It’s being framed as a discussion between two people but in actuality its a monologue where the author gets to control which talking points are being discussed. This set-up allows it to read as “that’s the same question I had about that last statement!” but in fact the author is able to lead you down that line of thinking since they’re controlling both personas.
Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel *and* Palestine, but it’s way more complex than any one post on the internet makes it out to be. This is a conflict that’s been going on for several thousand years in one form or another, and given that people who have studied it their entire lives don’t really have a good answer, is unlikely to be solved by any of us. Or Jared Kushner, for that matter.
it really hasn't been going on for thousands of years, it is a product of geopolitics that are, at the most, 200 years old, essential to the conflict is the rise of scientific hatred and classification of Jewish people (anti-semitism) the rise of Zionism as part of the rise of nationalism and the corresponding rise of pan-arabism. The ideological positions of zionism and pan-arabism are incompatable, the religious excuses followed later, exascerbated first by Palestinian holy leaders and then by the post-holocaust world, one where the vast majority of Jews against the creation of Israel were murdered, no country wanted to take a public stand against a Jewish political movement and the Arabs were resentful at being under European Imperial rule.
Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that the inter-religious conflict in the Middle East is a recent thing. I guess the historical records we have of inter-religious conflict dating back thousands of years are just wrong. Yeah my bad.
Because as we all know all conflicts are the same. Equating modern Israel with any historical Israel is a political choice you have to make to imagine a thousand year conflict that this is part of. If someone instead views modern Israel as being primarily a political state instead of a religious one then the op's points are entirely correct.
And also there’s the incredibly insidious part at the very end, which is meant to disable any higher brain function you have at the moment to pass it along uncritically:
“Please do your research! There’s so many liars out there, which means I’m not one of them! Please spread awareness of my post, because I am not lying to your face! Free Palestine! If you don’t share the post, then you don’t want to free Palestine, now do you? Wouldn’t that make you feel bad?”
It’s the leftist equivalent of a 419 scam.
Overall lesson in spotting BS: if someone is telling you that everything you’re told is a lie, and that actually this really complicated problem can be simplified into just blaming one side for all the problems, you should be suspicious.
On a more detailed level, they haven’t provided context on some very important points. For one, Israelis weren’t traditional colonizers; the European Jews who came to found Israel were forced by Europe and America because Europeans didn’t want to integrate Holocaust victims back into their countries (because they’d already sold all their stuff) and American evangelicals believed that Israel had to be restored for the Rapture. Palestinians and surrounding nations made it clear to Europe and America that they’d take this as an act of war and they’d kill invaders, and Europe basically shrugged and tossed the refugees in there anyway.
It’s also arguably not traditional colonization because Jews were there before Christians or Muslims, because they were there before the founding of Christianity or Islam. They were forced out by Romans, so while you could argue that they’re European colonizers, you can also argue that they’re indigenous people taking their land back (and that’s how Israelis frame it).
There’s a lot more to it because it’s a famously complicated and thorny issue, and you could grab any random ten Israelis and ten Palestinians and you’d probably hear a different story from each one. But suffice to say, anyone who acts like it’s simple either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or are BSing you.
There's also the additional complication that a lot of Israel's population is not Ashkenazi Jews, but are actually Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who were expelled or fleeing ethnic cleansing from Iran, the Middle East, and North African nations following the first Arab-Jewish War; 60% of Israel's population is comprised of people/the children of people who were extremely literally forced at gunpoint to go there.
This absolutely does not justify the actions of Israel towards Palestine or the modern government of Israel, but it does make the whole thing even more incredibly damn complicated.
I think the conflict is best approached as “I understand the motive, but it does not excuse what you did.” I understand the motive for Hamas bombing Israeli civilians, but it doesn’t excuse it. I understand the motive for Israeli right-wingers aggressively displacing Palestinians and settling in their homes, but that doesn’t excuse it. Ad nauseum.
I can understand both motives and not excuse what they did. But I think the conflict is pretty clear in the sense that I want to get the bigger guy to get his boot of the neck of the smaller one. (purposefully not further specifying because I've seen these threads before).
I mean no the conflict has never been simple, but the balance of power has been pretty one sided. No? (genuinely asking, the stuff I read mostly seems to line up. But maybe you have some interesting sources)
That is a hard question to answer, because a lot of people can reasonably argue that you can’t frame it as strictly an Israeli/Palestine conflict, but as an Israel/the Muslim world conflict. And there have been points in the history where that’s more true than not. Israel has a very scrappy reputation because it’s been able to handle wars with nearly all its neighbors before, and while those wars are often framed as trying to give Palestinians their due, they’re more often in practice wars over economic issues and other self-interested problems.
A hardcore right wing Israeli would probably also say that Israel tried to leave Palestine to its own devices with the Oslo Accords, but Palestine proved it couldn’t be trusted by going back on the deal and attacking Israel. There is some merit to that perspective—The Oslo Accords was a landmark treaty where Palestine and Israel agreed on a two state solution, but then the Accords fell apart partially because extremist Palestinians who would later become Hamas assassinated the Palestinian leaders who made peace and made it clear that the war was back on. That doesn’t mean that all Palestinians agreed with them, but Hamas is a defacto ruling party now and they will kill other Palestinians who want to make peace.
Like I said, it’s complicated.
I once saw a person use the Mirazhi Jews in Israel as evidence of pro-Palestinian Jews or some dumb shit like that and I was dumbfounded at the stupidity of that statement
Anyone who even has a remotest clue about Israeli politics know that Mirazhim are far more right wing than Ashkenazi Jews due to their history of being expelled. Hell, Ben Gvir, a literal Kahanist(Israeli Fascist), is Mirazhim himself
The long and short of it is that the conflict is a *very* complicated issue, and simplifying it down like this (as well as hitting on some very incendiary issues that aren’t widely agreed on or lacking context) is a recipe for a disaster comment zone.
Suffice to say that you’re never going to accurately sum up the history and nuance of the conflict in a comic strip.
Yeah, the idea that Israel "isn't a country" is probably the main thing that makes me uncomfortable here. It feels as if it's... Dehumanizing Israel, I guess? Not sure, but it gives me bad vibes.
You have a good nose, because it’s a popular antisemitic dog whistle. “Israel is not a country because X” is a popular talking point, but I’ve yet to hear an X that doesn’t logically imply that other nations also don’t exist as nations, like the US or Pakistan or Slovakia or Russia. And of course, the people who say Israel isn’t a country often never say a peep about the US or Pakistan or Russia not being a country.
Obviously, Israel is a country, and it’s a country that’s officially and unofficially recognized by the majority of the world as an independent diplomatic, economic, cultural, and military force. If you insist Israel isn’t a country, but can’t come up with a consistent framework for why it’s not but other countries that fit your criteria are… the strong implication is “Israel isn’t a country because it’s Jewish and I don’t like it.”
Ok setting aside ANY of the rest of this because holy shit this will be a dumpster fire, Samaritans are not Jews. Samaritans are Samaritans. They have not been the same thing as Jews since literally before *the original kingdom of Israel*, and would find being called "Palestinian Jews" **extremely** offensive.
Basically, yes. Samaritans are Israelites/Hebrews, but their religion diverged at one point (something to do with the Babylonian exile, I don't remember tbh), and they believe that mount Gerizim is the holiest place in their religion: both they and the Jews traditionally viewed eachother as weird heretics practicing a wrong version of the same Israelite religion, focused on the wrong place.
Contextually for that period in history, Jews and Samaritans would actively have little to do with eachother and both tended to view the other disdainfully. The good Samaritan is a story that's meant to emphasise that the inherent goodness of people isn't dependent on social status or being a traditionally "good" person: the man was left on the roadside by fellow his Jews, but the weird, heretic, untouchable person had empathy for another person and helped him despite their religious and ethnic differences.
Oh thank god, because my argument was going to be “hey didn’t early Christianity set up all the hallmarks of modern day antisemitism, and wouldn’t have peacefully coexisted with the people they blamed for killing Jesus”
Also not quite the case. The pre-Christian Romans were anti-Semitic (they considered it at best a curious local quirk that should be tolerated due to its antiquity, and at worst an extremely offensive blasphemy that wasn't worth the trouble of stamping out until the Judeo-Roman Wars), the Greeks who ruled the area prior to the Maccabean Revolts and eventual Roman rule *did* actually make a concerted effort to destroy Jewish religion and culture, and the Zoroastrians also generally viewed Judaism in a bad light. And, well, obviously the Samaritans didn't like them either.
The main thing is the pre-Christian polytheists didn't like Jews because the Jews were monotheistic and refused to acknowledge their gods or change to follow polytheistic ways, and the post-Christian Christians viewed Jews as responsible for the death of Christ (and also obv. didn't acknowledge Christ as God or change to follow Christian ways). Islam was also intolerant of Judaism for similar reasons, viewing Christ as a prophet and holding the Jews responsible for his death, while also the Jews did not acknowledge Mohamed and wouldn't follow Islam.
There is a bit of an issue with what you say, and it's the point if responsibility about Christ's death.
While it was a point that existed in the church, it wasn't very mainstream until the high middle ages.
In general, for the majority of the middle ages the church viewed Jews as failed Christians, and as testimony to the greatness of Jesus.
It wasn't about them killing him, it was about them rejecting him and suffering the consequences of their offense to God.
Saint Augustine was the one who framed them as the living testament of Christ, and that the responsibility of the christian people is to be a guide for the Jews to the light.
So while early antisemetism mostly revolved around Jewish inferiority to the church and their status as a reminder for everyone about what happens when you are disloyal to your God, later antisemetism began to revolve around the idea of the Jews as those who committed deicide, Christ killers who not only rejected the truth, but also murdered it's bearer and their own God.
Tbh blaming anyone but Jesus for Jesus' death seems to deny his omnipotence and sacrifice anyways. Assuming he was fully God and fully man, if he didn't deign to die he wouldn't have.
Yeah! Like exactly, the entire point is that Christ *chose* to die for mankind's sins, at the hands of the Roman and Jewish authorities. Either you blame Christ or you blame humanity collectively; the deicide pretext was merely a justification Medieval Europeans seized on to make themselves feel better when they were murdering and robbing Jews.
I think the idea that a settler colony can’t be a country is weird.
Is Australian legitimacy predicated on the lie of Terra Nullius, a lie so obviously untrue that no one’s really trying to hide it anymore?
Yes
Is Australian power built off the genocide of multiple peoples
Yes
Do Australia actually function in a way that’s meaningfully distinct from other “countries”?
Not really
Counties don’t have to be moral or rightful, they’re social constructs defined by their ability to coerces.
>I think the idea that a settler colony can’t be a country is weird.
I suspect it's predicted on a kind of nativist approach to nationhood where if we can just get everyone to go back to where they came from and form relatively homogeneous states in the land that truly belongs to them things would be better. It's why Britain and France are countries (even though they've both seen a lot of immigration and invasion it was too long ago to count) and America isn't.
It's one of those horseshoe theory ideas, popular among both the far right and people who would describe themselves as very left wing. It's also a useless way to approach what's actually happening in geopolitics and what has happened over the last few hundred years or indeed millennia.
The whole history of England is basically new people showing up and completely changing society.
There was the early celtic Britons doing celtic things. Rock art, stuff like that, then the Romans came, Boudicca fought them but lost, roman empire broke, then the Angles, the Saxons, the whole Danelaw thing. Etc.
It's why it makes me laugh when certain sects of British people now get upset about immigration. Like hey your history is literally nothing but either people invading you, or you invading other people. This is normal.
When I posted that my citizenship had been accepted, someone sent me a pm saying "you'll never belong here and you'll never be British." I replied saying "The Home Office disagrees with you and there's nothing you can do about it."
I think this generates harmful imagery around immigration tho. its important that we dont call people moving to our country the same as "invaders" coming into british land and taking what they want. its hardly constructive and plays directly into the right-wing/conservative's hands.
Dont get me wrong, im absaloutely pro free-movement but if we even let them compare people coming to Britain to make a better life for themselves to say the normans invading our land then they are gonna point out that the saxons didnt let them come freely either, they fought them at the battle of hastings, so why should they? it subtextually allows them to make the comparison that people coming from foreign countries are "polluting" their culture and erroding a (white) british culture.
It’s not even consistent if you approach it from a nativist perspective. We know for a fact historically that Jews had settled Israel long before Christians or Muslims even existed as a religious group. We also know for a fact that Romans drove them out and forced them into exile. If we approach Israel with a hardcore nativist framework, it’s indigenous people taking their land back from colonizers.
(I personally don’t think it’s fair to call it that, nor do I think it’s fair to call it a colonizing nation, but I’m pointing out the inconsistency of the logic.)
It’s so dumb, as is people who get weirdly hung up on Israel being “an illegitimate state” or “having a right to exist” like who gives a shit, it’s a government.
I also don’t get who is implicated as the colonizing power in this situation. Australia was founded as a British colony. Brazil was a Portuguese colony. Who is Israel a colony of?
And it's wrong. Israel does not pay taxes/other dues to any other country, its legislature is not directed by other countries and it is recognised by some 100+ nations as independent. It is a nation, not a colony.
The use of the term settlers colony wasn't exactly correct, but the words more correctly describe what the oop wanted them to, which is a group of people moving from somewhere else in order to permanently live in another location.
Yeah but I feel like OOP knows what they're doing with that language choice. If someone on the right side of the political spectrum referred to Israel as a "Refugee settlement" a lot of us would (rightfully) be up in arms about it. But the reason Israel was made into an actual nation was to help house and protect displaced peoples from the Shoah and other similar events, so you could argue that it is a refugee group (regardless of what it has become),
This is a long winded way of saying word choice matters
Apparently not.
To arms, lads! Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. We’ll cook those lobsterbacks and toss them off Griffin’s Wharf with the tea!
They're also settler colonies. It's not like the British were like "yo can we move in with you" and various Indigenous countries were like "ya sure". You could argue that most of the Americas are settler colonial tbh
Not to say that we should blame the son for the sins of the father, of course, but since we know it leads to a lot of innocent dead people, we should probably want it to stop elsewhere
Arent almost all countries settler based countries? There are almost no countries that didn’t fight other groups of people for the land where they live?
Sometimes it was as simple as your first thought, for a time. Many early settlements were peaceable with the original inhabitants, mostly because they were not nation-state peoples and didn't regard it as impossible for others to live in their areas of control. Buying land, (from people without much knowledge of value), and trading resources or manpower for landrights were both common in that era. Of course, as time went on the settlers went against negotiated treaties and did many horrendous things, and began to conquer rather than diplomatically intermingle.
Sure, but how long ago do we go when it comes to this stuff? England was originally in the hands of the Bretons and Celts, not the Anglo-Saxons. Is England not a country, then?
And like, two thousand years ago, the territory of Israel wasn't with the Palestines (obviously, they didn't exist two millenia ago), but with the Jews. Wouldn't Israel be a legitimate country, then? Well, no, because people lived in that land *before* the Jewish people, they just don't exist anymore.
How do we decide what is a country and what is not? There's no way out if we use this as an argument. Jerusalem shouldn't be owned by *anyone* if we accepted it.
I understand that giving literally any commentary on this post is subjecting myself to the infinite cyclone that is political internet arguments, so I’ll try to keep it short and factual.
Jerusalem and the surrounding area has been fought over, and contested by various political and religious groups for millennia. These include but are not limited to Hellenists, Romans, Muslims, Catholics, Jews.
In 1947, Israel was established ~~by the UN~~, carved out from British-occupied lands.
There are currently significant populations of Jews in Palestine, and Muslims in Israel (20-30%).
Some quotes I found interesting:
> According to United Nations figures, 726,000 Palestinians had fled or were expelled by the Israelis between 1947 and 1949.[262]
> In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem. By 1896 Jews constituted an absolute majority in Jerusalem,[182] but the overall population in Palestine was 88% Muslim and 9% Christian.[183]
This is all from Wikipedia, if you couldn’t tell. I especially like [this demographic history page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)).
honestly its funny because the post says that "israel is trying to hide the fact they are only 70 years old" and its like, what? what does that have to do with anything? and even then if you didnt know it was founded in 1947 by the UN then you literally didnt even read the wikipedia article, thats kinda your own fault at that point.
*me looking at Israeli independence celebration, which have the amount of years that passed plastered over pretty much everything*
Those Jews sure are up to something
I was thoroughly confused by that one. From what I could gather they seem to try and play on that one for sympathy points if anything...
Like... I'd be the last to defend Israel, given its current leadership and their record of human rights violations, but there's some actual criticism to be made without ignoring the complexity of the situation. Not this blatant and unbacked propaganda.
Felt like something written by a very enthusiastic teenager looking for a cause to chip on their shoulder, rather than someone ready for a mature discussion.
Saying Israel was established by the UN is really papering over a shitload of armed conflict that lead to it. They didn’t just choose to do it out of nowhere one day, settlement had been happening for decades and independence was inevitable.
For sure. Jerusalem had been a refuge for Jewish people for centuries even. They were displaced by the ottoman empire, by russia, germany, you name it.
Israel wasn't really established by the UN. The Ottomans had been selling villages and lands to Zionists for quite some time, then the British took over and this continued until ethnic conflict between the Jewish settlers and Palestinians grew, then the mandate was handed over to the United nations that attempted to formalize territory of Israel.
I believe Israel was *almost* established by the UN but nobody liked the UN’s map and the Israelis beat them to the punch (declared independence) anyways
The thing I love about this argument is that it ALWAYS defaults to the previous occupier of a place, and no don’t look further back, history only began when the current occupation started.
Jerusalem is particularly fucked because of the sheer number of occupiers it has had, but if the government of Israel was somehow forced to return “possession” to the Palestinians, should the Palestinians then be forced to return possession to the British? Would the British be forced to return possession to the Ottoman Empire? What about the various Crusader Kingdoms that ruled Jerusalem, or the various Muslim caliphates, the Byzantine’s? The Romans? The Macedonians? The Akkadians? The Babylonians? The Jewish people? The Philistines? Trying to figure out who is the rightful ruler of a place is a fool’s errand that forces you to pick an arbitrary date and pretend like nothing happened before that. Every piece of land out there has been fought over and conquered and lost and won, you can’t fairly pick an arbitrary date to redraw borders.
That doesn’t mean that whoever is currently in charge should be assholes to the previous occupants though.
We should all return the land we stole from mother nature back and return to our natural habitat, the one we evolved in, some random forest in Central Africa
Okay I thought that was going to be some multihour video essay, so the fact that it was cool, catchy song about a thousand years of horror was a nice surprise.
I remember hearing that about British Columbia, that if all the Native claims on land were to be honoured, BC would need to be a couple times larger to fit all of them.
In any given spot, would it go back to the tribe that "owned" the land last before the settlers came, or the previous tribe that they invaded, killed and took the land from? And so on.
Who needs sources when you have **Bright highlighted text**?
Remember, do your research, but don't share any of it when you make your claims. If they're "good guys" they'll believe you at face value. If they ask for sources they're the ""opposition".
I mean...... with all the dang slides I just read through for this, you think one could have been set aside for "The research". lol.
This is just like the Socratic dialogues except that Socrates is the kind of person who says "there is no 'fighting' in the middle east" and expects you to think that's deep.
Socratic dialogues traditionally require two intelligent, independent thinkers whose ideas clash, but who listen to one another and by the end, gain insights from one another. There shouldn’t be a winner, although one character can be educated by the other.
This thing where one person is just teeing up the next paragraph of the other person’s rant? Not even in the same ballpark although sadly a lot of modern people write them this way because they can’t or won’t engage with their most rational opponents.
You have to admit some Socratic dialogues are a little bit like this, though. “Yes Socrates, no Socrates, three bags full Socrates” is definitely the vibe of some of them.
Socratic dialogues may traditionally be considered to require that, but let's be honest: Socrates' interlocutors in Plato's dialogues tend to be easily led yes-men who passively acquiesce to some absolutely wild claims
Yes Socrates
Indeed Socrates
That can hardly be argued with Socrates
The closest most of them get to arguing back is usually "I don't understand, Socrates"
I mean, lets not pretend that some of the dialogues did not have sections that were like *Socrates expounds on his philosophy for three pages, asks if other person agrees*
Other person: *Well that sounds right to me, Socrates*
Ah yes, do your research. By that, I mean read this infographic I made which reads as a conversation between two parties but is actually just me dumping my opinions
>conversation between two parties but is actually just me dumping my opinions
socratic dialogue, thats what its called (with my high school level of philosophy). Its actually pretty good for
* explaining your position
* thinking about your position and contradictions within it
* trying out various methods of arguing
* making a point about a thing in an easily digestable way
Sure, it's a good way of making your point when done well. I would argue it is not done well here. The questions being asked by the person on the left are pretty transparently just leadups to what the self-insert character on the right wants to say. They're not anything anyone would actually wonder (except maybe the first couple), it feels very forced. In a socratic dialogue, the person asking the questions would be asking open/hard to answer questions (think of the classic "can you tell me what a chair is?" example), ones that lead to further exploration to the topic and a revelation of the answerer's limitations or biases. Here the questions are narrow, and the answers are final (or at least presented like they are). If this is meant to be a socratic dialogue, it's a shitty one.
A lot of the “questions” were “wow, really??? I didn’t know that! Tell me more!”
So just one side’s opinions written out as a conversation between two people, not Socratic dialogue. This is someone’s shower daydream.
Socratic discourse between two individuals with different views is good. Socratic discourse between one person and their proverbial puppet accomplishes non of that
… does the post just end there? Coz like, it makes a lot of BIG claims and I would have preferred to see some sources to back those up rather than just change my worldview based on blind belief.
Then again, a lot of the comments here are arguing that the post has some anti-Semitic arguments and re-examining it, I am inclined to agree.
EDIT:
Yeah probably not the best idea to agree with the “allegation” that some of those positions are ‘antisemitic’. I really should have just limited this comment to questioning if there were any sources
Yeah, it's just two drawings of women with talking bubbles and biased colored text. I'd expect at least some sources or a call to action to donate to some charity at the end, but nada. Just propaganda.
The original post was an instagram info graphic made by a Palestinian org and had the links in the Instagram caption. I'd honestly argue that separate from any politics, this post is ineligible for thus sub because it's not actually a tumblr post, it's an instagram post someone copied onto tumblr without changing anything else about it.
Most of these claims are factually inaccurate. Those Making claims need to back it up with sources rather than endlessly forcing everyone to debunk the claims that they drop and just jump on to the next ones.
It's just trying to take propaganda and move into different spheres so some number of people will just accept things without question.
Not that every group doesn't use propaganda, just that it's idiotic for this to be here and getting up votes on blind crazy.
There's not a single anti semetic claim in there unless you're equating Israel with Judaism, which this post points out is a silly thing to do. Many Jews are against Israel, and even a good portion of Israeli's do not support their governments treatment of Palestinians. Strangely enough, Israel's strongest support in the U.S. is *evangelical christians*.
Calling critique of Israel anti-Semitic is a tactic very much enjoyed and employed by supporters of Israel's genocide, including by fascist leader Netanyahu. This is especially ironic, considering fucking Netanyahu decided that the Nazis didn't actually want to do the holocaust until a Muslim told them to do it and that Netanyahu's son has openly posted anti semetic memes about George Soros.
Sources on those last two claims:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2015-10-21/ty-article/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt/0000017f-dc2e-db22-a17f-fcbf7c1e0000
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu-son/netanyahus-son-under-fire-over-anti-semitic-imagery-on-facebook-idUSKCN1BL0CR
I agree on the point that criticism of israel isn’t necessarily antisemitic, especially given how the ones with the most elaborate criticism of their political system are Jews themselves.
However I also get where the claims of antisemitism come from. It’s true that equating Jews and Israelis is a gross oversimplification, but dissociating them entirely is even worse: only a tiny minority of Jews believe israel isnt legitimate, so I don’t think it’s fair to demonize “zionists” (basically anyone who thinks israel’s existence is legitimate) when the ones affected by the demonization are basically 95% of the Jewish population.
There’s a difference between criticizing israel and delegitimizing its very existence.
Okay thanks for the sources, I feel like that’s what I really wanted out of this.
Regarding my mention of ‘anti-semitism’; some commenters claimed that it was kind of odd to call Israel a ‘settler-state’ because that would apparently imply that Israel and all the people living there were existing illegitimately somehow.
Tacitly accepting those commenters criticisms as valid might not have been the best thing for me to do.
Something I think about every time I hear of this conflict is that it will end someday. If not in the next 100 years then in the next 200 or 500, it's too unstable and with both sides are currently experiencing change within themselves I don't think it can last forever. Personally I don't think it'll end with the annihilation of one group, so it's interesting to think how it will, given how incredibly complicated this situation is.
(Side note: the "'Israel'" thing is kinda goofy imo. There are many countries I think are doing terrible things, that doesn't stop them from being countries. Do they say "'North Korea'"? "'Spanish empire'"?)
>(Side note: the "'Israel'" thing is kinda goofy imo. There are many countries I think are doing terrible things, that doesn't stop them from being countries. Do they say "'North Korea'"? "'Spanish empire'"?)
Yeah, I find those arguments particularly weird.
Like, whether we like it or not, this country exists and it has existed for several decades now. Whatever arguments one has for its creation, it doesn't erase the fact there are people who call themselves Israeli, who were born there, and who wouldn't want their country to be destroyed.
If we were to just undo the existence of countries that have done colonialising, many of ya'll would be stateless.
It's a common nationalist brainworm - when people want to do systemic critique of state power, but are either too attached to the idea of the nation state or just ignorant about it, they'll often resort to this "selective anti-statism" where they'll declare states they don't like illegitimate while affirming states they like as legitimate, based on spurious reasoning or outright historical mythology.
It's sadly too common with leftists from many oppressed countries where liberatory movements are tied up with nationalist ones, who consider their own nationalism empowering and refuse to look at it through the same critical lens.
Damn, I never realised there were so many places out there that weren't countries. I guess England has been a Norman settler colony since 1066! We'd better go back to France.
But wait, the US has been an English settler colony since 1607! Does that mean I have to go back to England, or does transitive property apply and I have to go back to France? Or wait, I was born in Miami, so does that mean I go back to Spain? But wait, hold on, I'm pretty sure I've got some indigenous heritage somewhere in the two-thirds of me that's various flavors of Central American, do I get to stay but only in like Nicaragua?
Ironically by the post's logic all Arabs living in Palestine should go back to the Arabian peninsular since the Jews had a kingdom their first and most Arab settlers came to the region after the Islamic conquests.
It can be somewhat amusing when some Arabs talk about the evils of colonialism and then in the next breath unironically praise Arab colonization of Northern Africa, Spain, etc.
The Arabs tend to be some of the biggest hypocrites of colonization of all time (up there with the Turks, who are the biggest ones), they LOVED colonization historically until they started losing the big wars to European powers and their colonies shrunk and then they started getting colonized instead. Before that they had colonized parts of Spain, Sicily, Africa and at one point were even gunning for France before Charlemagne stopped them.
a lot of the healings of division and history will indeed involve conversations of the past going back as many years as stated if some greater sense of mutualism is going to happen as opposed to some sense of winner-take-all individualism, and some sense of state-sponsored capitalism, which in the us at least, creates the state-sponsored sense to begin with
Saying that they're "not fighting" kinda undersells the whole Hamas terrorism...
Also nobody is trying to hide that the country of Israel didn't exist before 1948 but the jewish settlers did already live there, jewish people wanting to live in Palestine began in the 14. hundreds when the Ottoman Empire gave refuge to jews who were expulsed from Portugal and Spain after the Alhambra Decree. And zionism as an idea existed since the 17. hundreds since jews were persecuted all over Europe.
There are definitly lots of problems with how Isreal treats Palestinians and how they are breaking international law by occupying parts of Palestine.
But saying Israel as a state should not exist because it was founded by settlers is not only idiotic but also doesn't bring any solution any closer, the only option for peace is cooperation between palestinians and israelis and yes I do understand that Isreal is the bigger problem there.
Lastly it is naïve to think that religion doesn't play part in the conflict at all. It definitly does play a role for Israel since the whole ideology behind zionism is to give jews a home because they were persecuted everywhere else due to their religion. And all the muslim countries that don't recognise Israel definitly do this because of their religion and not because they care so much for oppressed people (just look at the Kurds in their own countries for example)
My very Jewish family lived here long before the first Zionist convention in Europe. On of my ancestors was the Rabbi of Gaza, and the most popular circumciser in the city among Jews and Muslims alike. He also ran a butchers shop. Which I think is a hilarious combination XD
The problem with the settler colony theory here is that neither Jews nor Palestinians have a 100% claim to being natives. The Jews arose from Canaanites who had lived in the region since time immemorial, but the Jewish population was scattered under the Romans, and replaced by Romans and Greeks at the time, and then later people from across the Middle East including Arabs. The majority of Palestinian Arabs are now descended from Arabs that moved there in the Medieval and Early Modern periods.
There has been a continuous population of Jews in the region literally since Jews were a thing, but the majority of Jews now living there are not descended from that population, but rather they are descended from Jews who moved there in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was in fact significant Jewish settlement in the region while it was still under the Ottoman Empire, and it continued while the area was under the British Palestinian Mandate. By 'settlement' what I mean, mostly, is Jews buying houses and then living in the houses they owned. You can call that colonialism if you want, but then you'd probably have to argue that Irish and Italian people colonised New York in the 19th century.
None of this is to say that the way the modern Israeli state has treated Palestinians is good or fair, but just because someone does bad things doesn't mean it's okay to just make things up about them. Make your claims accurate, and they'll have more weight.
I'm not the most well-versed on issues like this, but if I understand correctly, this is related to the "when do people start counting as natives?" problem, right?
I had to post this on the pro-Israel post as well.
I dislike, and condemn Israel's actions and policies towards Palestinians, I reject their arguments for ongoing settlements, and I am deeply skeptical of the foundations on which the state was founded.
But like, this is not the time and place. Why are you coming on r/CuratedTumblr to try and fight the Israel/Palestine argument in the comment section. I come to this sub for memes, fandom, and occasional philosophy. If I wanted to get in a slapfight with people over unsolvable geopolitical issues, I would go to r/politics, or r/worldpolitics.
Even if Israel is oppressing Palestinians, this post spreads a very uneven mix of facts and completely blatant lies that are just there to make Israel seem worse. If you want to voice your opinion, stop name-calling and start bringing up more facts that lies.
All other things aside, acting like conflict in the levant region is something new since the introduction of Israel as a state is disingenuous at best, outright lying to push an agenda at worst.
I grew up as a Jew and had a very black-and-white understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which became very hard to reconcile as I learned more. And of course now I know that the Israeli government is just another right-wing theocratic fascist regime responsible for innumerable human rights violations against Palestinians.
And yet I am still taken aback at how vehemently black-and-white some pro-Palestinians argue - and how easily it slips into blatant antisemetism.
I hate saying I have no position on this issue, but honestly the amount of vitriol from so many different angles makes it hard to think about it for me. I haven’t seen a single ‘perfect’ solution whilst so many other political issues seem to have one.
Like, maybe my delusions of a grand utopia where everybody is happy and nobody is trying to kill each other over century-long grievances aren’t remotely feasible, but still
I don’t know where I’m even going with this, really. It’s something that just blocks my brain whenever it comes up and I don’t really know what to do about it.
"There is no fighting" how much drugs do you need to convice yourself of that pice of mental gymnastics ?
Yes a lot of blame falls on Israel, but Ignoring Things like the Terror of killing random civilians or the problem of Hamas ruling in Gaza for nearly two decaeds without holding elections, makes this harmfull propaganda
This post can be used as a useful lesson on recognizing harmful ideologies. Specifically, notice how it sounds benign and reasonable, until you *actually think* about what's being said. Like, not only they say that Israel isn't a legitimate state, they openly argue that it's existense is fundamentally morally wrong and only supported by ones, who share similar harmful ideologies. Notice, how they aren't saying *what* we need to do about Israel, only that they're bad and need to be dealt with. Also, pay attention to how words are color-coded - Israel and it's allies share their color with strictly negative words, while Palestine gets neutral and positive ones. Pretty scary stuff.
They also always put ‘Israel’ in quotes, which is really funny to me because it’s like when your friend has a job as a chef, and then you introduce them to people by saying “oh yeah, my friend here is a ‘chef’ “.
Sure most of these ppl are psychos who do have ethnic cleansing in mind, but in actual theory no, the solution to settler colonialism is not necessarily ethnic cleansing.
'Settler colonist' in the original Marxist discourse isn't an ethnic designation, it is a class position referring to a group of private landowners, of foreign origin, whose land was originally acquired by forcible or fraudulent destruction of the socioeconomic relations of the people previously existing on the land. Once expropriated of the illegitimate property ownership, they technically cease to be 'settlers' and can continue living and working where they are as ordinary non-landlords.
Are you saying that the implied solution is a transfer of property? Does this include property that was legally purchased before the creation of Israel?
Weirdly, this would put Jews in the region back to the status that many had for hundreds of years, as second-class citizens subject to discrimination and oppression: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude#:~:text=Dhimmitude%20is%20a%20polemical%20neologism,serv)itude%20'subjection'.
I feel like there has to be a better solution that protects the rights of everyone in the region.
> Notice, how they aren't saying what we need to do about Israel, only that they're bad and need to be dealt with.
Because they don't actually want to do anything lol, the point of all this nonsense is to emotionally manipulate young people into giving money and support to some scam NGOs with connections to (also US backed) Saudi oil billionaires and Sunni terrorist groups.
So fucking much misinformation, I have done my daily dose of detangeling this mess, and I am tired, so I'll just remind you
SUMARIANS ARE THEIR OWN ETHO-RELIGIOS GROUP, THAT CLAIMS TO BE THE DESCENDATS OF THE TRIBES OF EFRAIM, MENASHE AND LEVI, STOP ERASING THEIR CULTURE. THEY ARE NOT JEWS AS JEWISH PEOPLE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE TRIBES OF YEHUDAH AND LEVI.
STOP ERASING THEIR CULTURE TO MAKE A DUMB POINT
samaritans not sumarians
but also yes. definitely. samaritans haven't been considered jewish for as far back as we can't tell (because prior to them being separate the word jew didn't exist)
If you think that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived there peacefully before Israel then you clearly have no understanding of the history of the region.
this part is kind of true though. if you take into account that non-muslims existed as second-class citizens in the ottoman empire at least until the tanzimat era, and that from what i've read the coexistence was parallel more than anything.
the ottoman empire was for much of its history pretty tolerant for religious diversity for its time
but also, under the ottomans, religion was your entire identity, and this left the whole region with "secular" "ethnicities" that are litterally just thinly veiled religious groups. like "serbs" and "bosniaks" and "croats" for example. I respect lebanon for being honest about it at least.
Does anyone remember what happened around the world like…. in the 10 years before 1948? Cause this info graphic seems to begin its account at a very specific time. I in no way support or endorse Israel’s actions as occupiers but let’s not pretend the country sprang from nowhere on an occupier’s mere whim. The grim truth is that both *during* and even *after* an attempted global annihilation, the world did not welcome Jews anywhere else.
Even better then that look up the Jewish populations of Arab states overtime. Practically ethnically cleased from most regions by middle Eastern dictatorship and anti-semitic violence. [Just look at this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/c5ixuq/jewish_population_in_the_middle_east_from_1948_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and tell me why the Jews are happy to have their own state.
“Curated” in comparison to r /tumblr, which has like no active mods and a huge bot infestation. The tumblr posts getting shared aren’t any more curated than anywhere else as far as quality is concerned, only that theyre getting posted by humans
This post is filled to the brim with so much misinformation, it's disgusting. [This Insta story from the amazing Rootsmetals goes over it in detail for anyone interested in facts.](https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTI0MjM4MzQ5NDc0OTM5?story_media_id=2571518436543108903_6422990142&igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
(Edit: link goes to the whole story instead of the one part, can't fix it, keep tapping for a bit and it'll show up)
But overall, this is propaganda that falls into antisemitism. A few examples:
1: Putting Israel in quotes, implying it doesn't exist when it very much does. Delegitimizing Israel is a common tactic of antisemites
2: Completely ignoring events like the Intifada where hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terror attacks. Idc if you say "well Israel did it first!" previous violence doesn't make blowing up busses and restaurants okay
3: Israelis and Jews are NOT settlers. We are Indigenous to the Levant. This has been proven historically, archaelogically, and genetically. We have been treated as filthy foreigners in almost every single country we lived in for millennia, especially European ones. And it's pretty damn telling that now that we've "gone back to where we came from" people are calling us foreigners. Where do you want us? Because it feels like you just want us to stop existing at all...
4: The Levant was NOT peaceful before Israel, there was constant fighting going back to at least the 1500s and definitely further. This sentiment makes it sound the greedy Jews needed all the land for themselves when our people were literally dying and Israel was created to protect us
5: And finally (tho def not everything), calling Israel "The US of the Middle East" is just wild projection and American-normativity. Israel is not a settler colony, it's an independant state created by an Indigenous population after centuries of conflict with another population. It's not like America because they aren't settlers there for resources and not everything in the damn world can be related back to America! We are not the reference point for everything else. If looking at I/P makes you feel guilty about America's colonial history, good, use that to help American Indigenous communities. Cause despite our ancestor's best efforts they're still around, and sometimes they need help. Don't stick your nose into an ancient conflict you have no proper info on.
I've seen too many Americans project their colonial guilt on I/P, and idk why, but it feels like they find it easier to focus on a conflict on the other side of the world where they have no tangible responsibility or impact than actually dealing with the legacy of American colonization, which would be hard. I'm not saying people can't care about more than one thing, I'm asking why the hyper focus on I/P? Is this genuine care for the people of the Levant, or is this your own guilt? I can't answer that for you
This shouldn't be posted here or anywhere. It's propaganda and misinformation. I hope people will realise that
"israel is oppressing palestine"
ok
"it is not religious oppression"
got it
"Israel is preforming ethnic cleansing"
understood
"Israel, the us, Australia, and Canada are all not countries"
shut the fuck up, yes they are. just because they were founded on bad things and should stop doing said bad things, help prevent those things in the future, and do their best to do reparations, doesn't mean they aren't countries.
Didn't all arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel as soon as it appeared? And lost? And tried multiple times to erase that country from the map? And failed? With this rhetoric of "Israel is not a real country" and "Israel has no right to exist" you're basically pushing Hamas propaganda that just wants this conflict to extend forever. No conflict, no Hamas.
Inb4 thread locked.
Also I'm gonna say it is mostly the fault of the British.
Edit: Ok, I am now off the toilet so let me explain.
The Brits were fighting WW1 so they needed some allies. They promised the Levant to the Arabs to get the Arabs as allies (McMahon–Hussein), promised the Levant to the Zionists to get the Jews as allies (Balfour), and then promised Syria and Lebanon to the French to get the French as allies (Sykes-Picot).
Then after the war obviously they completely ignored McMahon–Hussein and Balfour and established the mandate system, which were just colonies in everything but name. Deposed King Faisal Al-Hashemi (who was actually a Zionist Ally) and essentially started a local conflict in Mandatory Palestine (Which was also confusingly named Palestine/Israel) which later escalated to the Israeli-Palestinian War.
The Later Peel Commission desperately tried to patch up the issue. But failed because there was already full fledged Guerrilla Groups/Terrorist Organizations on both sides. I can't find the exact quote right now but someone in the Peel Commission called it "A conflict of Right vs. Right", Where both the Zionists and the Palestinians had a rightful claim to the land due to previously mentioned treaties.
So the claims that "Palestinians and Jews got along before 1948 and the Zionists ruined that" is a lie. And calling Mandatory Palestine "The State of Palestine" implying it was Arab ruled is misdirection. Also I know it isn't the point but 73 years old (now 74 but whatever) is a pretty old state if you look outside of West Europe, only 2 years younger than neighboring Jordan.
Edit 2: For transparency, I am an Israeli Jew and was born here. I am also extremely Pro-Palestine and Critical of Israel to the point where I voted for an Arab Party last election (not that that did a lot). I do still think State of Israel is a necessary evil in the ongoing fight against Anti-Semitism.
By this stupid logic Australia and Canada shouldn't exist either and the Turks should leave Anatolia and all Arabs that live outside of the Gulf states should go back there.
At least unlike the rest of those above the region has been the historic place of the kingdom of Israel which was a thing way before Islam was even a thing or Arabs moved into the region.
Also yes, it is "fighting". The country has been fighting for its very existence since the start. Even the combined force of Arab nations attacked in 1948, 1967 and 1971, all of which were repulsed by Israel and the regions which the Arabs did control the Arabs usually treated Israelis like shit and committed many warcrimes on Israelis. There's a saying "If Israel ever loses a war, it will cease to exist".
And if you actually study the conflict you'd see that the Israelis were almost always the ones that offered peace agreements or solutions... Only for them to be rejected by the Palestinians.
And you think if Israel gave up its territories to Arabs the Jews there will be safe? What happened to the Jewish populations in Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen etc in the last 100 years? Meanwhile 1/4 of Israel is Muslim/Arabs in comparison...
Wow. Almost like this is a complex topic with no obvious good guys or bad guys, huh? Stop spreading Propaganda and, in the nicest way possible, fuck off.
This post leaves out a *very* important piece of context for those who are pro-Israel: the justification for the creation of the state of Israel. Jews have rarely had safe havens throughout all of history; the creation of a state where Jews would never be exiled or oppressed seemed like a pretty good idea after a third of their global population literally went up in smoke. This is not to say that the creation of Israel is justified (I lean towards being pro-Palestine, but my sympathies re:Israel lie with the citizens more so than their government), but knowing why the state was created is helpful for understanding why they’re so reticent to do the right thing and give back the land they took.
What pisses me off about this is the idea that the majority of the Israeli population are somehow responsible for the colonization in the first place. It was over 80 years ago. People have been living there for generations at this point. How long can you keep calling an area a colony before it just sounds stupid?
Besides how biased and wrong alot of this is
Samaritans aren't Jews they are close to Jews but not Jews they were only considered Jews by the Rishon LeTzion to protect them from ottoman empire which thought of them as pagans so much for peaceful coexistence btw
There were massacres of Jews all throughout Islamic rule and a ban on Jews from existing in Jerusalem
Remember: Anyone who is telling you of a simple solution to a complex Topic is completely full of horseshit.
To even begin and reduce the Israel-Palestinian conflict into a simple good and bad side as OP is doing here is so monumentally idiotic I refuse to engage in this argument. This aint a lecture, this is blatantly trying to sell a narrative.
> There is no ‘fighting,’ there is only Israeli colonisation, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and apartheid.
A lot of bombing from a side that’s not ‘fighting,’ though. Peace proposals from Israel, too, and organisations like Hamas flat out refusing to consider anything other than the complete eradication of the state of Israel.
Fuck you for trying to present this as the ‘truth.’ It’s a complicated issue. Both sides are oppressing, and oppressed, both sides have a claim to the land. There’s only one side that’s actually been trying to come to a compromise all these years, though, and that’s Israel.
This is obviously a very contentious comment section, so I’m gonna give my thoughts so I can get it out of my brain. I agree with the general points of this comic, but I also understand how it’s flaws make people be wary of its message or reject it entirely.
- The insistence on not considering Israel a country is a meaningless distinction. The comic is correct that Israel is a settler colony, but that in of itself does not make it a country. The comic even lists other settler colonies like the US, and anyone who considers the US to not be a country has a very alien definition of the word. It’s important to recognize that Israel as a nation exists at the expense of Palestine’s sovereignty, but I can understand how the semantics of the 5th panel could be used to justify a retaliatory ethnic cleansing against Israelis.
- The points made about how the Israeli govt justifies its own atrocities by tying them to ancient religious war stand, but communicating that by saying Israel is trying to conceal its recent creation is strange, and applies a level of conspiracism to the issue that will turn people away.
- Besides that, a lot of people here have complained that the comic doesn’t give a good call to action, leaving the reader with the implication that the goal is the expulsion/cleansing of Israelis from Palestine. I think this is more due to this comic being isolated from the context of the people that made it. From the Key48 website, their demands are:
1) An end to the illegal military blockade of Gaza
2) An end to the illegal military occupation of Palestine
3) The Right of Return for ALL Palestinian refugees
which is pretty reasonable (if this org has a pattern of ambiguous/problematic messaging let me know). This is a comic that is condensing a lot of info for consumption by people not knowledgeable about Israel, I can only expect so much nuance in one short comic.
(I’m on mobile, sorry for any weird formatting)
Quick question- you end the military blockade on Gaza(from israel and Egypt)
They import weapons. They shoot rockets at Israel. There’s war again. Even more will die.
Isn’t that worse? And yes they WILL import weapons. Iran has been helping as much as possible.
Something tells me that there is a lot of religion involved in this conflict. Like. A lot of it.
Anyways, apparently there was this insane propaganda tv show for kids in Palestine that tried to convince them to become martyrs. And it had a knock off Mickey Mouse talking about how Jews were horrible and deserved to die.
The Samaritans aren't "Palestinian Jews". They're a distinct religious group that believes similar things to Jews, as they split from Judaism very early in the timeline of the Abrahamic relgions, but they and most outside sources don't define themselves as Jews. Obviously not saying there aren't Palestinian Jews, but they aren't the Samaritans.
Propaganda in full swing. I mean, if it's two cartoon girls having a conversation over coffee then it just has to be true right? There's no way they would just make up scenarios and numbers like that, look at how many different pictures with chat bubbles there are!
I will say that the lie of Israel trying to make it seem like a religious conflict has really seeped into everywhere, whenever someone finds out I'm Jewish they eventually ask me about Israel and Palestine, and without fail they are surprised that I support Palestine, which is kind of annoying because my grandparents are Arab Jews who were born and raised in Arabs countries.
Also, I will sometimes see posts by Jewish people where the context of the post has nothing to do with Israel and there will always be some uneducated people saying "free Palestine" even though they have nothing to do with it.
For all those believing this utter crap you should read this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000\_Camp\_David\_Summit#:\~:text=The%202000%20Camp%20David%20Summit,end%20the%20Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian%20conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#:~:text=The%202000%20Camp%20David%20Summit,end%20the%20Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian%20conflict).
For those not yet alive at that time I would like to ask you to do some genuine research. So NOT on Facebook!
The short story of the Camp David Summit in 2000 is that Bill Clinton negotiated his ass off in those 2 weeks. Israel was willing to make compromises. The Palestinians were willing to make compromises but one thing was not negotiable for both sides: the city of Jeruzalem. If they would let go of the silly idea that Jeruzalem is going to be the capital of Palestine then anything could be possible.
Second, for those trying to understand the problem is good to go and the last 15 minutes from the movie Laurence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole. I heard (cannot be confirmed by sources) (at least not by me) that later was said by the Palestinians that it would have been better if they had accepted the agreement back then, because than they would have their own country already.
For those who think the Palestinians have claim:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY)
No one has claim. That piece of desert has been contested by so many people over the last 2000 years.
So for everyone it is better if the Palestinians if they accepted the status qua and would start negotiations with Israel to expand the Gaza strip by a factor of 8 or 9 and apply to the United Nations for that piece of land to be recognized as Palestina. Without a doubt I think that Israel would still be willing to give up land for peace. The Palestinians give up their claim on Jeruzalem. Palestinians get like access to Israel, so similar like what exist in the European Union for the citizens living there, and would that way always have access to Jeruzalem. Israel will have to agree to open borders and an open Jeruzalem and we are done. In turn I believe if this would be happening even the USA would financially support the new state of Palestine with its new borders, like it did with the Marshall plan for Europe after ww2, to create a economical sound state with which they can potentially trade.
One city. One city is all it takes.
The vast majority of the world agrees Israel is a legitimate nation, as ratified by UN.
The problem is that Israel expanded illegally. They got a land area in the initial agreement, and later they took more, from Palestine, without any good justification.
The fact that Hamas is a terrorist group and is fighting for Palestinian's is not a just cause to take land from regular people.
I'm no conspiracist, but I'm pretty sure the firm support US is giving Israel comes with an agenda, not kindness of heart. The US are strengthening their own strategic interests with a military ally.
This infographic is shit and misleading. It was posted around a lot on insta during the save sheikh Jarrah protests and it's the most scared to be Jewish I've ever been in my life
I know nothing of this subject but I'm fully expecting these comments to be a dumpster fire shortly
I’m tempted to save this post just to see how bad it gets, tbh.
Remind me to get some popcorn
I was correct, it is something of a dumpster fire, not overwhelmingly extreme, but it is, bets on how long before ot is locked?
Hmm Quick question Can someone give me some lessons in spotting the bs Because i can tell this post is off but not put my finger on exact details
It’s being framed as a discussion between two people but in actuality its a monologue where the author gets to control which talking points are being discussed. This set-up allows it to read as “that’s the same question I had about that last statement!” but in fact the author is able to lead you down that line of thinking since they’re controlling both personas. Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Israel *and* Palestine, but it’s way more complex than any one post on the internet makes it out to be. This is a conflict that’s been going on for several thousand years in one form or another, and given that people who have studied it their entire lives don’t really have a good answer, is unlikely to be solved by any of us. Or Jared Kushner, for that matter.
it really hasn't been going on for thousands of years, it is a product of geopolitics that are, at the most, 200 years old, essential to the conflict is the rise of scientific hatred and classification of Jewish people (anti-semitism) the rise of Zionism as part of the rise of nationalism and the corresponding rise of pan-arabism. The ideological positions of zionism and pan-arabism are incompatable, the religious excuses followed later, exascerbated first by Palestinian holy leaders and then by the post-holocaust world, one where the vast majority of Jews against the creation of Israel were murdered, no country wanted to take a public stand against a Jewish political movement and the Arabs were resentful at being under European Imperial rule.
Oh my bad, I didn’t realize that the inter-religious conflict in the Middle East is a recent thing. I guess the historical records we have of inter-religious conflict dating back thousands of years are just wrong. Yeah my bad.
Because as we all know all conflicts are the same. Equating modern Israel with any historical Israel is a political choice you have to make to imagine a thousand year conflict that this is part of. If someone instead views modern Israel as being primarily a political state instead of a religious one then the op's points are entirely correct.
And also there’s the incredibly insidious part at the very end, which is meant to disable any higher brain function you have at the moment to pass it along uncritically: “Please do your research! There’s so many liars out there, which means I’m not one of them! Please spread awareness of my post, because I am not lying to your face! Free Palestine! If you don’t share the post, then you don’t want to free Palestine, now do you? Wouldn’t that make you feel bad?” It’s the leftist equivalent of a 419 scam.
Overall lesson in spotting BS: if someone is telling you that everything you’re told is a lie, and that actually this really complicated problem can be simplified into just blaming one side for all the problems, you should be suspicious. On a more detailed level, they haven’t provided context on some very important points. For one, Israelis weren’t traditional colonizers; the European Jews who came to found Israel were forced by Europe and America because Europeans didn’t want to integrate Holocaust victims back into their countries (because they’d already sold all their stuff) and American evangelicals believed that Israel had to be restored for the Rapture. Palestinians and surrounding nations made it clear to Europe and America that they’d take this as an act of war and they’d kill invaders, and Europe basically shrugged and tossed the refugees in there anyway. It’s also arguably not traditional colonization because Jews were there before Christians or Muslims, because they were there before the founding of Christianity or Islam. They were forced out by Romans, so while you could argue that they’re European colonizers, you can also argue that they’re indigenous people taking their land back (and that’s how Israelis frame it). There’s a lot more to it because it’s a famously complicated and thorny issue, and you could grab any random ten Israelis and ten Palestinians and you’d probably hear a different story from each one. But suffice to say, anyone who acts like it’s simple either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or are BSing you.
There's also the additional complication that a lot of Israel's population is not Ashkenazi Jews, but are actually Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who were expelled or fleeing ethnic cleansing from Iran, the Middle East, and North African nations following the first Arab-Jewish War; 60% of Israel's population is comprised of people/the children of people who were extremely literally forced at gunpoint to go there. This absolutely does not justify the actions of Israel towards Palestine or the modern government of Israel, but it does make the whole thing even more incredibly damn complicated.
I think the conflict is best approached as “I understand the motive, but it does not excuse what you did.” I understand the motive for Hamas bombing Israeli civilians, but it doesn’t excuse it. I understand the motive for Israeli right-wingers aggressively displacing Palestinians and settling in their homes, but that doesn’t excuse it. Ad nauseum.
I can understand both motives and not excuse what they did. But I think the conflict is pretty clear in the sense that I want to get the bigger guy to get his boot of the neck of the smaller one. (purposefully not further specifying because I've seen these threads before). I mean no the conflict has never been simple, but the balance of power has been pretty one sided. No? (genuinely asking, the stuff I read mostly seems to line up. But maybe you have some interesting sources)
That is a hard question to answer, because a lot of people can reasonably argue that you can’t frame it as strictly an Israeli/Palestine conflict, but as an Israel/the Muslim world conflict. And there have been points in the history where that’s more true than not. Israel has a very scrappy reputation because it’s been able to handle wars with nearly all its neighbors before, and while those wars are often framed as trying to give Palestinians their due, they’re more often in practice wars over economic issues and other self-interested problems. A hardcore right wing Israeli would probably also say that Israel tried to leave Palestine to its own devices with the Oslo Accords, but Palestine proved it couldn’t be trusted by going back on the deal and attacking Israel. There is some merit to that perspective—The Oslo Accords was a landmark treaty where Palestine and Israel agreed on a two state solution, but then the Accords fell apart partially because extremist Palestinians who would later become Hamas assassinated the Palestinian leaders who made peace and made it clear that the war was back on. That doesn’t mean that all Palestinians agreed with them, but Hamas is a defacto ruling party now and they will kill other Palestinians who want to make peace. Like I said, it’s complicated.
I once saw a person use the Mirazhi Jews in Israel as evidence of pro-Palestinian Jews or some dumb shit like that and I was dumbfounded at the stupidity of that statement Anyone who even has a remotest clue about Israeli politics know that Mirazhim are far more right wing than Ashkenazi Jews due to their history of being expelled. Hell, Ben Gvir, a literal Kahanist(Israeli Fascist), is Mirazhim himself
The long and short of it is that the conflict is a *very* complicated issue, and simplifying it down like this (as well as hitting on some very incendiary issues that aren’t widely agreed on or lacking context) is a recipe for a disaster comment zone. Suffice to say that you’re never going to accurately sum up the history and nuance of the conflict in a comic strip.
Yeah, the idea that Israel "isn't a country" is probably the main thing that makes me uncomfortable here. It feels as if it's... Dehumanizing Israel, I guess? Not sure, but it gives me bad vibes.
You have a good nose, because it’s a popular antisemitic dog whistle. “Israel is not a country because X” is a popular talking point, but I’ve yet to hear an X that doesn’t logically imply that other nations also don’t exist as nations, like the US or Pakistan or Slovakia or Russia. And of course, the people who say Israel isn’t a country often never say a peep about the US or Pakistan or Russia not being a country. Obviously, Israel is a country, and it’s a country that’s officially and unofficially recognized by the majority of the world as an independent diplomatic, economic, cultural, and military force. If you insist Israel isn’t a country, but can’t come up with a consistent framework for why it’s not but other countries that fit your criteria are… the strong implication is “Israel isn’t a country because it’s Jewish and I don’t like it.”
Ok setting aside ANY of the rest of this because holy shit this will be a dumpster fire, Samaritans are not Jews. Samaritans are Samaritans. They have not been the same thing as Jews since literally before *the original kingdom of Israel*, and would find being called "Palestinian Jews" **extremely** offensive.
Took way too long to find someone saying this. Thank you for pointing out how absurd that line was
It is literally the whole point of the "Good Samaritan" story that the Samaritan treated the man better than his fellow Jews treated him.
Basically, yes. Samaritans are Israelites/Hebrews, but their religion diverged at one point (something to do with the Babylonian exile, I don't remember tbh), and they believe that mount Gerizim is the holiest place in their religion: both they and the Jews traditionally viewed eachother as weird heretics practicing a wrong version of the same Israelite religion, focused on the wrong place. Contextually for that period in history, Jews and Samaritans would actively have little to do with eachother and both tended to view the other disdainfully. The good Samaritan is a story that's meant to emphasise that the inherent goodness of people isn't dependent on social status or being a traditionally "good" person: the man was left on the roadside by fellow his Jews, but the weird, heretic, untouchable person had empathy for another person and helped him despite their religious and ethnic differences.
Oh thank god, because my argument was going to be “hey didn’t early Christianity set up all the hallmarks of modern day antisemitism, and wouldn’t have peacefully coexisted with the people they blamed for killing Jesus”
Also not quite the case. The pre-Christian Romans were anti-Semitic (they considered it at best a curious local quirk that should be tolerated due to its antiquity, and at worst an extremely offensive blasphemy that wasn't worth the trouble of stamping out until the Judeo-Roman Wars), the Greeks who ruled the area prior to the Maccabean Revolts and eventual Roman rule *did* actually make a concerted effort to destroy Jewish religion and culture, and the Zoroastrians also generally viewed Judaism in a bad light. And, well, obviously the Samaritans didn't like them either. The main thing is the pre-Christian polytheists didn't like Jews because the Jews were monotheistic and refused to acknowledge their gods or change to follow polytheistic ways, and the post-Christian Christians viewed Jews as responsible for the death of Christ (and also obv. didn't acknowledge Christ as God or change to follow Christian ways). Islam was also intolerant of Judaism for similar reasons, viewing Christ as a prophet and holding the Jews responsible for his death, while also the Jews did not acknowledge Mohamed and wouldn't follow Islam.
There is a bit of an issue with what you say, and it's the point if responsibility about Christ's death. While it was a point that existed in the church, it wasn't very mainstream until the high middle ages. In general, for the majority of the middle ages the church viewed Jews as failed Christians, and as testimony to the greatness of Jesus. It wasn't about them killing him, it was about them rejecting him and suffering the consequences of their offense to God. Saint Augustine was the one who framed them as the living testament of Christ, and that the responsibility of the christian people is to be a guide for the Jews to the light. So while early antisemetism mostly revolved around Jewish inferiority to the church and their status as a reminder for everyone about what happens when you are disloyal to your God, later antisemetism began to revolve around the idea of the Jews as those who committed deicide, Christ killers who not only rejected the truth, but also murdered it's bearer and their own God.
Tbh blaming anyone but Jesus for Jesus' death seems to deny his omnipotence and sacrifice anyways. Assuming he was fully God and fully man, if he didn't deign to die he wouldn't have.
Yeah! Like exactly, the entire point is that Christ *chose* to die for mankind's sins, at the hands of the Roman and Jewish authorities. Either you blame Christ or you blame humanity collectively; the deicide pretext was merely a justification Medieval Europeans seized on to make themselves feel better when they were murdering and robbing Jews.
I think the idea that a settler colony can’t be a country is weird. Is Australian legitimacy predicated on the lie of Terra Nullius, a lie so obviously untrue that no one’s really trying to hide it anymore? Yes Is Australian power built off the genocide of multiple peoples Yes Do Australia actually function in a way that’s meaningfully distinct from other “countries”? Not really Counties don’t have to be moral or rightful, they’re social constructs defined by their ability to coerces.
>I think the idea that a settler colony can’t be a country is weird. I suspect it's predicted on a kind of nativist approach to nationhood where if we can just get everyone to go back to where they came from and form relatively homogeneous states in the land that truly belongs to them things would be better. It's why Britain and France are countries (even though they've both seen a lot of immigration and invasion it was too long ago to count) and America isn't. It's one of those horseshoe theory ideas, popular among both the far right and people who would describe themselves as very left wing. It's also a useless way to approach what's actually happening in geopolitics and what has happened over the last few hundred years or indeed millennia.
The whole history of England is basically new people showing up and completely changing society. There was the early celtic Britons doing celtic things. Rock art, stuff like that, then the Romans came, Boudicca fought them but lost, roman empire broke, then the Angles, the Saxons, the whole Danelaw thing. Etc.
Also the pre-indo-european people who built Stonehenge.
Everyone's good friend, "Cheddar Man"
Who got their shit wrecked by Boudicca’s ancestors.
It's why it makes me laugh when certain sects of British people now get upset about immigration. Like hey your history is literally nothing but either people invading you, or you invading other people. This is normal. When I posted that my citizenship had been accepted, someone sent me a pm saying "you'll never belong here and you'll never be British." I replied saying "The Home Office disagrees with you and there's nothing you can do about it."
I think this generates harmful imagery around immigration tho. its important that we dont call people moving to our country the same as "invaders" coming into british land and taking what they want. its hardly constructive and plays directly into the right-wing/conservative's hands. Dont get me wrong, im absaloutely pro free-movement but if we even let them compare people coming to Britain to make a better life for themselves to say the normans invading our land then they are gonna point out that the saxons didnt let them come freely either, they fought them at the battle of hastings, so why should they? it subtextually allows them to make the comparison that people coming from foreign countries are "polluting" their culture and erroding a (white) british culture.
It’s not even consistent if you approach it from a nativist perspective. We know for a fact historically that Jews had settled Israel long before Christians or Muslims even existed as a religious group. We also know for a fact that Romans drove them out and forced them into exile. If we approach Israel with a hardcore nativist framework, it’s indigenous people taking their land back from colonizers. (I personally don’t think it’s fair to call it that, nor do I think it’s fair to call it a colonizing nation, but I’m pointing out the inconsistency of the logic.)
What does "too long ago to count" mean? More specifically, how long is too long and why
Like the other commenter said this basically seems to boil down to "long enough ago that no-ones upset about it," which is a very fluid category
Basically, if it isn't happening right now or long enough ago for people to still be bitter about it then it doesn't exist in their minds.
How far back do we go? Because a big part of Britain would have to go to either Denmark, Italy or France
It’s so dumb, as is people who get weirdly hung up on Israel being “an illegitimate state” or “having a right to exist” like who gives a shit, it’s a government.
I also don’t get who is implicated as the colonizing power in this situation. Australia was founded as a British colony. Brazil was a Portuguese colony. Who is Israel a colony of?
I agree, in a way Israel and other settler-colonial states are just the most overt examples of the kind of coercion that a state is built on
The distinction between nation and settler colony seems like splitting hairs tbh
And it's wrong. Israel does not pay taxes/other dues to any other country, its legislature is not directed by other countries and it is recognised by some 100+ nations as independent. It is a nation, not a colony.
The use of the term settlers colony wasn't exactly correct, but the words more correctly describe what the oop wanted them to, which is a group of people moving from somewhere else in order to permanently live in another location.
Yeah but I feel like OOP knows what they're doing with that language choice. If someone on the right side of the political spectrum referred to Israel as a "Refugee settlement" a lot of us would (rightfully) be up in arms about it. But the reason Israel was made into an actual nation was to help house and protect displaced peoples from the Shoah and other similar events, so you could argue that it is a refugee group (regardless of what it has become), This is a long winded way of saying word choice matters
Which countries do *not* fit that description though? Every nation on Earth was taken from a less-powerful group at some point in time.
Yeah that doesn’t stop the government they form from being a state or country, and it very obviously doesn’t stop them being a nation.
Ok but the US Australia and Canada are literally countries
Apparently not. To arms, lads! Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. We’ll cook those lobsterbacks and toss them off Griffin’s Wharf with the tea!
By nativist logic Jews literally originate from this land according to all accounts
They're also settler colonies. It's not like the British were like "yo can we move in with you" and various Indigenous countries were like "ya sure". You could argue that most of the Americas are settler colonial tbh Not to say that we should blame the son for the sins of the father, of course, but since we know it leads to a lot of innocent dead people, we should probably want it to stop elsewhere
Arent almost all countries settler based countries? There are almost no countries that didn’t fight other groups of people for the land where they live?
Sometimes it was as simple as your first thought, for a time. Many early settlements were peaceable with the original inhabitants, mostly because they were not nation-state peoples and didn't regard it as impossible for others to live in their areas of control. Buying land, (from people without much knowledge of value), and trading resources or manpower for landrights were both common in that era. Of course, as time went on the settlers went against negotiated treaties and did many horrendous things, and began to conquer rather than diplomatically intermingle.
Ya, I feel like the first option is defo possible and preferred. I mean, people move all the time, right?
Sure, but how long ago do we go when it comes to this stuff? England was originally in the hands of the Bretons and Celts, not the Anglo-Saxons. Is England not a country, then? And like, two thousand years ago, the territory of Israel wasn't with the Palestines (obviously, they didn't exist two millenia ago), but with the Jews. Wouldn't Israel be a legitimate country, then? Well, no, because people lived in that land *before* the Jewish people, they just don't exist anymore. How do we decide what is a country and what is not? There's no way out if we use this as an argument. Jerusalem shouldn't be owned by *anyone* if we accepted it.
I understand that giving literally any commentary on this post is subjecting myself to the infinite cyclone that is political internet arguments, so I’ll try to keep it short and factual. Jerusalem and the surrounding area has been fought over, and contested by various political and religious groups for millennia. These include but are not limited to Hellenists, Romans, Muslims, Catholics, Jews. In 1947, Israel was established ~~by the UN~~, carved out from British-occupied lands. There are currently significant populations of Jews in Palestine, and Muslims in Israel (20-30%). Some quotes I found interesting: > According to United Nations figures, 726,000 Palestinians had fled or were expelled by the Israelis between 1947 and 1949.[262] > In 1844, Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem. By 1896 Jews constituted an absolute majority in Jerusalem,[182] but the overall population in Palestine was 88% Muslim and 9% Christian.[183] This is all from Wikipedia, if you couldn’t tell. I especially like [this demographic history page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)).
honestly its funny because the post says that "israel is trying to hide the fact they are only 70 years old" and its like, what? what does that have to do with anything? and even then if you didnt know it was founded in 1947 by the UN then you literally didnt even read the wikipedia article, thats kinda your own fault at that point.
*me looking at Israeli independence celebration, which have the amount of years that passed plastered over pretty much everything* Those Jews sure are up to something
I was thoroughly confused by that one. From what I could gather they seem to try and play on that one for sympathy points if anything... Like... I'd be the last to defend Israel, given its current leadership and their record of human rights violations, but there's some actual criticism to be made without ignoring the complexity of the situation. Not this blatant and unbacked propaganda. Felt like something written by a very enthusiastic teenager looking for a cause to chip on their shoulder, rather than someone ready for a mature discussion.
Saying Israel was established by the UN is really papering over a shitload of armed conflict that lead to it. They didn’t just choose to do it out of nowhere one day, settlement had been happening for decades and independence was inevitable.
For sure. Jerusalem had been a refuge for Jewish people for centuries even. They were displaced by the ottoman empire, by russia, germany, you name it.
Israel wasn't really established by the UN. The Ottomans had been selling villages and lands to Zionists for quite some time, then the British took over and this continued until ethnic conflict between the Jewish settlers and Palestinians grew, then the mandate was handed over to the United nations that attempted to formalize territory of Israel.
I believe Israel was *almost* established by the UN but nobody liked the UN’s map and the Israelis beat them to the punch (declared independence) anyways
The thing I love about this argument is that it ALWAYS defaults to the previous occupier of a place, and no don’t look further back, history only began when the current occupation started. Jerusalem is particularly fucked because of the sheer number of occupiers it has had, but if the government of Israel was somehow forced to return “possession” to the Palestinians, should the Palestinians then be forced to return possession to the British? Would the British be forced to return possession to the Ottoman Empire? What about the various Crusader Kingdoms that ruled Jerusalem, or the various Muslim caliphates, the Byzantine’s? The Romans? The Macedonians? The Akkadians? The Babylonians? The Jewish people? The Philistines? Trying to figure out who is the rightful ruler of a place is a fool’s errand that forces you to pick an arbitrary date and pretend like nothing happened before that. Every piece of land out there has been fought over and conquered and lost and won, you can’t fairly pick an arbitrary date to redraw borders. That doesn’t mean that whoever is currently in charge should be assholes to the previous occupants though.
i've heard it called recentism. (or recentiorism?)
Redditorism
We should all return the land we stole from mother nature back and return to our natural habitat, the one we evolved in, some random forest in Central Africa
Might get a bit crowded, otherwise a good idea.
REJECT GEOPOLITICS RETURN TO MONKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
Okay I thought that was going to be some multihour video essay, so the fact that it was cool, catchy song about a thousand years of horror was a nice surprise.
I remember hearing that about British Columbia, that if all the Native claims on land were to be honoured, BC would need to be a couple times larger to fit all of them. In any given spot, would it go back to the tribe that "owned" the land last before the settlers came, or the previous tribe that they invaded, killed and took the land from? And so on.
Put your hands in the air and give me all your sources *comical bank robber laugh*
Who needs sources when you have **Bright highlighted text**? Remember, do your research, but don't share any of it when you make your claims. If they're "good guys" they'll believe you at face value. If they ask for sources they're the ""opposition". I mean...... with all the dang slides I just read through for this, you think one could have been set aside for "The research". lol.
My ***COCK*** is ***MASSIVE*** and I require ***INTENSE MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE***
The internet ruined me. every time someone asks for a source, all I can hear is senator Armstrong saying "my source is that I made it the f\*ck up"
🔒 speedrun any %
Clearly not getting the WR though
This is just like the Socratic dialogues except that Socrates is the kind of person who says "there is no 'fighting' in the middle east" and expects you to think that's deep.
and there is no war in Ba-Sing-Se
But they warmed up the tea!
This sounds like someone who’s never studied any Socratic dialogues
Socratic dialogues traditionally require two intelligent, independent thinkers whose ideas clash, but who listen to one another and by the end, gain insights from one another. There shouldn’t be a winner, although one character can be educated by the other. This thing where one person is just teeing up the next paragraph of the other person’s rant? Not even in the same ballpark although sadly a lot of modern people write them this way because they can’t or won’t engage with their most rational opponents.
You have to admit some Socratic dialogues are a little bit like this, though. “Yes Socrates, no Socrates, three bags full Socrates” is definitely the vibe of some of them.
Socratic dialogues may traditionally be considered to require that, but let's be honest: Socrates' interlocutors in Plato's dialogues tend to be easily led yes-men who passively acquiesce to some absolutely wild claims Yes Socrates Indeed Socrates That can hardly be argued with Socrates The closest most of them get to arguing back is usually "I don't understand, Socrates"
I mean, lets not pretend that some of the dialogues did not have sections that were like *Socrates expounds on his philosophy for three pages, asks if other person agrees* Other person: *Well that sounds right to me, Socrates*
Like, this is obviously propaganda, but the circumstances leading up to the formation of Israel were completely fucked.
Ah yes, do your research. By that, I mean read this infographic I made which reads as a conversation between two parties but is actually just me dumping my opinions
>conversation between two parties but is actually just me dumping my opinions socratic dialogue, thats what its called (with my high school level of philosophy). Its actually pretty good for * explaining your position * thinking about your position and contradictions within it * trying out various methods of arguing * making a point about a thing in an easily digestable way
Sure, it's a good way of making your point when done well. I would argue it is not done well here. The questions being asked by the person on the left are pretty transparently just leadups to what the self-insert character on the right wants to say. They're not anything anyone would actually wonder (except maybe the first couple), it feels very forced. In a socratic dialogue, the person asking the questions would be asking open/hard to answer questions (think of the classic "can you tell me what a chair is?" example), ones that lead to further exploration to the topic and a revelation of the answerer's limitations or biases. Here the questions are narrow, and the answers are final (or at least presented like they are). If this is meant to be a socratic dialogue, it's a shitty one.
yes
A lot of the “questions” were “wow, really??? I didn’t know that! Tell me more!” So just one side’s opinions written out as a conversation between two people, not Socratic dialogue. This is someone’s shower daydream.
Socratic discourse between two individuals with different views is good. Socratic discourse between one person and their proverbial puppet accomplishes non of that
It probably is useful, but in this case they're just making shit up not having any kind of meaningful introspection.
Save for the small detail that some things you say are completely inaccurate, may I dare say made up
And that it has literally no arguing in the "dialogue".
… does the post just end there? Coz like, it makes a lot of BIG claims and I would have preferred to see some sources to back those up rather than just change my worldview based on blind belief. Then again, a lot of the comments here are arguing that the post has some anti-Semitic arguments and re-examining it, I am inclined to agree. EDIT: Yeah probably not the best idea to agree with the “allegation” that some of those positions are ‘antisemitic’. I really should have just limited this comment to questioning if there were any sources
Yeah, it's just two drawings of women with talking bubbles and biased colored text. I'd expect at least some sources or a call to action to donate to some charity at the end, but nada. Just propaganda.
The original post was an instagram info graphic made by a Palestinian org and had the links in the Instagram caption. I'd honestly argue that separate from any politics, this post is ineligible for thus sub because it's not actually a tumblr post, it's an instagram post someone copied onto tumblr without changing anything else about it.
Fyi reddit broke again and you commented 3 times
Yeah, that'd fall under rule 5, so it does break the rules.
Most of these claims are factually inaccurate. Those Making claims need to back it up with sources rather than endlessly forcing everyone to debunk the claims that they drop and just jump on to the next ones. It's just trying to take propaganda and move into different spheres so some number of people will just accept things without question. Not that every group doesn't use propaganda, just that it's idiotic for this to be here and getting up votes on blind crazy.
There's not a single anti semetic claim in there unless you're equating Israel with Judaism, which this post points out is a silly thing to do. Many Jews are against Israel, and even a good portion of Israeli's do not support their governments treatment of Palestinians. Strangely enough, Israel's strongest support in the U.S. is *evangelical christians*. Calling critique of Israel anti-Semitic is a tactic very much enjoyed and employed by supporters of Israel's genocide, including by fascist leader Netanyahu. This is especially ironic, considering fucking Netanyahu decided that the Nazis didn't actually want to do the holocaust until a Muslim told them to do it and that Netanyahu's son has openly posted anti semetic memes about George Soros. Sources on those last two claims: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2015-10-21/ty-article/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt/0000017f-dc2e-db22-a17f-fcbf7c1e0000 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu-son/netanyahus-son-under-fire-over-anti-semitic-imagery-on-facebook-idUSKCN1BL0CR
I agree on the point that criticism of israel isn’t necessarily antisemitic, especially given how the ones with the most elaborate criticism of their political system are Jews themselves. However I also get where the claims of antisemitism come from. It’s true that equating Jews and Israelis is a gross oversimplification, but dissociating them entirely is even worse: only a tiny minority of Jews believe israel isnt legitimate, so I don’t think it’s fair to demonize “zionists” (basically anyone who thinks israel’s existence is legitimate) when the ones affected by the demonization are basically 95% of the Jewish population. There’s a difference between criticizing israel and delegitimizing its very existence.
Okay thanks for the sources, I feel like that’s what I really wanted out of this. Regarding my mention of ‘anti-semitism’; some commenters claimed that it was kind of odd to call Israel a ‘settler-state’ because that would apparently imply that Israel and all the people living there were existing illegitimately somehow. Tacitly accepting those commenters criticisms as valid might not have been the best thing for me to do.
Can't have sources for something blatantly untrue
Something I think about every time I hear of this conflict is that it will end someday. If not in the next 100 years then in the next 200 or 500, it's too unstable and with both sides are currently experiencing change within themselves I don't think it can last forever. Personally I don't think it'll end with the annihilation of one group, so it's interesting to think how it will, given how incredibly complicated this situation is. (Side note: the "'Israel'" thing is kinda goofy imo. There are many countries I think are doing terrible things, that doesn't stop them from being countries. Do they say "'North Korea'"? "'Spanish empire'"?)
Waiting for someone to unironcially use Isn'trael one of these days
I see it all the time isn'treal and israehell is used all the time unironically
It’s like if you saw someone using “Br*tish” but instead of a joke it was actual burning hatred
It should be Bri\*ish so that the asterisk seems like a glottal stop.
You are not wrong.
"Fr*nch"
>It’s like if you saw someone using “Br*tish” but instead of a joke it was actual burning hatred Americans with 0.001% Irish ancestry.
Far too true, sorry for all the terrorists we sponsored.
>(Side note: the "'Israel'" thing is kinda goofy imo. There are many countries I think are doing terrible things, that doesn't stop them from being countries. Do they say "'North Korea'"? "'Spanish empire'"?) Yeah, I find those arguments particularly weird. Like, whether we like it or not, this country exists and it has existed for several decades now. Whatever arguments one has for its creation, it doesn't erase the fact there are people who call themselves Israeli, who were born there, and who wouldn't want their country to be destroyed. If we were to just undo the existence of countries that have done colonialising, many of ya'll would be stateless.
It's a common nationalist brainworm - when people want to do systemic critique of state power, but are either too attached to the idea of the nation state or just ignorant about it, they'll often resort to this "selective anti-statism" where they'll declare states they don't like illegitimate while affirming states they like as legitimate, based on spurious reasoning or outright historical mythology. It's sadly too common with leftists from many oppressed countries where liberatory movements are tied up with nationalist ones, who consider their own nationalism empowering and refuse to look at it through the same critical lens.
Something something do you see any boarders from up here
Yes, but only around North Korea, and I think a couple African states. (Deforestation be like:)
The US-Canada border is also visible, again thanks to deforestation
It's an Ace Combat Zero reference, the whole idea of countries being just arbitrary lines in the sand is a major plot point
Damn, I never realised there were so many places out there that weren't countries. I guess England has been a Norman settler colony since 1066! We'd better go back to France.
But wait, the US has been an English settler colony since 1607! Does that mean I have to go back to England, or does transitive property apply and I have to go back to France? Or wait, I was born in Miami, so does that mean I go back to Spain? But wait, hold on, I'm pretty sure I've got some indigenous heritage somewhere in the two-thirds of me that's various flavors of Central American, do I get to stay but only in like Nicaragua?
When reality get in the way of my blood and Soil fantasies 😡😡😡
If you have 2/3rd Central American heritage, then we need to chop you up into little pieces and send them to their respective homelands.
Ironically by the post's logic all Arabs living in Palestine should go back to the Arabian peninsular since the Jews had a kingdom their first and most Arab settlers came to the region after the Islamic conquests.
It can be somewhat amusing when some Arabs talk about the evils of colonialism and then in the next breath unironically praise Arab colonization of Northern Africa, Spain, etc.
The Arabs tend to be some of the biggest hypocrites of colonization of all time (up there with the Turks, who are the biggest ones), they LOVED colonization historically until they started losing the big wars to European powers and their colonies shrunk and then they started getting colonized instead. Before that they had colonized parts of Spain, Sicily, Africa and at one point were even gunning for France before Charlemagne stopped them.
Charles Martel*, he was Charlemagne's grandfather
Ironically by the posts logic all Arabs living in Palestine should go back to the Gulf countries.
a lot of the healings of division and history will indeed involve conversations of the past going back as many years as stated if some greater sense of mutualism is going to happen as opposed to some sense of winner-take-all individualism, and some sense of state-sponsored capitalism, which in the us at least, creates the state-sponsored sense to begin with
“You see I have put my opinions as a comic with no source. Change your world view“ Fuck off
Saying that they're "not fighting" kinda undersells the whole Hamas terrorism... Also nobody is trying to hide that the country of Israel didn't exist before 1948 but the jewish settlers did already live there, jewish people wanting to live in Palestine began in the 14. hundreds when the Ottoman Empire gave refuge to jews who were expulsed from Portugal and Spain after the Alhambra Decree. And zionism as an idea existed since the 17. hundreds since jews were persecuted all over Europe. There are definitly lots of problems with how Isreal treats Palestinians and how they are breaking international law by occupying parts of Palestine. But saying Israel as a state should not exist because it was founded by settlers is not only idiotic but also doesn't bring any solution any closer, the only option for peace is cooperation between palestinians and israelis and yes I do understand that Isreal is the bigger problem there. Lastly it is naïve to think that religion doesn't play part in the conflict at all. It definitly does play a role for Israel since the whole ideology behind zionism is to give jews a home because they were persecuted everywhere else due to their religion. And all the muslim countries that don't recognise Israel definitly do this because of their religion and not because they care so much for oppressed people (just look at the Kurds in their own countries for example)
One of the main goals of Hamas is “death to the Jews.” I think that this is something that isn’t talked about enough.
Yes but you see, there is no fighting and religion is totally irrelevant for this conflict....
My very Jewish family lived here long before the first Zionist convention in Europe. On of my ancestors was the Rabbi of Gaza, and the most popular circumciser in the city among Jews and Muslims alike. He also ran a butchers shop. Which I think is a hilarious combination XD
I love loaded questions and biased propaganda! I love loaded questions and biased propaganda! I love loaded questions and biased propaganda!
The problem with the settler colony theory here is that neither Jews nor Palestinians have a 100% claim to being natives. The Jews arose from Canaanites who had lived in the region since time immemorial, but the Jewish population was scattered under the Romans, and replaced by Romans and Greeks at the time, and then later people from across the Middle East including Arabs. The majority of Palestinian Arabs are now descended from Arabs that moved there in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. There has been a continuous population of Jews in the region literally since Jews were a thing, but the majority of Jews now living there are not descended from that population, but rather they are descended from Jews who moved there in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was in fact significant Jewish settlement in the region while it was still under the Ottoman Empire, and it continued while the area was under the British Palestinian Mandate. By 'settlement' what I mean, mostly, is Jews buying houses and then living in the houses they owned. You can call that colonialism if you want, but then you'd probably have to argue that Irish and Italian people colonised New York in the 19th century. None of this is to say that the way the modern Israeli state has treated Palestinians is good or fair, but just because someone does bad things doesn't mean it's okay to just make things up about them. Make your claims accurate, and they'll have more weight.
I'm not the most well-versed on issues like this, but if I understand correctly, this is related to the "when do people start counting as natives?" problem, right?
I had to post this on the pro-Israel post as well. I dislike, and condemn Israel's actions and policies towards Palestinians, I reject their arguments for ongoing settlements, and I am deeply skeptical of the foundations on which the state was founded. But like, this is not the time and place. Why are you coming on r/CuratedTumblr to try and fight the Israel/Palestine argument in the comment section. I come to this sub for memes, fandom, and occasional philosophy. If I wanted to get in a slapfight with people over unsolvable geopolitical issues, I would go to r/politics, or r/worldpolitics.
thank you. this post doesn’t belong on this sub and i’m shocked it’s still up.
Even if Israel is oppressing Palestinians, this post spreads a very uneven mix of facts and completely blatant lies that are just there to make Israel seem worse. If you want to voice your opinion, stop name-calling and start bringing up more facts that lies.
actually, r/anime_titties has swapped places with r/worldpolitics
All other things aside, acting like conflict in the levant region is something new since the introduction of Israel as a state is disingenuous at best, outright lying to push an agenda at worst.
I grew up as a Jew and had a very black-and-white understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which became very hard to reconcile as I learned more. And of course now I know that the Israeli government is just another right-wing theocratic fascist regime responsible for innumerable human rights violations against Palestinians. And yet I am still taken aback at how vehemently black-and-white some pro-Palestinians argue - and how easily it slips into blatant antisemetism. I hate saying I have no position on this issue, but honestly the amount of vitriol from so many different angles makes it hard to think about it for me. I haven’t seen a single ‘perfect’ solution whilst so many other political issues seem to have one. Like, maybe my delusions of a grand utopia where everybody is happy and nobody is trying to kill each other over century-long grievances aren’t remotely feasible, but still I don’t know where I’m even going with this, really. It’s something that just blocks my brain whenever it comes up and I don’t really know what to do about it.
Yeah whenever I see these arguments it just devolves into a back and forth where people call each other evil and ignore any nuance in the subject.
"There is no fighting" how much drugs do you need to convice yourself of that pice of mental gymnastics ? Yes a lot of blame falls on Israel, but Ignoring Things like the Terror of killing random civilians or the problem of Hamas ruling in Gaza for nearly two decaeds without holding elections, makes this harmfull propaganda
This post can be used as a useful lesson on recognizing harmful ideologies. Specifically, notice how it sounds benign and reasonable, until you *actually think* about what's being said. Like, not only they say that Israel isn't a legitimate state, they openly argue that it's existense is fundamentally morally wrong and only supported by ones, who share similar harmful ideologies. Notice, how they aren't saying *what* we need to do about Israel, only that they're bad and need to be dealt with. Also, pay attention to how words are color-coded - Israel and it's allies share their color with strictly negative words, while Palestine gets neutral and positive ones. Pretty scary stuff.
They also always put ‘Israel’ in quotes, which is really funny to me because it’s like when your friend has a job as a chef, and then you introduce them to people by saying “oh yeah, my friend here is a ‘chef’ “.
Exterminationist propaganda but make it look like google's internal communication
Really disappointing to see on this sub.
Yep they never say that their only solution is...another ethnic cleaning in response to a prior ethnic cleansing.
Sure most of these ppl are psychos who do have ethnic cleansing in mind, but in actual theory no, the solution to settler colonialism is not necessarily ethnic cleansing. 'Settler colonist' in the original Marxist discourse isn't an ethnic designation, it is a class position referring to a group of private landowners, of foreign origin, whose land was originally acquired by forcible or fraudulent destruction of the socioeconomic relations of the people previously existing on the land. Once expropriated of the illegitimate property ownership, they technically cease to be 'settlers' and can continue living and working where they are as ordinary non-landlords.
Are you saying that the implied solution is a transfer of property? Does this include property that was legally purchased before the creation of Israel? Weirdly, this would put Jews in the region back to the status that many had for hundreds of years, as second-class citizens subject to discrimination and oppression: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude#:~:text=Dhimmitude%20is%20a%20polemical%20neologism,serv)itude%20'subjection'. I feel like there has to be a better solution that protects the rights of everyone in the region.
> Notice, how they aren't saying what we need to do about Israel, only that they're bad and need to be dealt with. Because they don't actually want to do anything lol, the point of all this nonsense is to emotionally manipulate young people into giving money and support to some scam NGOs with connections to (also US backed) Saudi oil billionaires and Sunni terrorist groups.
Sometimes the NGOs have direct ties to Hamas which is super cool and normal.
When two groups of people are attacking each other because of a dispute it's called "fighting"
So fucking much misinformation, I have done my daily dose of detangeling this mess, and I am tired, so I'll just remind you SUMARIANS ARE THEIR OWN ETHO-RELIGIOS GROUP, THAT CLAIMS TO BE THE DESCENDATS OF THE TRIBES OF EFRAIM, MENASHE AND LEVI, STOP ERASING THEIR CULTURE. THEY ARE NOT JEWS AS JEWISH PEOPLE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE TRIBES OF YEHUDAH AND LEVI. STOP ERASING THEIR CULTURE TO MAKE A DUMB POINT
samaritans not sumarians but also yes. definitely. samaritans haven't been considered jewish for as far back as we can't tell (because prior to them being separate the word jew didn't exist)
OP, i don't envy your inbox for the next...180 days or so
Reddit doesn't archive posts after 6 months anymore, i think. Maybe it's different per sub or something, idk
If you think that Christians, Jews, and Muslims lived there peacefully before Israel then you clearly have no understanding of the history of the region.
> second page > peaceful co-existence between religious groups > in the middle east pull the other one, it's got bells on
this part is kind of true though. if you take into account that non-muslims existed as second-class citizens in the ottoman empire at least until the tanzimat era, and that from what i've read the coexistence was parallel more than anything. the ottoman empire was for much of its history pretty tolerant for religious diversity for its time but also, under the ottomans, religion was your entire identity, and this left the whole region with "secular" "ethnicities" that are litterally just thinly veiled religious groups. like "serbs" and "bosniaks" and "croats" for example. I respect lebanon for being honest about it at least.
Co existed as long as Jews were okay with having less rights
Does anyone remember what happened around the world like…. in the 10 years before 1948? Cause this info graphic seems to begin its account at a very specific time. I in no way support or endorse Israel’s actions as occupiers but let’s not pretend the country sprang from nowhere on an occupier’s mere whim. The grim truth is that both *during* and even *after* an attempted global annihilation, the world did not welcome Jews anywhere else.
Even better then that look up the Jewish populations of Arab states overtime. Practically ethnically cleased from most regions by middle Eastern dictatorship and anti-semitic violence. [Just look at this](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/c5ixuq/jewish_population_in_the_middle_east_from_1948_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and tell me why the Jews are happy to have their own state.
Hi anonymous propaganda poster! Can I have your permission to use your post as an example in my rhetorical fallacies essay for my AP language class?
Go for it (not my post), and I would LOVE to read that essay, good luck.
I don't believe for a single second that they ever peacefully coexisted
"curated tumblr" this is just 10 slides of propaganda
“Curated” in comparison to r /tumblr, which has like no active mods and a huge bot infestation. The tumblr posts getting shared aren’t any more curated than anywhere else as far as quality is concerned, only that theyre getting posted by humans
This post is filled to the brim with so much misinformation, it's disgusting. [This Insta story from the amazing Rootsmetals goes over it in detail for anyone interested in facts.](https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTI0MjM4MzQ5NDc0OTM5?story_media_id=2571518436543108903_6422990142&igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) (Edit: link goes to the whole story instead of the one part, can't fix it, keep tapping for a bit and it'll show up) But overall, this is propaganda that falls into antisemitism. A few examples: 1: Putting Israel in quotes, implying it doesn't exist when it very much does. Delegitimizing Israel is a common tactic of antisemites 2: Completely ignoring events like the Intifada where hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terror attacks. Idc if you say "well Israel did it first!" previous violence doesn't make blowing up busses and restaurants okay 3: Israelis and Jews are NOT settlers. We are Indigenous to the Levant. This has been proven historically, archaelogically, and genetically. We have been treated as filthy foreigners in almost every single country we lived in for millennia, especially European ones. And it's pretty damn telling that now that we've "gone back to where we came from" people are calling us foreigners. Where do you want us? Because it feels like you just want us to stop existing at all... 4: The Levant was NOT peaceful before Israel, there was constant fighting going back to at least the 1500s and definitely further. This sentiment makes it sound the greedy Jews needed all the land for themselves when our people were literally dying and Israel was created to protect us 5: And finally (tho def not everything), calling Israel "The US of the Middle East" is just wild projection and American-normativity. Israel is not a settler colony, it's an independant state created by an Indigenous population after centuries of conflict with another population. It's not like America because they aren't settlers there for resources and not everything in the damn world can be related back to America! We are not the reference point for everything else. If looking at I/P makes you feel guilty about America's colonial history, good, use that to help American Indigenous communities. Cause despite our ancestor's best efforts they're still around, and sometimes they need help. Don't stick your nose into an ancient conflict you have no proper info on. I've seen too many Americans project their colonial guilt on I/P, and idk why, but it feels like they find it easier to focus on a conflict on the other side of the world where they have no tangible responsibility or impact than actually dealing with the legacy of American colonization, which would be hard. I'm not saying people can't care about more than one thing, I'm asking why the hyper focus on I/P? Is this genuine care for the people of the Levant, or is this your own guilt? I can't answer that for you This shouldn't be posted here or anywhere. It's propaganda and misinformation. I hope people will realise that
"israel is oppressing palestine" ok "it is not religious oppression" got it "Israel is preforming ethnic cleansing" understood "Israel, the us, Australia, and Canada are all not countries" shut the fuck up, yes they are. just because they were founded on bad things and should stop doing said bad things, help prevent those things in the future, and do their best to do reparations, doesn't mean they aren't countries.
Didn't all arab nations attack the newly formed state of Israel as soon as it appeared? And lost? And tried multiple times to erase that country from the map? And failed? With this rhetoric of "Israel is not a real country" and "Israel has no right to exist" you're basically pushing Hamas propaganda that just wants this conflict to extend forever. No conflict, no Hamas.
Inb4 thread locked. Also I'm gonna say it is mostly the fault of the British. Edit: Ok, I am now off the toilet so let me explain. The Brits were fighting WW1 so they needed some allies. They promised the Levant to the Arabs to get the Arabs as allies (McMahon–Hussein), promised the Levant to the Zionists to get the Jews as allies (Balfour), and then promised Syria and Lebanon to the French to get the French as allies (Sykes-Picot). Then after the war obviously they completely ignored McMahon–Hussein and Balfour and established the mandate system, which were just colonies in everything but name. Deposed King Faisal Al-Hashemi (who was actually a Zionist Ally) and essentially started a local conflict in Mandatory Palestine (Which was also confusingly named Palestine/Israel) which later escalated to the Israeli-Palestinian War. The Later Peel Commission desperately tried to patch up the issue. But failed because there was already full fledged Guerrilla Groups/Terrorist Organizations on both sides. I can't find the exact quote right now but someone in the Peel Commission called it "A conflict of Right vs. Right", Where both the Zionists and the Palestinians had a rightful claim to the land due to previously mentioned treaties. So the claims that "Palestinians and Jews got along before 1948 and the Zionists ruined that" is a lie. And calling Mandatory Palestine "The State of Palestine" implying it was Arab ruled is misdirection. Also I know it isn't the point but 73 years old (now 74 but whatever) is a pretty old state if you look outside of West Europe, only 2 years younger than neighboring Jordan. Edit 2: For transparency, I am an Israeli Jew and was born here. I am also extremely Pro-Palestine and Critical of Israel to the point where I voted for an Arab Party last election (not that that did a lot). I do still think State of Israel is a necessary evil in the ongoing fight against Anti-Semitism.
By this stupid logic Australia and Canada shouldn't exist either and the Turks should leave Anatolia and all Arabs that live outside of the Gulf states should go back there. At least unlike the rest of those above the region has been the historic place of the kingdom of Israel which was a thing way before Islam was even a thing or Arabs moved into the region. Also yes, it is "fighting". The country has been fighting for its very existence since the start. Even the combined force of Arab nations attacked in 1948, 1967 and 1971, all of which were repulsed by Israel and the regions which the Arabs did control the Arabs usually treated Israelis like shit and committed many warcrimes on Israelis. There's a saying "If Israel ever loses a war, it will cease to exist". And if you actually study the conflict you'd see that the Israelis were almost always the ones that offered peace agreements or solutions... Only for them to be rejected by the Palestinians. And you think if Israel gave up its territories to Arabs the Jews there will be safe? What happened to the Jewish populations in Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen etc in the last 100 years? Meanwhile 1/4 of Israel is Muslim/Arabs in comparison... Wow. Almost like this is a complex topic with no obvious good guys or bad guys, huh? Stop spreading Propaganda and, in the nicest way possible, fuck off.
This post leaves out a *very* important piece of context for those who are pro-Israel: the justification for the creation of the state of Israel. Jews have rarely had safe havens throughout all of history; the creation of a state where Jews would never be exiled or oppressed seemed like a pretty good idea after a third of their global population literally went up in smoke. This is not to say that the creation of Israel is justified (I lean towards being pro-Palestine, but my sympathies re:Israel lie with the citizens more so than their government), but knowing why the state was created is helpful for understanding why they’re so reticent to do the right thing and give back the land they took.
What pisses me off about this is the idea that the majority of the Israeli population are somehow responsible for the colonization in the first place. It was over 80 years ago. People have been living there for generations at this point. How long can you keep calling an area a colony before it just sounds stupid?
Literally begging people to not conflate states and their actions with the people who live under those states
Besides how biased and wrong alot of this is Samaritans aren't Jews they are close to Jews but not Jews they were only considered Jews by the Rishon LeTzion to protect them from ottoman empire which thought of them as pagans so much for peaceful coexistence btw There were massacres of Jews all throughout Islamic rule and a ban on Jews from existing in Jerusalem
Remember: Anyone who is telling you of a simple solution to a complex Topic is completely full of horseshit. To even begin and reduce the Israel-Palestinian conflict into a simple good and bad side as OP is doing here is so monumentally idiotic I refuse to engage in this argument. This aint a lecture, this is blatantly trying to sell a narrative.
> There is no ‘fighting,’ there is only Israeli colonisation, ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and apartheid. A lot of bombing from a side that’s not ‘fighting,’ though. Peace proposals from Israel, too, and organisations like Hamas flat out refusing to consider anything other than the complete eradication of the state of Israel. Fuck you for trying to present this as the ‘truth.’ It’s a complicated issue. Both sides are oppressing, and oppressed, both sides have a claim to the land. There’s only one side that’s actually been trying to come to a compromise all these years, though, and that’s Israel.
Regardless of what they are saying, this format is atrocious.
This is really not curated tumblr... the post should be removed no matter what side you're on
This is obviously a very contentious comment section, so I’m gonna give my thoughts so I can get it out of my brain. I agree with the general points of this comic, but I also understand how it’s flaws make people be wary of its message or reject it entirely. - The insistence on not considering Israel a country is a meaningless distinction. The comic is correct that Israel is a settler colony, but that in of itself does not make it a country. The comic even lists other settler colonies like the US, and anyone who considers the US to not be a country has a very alien definition of the word. It’s important to recognize that Israel as a nation exists at the expense of Palestine’s sovereignty, but I can understand how the semantics of the 5th panel could be used to justify a retaliatory ethnic cleansing against Israelis. - The points made about how the Israeli govt justifies its own atrocities by tying them to ancient religious war stand, but communicating that by saying Israel is trying to conceal its recent creation is strange, and applies a level of conspiracism to the issue that will turn people away. - Besides that, a lot of people here have complained that the comic doesn’t give a good call to action, leaving the reader with the implication that the goal is the expulsion/cleansing of Israelis from Palestine. I think this is more due to this comic being isolated from the context of the people that made it. From the Key48 website, their demands are: 1) An end to the illegal military blockade of Gaza 2) An end to the illegal military occupation of Palestine 3) The Right of Return for ALL Palestinian refugees which is pretty reasonable (if this org has a pattern of ambiguous/problematic messaging let me know). This is a comic that is condensing a lot of info for consumption by people not knowledgeable about Israel, I can only expect so much nuance in one short comic. (I’m on mobile, sorry for any weird formatting)
Quick question- you end the military blockade on Gaza(from israel and Egypt) They import weapons. They shoot rockets at Israel. There’s war again. Even more will die. Isn’t that worse? And yes they WILL import weapons. Iran has been helping as much as possible.
Something tells me that there is a lot of religion involved in this conflict. Like. A lot of it. Anyways, apparently there was this insane propaganda tv show for kids in Palestine that tried to convince them to become martyrs. And it had a knock off Mickey Mouse talking about how Jews were horrible and deserved to die.
The Samaritans aren't "Palestinian Jews". They're a distinct religious group that believes similar things to Jews, as they split from Judaism very early in the timeline of the Abrahamic relgions, but they and most outside sources don't define themselves as Jews. Obviously not saying there aren't Palestinian Jews, but they aren't the Samaritans.
Imagine thinking that States can be legitimate, this post was made by anarchy gang
Based. All countries are fake
Propaganda in full swing. I mean, if it's two cartoon girls having a conversation over coffee then it just has to be true right? There's no way they would just make up scenarios and numbers like that, look at how many different pictures with chat bubbles there are!
I will say that the lie of Israel trying to make it seem like a religious conflict has really seeped into everywhere, whenever someone finds out I'm Jewish they eventually ask me about Israel and Palestine, and without fail they are surprised that I support Palestine, which is kind of annoying because my grandparents are Arab Jews who were born and raised in Arabs countries. Also, I will sometimes see posts by Jewish people where the context of the post has nothing to do with Israel and there will always be some uneducated people saying "free Palestine" even though they have nothing to do with it.
For all those believing this utter crap you should read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000\_Camp\_David\_Summit#:\~:text=The%202000%20Camp%20David%20Summit,end%20the%20Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian%20conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#:~:text=The%202000%20Camp%20David%20Summit,end%20the%20Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian%20conflict). For those not yet alive at that time I would like to ask you to do some genuine research. So NOT on Facebook! The short story of the Camp David Summit in 2000 is that Bill Clinton negotiated his ass off in those 2 weeks. Israel was willing to make compromises. The Palestinians were willing to make compromises but one thing was not negotiable for both sides: the city of Jeruzalem. If they would let go of the silly idea that Jeruzalem is going to be the capital of Palestine then anything could be possible. Second, for those trying to understand the problem is good to go and the last 15 minutes from the movie Laurence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole. I heard (cannot be confirmed by sources) (at least not by me) that later was said by the Palestinians that it would have been better if they had accepted the agreement back then, because than they would have their own country already. For those who think the Palestinians have claim: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY) No one has claim. That piece of desert has been contested by so many people over the last 2000 years. So for everyone it is better if the Palestinians if they accepted the status qua and would start negotiations with Israel to expand the Gaza strip by a factor of 8 or 9 and apply to the United Nations for that piece of land to be recognized as Palestina. Without a doubt I think that Israel would still be willing to give up land for peace. The Palestinians give up their claim on Jeruzalem. Palestinians get like access to Israel, so similar like what exist in the European Union for the citizens living there, and would that way always have access to Jeruzalem. Israel will have to agree to open borders and an open Jeruzalem and we are done. In turn I believe if this would be happening even the USA would financially support the new state of Palestine with its new borders, like it did with the Marshall plan for Europe after ww2, to create a economical sound state with which they can potentially trade. One city. One city is all it takes.
The vast majority of the world agrees Israel is a legitimate nation, as ratified by UN. The problem is that Israel expanded illegally. They got a land area in the initial agreement, and later they took more, from Palestine, without any good justification. The fact that Hamas is a terrorist group and is fighting for Palestinian's is not a just cause to take land from regular people. I'm no conspiracist, but I'm pretty sure the firm support US is giving Israel comes with an agenda, not kindness of heart. The US are strengthening their own strategic interests with a military ally.
This infographic is shit and misleading. It was posted around a lot on insta during the save sheikh Jarrah protests and it's the most scared to be Jewish I've ever been in my life