• @LinkerbaanOP
    link
    210 months ago

    2/3 civilians killed is what Hamas did on October 7, 373 military to 695 civilians. I recall the BBC describing that as “indiscriminate slaughter”.

    The IDF civilian casualty rate is FAR HIGHER than 2/3. They kill 2/3 women and children and count every man as a “terrorist” because israel is a racist terrorist Nazi state.

    Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

    • @stonedemoman
      link
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

      This is why I’m attempting to remain impartial and critical of both sides, to avoid spreading complete misinformation as you have done here.

      https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

      “The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces.”

      “After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.”

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

      “The history of calls for the destruction of Israel is rooted in the prelude to its establishment. Leaders such as Azzam Pasha of the Arab League threatened a “war of extermination” in the event that a Jewish state was established. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, there was a nearly unanimous consensus among Arab nations aimed at the obliteration of Israel.[7] Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser reiterated calls for the annulment of Israel’s existence in the lead-up to the war. Contemporary discourse from political figures in Iran, including leaders like Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to advocate for Israel’s destruction, accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial.[8] Islamist Palestinian organizations like Hamas[9] and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad[9] consistently promote the goal of Israel’s elimination, as evidenced by their charters, statements, and actions, such as the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.”

      I have many, many more examples if you wish to continue spreading misinformation.

      • @LinkerbaanOP
        link
        010 months ago

        After the Zionists decided to steal Palestine and terrorize the Palestinians, the Palestinians found that not okay and resisted

        Wow such a two sided affair. Someone comes into their land and decides to violently steal it. And then the other side fights back. This must mean that both sides are at fault. Another amazing analysis.

        Israel terrorizes and colonizes the west bank, and the people there fight back. This must mean both sides are at fault!

        A very nuanced analysis thank you for your input once again.

        • @stonedemoman
          link
          110 months ago

          steal Palestine

          Again, this is misinformation. It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

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

          “After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs.”

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

          “The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words “in Palestine” meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by “stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands”.”

          Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

            I mean yes. Israel has been from the get go, ever since the planning stage, a settler colonialist Apartheid state. The sales pitch has always been “Let’s steal Palestinian lands and make them second class citizens”.

            • @stonedemoman
              link
              0
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

              Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

              Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?

              Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?

              Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?

              Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?

              Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?

              Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?

              • NoneOfUrBusiness
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

                Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

                I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.

                Everything since 1917 was with the intention of creating a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. Palestine that’s, for obvious reasons, populated with Palestinians basically everywhere. You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible. And then you had a “Jewish state” with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible. Does that sound like the blueprint for an egalitarian state?

                • @stonedemoman
                  link
                  -110 months ago

                  I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.

                  You don’t think that the established Jewish territory prior to and during the 20th century has anything to do with modern Israel? You think that the revitalization of a Jewish homeland was unique to Zionist ideology when their occupation of both Galilee and Jerusalem was sanctioned by the Ottomans in 1534-1742?

                  You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible.

                  Of course you can, you just need more than one state. This had been the plan instituted by the British, but the British Mandatory authorities strayed from the plan as I already stated.

                  • NoneOfUrBusiness
                    link
                    fedilink
                    110 months ago

                    Of course you can, you just need more than one state.

                    No, because like I said you can’t have a state without a majority, or at least a significant minority, of Palestinians. It’s geographically impossible. That goes directly counter to the Zionist goal of a Jewish state with as many Jews and as few Palestinians as possible.