2 ms·

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" a

by tovej 1y 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 1y 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.
- tovej 1y ago
  I have not said that Israel should not exist, that is your extrapolation. Israel should be held accountable for what it has done, and if it does not further a two state solution, it should be sanctioned by the international community. Current and previous political leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes, and the country should be reformed into a secular democracy. That's it, that's my stance. Now, I don't see any of this happening, and I see a genocide being committed. You're then characterising any military response as genocidal. This no longer feels like an honest response. First, it's Israel that has decided it wants to be an ethnostate, the only reason it would seem genocidal is because Zionists have conflated a religion with a nationality with citizenship. The bad actor of Israel should still be a valid target of military actions just like others are. Would you say that the allies committed a genocide when they attacked Nazi Germany in the second world war? And where are you getting these ideas of "invading forces slaughtering everybody"? This is starting to sound like Zionist propaganda. I'm sorry but hypothetical threats do not matter when compared with actual apartheid and genocide. The Palestinians have always been the less violent party. Israel is also a much more violent and offensively postured military actor than Iran, they developed nukes in secret for chrissakes, and they seem to have immunity from international sanctions. Israel could choose to live in peace by changing it's military posture, by not constantly attacking its neigbours and destabilizing the region. They currently illegally occupy territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. They could simply stop doing that to begin with.
  - dijit 1y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. Your point on Israel choosing peace by de-escalating, halting attacks on neighbors, and ending illegal occupations in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon hits hard. It is a straightforward path to de-escalation that demands action. But as of today, November 18, 2025, the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza holds broadly, with Israeli forces withdrawn to the “yellow line” and a UN Security Council vote underway for a new Gaza security force that could lead to full Israeli pullout. Trump calls it historic, though Hamas rejects it as insufficient. This moment tests your idea: if Israel follows through on withdrawal and curbs West Bank settler violence (which has surged, with over 200 attacks reported this month alone), it could prove goodwill. Yet ongoing tunnel operations and regional strikes (like recent hits in Lebanon) show the military posture persists, fuelling distrust. Pushing Israelis to empathise means seeing Palestinians not as perpetual threats but as equals deserving sovereignty. Many modern Israelis; weary from two years of war, economic hits, and global isolation… privately crave normalcy. They fear that unilateral retreats invite repeats of October 7 or Hezbollah barrages, especially with Iran arming proxies. Ending occupations could shatter that fear cycle, but it requires mutual security guarantees, not just Israeli concessions. Your WWII analogy still fits: Defeat the aggressors’ system, not the people. Target occupation and apartheid policies surgically. Dismiss their fears, though, and hardliners win. Shared trauma acknowledgment, without equivalence, could spark real dialogue. What gap do you see?

by tovej 1y ago

dijit 1y 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.

tovej 1y ago
I have not said that Israel should not exist, that is your extrapolation. Israel should be held accountable for what it has done, and if it does not further a two state solution, it should be sanctioned by the international community. Current and previous political leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes, and the country should be reformed into a secular democracy. That's it, that's my stance. Now, I don't see any of this happening, and I see a genocide being committed. You're then characterising any military response as genocidal. This no longer feels like an honest response. First, it's Israel that has decided it wants to be an ethnostate, the only reason it would seem genocidal is because Zionists have conflated a religion with a nationality with citizenship. The bad actor of Israel should still be a valid target of military actions just like others are. Would you say that the allies committed a genocide when they attacked Nazi Germany in the second world war? And where are you getting these ideas of "invading forces slaughtering everybody"? This is starting to sound like Zionist propaganda. I'm sorry but hypothetical threats do not matter when compared with actual apartheid and genocide. The Palestinians have always been the less violent party. Israel is also a much more violent and offensively postured military actor than Iran, they developed nukes in secret for chrissakes, and they seem to have immunity from international sanctions. Israel could choose to live in peace by changing it's military posture, by not constantly attacking its neigbours and destabilizing the region. They currently illegally occupy territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. They could simply stop doing that to begin with.
- dijit 1y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. Your point on Israel choosing peace by de-escalating, halting attacks on neighbors, and ending illegal occupations in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon hits hard. It is a straightforward path to de-escalation that demands action. But as of today, November 18, 2025, the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza holds broadly, with Israeli forces withdrawn to the “yellow line” and a UN Security Council vote underway for a new Gaza security force that could lead to full Israeli pullout. Trump calls it historic, though Hamas rejects it as insufficient. This moment tests your idea: if Israel follows through on withdrawal and curbs West Bank settler violence (which has surged, with over 200 attacks reported this month alone), it could prove goodwill. Yet ongoing tunnel operations and regional strikes (like recent hits in Lebanon) show the military posture persists, fuelling distrust. Pushing Israelis to empathise means seeing Palestinians not as perpetual threats but as equals deserving sovereignty. Many modern Israelis; weary from two years of war, economic hits, and global isolation… privately crave normalcy. They fear that unilateral retreats invite repeats of October 7 or Hezbollah barrages, especially with Iran arming proxies. Ending occupations could shatter that fear cycle, but it requires mutual security guarantees, not just Israeli concessions. Your WWII analogy still fits: Defeat the aggressors’ system, not the people. Target occupation and apartheid policies surgically. Dismiss their fears, though, and hardliners win. Shared trauma acknowledgment, without equivalence, could spark real dialogue. What gap do you see?