• CaractacusPottsOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Israel’s formal position is not the elimination of Palestinian Arabs.

    The UN has found credible evidence to the contrary

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/7/un-report-finds-israeli-occupation-root-cause-of-conflict

    Zionism was from the very beginning a settler colonial enterprise. Yes genocidal attitudes towards Jews may have been used to promote the idea, but the end goal was always possession of land.

    In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and convinced that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.

    https://digitalprojects.palestine-studies.org/resources/special-focus/zionist-settler-colonialism

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s worth noting that the ones who rejected that mandatory Palestine map were the Arab Palestinians.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ve come to hate people asking for sources in the interwebs. If you ask me for the sources for Gleiwitz or Mainila, or anything else, it’ll be as hard to find as on this subject.

          People who are ready to invest their time in writing a short comment may not be ready to do that for finding sources for you. And that’s valid and doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument or something. Arguments can’t be won or lost anyway.

          And people who are really ready to find sources are mostly not the good ones, it’s, say, genocide denialist Turks\Azeris and the sources they link are trash or don’t support what they say.

          So you are making it seem that the other side has no sources when they may have and not giving sources seem worse than giving garbage sources.

          And on your question - the Wikipedia article has some sources which seem fine.

          • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            For me, it’s more kind of shocking that so many people feel like they can confidently comment on these events without basic knowledge of the very well known history surrounding them. Someone who has such large gaps in their knowledge probably isn’t worth debating further, and simply highlighting those gaps should provide pretty good view to anyone else reading this conversation about what level they are operating on.

            This is especially notable when you see accounts which literally do nothing besides comment on this conflict.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think you are putting unneeded conditions where there should be only one - whether you want to participate for your amusement.

              Arguments do not expose truth. Arguments are not won or lost. If the arguing sides are trying to impose some position, to win some fight, then the argument is garbage.

              Nothing shocking here either. They do what they want with their time.