If the prison is your homeland, it might be.

Especially as the Gaza strip is not their homeland but where they have been displaced from their colonized homeland.

It is common for those seeking to engineer demographics to want to forcefully displace people.

It is common for those who have dehumanised the other to take away their most basic rights, like freedom of movement.

So yeah, super uncommon anywhere except in places like the tiny silver of land ruled by the most moral occupiers in the world.

So... Why not blame Egypt? You can answer if you know, but the question is really meant as a shrug towards bias and a plea for education in geography.

Egypt has an airport just west of Gaza. They have a visa exclusive program for Palestinians. And that's not new.

So based on the story, if you presume Israel was Kafkaesque then you must also presume that Egypt was at least as Kafkaesque if he was unable to leave from there.

Or worse... he was unwilling.

And yet, the story is about Israel for some reason. I'd ask why, but I presume to know the answer. Again, this is a shrug towards bias.

There are land-back movements in the US. In addition, all native Americans have US citizenship. If Israel gave citizenship, equal rights, and the right of return to all those that were displaced since the 1940s and their descendents, then I imagine a one-state solution would be possible and a lasting peace could be achieved.

Apartheid, oppression, occupation, genocide, and ethno-nationalist supremacy are "just wrong", and not all that complex once you get past the lie that they don't exist.

Also, the comment's "main thrust" was in response to the claim that the area is 'just always like that', for 'thousands of years', which is categorically untrue; a deliberate thought-terminating lie. Israel's terror campaign and colonialist brutality of the last 80 years is something quite new and different, based as it is on brutal British and American colonial strategies.

> in order to collect more taxes.

Non-Muslims were taxed more so of course they were welcomed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Muslims have not asked for a majority Muslim state in Europe or started a terror campaign in support of that goal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

They don't have a right to own land in 90% of the country. You literally have to be Jewish to buy land. Also Jewish people started burning down buildings full of Arabs during the war. They can get evicted from their houses. They are discriminated against. And I don't think you're a full citizen if you can't even buy and keep property.

> Yes there are differences, but claiming that Arab israelis only receive "token rights" is a far cry from the truth

Aren't the rights only subject to them being an ethnic minority in Israel? According to nation-state law, they could not be allowed to retain those rights if they became the ethnic majority

Inform us to your simple solution:

Keep things the same with Palestinians as wards of the state: Iran and others fund Hamas to continue the conflict.

Palestinians get an armed state: in 5 years Palestinians attack Israel and are utterly wiped out by complete military defeat and carpet bombing

Palestinians get an unarmed state.: lol like they have now? Smuggled arms, terrorism, eventual war, carpet bombing.

The essential geopolitical issue is that the Palestinians have never functionally accepted being defeated. So they never moved on and accepted peace in defeat like literally thousands of other ethnic groups historically in the history of ethnic conflict in the world.

Granted their only source of economic support is being funded to not accept peace by Iran and the Arab world for 70 years. That's four generations of Palestinians only existing to be thorns in the side of Israel and as useful fools.

At this point there is no good outcome for Palestinians. All roads lead to devastating military defeat politically. The economic basis of their existence (oil money) is rapidly fading. Old allies are now aligned with Israel (Sunni Arabs), impotent (Russia/Syria), or regionally deflated (Iran). Global warming is worsening. And they have increased their population 10 fold over 70 years with ZERO agricultural or economic ability to support themselves. Their political leadership is corrupt and paid to be militaristic and have authoritarian control. The West wont give them headline prominence anymore. The US is becoming insular, and we are entering an era of conflict and a fall in international diplomatic idealism

If you are a Palestinian and have any way to get out, get the effing hell out of there.

I could grant the Palestinians every moral high ground and argument. It won't change anything geopolitically and the Palestinians are utterly screwed.

Their only (impossible) chance is to reject Hamas, live in whisper quiet peace with Israel, develop tourism or some other economic basis to support their population.

And we all know reading that paragraph how impossible that is.

They could form a bi-ethnic country that incorporates both Jews and Palestinians with full rights. Or they could allow the Palestinians to have a state while retaining a Jewish state.

There's no reason why giving Palestinians rights and self determination would necessitate Jews to leave or even to abolish their country.

The main issue transpires in your comment.

Judaism != Israël

Judaism is a religion. Being jew is not a nationality. More than 1 out of 4 israelis aren't jews, almost 20% are muslims, 2% are christians, there are also druzes, atheists and many others.

As you said, jews have lived there for millenias in what was called until very recently Palestine. Jews were palestinian before zionism. They could still be.

One country, one man, one vote. It is the only ethical way forward. Democracy moves conflicts from the realm of violence to politics. Abandon the idea that Jews have to be the majority vote.

Stay in the land that was allotted in 1967 (or 1948), don’t create settlements, allow the Palestinians territories to self govern and have open borders. Obviously that won’t stop bad faith actors like Hamas but that’s not going to stop with a war either. Bibi majorly screwed up by ignoring Gaza and allocating troops to guard West Bank settlements. Not claiming this will be a panacea, but I don’t see how Israel’s current plan will accomplish anything more than perpetual conflict and an increasingly radicalized population on both sides. Oh and kick out Itamar Ben-Gvir and the rest of the ultra right wing.

> blame upon a society largely built and carved out of barren land over decades of great difficulty

First, not all of it was "barren land": Not the places that were ethnically cleansed in 48 and 67. Second, you think any of it gives any society the license to do whatever they please?

> most bloodthirsty genocidal persecutions

Zionists back then didn't really care about those being persecuted in the diaspora [0], though they do find it fit to use it to justify their adventures in colonialism.

> having built a real country

The problem is, it is a phantom country for ~50% of the inhabitants under occupation.

> their desire for the total elimination of the Jewish nation of millions

Speaking of desires, one side is already acting on theirs to eliminate another peoples [1].

[0] https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/151463/the-diaspora...

[1] https://www.mekomit.co.il/ps/134005/

[flagged]

There is a difference between moral responsibility and factual causality. If you engage in colonialism and ethnic cleansing, its not surprising that both sides do it.

Its of course also true that Jews and other minority would have had lots of issue in Arab country with Arab nationalism on the rise. But Zionism clearly played a large role as well.

It was attack by various Zionist groups that result in Britain no longer wanting to control the area because they knew in any resulting deal and/or struggle they had a good chance of coming out ahead, and they were right.

My understanding of this history is that the Arab Jews weren’t exiled in the same manner as Palestinians from Palestine. But rather these were mostly a series of voluntary exoduses with post-hoc discrimination (though some were no doubt pushed out under threat of violence). As I understand it Iraq banned Jewish emigration in an effort to prevent Zionists from getting an ethnographic majority in the newly independent Israel. It was this ban on emigration which stripped the Arab Jews of their possessions as well as their citizenship. A human rights violation without a doubt, but not the same crime as the terror campaign Israelis did against Palestinians in the Nakba nor the same crime of exiling a large part of the population and not granting them the right of return.

However unlike Israel, these neighboring countries have all reversed their discriminatory policies, and I think some have even offered reparations (I think all offer the right right of return; but few have taken the offer)[1]

1: https://archive.is/2VdrP

It seems that they kind of did, performing false flag operations in neighbouring Arab countries to "encourage" Jews to move to Israel: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230619-undeniable-proof-....

Without being overly facetious, the foundations of the modern University system have a significant role to play in that; e.g. the first university in Europe was established by Arab Muslims in the year 841 in Salerno, Italy.

The downvoters are telling on themselves.

Yes, but it only happened after 1946.

The worse part for Mizrahi Jews is that they endured tons of suffering for things they had nothing to do with, and that even in today's Israel they are kind of second-class citizens facing discrimination by Ashkenazi.

thats not true. before the declaration of independence, there was hardly any abar jews migration to Israel for several reasons:

1. Arab jews lived peacefully among muslims and coexisted just fine, they were not subject to european disrimination and pogroms

2. Iraqi jews did not want to immigrate to Israel, so Mossad planted bombs and organized false flags to scare them and force them to immigrate (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-jews-attacks-zionist...)

3. Other arab countries also did not want to emigrate, Ben Gurion paid a lot of money for each family to encourage immigration. It is laughable to claim that arabs prosecuted jews, when in fact they coexisted for millennia and lived in the same neighborhoods without any segregation (that existed in Europe)

4. Mizrahi jews who immigrated to Israel suffered from severe discrimination by european ashkenazi. Only low paid jobs were given to Arab jews due to racism. Same racism is towards yemeni jews who were even subject to illegal sterilization

after the Nakba situation in arab countries changed, but it was reactionary to Nakba

[flagged]

Herzl, Zionism’s founder explicitly described Zionism as colonialism in the 1890s:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_coloniali...

> Colonialism is a leftist ideology created by college professors in the 1970s

And that matters because…?

> Furthermore, there is no colony without a mother country.

I think you’re picking and choosing a definition of colony that fits your argument. Here’s a more applicable one:

“ a body of people who settle far from home but maintain ties with their homeland; inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government”

Instead of making ad hominem attacks and playing semantics, why not argue against the actual ideas?

> Also, in what upside-down universe is a forcibly expelled indigenous people returning home 'colonial'?

Because they weren't forcibly expelled from Palestine!

If I get unlawfully evicted from my new apartment that doesn't give me the right to go take my old apartment by force.

By your logic I can use my 23 and me to prove the whole world belongs to me (excluding Australia and Antartica). That's not how this works.

It's not about the certainty of the information. The fact is that humans have always and will always migrate in large numbers for a vast number of reasons, and these migration movements are the main sources of cultural and linguistic change. So, any ideology with historical justification, based on how people in a region lived a long time ago is going to create wars because other groups lived there at other times, and ethnic and linguistic groups constantly change and evolve. Named regions, ethnic group boundaries, countries, and their delimitations change over time.

> The theory is also fundamentally based on the notion that racial migration is wrong.

There are no human races, though, at least not ones based on phenotypical traits. Genetic analysis can reveal indications of regions and ethnic origins but these are barely linked to phenotypical traits and cannot be inferred from the latter. Linguistic communities are the bearers of a shared culture, not anything related to the bogus and outdated concept of "human races." It's also worth pointing out that the claim that "racial migration is wrong" does not follow from any of the other considerations, nor is it needed to support them in any way. I suppose you meant to say the opposite, that the view that racial migration is wrong cannot be morally justified because historical justifications are wrong? Otherwise I don't get the final remark.

> Information degrades the further we go back

Exactly. Otherwise, anyone could claim anything since we all share the same ancestry, going back to the same primates or something[0]. We should focus on the issues at hand and work to avoid making the situation worse. Forcing all Israelites or Palestinians to leave is not a feasible solution. The problem needs to be addressed through peaceful negotiations and immediate support for those in need.

[0]: Dumbed down on purpose.

if you trust DNA study, you should know that the same DNA studies show that Palestinians are the ones who are native to the land of Palestine, not ashkenazi!

Thanks for the correction.

leading jewish scholars in Israel have published research in support of Khazarian theory, for example Shlomo Sand: Invention of jewish people

https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/d...

False, there is a lot of wiggle room open for interpretation in your “DNa studies”.

I need to tell Israeli professor of history Sholomo Sand from Tel-Aviv University that he is a white supremacist antisemite for pushing his Khazarian theory and bringing all the receipts in his book

https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/d...

By that logic, the claim that the land is exclusively(!) Jewish because this used to be the territory of the Jewish state ~2000 years ago works even less though.

Fair enough. With that in mind, at what point does it no longer make sense to track it?

There must be some principled position where you can argue when it does and or does not make sense. In the case of this conflict, we're talking about a conflict where a few folks that directly experienced it are still alive and that many folks whose parents experienced it are still alive.

The Nakba is more recent than the Holocaust by a few years. Should it get the same treatment? Countries like Germany are still paying reparations.

In the US, we constantly have discussions about the institution of slavery in the US that ended in 1865. Jim Crow laws are more recent injustice however and only ended in 1865.

The Ukraine likewise had the Holodomor. There's actually a fascinating video of Abe Foxman of the ADL speaking with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, telling him that it would be unproductive to talk about "your genocide, our genocide", but at the end of the day that's what we have here and it only seems fair to give comparable treatment for comparable catastrophes.

Speaking of catastrophe, I've always found it somewhat ironic that the word Nakba and the word Shoah (the original vernacular used to describe the Holocaust before it was replaced in the late 60s) both have the same meaning. Nakba is Arabic for catastrophe and Shoah is the Yiddish word for catastrophe.

I'm not saying where that line should or should not be, but it only seems fair that if we're going to draw a line that victims of different but comparable injustices should be given comparable treatment.

Fair enough. I didn't realize that the Khazar hypothesis was fringe. I've seen it pretty widely cited and assumed it was more commonly accepted.

What is still fair to say is that many Jews in Israel do not actually have a continued occupation of that land going back thousands of years as was claimed by the person I was originally responding to.

4% in 1872 is a very low number. Absent the mass immigration that diluted the local population and a Nakba that expulsed many, that 4% population there in 1872 would still be about 4% of the population today give or take a few percentage points assuming the fertility rate of that 4% and the 96% percent that were not Jewish were comparable.

Many of the Jews that are in Israel today are of European descent (i.e. no thousands of years of continued occupation of Palestine) and many of the Jews that are in Israel today that are of Arabic descent are there due to Zionist terrorism from the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah prior to 1948 and the mass migration from around the Arab-Israeli war. For example, Avi Shlaim from Oxford University has given numerous interviews on the terrorism committed by Zionists in Iraq to coerce the Middle Eastern Jewish populations to concentrate in Palestine as part of the Zionist project.

What is indisputable is that the claim of a continued presence of Israel/Palestine by Jews going back thousands of years really only applies to a very small percent of Jews in Israel. The reality is that that number is most certainly dwarfed by the quantity of Palestinians in Israel/Palestine that can claim to have "lived there for thousands and thousands of years" per the person I was replying to.

I think you're confusing me with other folks on HN. I value cohesive high trust societies so I'm personally in favor of assimilation and much more gradual changes to any culture.

I think a change from 96% to 67% in 76 years is a catastrophe for culture indigenous to a region, and it's not a surprise that the Nakba followed such a rapid change without assimilation. The rate should be one where outsiders coming into a society become part of that society instead of splintering the society.

In chemistry terms, it's the difference between a solution, emulsions, suspensions and mixtures. In my mind, the goal should be cultural "solutions". If the rate of change is such that you end up with enclaves that resist mixing, then that leads to decline of trust and civic engagement. You end up with a society that is highly political and fragmented and liable to balkanize and potentially engage in armed civil conflict.

Let me break this down in terms you can understand.

The DEIsraelis are doing a genocide.

Do you see the problem now?

[flagged]

That's really not true, e.g. the wikipedia page on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[1]. This dates way back to the Assyrian and Persian empries explicitly moving conquered peoples around in their empires in order to safeguard their rule. This book on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[2] explicitly states, with references, that the Ottomans habits were inherited from the steppe Turks, the Byzantines (=the Romans) and the Arabs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transf... [2] https://websites.umich.edu/~gocek/Work/ja/Gocek.Muge.ja.popu...

Oy vey, granada is in Spain, you just proved my point that antisemitic pogroms are purely european thing.

Iraqi jews did not even want to migrate to Israel and leave Iraq. Mossad had to organize several bombings and false flags to scare the Iraqi jews and force them to migrate[1]

in other arab states, Ben Gurion paid money to encourage jews to immigrate and settle Filistine. Moroccan king begged jewish community to stay and not to immigrate

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4283249?seq=1

I would argue there is connection to nazi regime:

1. ICC and ICJ's accusations of genocide by israel

2. israeli government led by Kahanite leaders like bezalel smotrich and ben gvir. Kahanism was recognized by USA and EU as a terrorist organization with fascist ideology and is named after terrorist meir kahane

3. public announcements by israeli leaders and journalists about "Israel needs Lebensraum"[a], dreams of conquering greater israel from Nile to Euphrates[b] stealing land from 6 other countries

There are way too many similarities between nazi germany and the zionist regime

a. https://archive.ph/NGnNv#selection-1153.44-1153.113

b. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-conf...

I agree that it's not ethnic cleansing, but that's an awful support. Just because you're bad at evil doesn't make you not evil. Like, I assume Israel's population has gone up since October 7, which doesn't make it any less attempted genocide.

  'what business did the Ottomans or British have to allow foreign zionists to take over Palestine?'

>I meant the two who governed Palestine prior to 1948

That's the kind of thing I think people should be able to disregard altogether.

Not just because it's ancient history of the Middle East, but the whole world went through so much.

After all that, it was not supposed to matter any more what happened before.

Almost all the lucky survivors could move forward and there was maximum worldwide consensus that non-violence was the way to go.

Even some of the absolute losers of the war moved forward non-violently to a better outcome than any other way.

The Hatfields & McCoys were never going to stop feuding either, until they declared multi-generational peace, that's the amount of time it takes for co-existence to eventually give way to constructive interaction, rather than destructive interaction.

>'what business did the Ottomans or British have to allow foreign zionists to take over Palestine?'

Exactly what I mean, doesn't matter what anybody anywhere did before the war.

It was only after the war when the British came out on the winning side, that made them an arbiter of these kind of things. If the Germans would have won it surely would have been much worse, with an entire political party focused primarily on spreading hatred and oppression as a growth tactic.

No traditional business or inherent right to govern was responsible for British decisions that were capable of shaping destiny.

The Crown just happened to already be there actually keeping the peace before the war, until the British empire was threatened across the entire world, and peace completely lost on the planet. I like to keep in mind that you could have spent the war years in isolated communities on a number of continents and had no knowledge whatsoever that a war had even taken place. You were still saved by the ones that won WWII, there's no getting around it.

Even though the British had gotten there in the first place because of their own misguided war-like efforts of conquest, that didn't give them legitimate rights to anything.

Their empire was actively reversing all kinds of war-like tendencies like never before, along with every other person no matter what their religion or culture, that a peaceful world was suitable for. And withdrawing from an occupation that was quite painful itself.

You know, reversing like the Hatfields & McCoys. Remember if a hateful violent culture develops, and generations go by without resolution it never really matters any more what they are fighting for. Nope. Never. Really. Matters. And it can get a lot worse when the population grows with each generation because pretty soon there are not enough mountains for everybody.

Things were pretty simple with only 3 kinds of people for a while, but since prehistoric times there's often been some violence-prone contingent that would not be compatible with world peace without major change in attitude & behavior.

The world-wide window of opportunity for complete non-violence that opened after the war will never close until WWIII.

It's what you do with it that matters until then.

For those few that failed to quit shooting you could say that it's like the war never ended for them so they're stuck in a historical impasse. But the day the war ended it pushed any continuing conflicts right into the "prehistoric" category along with all the ancient stuff that would best be non-glorified if not completely forgotten because that's what's proven to work so well.

Once it was proven that almost the entire world could become deathly hateful of their adversaries, then stop shooting and rapidly turn it around for unprecedented co-operation, then anybody can do it, and those who failed to heed the example have only worsened their own outcomes.

Just like my hillbilly ancestors did for so many generations. Nobody who actually had academic schools could have taught the lessons of WWII until it was over anyway. Even those with academic traditions going back millennia, if they didn't stop teaching anything that could lead to violence after that, then they have failed worse than the most illiterate hillbilly. Lots of those mountain dwellers didn't even get schools until the 20th century.

The feuding parties were as hateful and uneducated as people can get. You don't want to be like them any more, you want to learn how not to be like them so you don't get stuck in permanent hate. If that means forgetting the past, maybe that's the only way to learn sometimes. To some extent it could have been easier to declare peace without very much tradition of formal indoctrination.

The most effective teaching could turn out to be teaching how to forget.

The first thing that always needs to be done is to stop shooting, who knew?

>it's a complicated conflict.

It stays complicated, even after the shooting stops.

But even a hillbilly can do it.

Migrating to Palestine and living in that land is not an issue in itself. I wish them prosperity much like everyone else. The problem is the crimes that were committed by the Zionist militias such as Irgun who were viewed as terrorists orgs even under UK mandate, in additions to the settlements and establishing an apartheid state later:

1. Kicking millions of Palestinians out of their homes and villages and building illegal settlements

2. Massacres committed with no accountability (soldiers posing and documenting it, not fog of war)

Both of these practices are STILL ONGOING and have been for almost a century.

Then regular civilians come from all over the world to live in those illegal settlements and justify it or claim they have nothing to do with the atrocities when they're a major support for it and why the suffering continues.

Many more problems were results of Israel being built on ethno-religious foundations:

3. Giving refuge to pedophiles (wanted by US and INTERPOL) because they're Jewish? WTF? [1]

4. The recent rape and sexual harassment of prisoners [2]. Israeli protestors went to the streets and even rioted to defend the soldiers accused of it and were proud of their actions. Tell me how should I feel when I see them doing that?

5. The attack on World Central Kitchen convoy? [3] Killing 7 aid workers in multiple clearly marked vehicles on a coordinated mission with the IDF. What came of it? They just laid off a couple of people like the commander Nochi Mandel who oversaw the attack. The same commander signed an open letter to block humanitarian aid. So what is the punishment for killing 7 innocent aid workers? You move to the private sector it seems with higher pay grade.

Fuck me! Any group that commit such crimes and act proud with no shame are lunatics and should be held accountable but this doesn't seem to happen in Israel. Even the citizens seem to take pride in it. [4]

My problem isn't with specific group. I'm referring to Israel as a state. I don't care about the religion of its people or what land they live on as long it's lawful and they're no committing war crimes. I'd feel the same about crimes in Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Africa.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-...

[2] https://theintercept.com/2024/08/09/israel-prison-sde-teiman...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68727828

[4] https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-militants-riot-over-in...

> The fact that some of the founders of Israel were the descendants of those who fled their native lands

Only some founders were foreigners? Do you want the full list? Literally none, 0%, were "native", born in the region or anywhere near it, here's the full list of people who signed it and where they came from:

- David Ben-Gurion (Poland)

- Daniel Auster (Ukraine)

- Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (Ukraine)

- Mordechai Bentov (Poland)

- Eliyahu Berligne (Belarus)

- Fritz Bernstein (Germany)

- Rachel Cohen-Kagan (Ukraine)

- Eliyahu Dobkin (Belarus)

- Yehuda Leib Fishman (Moldova)

- Wolf Gold (Poland)

- Meir Grabovsky (Moldova)

- Avraham Granovsky (Moldova)

- Yitzhak Gruenbaum (Poland)

- Kalman Kahana (Poland)

- Eliezer Kaplan (Belarus)

- Avraham Katznelson (Belarus)

- Saadia Kobashi (Yemen)

- Moshe Kolodny (Belarus)

- Yitzhak-Meir Levin (Poland)

- Meir David Loewenstein (Denmark)

- Zvi Luria (Poland)

- Golda Meyerson (Ukraine)

- Nahum Nir (Poland)

- David-Zvi Pinkas (Hungary)

- Felix Rosenblueth (aka Pinchas Rosen) (Germany)

- David Remez (Belarus)

- Berl Repetur (Ukraine)

- Zvi Segal (Poland)

- Mordechai Shatner (Ukraine)

- Ben-Zion Sternberg (Ukraine)

- Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit (Morocco)

- Haim-Moshe Shapira (Belarus)

- Moshe Shertok (Ukraine)

- Herzl Vardi (Lithuania)

- Meir Vilner (Lithuania)

- Zerach Warhaftig (Belarus)

- Aharon Zisling (Belarus)

37 signatories, and not a single one were from that land or had any clear links to it whatsoever. You act like it was to protect the locals but not a single one was present? How much clearer do you want to it to be? It was a land grab from the very beginning

You truly fail to realize that there were people living there, and it wasn't an empty plot of land that could get promised by the British to one group or the other?

I think there's some more you can learn today. The Jewish people have been around well before Christ or Muhammad - some where around 1000 BCE not since the Balfour declaration. That doesn't mean anything regarding this comment thread but that you should know the difference between Jewish people and Israel the state.

> The land claims of the territory both come from the Torah, in the end. Its just that the Jews and Muslims disagree on who God was referring to.

What? Palestinians don't claim the land based on a promise by God. They claim it because they hold the legal documents going back for centuries. Even those expelled in 1948, still have the fucking keys covered with their grandparents blood after the Nakba ethnic cleansing.

You know what? let's forget about legal documents, about who is native to the land by DNA, since it's you know "complicated", right?

1. Zionists today (not a story in the past) continue to put outposts in Palestinians farms to snatch more and more land.

2. Israeli troops and settlers killed 171 Palestinian children in the west bank (an area smaller than Delaware) in 2024 alone [1].

3. They continue building illegal settlements on Palestinians land that's illegal even by US admission.

4. Israel is taking advantage of the power vacuum in Syria and advancing deeper inside Syria borders while taking more and more cities. It's literally provoking and asking for another war where they will claim they were victims.

5. The blood of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza is still fresh [2] and more crimes in the past with no one held accountable, soldiers are literally posing and filming their war crimes with no accountability. Many humanitarian orgs believe the number of those killed is actually undercounted as many are still undocumented.

They celebrates killing babies (who they claim will be terrorists of course) so soldiers are praised and incentivized to annex entire blood line like savages.

Here's a challenge for you: Emit labels like "Palestinians" and "Israelis" and ask someone with no prejudice, hearing it for the first time, "who is in the wrong?" If you are honest and not manipulative you'll get your answer.

But nah let's stick to the theory that the entire world is against us and respond to any other theory that it's "complicated" while continue committing war crimes openly admitted by our soldiers ever since Israel was established.[3]

Do you agree that everyone who was involved in war crimes to be held responsible, no matter what ethnicity, religion, or passport they hold? That is the core of the problem, Israeli have done more terrible things than the side they claim as terrorists.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/west-bank-chil...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-palestini...

[3] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16378034/

Yeah those bad Muslims the "only" thing they ever did was save jewry from extinction and help them flourish and in return we rewarded them with colonization and genocide /s

"First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity...

Had Islam not come along, the conflict with Persia would have continued. The separation between western Judaism, that of Christendom, and Babylonian Judaism, that of Mesopotamia, would have intensified. Jewry in the west would have declined to disappearance in many areas. And Jewry in the east would have become just another oriental cult.

But this was all prevented by the rise of Islam. The Islamic conquests of the seventh century changed the world, and did so with dramatic, wide-ranging and permanent effect for the Jews." - https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/so-what-did-the-muslims-do-f...

[flagged]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Babylonian_Empire

And literally decades later the coronation of Nabopolassar founded the Neo-Babylonian empire, soon before the Assyrian empire that destroyed old Babylon crumbled. It remained a major settlement after the destruction, it just took them a few decades to rise again.

99% of historical accounts about the sacking and destruction of cities are exaggerated. Even Carthage grew as a settlement mere years after the Romans destroyed it (the whole “salting the land” thing is an 18/19th century invention).

That's a bit light on details. Here's an account by king Sennacherib:

> I destroyed the city and its houses, from foundation to parapet; I devastated and burned them. I razed the brick and earthenwork of the outer and inner wall of the city, of the temples, and of the ziggurat; and I dumped these into the Araḫtu canal. I dug canals through the midst of that city, I overwhelmed it with water, I made its very foundations disappear, and I destroyed it more completely than a devastating flood. So that it might be impossible in future days to recognize the site of that city and its temples, I utterly dissolved it with water and made it like inundated land.

However since he was punishing Babylon for rebelling one time too many, he had reason to exaggerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib

Thanks!

Literally. When you get down to it people just hate Arabs and want to collectively punish them. It's fucking weird and racist. Palestinians do not get to suffer for Arabs from other countries who pushed out the ancient Israelis or Arabs from countries that expelled Mizrahi Jews (lets not even get into how much that was provoked by the Zionist project). They are not collectively responsible.

This is the old charter from 1988.

The new charter, published in 2017, is very different. But of course, you already know this.

If you want to play semantics, going by deeds the IDF, and even the Israeli state, is a far more heinous terorist organisation than Hamas.

The Oct 7th attack was terrible, but the Israeli response (both the initial response when many Israelis were killed as well as the hell wrought unto Gaza) has been downright evil. And they way Israel whipped people up into a frenzy with sick fantasies about "40 beheaded babies", "babies on washing lines", mass rapes etc was utterly despicable.

Are you kidding me? The Provos went from convicted, imprisoned terrorists to the legitimate heads of government in Ireland and legitimate heads of government in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein was largely led by provos for quite a while after the Good Friday Agreement.

Idk, many people see the IRA insurgency as having had good outcomes for Ireland and Northern Ireland, so like they say, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter

how do you call israeli soldier bulldozing palestinian children? israeli atrocities are much worse because of casualty numbers are much higher on palestinian side and 60% of victims are children and women

>No. About 20% of Americans support Hamas; 4% the October 7th attack [1]. It’s an extreme minority.

Americans are the most propagandized people on the planet, even if they supported the resistance most of them wouldn't publicly admit that. American discourse, despite it's "freedom of speech" mantra, has a history of mccarthyist silencing to shut down debate, that's why certain ideas can't always be publicly expressed or one's affiliation revealed.

>Going back to the top point: Hamas hasn’t succeeded. Gaza’s occupation looks like it will be far more draconian than it was a few years ago, with the strip separated by security cordons all controlled by Israel.

Hamas has succeeded in their primary goal which was reminding the world that they still exist[1] and they won't let any normalization happen without a Palestinian state. They successfully derailed any normalization efforts. Another victory is that, for the first time ever, people, even ordinary americans, openly recognizing them as the resistance and showing support on social media where some of those tweets receive 150-250k+ likes, which was impossible before the genocide. In contrast to before where people always had to hide their support in order to prevent being accused with the common smears by zionists who wanted to shut down debate and suppress any information that would reveal that its the zionists who have a century long history of zionist-terrorism[2] and that the natives have a right to resist colonization without being demonized for it.

>Trump's peace plan [2] is anathema to everything Hamas fought for. All the way to recognising anexations of currently-Palestinian territory.

Trump waffles a lot to appease his donors, what his real opinion or plan is can be discovered by his actions in due time. Many israelis were disappointed by his ceasefire push and said that this deal was "forced upon israel".

Edit: the zionist brigade is quick, not even 10 seconds after posting this reply it already had a downvote lol.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-has-another-sinw...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20231029055310/ojp.gov/ncjrs/vir...

Gaza was not under occupation. It was blockaded because after the occupation ended they decided to ramp up attacks on Israel via. rockets and suicide bombings.

and when that thought strikes i find myself asking all this suffering to what end

> Can it be?

I have no idea.

The common criticism is that Netanyahu never really worked on a day-after plan, so while the IDF managed to take lots of territories and gain many military victories, there was no clear idea of what to do when the fighting stops, which allowed Hamas to re-take areas that were already taken, and to set themselves up for the future.

I think ideally what should have been done is setting up alternative leadership in Gaza, namely the PA with assistance from Saudi Arabia or something like that. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in back-channels, the PA was asked to take this kind of role and basically said "until Hamas is gone, it's too risky for us, please finish off Hamas first".

> At what point does Israel prosecuting its own Vietnam in Gaza meet the same razor?

I mean, people make these kinds of comparisons all the time and insinuate that Israel should stop fighting. But the Vietnam war lasted, what, twenty years? And it was far less important to the US's security than this war is to Israel. As Ezra Klein once said, if you look at the timeline of the US's reaction to 9/11 and map it onto Israel's reaction to October 7th, the US had still not even begun the Iraq war by this stage - it started more than two years after 9/11 iirc.

(I'm not saying that I think the war should continue, btw - I'm very much in favor of this current deal, and I highly suspect the war is dragging on for political reasons and not actual reasons of security, which is both harmful to Israel in various ways, and devastating to the civilians of Gaza, who deserve so much better than their current situation. Ideally Israel could take out Hamas which would be better for the people of Gaza themselves, but it's unclear if that's possible, and the price they are paying in the meantime is far too high!)

That's the first time I've seen this story. As harrowing as it is, it describes the sexual abuse of one woman, not rape.

This "news article" doesn't support your claims - it only says the IGF claims these hostages were killed a short while before they reached them. Given the IGF has murdered Israeli hostages up close, has taken the approach of reducing gaza to rubble, and is constantly caught lying, it's far more likely these hostages were killed by bombs or IGF bullets.

The phrase terrorist is the pretense Israel uses to kidnap Palestinian children and use them as hostages. Over 800 last year. It's highly relevant. Israel's courts rubberstamp some of the hostage taking, while the rest are on administrative detention without charge or trial.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231120-880-palestinian-c...

Dresden was levelled and does make your point.

I’d have picked Warsaw. Completely destroyed while clearing out the ghetto after the uprising which was brutally suppressed. It has some grim parallels too.

Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional - and Israel has repeatedly, deliberately targeted civilians, including children. There is an abundance of evidence, and yes you are right that they should be condemned - except Israel and their stooges always cry "antisemitism!", before going straight back to more war crimes and genocide.

Not to mention how Israel has destroyed nearly every (or every, now?) hospital in Gaza to prevent civilians from being treated. Or how Israel haa prevented aid from entering Gaza. Or how bulldozer drivers drive over hundreds of Palestinians, dead and alive. Or... gods, there is so much more, Israel is a deeply sick society.

[flagged]

No, just collective punishment. Why are you asking?

Do you also abide by the ICC's finding that there is a case for Israel committing genocide and the arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Or do you pick and choose?

You are completely and utterly insane. You seem like the kind of person who would have been running a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

"You are fully committed to the idea of Jews killing Muslims to take their land for their own personal pleasure."

Hamas's own charter says that they are dedicated to removing all Jews from Israel.