- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The Israelis don’t treat Palestinians like they are human beings. They don’t care to make generations of enemies with their war crimes.
The only thing Israel seems to value about Palestinians is their land.
not true! look at all the riots and almost civil war that happened when a judge said maybe you don’t have the right to rape palestinian prisoners!
their orifices and screams are also valued. something something chopping wood.
Did you say the same thing about palestinians on oct 7th or do you have some sort of antisemetic double standard where you think it is acceptable to judge all israeli’s by the actions of a few, but do not think its acceptable to judge all palestinains based on the actions of a few?
There’s that word. “Antisemitism”. Put it back in the deck Moishe, It’s not winning you any arguments.
You always judged palestinians based on actions of few
a few who were bought and paid for by a specific (and probably the worst) zionist.
Likely they did.
Although I’d like to correct that they should be condemning the IDF and Isreali settlers, and not all israeli people. Just like you should be condemning Hamas, and not all the palestinian people. (which I’ve seen you’ve incinuated correctly).
Although I would say, based on other comments I’ve come across from you, you are likely a Zionist. Minimising the number of deaths in Gaza, and a lot of whataboutism.
Both sides have a lot of hatred and resentment toward each other. The problem is that the power balance is extremely heavily in favor of Israel, and they are able to exert their will on the Palestinians through force the Palestinians have no answer for.
But yes, killing innocent people is bad whenever it happens, and no, not all Israelis are bad, just the government, military, and settlers. One admittedly horrific massacre does not give Israel license to commit genocide on the Palestinian people, which is precisely what is happening right now.
Yes let’s compare them together:
A group of designated terrorists, absorbed into, a military force, that forces all European and North American citizens to join their forces and continue it “killing” and “stealing” of other people land. Compared in haterd for people who got their stuff stolen, killed, and oppressed in their damn land.
It is like police killing black people and a politician goes on about how trust between the community need to be built again. When it is one sided oppression.
the thing is, as shown here, there are no zionist civilians. not one. they are all armed ready and not just willing but eager to fight.
that isn’t to say there aren’t any sort of resistance, but while they’re not quite partisans yet, friendly fire is not the same as killing civilians.
80% of American jews self identify as zionists.
Are you honestly arguing that american jews who have never been to israel and have never served in any military are valid targets to be killed by the palestinian ‘resistance’?
‘I’m not the one killing you, but I do support the people killing you, and may even be financially aiding their efforts.’
Removed by mod
Being forced from your homes; deprived of food, water, and healthcare; and tortured and terrorized is genocide by any definition.
Comparing the effectiveness of your genocide to the effectiveness of Nazi genocide does not help your cause.
genocide has a very specific definition under international law and “tortured and terrorized” is not genocide. It is torture, and terror.
Do you consider Hamas’ terror attacks and torture of civilian hostages to be genocide against Israel? Of course you don’t. Why? Is it the lack of effectiveness of your genocide that makes you OK with it?
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group
The destruction of Gaza and the continued displacement in the West Bank for this definition. Israel is destroying Palestine and the Palestinian people. That definition is from the Holocaust Museum.
An outright instantaneous genocide would bring about too much bad publicity.
Crippling the sovereign functionality of Palestinians along with killing and displacing ‘enough’ of them to prevent them from clawing any of that functionality back is the goal, and that’s what is happening.
So it’s only genocide, if you redefine genocide to mean “crippling the sovereign functionality” instead of “destroying the people”.
Typical fascist doublespeak, the enemy is both too strong and too weak. They are strong enough to do genocide, but too weak to actually do genocide so they have to do a hidden conspiracy super secret slow motion genocide which means will literally never actually finish the genocide they started.
you’re not making genocide look bad, you’re just making antisemitism look good. fucking stop.
Nazis carry on with pogroms ☹️
they simply rearranged the letters: NaZi -> ZioN
Israel is only creating living space in the east.
EDIT: Turns out I needed the /s
A year ago, I would have assumed this was sarcasm.
I think in this case, judging by the post history, it is sarcasm luckily.
It was sarcasm.
I would say this is closer to the japanese version than the german one, since the riots about ‘you are not entitled to rape them, only kill them’ and the governent capitulating.
edit: see: the public competitions about which officers could behead the most chinese VS some german POW’s vomitting or shouting that it had to be lies when they saw video of the death camps. the rhetoric of ‘chopping wood’ used by the nearest moral equivalent to a zionist that has ever existed.
Settlers are pure evil
It’s a weird word to use to describe state sponsored terrorism.
What do you think a settler colony is?
Settlers is a weird word… Not evil.
readsettlers.org then. Settlers are pure evil.
Yeah but for most people who aren’t knowledgeable about history, the connotation isn’t necessarily negative.
It should be, but it isn’t. “Settlers of Catan” is probably one of the most popular board games ever, and it’s all just friendly people trading sheep and wood and shit.
Yeah, because it’s not the settling part of a settler that is harmful. Settling in new lands is a foundational human behavior.
It’s displacing people when you settle on their already claimed land, and treating yourself as superior that tends to badly violate human rights.
In the fantasy world of Catan, we don’t genocide the natives to gain territory. This doesn’t make Catan harmful, it makes it a game.
I would argue that settlers is whitewashing colonization since it has all the hallmarks of exploiting a foreign land and shipping the goods abroad but it’s very conveniently unsettled.
Like how the american frontier was claimed to be unsettled land just waiting to be settled.
most people who aren’t knowledgeable about history
sorry but that’s as the kids say a skill issue
Hence me linking a history book on the topic…
“Settlers” isonly weird to you if you discount all the other times settler colonialists stole land and committed ethnic cleansing and genocide.
You’re gonna have to explain this take. Illegal state-sponsored settlements in the West Bank are absolutely evil. There’s nothing weird about describing it that way.
Maybe they meant using the word settler instead of something more apt, like invader, pillager, trespasser, violator, etc.
deleted by creator
Fuck Israel.
I think you misspelled bomb.
Fuck bomb.
Yes, drop the gay bomb on Israel and Palestine. Enemies to lovers!
Hmmmm… Terrorism?
Oh no it’s okay Blinken declared their war crimes to be GMO free.
oh, good thinking, yes; that village was a terrorist.
Yes, it’s definitely the residents of Gaza and the West Bank who are committing genocide against the residents of Israel.
Definitely.
At what point are they no longer “settlers”?
That’s… what settlers are.
The land isn’t unoccupied. The people who were there before are going to be a constant problem for the settlers because they will always resent being pushed out of their homes.
The settlers have to kill or permanently displace the people who lived in the land they’re trying to settle in order to settle it.
That’s what the process is.
Theyre settlers.
They’re violently displacing and killing the people on the land they want to settle.
Well you can send settlers to an empty desert. You can also send settlers to a sparsely inhabited land and have them get along with the locals. It’s not like it’s physically impossible.
I see the concept of settler as someone who goes live somewhere where there aren’t many people, not a role where conflict is a major part of the thing.
West Bank settlers sent by Israel were already highly questionable, but if they start doing things like this, they’re just soldiers with extra steps.
Who can send settlers into the desert? Where is the desert empty? Who can have them get along with the native population? Has that ever happened?
yes. theyre called immigrants Every country has them. only Israel says its fine for the immigrants to firebomb homes.
Ah thanks for clarifying that. I wasn’t aware that Joseph smiths followers integrated into Mexico and that Israeli settlers are really just Palestinians.
They followed those nations norms and laws around immigration, right?
Right?
errr wtf?
You said Israeli settlers are just immigrants and implied that Israel’s unwillingness to punish its immigrants is unique.
In my reply I compared Israeli settlers and American Mormon settlers who both cannot be called immigrants because they’re not moving into and integrating into an existing nation, but pushing that nations people out in order to create a new nation or expand an existing one.
Settlement and immigration are wildly different things.
I’m talking about things that are possible. There wasn’t any physically unavoidable reason the colonization of North America had to turn into the mess it did.
It was sparsely populated. It would have been possible for Europeans to negotiate in good faith, not kick people out of where they lived, and fairly compensate for any harm caused.
And in fact, while overall the result was overall pretty damn deplorable, you can dig in history and find some examples where it went well, at least for a while.
My point is that it’s not that settling is not inherently borderline an act of war. It can easily, and it often does, turn out badly, no one’s arguing against that.
But even though that’s the case, there are degrees to these things. Between literal genocide and cultural harm, for instance.
Am I arguing that anyone SHOULD settle any area? Not really. But I’m also not willing to put literally every case in the same basket.
Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn’t seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.
I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like “invaders” or “raiders”. Nice and clear to everyone.
B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.
Settlers from Europe could never have coexisted with first peoples.
They couldn’t do that because their mode of living, as well as the pressures they were under from their home countries would never have allowed it.
It is literally not possible to say “uhh, George, I know there’s all these great resources you want in the new world, but we decided to instead live as Cherokee. Bye now!” and not face either reprisal or replacement with new settlers who will comply with the demands of their home countries.
Israel has the right to defend itself!!!
Rheeeeee
Which clearly gives them a carte blanche to genocide and apartheid
TBH use is providing the political cover for it.
Without US support, Israel wouldn’t exist.
at what point is it defense and at what point is it deliberate escalation of a conflict?
you have to imagine you’re being attacked on the streets. at what point is it self-defense and at what point is it aggressive behavior?
Is conjuring the image of pogroms and burning shtetls antisemitic? Asking for a friend.
I’ll be antisemitic apparently if I tell this to an Israeli. They’ve also by now have that firm belief that their genocide was qualitatively worse than other genocides.
That society is degenerate. For real. They need some real bombs falling on their heads.
They think a few murders and bus bombings are equivalent to them leveling cities. They think they already were at war. They think they are already answering with their lives for what their government is doing by fair price.
They need real feedback. A couple of days, maybe a week of bombardment similar to what their state has been doing to Gaza.
It has done wonders to Europe and Germany in particular. This is the only way.
well is this the level of backlash required to force israil to use civil pawns to continue the terrorism?
Settler Violence is deliberate, and exploited by the Israeli State to continue ethnic cleansing & Settler Colonialism in the West Bank with plausible deniability
The state takes over land openly, using official methods sanctioned by legal advisors and judges, while the settlers, who are also interested in taking over land to further their agenda, initiate violence against Palestinians for their own reasons. Yet in truth, there is only one track: Settler violence against Palestinians is part of the strategy employed by Israel’s apartheid regime, which seeks to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy, aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.
The combination of state violence and nominally unofficial violence allows Israel to have it both ways: maintain plausible deniability and blame the violence on settlers rather than on the military, the courts or the Civil Administration while advancing Palestinian dispossession. The facts, however, blow plausible deniability out of the water: When the violence occurs with permission and assistance from the Israeli authorities and under its auspices, it is state violence. The settlers are not defying the state; they are doing its bidding.
there are no zionist civilians, holy shit. every time I think they can’t possibly worse, they find a way to surprise me.
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for BBC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Centre or even center right, you peanut.
I’m amazed that they finally mentioned Israel in the headline. You’d expect the BBC to write something like ‘West Bank village burns down’.
Nah thats not fair to the BBC. They were fairly neutral on this and refrained from calling hamas a terrorist org until they were heavily pressured into doing so. They constantly get bullied by zionists for not being pro israel enough. Yes they could do better, but they are much more neutral than most.
I’m referring to examples like this headline where they completely left out the perpetrator of an atrocity.
Even the ‘fixed’ headline makes it sound like the dog somehow got loose instead of being intentionally sicced on the victim.
Damn that is more examples than i would have thought. Sad to see :/
Any source left of Fox is center left according to MBFC lol
