaganda looks like. I know you don’t have any, but let’s use our critical thinking skills for a bit and analyze why this picture is complete trash:

  1. The key insinuates that Jews are foreign to the area. This is also entirely false. Jews have always had very sizable presence in this region dating back thousands of years. They were there long before islam, long before Arab colonization, long before the Roman even came up with the term Palestine. This is because Jews are indigenous to the area, but the word choices for the key is trying to erase that.
  2. The colors chosen are also propaganda. They chose green for Palestine, which is the national color, but instead of using blue for Israel, they chose white. Why is that? Well that’s easy, because this color scheme gives the impression that Palestine is “real” entity and it is being “erased”, when that’s not the case.
  3. The first map is intentionally there to insinuate that Palestine existed prior to 1947. This is entirely false. Before the creation of the modern states, before that there was the British mandate, and before that it was the Ottoman Empire which had completely different division for this region. Palestine as sovereign entity has quite literally never existed at any point in history. The concept of a Palestinian nation is as artificial and new as the modern state of Israel.
  4. Also the the first map is also dishonest in another way because it colors inhabited areas as green. The Negev desert for example is largely uninhabited but it is colored green to give the impression that Palestine is more than what it actually is. Most muslim Arabs back then lived in the same sliver of land as what it showed for the Jews, but if they just showed an honest map of the Arab and Jewish settlements then it would give a different story and this wouldn’t be such a good propaganda map, now would it?
  5. The second map tries insinuate that the UN took away from Palestine in 1947, but that’s false because that was the very first time Palestine was even acknowledged as a sovereign entity.
  6. The third map exists to try and give a sense of progression while also masking away massive amounts of context… like the wars of 1948 and 1967 when Palestine rejected any plans for peace and coexistence, and they along with their Arab allies formed coalition armies and invaded Israel from every angle with the explicit intention of destroying… but they ended up losing both wars in a pretty convincing fashion against Israel by itself. As a part of the peace agreements the Arabs agreed to cede land to Israel.
  7. The first 3 maps go from 1947 to 1967, but then on the fourth map, it skips 38 years and stops at 2005… 19 years ago. Why would it skip all of this time? And why stop at this point in 2005? Well it’s simple, if they stopped any earlier then their propaganda map would be called out for not recognizing that Israel left Gaza as that’s a the biggest sign that Israel is trying to cooperate to find peace, but if they stopped the map more recently then their propaganda map would’ve been called out for not pointing out any of the atrocities that the Palestinians instigated and committed. This point in 2005 is just perfect for propaganda, it’s far back enough in time to feel disconnected from the modern Palestinian terrorist attacks and wars, but recent enough where it could be argued into the present.
  8. Finally, the map has no source. It’s a perfect propaganda piece because it can’t be traced back to where it originated and therefore isn’t a source to verify the accuracy of the information.

Now what did we learn from all of this little exercise? A little of critical thinking can go a long way in recognizing and dispelling propaganda. Try it some time!

Varyk , (edited )

Wow, what a miss you took.

I hope that didn’t take you a long time.

Then again, it’s much funnier if you did.

Your argument against the Israeli colonization of Palestine is that the Palestinian settlements are even smaller than they appear to be on the map.

Yes, that is the a problem. That is the point of the maps, to show how little land Palestinians have left.

Your argument is that people only own the land of the country they’re standing directly upon. Amazing.

You should go argue that to literally any country in the world where that is not correct.

Go look up the term “national boundaries”

However,

Your incorrect understanding of borders is exactly what the Israeli government is arguing as the reason it’s okay for them to continue to illegally colonize Palestine and execute the civilians there.

It’s also not true, but you don’t seem very concerned with the truth.

As for pretending to read the article incorrectly so that you can argue against it, that’s just you arguing against yourself.

Not super relevant.

Your arguments:

  1. Irrelevant to the amount of land that Israel has illegally annexed from Palestine.
  2. You complain that colors are propaganda! Doubtful, since so many of these maps use different colors, and it is not relevant to the amount of land that Israel has illegally annexed from Palestine for the past 70 years
  3. Nope, the first map details the settlement area of the Palestinian people. Again, you can look at border maps for many countries, but steal yourself! You’ll be shocked that people are not standing on every square inch of their country. Your argument here also is not relevant to the amount of land that Israel has illegally annexed from Palestine for the past 70 years.
  4. Colors(you already did this) are not relevant to the amount of land that Israel has illegally annex from Palestine for the past 70 years.
  5. “It’s not stealing land because fewer countries recognized Palestine as a country then.”

I mean…Taiwan…

Actually I’ll explain this because it doesn’t seem like you understand much about national politics. Or geography. Or colonization.

145 countries recognize Palestine as a country.

A dozen (12, for you) countries recognize Taiwan as a country

If Taiwan gets annexed by China, it’s still going to be a country being annexed(land being stolen) by China, even if not everybody is willing to recognize Taiwan as a country yet.

Also, pretty irrelevant to the amount of land that Israel has illegally annexed from Palestine for the past 70 years.

  1. Is this “argument” also a basic misunderstanding by you of politics and geography? No! It’s a tacit statement of approval by you for Israel annexing a bunch of land.

Greeeeat.

All you’re doing here is arguing that Russia annexing Crimea and trying to annex Ukraine is cool because… Russia wants land that belongs to others.

  1. Your complaint here is that Palestinians didn’t lose as much land in some decades as they did in other decades, so none of the annexation counts!

Not a great argument.

Kind of missing the point of how Violet is to steal land from people after you kill the civilians on it.

And 8. Your most bizarre criticism. There’s no source for this map?

Like, how do you get such s basic thing incorrect? Do you even know how search engines work?

Here’s a bunch of sources for that map, even with different colors for your weird color fetish.

You’ll have to come up with all new reasons why these different colors scare you.

visualizingpalestine.org/…/http-visualizingpalest…

www.palestineportal.org/…/maps-loss-of-land/

researchgate.net/…/Figure-1-Showing-the-Loss-of-t…

Here’s one on your side, they used different colors and swear that the map is wrong;

…org.au/…/disappearing-palestine-the-maps-that-li…

Unfortunately, their “correct” maps begin and end in the exact same place and still highlight disappearing Palestinian territory, and they don’t even include the illegal settlements by Israeli civilians.

My answer completely and credibly answers your question:

Israel made that disingenuous 2005 statement because they knew they didn’t have to give any land back to Palestine, because they knew that Israeli civilian settlers would continue to annex Palestine, and because it would make people like you believe that they stopped colonizing Palestine, contrary to all of the evidence of continued Israeli settlement of Palestinian land in the ensuing years.

Including right now.

Where they are colonizing Palestine and putting up residential neighborhoods.

That’s in the sources from my previous comment that you seem a bit wary to mention.

Here’s the BBC reporting on the continued illegal Israeli settlement of Palestine.

www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490034

Here’s the times of Israel, proudly declaring their intent to illegally settle Palestinian land, sanctioned by the defense ministry.

timesofisrael.com/government-panel-greenlights-ne…

Here’s PBS, describing Israel planning to illegally annex and colonize Palestine:

pbs.org/…/israel-plans-to-build-3300-new-settleme…

Here’s Reuters describing The ongoing illegal annexation and settlement of Palestine by Israel:

reuters.com/…/israel-advances-peak-number-west-ba…

Go ahead, please try to explain how all of these sources, including Israel and their ministry of defense stating that they are going to annex Palestine, are just kidding about the illegal annexation of Palestine.

Your argument that the colors are wrong has nothing to do with the number of times Israel has invaded, razed, annexed and colonized Palestine, nor with the amount of civilians it’s executed or with schools, hospitals it’s bombed.

That was a pretty fun victory lap for me.

Keep swinging though, I like dancing on laurels

SleezyDizasta ,

You’re so disingenuous and brain dead that it’s literally not worth my time to engage you.

Varyk ,

I understand you’re afraid of revealing your ignorance.

That ship has sailed.

I’m very directly telling you to ask for help.

Nothing disingenuous.

bartolomeo ,
@bartolomeo@suppo.fi avatar

Don’t bother, that must be one of those tantrum fueled hasbara accounts.

Varyk ,

Thanks, it’s fine.

I have a lot of free time and it’s fun to respond to mindless bad faith with diametric sincerity.

They always get boggled.

alvvayson ,

For decades, Israel and the US (and European countries) have pursued a policy to destabilize middle eastern regimes.

People don’t realize this, but there was a wave of Arab nationalism that was killed by sponsoring Islamic extremists. Had that not happened, the middle east would be much more secular today than it is.

Israel attacking and destabilizing Lebanon and Syria and the US maintaining a dictator in Egypt are part of this strategy.

In turn, this leads to hate towards the West and Israel by the Muslims affected.

It won’t stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.

KoboldCoterie ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

It won’t stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.

Who should we vote for to stop what’s going on? Please, enlighten me.

Kecessa ,

Sanders

But more seriously, vote everywhere for the most progressive people possible and vote strategically to get the most progressive person realistically electable when needed.

rayyy ,

Down-voted with deep regrets. A vote for Sanders, no matter how good he would be, is a vote to let Netanyahu “finish the job” in 2024.
The path to your goal is to vote progressives down ballot and really support them until they rise to congressional level where they can actually create change. Until then, vote for the candidate who has the best chance of winning and gets you closest to you goals. Beware, the trolls want to create division so their guy can walk right in.

Kecessa ,

Did you skip the “but more seriously” part and everything that came after right after I said “Sanders”? 🤔 Because I’m saying exactly what you’re saying.

Also, you can vote for Sanders so he keeps his position in the Senate so it’s actually not false that people need to vote for him.

Zoboomafoo ,

I refuse to vote for Sanders…

Because I don’t live in his state so I’m not allowed to.

He’s done great work convincing progressives that the best way to change the Democratic party is from the inside, and I hope it continues.

Kecessa ,

It’s a general “you”, I’m not talking about you as a person specifically.

alvvayson ,

I don’t think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.

You’d first need to get new candidates to win a primary and then a general and the required majorities are lacking almost everywhere.

A more fruitful approach is to actually change public opinion.

It’s a long uphill battle, but it’s happening.

KoboldCoterie ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

I don’t think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.

Therein lies the problem. We don’t have a lot of choices. Voting for new, progressive candidates feels great and it’s nice to pat ourselves on the back and think we’re making a difference, but the fact of the matter is that voting for a candidate who has no realistic path to winning is only even a realistic option when the candidate with the ‘D’ next to their name is all but guaranteed to win. And yeah, I’d really love to be able to make a statement by splitting the leftist vote between the democratic candidate and a progressive one; I’d really love to tell the democrats to get fucked and vote for a progressive third-party for every seat, but right now is far from the time for that, especially in states where those races are actually close. The last thing we need is to pack the House and Senate with republicans who win something like 40/30/30 because we couldn’t unify behind someone who actually had a chance of winning.

Not to mention, we only get to vote in 1 state’s elections, and often times there aren’t even any progressive down-ballot candidates on the ballot to vote for.

alvvayson ,

I know a lot of people don’t like the American First Past the Post system, but to be honest, even in a proportional system like here in the Netherlands, you end up with very similar dynamics.

Truth is, progressives are always a small minority, in every country. Because they are always ahead of the curve on change.

In the US, this means that you only get a handful of progressives in the most progressive districts and never a really progressive national government.

In the Netherlands, this means progressives are always represented, but need to compromise to form a government. And often, they even get skipped and the centrist and conservative parties form a coalition.

Truth be told, Biden is as progressive as you could hope to get in the USA.

And, while I do think it is important to criticize him - and even threaten to not vote for him - to enable him to move more towards the left, it is also important to vote for him.

Progressives always win, not through getting majorities, but because they have the right ideas and eventually the other parties catch up to them.

For recent examples, gay marriage in the USA or marihuana legalization are now law in the USA.

I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.

KoboldCoterie ,
@KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.

I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe this will happen while Biden is president. Not to say I’m not going to vote for him - I’m not that stupid, but he’s made it pretty clear that he will stand with Israel more or less no matter what they do.

I do worry that he’s upsetting a lot of people to the point that they won’t vote for him, though, and that’s scary to me. He comes across as very weak when he capitulates to Israel this hard. He’s repeatedly said, “This is the line, don’t cross it!”, then when they do, he moves the line. If he loses to Trump in November, I’ll have a hard time not blaming Israel and his policies in dealing with them for that loss.

NoiseColor ,

You are not giving Arabs any credit for the current situation? Thats almost racist 😁

America cares less today about oil as it is self reliant.

alvvayson ,

Americans still care about the price of oil, which is set in a global market and where Saudi-Arabia and Russia have more influence than the USA.

Obviously, the extremist Arabs that overthrew their own leaders are also to blame. Where did I deny that?

small44 ,

Extremist arabs didn’t overthrew their leaders, the population overthrew their dictators and was hiding the fact of torturing and killing political oponents or even normal people critisizing the regimes

orrk ,

To be fair, how many secular leaders can you assassinate before they stop?

YourPrivatHater ,

For decades, Israel and the US (and European countries) have pursued a policy to destabilize middle eastern regimes.

You are aware that china and Russia do that even more. Supporting Terrorism, supporting Iran and their nuclear shitshow blaming everything on the west especially Israel… You get the point.

People don’t realize this, but there was a wave of Arab nationalism that was killed by sponsoring Islamic extremists. Had that not happened, the middle east would be much more secular today than it is.

Most of the terrorists, especially ISIS have not been supported by outside of middle east, but where fueled from within middle east because governments do government stuff. Hamas and Hezbolla are similar cases, especially because the antisemitism unites most of the Islamic countries against Israel

Israel attacking and destabilizing Lebanon and Syria and the US maintaining a dictator in Egypt are part of this strategy.

Hezbolla (Lebanon and Egypt) is constantly shooting rockets into residential areas and targeting hospitals. So Israel has a very very solid reason to strike them. And the Egyptian dictatorship is a dictatorship but one that at least on surface fights those terrorists, wich would probably gain majority in a democratic election… Like what happened in Gaza…

In turn, this leads to hate towards the West and Israel by the Muslims affected.

No the antisemitism in nowadays Islam was caused by Nazi Germanys propaganda into middle east. The anti west thing by the Soviet union. But yes its not helping to reduce the hate, but at this point there is no way to reduce this unless we would abolish Israel wich is absolutely not an option.

It won’t stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.

I haven’t seen USA sponsoring hamas or hezbolla and it will not stop ever, especially because even if you leave Israel to the terrorist, when they are done there you get to be the next target. There is no other way than to fight such groups.

SleezyDizasta ,

Israel bombs Lebanon because Hezbollah keeps committing terrorist attacks and launching missles from there, the same goes for Syria. Also, in what universe is helping keeping countries stable like Egypt destabilizing? You people are mind numbingly ignorant. The middle east was never secular or stable, it was always religiously extremist, violent, and oppressive. There was a slight blip in secularism during the British and French mandates and slightly afterwards, but as time moved on, the region just went back to the way it used to. What we view as islamic extremism is just normal islam. Secular muslims aren’t a thing. They’re considered extremely liberal and westernized in islamic countries.

southsamurai ,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

Well, yeah. That’s the idea. Why would they go this far and not go all the way? They know damn good and well that as long as they keep things just barely on the end where genocide isn’t stated as a goal, and they maintain a position of alliance with most of the west, nobody is going to actually stop them.

Hell, without starting a world war, I’m not even sure they can be stopped.

On the world stage? There aren’t enough nations with power that actually care about Palestine. Yeah, leaders will make noise and pretend to care, but Palestine offers nothing to the major powers worth intervening for.

Sounds sociopathic, right? That’s the leaders of most of the world. People drawn to power rarely have the ethical rigor to wield said power. Those that do, still have to deal with oligopoly, hidden fascists, and the reality that no nation can really take action without upsetting the whole damn thing.

SleezyDizasta ,

Actually that’s not true, the muslim Arab countries went to great lengths to intervene and support the Palestinians. From starting coalition wars that sought to destroy Israel to organized boycotts and sanctions by the muslim world to placing diplomatic pressure on the West to put out peace proposals to giving them billions in aid annually. They tried everything, but every time, the Palestinian leadership has insulted them, backstabbed them, lied to them, or squandered their efforts away. For example:

Jordan - Took part in coalition wars, took them in as refugees… but Palestinians used this as an opportunity to try to overthrow the Kingdom by assassinating officials and committing terrorist attacks. It was so bad that these events became known as black September.

Egypt - Took part in the coalition wars, tried to diplomatically support Palestine, and took them in as refugees… but the Palestinians also took this as an opportunity to try and overthrow the Egyptian government multiple times. It got so bad that Egypt had to join Israel in their blockade.

Kuwait - provided military, economic, and political support as well as took them in as refugees… but the Palestinians openly celebrated and supported Iraq’s invasion in the 90s under Saddam Hussein. It got so bad that Kuwait kicked out all 350,000 Palestinian nationals from it’s territory.

Syria - Took part in the coalition wars, provided diplomatic support, and took them as refugees… but the Palestinians ended up trying to overthrow the government during the Syrian civil war. It got so bad that Bashar Al Assad pretty much severed relations with them.

Saudi Arabia - I don’t even need to say anything here, they literally released a 3 part documentary (that I highly recommend) that goes through everything they did to support the Palestinians and what they did in return. Here’s part 1:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=edKZbu5OM1c

I could keep going, but I think you get the idea. There’s a reason why all these countries are starting to recognize Israel now. They tried everything in their power to act on the behalf and in the best interest of Palestine, but in the end their efforts just blew back in their faces

SleezyDizasta ,

Palestine: declares war, explicitly calls for genocide, asks muslims to murder Jews everywhere, calls other countries to invade Israel, invades Israeli towns, commits terrorist attacks against civilians, massacres entire families, rapes women, launches tens of thousands of missiles, broke ceasefire agreements they asked for (twice), takes hundreds of hostages, openly celebrate the attacks on the streets, parade around the corpses of the naked victims, shows zero remorse, refuses every peace deal, vows to do it all again.

Israel: fights back

Idiots: tHaT’s LiTerAlLy GeNoCiDe

Actually brain dead

southsamurai ,
@southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

Go screw

SleezyDizasta ,

Seethe lol

syd ,
@syd@lemy.lol avatar

There’s no reason for them to stop. No one standing against them. If I was them, I would do the same.

istanbullu ,

Israel will try to kill every non-Jew in the Middle East. Their religion compels them.

NoiseColor ,

I don’t think that’s in their religion.

Plus the other side actually is saying that.

YourPrivatHater ,

This is the biggest BS i’ve read in a long time.

SleezyDizasta ,

About 20% of Israel’s population is not Jewish

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •