• JoeHill@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In other words, “Death to Israel!!!”

      Edit: in before “No no. You have to understand that ‘Death to Israel’ is an aspirational call for peace”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So we’re Indians wanting to get rid of the British Raj all genocidal maniacs?

        • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not a great comparison as Brits have Britain to live in already (I’m British, if it matters).

          If you displaced the Brits from India back in the day, they could return to Britain.

          If you displace the Jews from Israel now, where could they go?

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            All the Jewish people in Israel came from other countries though and a very large percentage of the population of Israel maintain dual citizenship. So they can return to the country they are a citizen of, or return to the country there parents or grandparents came from.

            Yes, they weren’t being treated well in those countries (to put it lightly) but that doesn’t make them entitled to someone else’s land. He’ll the reason most western countries supported creating Israel is because they wanted their Jewish populations to leave.

            It would be like unilaterally decided were going to take part of balkans and give it to the Romani people so they have their own country. They are persecuted and don’t have a country of their own, so why not?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The vast majority of Israel’s Jewish population is native-born at this point. They have no connection to those countries. They likely don’t even speak the language. I do not see how that would be a good solution.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is no easy solution to this where everyone gets what they want and is happy.

                There is only least bad solutions.

                And and I think dismantling Israel is that least bad solution. They can go to other countries or become part of Palestine. But either way as the colonising population they have the moral duty to bare that burden.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What if the countries their ancestors came from don’t want to take them and the Palestinians don’t want them there either? I don’t think it is a solution.

                  My solution would be put the whole area under UN control until something equitable can be worked out that will make people at least satisfied. They won’t be happy, but they could be satisfied if they were forced to have negotiations.

          • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a lot of places where Jews can already live safely

            The hilarious part is upper middle class Jews from like New York running over to colonize Palestine to be “safer”

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You understand you’re literally just arguing semantics right?

            And even then its still a good comparison because there was never a country of India until after the British took over either.

          • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            well yes but actually no. Arab states in palestine, yes. However they’ve been under Turkish occupation for most of their modern history

              • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                ah yes because being under the rule of a foreign empire doesn’t imply occupation by said empire… I think you have a lot to teach to the entire english speaking world

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Occupation requires you to own land prior to that Empire, and no Palestinian has ever laid claim to their own territory without that territory belonging to someone else, throughout all of human history.

                  Before the Ottoman Empire was a mix of caliphates and crusaders. Before that was the Roman empire. Before that was the Persian Empire, before that was the Egyptian Empire and before that it was Israel/Judah.

                  I skipped a couple of minor empires, but it’s pretty much a chain of “someone’s” forever, and that “someone” has never referred to themselves as Palestinian prior to the mid-20th century.

                  • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The arabs caliphate were arabs and claiming the land was theirs and calling it Palestine. The question you should ask is : why were there no massive independentist fight under the Ottoman rule ?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think Jews and Palestinians both need a place where they can feel safe from anyone trying to kill them off since it’s something one group has already been through and the other group is going through right now and both are at risk from it happening again in the future. This means they either need to give one group a new homeland, which, at this point, would be ethnic cleansing of either group, or find a way for them to share one homeland safely. No ethnic cleansing should be allowed and future ethnic cleansing should be prevented to the best of the international community’s ability.

          Personally, I would prefer UN administration of the region until something equitable for both Jews and Palestinians can be resolved.

        • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes and what guarantees for the Israeli. Various palestinian factions have been commiting massacre and pogroms since the 1930’s where they had a german-sized nazi movement.

          The government is what guaranty people’s right and safety.

          This is exactly why the Palestinian state exist and Arafat refused to integrate into Israel

      • guriinii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a leap. It means an end to the illegal occupation, apartheid, and Zionism. Give the land back to the indigenous people. I’ve seen talks of the establishment of a secular state where all can be free, which is the ideal here. Not the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Give the land back to the indigenous people.

          That’s easy to say, but means nothing until you define who the “indigenous people” are, which is an extremely fraught topic in this particular case.

          • guriinii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            People indigenous to the land. It’s fairly simple. White European ashkanazi Jews whose descendants lived there 2000 years ago aren’t indigenous. They’re white, white people aren’t from the Middle East, Arabs are.

        • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Give the land back to the indigenous people

          Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. That’s a statement both sides agree on, but not in the way you think

        • Tavarin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Jews are the indigenous people, Muslim Arabs came later.

          • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The indigenous people are the (presumably) mesopotamian nomads that eventually became sedentary farmers in the early stages of the Bronze Age.

            • Tavarin
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are there any of them trying to lay claim to it? And I was making the point that saying one side is fighting for its indigenous land is true for both sides in the conflict, and is pointless to say as a result.

              • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are there any of them trying to lay claim to it?

                Yes. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians probably descended from them. Their common ancestor was first.

                • Tavarin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well would you look at that, the Jews are indigenous to the land.

        • JoeHill@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right…

          You just called for the destruction of Israel. You just said Tel Aviv, which was built on land purchased from the Bedouin, is on occupied land.

          You just said that Be’eri is on occupied land. Since it’s on occupied land, then Hamas’ murder of 100 people is justified in your mind.

          Palestinian policemen massacred non-Zionist Jews in Hebron in 1929. The government of Gaza massacred left-wing Jews in Be’eri in 2023. And you sit here and talk binational bullshit fantasies.

          From the river to the sea, you want it to be Judenfrei.

            • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If anyone actually bring the Palestinian government to the Hague the country disappear. Without even talking about the two whole ass civil wars they triggered but they also gave a province to international terrorists.

              This is btw one of the main reaso I think big countries like France only recognizing Palestine as a “delegation” is actually the best : they recognize their authority and legitimacy but don’t have to treat them like they have the same responsibilities and accountability as a state. If France treated Palestine as a full blown state the situation would be dangerously close to having the Foreign Legion marching in Jericho