You're viewing a single thread.
This is so fucked up. Across various social media platforms you have genocidal Zionists loons saying what they want using #KillThemAll, but yet Palestinian voices are being silenced and ol Melon Husk bans the phrase "From the river to the sea...".
Across various social media platforms you have genocidal
Honestly if you look outside your comforts zone you'll realise every genocidal maniacs have been hanging out on twitter since its creation. After the terror attack in France we had all the insane islamist praising the asshole, that's nothing new
I agree banning that phrase seems hypocritical but what is wrong with calling for the killing of a militia that killed thousands of civilians? Wouldn’t this be like the killing of osama bin laden after 9/11? Didn’t they kill hundreds of young people at a music festival promoting peace? I’m aware there’s collateral but calling for a ceasefire to protect civilians is the only reason to suggest the killing stops when their enemy has openly stated it will not stop doing this ever. If they want change to their policy of genocide of isralies I’m sure that’s a good start to peace talks but so far I don’t think they have.
I think you're confused. It is Israel committing genocide and have said they will never stop even after all the hostages are released.
No, I don’t think I am but may be. Are you saying hamas didn’t kill all those unarmed civilians and are you saying hamas has never stated they have a mandate to destroy the whole of Israel? Please just stick to those two questions and then make any points you want to add after. Thankyou
“I’m mad that my side can’t dog whistle for genocide”
You know that this phrase means the end of illegal occupation, right?
It means different things to different people. There are definitely a few that use it with a genocidal intent. But as you said that he's not it's de facto or historical meaning. It has a much longer history than the last few months. Most people complaining about it only just learned of it. And have no idea about its history or what it actually tends to mean.
It has a much longer history than the last few months Like the HAMAS
Hamas didn't exist until 20 years after the illegal occupation started.
and the HAMAS is 36 years old. By the way when my country was occupied, the embryos of what would become our main resistance didn't wait 20 years to begin resisting... more like 20 minutes. So to me that sound like a serious blow to the "HAMAS is Palestinian Resistance"
Way to misconstrue what I said, but ok.
It’s both. If it didn’t have a plausible legitimate use, it wouldn’t work as a dog whistle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html
Everybody has bad actors, and they serve to complicate what oughtn’t be complicated, including language.
Don't mind them. They probably felt uncomfortable hearing "Black Lives Matter" too. Saying it's a call for genocide for white people.
I saw a sign from a protest says, "I thought you said all lives matter."
Yes, and the end of those "illegal occupiers" too.
Both sides want to genocide each other, it's just that Israel is more powerful and Palestine is the underdog
it’s just that Israel is more powerful
Yeah I still give more credit to Tsahal for convincing us of that than really achieving it
Israel is definitely more powerful than Palestine
Technically probably, but if they are very VERY bad at using it are they really that powerful. Because they are bad at using their power, hence the shitton of civilian casualty
You think they weren't objectives?
That would involve David, only experience being a former high schooler, achieving his objective so yeah, they weren't, otherwise you'd have 0 civilians casualty
No, they're not killing civilians deliberately, they just aren't being very careful about it.
Is Kibbutz Be’eri on occupied land?
Is Tel Aviv on occupied land?
Is Haifa on occupied land?
Of course.
In other words, “Death to Israel!!!”
Edit: in before “No no. You have to understand that ‘Death to Israel’ is an aspirational call for peace”
So we're Indians wanting to get rid of the British Raj all genocidal maniacs?
Not a great comparison as Brits have Britain to live in already (I'm British, if it matters).
If you displaced the Brits from India back in the day, they could return to Britain.
If you displace the Jews from Israel now, where could they go?
All the Jewish people in Israel came from other countries though and a very large percentage of the population of Israel maintain dual citizenship. So they can return to the country they are a citizen of, or return to the country there parents or grandparents came from.
Yes, they weren't being treated well in those countries (to put it lightly) but that doesn't make them entitled to someone else's land. He'll the reason most western countries supported creating Israel is because they wanted their Jewish populations to leave.
It would be like unilaterally decided were going to take part of balkans and give it to the Romani people so they have their own country. They are persecuted and don't have a country of their own, so why not?
The vast majority of Israel's Jewish population is native-born at this point. They have no connection to those countries. They likely don't even speak the language. I do not see how that would be a good solution.
There is no easy solution to this where everyone gets what they want and is happy.
There is only least bad solutions.
And and I think dismantling Israel is that least bad solution. They can go to other countries or become part of Palestine. But either way as the colonising population they have the moral duty to bare that burden.
There's a lot of places where Jews can already live safely
The hilarious part is upper middle class Jews from like New York running over to colonize Palestine to be "safer"
The people can stay. The borders and government must be dissolved.
I think Jews and Palestinians both need a place where they can feel safe from anyone trying to kill them off since it's something one group has already been through and the other group is going through right now and both are at risk from it happening again in the future. This means they either need to give one group a new homeland, which, at this point, would be ethnic cleansing of either group, or find a way for them to share one homeland safely. No ethnic cleansing should be allowed and future ethnic cleansing should be prevented to the best of the international community's ability.
Personally, I would prefer UN administration of the region until something equitable for both Jews and Palestinians can be resolved.
And the people that stay will be slaughtered.
Yes and what guarantees for the Israeli. Various palestinian factions have been commiting massacre and pogroms since the 1930's where they had a german-sized nazi movement.
The government is what guaranty people's right and safety.
This is exactly why the Palestinian state exist and Arafat refused to integrate into Israel
Why?
Why is apartheid bad?
What is apartheid about the state inside the Green Line?
That's a leap. It means an end to the illegal occupation, apartheid, and Zionism. Give the land back to the indigenous people. I've seen talks of the establishment of a secular state where all can be free, which is the ideal here. Not the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians
Give the land back to the indigenous people.
That's easy to say, but means nothing until you define who the "indigenous people" are, which is an extremely fraught topic in this particular case.
People indigenous to the land. It's fairly simple. White European ashkanazi Jews whose descendants lived there 2000 years ago aren't indigenous. They're white, white people aren't from the Middle East, Arabs are.
Most Israelis are Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East.
Give the land back to the indigenous people
Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. That's a statement both sides agree on, but not in the way you think
Jews are the indigenous people, Muslim Arabs came later.
The indigenous people are the (presumably) mesopotamian nomads that eventually became sedentary farmers in the early stages of the Bronze Age.
Are there any of them trying to lay claim to it? And I was making the point that saying one side is fighting for its indigenous land is true for both sides in the conflict, and is pointless to say as a result.
Right…
You just called for the destruction of Israel. You just said Tel Aviv, which was built on land purchased from the Bedouin, is on occupied land.
You just said that Be’eri is on occupied land. Since it’s on occupied land, then Hamas’ murder of 100 people is justified in your mind.
Palestinian policemen massacred non-Zionist Jews in Hebron in 1929. The government of Gaza massacred left-wing Jews in Be’eri in 2023. And you sit here and talk binational bullshit fantasies.
From the river to the sea, you want it to be Judenfrei.
If not destroyed, at the very least reconstituted and subject to Hague tribunals
What does “reconstituted” mean?
If anyone actually bring the Palestinian government to the Hague the country disappear. Without even talking about the two whole ass civil wars they triggered but they also gave a province to international terrorists.
This is btw one of the main reaso I think big countries like France only recognizing Palestine as a "delegation" is actually the best : they recognize their authority and legitimacy but don't have to treat them like they have the same responsibilities and accountability as a state. If France treated Palestine as a full blown state the situation would be dangerously close to having the Foreign Legion marching in Jericho
Yes?
The Baha'i will not surrender Haifa. That's our Holy City since you kicked us out of Shiraz and Baghdad. We've been there since the Arabs put us there in 1890.
Edit: sorry Lemmy replied to the wrong comment.