Israel or Palestine?

[thorny stone]

No they can't. Israel is invading Palestinian lands, not the other way round. You can't stop a war with an invasion still in place.

[zenith coyote]

Israel forced its people of out Gaza and the west strip in 2005

[thorny stone]

And then they walked right back in any time they felt like it.

[zenith coyote]

If they returned hostages and disbanded its military personnel then Israel would have no moral reason to attack

And if they continued to attacking the us and other counties would stop backing them
Up

[thorny stone]

Ok, so let's finish this train of thought. Imprison Netanyahu, imprison the Hamas leaders and soldiers who have committed war crimes as well, imprison all the other Israeli military leaders who have also authorised war crimes. Are we fine so far?

[thorny stone]

The problem is that Israel doesn't need a moral reason to attack. They were fine attacking with only a religious reason all along.

And the other countries did nothing then. Israel was allowed to massacre Palestinians for religious reasons by all the other countries

[zenith coyote]

First of all return the hostages

[thorny stone]

It has to happen simultaneously. You can't ask Hamas to make the first gesture alone.

If the Israeli hostages are released, so must the Palestinians ones be.

[zenith coyote]

Nothing will happen in the Israeli government until the hostages are returned

It is preposterous to ask Israel to stop any military intervention until the hostages are released

Do you mean the Palestinians hostages or criminals

[thorny stone]

I mean all the innocent Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

[zenith coyote]

Including the ones that have done terroristic acts in Israel?

[thorny stone]

No, not at first.

Exchange of war prisoners can come later.

Innocent for innocents first

Israel has far more innocent Palestinian hostages than Hamas does Israeli. So this would be letting Israel off lightly.

But a cease fire has to be in place before that, otherwise Israel will just shoot whoever goes to release the hostages.

[zenith coyote]

Which won’t happen until Hamas agrees to release all hostages because everyone knows that a ceasefire won’t last with Hamas, they will just build up their forces again and continue attacking Israel

[thorny stone]

OK, so Hamas agrees that they will release the hostages if Israel will stop the fighting and release its own hostages. But they can't actually release the hostages until the rockets stop.

[thorny stone]

The same things apply both ways. There is no reason to expect Israel to abide by a ceasefire, since they've ignored every single one before.

Neither side trusts the other, with good reason. That's why we need neutral(ish) arbitrators involved, who can hold both sides to account.

[zenith coyote]

I don’t disagree there but Israel isn’t just fighting Hamas. They are fighting other Iranian proximity groups

[thorny stone]

You mean Hezbollah?

That's kind of another war that's solved by Israel stopping invading other countries.

Basically, Israel needs to learn that it can't just bully other people into doing what it wants.

Israel isn't going to agree to even a cease fire until the US forces it to.

[zenith coyote]

Or other countries need to learn that Israel has the power and capability to fuck up any country that tries to threaten its peace

[thorny stone]

Giving in to bullies is not an option.

We don't just give psychopaths what they want and hope they will be satisfied. They will never be satisfied, they always keep demanding more.

We've learned that from history.

[zenith coyote]

You’re right Israel shouldn’t be giving it to bullies surrounding them

[thorny stone]

OK no, let's be clear. Israel are the bullies in this example.

They are the ones trying to take what they want by force.

[zenith coyote]

There’s a reason why Hamas choose to attack Israel now, because Israel is making good strides with other Arab countries around and Hamas wants to make them
Seem like the bad guys

[thorny stone]

And they are the spoilt children who nobody has ever said no to

[thorny stone]

Of course. It seems like there's a real danger that the Palestinian cause will be forgotten about by other Arab countries, so they're getting increasingly desperate as other people give up and more and more of their homes and lands are stolen.

They're being backed into a corner. Hence everything that's happened recently. That's what happens when you push people into desperate situations.

Netanyahu and people like him want everyone else to just abandon the Palestinians, because they want Israel to rule all the Palestinian lands.

Including Gaza and the West Bank.

But even if that happens, they will just start demanding more. The basis for all of this is extreme Zionism, and those extreme Zionists claim all of Jordan as well. So do we give them Jordan too? And Lebanon?
If you give in to people who think they can just demand stuff and take it by force, then that only encourages them to demand more. The proper time to stop Israel seizing lands was 1948, so we're already late on our responsibilities. But better late than never.

[thorny stone]

Israel are the main bad guys in this. Loads of other people have done things wrong here as well, but Israel are the driving force pushing all of the bad things happening there.

[zenith coyote]

Israel gave back the land they won in 1967 to Egypt/sinai

It seems to me you don’t want a Jewish land of Israel

[thorny stone]

Well I've never said or indicated anything along those lines, so maybe you're letting your prejudices get in the way of your judgement?

[thorny stone]

But kept the other lands they stole.

Israel is always walking a balancing act, trying to steal land slowly enough that it doesn't look like part of a concerted effort to steal the whole area.

But the fact is they keep on slowly invading and taking more and more.

[zenith coyote]

You’ve made it clear that’s the problems in the region are caused by Israel and if the Jews weren’t doing stuff because of their religion then there wouldn’t be any problems for Jews anywhere

[zenith coyote]

Won in war

[thorny stone]

That's still called stealing.

If you take something by force, that's still stealing.

[brittle quiver]

war for conquest is never justified

war for expansion is genocide

[thorny stone]

None of that indicates I don't want a Jewish Israel. What I don't want, is anybody killing or stealing from anyone else, or anyone forcing their views on anyone else.

[zenith coyote]

There was wasn’t for conquest but in response to the Arab forces, namely in Egypt lining up for war. They launched a preemptive strike against their planes before they could attack Israel

[thorny stone]

Ok let's try and be precise here. War for expansion is not genocide. Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a particular group. Sometimes wars of conquest involve genocide, but not always.

[zenith coyote]

Israel isn’t forcing conversion

[brittle quiver]

it's the same concept

[thorny stone]

No, that's not what I'm saying. When I'm talking about people forcing their views on others, I'm talking about people like one of the Chief Rabbis of Israel trying to impose their own personal view of their religion on everyone else that follows that religion (for example, not allowing Jewish people to spend any time at all with non-Jewish people), or people trying to claim some kind of divine rights or superiority for themselves.

People shouldn't be forced to accept the Zionist view of those lands, is another example.

[zenith coyote]

That’s an extreme view of Judaism which is common in all forms of popular religions. https://www.timesofisrael.com/radical-israeli-rabbis-come-under-fire-amid-settler-violence/amp/

Here is a link of Israel taking action against its extremist

Every religion thinks that it’s the only one, Jews have a history of persecution and that has caused them to have the mindset that’s they must be the chosen people or else they wouldn’t suffer so much

Israel gives full citizen rights to Arabs and Palestinians alike

[thorny stone]

OK, no it doesn't, not at all.

[thorny stone]

Yes, religious beliefs are frequently a problem in that way. The idea that you shouldn't impose your religious views on others is certainly not limited to Judaism.

[thorny stone]

There are various ways in which Arabs and Palestinians are discriminated against within Israel. These range from making government resources unavailable in Arabic, to preventing non-Jews from buying land, to preventing democratic representation of Arabs in various bodies, to allowing the partners of Jews residency in Israel unless they are Arabs, to allocating more money for the education of Jewish students compared to Arab students, to allowing the segregation of Arabs in various areas.

Israel is operating an apartheid system for Arabs. They are very much considered second class citizens.

[forest vale]

We've been through all this before. Citizens in Israel have the same rights. People pretend that not allowing people from hostile countries automatic entry and citizenship is somehow discriminatory. Let me say that again. If there are countries with a stated official policy to wipe your country off the earth, then not allowing people from that country automatic entry and citizenship is considered "discrimination" and somehow some kind of "apartheid" state.

I don't know how anyone can actually believe that and not just immediately get blown away by the magnitude of their own stupidity.

[zenith coyote]

Just look at Jews in the surrounding countries

[forest vale]

It's crazy how people pretend a Jewish population of zero is somehow a normal thing. You can't get to zero without working very, very hard to murder people.

[zenith coyote]

“They all immigrated to Israel or back to Europe where they are from”

No need for a Jewish state though, very unimportant to Jewish culture, identity and survival

[misty bone]

Imo idk why Americans and UK care. It's a war in Asia ffs, both countries have so much wrong and need to fix how they deal with their own land, not others.

[hollow token]

Let me ask you about this (since I havent talked to you in a while and dont remember if you responded already), and dont just simply say "it didnt happen" because a lot of this did and everyone knows it. 1. Why is West bank and Palestine entirely occupated right now? 2. Israel did commit genocide by killing civilians (many of them) and not purely by accident, you dont simply kill 40,000 innocent civlians and you have many Israeli people themselves admitting to it so why are you defending them? 3. I know that you do have a huge bias against Arabs/Muslims so if I may ask, why?

[hollow token]

USA and UK are the ones funding it, mongolia doesnt care because they arent funding it or dont care what happens there entirely because they have nothing to do with it, however USA and UK are funding Israel, giving them weapons and many citizens of USA and UK feel like they are against it and do not want their tax money to go to the funding of genocide

[misty bone]

Ah I see.

[hollow token]

Hence why many US/UK citizens are protesting against the funding

[misty bone]

Yeah.

I mean burning down Starbucks is wayyyy too fqr

[hollow token]

Despite myself supprting palestine, I think that a lot of the protestors are BS and dont actually do anything

[misty bone]

Real

[hollow token]

Burning starbucks is obviously not the way to do it

[misty bone]

So real

[zenith coyote]

Iran and Russia?(idk maybe) are funding Hamas

[hollow token]

what

if they are funding hamas then its also bad obviously, but i dont know if they do

[zenith coyote]

Please show evidence of it being occupied after 2006 and before Oct 7. I’ve had this discussion with ark before about the innocent civilians. Hamas knows that they need innocent civilians to die for their cause, so the position military infrastructure in densely populated areas knowing Israel’s will have to attack them. The set them selves up in schools and hospitals which is considered a war crime

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/10/why-russia-and-hamas-are-growing-closer?lang=en

Russia wants any ally of the west to not be powerful so it makes sense that they would support Hamas, if true

[hollow token]

Between 2006-2023

Israel has maintained a military occupation of the West Bank since the Six-Day War in 1967. Despite some administrative control being given to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in certain areas, Israel continues to exert significant control over the region, including settlements, military presence, and administrative matters​

Although Israel withdrew its settlers and military from Gaza in 2005, it continues to control Gaza's borders, airspace, and maritime access. This control includes regulating the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza, effectively maintaining a blockade. Despite Israel's claim of non-occupation, international bodies and many legal experts consider this level of control as de facto occupation​

https://www.rulac.org/browse/conflicts/military-occupation-of-palestine-by-israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip

[hollow token]

You think I support russia?

[zenith coyote]

When did I say you did

[hollow token]

Then whats the point of bringing it up? you make it sound like I support hamas or russia

[zenith coyote]

I was just responding to your point of us and uk helping Israel, Russia? And Iran are helping Hamas

This is a proxy war

[zenith coyote]

Israel, the United States, and other legal, military, and foreign policy experts otherwise contend that Israel "ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation" upon its disengagement in 2005.[2]

Am i misinterpreting this? I just woke up so I’m a bit foggy

But that’s a quote in the wiki you sent

[hollow token]

So you wouldnt consider israel controlling practically everything palestine has an occupation, sure maybe officially it isnt recognized as occupation however it is still under heavy control over palestine and theres no denying

[zenith coyote]

Read up on the other link you sent, fucked up about them destroying the Palestinian villages to create settlements but they referenced a map that I could not find

Hamas has had ample to to use their international funding to create self sufficiency such as water purifiers and power grids, but they continue to rely on Israel and use their money for terrorist acts against Israel and then blame Israel when they cut off their supply

[hollow token]

I dont bother rn but it doesnt change the fact that israel controlled most of palestine between 2006-2023, despite not fitting the official description of occupation

Israel also held in occupation for a long time before this and even now they are occupied so whats your point?

[hollow token]

I dont think hamas really relies on israel's money, also its not about them cutting supply its about them controlling supply anyway and israel literally destroyed most of everything palestinians had in general and didnt repair shit so idk

[zenith coyote]

Hamas doesn’t rely on Israel money, they rely on Iranian and possibly Russian money

They rely on the water and electricity supply’s that Israel provides for them

I’m not denying Israel destroyed a lot of civilian infrastructure, I expect them to help rebuild and pay for this after this war is over, but that is what happens when your military hides beneath civilians

Innocent people get hurt

[hollow token]

Yeah and I dont support Hamas I think you should realize that

Also

Hamas atleast has some justification, not that them fighting is good, no its very bad but they are fighting for a reason

[zenith coyote]

Hamas doesn’t care about the Palestinian people

[zenith coyote]

Do you support October 7th

[hollow token]

not at all

I support peace but I am against the current state of israel, because israel was founded upon blood pretty much

[zenith coyote]

Do you support a 2 state solution

[hollow token]

I support that

[zenith coyote]

So you’re a Zionist

[hollow token]

Not really

Well

[zenith coyote]

Then you don’t support 2 state solution

You can be a Zionist and be against the Israeli current government

It simply means supporting a Jewish state of Israel. Not solely Jewish but Jewish in identity

[hollow token]

Ok so

Most people think of zionist as someone who supports israel and who supports what they do

[zenith coyote]

That’s misinformation and because merriam Webster feels the need to include at the cost of Palestine lives in their definition

[hollow token]

I dont really support any israel or jewish state atm because of the way they did it, Im a muslim but if they did it peacefully then maybe however i dont like the term zionist

[zenith coyote]

Sucks if you are pro 2 state solution you’re a Zionist

[hollow token]

Are you?

Hold up

wait

Supporting a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine does not necessarily define someone as a Zionist. The term "Zionist" has specific historical and ideological connotations, primarily related to the belief in and support for the establishment and continuation of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel.

Zionism:

Zionism is a movement that emerged in the late 19th century, advocating for the return of the Jewish people to their historic homeland and the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Key figures in this movement include Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann.
Today, Zionism broadly supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, Israel.
Two-State Solution:

The two-state solution is a proposed resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, envisaging an independent State of Israel and an independent State of Palestine coexisting side by side in peace.
Support for a two-state solution can come from a variety of perspectives, including those who are Zionists and those who are not. Some Zionists support the two-state solution as a means to ensure the security and Jewish identity of Israel while also addressing Palestinian aspirations for statehood.
Conversely, some non-Zionists or critics of Zionism also support a two-state solution as a pragmatic way to achieve peace and justice for Palestinians while recognizing the reality of the state of Israel.
Diverse Perspectives:

There are Zionists who oppose the two-state solution, often favoring a single Jewish state or other arrangements due to security concerns or ideological beliefs.
There are non-Zionists or anti-Zionists who might support alternative solutions, such as a single binational state or different forms of Palestinian self-determination.
Political Spectrum:

The support for the two-state solution spans across different political and ideological spectrums, including international diplomacy, various Israeli political parties, and Palestinian leadership factions.
Prominent international bodies and countries, including the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union, have expressed support for a two-state solution.
In summary, support for a two-state solution is a political stance regarding the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and does not inherently classify someone as a Zionist. Zionism relates specifically to the support of a Jewish homeland in Israel, while support for a two-state solution can come from both Zionist and non-Zionist perspectives.

[zenith coyote]

So what is your not Zionist support for a 2 state solution

Palestine has all of Jewish homeland Israel and where do the Jews go?

Where is their state if not in their homeland

[hollow token]

The area is not just jewish homeland, infact it really isnt theirs nor is it anyones historically speaking

cuz why not give jewish homeland in the usa then?

[zenith coyote]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#:~:text=Extensive archaeological excavations have provided,resources and a small population.

Because there isn’t proof dating back thousands of years of their existence there??

https://aish.com/evidence-of-the-jewish-peoples-roots-in-israel/

[hollow token]

Huh

Jewish people lived there less than the muslims, sure the jewish people as a religion were there before the muslims but ethnically speaking the jews werent even the first

[zenith coyote]

So because they were persecuted from their land countless times you think that it should happened again?

[hollow token]

How did I say that

[hollow token]

Judaism - The religion itself was indeed the first religion to possess the land, had the land for 1199~ Years
Islam - Had the land for 1285~ Years more or less

Earliest States to have that land were the Canaanites and Jebusites Before Israelites conquered the land
The Top Empires/States that held the land were Romans - 683 Years (more or less), Judahites - 414 Years (more or less) and Ottomans - 401 Years

[zenith coyote]

And how/why did the Jews leave the land

[hollow token]

Fought for it'

[zenith coyote]

?

[hollow token]

wdym ?

They werent the first ones there, so how else do you think

[zenith coyote]

Don’t think you understood my question

[hollow token]

oh

my bad

i misread it

obviously they were fought and lost and therefore fled

many other nations also have including the muslims

[zenith coyote]

The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that had long inhabited the Levant[18][19][20] through the development of a distinct monolatristic—later cementing as monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The outgrowth of a Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites

I am not denying that they were exiled out of their homeland many times from different nations. I am arguing that, as you admitted, they were the first religion and it is their homeland. And that is why Zionism says the Jewish state should be in Israel

So I ask again, if you are pro 2 state solution but not aZionist, where is the Jewish state

[hollow token]

So technically it is also muslim homeland too?

[zenith coyote]

It does have some Muslim religious significance which is why Israel has allowed their temples to still exist

But does it say anywhere that Israel is the homeland/promised land of the Muslim people

[hollow token]

The Jewish connection to the land of Israel dates back to biblical times, with significant events such as the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua around 1200 BCE, as described in the Hebrew Bible (Joshua 6-12).

[zenith coyote]

^

[hollow token]

Im not a zionist but I think israel should be smaller as it also occupies land of syria and jordan im pretty sure but in general it has taken like 70% of the land that the palestinian arabs lived in for centuries.

If someone is pro two-state solution but not a Zionist, their perspective on the Jewish state would typically be that Israel continues to exist within the framework of the two-state solution. This acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of Israel as a state but focuses on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by also establishing an independent Palestinian state.

[zenith coyote]

https://www.pfmep.org/misleading-and-harmful/

Yes let’s shrink one of the smallest countries in the Middle East to give land back to countries that are almost 10x and 6x their size respectively

I do not understand your reasoning for that

In fact, jordan and Syria should be giving land back to the Palestinians

[hollow token]

Doesnt matter, it was still their land even if they are bigger'

[zenith coyote]

Map of British Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine

[zenith coyote]

Proof?

[hollow token]

They lost the land in the war

Or wait

not sure if it was the war or

[zenith coyote]

Dawg I can’t tell shit from that map

And if they lost it in war, then it’s spoils of war

[brittle quiver]

falcon's a bot

[forest vale]

1. Those areas are occupied because there was a war. They have stayed occupied because they keep attacking Israel, and because those areas have an obsession with keeping all Jews out, which has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with their own desires for genocide against Jews if they could manage it.
2. This isn't a question. It's a false set of statements. Civilians have died because of Hamas and the other terrorist groups intentionally cause civilian deaths.
3. I don't have any bias at all against Arabs, and I haven't shown any bias of that nature in any of my replies. I'm biased against Muslims because the religion started violently and has encouraged violence, slavery, and forced conversion throughout its existence. That said, I have no particular issue with Muslims who do not promote or defend violence.

[forest vale]

As explained in their charter, they have many reasons for existence, one of them being to murder Jews everywhere. That's different from their seperate stated goal to wipe Israel off the map. Just because you have a reason for existence doesn't make it a good reason.

[forest vale]

This makes it sound like you want Israel wiped off the map. How exactly do you think all the Muslim countries in the area got their starts?

[hollow token]

Again you keep denying that israel is commiting genocide, anyway do you think that bias against muslims for starting violently (mainly self defence) even though christianity has also started violently. Christianity also had many instances of forced conversion, MANY. Also most muslims obviously dont promote or defend violence, however I think you might be mis interpreting a lot of the violence or what-not.

[forest vale]

I don't know about this. I don't think you're a zionist just because you think Israel should keep existing. Zionism has a few more elements to it related to a Jewish homeland that aren't related to thinking Israel should keep existing.

[forest vale]

This is not what a Zionist is. You can support Israel and their actions and care nothing about zionist elements.

[hollow token]

As Christianity became more established, conflicts arose with other religious groups and within the Christian community itself. For example, the Arian controversy in the 4th century led to violent clashes between supporters of Arianism and those of Orthodox Christianity.

Instead of hating on Muslims and the religion in general you should rather be open minded and understand that its only the minority, I feel like you hate islam because it has had many conflicts with christianity and you were born with pre-justice (meaning your parents may have also taught to hate muslims or certain races)

[forest vale]

This ignores the fact that Jews continued to live on the land and call it their home the entire time it was occupied by Muslims.

[hollow token]

Well didnt you say all jews were expelled from their homeland?

[forest vale]

Why should it be smaller? Arabs aren't forbidden from living there. By contrast, Jews are very much forbidden from living in the surrounding countries.

[hollow token]

Smaller as in the lands that were taken should atleast be partially given back

And jews arent forbidden from living in the surrounding countries

Obviously theres hatred against the jews theres no doubt about it but they arent forbidden, and I dont support the hatred

[forest vale]

What Israel is doing clearly and obviously doesn't meet the definition of genocide. Even if you claim Israel is responsible for the deaths of 40k, that still wouldn't make it genocide. By contrast, Hamas is very much guilty of genocide.

[forest vale]

It's absolutely false that Christianity started violently. That ignores hundreds of years of history of the exact opposite.

[hollow token]

It doesnt matter if it is classified as genocide, still Israel is responsible for pretty much all the 40000 deaths, each and every single person has a life and it matters doesnt it? Like most people think its simply numbers but these are lives that we are talking about, they had their own stories and all of them dead. It doesnt matter if it isnt classified as genocide its still a mass killing and I would still call it genocide. Hamas is responsible but Israel is more responsible theres no denying

[hollow token]

As Christianity became more established, conflicts arose with other religious groups and within the Christian community itself. For example, the Arian controversy in the 4th century led to violent clashes between supporters of Arianism and those of Orthodox Christianity.

^ again

[forest vale]

I don't hate Muslims. I just don't appreciate people justifying general violence, rape, slavery, forced conversion, and all the other things that have been the mainstay of Islam for a long time.

[hollow token]

Then why are you being so agressive against islam in general? Every single thing that has been commited by muslims was also commited by christians and maybe even worse, the problem is that people justify the crusades, dont you think that is wrong as well or it isnt just because you are christian?

[forest vale]

No. Where did I say that? That happened much later, when Muslim countries started murdering Jews who had nothing to do with Israel in retaliation for the creation of Israel.

[forest vale]

I think getting murdered is a pretty effective way to forbid people from living in your country.

[hollow token]

No you simply said before that there were practically no jews in muslim countries/empires, this also proves my point that despite the muslim empire, the jews werent really harmed as much as compared to the christians killing both the jews and muslims during crusades

[forest vale]

I disagree. Those deaths are on Hamas. You don't get to break the rules of war and then just pretend the country forced to defend itself is still at fault.

[hollow token]

Lol what? You think all jews got murdered and are forbidden to live there? Im talking about the rules of the country, under the rules of the country itself the jews are allowed to live there but Some muslims obviously will hate on the jews and maybe murder them which is most definetly bad but that doesnt mean they are forbidden to live there

[forest vale]

You do understand the difference between the founding of a religion and what happens hundreds of years later, right? Those are not the same thing, and it matters. Many Muslims promote violence because Muhammad was violent, and extremely so.

David was forbidden by God from building the temple because he was a man of war, even though God called him a man after his own heart. It matters.

[forest vale]

The scale is very different, and history is not favorable to Islam at all. Modern history shows a clear contrast between the violence of Muslim countries and the relative peace of Christian countries, and it's not even close.

[hollow token]

Also there are 3 perspectives to this, you are using israeli perspective.

Israeli Perspective: Israel argues that Hamas, recognized as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the European Union, and others, deliberately uses civilians as human shields by launching attacks from civilian areas. This tactic, according to Israel, places Palestinian civilians at risk and makes it difficult to target militants without collateral damage.

Hamas Perspective: Hamas, on the other hand, accuses Israel of disproportionate use of force and targeting civilian infrastructure, including homes, schools, and hospitals. They argue that Israel's military actions in densely populated areas result in a high number of civilian casualties, which they view as violations of international humanitarian law.

International Observers: Human rights organizations and international bodies, such as the United Nations and Amnesty International, have documented civilian casualties in these conflicts and have called for investigations into possible violations of international law by both parties. They stress the importance of distinguishing between military targets and civilian populations and emphasize the obligation to protect civilians during armed conflict.

Believe me THERE WOULDNT BE 40K DEATHS IF ISRAEL TRIED TO AVOID CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, I cannot stress this enough, THERE ARE MANY cases of IDF soldiers of some sort simply killing civilians without any evidence or anything hinting at Hamas being related.

[hollow token]

Muhammad PBUH was not violent

[forest vale]

Even the crusades were a defensive war. Muslims were still actively invading and trying to take over all of Europe, and they were not kind to the people they conquered.

[hollow token]

History is not favorable to Christianity either, Christian countries were not peaceful AT ALL and neither were the muslim countries, history in itself was NEVER peaceful and I think christian countries have done MUCH worse things than the muslim countries, and this doesnt justify either side

[forest vale]

No no no, you're misquoting me here. I never said there weren't Jews in Muslim empires. I said there aren't Jews in Muslim countries, specifically referring to the fact that current Jewish population in countries surrounding Israel is actually zero, which shouldn't be possible unless they're actively getting murdered for moving to the surrounding countries.

[forest vale]

It doesn't matter what the official policy is. If you get murdered for living there, then you can't live there. It's not rocket science.

[hollow token]

Its not actually zero, and many jews have moved to Israel for a better life, some because they may have experienced hatred and some because they are simply poor. Its not LITERALLY zero and arent actively getting murdered.

[forest vale]

The fact that you even bring up the terrorist perspective is silly. They want damage to civilians. They have said as much many times. Blaming Israel for it is their objective.

You have mislabeled the Israeli perspective. That is also the perspective shared by a large portion of the international community, which includes everyone I care about.

[hollow token]

So what you are saying is that black people were forbidden to live in America because they were also murdered in mass amounts? Not rocket science is it 🤷? Also I can also say that it doesnt matter what the official policy is for the definition of genocide right? So therefore Israel is commiting genocide

[forest vale]

Lol, what? Have you never read the Quran?

[hollow token]

Give me some examples?

Because the Bible also has many violent texts

And they are all violent if not given the context

[forest vale]

I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion, but it doesn't matter. There are clear statistics on religious violence in the world today, and the statistics aren't close. Muslim countries are violent. Christian countries are peaceful.

[forest vale]

It is though. Why don't you look it up and prove me wrong if you're so sure?

[hollow token]

Give me the statistics

[hollow token]

Example 1: Old Testament - Deuteronomy 20:16-17 - "But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

[hollow token]

They exist

Obviously many have immigrated to Israel and many have been expelled

But nonetheless They exist and if most of them didnt immigrate I think there would be a lot more

[forest vale]

Where do you get this idea? When did the black population ever approach zero and when were they murdered in mass numbers? There were some murders, certainly. That was about control, not wiping out a population.

[forest vale]

Context matters a lot. Giving a history of what happened doesn't mean you're telling people to follow that example. By contrast, Muslims very much strive to be like the very violent Muhammad.

[hollow token]

They were murdered in Mass numbers during the KKK, there were too many to approach zero obviously but still were mass killed, however it doesnt mean they were forbidden does it? In your "isnt rocket science" It means that they are forbidden

[hollow token]

LOL Exactly, context matters a lot and you havent had any for Muhammad PBUH and the Quranic texts, give me some text and I will provide you context, I have given you text and you havent done anything with it have ya?

Old Testament - Psalm 137:9 - "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"

New Testament - Matthew 10:34-36 - "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household."

^^^ I have given more

Again these verses require context

you cannot reat a Surah and think its BS/Violent when you have literally 0 knowledge on context

[forest vale]

Actually no. The numbers weren't as high as people believe. Again, it was about control. You can look it up if you want. The murders were horrible, but the largest number you ever had in a year was 230, with 160 of those being black and the others white.

[hollow token]

That doesnt change the fact that by your "rocket science" they are being murdered and therefore forbidden to live there, also the other arent even white, but rather mostly other minorities like indigenous or spanish people possibly

[forest vale]

That seems completely wrong. The vast majority lived very difficult lives, but they weren't murdered for existing and weren't forced to flee from where they lived or be murdered. These situations are completely different from each other.

[forest vale]

Yeah, amazingly enough, there's nowhere in Matthew 10 that describes people killing their families. You don't even need context to recognize that this isn't calling people to violence.

[hollow token]

Im still waiting for you to answer everything else I put up, also many were forced to flee from where they lived and many were murdered for existing hence why KKK exists

[hollow token]

Im pretty sure it is calling for violence

Give me context

[forest vale]

Look if that's your argument, it's weak. The KKK was a horrible group that doesn't exist any more, because we got rid of them. By your logic, we should get rid of Muslims then, since they murder people. Is that what you're trying to argue?

[forest vale]

It literally isn't. I don't need to provide context because it literally is not telling anyone to kill anyone.

But it's simple enough to say that if one person follows Jesus and another refuses, then there will be division in homes instead of unity, and families will be set against each other.

That has nothing to do with violence.

[hollow token]

Thats your perspective on it, yet again there are many other vereses and it doesnt change the fact that both Jesus pbuh and Muhammad pbuh were both peaceful

[forest vale]

As far as Psalm 137:9, that's not a commandment. This is someone lamenting that his country was violently invaded, and wishing bad things on the enemies of his people.

[hollow token]

At this point I think your hatred towards islam is what keeps you from changing your opinion on this, I mean I have changed mine a little but you havent at all

[forest vale]

That's literally not how history goes. Muhammad fought many battles. Do you really deny that?

[hollow token]

Im giving up with you though 😂 I wonder whos next to be talking to u

I might have a convo with u later tho cya

[forest vale]

I mean if you're going to deny that Muhammad fought in wars, then I dunno how exactly you expect to change anyone's mind.

It's not hatred that keeps me from changing my mind, it's history and a serious lack of convincing, careful arguments from your side.

[hollow token]

Before I go, yes he has but most were self defence if not all and all battles werent morally wrong at all and if you look into the context its justifiable

[forest vale]

Right... so I'm right, but you just really wanted to argue that I was wrong.

David was a legendary king in the Bible and also a man of violence. The difference is that we don't pretend David was without error or blemish the way you do with Muhammad.

[hollow token]

I think Jesus pbuh was more peaceful and forgiving maybe, but prophet muhammad pbuh was a great person theres no denial and classifying him as violent when comparing to your version of Jesus pbuh it wrong and conetxt isnt given. Both were teaching forgiveness and peacefulness.

[hollow token]

How was I arguing that you were wrong

[hollow token]

Muhammad pbuh and all the other prophets werent COMPLETELY sinless however they were protected by God from the major sins, they were still vulnerable to commiting small sins

I think you and many others have gotten a bad view on islam because islam teaches a lot about an eye for an eye, but equally as much if not more about forgiveness

anyway cya

[forest vale]

So you're saying you were agreeing with me here, and not saying I was wrong?

[forest vale]

Yeah this take is why I can't with Islam, Catholicism, and Mormonism.

This idea of people being sinless, or "protected from major sins," is just evil. So many things end up being, "well, this Prophet did this highly questionable thing that really is abhorrent, but it was fine for them at the time, we just shouldn't do that now."

[forest vale]

Odd then, how Muslim countries can't seem to let the past go and need to keep launching rockets at innocent civilians. Doesn't seem to fit the forgiveness model.

[thorny stone]

I don't get the logic there. As you saying It's fine in your view to invade territory and steal the land as long as you call it a war? War is a legitimate way to take things from others?

Yes, it's fine to shrink Israel. Of course it's fine to shrink Israel. There's no reason it wouldn't be. You don't make a judgement about whether it's fine for a country to steal land based on whether they're stealing from countries with a greater land area. Even if you did, there are more Palestinians than Israelis, so Israel has no argument on those grounds either. That's even before you get to the fact that Israel stole all the best bits of land. Most of the geographical land area is uninhabitable desert.

[thorny stone]

The Israelites were not the first culture to inhabit that region, they just happened to be inhabiting it when our records began. Humans had been living there for approximately 50,000 years before that. And they were certainly not the first religion, either there or anywhere else.

It's not really the Jewish homeland any more than it is the homeland of anyone else in the world. Shall we all go round the world and confiscate the lands of anyone living anywhere where one of our ancestors lived? I mean, if we go back 1000 years then we each have approximately a trillion ancestors, i.e. more humans than have ever lived. So most of the population of the world probably has ancestors from that region at that time. Are we all going to live there together?

It's just absolutely ridiculous to say that anyone has a claim to some land because their ancestors lived there 1000 years ago. It's up there with flat earth theory for sheer insanity.

[forest vale]

The logic used for giving territory controlled by Israel to others is some sort of homeland argument. It's not one that is necessary to justify Israel possessing land, but Israel has a stronger homeland claim than those they supposedly should give the land back to based on some homeland claim.

[thorny stone]

The more relevant map is this one, because this is the most recent one to have any borders decided with even a semblance of impartiality.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg

[forest vale]

Taking the entire area around Jerusalem away from Israel is pretty absurd. There was no impartiality in that map.

Additionally, those borders are impossible to defend, and the countries surrounding Israel have proven that they want to attack. That is a non-starter.

[thorny stone]

And then here is the situation today. The difference is the land where Israel has invaded, massacred it's population or forced them to leave at gunpoint, and annexed it.

And obviously the orange parts still get invaded by Israel whenever Israel feels like it. So they are effectively under occupation in any meaningful sense.

[forest vale]

He always leaves out the part where Arabs are allowed to live in Israel just fine, but Jews would be forced to move out of any areas made into an Arab state.

[thorny stone]

Also worth mentioning, is that even the turquoise parts in the first map are also land that Israel stole from the people who were living there previously. All of it was taken by force, by people moving into the area with no legitimate claim to it whatsoever, specifically with the purpose of taking control of the area away from those who were already living there.

It's just that with the first map, that was the appeasement the UN was prepared to make for the Zionists. (But the Zionists decided to ignore the UN and try and take it all by force anyway.)

[forest vale]

All taken by force, except where most of it was purchased in normal transactions. I don't understand how every single point someone makes can be so wrong. Usually there's at least a little truth to what people say, even when they're wrong.

[zenith coyote]

It was more than 1000 years ago. Jews are one of if not the only culture that use the same language as they did thousands of years ago. Palestinine had no formal government because the Jews moved in, you can blame that on Britain. So no it’s not ridiculous for Jews to claim their homeland that they have been driven out of many times before

I’m sorry that the Jewish population almost went extinct during ww2 and they needed a safe space to create their own government where they wouldn’t be prosecuted, the population still hasn’t even reached pre holocaust numbers

[zenith coyote]

Should Ukraine give land back to Russia because Russia is losing land and the war?

The war of 1967 wasn’t a war of conquest

when Israel invaded Egypt over the Egyptian closure of maritime passageways to Israeli shipping, ultimately resulting in the re-opening of the Straits of Tiran to Israel as well as the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) along the Egypt–Israel border.[35] In the months prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967, tensions again became dangerously heightened: Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel[36] and ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personne

If you are fighting an enemy with almost double your strength in numbers, 3x as many aircraft’s, 4x as many tanks. You use guerrilla tactics and attack before they have the chance to strike you

The Arab nations at the time didn’t want a Palestinian state, they just didn’t want a Jewish one and wanted the land for themselves

In the October 1947 Arab League conference in Aley, the Arab states rejected the option of establishing an interim Palestinian Arab government and the Lebanese prime minister Riad Al Solh in particular told Hajj Amin al-Husseini that if a Palestinian Arab government will be established, he couldn't be part of it. Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam wanted the Arab League to manage the Arab struggle in Palestine.[18]

[thorny stone]

I know it was more than 1000 years ago. That only strengthens my point.

Using the same language as your culture did thousands of years ago has absolutely no bearing on whether you're entitled to a piece of land your ancestors owned back then. That's not relevant to this discussion.
Palestine being part of an empire prior to the Jews moving in en masse also does not give Jews the right to claim that region. That was in fact precisely part of the problem, because the Arabs living there had themselves done all the work to establish the region as needing to be an independent nation, and then the Jews walked in and stole it.

[thorny stone]

Jews already had a safe space in many, many other countries. And it's not like Israel has become a safe space for Jews. The creation of Israel in the way it has happened has made the region actually particularly unsafe for Jews. Making mortal enemies of everyone around you can not be described as creating a safe space for yourself. So the need for a safe space does not in any way support Israel's violent actions against the Arabs.

Even if we accept that Jews needed a homeland (which I don't, but I'm happy to give them one anyway if we can do it without causing harm to others), it didn't have to be in Palestine, and it didn't have to be the whole of that region.

[thorny stone]

There are a lot of things to separate out in that question.

Currently Russia isn't losing land to Ukraine, or the war. Also, the situation there is a lot more complex than is/was the case with Israel's various wars, and the distinction between aggressor and defender much more blurred. So I don't know what parallels you're trying to draw, but there aren't many.

However, I'll try and answer the main point as best I can. In no circumstance can war be used as a legitimate means of transferring the ownership of lands. Not with a war of aggression, and not with a defensive war either. The basic principle of self-determination is what applies in all cases.

Also, if war is a valid means of taking lands, then the Jews certainly don't have a historical claim to the land as it's changed hands through wars many times since they were involved. They can't have it both ways.

[thorny stone]

Yes it was. Conquest wasn't the only goal, Israel was also trying to assert dominance over Egypt and the other neighbouring Arab states. But Israel also used it as an opportunity to take more land for itself.

[thorny stone]

The problem is that Egypt was only an enemy because Israel chose to fight them in the first place. There was, again, no need to have a war at that time. But Israel chose to have a war. And no amount of copy pasting from Wikipedia will disprove that.

[thorny stone]

In what way is this relevant? I don't see the connection.

[zenith coyote]

It seems like you just have a problem with Jewish self determination

Yes Jews were so safe in the world during ww2 and before them

That’s why every country accepted them…

Having thousands years of history in a land you were prosecuted out of does give you the right to go back

Having archeological evidence of your ancestors does allow that

The Arabs did nothing in the development of Israel, it was desert before Jews came and created drip irrigation system so the land could actually flourish

[zenith coyote]

Because there was no formal government there

[thorny stone]

Why do you think that? Literally nothing I've ever said has suggested I have a problem with Jewish self determination.

[zenith coyote]

As we discussed before Israel has been making treaties and agreements with countries around them

[thorny stone]

No, it absolutely does not.

[zenith coyote]

Even if we accept that Jews needed a homeland (which I don't,

[thorny stone]

Nor does that.

[thorny stone]

Having a homeland is not the only way to allow self-determination.

[zenith coyote]

where would you suggest a jewish homeland if not the promised place (which doesnt give them the right) and having thousands of years of history

[thorny stone]

Somewhere with a ton of free space, that doesn't already have millions of people living there. I would suggest the US could much more easily fit another 10 million people in it, than Palestine.

[zenith coyote]

what rights do the arabs have to that land?

as you said getting land from war doesnt mean you can keep it

[thorny stone]

I mean, we can send them to Mars for all it matters where to me. I'm happy to keep them in Palestine. Just as long as they stop murdering their neighbours all the time.

[zenith coyote]

even though thats been a theme throughout history

[thorny stone]

They owned the land and were living there.

[zenith coyote]

all of it?

the whole area

[thorny stone]

Their parts of it.

[zenith coyote]

even the parts that were considered unhospital

or however you spell it

owned the land according ot who

to

did the jews not own any land

its been arab land since the beginnign of time?

[thorny stone]

We're talking about the Zionist theft of land from Arabs. I don't particularly care who owns an inhospitable desert, and I don't think many other people do either.

[zenith coyote]

maybe if their neighbors didnt send rockets almost everyday. "but wait if the jews never came there it would never be a problem"

[thorny stone]

What has that got to do with anything? I've spent this whole time pointing out that events thousands of years ago are irrelevant. I'm not suddenly going to turn round and say it matters who owned a piece of land 45,000 years ago.

[zenith coyote]

that land changes hands

[thorny stone]

It changes which nation it belongs to, and it's culture. But the people who were living there were the descendants of people who had been living there as far back as we have records. if you want to go down the route of historical connection, then they have a longer connection than the Jews do anyway.

[zenith coyote]

britian had control of palestine

[thorny stone]

Does that mean that all of the inhabitants came from Britain?

[zenith coyote]

nope

it means they governed it

and allowed jewish immigration as well as other religions

and stopped jewish immigration as well

[thorny stone]

When the Islamic forces came in an took control, did that mean all the existing inhabitants were removed and only immigrants from Arabia allowed to live there? No.

[zenith coyote]

britian isnt a jewish nation

[thorny stone]

The political and cultural affiliation of a region does not affect who lives there, unless there is a specific action taken to remove particular groups (like Israel is doing). Generally, when an area is conquered, it's the exact same people living there as before.

[thorny stone]

What's your point?

[zenith coyote]

"Between 1920 and 1970, 900,000 Jews were expelled from Arab and other Muslim countries. The 1940s were a turning point in this tragedy; of those expelled, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 in France and the United States. Today, they and their descendents form the majority of the French Jewish community and a large part of Israel’s population.
In the countries that expelled Jews, a combination of six legal, economic, and political measures aimed at isolating Jews in society was instituted: denationalization; legal discrimination; isolation and sequestration; economic despoilment; socioeconomic discrimination; and pogroms or similar acts."

please yes jews are trying to get rid of palestinians by causing a popultion growth

"but wait that doesnt take into account of how they are treated"

[thorny stone]

Ok, hold up. Are you now saying that Israel DIDN'T try to get rid of Palestinians?

[zenith coyote]

no but if they were the numbers would look like the picutres in the first map

[thorny stone]

Are you serious?

[zenith coyote]

i am not denying how israel may or may not treat palestinians. but if they were trying to remove them they would be taking more drastic measures

[thorny stone]

More drastic than expelling 750,000 people and massacring more than 15,000 people in the space of a year?
....which was more than half the population at that time.

[zenith coyote]

You like to put all this blame of the conflict on the Jews because they moved into land that “wasn’t there’s”. It’s a complex history that’s not as simple as the claim that Jews are bad

[thorny stone]

I'm not sure now that you actually know the history. Do you have time to go over it?

[zenith coyote]

The nakbah was a terrible stain on the history of Israel. But I firmly believe it wouldn’t have happened if the Arab nation accepted the proposal or if it did then Israel would hopefully get sclalded for lack of better word by the international community and the whole history would be different.

Horrible war crimes were committed during that time

[thorny stone]

You mean if the Palestinians had meekly accepted a bunch of strangers coming in and taking their homes away from them, after they'd just fought an incredibly hard war to gain their independence?

Can we not agree that was never going to happen?

[zenith coyote]

Enlighten me on what independence war they won

[thorny stone]

The British recruited the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman forces in World War 1. The Ottomans were ruling the area at the time, and used a large number of Arabs in their armies. But the British successfully persuaded the Arabs to turn on the Ottomans. For the British, this divided the Ottoman forces and helped win the war. For the Arabs, they did this on the promise that they were gaining their freedom from their imperial rulers.

[zenith coyote]

My understanding is that the Ottoman Empire had the land until 1917 when the British came and had control. During both times Jews were allowed to immigrate except for certain times when the British stopped Jewish immigration because of Arab complaints

Can you provide a source? I’m curious about that in

Information

[thorny stone]

Like I explained, the truth is more complex than that. The Ottomans left because the Arabs revolted against them.

[thorny stone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

When Herbert Kitchener was Consul-General in Egypt, contacts between Abdullah and Kitchener had eventually culminated in a telegram of 1 November 1914 from Kitchener (recently appointed as Secretary of War) to Hussein wherein Great Britain would, in exchange for support from the Arabs of Hejaz, "guarantee the independence, rights and privileges of the Sharifate against all foreign external aggression, in particular that of the Ottomans."[33]

[zenith coyote]

As usual with problems in the world it looks like everything goes back to the British colonization

[thorny stone]

Actually not in this case.

The British didn't colonise Palestine. They took over temporary administrative control after World War 1, in order to facilitate the creation of a new state there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

This was effectively under orders from the precursor to the UN, the League of Nations.

[zenith coyote]

In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; this requirement and others, however, would not apply to the separate Arab emirate to be established in Transjordan. The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities.

[thorny stone]

Yes, so after the Balfour Declaration we had on the one hand the Zionists feeling encouraged to move there to set up a country, and on the other hand, the Arabs thinking they would finally be free to decide their own stuff.

Although both are possible, the Arabs who would have to either move or else live under foreign masters again were obviously not very happy about that.

[zenith coyote]

https://www.rosenblit.com/NAZIS AND ARABS.htm

[thorny stone]

Had the Jewish settlers been happy to move there and live alongside the Arabs things might have been fine. Given that the Zionists who were arriving were being very up front about their desire to not just establish a country, but establish an exclusively Jewish one where other people would be removed, the Arabs did not get along with them. They were also open about their belief that the whole region should be Jewish, and that they had special divine rights to the area, which of course, nobody else could ever agree to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Among Jews in the diaspora, the Land of Israel was revered in a cultural, national, ethnic, historical, and religious sense. They thought of a return to it in a future messianic age.

[zenith coyote]

Soon Nazi Germany made common cause with the “Palestinian” Arabs. In particular, the 1936 - 1939 orgy of terrorism perpetrated by the Arabs against their Jewish neighbors and British Mandatory authorities was financed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis, in addition to providing clandestine funding and armaments to the leadership of that “Palestinian” Arab jihad, also infiltrated its agents into the western portion of Mandatory Palestine in order to provide tactical support for the jihad (which the Arabs denominated as the “Great Arab Revolt”).

[thorny stone]

I mean, you've skipped ahead quite a bit there.

Also, it would be good to find a reference for that that isn't a random unpublished Jewish website.

That's literally a propaganda website you're quoting.

[zenith coyote]

Colonization as a word gets a bad reputation because of the atrocities committed in its name. But the colonization of Jews in Palestine was legal and funded by European Jews to create home for Jews in the land

[thorny stone]

Actually, that's also not true. There was plenty of illegal Jewish immigration, and a ton of other illegal and immoral acts carried out by the Zionists in an attempt to forcibly take control of the area.

As Jewish immigration to Palestine started to increase through the 1920s and 30s the British saw that it was causing problems with the existing population, and introduced laws to limit the amount of immigration, particularly in 1939. The Zionists however, ignored those laws, and used their existing terrorist organisations such as Haganah and Irgun to stop the deportations of illegal Jewish immigrants, and to stop the British preventing the illegal immigration in the first place, through force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#Illegal_immigration

These organisations also started attacking Arab settlements, in order to cause fear among Arabs. They killed hundreds of Arabs, including women and children. Their actions directly contributed towards the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, as the Arabs struggled to defend themselves against the organised attacks.

From at least 1939, they were also attacking the British directly, sabotaging their works and killing British officers, because they were unhappy with the British restricting immigration numbers per year. In 1946, for example, they killed 91 innocent people in one such attack by bombing the British admin headquarters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

So no, the colonisation of Palestine by the Zionists in the lead up to the formation of Israel was not all legal. Not by a long shot. It was in fact one of the most organised and consistent periods of terrorism in human history.

[brittle quiver]

Legal doesn’t mean good

[forest vale]

There's nothing about colonization that is related to Israel. People just pick random words that society has decided sound bad and use them, whether they work or not. In the name of what nation did Israel establish colonies? How do you colonize what was already your home? Using that term is nonsense.

[junior delta]

I honestly don't see any good reason for why Palestine deserves the land more than Israel, you can argue all day about who you think is better out of the two, but why does that mean they should get the land either? I mean North Korea exist, no one is protesting to do anything about them. Same with China, only protest we get is to move American industry back home.

[zenith coyote]

No Jews no news

But I don’t think that’s a good argument for its existence however true it may be

[brittle quiver]

koreans have lived there for 700,000 years

han have been in east china for even longer

[thorny stone]

1. Because they rightfully own the land and theft is bad. 2. Because they deserve a safe place to live as much as anyone, and giving them their homes back is the least problematic solution to that problem even when considered separately.

[civic karma]

As homo sapiens have been around for only approximately 300.000 years, I hope you have made a off-by-ten error in there 😉

[brittle quiver]

That’s what the first google search result said

[civic karma]

I mean, not everything that google says is true ofcourse 🙂

[junior delta]

Ok so it is based on who owns it the longest? So if another group comes in and conquers it, holds it for even longer than the other groups, it is now rightfully that new groups land, no argument about it?

[junior delta]

They don't "rightfully" won the land if they can't control the land. There is no reason they "rightfully" own it more than say the Israelies, just becuase they've lived there more recently. As for 2. are you implying other people who would call that land home don't deserve a safe place to live?

[thorny stone]

Yes, they do rightfully own the land even if it was taken from them by force. Ownership does not need to be enforced through violence, and there is, I think, no system of law in the world that would agree with you on this point. Theft is theft. If you use force to take something from someone, that is theft, it is morally wrong, and the item is still rightfully theirs. We don't need to debate whether theft is wrong. It simply is.

No I'm not implying that other people don't also deserve a home. They just don't need to steal someone else's home in order to have one.

[junior delta]

Is giving someone stolen property mean the property is no longer stolen? I'm also not gonna listen to moral claims, subjectivity has no case in this

[thorny stone]

You're in the wrong part of the server I think, if you're going to ignore any moral arguments. Discussing moral points is literally all we're doing here.

Giving someone stolen property doesn't mean it no longer counts as stolen, no.

There are other ways for property to no longer count as stolen. For example, when the people it was stolen from are no longer around and nobody with any right to their property is identifiable.

[junior delta]

Ok, so what if property was stolen from someone, and they are still around, it was stolen years ago, and now they're trying to get it back. Is it not their anymore because they're property was passed around back and forth and stolen from other people as well?

As for morals though, they serve no use in debate I learned from y'all as they are jsut subjective. There is no grounds for which morality can stand other than personal feeling. Saying serial killers are perfectly moral is just as acceptable as saying being a pacifist is perfectly acceptable. That's why I rather look at logic now when discussing as logic isn't or shouldn't be subjective unless you are basing it on moral beliefs.

[thorny stone]

Like I said, if you can find the person it was stolen from then it's still theirs. If there is no trace of previous ownership, then nobody owns it.

But there is also the consideration that if something was stolen from you, but you forget about it for a long time, you can't suddenly turn round years later and claim it's still yours. At that point it's considered that you've given your rights to it away.

[junior delta]

So if you can't find something because you've been pushed away from it for years and have no way to get back to it, it is not no longer yours?

Why does ownership come down to time in that case, I forget a pair of socks under the couch or my bed or soemthing for a while, until I try to find it, does that mean it is no longer mine because I forgot about it, even after purchasing it?

(Also I'm not making an argument for Israel here, as they infact stole the land to)

[brittle quiver]

just saying that your examples don't hold up well

[junior delta]

They all had to move their at somepoint. China has been under control of many warlords, or are you trying to say nations should only be based on ethnicity?

[thorny stone]

No, it's still yours.

Time is a factor because there is a practical element to everything. We can't just not use anything that was ever owned by someone who isn't around any more, just in case they come back. And at some point, the thing is more important to the new person using it than it is to the old person who left it.

[junior delta]

So because someone leaves something unattended that could benefit other people, it is fine to steal it, even if they are still alive?

[thorny stone]

Which yes, does mean that if Israel successfully holds the land they stole long enough, it will end up being more of a problem to move them off it than to just keep them there.

[thorny stone]

Not unattended. Forgotten and abandoned.

If I find a jacket out on the hills somewhere, then I'll put it on a fence post and hope that whoever's it is will come back to get it. If it's still there in a week, then I'll claim it as mine.

The police operate a similar system with lost property.

[junior delta]

Ok that is at least consistent.

[thorny stone]

and it's there same with squatting in a building. If you do it for long enough, the building becomes yours.

It's an established legal principle, at least in the UK.

But it makes practical sense, I think.

[junior delta]

That doesn't make it correct though, slavery was an established legal principle...

[thorny stone]

No, the fact that it's legal doesn't make it correct. But it is morally correct all the same. (The transfer of ownership after a certain time period based on lack of usage, that it. Not slavery, obviously.)

[junior delta]

To you, it is morally correct. To me, taking someone from someone else, even if they forgot about it, is morally wrong as it is not mine, it doesn't matter how much time, even if the person dies, that then goes to the inhereter.

[thorny stone]

So what if you can't identify anyone that should legally inherit it?

[junior delta]

More importantly when it comes down to something stolen from somebody by force that they ahve no way of reasonably getting back without violence

[thorny stone]

How do you reconcile that with your view that if you can steal something and keep it by force, then it's rightfully yours?

[junior delta]

If no one is set to inherit anything from the deceased, then auction off whatever it is.

[thorny stone]

Surely if someone steals something and keeps it it's theirs immediately? According to your principle of ownership by force, that is.

[junior delta]

Well yea, when I take my moral views out of it, it makes sense logically that it should be rightfully theirs until someone else comes along and steals it from them, or they sell it. When I put morals into it, then it is wrong and should always belong to the original owners, if they're dead, then their next of kin, and their next of kin, until there is no one else

[thorny stone]

OK, so on the point about next of kin, there are millions if not billions of descendants of the people who lived in the Levant and were forced out of their property. And also the house isn't even there any more, and the land itself was owned by a king. What do we give to the descendants, and which of the millions of them do we give it to? A grain of sand each?

[junior delta]

Ok so feasability outweighs who should own it? Next of kin doesn't mean each individual person, especially when talking about a nation, you let them decide who gets what, such as is a society.

[thorny stone]

So we have to consult literally every one of the millions of descendants, for every piece of land? Presumably we need proof that their ancestors owned the land as well, right?

I hope they kept their land registration documents in good condition for 1300 years. And that they had documentation for land ownership back then.

This is why there has to be a practical element. Otherwise, we could have anyone just randomly turning up anywhere and claiming that their ancestors owned your property thousands of years ago.

[junior delta]

Actually you know what, I change my mind, I see some flaws in my belief.

I think property you own inside of a system should follow my original belief, nations themselves though, those systems, are subject to just whoever can hold it, holds it.

[thorny stone]

Ok, so you accept that the Jews have no historical claim to the land then now?

Their claim for you is solely based on the fact they took it recently.

[junior delta]

My claim was Palestine has no more of a right to the land the Israel, which still holds up with my current belief, as those are nations.

Actually, that fits my belief even better now, as before it wouldn't have rightfully belonged to either.

As none of them where the first groups to settle it.

[thorny stone]

I'll take that as a yes.

So theft is fine as long as it's a country that does it. But individuals are still not allowed to steal from each other, is that it?

[junior delta]

Yes, as countries are subject to what other countries are willing to accept. People are subject to what their governments laws are. Now I may subjectively disagree on countries invading another country at times, while other times I may agree with it.

[thorny stone]

Ok, so presumably then you object to the Zionists moving illegally to Palestine and all the terrorist actions they did to kill and forcibly remove Arabs before 14th May 1948, because they weren't a country until that point. Right? So Israel can keep the land it took after that, but the people can't keep anything they stole before that?

[junior delta]

Well I believe individual actions, such as killing without self-defense, is wrong no matter what, but yea I guess I'd agree with that, except Israel still controls that original land no? Also, I don't think they can keep, I think they can try to keep it. If the other nations decide they want Palestine to only be there, then they'd invade Israel to give it back to Palestine. For now it seems more of a regional conflict, even more so just a border conflict.

I'd say they don't have any claim to it before they're a country, as soon as they are a country though, they have as much claim as they can control and defend.

[thorny stone]

So in your view, might makes right objectively. But subjectively, whoever you like most is in the right. You don't try and marry the two up at all, you're happy with your subjective bias.

[junior delta]

I mean realistically, if no one else cares enough to do anything about a country and the countries that do care physically can't do anything to take land back, how is it not their land at that point? They are in control of it, it may be be subjectively good to me that they control the land, but it is fact that they control the land. We all have our subjective biases that will be in play, such as Russia and Ukraine, many people support Russias invasion because they view the regions Russia is targeting as ethnically Russian and historically Russian while also supporting Russia and their way of life they live as they believe is right, while others who oppose it view Russia as an agressor trying to take land from a smaller nation independent of Russia and trying to reclaim all of Ukraine as a part of Russia with no soverignty, which would be under a government they do not support or believe in as a system.

So yes, logically and ojectively if they have the ability to control something it is theirs whether we subjectively like it or not.

[thorny stone]

I guess there's a debate to be had though about whether Israel can be said to be controlling a piece of land that is consistently firing rockets at them despite their best efforts.

I mean, anywhere else in the world, the fact that a patch of land was firing rockets at you would suggest you were not actually in control of it at all.

[junior delta]

Well they aren't in control of the land where Hamas is, yea.

[thorny stone]

Generally, things you're in control of don't kill and kidnap your citizens.

[junior delta]

I'm not claiming Israel is in control of all of Palestine, I mean we know that isn't true.

[thorny stone]

I guess it's a problem then that Hamas comes with the land they took.

Israel can control the land, but not the people that were on it.

It's not so much of an achievement to control a patch of dirt, really.

Israel has spent more than 70 years trying to control the region through force, and still hasn't made any progress at all by that method. Maybe they should try a different method for a change, that might actually stand a chance of working.

But of course, that would require finding a way to remove the sociopathic people in Israel's leadership, who think they are chosen by a god to be special and so can't fail.

Religion really is a stupid idea, in all its forms.

[zenith coyote]

its a good thing that Israel has signed treaties with Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan

[zenith coyote]

also a good thing israel has such a good defense system

[thorny stone]

Oddly enough, peace seems to have been working better than war, yes.

[thorny stone]

Actually no. If Israel had to deal with the consequences of their actions, I think they would carry out a lot fewer really stupid actions.

The US giving them a magic shield isn't helping anyone.

[junior delta]

It's helping Israel..

But I guess those aren't the people you're talking about lol

[civic karma]

As for 2. are you implying other people who would call that land home don't deserve a safe place to live?
Isn't this exactly the key point? Both Palestinians and Israelis call that land home and feel they deserve a safe place to live, but both parties are not willing to properly share.

But one of the parties is currently oppressed by the other, which is where many people draw a line and say it is too much.

Most people want a two-state solution, but currently its israel that does not want it

And you could argue hamas doesn't want it either

Although it would certainly feel like a victory for them

[civic karma]

Look what has happened in the past years to Israel. You really believe it is helping them?

They elect extreme far-right parties. They are STILL in a conflict far far away from the US. Their goverment performs military actions that many people speak out against. Netanyahu is most likely done with as soon as he is not the president anymore and will likely be convicted.

Do you really think that this far-right idealism supported by the US is helping Israel in the long term?

Because I believe it only creates more tension between all involved parties, including 3rd parties like the US, Iran and surrounding countries.

[forest vale]

What makes Israel's government far right?

[thorny stone]

No, I am talking about Israel. I don't think that them feeling like nobody can hurt them is helping them. It's causing them to act like spoilt children, which then causes a lot more unnecessary problems for them.

[zenith coyote]

Pretty sure they are far right

[zenith coyote]

Look at the history of two state solutions offered

It’s hard to want a two state solution when your enemies charter is pretty keen on wiping you out

[civic karma]

Their policies and opinions

[zenith coyote]

Aren’t most countries skewed right now?

I thought maybe I saw a chart or something about that

[thorny stone]

Well exactly. Nobody in their right mind would trust a two-state solution offered by anyone connected to Likud or any of the other overtly racist political parties that together make up nearly half of the Israeli Knesset.

[forest vale]

I'm asking what makes them "far right." That seems like a very subjective designation that they wouldn't agree with.

But I'm wondering what that assessment is based on. What makes someone far right as opposed to just right?

[brittle quiver]

They’re literally far right

Netanyahus cabinet is filled with war hawks

That’s the fucking definition

[forest vale]

You doing okay man?

In the US, Obama started a war and Biden has been escalating wars, while Trump was deescalating the conflicts with Russia, North Korea, and the Middle East and beginning to pull out of Afghanistan. Many European parties who are more isolationist are painted as far right. A lot of libertarian candidates in favor of pulling back troops and not engaging in wars are painted as far right. So it's not as simple as "war = far right." I'm just trying to understand what you guys mean when you use those terms, because no one is actually saying what they mean by them or justifying their use.

[forest vale]

Really depends on who is talking about it. Pretty easy to make the opposite case and say everything is skewed far left.

[brittle quiver]

Uh

What world do you live in

[forest vale]

Are you arguing against something I said here?

[junior delta]

Yea, exactly.

[junior delta]

Yea I mean, Jews can't even worship in Palestinian controlled areas, especially the Temple Mount. I mean many jews have resorted to dressing like Muslims just to be able to enter to pray. Seems pretty oppressive to me that one group is forcing religion, or forcing the ability to not practice their religion, on another.

[junior delta]

Can you elaborate on what problems it is causing Israel by being able to defend themselves?

[zenith coyote]

Fair enough

[zenith coyote]

Can you show me a piece of political documents from
Israel that show it’s racist ways? Not talking about certain political agents but an official Israeli document saying that they want to destroy and kill all Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims?

Not talking about documents that may be relating to settlement because that’s another issue

Also likening Likud to Israel is like likening the confederacy to US

Both are terrible groups in their history but are not in charge

You do seem to be fine with Hamas terrorist attacks

And Houthi’s

And Hezbollah

I am not defending the Likud actions but they do not stand for Israel and the Hagnah denounced them

[thorny stone]

I think you're confusing Likud with Irgun. Likud are the political party that Netanyahu leads.

[zenith coyote]

Pshhhhh

Maybe

Long day at work

Just felt like arguing for the sake of arguing 🤷‍♂️

[thorny stone]

Israel being protected from any negative consequences of their actions means that they can hurt others with impunity.

Normally one of the major reasons why people don't treat others badly is because they'll be treated badly in return. Even aggressive and disrespectful people are reluctant to do that if they know they will suffer negative consequences as a result. It's always been a check on the actions of any country, knowing that other countries will oppose it if they try anything crazy. However that's not the case with Israel, because the US protects it from any diplomatic consequences that it's own intelligence services can't sabotage before they get anywhere, and provides overwhelming military support which ensures nobody in the region can resist Israel's military.

Without that political support from the US, without that protection from consequences, Israel would be suffering severe diplomatic consequences from the UN and likely have a trade embargo. Without the military technology, they would have to negotiate with their Arab neighbours and take their views into consideration, like any normal country does.

Israel would not have repeatedly invaded Palestinian lands to demolish their homes, nor invaded Gaza and slaughtered tends of thousands of civilians in this latest war, without their current sense of invulnerability. We can see that Israel's actions change dramatically depending on how many conditions the US imposes in return for it's support. With the US's protection, Israel has no incentive to value the lives of innocent Arab civilians. And that results in huge loss of life among those innocent people.

[forest vale]

Israel's military response has been extremely modest in past years by any objective measure. People actively fire rockets at civilian areas and nothing happens for way too long, and then they finally get tired of it and go in and destroy a couple things. The reason you're seeing a large response now is because terrorists successfully carried out an attack. Obviously, if they hadn't been able to do damage, Israel wouldn't be reacting as strongly. When Israel was weaker, it was forced to fight wars with the surrounding countries. Now it's too strong, so they make peace. It's not a difficult concept.

[zenith coyote]

When you attack a well trained country with a wealthy older brother you can’t then cry ceasefire when you start losing

Without Arab money for terror infrastructure Hamas wouldn’t be attacking Israel like this

Without the iron dome thousands of both Arab and Israeli lives would not be here, as well as religious institutions not just being synagogues

There were missles aimed at mosques in Israel’s that the dome helped defend

[junior delta]

I still fail to see how being able to protect your own homeland's airspace is an issue that makes you able to attack other people with impunity? Israel's neighbors, if they found the desire to do something about Israel, could march into Israel and start fighting. But, you mentioned the US support, yea? So you think anyone who has an alliance is just protected from violence? Try telling that to the Ukrainians. Your point only works in this one very specific case, but when you apply it across the board, your logic crumbles.

[zenith coyote]

Because Israel bad and they shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves

[forest vale]

You can attack Israel without raping grandmothers and beheading babies. People who think Hamas was justified in their actions are disgusting.

Still wondering what people actually mean when they call everything far right. I suspect it's just shorthand for "people who disagree with me" and doesn't have a careful meaning.

[thorny stone]

Do you need me in this conversation? Literally nothing in that message refers to what I'm saying.

[thorny stone]

I fail to see the point of raising that imaginary scenario in this conversation.

[thorny stone]

1. Nobody mentioned being able to protect their airspace, so there's no need for you to try and work out how that would be relevant.
2. Nobody mentioned anything about all alliances.
3. I guess thanks for admitting I'm right?

[zenith coyote]

That Hamas knew what they were starting and is getting what they deserve

The Palestinian people don’t deserve it but Hamas does

[thorny stone]

Hamas didn't start anything.

Israel has been massacring Palestinians since the 1940s, and Hamas was formed in 1987.

[thorny stone]

Why do you keep throwing out nonsense statements like that? I know for a fact that you know that the war started long before Hamas was created, because we went through some of the earlier history together.

[zenith coyote]

I’m talking about this recent “genocide” people keep talking about

[thorny stone]

...which you know is part of a longer war.

[zenith coyote]

Yup

[thorny stone]

So you know for a fact that Hamas didn't start it.

[zenith coyote]

The Arab league did

When they didn’t want Jews in their land that wasn’t their land

When they rejected the two state solution because they thought they could beat Israel

[thorny stone]

It was the Arabs' land, the Jews arrived their illegally, and used terrorism to try and take the land by force.

[thorny stone]

They rejected it because it was grossly unfair.

[zenith coyote]

Then why did Britain own it

[thorny stone]

Britian didn't own it. They were administering it temporarily in order to create a new state there.

[zenith coyote]

How did the Arabs come to that land if they didn’t win it by conquest?

[thorny stone]

We went over this. Did you forget already?

[zenith coyote]

Which according to you isn’t allowed

Have control not own it. Because nobody owned it

[thorny stone]

They had been living there as long as anyone has records, and fought for their independence from the Ottomans.

[zenith coyote]

The byzantines were Arabs?

And the Roman’s?

[thorny stone]

Are you confusing the ruling empire with the people who actually live there?

[zenith coyote]

The Ottoman Empire came to that land from conquest. Religious conquest

That’s how anyone got land back then

Conquest

Might is right

That’s the history of the world

[thorny stone]

OK, so you actually are confusing conquest of land with who is actually living there.

Conquering a piece of land doesn't remove the people who are already living there.

[junior delta]

Well when you decide to selectively choose how to apply things then yea, of course anything could seem like it doesn't apply to what you're talking about. Let me make it clear for you exactly how it relates to what you said

The US giving them a magic shield isn't helping anyone.
The Iron dome system protects them from airborne projectiles launched into their controlled territory. The US and other allies protect them internationally, as all allies do.

Israel being protected from any negative consequences of their actions means that they can hurt others with impunity.
This connects back to the previous point. They are only militarily protected from the air, any country could get involved on the ground, but then they run the risk of US involvement, yes. Just as Israel attacking any other nation runs the risk of their allies getting involved, this isn't a one sided street where Israel is just in control of everything.

That is why I separated my comment into two parts, physical attacks and international political attacks. You claimed that the US was protecting them on the international stage, which yes, they are, so I asked if you were implying that anyone who forms an alliance is protected from violence? I think you cn easily see how that applies to what you said, no?

Then lastly, I was making a comparison to another ongoing conflict to show how alliances don't make you invinsible as you so think the Israeli alliance with the US does. If you can't see how that connects, I'm afraid that might be an entierly different issue.

[thorny stone]

It's the same families living there all through the Roman occupation, the Christian takeover, the Islamic takeover, the Ottoman takeover, etc. All that happens is they are converted from one religion to another, or pay money to a different government.

[zenith coyote]

When the Romans conquered the region in the first century BCE, they used the name Judaea for the province that covered most of the region. At the same time, the name Syria Palestina continued to be used by historians and geographers to refer to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, as in the writings of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. During the early 2nd century CE, Syria Palaestina became the official administrative name in a move viewed by scholars as an attempt by emperor Hadrian to disassociate Jews from the land as punishment for the Bar Kokhba revolt.[64][6

Palestine has undergone many demographic and religious upheavals throughout history. During the 2nd millennium BCE, it was inhabited by the Canaanites, Semitic-speaking peoples who practiced the Canaanite religion.[82] Most Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites.[83][84] Israelites later emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanite civilization, with Jews and Israelite Samaritans eventually forming the majority of the population in Palestine during classical antiquity,[85][86][87][88][89][90] However, the Jewish population in Jerusalem and its surroundings in Judea, and Samaritan population in Samaria, never fully recovered as a result of the Jewish-Roman Wars and Samaritan revolts respectively.[91]

It’s not occupation if they were never a country or empire

It’s a territory

Genetic studies indicate a genetic affinity between Palestinians and other Arab and Semitic groups in the Middle East and North Africa.[115][116] Recent research suggests a genetic continuity between modern Palestinians and ancient Levantine populations, evidenced by their clustering with the Bronze-Age population of Canaan.[117] Variations have been noted between Muslim and Christian Palestinians.[118] Additionally, there are indications within Palestinian populations of maternal gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa, possibly linked to historical migrations or the Arab slave trade.[119] Genetic studies have also shown a genetic relationship between Palestinians and Jews.[12

Many Palestinian villagers claim ancestral ties to Arab tribes from the Arabian Peninsula that settled in Palestine during or after the Muslim conquest of the Levant.[111] Some Palestinian families, notably in the Hebron and Nablus regions, claim Jewish and Samaritan ancestry respectively, preserving associated cultural customs and traditions

Conquest changed their religion

It was not always Arab as long as history has been recorded as you claim

It was always a diverse land with different religions

Only through Muslim conquest of the region did it become majority Muslim

[junior delta]

1. You did, if not directly, then indirectly: #1238854947756310620 message That was in response to AeoriX talking about Israel having "such a good defense system".
2. Again you did, many times, or did you forget? "becuase the US protects it from any diplomtic consequences... and provides overwhelming military support...", "Without that political support from the US... Israel, would be suffering severe diplomatic consequences from the UN", "how many conditions the US imposes in return for it's support.", and "With the US's protection". That is 4 quotes from the same exact message talking about the US-Israeli alliance.
3. I don't see hwo you can be right when it seems like you don't even know what you said.

[thorny stone]

Ok, well I see one problem straight off. When I said "magic shield", I wasn't referring to the Iron Dome. I was referring to the international diplomatic protection. I guess my metaphor was ambiguous.

But the US has also outfitted the Israeli ground forces, to the point where they vastly outclass anything the surrounding countries can muster. The US is also ensuring Israel doesn't fear ground assault, as well as the Iron Dome protecting it from most airborne threats. Israel has always had a much more powerful army than the Arab nations surrounding them. The idea that they were ever some plucky little nation fighting against the odds is nonsense.

I think you cn easily see how that applies to what you said, no?
No. There's no part of the US support for Israel that is a normal alliance. That is the point I've been making, that the US is providing a ridiculously high level of support for Israel, beyond what is reasonable, and probably beyond anything that any other country has ever experienced. Israel is virtually immune to diplomatic criticism if the US blocks it, which they always do. I can't think of another country in the history of the world that has had such immunity from the international community that they can commit war crimes and honestly think they don't stand a chance of being punished.
So no, it wouldn't occur to me to draw any parallels with the Ukraine, because the situation is completely different there.

[thorny stone]

Please read the Wikipedia articles you're quoting to me before trying to use them to make an incorrect point. Those sections you copy pasted specifically say that the Palestinians are descended from the people who lived there in ancient times. That is exactly the point I made. I did not say it had been Arab for all of recorded history, I said that those same families had been living there for all of recorded history. Which you have now proved by quoting the relevant sections of Wikipedia.

"Arab" is just a label for one culture out of many that has spread into that region. The people living there didn't change hardly at all, only their customs did over time.

These same people were Roman, and Ottoman, and Christian, and Jewish, and Samaritan, and Cananite, and Islamic, at different times.

[zenith coyote]

So why can’t the Jews own land there if it’s their history as well?

Why can only the Arab Muslims live there that are the most recent because that’s the most recent dominant religion that’s been in control there

[thorny stone]

They can! We literally went over this how many hours ago? They just don't have any special claim to the land, because there are millions of other people with a stronger claim to the land.

If they want to buy land and live there in peace that's fine, nobody had a problem with that. The problem came when they decided they had a divine right to kick other people off the land.

[zenith coyote]

Buy it from who?

[thorny stone]

And started moving there with that specific purpose.

[thorny stone]

You want their postal address or what?

[zenith coyote]

I want who controls the land that the Jews are supposed to buy it from

That’s the Jews did at the start legally

During ottoman and British rule

[thorny stone]

So you're asking for the political rulers, not the people who owned the specific plots of land? That was the Ottomans and then British until 1947, and the League of Nations / UN briefly at times around then.

[zenith coyote]

As well as Jews

[junior delta]

Ok well now it seems like we're just throwing all logic, consistency, and reason out the window. THere is no reasonable way to debate with you on this topic, so I'll be done in this channel.

[thorny stone]

You literally invented your own conversation to reply to already, so maybe that's best.

[thorny stone]

1. I was talking about Israel's diplomatic protection from the US.
2. None of that mentions any generalisation about "all alliances", so you've made that up out of thin air I'm afraid.

[thorny stone]

Which time period in history are you talking about? Jews hadn't been included among the political rulers of the land for more than a thousand years before the Zionists decided to try and take back control of it.

[thorny stone]

Just to return to this part because we skipped past it pretty quickly earlier...

Actually yes, Irgun stands for Israel both figuratively and literally.

Firstly, the IDF was formed out of a merger of all the various Zionist terrorist organisations, so Irgun do form part of Israel's military representation,

Secondly, the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, went into politics after the Irgun was absorbed into the IDF, and founded the Likud party that Netanyahu is part of today, as well as becoming the 6th Prime Minister of Israel. The racist views of Irgun are thus very relevant to Israel, and are quite literally the views of many of Israel's political leaders because they're literally the same people in many cases.

Can you show me a piece of political documents from Israel that show it’s racist ways?
I think I outlined it's racist laws to you already, didn't I?
#1238854947756310620 message
I wrote up a more detailed list in a previous discussion here:
#1195214812548972685 message

If you're asking for an official Israeli government statement that they want to kill all Arabs then of course those don't exist. They're not going to publicly admit to stuff like that, nobody ever does.

But you don't have to look hard to see the racism prevalent in Israel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-new-israeli-apartheid-poll-reveals-widespread-jewish-support-for-policy-of-discrimination-against-arab-minority-8223548.html

[zenith coyote]

Hamas is perfectly fine with admitting they want to kill and destroy Israel

[thorny stone]

And Israel is perfectly fine with admitting they want to kill and destroy Hamas. Both are to be expected, they're at war.

[forest vale]

There's a bit of a difference between a terrorist organization and a country. I don't know why you think setting up that equivalency is somehow a win. A country has every right to defend itself against people who want to rape and murder its civilians, and the international community should support those defense efforts. There's no reason to support Hamas.

Israel left Hamas alone for decades after assisting with establishing them. You can't just pretend that Israel has always wanted to destroy Hamas. But in the very founding charter of Hamas, they lay out their hatred of Israel and all Jews.

[zenith coyote]

“This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.”

Hamas charter is them saying they want to genocide the world to make it Muslim

[thorny stone]

Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

[forest vale]

That is directly contradicted by their actions and by their charter. They care little about whether you happen to be a zionist. If you're a Jew, they're more than happy to lump you in with all the others. And that goes for all the Muslim countries that began murdering and expelling their Jewish populations, the ones who had nothing to do with the formation of Israel and hadn't left their homes to move to Israel. What did they have to do with zionism? Nothing, but they were murdered anyway.

I can't believe people keep claiming in chat that no one is defending Hamas when you've got it right there. It would be impossible to defend Hamas harder than Ark has.

[zenith coyote]

The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Article Seven:

As a result of the fact that those Moslems who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it and its stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, the Movement is a universal one. It is well-equipped for that because of the clarity of its ideology, the nobility of its aim and the loftiness of its objectives.

On this basis, the Movement should be viewed and evaluated, and its role be recognised. He who denies its right, evades supporting it and turns a blind eye to facts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, would awaken to see that events have overtaken him and with no logic to justify his attitude. One should certainly learn from past examples.

...
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

yes they revised their new charter to say that they are fighting against zionist and not the jews, but that is like me saying i am fighting with vatican city not the catholic church

they also do not deny their old charter and call it a part of their history

[zenith coyote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/14/israels-iron-dome-defense-system-protects-israeli-lives-it-also-perpetuates-israel-gaza-conflict/

is this an article youd like to quote about how israeli security from rockets is bad?

such a bad thing israel can defend itself against rockets so they can focus on attacking the people sending them the rockets

[zenith coyote]

I understand what both you and the article are saying. But blaming the conflict on Israel’s ability to defend itself is insane. As if Israel’s reaction wouldn’t be 100x worse if its civilians were in actual danger from every rocket that gets fired. And by reaction I don’t mean civilian deaths because we both know that Hamas likes to hide behind civilians to raise the risk so they can blame Israel

[forest vale]

If Israeli citizens were actually killed with each rocket attack, then the surrounding countries wouldn't exist. They would all be part of Israel, because no country would stand to have its citizens constantly attacked like that. If Mexico constantly attacked the US like that, then Mexico would become part of the US. There's no real question about that.

[magic glacier]

People still die from those missiles

Very few yes

It's not like they became non-lethal

The iron dome can destroy most missiles but sometimes it detects them too late or doesn't shoot because it wrongly predicts that it will land in an unimportant field somewhere

[thorny stone]

Then you're making the same mistake those Zionists want you to mistake, and conflating Israel with Judaism. The reality is that there are many forms of Judaism, and the actions of Israel reflect only parts of some of them. Israel does not represent Judaism as a whole, as many Jews are keen to point out.

[forest vale]

Except they still explicitly target Jews, not "zionists." Changing the wording doesn't change their actions.

[thorny stone]

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that Israel attacking the people sending the rockets isn't a good thing. All of Israel's offensive actions are just perpetuating the war, especially because they are incredibly disproportionate to the attacks they receive. What disproportionate attacks do, is increase the levels of anger and the feelings of injustice that the other side is feeling, which only inflames things worse. The only possible result of disproportionate attacks by Israel, is Hamas increasing it's own retaliation, which leads to Israel increasing it's attacks still further, which results in everything getting much, much worse. Fighting this war at all is a self-destructive action for Israel, but especially fighting it in the way they are doing.

The only way the ongoing war stops is by making peace. Every disproportionate attack by Israel only makes it less likely that the Palestinians will agree to stop fighting back, and every time Israel makes an attack and suffers no immediate consequences in return, it only encourages them to think that they can disregard the Palestinians entirely and continue to use force in this disproportionate way.

If Israel wants to stop the rocket attacks against it's civilians, we know there is only one way that is ever going to happen. Peace. They could stop the rockets attacks virtually immediately if they chose to make peace. They have that power. But instead, the Israeli government and military choose to sacrifice the lives of their own citizens by pushing for the conquest of more land.

[forest vale]

The idea that Israel can simply choose to "make peace" with people who wrote their charter on the basis of wiping Israel off the map, and that includes the revised charter... This is what defending Hamas looks like. Just accept terror attacks. Stop fighting against them. Let your civilians be raped and murdered. Let your babies be beheaded.

Or you could just wipe out the terrorists and be done with it. I kinda like that version. So does most of the international community. Screw Hamas.

[zenith coyote]

i dont get your point here

its not a perfect system nor did i claim it to be

for 20k rockets getting sent thats good defense

according to IDF (i know jewish news = bad but if we are going to believe hamas why not beleive IDF) Hezbollah has had 950+ missles launched that misfired into lebanese areas with a 1:6 ratio of this happening

[zenith coyote]

the actions if israel reflect the israeli government not jews

jewish identity is a big part of israel whether you want to agree with it or not

you are correct there are some orthodox who dont believe israel should exist, this is because the messiah has not arrived and they see it as a sin for lack of better word

[zenith coyote]

what about before israel had the iron dome?

you are blaming israel for retalliating back against their attackers

but because israel has a good defense system its ok for thousands of rockets to be sent into their airspace threatening jewish, christian, muslim and other lives?

think of how much money has been spent into these missles

both from israeli defense and hamas/ hezbollah attacks

that is money that should be helping the citizens go to waste

it is not a dispropportinate attack, but rather dispropportinate defense

if H/H knows that israel is going to A. be able to defend against most if not all rockets and B. attack back, why waste time, money and resources launching rockets?

as falcon said, you love talking about peace but you fail to realize that some (not all) of these civilians dont want peace

they have been around israel attacking them back and this war their whole lives and have been on a hateful lifestyle

there are young kids being brainwashed to becoming hamas fighters, waving guns around shouting antisemetic and anti israel chants

this is not a society that wants peace with their neighbors, they want destruction

and yes you can blame that on israel, or they can focus on rehabilitating their people and not focus on destroying their enemy

the palestinians deserve peace as much as the israelis

they have the power for peace just as much as well

just because they have a lesser fighting force doesn't mean that they have no power in this war

they brought more attention to the region with their terror attack on 10/7

they brought attention when they hided behind their civilian causing their death numbers to go up

if they offered peace now do you truly think that the international community would not be against israel if they kept attacking?

israel would have no reason to attack hamas anymore, they arent the ones that broke the ceasefire in october, they just want their hostages back

[pulsar shuttle]

Idk politics

[zenith coyote]

panda can you give me an I love Pete

[pulsar shuttle]

[zenith coyote]

thank you

[pulsar shuttle]

Np

[zenith coyote]

iran and lebanon would be a different story

the same hostages that were kept in the building of a reporters house, the same hostages that were kept in UNRWA House, the same hostages that were forced to be house servants for families

as much as im sure hamas wants their hostages back...

[pulsar shuttle]

Wait wat

There’s hostages?

[junior delta]

I mean, they still would have a valid reason imo though. Hamas has a clear reord of violating ceasefires after years of rebuilding to prepare for another war/skirmish. Why would you accept a deal that you know has already been broke countless times? Insantiy is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome, unless they want to accept the ceasfire knowing they're just going to be letting Hamas rearm.

[pulsar shuttle]

o helo der

[junior delta]

A ceasefire would only be politically beneficial to Israel imo

[pulsar shuttle]

can someone explain the thing i was under rock

[junior delta]

Explain what?

[pulsar shuttle]

the isreal and palastine thing

i think theyre countries

[junior delta]

Oh, well I mean there is a lot to explain, but the current discussion is between finding a solution to end conflict between Palestine and Israel, if it is even possible. Basically the conversation is regarding the most recent start up of war after Hamas (an extremeist group operating out of Palestine) launched an attack into Israel during a large music festival killing a lot of civillians and taking many of them hostage. There is a ton of nuance in the conflict though, such as history of the land, why there is hostility in the first place, how said groups had gotten to/been removed from the land, etc.

[pulsar shuttle]

i find hugs are often the best solutions to conflicts

sometimes head pats are more appropriate but thats all i got rly

[civic karma]

I would like 1 hug please

[magic glacier]

Jewish news = bad?

I think you mean Israeli news

Otherwise that's just antisemitic

[civic karma]

Thats quite some antisemitic statement there indeed

[thorny stone]

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge that. So does Hamas.

[thorny stone]

The same principles applied before the iron dome existed.

[thorny stone]

Israel are the attackers, not Hamas. Hamas is fighting a defensive war against the Israeli aggressors. I'm more than happy to continue to go over the history of how the conflict started with you, if that's what it takes to get you understand that Israel are not defending themselves but rather attacking the Palestinians.

Nowhere have I said it is ok for Hamas to fire rockets at Israel. It's not ok, at all. But the situation means it's not going to stop until Israel stops it's aggression.

Israel spends more money on the war than the Palestinians do, by an order of magnitude. So they're wasting far more money.

I don't read what Falcon says any more as their messages always descend into lies and dishonesty. I've tried before but it's not worth trying to engage with them any more.

The vast majority of Palestinians want peace, and always have done. Israel actively prevents them from taking actions to pursue it by killing their leaders and dismantling their organisations any time they're created. War is the only option Israel gives the Palestinians.

The Palestinians don't realistically have the option of just not fighting back and allowing themselves to be massacred. Nobody is going to do that. So it's nonsense to suggest that they can stop spending money on weapons before Israel stops attacking them.

The Palestinians have offered peace many times, and Israel always rejects it. That has always been the case, and it is the case now as well. The international community is against Israel, overwhelmingly. But the US is still protecting them. So very little can happen. What can happen, accusing Israel of war crimes, has happened.

There has never been a cease fire that Israel has respected. They have continued to attack Palestinians at all times. It's nonsense to claim that Hamas broke a ceasefire that Israel never even started.

[thorny stone]

Israel don't just want their hostages back. They have refused several times to have their hostages returned, in fact. The Israel government doesn't really care about the hostages. Instead, the Israeli government wants an excuse to force more Palestinians to leave the area, because it wants to conquer the whole region. It's very clear that that is the Israeli government's aim.

[thorny stone]

Israel are the ones that always break ceasefires, not Hamas. Israel has never ceased offensive actions against the Palestinians.
The Palestinians are never going to trust Israel to keep to any agreement that isn't enforced on them by a stronger power, such as the US or UN, because Israel have consistently demonstrated that they are happy to ignore any and all laws or agreements if they think they can get what they want by force instead.

Israel doesn't want a ceasefire. That's as clear as day. They are getting exactly what they want by continuing this war, i.e. the destruction of more Palestinian homes and the removal of more Palestinians from lands Israel wants to conquer.

[thorny stone]

Hamas has around 120 Israeli hostages, and Israel has between 1000 and 4500 Palestinians hostages, depending on how you count them.

[forest vale]

I think he was pointing out how many people have claimed anything from Israel is government propaganda, even when that's complete nonsense. But those same people are more than willing to cite Hamas statistics as complete facts. So if we're supposed to believe Hamas statistics, why would it be wrong to look at Jewish media as well?

[magic glacier]

It's not jewish media

You mean Israeli media

[forest vale]

"Hamas is fighting a defensive war." "Nowhere have I said it is okay for Hamas to fire rockets at Israel."
I found it, buddy. Right there, where you claimed their actions are somehow defensive. No one has been a more fervent Hamas supporter and defender. It's pretty amazing to watch.

[forest vale]

I don't actually mean Israeli media.

[magic glacier]

Define jewish media

[forest vale]

But I appreciate the clarification.

[forest vale]

That's simply media run by those of Jewish origin that's friendly to Israel. Not all of those are in Israel.

Israeli media is often quite hostile to the Israeli government.

[magic glacier]

That's fair, I won't dispute that

A lot of people falsely equivicate jews with Israelis

Not all jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are jews

That's an important distinction

There's a large minority of arabs and russians in Israel

Over 20% of the Israeli population is comprised of arabs

[forest vale]

I mean realistically, it's much more accurate to say Israeli media. I just mean I'm not excluding something similar to Israeli media that happens to not be based in Israel.

I definitely agree with what you're saying here.

[forest vale]

There are some newspapers with names like "The American Israelite" that aren't Israeli, but you can imagine that people who hate Israel might reject such a paper for its Jewish origins.

[pulsar shuttle]

hug

[cursive egret]

I think settler colonialism is cool because we did it in America so they should be able to do it in Israel to. It’s just laying claim to a land that was given to you by God. It’s completely normal. Everyone did it, at least if you’re, like, an important civilization. Sometime the indigies (that’s what I call the people who “claim” to have lived there before) gotta die, or we just make them leave. Where to? Who cares. That’s realpoloitik, baby.

[forest vale]

That's not what they're doing in Israel.

[cursive egret]

What? Settler colonialism? Israel is absolutely a project of settler colonialism. It has been from the start. I said I think it’s cool, so I don’t get what you’re arguing with here.

You claim a parcel of land for your “nation” (that’s a fancy way of talking about people you think are like you), then you kick the other people out, then you got a reputable nation-state that all the big kids can relate to, so you keep on expanding through any means necessary because it’s your God-given right. As long as the other big kids let you keep sitting at the table and kick the indigies out, you’re pretty much set unless some bleeding heart libbos get upset about some alleged “humanitarian violations”. But even that you can pretty much get around as long as you’re keeping a check on some other bad kids in the neighborhood.

[forest vale]

That's not what a colony is.

For many reasons. First, Israelis have always lived in Israel. In fact, that particular area was chosen because that's where most of them already lived. Second, those who arrived weren't settlers, they were fleeing from people who were actively trying to murder them. Third, a colony is connected to a host nation, claiming the territory for the host nation. That makes no sense in this context.

Fourth, they didn't kick people out. At the founding of Israel, they still had what, 20% Arabs? And it would have been much higher, but people voluntarily chose to leave, or they had to leave because they were participating in the war against Israel.

[cursive egret]

Hrrm… i wonder if maybe there was some greater power that acted as the “host nation” in the particular time we’re talking about. Fortunately, I don’t really look into history and mostly just work off of vibes. But I’m definitely getting some “GB” vibes for some reason. Can’t really say why, though.

Although, I will say, if you come to land with the intention to settle in it, no matter the reason, that does kinda seem to make you a “settler”.

[forest vale]

Refugee is far more accurate for most of them.

Immigrant is a good name for the rest.

You don't generally call someone a settler just because they're moving to a different place.

[cursive egret]

If they were immigrants, why didn’t they become Palestinians?

[forest vale]

Because Palestine isn't a country.

That's like asking why someone moving to Michigan didn't become a Midwesterner.

[cursive egret]

And why isn’t Palestine a country?

[forest vale]

Because the powers that be refused to make a Palestinian state multiple times when Israel was trying to do so.

They didn't want a "two state" solution, because that required acknowledging Israel as a state. So they went to war multiple times to remove Israel, but lost every time.

[cursive egret]

Well, i kinda meant before those wars, when Palestine was a Brittish protectorate post breakup of the Ottoman empire, but again, I’m more into vibes than history

[forest vale]

Yeah, you already had a bunch of Jewish people living there at that point. Why would they be settlers, but Arabs who moved there somehow weren't settlers? That makes little sense. The area is historically a Jewish area.

[cursive egret]

Well, you had the Jewish Palestinians, who were pretty content with being Palestinians, and who were by no means a majority, and you had the settlers, who had already started on their project even before the Nazi’s came to power if I remember correctly.

Like, the Jewish people who made Israel were not the Jews who were already there.

[forest vale]

They weren't Palestinians, because Palestine isn't and wasn't a country.

What exactly makes them "settlers" as opposed to immigrants?

[cursive egret]

Well, if you take “country” to be the designated nomenclature of a bit of land, then Palestine would be correct, as that’s what people had been calling it for millenia at this point.

[forest vale]

It's actually been less than 2000 years, so millenia would be inaccurate.

And no, that's not what country means.

[cursive egret]

Their intention to set up their own separate polity to the exclusion of people already living there is what made them settlers.

[forest vale]

But for the sake of argument, sure. They were Jewish Palestinians.

[forest vale]

What makes you say, "to the exclusion of people already there"?

If that were true, why did the initial proposals expect to have a 40% Arab population?

[cursive egret]

Which proposals are you talking about again?

[forest vale]

The ones that created Israel

[cursive egret]

Yeah, those. What were they?

[forest vale]

I don't remember what they were called.

[cursive egret]

But you know that the percentage of Arabs they expected to be a part of it?

Where did you get that “40%” number from?

[forest vale]

I don't remember what they were called.

[cursive egret]

I think this might be what you’re looking for: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Again, I’m more of a vibes guy than a history guy, but I like to be helpful

[forest vale]

The UN's Partition Plan had the Arab population in the Jewish state at over 40%, and that's the one that the Jewish delegations fought hard to get approved.

When you read what the Arab representatives were pushing for, they wanted Jews expelled from the Arab state or for Jews living in the Arab state to not get citizenship... I mean these guys were not trying to negotiate something good for everyone.

[cursive egret]

It seems a little hard to believe the militias expropriating their land were, either.

But eventually the realpolitik comes for us all, I guess.

[forest vale]

Considering they were already fighting a war even before the Civil War of 1947 began, it's a bit hard to say. But the reality is that even with all the wars and Arabs moving out due to supporting the wars or following the directives of the Arab nations to leave, the population in Israel remained 20% Arab and they were all offered full citizenship.

(Not necessarily immediately, but in 1967 at least)

Contrast that with how Jews were expelled from all the Arab countries, and continue to be practically nonexistent in Arab countries today.

And I'm talking about countries that share a border with Israel, where it makes zero sense for there to be no Jews there.

[cursive egret]

I feel like there might be some context you're glossing over, there. But I'll leave that what I'm sure will be your diligent historical scholarship to really get to the bottom of it all.

[forest vale]

What exactly are you trying to argue?

[thorny stone]

We went into all the detail several times during this discussion, but even if Falcon bothered to read it they'll just pretend any facts they don't like don't exist and continue to argue.

What you actually want is the 1947 UN partition plan, not the Balfour Declaration. And the Zionists only pretended to agree to that temporarily so that it would be easier to take the whole land by force. They were very clear they wanted to kick all the Arabs out as soon as possible, and had been murdering Arabs for decades by that point.

As well as murdering innocent British people as well. They were seriously not nice people, those Zionists.

[forest vale]

I love how Arklar says the exact same thing I did, but just assumes that I said something completely different.

The idea that someone only pretended to want something is silly. They clearly didn't want to kick out the Arabs, since they didn't kick out the Arabs when they had the opportunity. What some people may or may not have wanted is less important than what actually happened, and what happened is the population ended up being 20% Arab because that's how many stayed and weren't kicked out. By contrast, it's clear that the Arab states wanted to kick out all of the Jews, since that's what they did given the opportunity.

[thorny stone]

So let's look at that most recent message.

The idea that someone only pretended to want something is silly.
"I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine" - Quote from Ben Gurion himself. The Zionists explicitly only accepted the partition plan because they thought it would help them achieve greater conquest. They very clearly, and very explicitly, never intended to abide by it.

They clearly didn't want to kick out the Arabs, since they didn't kick out the Arabs when they had the opportunity
And here Falcon is simply denying the existence of the Nakba, the Israeli murder of tens of thousands of Arabs and forcible removal of more than 750,000 of them.

It's very easy to make any arguments you want when you ignore simple facts.

[forest vale]

Actually, as I stated, I'm simply pointing out what actually happened, which is that 20% of the population was still Arab at the time, because they explicitly weren't kicked out. You have to ignore this to claim that people wanted to kick all the Arabs out, because once they got power, they didn't actually do what you're claiming they did. It's far more nuanced than that.

[forest vale]

As crazy as it might sound, it's actually reasonable to kick a population out of your country if you're actively at war with them. That doesn't mean that everything that happened was okay or that no crimes were committed. Murders occurred, rape, people being killed or expelled who did nothing wrong. But at the end of the day, the common narrative ignores the fact that they were already at war, and much of the population they were expelling was actively involved in attacking Jews at the time. I imagine they were much more concerned with survival in the midst of a bunch of hostile forces and countries who had been trying to get rid of Jews for decades.

[thorny stone]

Yes, technically non-Jews are allowed to remain in small numbers. But only as long as they are slaves to Jews.

And the fact remains that Israel did forcibly remove huge numbers of Arabs out of Israel. Also, Israel hasn't finished yet. They are still continuing to remove Arabs from the area of Palestine. So yes, Israel did, and continues to do, exactly what I am saying they are doing.

[thorny stone]

They were already at war because the Zionists had decided to forcibly conquer the region. That's the inescapable fact about why the conflict started. The Zionists wanted to take a piece of land from the people who already lived there, and that was what led to everything that followed.

[forest vale]

The numbers allowed to remain are fairly similar to the numbers in the official agreement, an agreement which didn't assume that Arabs would start fighting a war with Jews which would obviously cause many of them to be expelled.

What part of that requires all surrounding Arab countries to expel or murder their entire Jewish populations? Could it be that they just hate Jews, completely seperate from zionists or Israel?

[pulsar shuttle]

idrk tbh unless pandas r involved

[zenith coyote]

Did you know pandas are an endangered species?

[pulsar shuttle]

yes but it doesnt hav to do w dis prob

[thorny stone]

I notice you didn't reply to my points and instead started a different conversation. Does that mean you accept that the Zionists did forcibly remove hundreds of thousands of Arabs and are still doing it? And that the Zionists caused the whole thing?

[thorny stone]

Also, you're entirely wrong with what you said. The UN partition plan envisaged 407,000 Arabs remaining within the proposed new Jewish state, whereas after the Zionists had gone on their initial murder spree, there were only around 156,000 even in the much larger area that Israel had conquered. So the numbers remaining were nowhere near what the UN envisaged. Not that the UN had proposed that the Israelis should murder or forcibly remove any Arabs from their lands, of course.

I agree that the UN didn't predict what would happen accurately. But I think their main mistake was expecting the Zionists to respect the proposals they pretended to agree to, since it was them that caused the whole problem in the first place by trying to take land that wasn't theirs, them that broke the immigration laws put in place to try and prevent hostilities, and also them that decided to conquer more than they were allocated in the 1947 partition plan. There was no way that the Zionists massacring Arabs and forcibly taking their land wouldn't provoke a response from the Arabs. So, once again, it is clearly the Zionists' fault.

When the Zionists started a war in the name of Judaism against the Arabs, of course the Arabs would fight back. Of course it was wrong to blame Judaism as a whole for the actions of a racist, xenophobic sub-sect of Judaism. But the Arabs weren't to know that at the time. They responded as anyone would in those circumstances.

Since Jews had been living in Arab countries without problems for centuries prior to Zionism, I think it's statistically certain that Zionism was the cause of the sudden rise of antipathy directed towards Jews by Arabs at the exact moment Zionism began to be pushed. It would be too much of a coincidence for it not to be.

[zenith coyote]

Just telling you panda facts!

https://x.com/spencerjjoseph/status/1772743248873689090?s=46

Spencer Joseph (@SpencerJJoseph) on X

Short thread 🧵

1. From 1948 - 67 Egypt controlled Gaza & Jordan occupied the West Bank. Why wasn't a Palestinian State established ? The summary is that ruling Arab elites & clans have always competed with each other & explored their own self interest.

Twitter · Mar 26, 2024, 9:51 PM

Interesting thread.

https://x.com/verminusm/status/1772004295300284566?s=46

Uri Kurlianchik (@VerminusM) on X

I just came upon a video of the late dictator of Libya Gaddafi saying almost word for word what I wrote yesterday about the strange Arab failure to establish a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967. Seems I'm not the only one who wondered about this oddity...

Twitter · Mar 24, 2024, 8:55 PM

https://x.com/lelemslp/status/1790509885198680274?s=46

lelemSLP (@lelemSLP) on X

While Israelis were celebrating Independence Day, thousands (probably much more) Hamas mouthpieces were preparing lies for tomorrow's so called "Nakba" day.

So let's get ahead of the lies with actual information, all of it very easily Googled (and I'm not even talking about

Twitter · May 14, 2024, 10:29 PM

Don’t know how accurate the last part is, about how the Arabs told the Palestinians to leave so they can genocide the Jews. I’m sure it was both the Jews kicking them out as well as them leaving because they thought they could return and win

You keep blaming the Jews/israel for taking land that was giving to them and then taking more that they win in war, no matter the point of the war. When the UN/Britian gave the resolution and the Arabs said they would do anything for the Jews to not have their own land. That’s a declaration of war

In The Irish Times of February 2008, Benny Morris summarized his analysis as follows: "Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops."

The Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish ... attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability."[88] According to Morris expulsions were "almost insignificant" and "many more left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials" to safer areas within the country. The Palestinian leadership struggled against the exodus.[89]

Yes a mass exodus happens when you declare war and don’t have the facilities to defend yourself or murder your opponents as is your plan

Yes the Jews are also to blame a lot for attacking the villages and causing massacres, but it isn’t as cookie cutter as you want to make it out to be

I am not absolving Jews/israel of blame what they did was horrible and they destroyed the lives of thousand of innocent Arabs

But I am blaming the Arabs for starting this war by not accepting Jews

You can go and blame the Jews and britian before this happened, but not effort was made to create a sovereign Palestinian state for the purpose of their people’s safety and prosperity

[thorny stone]

None of what you linked to there is accurate. Not the first link to someone quoting literal Israeli propaganda websites, nor the second link to the propaganda piece by Israeli intelligence, nor the third link to a random racist twitter account spouting lies about Arabs.

Here's a question. What's your connection to Israel? You only ever provide links to Israeli propaganda websites, and never anything neutral never mind from the Palestinian side, and that's made me curious now about how it's possible for someone to be exposed to so much Israeli propaganda.

[thorny stone]

That’s a declaration of war
No it's not. And by the time of the 1947 UN partition plan Zionist terrorists had been massacring Arabs for decades, so the war was already old.

In The Irish Times of February 2008, Benny Morris....
Is this the same Benny Morris, the self-described Israeli Zionist, who thinks that all Palestinian Arabs should have been expelled from Israel? Forgive me if I don't agree with all of his analysis.

many more left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials" to safer areas within the country.
Saying that they left because they were advised to by Arab military commanders is kind of missing the point. They were advised to leave because the Arab military couldn't protect them from the more numerous and better equipped Zionist terrorists where they were currently staying. If you know there are xenophobic Zionists with guns roaming the area looking for Arabs to kill, then of course you're going to advise Arabs to flee. That's the only sensible thing to do, and doesn't lessen for one moment the horrific nature of the Zionists in 1948.

Trying to make out like the Nakba was caused by the Arabs themselves requires a level of racism equivalent to holocaust denial. I would think very carefully before you repeat such horrible, racist lies in public in the future.

Yes a mass exodus happens when you declare war
The Zionists were the ones who were responsible for starting the war, as I've already pointed out several times.

But I am blaming the Arabs for starting this war by not accepting Jews
Let me finish that sentence for you. "...by not accepting the Jews stealing their land and murdering their relatives."
Even if for some reason we chose to ignore the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists, asking the Arabs to accept another foreign invader having power over them immediately after they had fought to gain their independence is also not a reasonable request.

[thorny stone]

I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

[zenith coyote]

Oh no a source you don’t like :(. Guess it’s wrong

[thorny stone]

The source is literally the Israeli government.

Well, I suppose technically if some parts come from Mossad then it doesn't come from the Israeli government, since Mossad only answers to the President. But the distinction isn't all that important.

Either way, using Zionist sources for analysis of their own actions is hardly going to result in reliable information being presented.

[forest vale]

I definitely replied to your points, Ark. Did you want me to keep repeating myself? They were fighting a war, so they're going to expel those participating in hostilities and those who are in strategically valuable areas. Many left on being told to leave by Arab states. That has little to do with being expelled. But let's address the obvious double standard here. You haven't addressed Jews being attacked and expelled from surrounding Arab countries at all, which has nothing to do with zionism and everything to do with a hatred of Jews. Why would someone living in Egypt or Syria be attacked or expelled from their home just because unrelated people formed a new nation? And we see this written plainly into the Hamas charter, where it's not just zionism that they fight against, but explicitly Jews everywhere, worldwide. That kinda invalidates a lot of the claims you're making.

Whether Israel stuck to the agreement is largely irrelevant when the first thing the Arab states did was reject the agreement and then declare war. You say I'm "entirely wrong" with I said, but what I said was the plan envisioned 40%, and they ended up with 20% due to the war. Where's the error?

The fact that Jews had massive security systems set up to reduce their vulnerability to attacks paints a very, very different picture from the one you paint. They're neighborhoods were being regularly attacked. If you think that's not a provocation to war, then nothing could ever be. If a neighborhood next to mine sent constant attacks at the neighborhood where my family lived, I would be completely in favor of leveling that neighborhood. Israel responding decisively is to be expected in such a scenario. The west doesn't play around. We're either at peace or we crush you, and that is the Israeli mindset. There's none of this pretending that as long as you only attack a little bit, you're still peaceful. Like hell you are. FAFO. So they found out.

It's pretty wild how you claim there was a war against "Arabs" despite the 150k Arabs living in Israel somehow not being a target in this war. I'd say that directly contradicts that point pretty strongly.

Dismissing Arabs attacking Jews because they just didn't know is wild. Of course they knew. They hated Jews, not zionism.

I was interested in how Ark would respond to Aeori, and the ad hominem attack makes perfect sense. Reject the validity of one of the most respected scholars on the issue, attack the person who shared the information.

I love how you say it would be racist to claim the Nakba was caused by Arabs, but have no issue claiming Jews caused the attack on the unrelated Jews in the surrounding Arab countries, as if your statements somehow aren't incredibly racist. Double standards again.

[thorny stone]

Falcon, If I unblock you and decide to give energy to a conversation with you again, what are the chances you'll finally stop misrepresenting the views of others and making personal attacks? Good enough for me to bother, or shall I just keep you blocked?
I'd like to have conversations with you, but if it's all wasted energy then there's no point trying.

[zenith coyote]

How would you be able to respond if he’s blocked?

Does it just say message from blocked user?

[thorny stone]

Falcon is the only user I have blocked, and Discord lets you read the messages anyway with a single click.

It's not a great block function, but it is what it is.

[zenith coyote]

Crazy snitch

[thorny stone]

You actually can reply to blocked messages as well, weirdly.

[zenith coyote]

How do you do that reply to a certain part of someone’s message

It may be because I’m on mobile but I can’t do that part reply thing I’ve seen you do

[thorny stone]

You have to fudge it a bit, by coping the text from the message into your own message and then selecting it and applying the 'quote' style

I'm not sure if it works the same on mobile

[zenith coyote]

Ohh

Interesting

[thorny stone]

But for me, the quote style option shows up if I select text by holding left mouse and dragging, in a little popup with Bold, Italic etc.

[zenith coyote]

I mainly use mobile but I’ll see when I get on my computer

[thorny stone]

On a PC you can also use the > symbol at the start of the line, which has the same effect. But that doesn't work on my mobile at least.

[forest vale]

I can't reply to blocked messages on mobile, which is why I don't use the reply feature when responding to Ark.

More than happy to have discussions, but if you're just going to accuse people of lying and racism when they disagree with you, then you might as well keep me blocked.

[zenith coyote]

meow

It works

[forest vale]

Was that on mobile?

I don't know how to do that on mobile.

meow

Didn't work

[thorny stone]

As always, I will only ever accuse people of lying when they lie, and only accuse them of racism when they express racism. If you can refrain from doing either then it's unlikely to affect you.

[thorny stone]

They were fighting a war, so they're going to expel those participating in hostilities...
That would be true if the Zionists has only expelled those participating in hostilities. But they also massacred thousands of innocent people. So it's obviously not true at all. They went far beyond what was necessary for self defence.

Since we know that there are plenty of people on the Zionist side who believe that no non-Jews have a right to live in Palestine, and also many that believe it's fine to kill non-Jews who don't serve Jews, and since we know that the people with those views included some of the military commanders in 1948, it's not a big surprise to see the stated desires of the military commanders materialise in the actions of the terrorist soldiers they commanded.

Many left on being told to leave by Arab states. That has little to do with being expelled.
If you leave because someone has advised you to leave in order to avoid being killed, then that's exactly the same as being expelled. I've already explained this.

You haven't addressed Jews being attacked and expelled from surrounding Arab countries at all, which has nothing to do with zionism and everything to do with a hatred of Jews. Why would someone living in Egypt or Syria be attacked or expelled from their home just because unrelated people formed a new nation? And we see this written plainly into the Hamas charter, where it's not just zionism that they fight against, but explicitly Jews everywhere, worldwide. That kinda invalidates a lot of the claims you're making.
I did address it, directly, several times. Jews in the surrounding Arab countries were involved in the conflict because the Zionists told everybody that they were, by claiming that the Zionists represented all of Judaism.
The Hamas charter was clarified that Hamas is specifically against Zionism, not Judaism. Hamas is explicitly not against Jews everywhere.

[zenith coyote]

You need a space in between the >

[forest vale]

meow

Oh! Sweet!

Thanks! ❤️

[forest vale]

Except that's not true. You don't only accuse people of lying or racism when they're lying or expressing racism. You have a history of doing the opposite, and it's just when someone disagrees with you. You have a clear history of excusing racist behavior and actions against Jews. Not zionists, not Israel, Jews. You have a history of ignoring or minimizing atrocities when they were committed by Arabs. That is incredibly racist. But your self-assessment is that you're objective. If you can't stick to logical arguments instead of calling people names when they disagree with you, then as I said before, just keep me blocked. Certainly makes my life easier than having to wade through the dozens and dozens of messages that only had the purpose of insulting me for weeks.

"They were fighting a war, so they're going to expel those participating in hostilities..."
That would be true if the Zionists has only expelled those participating in hostilities. But they also massacred thousands of innocent people. So it's obviously not true at all. They went far beyond what was necessary for self defence.

It's funny how you complain about lying and people misrepresenting views, and then blatantly misrepresent what I'm saying here. So how about you stop lying and misrepresenting people and stop ignoring the text in the dots.

They were fighting a war, so they're going to expel those participating in hostilities... and those in strategically valuable areas.

These also happen to be the areas most likely to be targeted in Arab assaults, and Arabs ordered the civilians to leave. Your whole argument just falls on its face when you blatantly ignore important parts of what people are saying like this. Do you not notice yourself doing it?

Since we know that there are plenty of people on the Zionist side who believe that no non-Jews have a right to live in Palestine, and also many that believe it's fine to kill non-Jews who don't serve Jews...

These are just blatantly racist statements here. Are you trying to narrow this down to people in Israel in the 40s? Because you didn't, and you're using the present tense.

I also want to clarify that if you're using a quote in a shorthand way and then reply to the whole thing, there's nothing wrong with that. But to cut off the quote and then reply as if nothing important follows the quote is deliberately misrepresenting someone.

Why do you say "thousands of innocent people" were massacred when these neighborhoods had been attacking each other for decades at that point? Where's the innocence in that?

[thorny stone]

Whether Israel stuck to the agreement is largely irrelevant when the first thing the Arab states did was reject the agreement and then declare war.
The Partition plan was agreed by the UN on 29th November 1947, the British mandate ended on 14th May 1948, and the Arab armies entered the region on the 15th May. The Zionists had been breaking the agreement for more than 5 months before the Arab states took military action, and it was their actions that prevented the plan from ever being implemented.

By the time the Arab states sent soldiers into the region, the Zionists forces had been murdering innocent Arabs for decades, well before the UN Partition plan was agreed in 1947. So it's simply incorrect to imply that the Arab states rejection of the partition plan happened before the Zionists did anything wrong. Chronologically, the Zionists were the first ones to do something wrong, which was the invasion of the lands by settlers with the express purpose of taking control of the region away from the Arabs who lived there, who were about to finally gain their independence.

I said was the plan envisioned 40%, and they ended up with 20% due to the war. Where's the error?
The "error" is the more than 750,000 Arabs who were expelled by force, and the 15,000 who were murdered. That's one hell of a difference from the zero expulsions and zero murders that the UN proposed.

.

If you think that's not a provocation to war, then nothing could ever be.
Both sides were attacking each other in the civil war. But the point I'm making is that the whole thing was started by the Zionists trying to take control of the region. It's as simple as that. Without the Zionists moving to the area with the express intention of taking control and removing the Arabs, none of this happens.

It's pretty wild how you claim there was a war against "Arabs" despite the 150k Arabs living in Israel somehow not being a target in this war. I'd say that directly contradicts that point pretty strongly.
Please be careful when trying to repeat my position like that. You are continually misrepresenting what I'm saying.
The war is being conducted by Zionists in order to take control of the whole region. Extermination of Arabs is not their primary goal, at least not immediately. The Zionist plans have always been about slow and steady progress towards complete control, and in the case of some Zionists that includes the removal of all non-Jews. Those people aren't in a rush, they're happy for things to just keep progressing slowly in the way they want. They will keep expelling the Arabs and whatever rate they can get away with, slowly eroding their rights within Israel, and slowly removing Palestinian access to land piece by piece. And when the opportunity arises, they will do things like use attacks by Hamas to justify increasing the pace of their removal of Arabs and increasing the barbarity of it.

I love how you say it would be racist to claim the Nakba was caused by Arabs, but have no issue claiming Jews caused the attack on the unrelated Jews in the surrounding Arab countries
It's not racist to say that it is the Zionists who are responsible for all of the killings that are involved in this needless conflict. Anyone that thinks it is doesn't understand what racism is.

[thorny stone]

Ah, ok, I should have read this message before I bothered replying to you. That was your last chance, but you're actually incapable of doing anything other than insulting people. I won't make the mistake of unblocking you again.

You're an absolute cancer in this server with your actions.

Please don't bother to involve yourself in one of my conversations ever again.

[pulsar shuttle]

Idk what’s going on but generally I feel like the right side is just the opposite of what @forest vale is saying

[brittle quiver]

you're right!

you win a cookie

[pulsar shuttle]

Nom nom

[forest vale]

I did tell you to go ahead and keep me blocked if you were going to keep just accusing people of racism or lying if they disagreed with you.

The Partition plan was agreed by the UN on 29th November 1947, the British mandate ended on 14th May 1948, and the Arab armies entered the region on the 15th May. The Zionists had been breaking the agreement for more than 5 months before the Arab states took military action, and it was their actions that prevented the plan from ever being implemented.

This completely ignores the fact that attacks were being launched from Arab neighborhoods at Jewish neighborhoods. Attacking someone is a declaration of war. You pretend the Arabs were innocent in this. Why? Why deny that they were attacking Jewish neighborhoods? Why act like the war started out of nowhere in 1947? Jewish neighborhoods were already extremely secure at that point because of the many attacks they had already endured from Arabs. You can't call them innocent if they were launching attacks, and you can't deny that they were launching attacks. It's well documented.

Chronologically, the Zionists were the first ones to do something wrong, which was the invasion of the lands by settlers with the express purpose of taking control of the region away from the Arabs who lived there, who were about to finally gain their independence.

What's this nonsense about independence? Independence from whom? Literally every state in that region at that time was already an independent Arab state. Acting like Arabs didn't have any independence is a weird take.

A desire to take control of an area is different from a desire to expel everyone from an area. You act like everyone who wanted to move to the historic Jewish homeland around Jerusalem is somehow some horrible, evil Zionist, but every Arab who wanted to live around Jerusalem is somehow justified in that. It's a racist take.

"I said was the plan envisioned 40%, and they ended up with 20% due to the war. Where's the error?"
The "error" is the more than 750,000 Arabs who were expelled by force, and the 15,000 who were murdered. That's one hell of a difference from the zero expulsions and zero murders that the UN proposed.

Yeah, that doesn't constitute any particular error with what I said. It's obvious that the numbers are going to end up different if the two sides go to war. You claimed there was some big error with my numbers when there really wasn't.

[forest vale]

Both sides were attacking each other in the civil war. But the point I'm making is that the whole thing was started by the Zionists trying to take control of the region. It's as simple as that. Without the Zionists moving to the area with the express intention of taking control and removing the Arabs, none of this happens.

Seems kinda racist to just forbid people from moving to your country based on the fact that they're Jewish. The fact that they had literal Nazis as leaders in Palestinian politics didn't help. They wanted to maintain Muslim control of the holy land, and they lost. Simple as that. The Arabs never wanted to play nice and let people simply live peacefully and practice their religion. It wouldn't have mattered whether the Jews wanted to take control of the region or not, the hostility would have been there either way. The increased hostilities led to stronger voices who desired to take full control of a country in order to finally have borders that they could properly defend against the constant attacks.

"It's pretty wild how you claim there was a war against "Arabs" despite the 150k Arabs living in Israel somehow not being a target in this war. I'd say that directly contradicts that point pretty strongly."

Please be careful when trying to repeat my position like that. You are continually misrepresenting what I'm saying. The war is being conducted by Zionists in order to take control of the whole region. Extermination of Arabs is not their primary goal, at least not immediately. The Zionist plans have always been about slow and steady progress towards complete control, and in the case of some Zionists that includes the removal of all non-Jews. Those people aren't in a rush, they're happy for things to just keep progressing slowly in the way they want. They will keep expelling the Arabs and whatever rate they can get away with, slowly eroding their rights within Israel, and slowly removing Palestinian access to land piece by piece. And when the opportunity arises, they will do things like use attacks by Hamas to justify increasing the pace of their removal of Arabs and increasing the barbarity of it.

Yeah, I mean you're simply confirming exactly what I said. You directly state many times that Zionists intend to expel and murder all the Arabs until there are none left. That's not misrepresenting your position. Maybe you should be a bit more nuanced in your words if you don't want people simply repeating what you're saying.

"I love how you say it would be racist to claim the Nakba was caused by Arabs, but have no issue claiming Jews caused the attack on the unrelated Jews in the surrounding Arab countries."

It's not racist to say that it is the Zionists who are responsible for all of the killings that are involved in this needless conflict. Anyone that thinks it is doesn't understand what racism is.

The actions of "Zionists" in Israel don't force anyone to attack unrelated Jews in a different country. Pretending that these attacks were the fault of the zionists and not the Arabs conducting the attacks is just stupid. The ones murdering people are at fault for the murders. It's really that simple. It would be different if these unrelated Jews in these countries were somehow responsible for attacks of their own, but they were attacked regardless of their innocence, because the Arabs hated Jews, not zionists. That's something you keep lying about, especially every time you mention Hamas, who clearly and explicitly hate Jews, not just zionists.

[forest vale]

You sent dozens of messages with nothing but insults and then pretend that you can wash it all away by pretending to be nice for two seconds. That's not how that works.

[radiant dirge]

I think what ICJ and UN are saying should be done.

@forest vale you told me last time ICJ is a joke. and looks like you were full of shit when you said that

your buttcheeks must be so proud of your mouth

I believe you think even UN is a joke

[zenith coyote]

I think everyone does

It’s just an international form of government and every government is a joke

[thorny stone]

So you're an anarchist?

Let the strong enslave the weak?

I mean, what is a better alternative than a government?

While the UN isn't perfect, it's a lot better than just allowing individual countries to do whatever they like.

[zenith coyote]

Just because it’s a joke I never said to abolish it

People still need government for security

[thorny stone]

So keep it but...laugh at it? I'm not sure what your point is.

[zenith coyote]

Keep grasping at straws to start an argument here

[thorny stone]

Stop being rude. I'm just asking what point you're trying to add to this discussion.

[zenith coyote]

Sorry did I hurt your feelings?

My deepest condolences

[thorny stone]

Oh, you're trying to become the new Falcon, is that it?

[zenith coyote]

You just want to start an argument with me, I called you out, you called me rude

Here’s the argument youu want

Anyways

Back to my point

[thorny stone]

Then you misunderstood the purpose of my question.

I was simply asking what your point was.

[zenith coyote]

Governments as an idea aren’t bad, they help people and create prosperity for their countries. But time and time again the agents and actors involved in government have shown that they don’t care about the people they just care about themselves

Please don’t try to backtrack

When I said governments are a joke you instantly called me an anarchist trying to make me mad to respond

[thorny stone]

Backtrack? I'm just trying to not follow you down the road you're trying to drag this conversation down.

I didn't call you an anarchist. I asked if you were an anarchist. It wasn't a rude question, and of course it wasn't trying to make you angry.

Bloody hell, Falcon really has been a bad influence here if we're all assuming everyone's trying to troll the other all the time.

[zenith coyote]

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1805304173304402139?s=46

Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) on X

BREAKING:

The Taliban have demanded that Afghan woman are not allowed to attend to upcoming UN conference on Afghanistan in Qatar on June 20th.

The Taliban also demanded that all discussions about women’s’ right are removed from the agenda.

The UN has agreed to the demands

Twitter · Jun 24, 2024, 6:17 PM

Trying to find the picture of the hypocrisy in the un groups of women and stuff like that

Absolutely crazy that Qatar is in the humans rights council at the UN

[thorny stone]

Isn't that the meeting that the UN arranged with pretty much only the Taliban, because the UN refused to meet the Taliban's demands for the regular meetings?

[zenith coyote]

When their use of slaves or indentured servants whatever you want to call him during the fifa World Cup was pretty well documented and even before then. Getting people from other countries around, paying them Pennie’s on the dollar and taking their visas away and making them stay

Same with Iraq being involved and china

It’s all politics.

It’s all hyprocosy

It’s a joke

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its uses and helps people especially refugees and holding some countries accountable

But countries with power like china, us and Russia they can’t do shit to

[thorny stone]

There's more than one way of looking at things. Yes, obviously we don't agree with the Taliban demanding that women be excluded from negotiations. But if the only way to start negotiations with the Taliban is to exclude women temporarily, then I think it's still worth it for a chance of progress.

You don't derail your chances of making progress just because you can't get everything you want.

[zenith coyote]

And as you said us backs Israel so then going after Israel but not any other country that is actually killing thousands or millions and committing genocides they appease their Arab members

[thorny stone]

And yes, there is no uniform consistency in politics. It's always about a lot of individual situations that you just cannot treat the same as each other.

[zenith coyote]

Yemen, Myanmar, Congo

Sudan

Ethiopia

A number of countries are going through civil wars or other conflicts and nobody cares about them

[thorny stone]

But the UN is involving itself in most of those.

[zenith coyote]

https://x.com/ohadbd/status/1751640114646659242?s=46

🎗️🇮🇱 Ohadbd (@Ohadbd) on X

In 1948 Palestinians with Arab countries' help tried exterminating Jews & failed - UNRWA is helping them nowaday !
No Refugee Group :

1. Has A Separate Body in the UN deals Only with it
2. Preserve Refugee Status Forever for Generations ..
3. Luanchs missles from UN facilities

Twitter · Jan 28, 2024, 4:15 PM

Besides the fact that members of the UNRWA are shown committing terroristic acts and holding hostages in their homes

[thorny stone]

Do you have proof of that?

[zenith coyote]

Yes but Israelis showed it so you won’t like it 😦

[thorny stone]

Because I think all the other countries besides the US decided that those accusations were lies

[zenith coyote]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVLBsCTe2A

https://unwatch.org/mother-of-hostage-abducted-by-unrwa-worker-to-address-summit-on-replacing-unrwa/

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/390457

https://www2.cbn.com/news/israel/israeli-hostage-families-sue-unrwa-funding-hamas-idf-troops-redeploy-north

[forest vale]

Ark, what's your problem man? You can't go two sentences without bringing me into your conversations even though you explicitly told me not to get involved any more.

[zenith coyote]

https://x.com/efischberger/status/1756373676474163282?s=46

Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) on X

Everyone should pay close attention to what's about to happen. The IDF and Israeli media are about to release copious amounts of evidence showing that Hamas has systematically used UNRWA as a cover for its terror activities.

Yet the UN, foreign governments, and international

Twitter · Feb 10, 2024, 5:44 PM

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/at-least-12-u-n-agency-employees-involved-in-oct-7-attacks-intelligence-reports-say-a7de8f36

https://x.com/cogatonline/status/1756418762767561086

COGAT (@cogatonline) on X

Oh, you knew.
Digging a tunnel takes longer than 4 months.
We invited senior @UN officials to see, and during past meetings with you and other UN officials, we stated Hamas’s use of UNRWA's headquarters.
You chose to ignore the facts so you can later try and deny them.

Twitter · Feb 10, 2024, 8:44 PM

[thorny stone]

Yeah, so what I'm seeing there is a continuation of the fact that Israel keeps attacking the UNRWA because it treats Palestinians as refugees, which treats Israel's actions as illegitimate.

[zenith coyote]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/directly-beneath-unrwas-gaza-headquarters-idf-uncovers-top-secret-hamas-data-center/

So what I’m seeing is from you, Israel news equals wrong and bad news

[thorny stone]

Israel has attacked the UNRWA many times, so there are many, many examples of them doing it.

[zenith coyote]

But we can take claims of Hamas getting their death numbers instantly

But not video evidence of Israel’s claims

[thorny stone]

I mean, Israel is proven to be untrustworthy on the issue, so yes, I'm not going to take anything they say at face value.

[zenith coyote]

But Hamas is?

[thorny stone]

No. Only on things that they have proven to be pretty accurate about.

[zenith coyote]

Still can’t get over the time you justified the terror tunnels and October 7th attack

[thorny stone]

I've never said Hamas is trustworthy. It's not necessary to side with Hamas in order to criticise Israel.

[zenith coyote]

That is absolutely one of the craziest brain washed takes I’ve ever seen

[forest vale]

They've been proven to lie about the things people claim they're pretty accurate about.

[zenith coyote]

Have a nice conversation with falcon Ark you guys need each other

[thorny stone]

I'm not unblocking Falcon ever again.

They aren't interested in a conversation, only abuse.

[thorny stone]

It's crazy to trust things that have been proven to be trustworthy?

The UN says the numbers of casualties reported from the Gaza Health Ministry are generally pretty accurate. Who is a better judge of this than the UN, that we should listen to them instead?

What else do you think I'm trusting Hamas about?

[forest vale]

You're contradicting yourself. You're claiming Hamas is trustworthy on certain things and their reports should be accepted, but then pretending you never claimed they were trustworthy. That's a contradiction.

[forest vale]

I really hope this is true. Why don't you also stop talking about me every other sentence?

[civic karma]

Trust me, it's for the better 😉

[forest vale]

I'm not a they. I'm one person. I've said this before. I'm a man. If you must refer to me, say he. I'd prefer it if you stopped talking about me at all.

[thorny stone]

What the fuck are you talking about? I have never said either of those things were justified. I have explicitly said multiple times that all killings are wrong..

[civic karma]

But you know that in their minds, if you do not immediately side with everything Israel does, then that means that therefore you are pro-hamas and a sympathisant of terrorists right? /s

[forest vale]

That's not what's happening.

[civic karma]

You don't like innocent people getting killed in extremely violent ''self-defence'' attacks? Ah, that must mean you are a terrorist worshipper.

[civic karma]

Didn't ask

[thorny stone]

Yeah, it's immediately obvious that that is the knee-jerk reaction to all criticism of Israel. If you don't support the xenophobic racist Zionists then we'll label you a terrorist sympathiser and make up fake stories about you to discredit you.

[civic karma]

Yep, sounds like the experience i had in this topic

[thorny stone]

I think your mistake was even reading it.

[forest vale]

When you post in a public forum, it's a bit odd to complain about people responding.

[civic karma]

Didn't ask

[forest vale]

Literally can't go more than two sentences without talking about me. I own you, apparently.

[thorny stone]

I mean, I've had personal experience of this in real life, not just here. Both myself and many people I know have been targeted with fake accusations by people connected with Israeli intelligence.

[civic karma]

As long as people on both sides hold this idea of ''you either are with us or against us'' mentality, there is really nothing to discuss.

[civic karma]

Hmm that sucks, hope things will get better. Luckily where I live it is not as bad as some other places. I can openly demonstrate against certain actions performed by the Israeli government without immediately getting categorised as a sympathiser of terrorism.

[forest vale]

Did these fake accusations involve quoting your words back to you, the way it's happened here?

[thorny stone]

It won't, until Israel gets a proper democratic system of government that reins in it's intelligence services, and not until the US stops enabling the racists there.

Right now it's becoming a fundamentalist religious state, based on xenophobic interpretations of Judaism.

[forest vale]

You can do that anywhere in the world, including in Israel. The issue is when you start claiming that October 7 was a defensive action or somehow justified, or when you start the "Death to Israel" chants. People still look down on those for some reason.

[thorny stone]

A significant chunk of the Knesset is openly racist.

[civic karma]

It has been since the 90's when Netanyahu first gained power.

[thorny stone]

Yeah, it was probably around then when the balance started tipping further that way.

[civic karma]

Are you in love with me or something? I DIDN'T ASK. Stop responding to me.

[forest vale]

If you want a private conversation, there's a direct messaging system.

If you don't want people to respond, then stop posting in a public forum.

[civic karma]

If you want to spread misinformation and propaganda, there's 4chan or reddit

So I am not allowed to talk to anyone else without you interfering, just because its on a public forum?

I have concluded that it is impossible to have a normal conversation with you falcon. Therefore I have decided not to engage with you anymore. Simple as that.

[forest vale]

I know this is a difficult concept, but if you post on a public forum, I'm allowed to respond.

[thorny stone]

I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere by responding to them. Actually, let me rephrase that. I'm sure you're not going to get anywhere by responding to them.

[forest vale]

Totally fine with this! But please, why do you keep explicitly bringing me into the conversation if you don't want me to respond?

[civic karma]

Yeah i know

[forest vale]

Him. HIM.

[civic karma]

You were inserting yourself. I didn't say anything to you until you started responding to me.

[forest vale]

Do me a favor and tell this asshole I'm a him, not a them.

[forest vale]

You literally brought up my name in your conversion.

[civic karma]

Holy crap this man lives in such a differnt version of reality it is unreal

[thorny stone]

If you don't reply, then Discord merges all their replies into one line about blocked messages, which takes up less room on my screen.

[forest vale]

I'm more than happy to ignore conversations, but if you bring me up, I'm going to respond.

[civic karma]

Fair enough

I mean I supposedly had a conversation about him, even though I did not mention him a single time lmao

[thorny stone]

I mean, that's not much of a reason to do anything. I'm just saying 😄

[civic karma]

Sometimes it seems to me like this man is permanently on some halucigens and lives in a different version of reality

[forest vale]

You're literally talking about me right now, just like you were in the past.

What exactly do you expect to happen when you have a conversation about someone on a public forum?

[thorny stone]

I did wonder if they were somehow a bot, because their reactions seem hard coded to entirely ignore reasoned discussion and instead just flat out state black is white if they were ever confronted with proof that what they are saying is wrong. But then I remembered that blind oblivion to reason is an actual tactic used by Trump and others. Plus I find it hard to imagine someone willingly making a bot this obnoxious.

If anyone says something that makes sense that you don't like, just make a statement yourself that assumes that what they said is wrong. You don't need to engage in a discussion, just bypass it and hope people don't notice.

[forest vale]

He. HE. I'm not a them.

[thorny stone]

and strawman everything else.

[civic karma]

Yeah just dismiss any statement you disagree with, even if you have no proper argument to do so, to then go on and claim you are right, again without any proper argument to do so. It's a known tactic of the far right. These are the exact same tactics that are used in european far-right politics very recently.

[thorny stone]

It works very well in time-limited situations, because all the soundbites end up being you sounding confident and your opponent sounding unsure or submissive. But it doesn't work at all in a forum like this where we have unlimited time.

[pulsar shuttle]

https://tenor.com/view/frog-dance-dancing-frog-gif-15428202

[thorny stone]

@jovial abyss Hey. Don't mind the frog, we just had to deal with a troll who seems to have left now.

[thorny stone]

@jovial abyss Can we try and establish some background facts about the conflict?

1. Zionism emerged in the late 1800s as a concerted push to try and establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Before that there were maybe 13,000 Jews living in the region, 27,000 Christians, and 300,000 Muslims/Arabs, and there generally weren't any big conflicts between the groups. They were all under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

2. In the first World War, the Ottoman Empire lost control of the region to Britain, in large part because they gained the support of the Arabs. Britain was given a mandate by the League of Nations to create a new state there. Britain promised both the Arabs and the Jews that they could have their own state in the region, and started trying to work out the details of how to get that to work.

3. Throughout the 1920s and 30s especially, Jewish immigration shot up. Although the Arab and Christian populations also increased naturally, the Jewish population increased vastly, up to about 550,000 by 1945, compared to 1,700,000 Arabs and 135,000 Christians. Jews went from less than 5% of the population, to more than 30%.

4. The popular belief among the Zionist newcomers that the whole of the Palestine area rightfully belonged to Jews and not the Arabs, who lived there and were the majority, started to cause more and more problems, as the Arabs felt like they were about to be forced out of their homes and off their land. This feeling wasn't helped by various Zionist groups using force to purposefully bypass laws on immigration limits and talking quite openly about taking control of the whole region, not just Palestine but Transjordan as well.

5. Eventually the disagreements turned violent. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the violence between the Jews and Arabs escalated. The Zionists formed a number of terrorist organisations such as Haganah and Irgun to both protect Jews and terrorise Arabs. Initially the British were largely on the side of the Zionists, which antagonised the Arabs, but after the Zionists started using terrorist attacks against the British as well because the British wanted to limit immigration, the British became more neutral.

6. The British plans to create two separate states were made impossible by the violence of both groups towards each other and towards the British, and so in 1947 the British gave the problem back to the UN. The UN came up with it's 1947 Partition Plan to divide the region into an Arab state and a Jewish state. Likely due to the horrendous suffering experienced by Jews during WW2, and the expected immigration, the proposed Jewish state was allocated a very favourable amount of land, 56% of the region despite having only 33% of the population.

7. The Arabs rejected this proposal, as it would have meant more than 400,000 Arabs being forced to live in a Jewish state run by Zionists who wanted them expelled entirely.

8. The Zionists accepted the proposal only as a temporary measure until they could gain control over the whole region. After the plan was announced, but a long time before it was due to be implemented, they immediately started a terrorist campaign to take armed control over not just the areas that had been allocated to them, but also other lands they wanted to control. As part of this wave of attacks, they massacred many Arab villages, killing more than 15,000 innocent people, and forcing more than 750,000 to flee their homes in fear.

The surrounding Arab nations sent some soldiers in unofficially to try and help the Arabs within Palestine, but they were vastly outnumbered and out-resourced by the Zionist forces. This period became known as the 1947-48 Palestine civil war.

9. The British were also still being attacked by the Zionist terrorist organisations, and were concentrating on preparing to leave rather than fighting back, so they did little to stop this violence.

10. Seeing as neither side were actually following the proposed plan, the UN's proposal was never actually implemented. On 14th May 1948 the British control over the area formally ended and the Zionists declared the existence of a new Jewish state called Israel. Their terrorist groups continued their coordinated and systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing against Arabs in areas they wanted to control, only now those groups were merged and renamed to the Israel Defence Force (IDF). Their attacks included using biological warfare and rape against the Arabs, as well as simply massacring whole communities of innocent people.

11. One day later, the various Arab nations sent their armies into the area. This changed the name of the conflict to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

12. This war formally ended with a cease fire agreement in 1949. At this point Israel had conquered 78% of Palestine, Transjordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.

13. After a short break in hostilities, Israel next invaded Egypt in 1956 to gain control of shipping lanes, later gaining the support of the British and French in doing so. They later withdrew from Egyptian territory, after Egypt agreed to allow Israeli ships to use the shipping lanes and another cease fire was agreed, but as they were leaving they systematically destroyed Egyptian roads, railways and telephone lines and stole equipment.

14. Then in 1967 Israel invaded Egypt again, after relations had worsened and Egypt had closed the shipping lanes to Israeli ships again. Since Egypt had signed a defensive treaty with Jordan, Israel also invaded Jordan, and later also Syria when they fired a few shells into Israel. This was called the Six-Day War. When the next cease fire was called, Israel now controlled all of the proposed Arab area of Palestine, as well as annexing the Golan Heights that were part of Syria, and the Sinai Peninsula that was part of Egypt. During this war, another 15,000 Arabs had been killed by Israeli forces, compared to less than 1000 Israelis, and another 300,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians expelled from their homes.

15. In 1973, this time the Arab states broke the (theoretical) cease fire and attacked Israel to try and regain the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights that had been taken from them. Israel retaliated and invaded Syria and Egypt again in return. After the three week hostilities, another cease fire was called. This time however, Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt and signed a full peace treaty with them. They kept the Golan Heights though.

16. Since 1967, Israel has had a program of building Jewish-only settlements in areas it has conquered. This has often involved removing non-Jewish people from those areas beforehand. Israel has been continually expelling Arabs from the area it controls, and has implemented a number of racist laws that relegate non-Jews, and especially Palestinian Arabs, to being effectively second-class citizens in that area.

.
17) After 1973 the Arab countries no longer engaged in conventional military engagements. In 1993 Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan as well. However since there were still many hundreds of thousands of people who had been robbed of their homes, the conflict didn't go away. It was just transferred into more guerrilla warfare. Palestinians continued to resist the Israeli occupation, and Israel continued to slowly force them out of the areas they once lived.

So can we all agree that the conflict is not a recent one, and is in fact a continuation of the conflict that started in the 1920s when the Zionists first started trying to take control of Palestine from the Arabs who lived there, and was escalated by the Zionists continually trying to take more and more land for themselves by forcibly killing or expelling Palestinians?

[jovial abyss]

That's a very one-sided account of history over 50 years ago with oddly specific days. You fail to mention the rise of hamas in the last 30 years and their acts of terrorism which is more relevant to the current conflict.

[thorny stone]

Which part do you disagree with? That's why I posted it, so we could see where we're not on the same page.

I agree, I didn't mention the rise of Hamas specifically yet. I was covering only the earlier period first, to establish the background as a way to make it easier to form a common frame of reference for newer events.

[jovial abyss]

Specifically 13, you make isreal sound like they are at fault. Firstly Egypt took control of the suez canal, and the US and Britain aimed at overthrowing the Egyptian president due to his ties to soviet union. This is one of many examples of isreal being a puppet in US world affairs. As a US citizen, I won't stop supporting a strong ally that does our dirty work. Unfortunately for them it paints a big target on their back by not employing good neighbor theory. 😆

[thorny stone]

I do think Israel was at fault for parts of #13.

Firstly, the Suez Canal belongs to Egypt. They can do whatever they like with it. So nobody had a right to go to war and kill thousands of people over not being allowed to use it. Nobody is allowed to start killing people purely because someone else doesn't want to let them use their stuff. So the British and French were definitely at fault because this is what they were doing.

For Israel's part, they were still effectively at war with Egypt, so it's a bit murkier. Their main goal with the 1956 invasion was to weaken a country they viewed as having the potential to push back against Israel's actions. But while it's possible to argue that all's fair in love and war, I would argue that Israel was still attempting to impose its views on the region by force, which I regard as a serious moral failing on their part.

The US in 1956 was opposed to Israel, France and Britain's actions, so I wouldn't really say Israel was (or is) a puppet of the US.

[jovial abyss]

The US is going to go to war to protect it's interest. We have the right to do so. Having access to that canal gives us access to oil. Come between us and our oil, and hell fire will come down on you. Get used to it

[thorny stone]

Well, no, you definitely don't have the right to do that. But in any case, the US wasn't doing that in 1956.

[jovial abyss]

Sure

[civic karma]

Sorry to interupt the discussion. I am not really interested in joining the topic of Israel and Palestine, but I am wondering whether you could elaborate what motivates the statement of "We have the right to do so."

As in, who gives you the right, why do you have that right etc

[jovial abyss]

Every nation has the right to protect their interests. Russia has the right to invade Ukraine. Doesn't mean I support them, as I'm not Russian and their interests conflict with my country's interest. And they will have to deal with the political fall out from their actions.

[jovial abyss]

To think US wasn't involved is naive. https://www.britannica.com/event/Suez-Crisis

[civic karma]

Based on your answer I think we hold different definitions of the word ''right'' 😉

[jovial abyss]

I'm sure we do

I'd bet it's a uniquely conservative American view that the libs don't share

[civic karma]

I am not from the Americas so I wouldn't know.

But I do believe no one has the right to do anything that directly undermines the personal freedoms of someone else. So if the US invading Egypt for their personal interest directly impacts and undermines the personal freedom of Egyptian people (which it does), then they have no right of starting a war there.

If that is liberal thought, then under your terms you can call me a liberal

However where I am from, liberalism is something completely different.

[jovial abyss]

I just mean the liberals here in America probably don't share the same opinion as me but likely other conservatives here do. So it's not representative of all Americans

[jovial abyss]

I too agree no person has the right to infringe on another person's right. However personal freedoms do not extend to nations. Other nations will actively seek to advance their interest at expense of your nations interest. You use diplomacy first, which we did by not financing Egypt plans to build a dam. That did not work so the conflict escalated.

[thorny stone]

What you're saying there is that people in other countries don't deserve the same rights as the people in your own country. I'm sorry to use a negative term, but that point of view is literally xenophobia.

[jovial abyss]

They have the same rights. They exercised their right to close their canal and paid the price.

[thorny stone]

Forget Egypt for a moment. The US didn't invade Egypt in 1956.

I'm talking about the general principle you're communicating. You're saying you don't value the rights of people who live in other countries. That's a xenophobic point of view, discriminating against people in other countries.

[jovial abyss]

Lmfao. Call me whatever you want. You clearly don't understand or care to

[thorny stone]

And yet you're the one that just shut down the conversation.

[jovial abyss]

You are putting words in my mouth, so I'm not going to say anything else

[thorny stone]

Where did I put words in your mouth?