6 ms·

If only Israel wasn't committing a genocide itself, and hadn't treated the Palestinian people like lesser beings for decades, maybe things would be different.

dijit 11mo ago
[flagged]
- tovej 11mo ago
  This narrative about the founding of Israel is false. Israel was founded in the middle of an offensive when it was "descended upon by the Arab world". That was a defensive reaction to Israel's brutal Plan Dalet, an invasion and occupation of Palestine, which extended far beyond what the UN had drawn up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet And then they destroyed 500 villages, ethnically cleansed Palestine of three quarters of a million of Palestinians and never let them return. They went around with detailed lists of people identified as Arabs in each village, rounded them up, set fire to the villages, and then blew up the rubble. How can you believe that is the act of a legitimate state? It is quite simply evil. Nazi-level shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba This was not an operation that was sanctioned by the UN's partition plan (which was ridiculous and at odds with the UNs founding principles of self-determination to begin with) it was just retconned into being a legitimate action.
  - dijit 11mo ago
    I appreciate you sharing these links and pushing back. It’s clear you’re coming from a place of deep conviction about the historical injustices here, and I respect that. The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day. Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians. Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight. That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state. You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively. My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views. Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.
    - tovej 11mo ago
      Thank you also for engaging in a civil manner. I still don't understand how you can view the Israeli foundation myth, and the "fear of an existential threat" as legitimate, when the Israeli state's founding was an unjust, immoral, wrong undertaking, the foundation of a colony on someone's homeland. If a perpetrator breaks into a house and kicks out the homeowners, then declares the attempts to take back said house as an existential threat to their new house ownership, a reasonable person would not view that as a legitimate concern. It's just not a logically consistent way to look at the situation. I agree that the current day situation is different, considering Israel has existed for two generations. It still does not change the fact that they are forcing an apartheid on the Palestinians, and are engaged in genocide, and have sabotaged any attempt to solve the situation by means other than ethnic cleansing. I refuse to consider a balanced view when the crimes that have been committed are so unbalanced. Israel has established a society, and that society has clearly established itself as the bad guy, Palestine has not even had a chance to create a society for themselves, so they cannot even be judged to the same standard. But even if we do, it's hard to see them as anything but victims of Zionist oppression.
      - dijit 11mo ago
        I try my best when trying to understand things, to think about how people have it today, and not to tie everything to what peoples ancestors did. The only thing people can really do today is to acknowledge the past, and to do something about it, and if we’re taking the Israeli perspective now, then what we’re essentially telling them to do is not exist. Many are fine with that being the case (why should they exist when its founded on evil) but there’s a few points there that make it harder to swallow I think. 1) I think if someone told me that I had no right to live in my home country because of its past I would get quite bent out of shape, especially if blood was shed. (again, not arguing that this makes it entirely valid, just arguing a perspective). 2) It sort of justifies actual genocide. As mentioned in my other examples; any invading force in future will probably slaughter everyone. Because the international conversation surrounding genocides of the last 30 years is a lot more tame than how we talk about the suffering of palestinians. This disproportionate discussion probably feels unfair, since the average Israeli probably feels like they would want to live peacefully today, if only they were not constantly attacked by Iranian proxies every time attempts at normalisation looked like they were succeeding. Unfortunately this would then include terrorism from Palestine. I have to really caveat again, that I don’t think Israel is peachy, just that today the Palestinian narrative is a bit more empathised with internationally- but I wouldn’t like myself being in either countries shoes honestly.

dijit 11mo ago

[flagged]

tovej 11mo ago
This narrative about the founding of Israel is false. Israel was founded in the middle of an offensive when it was "descended upon by the Arab world". That was a defensive reaction to Israel's brutal Plan Dalet, an invasion and occupation of Palestine, which extended far beyond what the UN had drawn up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet And then they destroyed 500 villages, ethnically cleansed Palestine of three quarters of a million of Palestinians and never let them return. They went around with detailed lists of people identified as Arabs in each village, rounded them up, set fire to the villages, and then blew up the rubble. How can you believe that is the act of a legitimate state? It is quite simply evil. Nazi-level shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba This was not an operation that was sanctioned by the UN's partition plan (which was ridiculous and at odds with the UNs founding principles of self-determination to begin with) it was just retconned into being a legitimate action.
- dijit 11mo ago
  I appreciate you sharing these links and pushing back. It’s clear you’re coming from a place of deep conviction about the historical injustices here, and I respect that. The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day. Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians. Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight. That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state. You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively. My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views. Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.
  - tovej 11mo ago
    Thank you also for engaging in a civil manner. I still don't understand how you can view the Israeli foundation myth, and the "fear of an existential threat" as legitimate, when the Israeli state's founding was an unjust, immoral, wrong undertaking, the foundation of a colony on someone's homeland. If a perpetrator breaks into a house and kicks out the homeowners, then declares the attempts to take back said house as an existential threat to their new house ownership, a reasonable person would not view that as a legitimate concern. It's just not a logically consistent way to look at the situation. I agree that the current day situation is different, considering Israel has existed for two generations. It still does not change the fact that they are forcing an apartheid on the Palestinians, and are engaged in genocide, and have sabotaged any attempt to solve the situation by means other than ethnic cleansing. I refuse to consider a balanced view when the crimes that have been committed are so unbalanced. Israel has established a society, and that society has clearly established itself as the bad guy, Palestine has not even had a chance to create a society for themselves, so they cannot even be judged to the same standard. But even if we do, it's hard to see them as anything but victims of Zionist oppression.
    - dijit 11mo ago
      I try my best when trying to understand things, to think about how people have it today, and not to tie everything to what peoples ancestors did. The only thing people can really do today is to acknowledge the past, and to do something about it, and if we’re taking the Israeli perspective now, then what we’re essentially telling them to do is not exist. Many are fine with that being the case (why should they exist when its founded on evil) but there’s a few points there that make it harder to swallow I think. 1) I think if someone told me that I had no right to live in my home country because of its past I would get quite bent out of shape, especially if blood was shed. (again, not arguing that this makes it entirely valid, just arguing a perspective). 2) It sort of justifies actual genocide. As mentioned in my other examples; any invading force in future will probably slaughter everyone. Because the international conversation surrounding genocides of the last 30 years is a lot more tame than how we talk about the suffering of palestinians. This disproportionate discussion probably feels unfair, since the average Israeli probably feels like they would want to live peacefully today, if only they were not constantly attacked by Iranian proxies every time attempts at normalisation looked like they were succeeding. Unfortunately this would then include terrorism from Palestine. I have to really caveat again, that I don’t think Israel is peachy, just that today the Palestinian narrative is a bit more empathised with internationally- but I wouldn’t like myself being in either countries shoes honestly.