Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Themius]

Do you or do you not understand what "average Jew" means? The "discussion" was whether Jews support Israel. They generally do as evidenced by what I linked, ergo, you were wrong (yes, on the internet, the horror). If some minority of them do not, it does not change the fact that majority (read, the average Jew) does therefore again - you were wrong.

my post:

American Jews aren't the only jews... and if we are talking American jews... we usually mean almost solely Ashkenazi jews and being Israel is kind of sort of an Ashkenazi Jewish state......

So you combat this by saying "don't you know what average American jew means!"

Yeah it means solely Ashkenazi...it is very very very clear from my post. Sorry I don't enjoy your idea of jewish erasure of anyone who isn't Ashkenazi.

[PC2]

https://www.politico.eu/article/germ...tic-incidents/

That's.... interesting

Ya this is a really interesting scenario. I kind of just think they should be free to fly Hamas flags because it means they support a terrorist agenda and if a terrorist supporter wants to put a red flag on themselves then it's not such a bad thing. Having that agenda in secret is more dangerous, imo.

Also I noticed some people on Twitter are saying the Palestinian flag is a hate symbol as well. But that's a different can of worms.

[Themius]

So atleast you see how Isreal is an apartheid ethnostate, thats good.

Don't you love how I point out the problem with "Average American jew" being that American jews are mostly Ashkenazi and point out how Israel is basically an Ashkenazi jewish state and he combats this by saying

"you're wrong because I said average jew!!!!"

well if you poll mostly American jews and don't break it down by whether they're Sephardim, mizrahim, bene, beta.... you're basically only getting the Ashkenazi viewpoint of a mostly Ashkenazi area....

[Specialka]

Iran has elections.

North Korea has also elections.

[Easo]

1> I'm not a "tankie", and it's bafflingly ridiculous that you'd draw that kind of conclusion.
2> My point was that people often denigrate some electoral systems because there are elements that aren't up to open and free popular vote, when many of the systems they do support and laud also have elements that aren't up to open and free popular vote. It's a double standard, and generally indicates their position isn't about "democracy" to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -



Also, this kind of underscores that Israel is deliberately implementing a system of apartheid, you just don't like admitting it.

The Rome Statute of the ICC defines "apartheid" like this;

""The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime"

And Paragraph 1, among the more obvious categories like "genocide", includes these as qualifying; "Deportation or forcible transfer of population", and "Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health". Removing Palestinians from occupied territories qualifies as the former, blatantly, and the aftermath of Israel's military actions in those same occupied territories can readily qualify as the latter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-lib...nts/rs-eng.pdf

You're literally describing apartheid as the intent and desired outcome of Israeli jurisdiction. While protesting that it's not apartheid because that's a mean word that means it's bad and you don't want to admit Israeli actions might be bad. And that's about as deep as that defense goes.

Why should these Israeli actions be given a pass? We'd condemn them in any other nation.

If Israel is a Jewish state for Jewish citizens first and foremost, and there's any inequality between Jewish citizens and those other other ethnicities or faiths, then what you're talking about is deliberate apartheid.

1. I meant that tankies have done their jobs for others (you) to start making that kind of comparisions. It's the default playbook.

2. You are arguing against ethnostates. Don't. Also you cannot argue that Jews deported all those 700k, as IIRC majority chose to leave because living under Jews was not acceptable and they thought they would get back after Jews were driven in the sea, which obviously did not happen (hello bunch of banned topics). Jews did not start eating their children, as evidenced by current Arab population in Israel aka people who did not leave.

This is why the idea that Israel is some shining example of Middle Eastern democracy in a sea of barbarism is such a laughable fucking myth. I'm amazed that you wrote that down and thought it was some sort of good argument. You do realize excluding people from a state, especially those who have lived there for centuries, based completely on ethnicity is bigotry, right?

They are not being excluded based on their ethnicity. You do not know what you are talking about.

So atleast you see how Isreal is an apartheid ethnostate, thats good.

One more genius arguing about ethnostates.

my post:



So you combat this by saying "don't you know what average American jew means!"

Yeah it means solely Ashkenazi...it is very very very clear from my post. Sorry I don't enjoy your idea of jewish erasure of anyone who isn't Ashkenazi.

You have totally lost it. Again.

[Elegiac]

1. I meant that tankies have done their jobs for others (you) to start making that kind of comparisions.

The comparison is entirely a result of the job Israel has done, no tankies required.

2. You are arguing against ethnostates. Don't.

"Apartheid is bad" should not be a controversial statement. This is your problem, not ours.

Also you cannot argue that Jews deported all those 700k, as IIRC

"You can't argue with something that's historically verifiable because the opinion based on a recollection that I have no evidence to support disagrees with you" continues to be a shitty line of argument.

Oh, I'm sorry. When we do get evidence it's invariably IDF derived nonsense in which "Israel" and "Jews" are used interchangeably but the victims of IDF brutality are only ever referred to as "Hamas". Lul.

[downnola]

1. I meant that tankies have done their jobs for others (you) to start making that kind of comparisions. It's the default playbook.

2. You are arguing against ethnostates. Don't. Also you cannot argue that Jews deported all those 700k, as IIRC majority chose to leave because living under Jews was not acceptable and they thought they would get back after Jews were driven in the sea, which obviously did not happen (hello bunch of banned topics). Jews did not start eating their children, as evidenced by current Arab population in Israel aka people who did not leave.



They are not being excluded based on their ethnicity. You do not know what you are talking about.



One more genius arguing about ethnostates.



You have totally lost it. Again.

You just told me it's completely out of the question to allow Palestinian refugees back into Israel because it would change Israel's jewish identity. Now you're saying they're not being excluded due to their ethnicity. You're either trying to gaslight me or you don't know what the word ethnicity means.

[JohnBrown1917]

1. I meant that tankies have done their jobs for others (you) to start making that kind of comparisions. It's the default playbook.

2. You are arguing against ethnostates. Don't. Also you cannot argue that Jews deported all those 700k, as IIRC majority chose to leave because living under Jews was not acceptable and they thought they would get back after Jews were driven in the sea, which obviously did not happen (hello bunch of banned topics). Jews did not start eating their children, as evidenced by current Arab population in Israel aka people who did not leave.



They are not being excluded based on their ethnicity. You do not know what you are talking about.



One more genius arguing about ethnostates.



You have totally lost it. Again.

You said it was one

If those 5 million Arabs return then it kills the idea of Israel the Jewish state. It will never happen. Never. It is not even a point of discussion.

Really trying hard to somehow justify a ethnostate without calling it one, huh?

[Themius]

You said it was one




Really trying hard to somehow justify a ethnostate without calling it one, huh?

He says this like Arabs can't be jews. What does he think Mizrahim and some Sephardims are? What he is saying here is basically admitting he's pro Ashkenazi ethno-state.

[Endus]

1. I meant that tankies have done their jobs for others (you) to start making that kind of comparisions. It's the default playbook.

This is just McCarthyist fearmongering. I'm not citing any kind of communist playbook. Unless you think the International Criminal Court is a communist "thing"?

2. You are arguing against ethnostates. Don't.

Why the fuck not? There's essentially no argument in favor of ethnostates that is not directly and immediately rooted in bigotry and prejudice.

And before you point at, say, Japan, or South Korea, they're both known to be fairly culturally racist and not terribly accepting of foreign immigration. It just doesn't generally extend to actual creation of legal second-class citizenship for other ethnic groups.

Also you cannot argue that Jews deported all those 700k, as IIRC majority chose to leave because living under Jews was not acceptable and they thought they would get back after Jews were driven in the sea, which obviously did not happen (hello bunch of banned topics). Jews did not start eating their children, as evidenced by current Arab population in Israel aka people who did not leave.

I don't care what you "recall", I care about historical fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

And even if some had left "voluntarily", that Israel has denied them any rights to regain their properties is not defensible. Particularly as Israel allows exactly that for Jewish citizens, for properties in occupied territories.

[Themius]

People that are antisemitic and support Hamas are Nazis.

The land belongs to Israel.

It belonged to Israel after the Caananites, and throughout all of history it has belonged to Israel, EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT HAS BEEN CONQUERED.

So, i support Israel in this situation.

It's just another scenario in a point of time when other people are trying to conquer Israel's land.

The land doesn't belong to Israel, its inception was the stealing of land. People were in that region who weren't jews before.

The biggest supporters of Israel are antisemites who think the world will end and all Jews will either convert or die.

[ranzino]

People that are antisemitic and support Hamas are Nazis.

The land belongs to Israel.

It belonged to Israel after the Caananites, and throughout all of history it has belonged to Israel, EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT HAS BEEN CONQUERED.

So, i support Israel in this situation.

It's just another scenario in a point of time when other people are trying to conquer Israel's land.

bolded part is interesting....so it stopped belonging to them multiple times and also for centuries ?

[DarkTZeratul]

Yes.

The land has been conquered multiple times.

But it's always gone back to belonging to Israel.

And Israel are the only group of people alive that have consistent ownership of it.

Everyone else is just a blip in history.

So by that logic we should give the United States back to the Native Americans, right? After all, they're only people alive that had consistent ownership of it, and a few hundred years of European colonization is just a blip in history.

[ranzino]

Yes.

The land has been conquered multiple times.

But it's always gone back to belonging to Israel.

And Israel are the only group of people alive that have consistent ownership of it.

Everyone else is just a blip in history.

there was not any "true" Israel left after the Roman Empire took it ~2k years ago. and slight problem with your argument: everybody and their grandma went to war over it after the romans; if it wasnt "gifted" to Jews by UN it would still belong to anybody except them.

[DarkTZeratul]

So you're saying Hamas should give the land to Israel?

I'm saying your position is absurd, illogical, and inconsistent, and the fact that you didn't actually respond to what I said in the slightest does nothing to dispel that.

[Endus]

People that are antisemitic and support Hamas are Nazis.

The land belongs to Israel.

It belonged to Israel after the Caananites, and throughout all of history it has belonged to Israel, EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT HAS BEEN CONQUERED.

Israelites were a sub-group among Canaanites. And Palestinians were in the region just as long as the Canaanites; they're the same group that were once called "Philistines"; the modern name derives from that root. What you're really saying is that the Israelites conquered the region at one point, held it for about 500 years, and that should forestall any other claims from any other time by any other group forever.

And nothing works like that. There was nothing particularly unique about the Israeli conquest compared to any other, historically.

Yes.

The land has been conquered multiple times.

But it's always gone back to belonging to Israel.

There was the one time Kind David routed the Philistine armies to conquer Jerusalem and founded the Kingdom of Israel. I'll note that defeating the Philistines (Palestinians) to conquer the region kind of directly implies the Philistines had it first, though.

And sure, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah lasted around 500 years or thereabouts, from around 1100 BCE to 586 BCE, when the Babylonians conquered the region. From there, it was ruled by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, Crusaders, the Mamluks, and finally the Ottomans, leading to the British Mandate which was meant to lead to independence for Palestine, leading to the modern state of Israel in 1948.

There is no point between 586 BCE to 1948 CE where Israel was in any respect a Jewish nation or under Jewish rule.

So by "always gone back to", you mean "once, largely out of Western guilt due to the Holocaust".

And Israel are the only group of people alive that have consistent ownership of it.

This is just false. Palestinians have a much longer claim, since they're the people who've been living in the region for several thousand years now, as rulership shifted.

And if you just want to go by length of rule, both the Arabic and Ottoman ruling periods are comparably lengthy to ancient Israel's.

But go ahead; tell me that Israel's Mission to the UN has the numbers wrong on this; https://embassies.gov.il/UnGeneva/Ab...-Timeline.aspx

[Easo]

One could point out that Palestinians are literally Arabs and have very little to do with the original inhabitants from thousands of years ago, but what do I know... That is like saying modern Egyptians are the same as those from the pharaoh times.

None of all that really matters, though.

[Elegiac]

One could point out that Palestinians are literally Arabs and have very little to do with the original inhabitants from thousands of years ago

One would be wrong, so I would hope one wouldn't be silly enough to make that claim without also applying it to the Jewish population of the Levant.

but what do I know... That is like saying modern Egyptians are the same as those from the pharaoh times.

Very little, considering modern Egyptians are their direct genetic descendants and the DNA evidence does not support your popular narrative of the ancient population just mysteriously disappearing at the end of the Roman Period.

Also who fuckin' cares? My own people have occupied Judaea for a cumulative total of about 500 years so clearly I've a claim over the land according to y'all too. It's almost as if revanchism is kinda dumb.

[Endus]

One could point out that Palestinians are literally Arabs and have very little to do with the original inhabitants from thousands of years ago, but what do I know... That is like saying modern Egyptians are the same as those from the pharaoh times.

None of all that really matters, though.

Nor is that even really new info; here's an earlier genetic analysis from 2001 drawing similar conclusions; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

They were the same people, 3000 years ago, basically. There's been slight divergence in that intervening period as one geographic subgroup took up a new faith and became somewhat more insular as a result. This really shouldn't be that complicated to understand.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://futurism.com/the-byte/israel...stinian-border


This is going to be horrible.