6 ms·

Hezbollah has fired 20,000 rockets since 2000. They started firing rockets in the 1980s. Hezbollah's stated aim in their 1985 charter is the Destruction of Isra

Hezbollah has fired 20,000 rockets since 2000. They started firing rockets in the 1980s. Hezbollah's stated aim in their 1985 charter is the Destruction of Israel and to help the Ayatollah of Iran create a Muslim Caliphate and kill the non-Muslims. So yes, killing them seems appropriate. If you don't want your electronics exploding, don't attack the Jews.

marcosdumay 2y ago
The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. At some point somebody will have to deescalate, but Israel has had the upper hand for half a century by now, and never did anything but attack. It's really hard to complain about the underdogs attacking too.
- golergka 2y ago
  > The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. Were the massacres of native jewish populations also done for the sake of freeing area for Israel? UPDATE: Since I cannot post new comments, I'll reply here. > But as a point in fact group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". This is false. I'm talking about Jewish communities which have continuously lived in the region for 2 thousand years, like community in Hebron. They were much more numerous just a few hundred years before. For example, back in 17th century, about half of the population of Gaza was Jewish. You can take a guess about what happened to that half. Statements like "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years", just as "Jews came from Europe" are false narratives distributed for propaganda purposes.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    This makes no sense. Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted and it had to be "the holy land".
    - golergka 2y ago
      > Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. First of all, most of the new jewish settlements in the beginning of 20th centuries were in the coastal swamps, not in the desert. Second — how about a cultural and practical connection to a region which had a significant Jewish community continuously for the last few thousand years with close ties to the diaspora. And finally — most of Israeli Jews come from the Middle East. Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? > Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted This is false. Britan gave false promises and then actively worked against attempts to establish the country. They turn the blind eye to massacres of the jews, and actually turned back jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Founders of Israel had to go to literal war with British authorities to achieve their gains.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? Because they weren't invited by the folks living in the place they wished to settle (who in fact had been living there continuously, by and large, and in every metric were much more "native"). More specifically: the new migrants were more or less welcomed by the locals, from the Mamluk period onwards -- but once they started arriving in highly disproportionate numbers, post-1880, and signaling an intention not to assimilate, and pretending that they had a supremacist "right" to settle there based on what the region's temporary colonial occupier (the British) and the scribblings of some weird Austro-Hungarian ideologue told them -- that's when things started to get "complicated", and they began to find themselves not so welcome in their desired place of residence. As any group should naturally expect if they tried to settle somewhere where they could not trace reasonably close ancestry, and in very large numbers. Also "homeland" is nonsense of course as applies to post-1880 migrants. We need to have some kind of a reasonable definition for what constitutes an "ancestral right" to live somewhere. The simple fact the component of ancestry that this group does have with historic Palestine lies with groups that were expelled or otherwise left in successive waves, ending the Crusades (but for most of them, back to the Roman/Byzantine eras), and which mixed significantly with other groups (far removed from the region in their origins) along the way. I'm not saying this completely precludes any claim of "ancestral right"; it's a thorny question -- one which applies to countless groups all over the world, each equally deserving of consideration. We need to be human and forgiving and all, and in principle there should be a safe place for all of us in this world. But not a supremacist right. And it is precisely this claim of a supremacist right to settle in their desired place of residence (fully trouncing the rights of people who in fact been living their continuously for millenia -- give or take migrations within successive empires); along with the successive wavs of violence employed to enforce this "claim" -- which lay the grounds for the post-1917 conflict that we are now stuck with.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The massacres were deplorable, full stop, regardless of the ancestry or geographic origin of the victims (or the motives of the perpetrators). But as a point in fact the group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years, and with significant admixture with other groups) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". -- Per the commenter's update: Sorry, but what you're saying is false. It's true that there've always been some Jews living continuously in Palestine, but for centuries they were essentially a bottleneck community, and over time (especially after the Alhambra Decree in 1492, but starting well before then) their numbers began to be supplanted by migrants largely from Spain and from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, as well as from other countries in Europe. It's just a demographic and historical fact. The statements "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years" and "Jews came from Europe" (which no one said here) are both straw men in that regard. I won't assign motives to you for what you're saying, but it's ahistorical in any case. Most likely you are simply mistaken, as a result of the "Jews have lived continuously in Palestine" line being repeated over, and over, and over again. It's partially true of course, but only part of a much bigger story.
    - golergka 2y ago
      > It's true that there've always been some Jews living continuously in Palestine, but for centuries they were essentially a bottleneck community, and over time (especially after the Alhambra Decree in 1492, but starting well before then) their numbers began to be supplanted by migrants largely from Spain and from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, as well as from other countries in Europe. Sounds like it was community of Theseus then? My own family have left Spain after Alhambra Decree, and some members have chosen to move to Palestine then. AFAIK, they become part of the local Jewish community, they didn't supplant anyone. Anyway, I fail to see how the fact that Jews have migrated between different communities, including to and from Palestine, invalidates my point.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        In terms of massacres and "freeing the land" for anyone -- it of course has no relevance. Nothing ever explains or contextualizes a massacre, in my view. The point was simply a demographic observation -- that the Old Yishuv were composed largely of descendants of waves of post 13th-century migrants from Jewish communities in other regions (such as your own family from what you say). Meaning in turn their lineage is from communities that had been dispersed from the region for easily 1000+ years. So "native" is not quite the right term for them. Meanwhile the truly "native" contingent among them (meaning descendant from continually resident communities) was comparatively small. "Supplanted" was poor word choice -- it wasn't meant in the sense of 'replacing' or pushing out. I meant simply, numerically superseded by. Should have said simply that. It's very cool that you can trace your history back that far, BTW. I'll try to get to your longer post still, if I can.

marcosdumay 2y ago

The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. At some point somebody will have to deescalate, but Israel has had the upper hand for half a century by now, and never did anything but attack. It's really hard to complain about the underdogs attacking too.

golergka 2y ago
> The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. Were the massacres of native jewish populations also done for the sake of freeing area for Israel? UPDATE: Since I cannot post new comments, I'll reply here. > But as a point in fact group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". This is false. I'm talking about Jewish communities which have continuously lived in the region for 2 thousand years, like community in Hebron. They were much more numerous just a few hundred years before. For example, back in 17th century, about half of the population of Gaza was Jewish. You can take a guess about what happened to that half. Statements like "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years", just as "Jews came from Europe" are false narratives distributed for propaganda purposes.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  This makes no sense. Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted and it had to be "the holy land".
  - golergka 2y ago
    > Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. First of all, most of the new jewish settlements in the beginning of 20th centuries were in the coastal swamps, not in the desert. Second — how about a cultural and practical connection to a region which had a significant Jewish community continuously for the last few thousand years with close ties to the diaspora. And finally — most of Israeli Jews come from the Middle East. Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? > Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted This is false. Britan gave false promises and then actively worked against attempts to establish the country. They turn the blind eye to massacres of the jews, and actually turned back jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Founders of Israel had to go to literal war with British authorities to achieve their gains.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? Because they weren't invited by the folks living in the place they wished to settle (who in fact had been living there continuously, by and large, and in every metric were much more "native"). More specifically: the new migrants were more or less welcomed by the locals, from the Mamluk period onwards -- but once they started arriving in highly disproportionate numbers, post-1880, and signaling an intention not to assimilate, and pretending that they had a supremacist "right" to settle there based on what the region's temporary colonial occupier (the British) and the scribblings of some weird Austro-Hungarian ideologue told them -- that's when things started to get "complicated", and they began to find themselves not so welcome in their desired place of residence. As any group should naturally expect if they tried to settle somewhere where they could not trace reasonably close ancestry, and in very large numbers. Also "homeland" is nonsense of course as applies to post-1880 migrants. We need to have some kind of a reasonable definition for what constitutes an "ancestral right" to live somewhere. The simple fact the component of ancestry that this group does have with historic Palestine lies with groups that were expelled or otherwise left in successive waves, ending the Crusades (but for most of them, back to the Roman/Byzantine eras), and which mixed significantly with other groups (far removed from the region in their origins) along the way. I'm not saying this completely precludes any claim of "ancestral right"; it's a thorny question -- one which applies to countless groups all over the world, each equally deserving of consideration. We need to be human and forgiving and all, and in principle there should be a safe place for all of us in this world. But not a supremacist right. And it is precisely this claim of a supremacist right to settle in their desired place of residence (fully trouncing the rights of people who in fact been living their continuously for millenia -- give or take migrations within successive empires); along with the successive wavs of violence employed to enforce this "claim" -- which lay the grounds for the post-1917 conflict that we are now stuck with.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  The massacres were deplorable, full stop, regardless of the ancestry or geographic origin of the victims (or the motives of the perpetrators). But as a point in fact the group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years, and with significant admixture with other groups) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". -- Per the commenter's update: Sorry, but what you're saying is false. It's true that there've always been some Jews living continuously in Palestine, but for centuries they were essentially a bottleneck community, and over time (especially after the Alhambra Decree in 1492, but starting well before then) their numbers began to be supplanted by migrants largely from Spain and from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, as well as from other countries in Europe. It's just a demographic and historical fact. The statements "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years" and "Jews came from Europe" (which no one said here) are both straw men in that regard. I won't assign motives to you for what you're saying, but it's ahistorical in any case. Most likely you are simply mistaken, as a result of the "Jews have lived continuously in Palestine" line being repeated over, and over, and over again. It's partially true of course, but only part of a much bigger story.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > It's true that there've always been some Jews living continuously in Palestine, but for centuries they were essentially a bottleneck community, and over time (especially after the Alhambra Decree in 1492, but starting well before then) their numbers began to be supplanted by migrants largely from Spain and from other parts of the Ottoman Empire, as well as from other countries in Europe. Sounds like it was community of Theseus then? My own family have left Spain after Alhambra Decree, and some members have chosen to move to Palestine then. AFAIK, they become part of the local Jewish community, they didn't supplant anyone. Anyway, I fail to see how the fact that Jews have migrated between different communities, including to and from Palestine, invalidates my point.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      In terms of massacres and "freeing the land" for anyone -- it of course has no relevance. Nothing ever explains or contextualizes a massacre, in my view. The point was simply a demographic observation -- that the Old Yishuv were composed largely of descendants of waves of post 13th-century migrants from Jewish communities in other regions (such as your own family from what you say). Meaning in turn their lineage is from communities that had been dispersed from the region for easily 1000+ years. So "native" is not quite the right term for them. Meanwhile the truly "native" contingent among them (meaning descendant from continually resident communities) was comparatively small. "Supplanted" was poor word choice -- it wasn't meant in the sense of 'replacing' or pushing out. I meant simply, numerically superseded by. Should have said simply that. It's very cool that you can trace your history back that far, BTW. I'll try to get to your longer post still, if I can.