jizzrali genocidal scum
Perhaps there’s something fundamentally unsound about claiming a 2500-year-old collection of shepherds’ fairy tales confers ownership over land that someone else owns?
Finally, the global political community starts to push back against Israel’s genocidal expansionism. A little.
The sheer fact that it took them almost 2 years and massive protests to find some of their humanity again is in itself quite depressing, but hey, it’s better than nothing.
But right now it feels that at best we’ll be returning to the status quo as it was before Trump 1.0, before Netanyahu went full mask off.
As it was for decades:
Mild criticism of Israel to keep them in check and suitable for polite society, but never enough to actually solve the Palestine problem once and for all, never enough to actually stop Israel from expanding more-or-less aggressively. Tacit agreement by only stepping in when it becomes too … disgusting?
I truly hope there’s an actual solution somewhere on the horizon. This has been going on since 1948, it’s time wouldn’t you think.
2 years? I think you mean 60.
I don’t think you understood my comment, or stopped reading too early.
Hamas has often been the roadblock for getting a two state setup sorted. I mean, the chant “From the River to the Sea” is about the Jordan river, and includes all of Israel – it’s legit a call for the extermination of all Israeli Jews. Hamas has pretty clearly not been in favour of a two state solution, ever. Like, the Oslo accords fell apart due to failures from both the Israeli govt and the Palestinian Authority – it’s hard to blame just Israel, when Hamas was busy assassinating people involved in the peace talks.
Doesn’t excuse what Israel’s doing to civilians currently though, nor how they’ve generally treated the Palestinian population for decades.
Another note worth highlighting, is that the ‘world response’ is largely one that eyes the USA with caution. The US govt prioritizes Israel’s interests even over their own citizens, with Trump commenting on FEMA aid being denied for any state that’s off-message on the ongoing conflict. Trump even jacked up tariffs on Canada just because the PM said he might recognise Palestine (if a bunch of impossible conditions were met). The US president isn’t exactly subtle when he tweets shit like this. Imagine what the USA would do if other countries tried to take actual military action (blockades, or deploying UN peacekeepers or whatnot) to stop Israel from committing genocide – cause that’s what it realistically would’ve taken to stop them.
Hell, Israel has nukes. That’s more than most other countries. There’s this fun conspiracy theory I’ve heard that Israel managed to get some smaller nukes into America at some point, and basically has a ‘quiet understanding’ with the USA that if Israel goes down, they’ll detonate nukes in key points in America. It’d help explain America’s capitulation to Israel, though I think it’s a bit far fetched – the more likely reason is prolly more mundane, like campaign money/financing and regular corruption.
Fuck off
What a rollercoaster of a comment - ending in conspiracy fairyland.
I didn’t read past the second sentence
Yep, that almost made me reply to them directly, but what would be the point when you already said it so succinctly.
Religious extremists shouldn’t be in charge of anything
Bibi is Hitler, anyone who had a role in supporting him is a Nazi. There, problem identified. Now prosecute in international court.
Now prosecute in international court.
Already underway but it seems in these times international agreements are seen as decorative and/or leftist tubthumping.
Always have been.
Good start, but then you have to ask: Where is the opposition to the genocide? Where are the people horrified by the genocide being committed by their compatriots and taking to the streets? Where are the opposition politicians attacking Bibi for committing genocide?
This goes way beyond Netanyahu’s supporters; even people who oppose him for corruption and anti-democratic behavior tend to support him, or at least toe the line, when it comes to the war.
I’ve tried reasoning with my Nazi-ass/Diet Nazi family, but they seem to earnestly believe that they’re not Nazis. I try to provide emotional support to my cousin in the IDF, who has spent his entire career trying to protect Palestinians as best as he can, but we haven’t heard from him for nearly a year now. I hope he’s just in jail again for defying orders…
Other than that, I’m still freaking out too much about the Nazis gaining power here at home. There’s too many goddamn Nazis these days…
What do you think Israel should have done after October 7? Packed up and left?
That would be a start.
Where would they go to?
The places they were from before they were gifted someone else’s country?
Let them figure that out for themselves?
They have never asked displaced Palestinians where they would like to go or where they should go; well other than “away” or to the grave. Neither at the start of their colonial occupation, or throughout the years of settler colonists steady pushing the Palestinians off of the lands they are supposedly allowed to live on.
Most of them are from the Middle East. The rest are from Europe (where ⅔ of them were rounded up because of their ethnicity and, without provocation, executed — actual genocide by UN definition).
Meanwhile in Australia this week we have Jews being doxxed by Daily Mail.
How about a proportionate response? Something Israel has refused to learn in ~80 years of oppressing Palestinians.
But also: don’t explicitly allow the attack to occur in the first place (which we now know happened). Don’t be shocked when 80 years of brutal oppression, ethnic cleansing, and now genocide, leads to desperate people who want to fight back any way they can.
Netanyahu sure as shit isn’t shocked. He literally funded Hamas.
I personally wish that Netanyahu and whoever was in charge of the Defense were punished instead of invading Gaza for retaliation. Sucking up the 1200 slaughtered by the Al Qassam Brigade would have been cheaper with less death for everyone concerned.
From Israel’s own self-interest perspective: they have lost 454 soldiers. They have had 148 hostages returned but could have had them all returned (and lost no soldiers) at the start of the war with a swap.
Israel underestimated the extent of the tunnels and the unquestioning support Hamas would get from the Global Left (eg believing the Al Ahli Hospital hoax).
But Hamas (who were as keen for war as Likud) also underestimated: they mistakenly thought the Arab League would join the war like in 1967.
And so the mission creep has gotten us to this situation today. The only realistic way out I see is if Hamas would surrender and the Arab League would occupy and reconstruct. I certainly would not trust Likud and the even more right wing parties in their coalition (who support expansionist terror by settlers in the West Bank).
Israel underestimated the extent of the tunnels and the unquestioning support Hamas would get from the Global Left
I have seen no such support… Surely you’re not equating support for Palestine with Hamas.
Reporting Hamas propaganda as facts. If stating the source it is always “Gaza Health Ministry” never Hamas even though they are Hamas run.
This emboldens Hamas and prolongs the agony.
Not commit genocide, that’s for goddamn sure. I’ll do you one better: What goal other than genocide and occupation does Israel have in this so-called war? It has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated through its attitude towards peace deals that deposing Hamas isn’t the point.
You haven’t answered the question.
Okay, here’s your answer: After October 7th, Israel should’ve ended its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, cooperated with Palestinians and its Arab neighbors to create an independent, sovereign and democratic Palestinian state (or absorbed these regions in one binational state with equal rights for all if that’s your thing), given refugees right to return or equivalent compensation to the generation wealth they were robbed of and then pushed for fair trials for all involved under international law. Notice the conspicuous lack of genocide.
Gaza was not occupied. Israel withdrew settlements in 2005.
If Gaza isn’t occupied, then what’s preventing it from trading with and getting aid from other countries? As a non-occupied territory, it should have control over its coastline, airspace and territorial waters.
Generations of Israeli’s could have stopped the genocide and apartheid before Oct 7. They didn’t, because the majority of Israelis are pro-genocide fascists, who believe in their religious nationalist ethnostate with righteous indignation.
So you think Israel should have tried a one-state solution? I don’t see any Arab governments anywhere in the Middle-East interested in anything other than their own brand of “religious nationalist ethno-state”.
But one small such state for Israel is too much? (Which is very much more secular than any Arab state).
There’s a lot of “righteous indignation” in this thread.
If 3 terrorists take over a bank with 50 hostages - including children - inside, do you just bomb the bank and call it a day? No, because we don’t kill the innocents indiscriminately to eliminate the terrorists.
Israel is not only murdering innocent people, including children, indiscriminately, they’ve murdered journalists and aid workers intentionally who are reporting on their behavior and we have memos showing starvation, displacing the innocent civilians and taking control of their land is part of the plan.
The ratio of Gazan deaths isn’t 50 civilians to 3 militants though. Not even remotely that ratio. You are not discussing in good faith and you avoided answering my question.
Right, but it won’t happen.
The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.
The only way to rehabilitate the region is to remove religious control and establish secular institutions.
All of it stems from colonialism and Western meddling you mean. Who do you think gave Palestine to the Zionists?
It can be both
That’d imply that secular countries in the region are better, which is clearly not the case. Baathist Iraq and Syria were explicitly secular, and as is Egypt which also happens to be a police state under a military dictatorship. Israel also managed to keep religious fanatics outside of government for most of its history, yet the horrors of Zionism progressed unimpeded (see: the Nakba). “Religion bad” as a framework for understanding the current state of the Middle East, aside from falling apart when you think about it for five seconds, is deeply colonial thinking. It seeks to push the blame for the terrible events that have plagued the region on religion or culture or a non-existent history of instability rather than active choices by global hegemons seeking to further their imperialist agendas.
deleted by creator
Religion is still used by those powers to control people, even if the government is not overtly religious.
Religion’s power over society is easily co-opted by those with power.
I agree it’s far from the only factor, but it is one that prevents a path to peace and the one that many people avoid confronting because of the taboo against criticising religion.
Religion does not need to be in control of the government for it to be used to control people.
Look how republicans co-opted Christianity to get leaders like Bush and Trump in power.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Religion is the tool used by oppressors to get normal people to tolerate and do terrible things.
To clarify my earlier point, you need to break Religion’s power over society, in order to make the society resistant to following those types of leaders.
Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.
Being Jewish is also an ethnicity so this is a moot point.
Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.
Where? In most of the Middle East religion is tightly controlled or outright suppressed by authorities, with Islamists overwhelmingly being political opposition rather than pro-regime. The Islam people are almost invariably not happy with how their countries are run, which is why any anti-authoritarian resistance in the region invariably has significant Islamist presence.
Note that when I say Islam, I am referring to the religion, not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist. Much like Orthodox and Catholic are distinct cultural grouping, but both are still part of the Christian religion.
Similarly when I refer to Judaism, I am referring to the religion, not the culture referred to as the Jews.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion’s effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
It’s not just islam. Look of christian evangelism has been leveraged by the republican party in the US. Look how Catholicism is used by the right wing in Poland.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough. Just like the far right evangelical Christians supporting the Jewish occupation of Gaza, becuase they want to end of the world to happen.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes. Countires who have had them creep back in, like in the USA are getting much worse.
not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist.
That’s… not what those words mean. Muslim = someone who follows in Islam, Islamist = someone who believes in political Islam. Islamist is a subcategory of Muslim, not a group distinct of it.
In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion’s effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.
Again, where is this happening? Give me examples with sources of this supposed region-wide phenomenon.
Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.
This is completely untrue. See: Egypt, where the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil and political rights at the same time it’s cracking down on expressions of Islam.
You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough.
Again, not true. Many major Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have explicitly pro-democracy lines.
Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes.
That’s not really true (see Malaysia for example), but it also has absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.
They aren’t saying “religion bad”, that’s a strawman. The sentiment is that theocracies are bad, which seems pretty obvious. In much the same way police states are bad; there has never been a theocratic regime that hasn’t used their power to oppress other religions.
Theocracies oppress religious minorities in much the way ethnostates oppress ethnic minorities, and patriarchies oppress women and gender minorities. We don’t need to structure the state around religion like that, it’s a recipe for disaster.
But then they claim that “The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.” If the sentiment is that theocracies are bad, then that would imply that the whole region is governed by either de jure or de facto theocracies. That’s factually untrue, so we’re back where we started.
I would clarify my point. It’s not that religion needs to be in control, it’s that religion’s power over society is used by whomever is in power to control people.
If “all of it” stems from one thing, it can’t “all of it” stem from another thing. I’m not arguing for either, I’m just uppity about logic.
Of course it can—why do you think something can’t have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.
The “stem” is the thing itself, not the thing it stems from. A stem can’t come from two places.
Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.
That… doesn’t address my claim at all. A plant can have a million stems, if you wish. We’re taking about a single stem, which comes from somewhere. If all of it comes from one place, it cannot also come from another.
That’s kind of what the word “stem” means, both literally and figuratively.
Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.
And before them, it was the Ottomans, and before them it was the Arab islamic conquests and so on and so forth. Colonialism is far from only a western problem.
Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia. They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.
What? You’re not making any sense. Palestine was ruled by these powers, as was the rest of the Middle East, but it was never a center of conflict. Places tend to be ruled by people, that’s how that works.
Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia.
Like… every other part of the world? I’m not sure what part of this is unique to Palestine.
They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.
That’s like saying Berlin was never allowed to form its own regional state for long enough. The desire for a Palestinian state is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, Palestinian identity is a very recent phenomenon created through Zionist oppression; had Britain not reared its ugly head Palestine and Lebanon would’ve been parts of Syria.
You forgot about the Crusades. When the islamists invaded the region and the catholic church counter invaded.
It has very much been one of the conflict hotbeds in the world. Like the Balkans, Armenia, Somalia.
The little secret that the Zionists and Islamists would like to forget, is that there are almost no generic differences between Modern Israelis and Palestinians. They come from the same people, from before the Islamic, Catholic and Zionist conquests.
Okay I’ll be frank: You lack too much information about Middle Eastern history, politics and culture to be having this conversation.
So when I demonstrate knowledge that does not support your views, your response is to dismiss it?
Are you simply unwilling to engage and provide the necessary information to be convincing, or are you simply falling back on projecting your own ignorance on me?
You have not, in fact, demonstrated any such knowledge, only tells you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. For starters, that’s not what the word “Islamist” means (Islamism refers to the modern political movement), and second there were a full four centuries between the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the first crusade. Four centuries between major conflicts isn’t what I’d call “a conflict hotbed.” Like, seriously just go hit Wikipedia, type “history of Palestine” and see the massive gaps between the conflicts you’re talking about. You also keep bringing up Islamism in completely irrelevant contexts.
Not taking sides here, but here is a great animated history map of the region (although whether the"Kingdom of Israel" existed as a united entity as down on this map is debated).
Thanks for contributing information.
The conflicts are much older than that, but yes, it is definitely not helping.
Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century? As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.
Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century?
Nope.
As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.
Zionists had been making moves since the start of the 20th century, mostly buying land from absentee landlords and expelling the inhabitants, but yeah their program only really got going after the British takeover.
Depends on the conflict (most relevantly the Arab-Jew beef is a 20th century thing), but also: Conflict doesn’t have to lead to tyranny or violence; it can be and in many places is resolved peacefully or mostly peacefully. There was no need or inevitability for people like Saddam or Assad to take power for example; that was America’s doing.
You must mean the British and French who took control from the Ottomans. America had very little to do with it until much later.
Both the Syrian and Iraqi dictatorships took power in American-backed coups. Before that they were democracies with varying degrees of political upheaval.
