“The difference” is that Israel’s formal position is not the elimination of Palestinian Arabs. Zionism as we know it primary exists because of widespread genocidal attitudes towards Jews.
I’m not defending Israel’s heavy hand here by any means. I am just tired of everyone on the internet feeling free to just ignore all the historical context wrapped up in this 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.
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.
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.
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.
“The difference” is that Israel’s formal position is not the elimination of Palestinian Arabs. Zionism as we know it primary exists because of widespread genocidal attitudes towards Jews.
I’m not defending Israel’s heavy hand here by any means. I am just tired of everyone on the internet feeling free to just ignore all the historical context wrapped up in this conflict.
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.
https://digitalprojects.palestine-studies.org/resources/special-focus/zionist-settler-colonialism
It’s worth noting that the ones who rejected that mandatory Palestine map were the Arab Palestinians.
If it’s worth noting, you should cite sources.
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.
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.
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.
Flaky… understood.
Sure, it’s not what they say they are doing, but genocide is literally what they are doing.
Why does it matter what they say when it does not mirror their actions?
Don’t forget a song recently praising genocide hit #1 on the charts