Here’s the thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24345496
users from meanwhileongrad are banned from dbzer0, so you won’t be able to interact (which you shouldn’t be doing anyway)
Here’s the thread: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/24345496
users from meanwhileongrad are banned from dbzer0, so you won’t be able to interact (which you shouldn’t be doing anyway)
You have defended Israel in threads before and labeling everything as antisemitism is a Mossad talking point.
To be fair, I don’t agree with dbzero defederating though. Every removed comment was grossly insulting. Hard to know without more context, since we don’t have the comments they were replying to but I doubt they were deserving of the replies.
Can you give any examples? My opinions on different topics actively changes, I’m not opposed to change or considering that I may be wrong or ignorant.
I don’t label everything as antisemitic, only examples that are collective or phrases and theories that neo-nazis and other antisemites historically used, such as triple parentheses or the zio-pejorative. The latter is particularly common on Lemmy.
It’s in the same vein as “Israel has a right to defend itself”. It looks okay on the surface but ignores decades of context and the fact that Israel fostered Hamas and let the attack happen. It basically implies Palestine was asking for it.
The choice of vocab is telling as well just like how Israel isn’t “defending itself” but simply killing civilians. If you rephrase is more truthfully, as in “Would Israel be committing Genocide if the 7th of October attack hadn’t happened?”, the answer is it doesn’t matter. No reason ever justifies exterminating people.
I don’t know the context in which IndustryStandard is replying. That was 5 months ago; my views on Israel have dramatically changed since then.
Gaza wouldn’t be in the state it is now if the 7th of October massacres never occurred, if Hamas, which Israel fostered, never carried out the attacks. It’d still be greatly oppressed, but not a smoking rubble with a starving populace. The reason absolutely does matter since that’s the excuse Israel uses to carry out their genocide, ‘Oh, those civilians were totally just collateral! It’s war! This happens despite us having the most sophisticated intelligence agency in the world’
Pointing out that Israel used the massacres as a proxy to carry out their extreme violence isn’t defending Israel. It’s not saying that Israel is justified, I’m not making any of those claims. Admittedly, I could’ve specified, so I’ll do so now:
The 7th of October massacres were the triggering event that allowed Israel to pursue a level of destruction that wouldn’t have been politically possible otherwise. Identifying that this is the moment the mask fell doesn’t justify Israel’s actions. The responsibility for the destruction lies with Israel, which is choosing to destroy Gaza. If these massacres never happened (which I need to stress, Israel’s intelligence was well aware of these attacks and allowed them anyway), would Gaza be in the state it is now?
“Hamas started it” is never a good look. It ignore a lot of context which is precisely what the person meant when saying Israel has always been an obstacle to peace.
More importantly, it’s fixating on the wrong thing. The massacre x 10 000 that is genocide kind of overshadows the rest of it. Using who “started” it as an argument just comes off as trying to justify it.
Like there’s a mountain of corps and half of them are children.
Here’s the comment link: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/20723627
It’s really just that. Someone accused you of taking Israel’s side and you defended yourself by saying “Hamas did it first”.
I never said Hamas started it. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has been going on for decades. I’m saying that Hamas’s actions on the 7th of October gave Israel the excuse it was looking for to carry out what’s happening now.