7 ms·
It's not about religion, it's about occupation. Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration then started the invasi
by smoothjazz 3y ago
It's not about religion, it's about occupation. Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration then started the invasion in full in 1948 with Nakba. When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily. This is why colonization most often leads to genocide or permanent apartheid.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- voisin 3y agoI have read a bit about this and I understand the explanation but I still don’t understand how a group of people subject to genocide can turn around and a few generations later be behaving in many (obviously not all) of the same ways toward another group. I would think that if anything the Israeli people would have some empathy and try to find a two state solution that exists in peace.
- Qem 3y agoReminds the cases of child abuse that run in families, with former child victims becoming perpetrators against their own children[1]. But on on a whole society level. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/cycle-of-child-sexual-abuse-links-between-being-a-victim-and-becoming-a-perpetrator/A98434C25DB8619FB8F1E8654B651A88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
- kevingadd 3y agoThere are many Jewish people, born in Israel and outside of Israel, who do long for a two-state solution or a one-state solution where everyone lives as equals. But sadly those are not the people who hold political or military power.
- ilikehurdles 3y ago[flagged]
- ComputerGuru 3y agoThe UN does not corroborate the accusations you levy against Hamas. Israel has (documented) killed hundreds of UN or general aid workers; to my knowledge, Hamas has killed none.
- ilikehurdles 3y agoThe UN holds no authority over objective truths. Everything I’ve mentioned is available on video. Remind yourself, this is the UN: https://youtu.be/narPqy6TXhQ?feature=shared https://youtu.be/narPqy6TXhQ?feature=shared
- ComputerGuru 3y ago[flagged]
- ilikehurdles 3y agoHaving naive trust in political entities is frankly bellying a level of willful ignorance that humanity should have evolved from by now. Good luck on your journey. I’m not even sure what accusation you deny. Quote the accusation I made you have a problem with.
- dang 3y agoPlease don't cross into flamewar and please review my comment at the top of this thread. If you can't post within that spirit, please don't post. If this thread turns conflictual the descent into hell will be sharp and steep. We don't want that here.
- dang 3y agoPlease don't cross into flamewar and please review my comment at the top of this thread. If you can't post within that spirit, please don't post. If this thread turns conflictual the descent into hell will be sharp and steep. We don't want that here.
- gizmo 3y agoBecause propaganda works everywhere. Teach people that “the other” seeks their destruction and then reframe any violence as tragically necessary self-defense. The history books don’t mention the Nakba and civilian casualty statistics in Gaza are dismissed as Hamas propaganda. And I don’t mean to suggest Israel is unique in this. There are many parallels for instance with American “world police” patriotism.
- sebzim4500 3y ago>Teach people that “the other” seeks their destruction I think recent events have taught this to Israel without any help from propagandists.
- robertoandred 3y agoEliminating Hamas is not genocide though. Pretending that war is a video game only helps their propaganda.
- voisin 3y agoI refer in my comment to the impact to non-Hamas Palestinians. Eliminating the terrorist organization of Hamas is not controversial (at least in my mind), but the civilian casualties to regular Palestinians seems to be indefensible (again, at least in my mind)
- Gibbon1 3y agoProblem is no one will take refugees from Gaza even temporarily. If countries would the death toll would be much less. The reason Egypt doesn't is because Hamas has links to and provides support for Islamic terrorists groups involved the Sinai Insurgency. I think that hope had been that over time since 2007 Hamas would moderate and act more rationally. Instead the opposite has happened. So the combination having to destroy Hamas and the unwillingness of other countries to take refugees is terrible for hapless civilians.
- Qem 3y ago> Problem is no one will take refugees from Gaza even temporarily. Problem is history shows "temporary" displacement tend to become permanent displacement (AKA Ethnic cleansing) under the current settler-apartheid regime ruling Israel, so other countries understandably refrain to abet ethnic cleansing.
- Gibbon1 3y agoI agree the worst thing that could happen is displaced Palestinians from Gaza refusing to go back to where other people have decided they have to live because otherwise it'd be ethnic cleansing.
- CapricornNoble 3y ago
- jdietrich 3y agoThe Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution on more-or-less reasonable terms on at least two occasions. It isn't for me to say whether they were right to reject those offers, but the human cost of continued conflict has obviously been borne disproportionately by the Palestinians, particularly Palestinian civilians. Sadly, the actions of extremists on both sides have made the possibility of a two state solution increasingly remote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords
- tome 3y agoYou're right. It's incomprehensible. In such a situation I can recommend resolving the impasse by broadening what you consider to be the possibly solution space. More specifically, consider the possibility that what you think is happening is not an accurate reflection of what is actually happening.
- skrebbel 3y ago> When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily I don’t understand why people think this is a good argument. Lots and lots of places shifted in control since 1948. Poland moved half a country to the left, world empires got decolonized, India and Pakistan split and then the latter split once more, all with enormous population movements, the list is nearly endless. “All of that should revert to how it was before, even if at the cost of kicking out or killing everybody who live there” is a pretty extreme revisionist take. In all these countries, “we should restore our borders to $maximumSizeEver” is widely understood to be a far right take (the Russians want Ukraine, the Greater Hungary people want Transylvania, the Greek neonazis want Trabzon (!), everybody wants Kashmir, etc etc etc). It’s a far right talking point. But for Palestine it’s somehow a mainstream opinion. I don’t get it. I mean, there’s lots of good arguments to be made for the Palestinian case IMO but I don’t find “they once had more land and therefore they should get it all back no matter the consequences” very compelling.
- harpiaharpyja 3y agoThank you for bringing some perspective to the discussion, because there are so many counterexamples to the GP post. Karelia is another one. Whether or not such situations are resolvable peacefully is entirely up to the nations involved. I don't see why revanchism gets a free pass in the specific case of the Palestinians.
- smoothjazz 3y agoForcing people off of their land is the definition of ethnic cleansing and I don't think that's ever ok nor generally accepted in the world. I think Israel is a lot like apartheid South Africa. You can end the apartheid government and start making reparations, including land back to the native inhabitants.
- skrebbel 3y agoYeah it's never OK but do you also think Finland should get Viipuri back? That was the second-largest city of Finland, the Soviets took it in WWII and kicked out all the Finns and that was that. It's now Vyborg, a sleepy Russian town of little importance. That was a catastrophe too. Do you also think Lviv should be Polish? And Wrocław German? And Trabzon Greek? No wait I mean Armenian, which do we even pick, seriously everybody wants Trabzon! Should the entire Arabian peninsula be Turkish again? Where does it stop? Why should Palestine be restored to its one-time borders but not the rest? All this happened in a time when moving populations around at the whim of a few imperialist rulers was considered a super normal thing to do. That doesn't make it right, but the Nakba isn't a particularly unique historical event. Get over it, and focus on the actual current events that are also bad, such as the settlements, decades of effective imprisonment of everybody in Gaza, and so on. There's plenty of good arguments! But "from the river to the sea" is a far right revisionist talking point and in my opinion it does an enormous disservice to the Palestinian case.
- stefan_ 3y agoBy this logic I should be driving a tank into Polish Silesia. But no, some 20yo in Gaza is not a refugee of a war lost shortly after WW2.
- wk_end 3y agoThis isn't an accurate accounting of history. Zionists were living in the area long before British Mandatory Palestine or the Balfour Declaration - they bought land and legitimately immigrated there while it was under control of the Ottoman Empire. The UN chose to partition the region in 1947 due to ongoing violence on both sides - and the British actually voted against it I believe. The Arab states then chose to go to war against the newly formed Israel - not the other way around, as your comment implies.
- jdietrich 3y ago>Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration This is not an accurate representation. Jewish people were given the legal ability to purchase land in Mandatory Palestine. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were tenant farmers or landless labourers. Jewish land purchases inevitably led to the displacement of these tenants, but this was the lawful outcome of a lawful land sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palest... The issues surrounding occupation of land after the 1948 and 1967 wars are significantly more complex and arguably do involve violations of international law by Israel.
- Sporktacular 3y agoSo what if that's true (and it's not entirely true - there was forced takeovers of land, and there continues to be land theft in the West Bank today). If I sell you my land, does that make it right for you to form a separate state with it? Perhaps I would rethink that decision with the advance knowledge of your intentions.
- mydriasis 3y agoIf I understand what's happened elsewhere correctly, then we have an example of this elsewhere at the world stage -- the separation of Kosovo from Serbia is in a large part due to land purchases from Albanians, who then vied for independence when their population grew enough.
- jdietrich 3y agoWhen Israel declared independence, that land was not governed by any state due to the withdrawal of the British Mandate. The Palestinians had previously been offered statehood through the 1947 UN Partition Plan, but had rejected it. They did not take steps to establish their own state in anticipation of the British withdrawal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_British_Mandate_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_British_Mandate_for... The majority of land purchases were made by the Jewish National Fund. Their aspiration to form a state was explicit and overt.
- Adverblessly 3y ago> When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily. I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who had their land occupied and was cleansed from the region. They even somehow managed to survive an attempt to fully exterminate them! Surely there will be peace once they get all of their land back :)
- slowturtle 3y ago> I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who had their land occupied and was cleansed from the region. And I can certainly think of some other ethnicity in that region who that ethnicity cleansed from the region according to their own holy book. :) Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (God telling Joshua, leader of the Israelites, to go to war) > 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
- Adverblessly 3y agoWell, it was a joke (hence the :)) showing that the quoted statement also applies in reverse and to continue with that joke it certainly seems like this case satisfies the "or are fully exterminated" criteria, so point taken :) Slightly more seriously (Though only very slightly more seriously :)), IIRC our current understanding of history is that the jews are Canaanites. Quoting from Wikipedia "Ancestors of the Israelites are thought to have included ancient Semitic-speaking peoples native to this area.[59]: 78–79 Modern archaeological accounts suggest that the Israelites and their culture branched out of the Canaanite peoples through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh.", so at the very least one of those peoples survived until today :)
- biorach 3y ago> there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily That's very much not true. Compromises are possible and are often the only way. Do I need to start listing examples?
- math_dandy 3y ago[flagged]
- tmnvix 3y ago> there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily. I think you could add assimilation to this list. In this particular instance though, it looks almost entirely unlikely (due to Israel being fundamentally defined as a Jewish state).