I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.
But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.
Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.
We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.
In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.
I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.
man some of these comments are so hard to understand.
You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?
The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.
Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.
I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?
They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.
If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.
But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?
This would be the only way Israel could, in fact, defend itself. In fact, simply stopping the genocide would probably go a long way. But that’s still unthinkable for Netanyahu.
This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.
And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.
They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.
and what else do you want them to do? Time travel to uncreate the militia so it doesn’t exist? I mean theoretically they could come to some sort of peace agreement, but who knows how well that would go. The other option is that israel does a little bit more trolling here. OR simply does nothing at all and lets hezbollah steam roll them.
Considering that we’re in the middle of a military conflict, and that neither side of any party seems content with peace, i think we can probably leave that one on the table here.
If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.
that’s a very real possibility, but this is literally going to be like 10 years of reparations here. It’s hard to say how stable the political climate is going to be between this. It’s also worth noting that this is nothing short of doing literally everything that israel can to get good graces from the arab world. Which even if it’s reasonable, still leaves a lot of room up for interpretation on whether or not it was “satisfactory”
But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?
i think it’s unreasonable given the current context, complying with international law, and recognizing arabs as humans is something that i agree with, but i don’t think that israel literally wants to genocide arabs. From everything i’ve seen this conflict is about as expected as far as a middle eastern conflict goes, arabs are clearly more than willing to put themselves into this position. Repeatedly even. So if that’s what they want to do, i’m not going to stop them from doing it. Just as i’m not going to stop israel from fighting in this conflict either.
I think given 20 years and the end of this conflict currently as we know it, it might be reasonable. Depends on future conflicts and geopolitical relationships.
This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.
i don’t fundamentally disagree, but i don’t know if you really have any other options here. As you said, everyone around you hates you.
And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.
again i’m not really convinced that this is literally an ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians could at least do themselves a favor by not doing a terrorism to start the conflict in the first place. It would probably be beneficial if iran wasn’t a significant support line for hamas as well. There are so many points throughout history, where literally anything could’ve happened that stopped this conflict. None of them went anywhere.
note to the mods: given the amount of evidence, and the weight of the claim, i have no significant reason to believe that this is an ethnic cleansing or genocide. I could be wrong, but i’m not the UN ICC or ICJ so i have no say in the matter.
The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.
That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.
Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.
That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.
Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.
Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.
Lebanon doesn’t mind Israel bombing the Capital, flattening multiple residential buildings with 2000lbs bombs killing hundreds of civilians (over a thousand over the past few weeks), followed by a ground invasion? What an insane take.
Like it or not, Hezbollah is a significant portion of the Lebanon Parliament, and runs many social services including hospitals. It’s not just militants.
Israeli airstrikes have killed more than 1,000 people in Lebanon over the last two weeks, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. The U.N. says around 1 million people — nearly a fifth of the country — have been displaced from their homes while fleeing this bombardment.
“This is not an incursion, this is an invasion,” Najat Aoun Saliba, a Lebanese member of parliament, told NPR. “We’ve been invaded by another country and we have to call on the international community to call it as such.”
It’s not the quite same thing. Ukraine immediately shouted “Russia is invading us and trying to push through to Kiev!” Both the lebanese caretaker government and Hezbollah are saying that there is no permanent Israeli army presence on Lebanese ground. Israel claims to have sent soldiers into Lebanon, but no one on the Lebanese side is confirming that.
This is about Ukraine invading Kursk, not the one where Russia invaded Ukraine. I picked this one specifically because Ukraine is also a US client state that is somehow treated differently when it comes to how it’s reported on and what they’re allowed to do with military aid.
to be clear, israel receives US military aid as well.
That’s probably why palestine isn’t as much of a concern. They’re just two different conflicts here. We’ve been a pseudo ally with ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR, and so has europe more broadly, we all have stuff to lose there.
The same is also probably true for israel, though to different extents, and likely very different reasons. I couldn’t tell you much about it though.
if you look at it from this perspective, it’s perfectly and wholly consistent.
yeah forgive me for not including the entire historical context behind ukraine, eastern europe, russia, the bolsheviks and the soviet union, it’s collapse, the peace deal, and the breaking of the peace deal, and the nukes that were involved somewhere along the way.
My mistake for not including the entire unabridged history of ukraine in a post about military aid and why this behavior is wholly consistent from a perspective of military support. (that’s not even about ukraine)
Then that would have been a better comparison, wouldnt it?
But they are comparing it to the NAZIS!
I don’t have the energy to explain why this is wrong on every single kneejerk post on this site. But safe to say it’s not applicable with even the slightest thought of the subjects in question.
Jews where kicked out of their homeland by force, by both Christians and Muslims.
Muslims hated jews a long time before this conflict arose. Much like the nazis did, but in their case its a religious schism more than a racial one.
For all the love and understanding that the Muslim community spouts, they wont even accept palestinians as refugees. A Palestinian refugee spoke about their treatment by both hamas and Egypt on Swedish national news saying “we have never been as poorly treated as we were by the Egyptian authorities”
That’s not the reality of the origins of Zionism, you are conflating Zionism with Judaism, which are 2 very different things. Christian nations have been far more antisemitic historically than Muslim nations. Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized (see 29:01) by Zionism during its history.
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction
that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.
The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.
That’s much more related to Neo-colonialism and US dominance in the region. Client States of the US will support US interests, which includes Israel’s interests
Yes, that is what they are. Absolutely. They wish all the Jews were dead. That is what they learn from childhood on. Hamas even had that in their constitution(!) until recently.
That does not mean that things happen in a vacuum, it is a hate spiral that neither side alone can stop and working together is something both sides do not want. What a terrible situation.
TIL that if you hate your neighbors for killing and stealing the land of your compatriots, you’re racist. As I allude to, they have a very legitimate reason to hate Israel but it gets dismissed as just being racist against all Jews, without a hint of irony.
They can’t work together because one side wants to break international law and the other side tries to resist them. They would be happy to work together. Its just that you won’t get hamas or hezbollah working with Israel on how to illegally steal and colonise land from their neighbours. That would be silly.
I mean, if you lived somewhere, and an entire demographic of people moved in, claimed the land as the birthright of their religion, and started murdering your family, you might develop some ideas about what kind of people belong to that religion. Zionism is an insidious cancer.
Funny. I don’t remember Poland firing ballistic missiles into Germany before the invasion.
But this is definitely the same thing as Germany invading Poland /s
I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.
But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.
Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.
We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.
In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.
I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.
man some of these comments are so hard to understand.
You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?
The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.
Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.
I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?
can you fill me in on what im missing here?
They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.
If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.
But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?
This would be the only way Israel could, in fact, defend itself. In fact, simply stopping the genocide would probably go a long way. But that’s still unthinkable for Netanyahu.
This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.
And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.
and what else do you want them to do? Time travel to uncreate the militia so it doesn’t exist? I mean theoretically they could come to some sort of peace agreement, but who knows how well that would go. The other option is that israel does a little bit more trolling here. OR simply does nothing at all and lets hezbollah steam roll them.
Considering that we’re in the middle of a military conflict, and that neither side of any party seems content with peace, i think we can probably leave that one on the table here.
that’s a very real possibility, but this is literally going to be like 10 years of reparations here. It’s hard to say how stable the political climate is going to be between this. It’s also worth noting that this is nothing short of doing literally everything that israel can to get good graces from the arab world. Which even if it’s reasonable, still leaves a lot of room up for interpretation on whether or not it was “satisfactory”
i think it’s unreasonable given the current context, complying with international law, and recognizing arabs as humans is something that i agree with, but i don’t think that israel literally wants to genocide arabs. From everything i’ve seen this conflict is about as expected as far as a middle eastern conflict goes, arabs are clearly more than willing to put themselves into this position. Repeatedly even. So if that’s what they want to do, i’m not going to stop them from doing it. Just as i’m not going to stop israel from fighting in this conflict either.
I think given 20 years and the end of this conflict currently as we know it, it might be reasonable. Depends on future conflicts and geopolitical relationships.
i don’t fundamentally disagree, but i don’t know if you really have any other options here. As you said, everyone around you hates you.
again i’m not really convinced that this is literally an ethnic cleansing, the Palestinians could at least do themselves a favor by not doing a terrorism to start the conflict in the first place. It would probably be beneficial if iran wasn’t a significant support line for hamas as well. There are so many points throughout history, where literally anything could’ve happened that stopped this conflict. None of them went anywhere.
note to the mods: given the amount of evidence, and the weight of the claim, i have no significant reason to believe that this is an ethnic cleansing or genocide. I could be wrong, but i’m not the UN ICC or ICJ so i have no say in the matter.
Yes they are. Look at the post. They are quite literally (in the words true meaning) making that point.
The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.
Hezbolla is not Lebanon or its government. It’s not a declaration of war if the country (its official government) isn’t objecting to the entry
That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.
Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.
That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.
Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.
Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.
Lebanon doesn’t mind Israel bombing the Capital, flattening multiple residential buildings with 2000lbs bombs killing hundreds of civilians (over a thousand over the past few weeks), followed by a ground invasion? What an insane take.
Like it or not, Hezbollah is a significant portion of the Lebanon Parliament, and runs many social services including hospitals. It’s not just militants.
Lebanon’s government urges international community for support amid Israel’s invasion
Weird considering all of the buildings in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, that Israel is destroying.
That’s literally the entire post. Gaslight harder
The NY Times had no problem calling it an invasion when Ukraine did it to Russia (also after years of being bombed by Russia).
Because Ukrainians are white, so they’re more sympathetic!
they’re not white though, they’re Slavic/Ukrainian.
in fact, this is why we refer to that part of europe as “eastern europe” even though, there’s no significant distinction.
It’s not the quite same thing. Ukraine immediately shouted “Russia is invading us and trying to push through to Kiev!” Both the lebanese caretaker government and Hezbollah are saying that there is no permanent Israeli army presence on Lebanese ground. Israel claims to have sent soldiers into Lebanon, but no one on the Lebanese side is confirming that.
This is about Ukraine invading Kursk, not the one where Russia invaded Ukraine. I picked this one specifically because Ukraine is also a US client state that is somehow treated differently when it comes to how it’s reported on and what they’re allowed to do with military aid.
Oh my bad, I misread it. My point that Lebanon says nothing major is going on on the ground still stands though.
to be clear, israel receives US military aid as well.
That’s probably why palestine isn’t as much of a concern. They’re just two different conflicts here. We’ve been a pseudo ally with ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR, and so has europe more broadly, we all have stuff to lose there.
The same is also probably true for israel, though to different extents, and likely very different reasons. I couldn’t tell you much about it though.
if you look at it from this perspective, it’s perfectly and wholly consistent.
That’s a very condensed version of Ukrainian history since 1990 lol
yeah forgive me for not including the entire historical context behind ukraine, eastern europe, russia, the bolsheviks and the soviet union, it’s collapse, the peace deal, and the breaking of the peace deal, and the nukes that were involved somewhere along the way.
My mistake for not including the entire unabridged history of ukraine in a post about military aid and why this behavior is wholly consistent from a perspective of military support. (that’s not even about ukraine)
Then that would have been a better comparison, wouldnt it? But they are comparing it to the NAZIS!
I don’t have the energy to explain why this is wrong on every single kneejerk post on this site. But safe to say it’s not applicable with even the slightest thought of the subjects in question.
Jews where kicked out of their homeland by force, by both Christians and Muslims. Muslims hated jews a long time before this conflict arose. Much like the nazis did, but in their case its a religious schism more than a racial one.
For all the love and understanding that the Muslim community spouts, they wont even accept palestinians as refugees. A Palestinian refugee spoke about their treatment by both hamas and Egypt on Swedish national news saying “we have never been as poorly treated as we were by the Egyptian authorities”
That’s not the reality of the origins of Zionism, you are conflating Zionism with Judaism, which are 2 very different things. Christian nations have been far more antisemitic historically than Muslim nations. Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized (see 29:01) by Zionism during its history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam
Origins of Zionism
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Settlements, Occupation, and Apartheid
Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.
This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:
While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements
The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Good Books on the History
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
Nice infodump. But it doesnt answer why other islamic countries treat Palestinian refugees like means to an end.
Because they’re capitalists before they’re muslims. Opportunity and capitalists, name a more iconic duo.
Nice deflection there, kamrat.
That’s much more related to Neo-colonialism and US dominance in the region. Client States of the US will support US interests, which includes Israel’s interests
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
America, Oil, and War in the Middle East
U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East:Historical, Recent Trends, and the FY2024 Background Request
Imagine defending Imperialism and genocide
Imagine comparing this conflict to the nazis
Not hard to
You’re right. In this analogy Germany entered Poland 40 years ago and there was no WWII to make them cut out their bullshit.
*you don’t remember Poland sending rockets into illegally occupied Poland before the invasion.
Fixed that for you
Just got to love that you get downvoted for staying stating something THIS obvious. People think these rockets are toys or outright forget they exist.
It almost makes you wonder why they would send rockets into the illegally occupied West Bank.
Oh well, I’m sure its just because they’re racist against Jewish people and the event happened in a vaccume.
Yes, that is what they are. Absolutely. They wish all the Jews were dead. That is what they learn from childhood on. Hamas even had that in their constitution(!) until recently.
That does not mean that things happen in a vacuum, it is a hate spiral that neither side alone can stop and working together is something both sides do not want. What a terrible situation.
TIL that if you hate your neighbors for killing and stealing the land of your compatriots, you’re racist. As I allude to, they have a very legitimate reason to hate Israel but it gets dismissed as just being racist against all Jews, without a hint of irony.
They can’t work together because one side wants to break international law and the other side tries to resist them. They would be happy to work together. Its just that you won’t get hamas or hezbollah working with Israel on how to illegally steal and colonise land from their neighbours. That would be silly.
I mean, if you lived somewhere, and an entire demographic of people moved in, claimed the land as the birthright of their religion, and started murdering your family, you might develop some ideas about what kind of people belong to that religion. Zionism is an insidious cancer.
Yes 🙄 Lemmy is so fucked in this regard.