• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Over 80% of the population of Israel was born in Israel. If you want them to leave then you’re talking about ethnic cleansing, not decolonization.

    • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your statistic is wrong 80% of the Jewish population were born there. Jews are 73% of the population at 7.2 million which means 1.44 million weren’t born there. It isn’t about leaving or kicking people out. It is about the Israeli government was founded on false pretenses, ethnic cleansing and genocide. They owe reparations to the people who lived their before. The nation shouldn’t be Israel and shouldn’t be an ethno-state (all ethno-states are bad) it should have been Palestinian and every one should live their peacefully like they have before

      • GarlicToast@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        There was no ‘living peacefully’ in the region. Israel isn’t the cause of the blood shed, it’s the outcome.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    No. The real reason is to keep an ally in the very Muslim middle east and because they believe that it’s a prerequisite for the rapture.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      At this point, I don’t think anyone involved believes in a loving God, or even a God that will punish sinners. Neither of them would want this.

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They wouldn’t think a holy war sinful. Not when done for their pick of the almighty litter. On that, the three involved parties agree.

      • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh, they figured their way out of that painted corner a long time ago. All they need is Matthew 5:17 and the Old Testament in order to justify any atrocity.

        Whenever they are tired of the whole love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek/cast no judgements side of Jesus, they just bring up Matthew: he didn’t come to DESTROY the OT law he came to FULFILL it!

        That’s all it takes to make it OK for them to smite enemies and hate people for their sexuality.

  • 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think support for Israel is based on their sharing three principle values of the west: liberalism, democracy, & capitalism.

      • 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve met a few fascists in my life and every one of them has referred to Israelis as “the tribe,” and advocated for arming the Palestinians so they could finish what Hitler could not. Their ideology was ugly but also very unsupportive of Israel.

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The jewish people have never wholly owned that area. Persians, Arabs, and many other races have also always lived there. It’s literally in the bible.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you’re using the old testament to say they lived there then you cannot ignore the old testament saying other people lived there too.

        • atro_city@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think you misunderstand. I’m saying the bible is a shit piece of cobbles together fairy tales, ramblings, sheep herder narrations, and hallucinations that has been rewritten and retold in so many different versions that is serves little to no historical evidence. You might as well be born in 4000 and basing your historical knowledge on winnie the pooh to recount what happened in 2000.

      • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        They genocided the Canaanites in all of them.

        There is historical/archaeological/genetic evidence.

        That was how they stole that land in the first place. By murdering every man, woman, child, and animal in the land.

        • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Genocide of the canaanites is definitely in the Bible but possibly/probably didn’t happen as much as the Bible says. I’m sure there were times when whole cities were put to the sword but a lot of the stories in the Bible seem more like they were made up later as a way of claiming racial purity. It made it so the Hebrews could say “there’s no way we’re mixed with canaanites cuz we killed all the canaanites”

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also remember that the bronze age Jews were not at all special among the tribes of the area, their story about themselves is aggrandizing fiction that all the tribes did, it’s just the Jews’ stories survived and became popular

      Also bronze age. Those that left left so long ago, the only right they have to the place is military might and the legal right given based on lobbying and the racism of the law makers in question.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Iron age, the Hebrew age of myth was set during the bronze age and in the immediate period of the bronze age collapse. Moses was bronze age, david was post bronze age collapse, the first diaspora was during the early Iron age, and the second diaspora was during antiquity.

        Sorry if im being anal about it but one of the few good things about the old testament is that it tracks the evolution from bronze to iron pretty well, also Cyrus the great works as a solid historical reference point. But yeah there was about 700 years between the end of the bronze age and the end of the first diaspora, and about a thousand years to the second diaspora. For reference the Roman empire still existed seven hundred years ago.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thanks, I’m not great on biblical history, so corrections and detail are welcome

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Oh I aint either, but certain groups and events mentioned work as solid reference points. The Philistines were most like Bronze age Greek settlers set up by the Egyptians to work as a march for example. I just know a lot about the Bronze age collapse and the Bronze age. Also when I say set during its in the same way Red dead 2 is set during the late 1800s, Moses at best is the faint memory of a legendary story that was mythologized similar to King Arthur.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In addition to the first Israeli migrants being Europeans, they displaced the actual indigenous population that was native to the land. The Muslim and Christian populations are mostly descendents from ancient Israelis that converted.

    Israel is basically just the US, which is why they’re such strong allies. They have the same roots.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      they displaced the actual indigenous population that was native to the land.

      They also sterilized a bunch of Ethiopian and Mizrahi Jews, on the grounds that these non-European ethinic cohorts were having too many kids.

      Incidentally, Israel government has been grappling with a big childlessness crisis which threatens to tank their Jewish population.

      One big reason for the genocide in Gaza (which has been in effect since 2006, but recently hit a fevered pitch) is that - despite their best efforts - the Israeli government has failed to neuter the Palestinian population growth rate.

      So much of Israeli policy boils down to white nationalist eugenics.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Source (on the first bit in particular)? I mean, that’s easy to believe, given the behaviour of other European colonists in other places, but also not the kind of thing I’d want to claim without references.

        • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Someone last time this came up linked to a report, I think from Hareetz, into an Israeli government investigation that did indeed find that Beta Israeli women Were sterilised without consent en mass.

          Don’t have a link handy, but that should be enough to dig it up.

        • Silic0n_Alph4@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The things to look up are Beta Israel (a lost tribe who were discovered in Ethiopia) and Operation Solomon (how they wound up in Israel). From there, you might find some answers from Israeli sources or elsewhere. I’ve similarly heard this assertion/rumour that the women of Beta Israel were sterilised after their incredible discovery and rescue, but haven’t seen authoritative sources for either side. Still, this should be an interesting rabbit hole to go down.

    • GarlicToast@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The Jewish communities of Zfat, Gaza (yea, that one pre 1929) would disagree. They lived there for hundreds of years.

        • GarlicToast@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Everyone migrated to Israel, it’s literally an ancient migration route.

          In more modern times, Israel had many Jewish communities that the local Muslims tried to eradicate. Some of them successfully, and in such cases the local Palestinians are migrants that kicked off the local Jews.

          So to be accurate, the first mass migration of Jewish communities into Israel in modern times happened from Eastern Europe and Yemen.

          We need to differentiate, as at the same time, Muslims migrated too into Israel. Some of them got royally fucked by history, they left the little they had, migrated for better work and were left with nothing for generations.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The region has been a site of religious, not ethnic, conflict. Jews that converted to Islam were able to stay in the Caliphate, the idea that all ethnic Jews were expelled is a myth. There was a lot of emigration, but the truth is that many of the Muslim Palestinians today are descendants of ancient Jewish people.

            Claiming that Palestinians are just invaders that stole Jewish land is bad history.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    A unified and stable middle east would be and would have been a global superpower with the ability to influence independent control over major global trade routes and energy supply.

    This is why the Israel is and has been imperative to U.S. foreign policy.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yet Jews and Muslims lived in relative peace with each other in Jerusalem for long periods of time. They don’t have to fight. The fighting mostly comes to them. Anyone claiming it’s because the religions must fight is lying or mislead. I don’t know which you are, if that’s what you’re implying.

      • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Far less inter-secular conflicts there before the WW1 promise of not dividing the region up amongst European empires was broken.

        • GarlicToast@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Less conflict? Maybe, far less? No, the region was always bloody. There was smaller population. I didn’t read any statistics that were normalized by population size.

          The comment was about the claim that Israel is THE source of instability in the region. Which is false.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not really, it’s just a thinly veiled excuse so that any criticism of our current neocolonialist policies can be treated and swept up under the rug just like centuries before, except the rug is painted in the color of supposed religious intolerance (oh shit, guess I still can’t be atheist in the 21st century).

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, I also think American Indians have a right to live and self govern in the Americas, and likewise have a right to defend themselves in that context. They just also don’t have the right to bomb and push out all the white people who were born here too. We actually do have somewhat of a two state solution with some tribes in the US, it’s just very inequal and there’s massive systemic problems obviously. I’m not sure this meme is quite making the point you think it is?

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ok, now do the right of the US to claim and govern the territories that were taken from them by gunpoint.

      • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Big stick and live here, same way it works basically everywhere. But like I was born here too, both of my parents were born here, two of my grandparents were born here. Why would I NOT have the right to be part of the democratic government of the land of my birth?

      • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        No argument there. It’s just unclear what point the meme is making. I agree with the message they’re clearly TRYING to say.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The meme is saying that Israelis rights to the land dont override the rights of other peoples, like the Palestinians. Its pointing out that many who think Israel are doing nonwrong would not be infavour of native Americans bombing their cities, or even giving up their land.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t I deserve to seize my childhood home, or the one I sold last week? no anti-semitic replies please.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol… Their ancestors only lived there after they ethnically cleansed the people who were already living there. They’ve been doing this crap for a long time.

    • madthumbs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is according to their own religious texts which can be found in the Bible as well. A religion of genocide that instructed on brutal racial slavery.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their ancestors only lived there after they ethnically cleansed the people who were already living there.

      If this even happened…

    • YTG123@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      According to the Bible, yes. Which is most likely not true. Remember that Zionism started as a secular movement, with religious people getting more (very) on board relatively recently

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Interesting… Is there more accurate information about how the Israelites ended up in that region? Did they just never do the whole Egypt thing?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The history has scant evidence, but we can discount the whole exile story. Slaves tend to be maltreated and are the last ones to be fed during famine, and that leaves physical evidence on their skeletons. We don’t have evidence of that in Egypt; for the most part, their monuments were built by farmers who didn’t have anything else to do when the Nile flooded. Also, a large nomadic group–which Israel would have been under Moses according to the Biblical account–should leave behind a lot of trash for archeologists to find today.

          Fundie Christians like to say “Egypt wouldn’t have told stories about a time they lost”, but that doesn’t matter. First, you better bring some good evidence to say the Red Sea parted and people could walk on dry land. Second, as shown above, there should be physical evidence that we can find. It’s not there, and it’s hardly for a lack of trying. This is one of the most picked over parts of the planet by archeologists.

          What seems to have happened is that they just came from there in the first place. Yahwah started as a war god among a larger pantheon. The people who later became the Hebrews worshiped that god as their primary; they didn’t discount the existence of other gods, but they worshiped this one as their primary one (still polytheism at this point). This later evolved into discounting the importance of other gods (henotheism), and much later disregarding the existence of other gods altogether (monotheism). That especially came into play with Persian Zoroastrian influence after the Babylonian Exile.

          In short, it was a religion that evolved out of the beliefs of the people already living there, and they mostly stayed right there. The Egyptian slavery bits were probably from oral stories at a time when Israel had a conflict with Egypt.

          • SlyLycan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you have any sources to start learning about/researching this? This is very fascinating and haven’t heard much, if any, of this before.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Religion For Breakfast is a pretty good YouTube channel for this. Would also recommend Bart Ehrman’s podcast.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            There could have even been a smaller group of former Egyptian slaves that fled and settled in Israel with the people who already lived there and over time their religion/culture was adopted by more and more people until it became the dominant one.

            Like a large group of people wandering a desert for 40 years doesn’t make sense, even if 40 years is just a metaphor for a long time and was just one full year. But a small group could have wandered and visited other settlements that might have helped them out but didn’t want them to settle down there, even for a long time.

            Kinda like how most Christians today aren’t descendents of anyone who would have had anything to do with Jesus or even descendent from Jewish people who believed in the Christian predecessor religion. They were just people who at one point were told they had to convert by words, swords, or guns.

            Just speculation based on thinking about the scenario and what cases might put the story somewhere between fiction and truth rather than just being entirely made up (which is also certainly possible).

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Everything before the Babylonian Exile was made up, because the Babylonians sacked, well everything. They destroyed the First Temple, and took away the nobility and priests.

          It was only after the Exile ended that the Hebrews became monotheistic… Sort of. There has been some noises before the Exile, but afterwards it was official.

          It was also after the Exile that the stories of Noah and Moses were first added to the Torah.

          As a note, the Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story, and as an ancient Babylon story, would have been available for the hostages (the Hebrew priests and nobility) to read.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not entirely made up. Some of the late first temple period can be verified. Such as the split between the northern and southern kingdoms, or the Assyrian invasion under Hezekiah. The further you go back, though, the worse the evidence gets. David and Solomon are questionable as historical figures, and anything before that, just forget it. The Egyptian exile never happened.

            • chaogomu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

              The TLDR; no mentions of Moses in Egyptian or Persian texts until about the 4th century BCE. He may have been a Hebrew specific quasi mythic figure based on a possible real person. But there’s no evidence at all.

              Which makes sense, because that’s the timeframe that the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and started letting the exiles return to Judah. Exiles who compiled a new Torah from scraps they saved and from making shit up.

        • Montagge@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The tribes of Israel were most likely Canaanites that made up the whole came in and conquered everyone in the area after being slaves story.

      • Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Israel. According to the bible, the hebrews conquered the area and killed a lot of people living there

          • krashmo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            They definitely took the land from someone. The funny thing is that it doesn’t even matter who “they” refers to in that sentence because it is universally true. Everyone is from somewhere else if you go back far enough. This whole thread is just different people picking different points in time to refer to as the original state of things, despite the fact that history is literally the study of the constant evolution of humanity.

          • pooberbee (they/she)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It would be impractical to undo every theft that has ever occurred, and yet we still condemn theft, work to prevent it, punish thieves for it, and try to undo what thefts we can.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              So you are disagreeing with me how? You want to punish Israel for what they did thousands of years ago to the Canaanites?

          • SolNine@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Excellent comment, I frequently bring this concept to others attention when the term “colonizer” is used.

            Arbitrary and selective use of the term to fit a specific narrative detracts from current day realities.

            Somehow people seem to have forgotten that times of peace and respect for manmade borders and laws of sovereign nations are not the norm for history.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why people argue without considering context. It’s not like I’m disagreeing that Israel’s genocide is wrong, but we have to consider context when we compare this stuff to history.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Surely it’s impractical to continue supporting theft, genocide, kidnapping, torture, SA, etc.

            Just because genocide has been “acceptable” in the past, that doesn’t mean we should support it now.

            TBH it’s kinda gross and uber-privileged to suggest this.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you go back and take a look at what i typed, i never said anything about supporting what Israel is doing today

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              This is exactly the point, but some people don’t mind twisting rhetorics and context when it benefits their argument. Truly annoying.

            • acargitz@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Because we sit at the pinnacle of history, judging all the past generations who came before us. Holy Whig historiography Batman.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Very well. I don’t disagree. But the commenter specifically made mention of how “Israel” has been doing this, while ignoring historical context.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Depends on what you mean by condemn. All of those things were bad when they happened. But we can’t forever condemn the descendants of warlike people as tainted colonizers.

            On the other hand, in the case of some of the more recent events, we still have people today who are marginalized, impoverished, and lack access to land as a result of those past atrocities. Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others. This situation calls out for a just solution. The redistribution of land, extra services, reparations, etc. should all be on the table for the descendants of the colonized. But notably, the expulsion of the descendants of the colonizers should not be—this will just perpetuate a similar injustice into the future.

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I 100% agree with you. Those things were bad in retrospect, but it’s not worth comparing actions of today to back then because the times have changed.

              Also, there definitely should be a concerted effort to resolve the concerns of those who still suffer from those past atrocities. For the Israel-Palestine saga, that might well be a two state solution as many propose, but i know there will still be people willing to argue with and insult me for this position.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I think a two state solution is probably the most realistic one, even if it might not be my perfect ideal solution. But a big issue with it (at least as currently conceptualized) is that Israelis already occupy a large portion of the more valuable and productive land and water resources, while Palestinians have been pushed into marginal areas. So drawing up the boundaries where people currently live perpetuates this injustice.

                Additionally, creating two hostile neighboring ethnostates creates a lot of future problems. Will these nations coexist more peacefully than in the past? That’s not totally clear but at least it will make the ongoing settlements and ethnic cleansing more politically complicated for Israel and give Palestinians more official recognition at the UN and elsewhere. Furthermore, it will also be very likely to result in the expulsion of some people from their homes and lands which I oppose in almost all circumstances.

                All that said I don’t see how any other solution is really possible so if the parties could agree on it I would support it, imperfect though it may be. Peace is rarely perfectly fair but it is still worthwhile nonetheless.

                • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Oh definitely, it’s not the best, but it’s the most that can be done. Especially with the point about hostility. I mean Israel already withdrew from Gaza before, and we know how that went, so there’s always that threat that’s going to be looming over their heads. Let’s just hope they can settle this soon.

            • naryn@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others

              The Palestinians have been given more money in real terms than Germany did post WW2.

              The fact that they’re country is a shit tip of humanity is entirely on them.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yes, it’s exactly the same as post-war Germany… if we ignore the bombings, indiscriminate murder, lack of productive capacity, lack of free movement, evictions and land theft, lack of democratic processes and institutions, and many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.

                • naryn@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  ignore the bombings

                  Yes, because Germany was never, ever bombed during the war.

                  many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.

                  Every single one of those actions have been taken because they continue to do everything that they can do to kill Israelis.

                  They’ve been offered statehood multiple times and turned it down every time

                  Their lack of elections is because they continue to support a terrorist organisation.

                  The bombings are because they continue to support a terrorist organisation

                  Everything is because they continue to hate.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            So you’re agreeing that giving Palestine “back” to the Jews just because their ancestors lived there was stupid?

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s a different point entirely. I was only disagreeing with the commenters comparison of what happened to the Canaanites thousands of years ago to what’s happening today with the Palestinians. What i think about giving the land back to the Palestinians doesn’t matter.

              • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Who were you disagreeing with? The comment you replied to just stated a fact… I don’t see any of this comparison in that comment

                • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  It’s a false equivalence. Yes, it’s a fact, but let’s not pretend like they weren’t trying to use the Canaan conquest example to put a bit more dirt on Israel’s name. Yes, they did it. But so was every other empire and nation back in the day. Context matters.

          • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Not true, not all conquests involved erasing the indigenous peooples. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:

            “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations the Arabs did not engage in farming…their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam, and to collect taxes…the Jewish farmer, like any other farmer, was not easily torn from his soil…Despite the repression and suffering the rural population remained unchanged.” [7]

            Ben Gurion is quoted by Shlomo Sand in his book https://blogs.umb.edu/joinercenter/2012/10/09/review-of-shlomo-sand-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-london-verso-2009-translated-by-yael-lotan/

            • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Fair enough. My point still stands though. The person i responded to’s comment can be applied to any number of these peoples, so it’s wrong to claim, “The Israelites have been doing this stuff”, when really, everyone was doing it

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      When you say “they,” are you referring to all humans throughout all of human history? Not conquering/displacing people is a much more recent international norm

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The ancients very much understood the value in just changing leadership. So conquering yes, genocide? Usually only when religion is involved.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is fundamentally not true. Invading, looting then burning down entire towns, killing men, and raping and/or kidnapping women and children was practiced across the globe by many different cultures for thousands of years

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re confusing the fact that stuff happened, with that stuff being the go to thing to do. Even the Mongols preferred to take towns with the populace intact so they could get taxes as soon as possible. Popular history blows the genocidal stuff way out of proportion.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Dude. I’m confusing “the fact that stuff happened” with the fact that stuff happened lmao

              I don’t know what history you’re reading, but sexual violence and the destruction of towns and cities has been pervasive in war for millennia. Here’s a brief introduction for you

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Stop. Just stop. If you can’t defend this-

                When you say “they,” are you referring to all humans throughout all of human history? Not conquering/displacing people is a much more recent international norm

                Without bringing up a Wikipedia article about rape then you’ve already lost.

        • GarlicToast@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You live in lala land.

          Losing a war meant death to all adult males and raping of the women. Not different then any other mammal on earth.

          My genes, and my genes only!

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            That’s breathtakingly untrue. I know it’s the sensational popular view of historical warfare but it’s just not true. Generally the worst thing that would happen is to be enslaved. But as time goes on and we develop different power structures after the Romans, decapitation of the government becomes far more preferred. So there’s a big battle, the loser leader gets killed, and the remaining nobles swear loyalty to the new leader. Trained people are simply too valuable to kill out of hand.

            Of course we do have documented instances of genocide and mass destruction. Nobody is saying it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t the normal mode of operation.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        More of a recent virtue signal we’ve been propagandized to believe, while continuing the conquering and displacement without skipping a beat.

        While the west was writing the UN declaration of human rights, they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.

        At the end of WW2 America, and the rest of the anglo-allies, assisted France in trying to reclaim their colonies, rejecting hundreds of millions their “basic human right” to democracy; all of this went on for decades after the declaration was ratified, as if that meant anything.

        Human rights don’t apply as long as you are labelled a communist, terrorist, separatist, extremist, pedo, etc, etc. Then they can torture you in a black site all nice and legal.

        Most of our history has been written by sociopathic criminals.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you look at the entirety of human history, genocides and displacements have objectively been at an all-time low since the end of WWII

          • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not the first time that peace exists you know, and it’s an incredibly short span that you’re describing, one which I think everyone agrees is closer to its end than anything

        • BatmanAoD@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          …they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.

          There was no Palestinian sovereign state prior to Britain’s decision to establish a Jewish homeland in the region. It was briefly under shared British and French control following a revolt against the Ottoman Empire during WWI; then the League of Nations assigned Britain control over the region as “Mandatory Palestine”.

          Mandatory Palestine was explicitly intended to be temporary, with Britain providing “administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”. Additionally, it was always intended to provide a home for the Jewish people without displacing Palestinian Arabs. Of course, this didn’t really work out. There was a lot of conflict between the Palestinian nationalists and the Jewish nationalists.

          The UN’s action in 1947 was to partition the region into separate Jewish and Palestinian sovereign states. The reason this didn’t actually happen was because Arabic leaders both within the region and nearby rejected the idea of a sovereign Jewish state in the region. Israel declared independence anyway, and as the Palestinian Mandate expired, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began as an effort to destroy the newly formed Israel. But of course Israel got support from other countries, and the war ended with Israel controlling most of Palestine and believing its neighbors to be a constant existential threat.

          The Palestinians did not declare an independent, sovereign state until 1988, at which point they actually declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. There has never been a proposal for a two-state solution that Palestinian leaders have endorsed.

      • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Not true. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:

        “The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations the Arabs did not engage in farming…their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam, and to collect taxes…the Jewish farmer, like any other farmer, was not easily torn from his soil…Despite the repression and suffering the rural population remained unchanged.” [7]

        Ben Gurion is quoted by Shlomo Sand in his book https://blogs.umb.edu/joinercenter/2012/10/09/review-of-shlomo-sand-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-london-verso-2009-translated-by-yael-lotan/