I guess Israel were too busy genociding Palestinians to make it to the meeting.
Maybe Hamas shouldn’t start shit.
except the israelis were the ones starting shit 7 decades ago
hamas is just a convenient excuse for genocide
Points to the October attack on Israel.
Total war on Gaza looks pretty damn justified to me.
Ah yes. History began on October 7th. There is no context to anything involving anything prior to October 7th 2023.
Although even looking at just October 7th and what has happened since... kind of elucidates what the fuck has been going on.
Hell even 7 decades ago Einstein was looking at what was just starting and went "Well this is some Nazi shit."
200 dead from a terrorist attack committed by terrorists justifies 20,000 civilian deaths by carpet bombing and levelling entire communities?
Total war is not just an abstract political move, it's an immense suffering and deaths of dozens of thousands of civilians.
It's easy to play political mastermind from the safety and comfort of your home. People who witnessed war know full well what it entails, and they know it's not just numbers and maps and politics.
It's blood. It's broken families. It's famine. It's the destruction of everything they valued. It's PTSD for just about everyone who managed to survive.
Think twice before saying things like that. Please.
I’m simply describing the situation in Gaza for what it is, Total War. I’m not advocating for it, but I recognize that Israel is going to respond to October 7 as they see fit.
Would you rather I described it in a way that didn’t hurt your fragile sensibilities?
You claim "total war is justified". I say it's pretty much never justified.
What kind of fragile sensibilities are you talking about here?
The fact that I described the current situation as “Total war”. Seems to offend you. Should I say both sides are making a “fluffy”, would that make you feel better?
Nope, you ignored my last message.
You said, and I cite you here: "Total war on Gaza looks pretty damn justified to me."
This is total war, yes, wholeheartedly agreed here. It is not justified in any way, shape or form.
Sorry it’s been a day between posting and responding. On top of that there are a lot of tools in this thread and it hard to keep every conversation straight.
But in short Israel is a sovereign nation whose citizens were just attacked in a large scale well coordinated manner. They have every right to go after the perpetrators. If total war and the leveling of Gaza is what it takes and they have the ability to execute it then so be it.
And that's where I and most other Palestine supporters strongly disagree.
For starters, being attacked doesn't allow the country to breach the international treaties on the law of war. Civilian massacre and "leveling of Gaza" is a grave breach of the treaties and a war crime, it should not be supported and Netanyahu and Israeli military officials are waited for in Hague, where they need to give quite an explanation for what they've done (and certainly get arrested).
Second, the attack on Israel was carried out by a small militant group, to which the majority of Palestinians barely holds any relation. About 200 people were taken as PoW. Israel's response on that was unproportionate, with dozens of thousands of civilians killed, misplaced, and taken as PoWs. Regular people, people who did not attack Israel, are now finding themselves among one of the most cruel and lawless wars of the 21st century, with nobody able to protect them.
People of Palestine did not deserve this. They are civilians, and under the law of war, they should never be touched. There is a reason international community recognizes those rules, and Israel just decided to not give a damn. Israel is currently carrying more unnecessary, malicious violence and extermination than any other country on Earth.
As I said, under any circumstances, total war is not justified, and the international community has long formalized that. This conflict has shown how many people lack basic humanity to be able to universally recognize basic human rights long written in international laws and conventions.
Sucks to be on the wrong side of history. No one wants to loose their communities, property or livelihoods. However the Jews had a claim to the area going back thousands of years and they needed to go somewhere.
There were many Jewish communities across the Middle East prior to the 1940s that no longer exist anymore either. I wonder who pushed them out… do they get the same sentiment from your bleeding heart?
There have been two state solutions on the table with Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital on the table multiple times. Palestinians turned every one of them down. Instead of building their own state they will be further pushed out of Gaza. Where they go is anyones guess no one wants them, especially other Muslim states.
Who the fuck cares about a claim from thousands of years ago? Can you even count how many Greta’s you would have to add to even reach your goat herder of a grandpa back when Jesus was still around?
This is just trying to revive a dead dream and we all get to suffer for it.
That's what drives me crazy about dated religions and ultra nationalism. We could have flying cars if people stopped with this shit
I don't really get the logic: is an older claim or a more recent claim to land "more valid"?
A recent claim is better. I care about the partitioning of the lands with the Sykes Picot Agreement, I don’t care about some inbred king of sandland did back in 147AD.
Wouldn't this mean that the millions of Israelis born in Israel over the last 80 years probably have the strongest claim to the land (at least the internationally recognized 1967 borders anyway)? 1916 is not particularly recent
Yeah i think a couple of Neanderthals descendants have claims that go back tens of thousands of years. do they get the same sentiment from your bleeding hearth?
Also my cousin has Etruscan blood, should he kick Italians out of Italy as he has a claim that goes back TWO thousands years and he's got nowhere to go since his wife kicked him out?
bleeding hearth
Maybe check your fireplace if it's bleeding.
Does your friend have superior weaponry and the backing of major world powers? If no then he should probably live in peace in modern unified Italy.
So those claims you talked about are just bullshit and it's just about i want the land and am stronger so I just grab it. Fair enough you could have made it clear sooner so we wouldn't all waste time pretending. While we are at it putin is also good for you isn't it?
No Putin and Hamas are cut from the same cloth. Both are aggressors.
I fully support Ukraine and hope we ship them all the weapons they ask for. I hope they regain all the territory they lost and wipe Russia from the map. But at the same time if they are not able to secure the lands they lost I hope they have sense enough to know when to compromise.
The Palestinian leadership has displayed no such common sense as of yet.
Now imagine a civil war begins in the US. Both sides get too weak. And then the Cherokee, Apache, ... receive all the military help they need from, let's say, China. And they start killing "every non Nation person" because "that was our land". Would you say that's right and that all and every white/black/Asian person deserve it?
I’ll take “Imaginary things that will never happen” for $500 Alex.
That's funny that you think you're on the right side of history for supporting a genocidal ethnostate.
I guess we’ll see in 50 years which nation still exists.
Looks at all of Palestine’s immediate neighbors in the Middle East who won’t even lift a finger to even admit refugees.
I think I know where I’ll put my money.
Might makes right, huh? I already know Palestine will be completely ethnically cleansed and then israel will move onto taking parts of Syria and other countries in their goal of lebensraum. That doesn't mean it's morally right.
You either didn’t read my comment from earlier in the thread or you enjoy trying to frame an argument.
I’ll post it below for you to read and educate yourself.
There have been two state solutions on the table with Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital on the table multiple times. Palestinians turned every one of them down. Instead of building their own state they will be further pushed out of Gaza. Where they go is anyones guess no one wants them, especially other Muslim states.
TLDR: Palestine will be wiped of the map unless they choose a different path. Israel isn’t going anywhere.
The negotiations were argued in bad faith. Israel would put forth ridiculous demands and then lay the blame on Palestine for rejecting them. Why do you think Palestinians are being pushed out of Gaza and have been continually and constantly pushed out for decades? There was never a sincere effort for a two-state solution.
Nobody wants to take on many refugees all at once, it's very difficult to manage. Why do you think Britain "volunteered" Palestinian land to relocate Jews out of Europe? It wasn't out of the goodness of their heart.
No response to this of course. Don't even expect one. They are currently with their fingers in their ears yelling "LALALLALALALA"
There's literally a response just below yours, but of course taking the time to make sure you're actually right is never a strong point for you people.
I personally find it very funny that the pro-Palestinian go-to is that none of the offers Israel made for a 2 state solution were 'realistic' or 'serious' or 'good faith'. No one doubts that there were offers. Tell me, in what other scenario in all of human history do the losers of a war (that they started) get to dictate the terms of their surrender?
What's the ethnic makeup of Israel? What's the ethnic makeup of Palestine? Which one is closer to the definition of an ethno state? Do words not mean anything to you?
You're granted citizenship automatically if you're Jewish and you get a free trip to go there. Being Jewish grants one special privileges. The country is based entirely on ethnicity and was established with that as a core principle. If it's not technically considered an ethnostate, it's about the closest that a country can be one without being one in that case.
The story doesn't start on oct 7th.
But the current chapter does. Gaza would look a lot different today if the October 7th attack had not happened.
Shit it would look like a fucking paradise if they had taken one of the many two state solution deals they were offered.
All they needed was a "justification" to ramp up their ethnic cleansing and genocide.
So your blame is on hamas and Gaza for what Israel is doing there? Here's a question, if there are terrorists hiding under a school or who were hiding in Manhattan or Tel Aviv. Would it be justified to bomb everything like what happened in Gaza?
Well, New York is American soil, if Terrorists were hiding under a building there I hope our government can surgically remove them. I then hope that our government would glass whatever shit hole those terrorists came from.
Tel Aviv is Israelis territory, it’s response is up to their leadership and the will of populace.
...Just make sure not to pay any attention to Netanyahu's approval rating.
You apply this principle consistently and argue Hitler did nothing wrong because the German public supported his actions, right?
Hot take, but I think genocide is bad, personally.
Maybe Israel shouldn't fund Hamas over secular orgs to manufacture the pretext for the genocide they're now committing in order to create an ethnostate.
Funding might be true. But do we have real evidence that it was done precisely for what you described? Did someone specific decided "let's give them money, so they would build rockets to bomb us, then invade to kill our citizens in an attack we'll be unprepared for and then have all the right to obliterate them and nobody would stop us"?
Incredibly loaded framing aside, what's your explanation for Israel backing a Jihadist group, and helping them displace moderate, secular alternatives while consistently using genocidal language and displacing Palestinians?
I'd say it's not loaded framing on my side, but convoluted assumptions (and possibly clairvoyance) on the other.
I may not have the explanation of why "Israel funded hamas", but I know that half the world funded Palestine for years, and that most of that help naturally must've went through hamas.
Simply put, it doesn't seem like Israel could avoid funding Palestine. Hamas could've put that money in improving lives of citizens.
Israel put a terrorist org that's hostile to them in neighbouring territories they're trying to ethnically cleanse via genocide and you can't figure it why? I suppose critical thought was never fascists' strong suit.
International funding went to Palestinians via aid orgs - not Hamas. That said, anything that did go to Hamas was because Israel put them in power - you don't get to put terrorists in power, commit war crimes, then whine when the international community sends aid to the people you're genociding. Israel is also a recipient of $3.8 billion dollars every year in US military support alone - that's comparable to the total amount of internal aid sent to Palestine between 2014 and 2020.
The problem isn't Israel funding Palestine - it's with them funding a terrorist group to put them in power, removing the secular moderates that were in place already... You know - so they could justify the genocide they've been loudly telegraphing they want to commit.
You don't get to play the victim on this one, Jitler.
Israel put a terrorist org
What?
it's with them funding a terrorist group to put them in power
And I thought it was Palestinians who chose hamas during elections. The other candidate was also a terrorist group if I'm not mistaken though, so really don't see how complicated the plan of Israel should've been for everything to play out exactly as it had.
so they could justify the genocide they've been loudly telegraphing they want to commit.
So basically the plan was "Kill us, so we could kill you" all along, huh? This is some flat earth level conspiracy.
Hamas is a terrorist org that Israel backed to replace the secular moderates - this isn't half as complex as the narrative knots you idiots tie yourselves in to defend the genocide - in not sure why you're finding this difficult.
So basically the plan was "Kill us, so we could kill you" all along, huh? This is some flat earth level conspiracy.
They've been signalling genocidal intent for years, but can't just do it without losing the US backing they need to not get obliterated by their neighbours. Why else did they help the hostile jihadists over the secular moderates? Again, really straightforward stuff.
Meanwhile, you use Nazi-tier logic to defend Nazi-tier actions.
Again, really straightforward stuff.
First, the whole matter of some country being able to affect political groups in another country being normal, as you're saying about it, is more than lousy to say the least. Israel did not create hamas. Israel could not know how it will act over the years. Israel could not know who will win the elections.
Second, proposing the idea that a modern non-jihad government would put their own population at risk of terrorist attacks in order to have a chance to do genocide of other population is ridiculous.
Third, if the "second" thing above is incorrect, they would instead fiddle with the iron dome. More specifically, there would be no iron dome in the first place - they would take all the rocket hits they could in order to show the world how aggressive terrorists are and invade Gaza asap.
you use Nazi-tier logic to defend Nazi-tier actions.
I don't know what to say here. What nazi-tier even means is beyond me. But you here basically operate with extremes like every actor does exactly what they are programmed to do. It seems to me that even if some investigation will conclude that Israel, in fact, did not intent to fund any specific group, you'll still find new twists in order to make Israel guilty of what hamas did.
Israel did not create hamas. Israel could not know how it will act over the years.
Noone said Israel created Hamas - but for them not to realise that they would be openly hostile to Israel given their rhetoric would represent a literally unbelievable level of incompetence on Israel's part. Dumb and/or dishonest.
Israel could not know who will win the elections.
They threw enough money at Hamas to help them successfully win the election. Not a guarantee, but a definite finger on the scale. Dumb and dishonest.
Second, proposing the idea that a modern non-jihad government would put their own population at risk of terrorist attacks in order to have a chance to do genocide of other population is ridiculous.
A few of hundred Israelis traded for the extermination of the Palestinians and the annexation of their territory is implausible to you? Just about any force that's conducted an annexation has paid a greater price than this - look at Russia right now. Israel aren't Islamic, so jihadist isn't a great characterisation, but they're theocratic and genocidal - a distinction without a meaningful difference. Dumb and/or dishonest.
they would instead fiddle with the iron dome.
Why? It works well enough, and they haven't bothered to invest further in it with Hamas in power and years of rocket attacks? Seems as though Netanyahu isn't too concerned about a few hundred Israeli deaths, no? Dumb or dishonest.
What nazi-tier even means is beyond me
A far-right wing fascist ethnostate doing warcrimes and genocidal bullshit. Dumb and dishonest.
What did these Israeli government representatives mean when they said...
Prime Minister Netanyahu
They (Israel/IDF) are committed to completely eliminating this evil from the world,”
and
You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.
and
I don’t call them human animals because that would be insulting to animals
"Defence" minister Galant
We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly
Kallner...
Nakba to the enemy now! This day is our Pearl Harbour. We will still learn the lessons. Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. A Nakba in Gaza and a Nakba for anyone who dares to join!
Atbaryan...
erasing all of Gaza from the face of the Earth. Gaza needs to be wiped out.
Halevi...
goals for this victory. One, there is no more Muslim land in the land of Israel. After we make it the land of Israel, Gaza should be left as a monument, like Sodom.”
In case you don't remember your Torah, here's a refresher on the Amalekites...
I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
You're not convincing anyone, Rudolph Jitler.
I can't care enough to explain contradictions in your comment. It's dumb and dishonest, also speculative.
Plenty of credible news outlets are reporting that one. It's not a remotely controversial statement.
Ok so you're against Israel providing work permits to Palestinians?
Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
From one of your articles, they're literally complaining that Israel allows Palestinians to have jobs in Israel and saying that this practice of not totally starving out Palestine is proping up Hamas.
Since Netanyahu returned to power in January 2023, the number of work permits has soared to nearly 20,000.
The article is angry at him for something you almost certainly use the opposite of as a reason to call it an apartheid state or open air prison or whatever, this is something you surely think should happen right? Palestinians should be able to work in Israel, right?
They go on to talk about how he shouldn't be letting aid money into Gaza, etc
And do you agree with this from the article?
One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday.
They argue that anything less than total military destruction of Hamas is equivalent to support, they want a boodier and more brutal war which is why they're saying the claim in the headline - surely you don't agree with that? Surely you don't think that Israel shouldn't let aid into Gaza and should attack more violently? Therefore surely you don't agree with the claim in the title.
You're parroting headlines without reading the article, probably because you've heard the claim repeated by so many people who also didn't bother to read the article and just assumed it validated their existing view.
By your logic, the Innocents killed on 9/11 brought it on themselves.
Well yea, to be fair if half these Redditors Lemmies lived in the Middle East they would be calling for the genocide of the US after what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq
The United States created the conditions for the blowback that resulted in the 9/11 attacks
selfawarewolf?
american war on taliban was the well accepted result.
israels war on gazians.... same.
Wow that is some amazing mental gymnastics there. I sure do hope you don’t strain yourself with all those logical fallacies you are jumping through.
Maybe you shouldn't talk shit
Oooo internet tough guy.
Oppression causes terrorism. Israel made Hamas. Why? Because Israel wants an excuse to escalate the conflict
Thats it, shut it down people, we’ve gone full circle. Israel is killing its own people by killing the people who want to kill them…
Your mental gymnastics deserve a gold medal for that performance.
Bro I'll be real with you north Korea got fucking obliterated to the extent that they were living underground because every single building has been bombed to rubble. North Korea was definitely the victim of imperialist interference. No person in that country deserved that level of devastation.
A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea. By comparison, the U.S. dropped 1.6 million tons in the European theater and 500,000 tons in the Pacific theater during all of World War II (including 160,000 on Japan).
...yea.
Also consider the fact that north Korea is roughly the size of Maine and Japan is roughly the size of the east coast.
Israel is finishing a war they did not start. Violence progressed to the terrorist attack but it didn’t start there. Do you really expect them to accept going back to the status quo that was progressively getting worse? That was the result of the last three conflicts.
Interesting how you can tell someone is a zionazi based on their comments in this thread. Almost like these are similar situations of people rising up against their oppressors.
I'm not sure how anyone could think that a massive terror attack including rape and kidnapping by the government of a state is not justified pretense for a declaration of war. This is textbook and I'm not sure how Hamas and you could expect anything less.
People like you always seem to wanna start the story at October 7th while ignoring any relevant history before it. In case you don't know, israel and the zionist project took over Palestinian land and as a result almost a million Palestinians fleed palestine. Amongst many others who were killed. What I find interesting is that zionists in their correspondance with the British at the time is that they weren't pressed about getting palestine to be their homeland, they were okay in finding somewhere else. One of the other possibilities was Uganda for example.
Many, many people have been fighting over the land for thousands of years if you really want to go back. As far as I'm concerned, the land belongs to whoever can hold it.
Here's a question for you, is morally okay to kill innocent children and women? Honestly the fact that you would say that tells me all I need to know about what type of person you are.
If that was the qualification for losing the right to the land then the Palestinians would have lost it long ago
They have lost it... They all live in open air concentration camps...
Where did I say that's the qualification for who has the right for the land? Aren't jewish people who emigrated there anyways from Egypt? Ill ask again, is it morally okay to kill innocent civilians? Innocent children and women?
That's such a nonsense question even before the reality that both sides are killing innocent children, the most over used meme on the internet is the trolly problem but you're still trying to act like you've never heard of it. Yes, if inaction results in a worse outcome then action is permissible from a moral stand point.
Yeah, so mass rape and terrorism is OK in your book if the ends justify the means? Hamas did start the conflict.
Israel was in talks with Saudi Arabia to normalize relations and Iran didn't want that at all and they gave Hamas the green light to attack.
Everything that happens in that region is about Saudi Arabia and Iran.
No one said its okay. You're very good at strawmaning me. If Hamas did commit such acts then of course there should be proper justice. However, proper justice isn't blowing up innocent people and children. Just like you don't blow up a school when there's a school shooter.
Where we disagree is in saying Hamas didn't start this current conflict. They certainly did. Has shit been going on here for millenia? of course. The "strawman" was to remind you of the fact this opened with mass rape and murder at a music festival -- that's a fact.
You seemed to argue that thousand years of history seemingly justifies that and I'm telling you that it does not. " If Hamas did "... So you're absolute when it comes to Israel but when it comes to Hamas there' are modifiers. Your bias is showing.
Israel has done plenty of things that they should not be doing. The warlike bombardment of a city is not justified and has soured world opinion against them.
My "bias" is not an argument. Everyone has their biasias. The problem is that israel continues to lie on the narrative and just in this short span of time we've seen their lies come out. Take the "40 beheaded babies" for example. I'm open to an independent investigator.
Also it's very rich. You really like to dig on this issue of mass killing and rape and take issue with it but don't take issue with israel doing the same exact thing and worse back. That is a double standard hypocrisy.
Keep strawmaning me. I never said it justifies it.
Yes it did when it started the settler colonial project and ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948 and all the subsequent oppression.
Jews started out buying the land legally until Arab nationalists started murdering them, making a one state solution impossible, then declared war on Israel when they used the UN's two state borders.
Arabs who remained peaceful and stayed behind the 48 borders were not "ethnically cleansed," and today are 20% of the citizens of Israel. Perhaps that oppression is due to constant violent attacks and a refusal to lay down arms and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Buying the land legally from other occupiers, the Brits. The native population was never asked if they wanted to receive an influx of refugees from Europe, refugees that other European countries and the US straight up refused to take in.
Besides that, many Palestinians were indeed ethnically cleansed, and this is not even a debated fact, former Israeli soldiers came clean about it in interviews, talking in great detail about all the war crimes they committed.
The 20% Arabs in Israel you are talking about, although Israeli citizens, still do not enjoy the same rights as the jewish population.
I know all of this, I've been to Israel, I have jewish ancestry and relatives there.
And let's not even talk about the Apartheid system on the over 7 million people living under a military dictatorship imposed by the IDF, which is straight up a crime against humanity.
LoL. This is just so stupid. The UN offered the Arabs the same deal. One side chose peace the other chose war.
In the 30s the Arabs were offered more than they were in 48 and didn't want peace then.
900,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab Nations in the 40s. The Arab population in Israel has risen by tenfold since the inception of Israel. The population of Gaza has increased by a similar level.
You've fallen victim to Arab imperialist propaganda.
Hmmm yes let me take half your land then offer you a peace deal. Then claim you're the one who's causing the problems when you don't take that "peace" deal. Ridiculous.
The lack of imperial Japan in this image is disturbing
At least imperial japan no longer exists. Anyone flying the flag is seen as a nationalistic weirdo by normal Japanese people.
Yeah totally. But if you dare even insinuate that Japan was anything other than a victim of WW2, the public outcry is so massive that you will be forced to publicly apologize and denounce your previous statement
Do you have something to back this up? That wasn't the feeling I had during the seven years I lived in Japan. There was something of a victim mentality, but it wasn't as militant as you are making out.
It's a pity, because the design (!) is pretty rad
The Japanese military still flies nearly the same flag.
Do they play victim? It doesn't look like
No, only the geopolitical enemies of the west are bad.
Noob here, can guess Russia with ukraine but can anyone supply the full list for context on this meme ?
The other two flags are North Korea (left) and Serbia (right).
North Korea began the Korean War by invading South Korea. It didn't end well for them (or for the South, for that matter) but South Korea prospers today while the North is...well, North Korea.
For Serbia, it is one of the many states formed from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Going from one country to several countries which were defined mainly by ethnic association was not a clean transition. There were Serbs living in other former Yugoslav countries, and Serbia used that justification to start occupying those majority-Serbian areas, similar to what Russia has been doing with Ukraine, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and to a lesser extent Abkhazia.
More specifically with Serbia, they were genociding until NATO stepped in and bombed them, and have spent the last 20+ years crying about how NATO was the big bad boogie man who attacked first, while simultaneously trying to destabilize Kosovo through frequent Russian backed violations of the MTA that ended the open conflict. Literal government policies of a schoolyard bully.
South Korea at the time was run by actual fascists, people often originally put in charge by the prior Japanese occupation who helped genocide their own people and kept by the "democratic" Allies because, being fascists, they really hated commies.
It's also simply disingenuous to pretend North Korea's economic problems aren't mostly caused by the embargo they've been under for seventy years.
Does that make North Korea the victim?
Well, not really, but on the other hand, you can certainly understand the invasion.
Unlike some people, they actually were invading fascists. Ones that actually were their people's oppressors, and even to this day most Koreans consider themselves a divided nation and support reunification, unlike Russia and Ukraine or Serbia and literally everyone else from the former Yugoslavia because the Serbs were dicks.
From that point of view it's certainly easier to understand why they would portray themselves as victims compared to people who just want to conquer and genocide their neighbors.
But time is funny, you become what you hate, etc.
Can't really say Marxist-> Feudal Monarchy is the typical trajectory though.
lol Serbians don’t need a majority. If there were two Serbs and a cup living in a given city, Serbia would claim it and ethically cleanse the shit out of it.
Bosnia has entered the chat...
North Korea - Korean war and Serbia - Yugoslav wars
Korean war and probably Kosovo war (or Yugoslavia wars in general) for Serbia
Not pictured: Japan (obvious reasons)
North Korea? Really?
The country that had fucking 20% of its population slaughtered by the US in just 3 years after Korea was split in two against their will after WW2?
Leave it to westerners to be completely ignorant of history lol
This 'meme' is disgusting.
You're the one trotting out a simplistic black and white vision as if anything about any part of history is or can ever be explained in such terms. History is always much more complicated than our ideological biases would like.
They shouldn’t have started a war that they couldn’t win.
There's zero context in your comment. It's just as biased as the meme is. You're blithely glossing over the much larger historical context of WW2 and why the US was there in the first place, and you're eliding the rather obvious fact that a sizable majority of Koreans were opposed to the attempted communist takeover in the first place.
The salient fact about the 2nd half of the 20th century, that is routinely ignored by Lemmy's tankies, is that the men guiding US foreign policy had survived the largest war in human history and were absolutely and legitimately terrified that there would be another even worse war in the very near future if they didn't do everything they could to prevent the kind of runaway imperialism seen in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Furthermore, these men knew for a fact --as even Lemmy's tankies will admit-- that communism by design and by doctrine can only come to its final stage in a globally hegemonic system. If you honestly believed, as they clearly did, that fighting a war in Korea --which after all had been liberated from Imperial Japan by the US-- was part of a much larger strategy to contain communism and thereby prevent a 3rd world war, you would feel yourself morally obliged to do it.
We can argue about whether or not they were correct in their beliefs, but we can't simply condemn them as evil imperialists. That's just stupid reductionist bullshit. Reality is always much more complicated than simple black and white "my team good, your team bad."
So, pointing out that the US carpet bombed North Korea with 635,000 tons of bombs, killed 20% of their population and turned all remaining infrastructure to rubble is "tankie" now?
Ehhh the Korean war is complicated. It started with Japan invading Korea and attempting to erase their history and culture. (Worth noting that America gave them the green light on this). After WW2, Korea was divided and backed by US/USSR interests on either side. It was a shitshow with everyone disagreeing how things should be run. Eventually North Korea did invade the South, though, so I guess this meme still applies. But even that fact is unclear - they claim it was retaliatory. Who knows.
It would have been so much easier if instead of splitting Vietnam and Korea, they kept one for each empire to take care of
Ehhh the Korean war is complicated
North Korea did invade the South
Doesn't seem very complicated to me
oh well if you think it's simple then please write the historians who cant make sense of it, we don't know who attacked first
The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953. The war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea following years of internal instability and hostilities between the two states.
Yeah it's a real conundrum, that one
scroll down on the Wikipedia page you copied that from. it describes exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not some Hexbear shill here, the Korean war is a legit fucked up and complicated situation
Honestly why are you so adamant that international conflict must be simple? are you that naive, or are you playing with me, or what?
Who started it is very simple. North Korea started it by invading the South. I'm sorry if that annoys you but it's not a very controversial thing to say at all or something that's highly debated by historians or anything.
sigh you're really not gonna go back and read it, are you?
Operation Pokpung Main article: Operation Pokpung
At dawn on 25 June 1950, the KPA crossed the 38th parallel behind artillery fire.[128] The KPA justified its assault with the claim that ROK troops attacked first and that the KPA were aiming to arrest and execute the "bandit traitor Syngman Rhee".[129] Fighting began on the strategic Ongjin Peninsula in the west.[130][131] There were initial South Korean claims that the 17th Regiment had counterattacked at Haeju; some scholars argue the claimed counterattack was instead the instigating attack, and therefore that the South Koreans may have fired first.[130][132] However, the report that contained the Haeju claim also contained numerous other errors and outright falsehoods.[133]
This isn't some galaxy brain conspiracy take, I'm literally just talking about this ambiguity. And I really don't feel very strongly about this issue - I'm more perturbed that you're be so obstinate about it.
However, the report that contained the Haeju claim also contained numerous other errors and outright falsehoods.
Yes, that claim. It's not highly debated or anything. Like the article says
The years prior to North Korea's invasion of South Korea were marked by border clashes between the two countries and an insurgency in the South that was backed by the North.[36][37][38] After failed attempts to stop the fighting and unify the Koreas, North Korean forces (Korean People's Army or KPA) crossed the 38th parallel on 25 June 1950, formally starting the war.
There's some dubious claims, but almost everyone agrees that North Korea started the war. This is like arguing that there's ambiguity about climate change since there's some scientists who don't believe in it. Meanwhile, the vast vast majority agrees that it's a thing.
It's all well and good to think "there's two sides to this" and whatever, you want to be fair and whatnot, but it's really unwarranted here. You're just unwittingly giving more credence to dubious claims.
Missing the Palestinian flag there Buddy.
*Israeli
Another dope who's swallowed Iran's Propaganda. Good job. Israel didn't start it in October, or in '48 or any of the wars in between.
Either way, it doesn’t make Israel’s actions right.
No but it makes them justified. When faced with an existential threat, there is no choice but to eliminate it.
This all ends when Hamas gives up their terroristic control. Even the Arabs understand that and are including it in their peace deal negotiations.
You didn’t read the article. Your statements make no sense.
It's a picture not an article....and you still struggled to read it. LoL.
You don’t read pictures. You look at them. This is a meme. As you were.
add hamas to this picture
Yes, history started 7th October. Very smart
Ah yes, the good ol "they deserved it"
One of the key differences between Chat GPT and humans is that humans can remember more than 32k tokens in a conversation at a time.
Given that you already forgot what OP wrote by the time you replied to a top level comment, you've performed significantly worse than a bot. Congratulations.
Read that in the voice of GLaDOS.
Sorry, I am unable to fulfill your request. Could you reformulate?
Sorry, I am unable to fulfill your request. Could you reformulate?
Pointing to an ongoing genocide isn't the same as saying citizens of the state committing that genocide deserved it.
That said, it's interesting though not at all surprising that you're running right past the tens of thousands that Israel have killed to cry victim about the couple of hundred that Hamas killed.
No, it started in 1948. And it was started by several Arab nations, who invaded immediately after Britain released their mandate in the region protecting Israelis.
Heard of the six day war? How about the Yom kipour war? Who started any of them?
1948 is the year Israel began their genocide by killing or displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people, after which several neighbouring nations staged a joint military intervention.
Imagine claiming history has spanned a total of 75 years and that an attempted invasion at the beginning of time justifies a genocide in progress today.
Lemme ask you a question: how did Jerusalem get its name, and who lived there and named it thousands of years ago?
Maybe learn something before you advocate for the extermination of an entire people. Jerusalem was named after the pre jewish pagan Canaanite god Shalem. Those ancient Canaanites were there before the Jews and the modern Palestinians are the descendants of those ancient Canaanites.
Will the answer justify the genocide?
No.
Why should anyone care, and why do you deflect to this with less integrity than literal Nazis, who use the same blood and soil arguments you do, but at least tend to own their genocidal positions?
Romans.
Jokes aside, the Bible states that Jews conquered the city from Jebusites. There's no scientific consensus on who Jebusites actually were. But they were not Israelites, that's for sure.
By your logic, who named Los Angeles, Nevada, Texas, Florida, ...? Are you saying the US has to give back more than half of the territory to Spain?
I guess Israel were too busy genociding Palestinians to make it to the meeting.
Maybe Hamas shouldn’t start shit.
except the israelis were the ones starting shit 7 decades ago
hamas is just a convenient excuse for genocide
Points to the October attack on Israel.
Total war on Gaza looks pretty damn justified to me.
Ah yes. History began on October 7th. There is no context to anything involving anything prior to October 7th 2023.
Although even looking at just October 7th and what has happened since... kind of elucidates what the fuck has been going on.
Hell even 7 decades ago Einstein was looking at what was just starting and went "Well this is some Nazi shit."
200 dead from a terrorist attack committed by terrorists justifies 20,000 civilian deaths by carpet bombing and levelling entire communities?
Total war is not just an abstract political move, it's an immense suffering and deaths of dozens of thousands of civilians.
It's easy to play political mastermind from the safety and comfort of your home. People who witnessed war know full well what it entails, and they know it's not just numbers and maps and politics.
It's blood. It's broken families. It's famine. It's the destruction of everything they valued. It's PTSD for just about everyone who managed to survive.
Think twice before saying things like that. Please.
I’m simply describing the situation in Gaza for what it is, Total War. I’m not advocating for it, but I recognize that Israel is going to respond to October 7 as they see fit.
Would you rather I described it in a way that didn’t hurt your fragile sensibilities?
You claim "total war is justified". I say it's pretty much never justified.
What kind of fragile sensibilities are you talking about here?
The fact that I described the current situation as “Total war”. Seems to offend you. Should I say both sides are making a “fluffy”, would that make you feel better?
Nope, you ignored my last message.
You said, and I cite you here: "Total war on Gaza looks pretty damn justified to me."
This is total war, yes, wholeheartedly agreed here. It is not justified in any way, shape or form.
Sorry it’s been a day between posting and responding. On top of that there are a lot of tools in this thread and it hard to keep every conversation straight.
But in short Israel is a sovereign nation whose citizens were just attacked in a large scale well coordinated manner. They have every right to go after the perpetrators. If total war and the leveling of Gaza is what it takes and they have the ability to execute it then so be it.
And that's where I and most other Palestine supporters strongly disagree.
For starters, being attacked doesn't allow the country to breach the international treaties on the law of war. Civilian massacre and "leveling of Gaza" is a grave breach of the treaties and a war crime, it should not be supported and Netanyahu and Israeli military officials are waited for in Hague, where they need to give quite an explanation for what they've done (and certainly get arrested).
Second, the attack on Israel was carried out by a small militant group, to which the majority of Palestinians barely holds any relation. About 200 people were taken as PoW. Israel's response on that was unproportionate, with dozens of thousands of civilians killed, misplaced, and taken as PoWs. Regular people, people who did not attack Israel, are now finding themselves among one of the most cruel and lawless wars of the 21st century, with nobody able to protect them.
People of Palestine did not deserve this. They are civilians, and under the law of war, they should never be touched. There is a reason international community recognizes those rules, and Israel just decided to not give a damn. Israel is currently carrying more unnecessary, malicious violence and extermination than any other country on Earth.
As I said, under any circumstances, total war is not justified, and the international community has long formalized that. This conflict has shown how many people lack basic humanity to be able to universally recognize basic human rights long written in international laws and conventions.
missed the /s?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Sucks to be on the wrong side of history. No one wants to loose their communities, property or livelihoods. However the Jews had a claim to the area going back thousands of years and they needed to go somewhere.
There were many Jewish communities across the Middle East prior to the 1940s that no longer exist anymore either. I wonder who pushed them out… do they get the same sentiment from your bleeding heart?
There have been two state solutions on the table with Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital on the table multiple times. Palestinians turned every one of them down. Instead of building their own state they will be further pushed out of Gaza. Where they go is anyones guess no one wants them, especially other Muslim states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Who the fuck cares about a claim from thousands of years ago? Can you even count how many Greta’s you would have to add to even reach your goat herder of a grandpa back when Jesus was still around?
This is just trying to revive a dead dream and we all get to suffer for it.
That's what drives me crazy about dated religions and ultra nationalism. We could have flying cars if people stopped with this shit
I don't really get the logic: is an older claim or a more recent claim to land "more valid"?
A recent claim is better. I care about the partitioning of the lands with the Sykes Picot Agreement, I don’t care about some inbred king of sandland did back in 147AD.
Wouldn't this mean that the millions of Israelis born in Israel over the last 80 years probably have the strongest claim to the land (at least the internationally recognized 1967 borders anyway)? 1916 is not particularly recent
Yeah i think a couple of Neanderthals descendants have claims that go back tens of thousands of years. do they get the same sentiment from your bleeding hearth?
Also my cousin has Etruscan blood, should he kick Italians out of Italy as he has a claim that goes back TWO thousands years and he's got nowhere to go since his wife kicked him out?
Maybe check your fireplace if it's bleeding.
Does your friend have superior weaponry and the backing of major world powers? If no then he should probably live in peace in modern unified Italy.
So those claims you talked about are just bullshit and it's just about i want the land and am stronger so I just grab it. Fair enough you could have made it clear sooner so we wouldn't all waste time pretending. While we are at it putin is also good for you isn't it?
No Putin and Hamas are cut from the same cloth. Both are aggressors.
I fully support Ukraine and hope we ship them all the weapons they ask for. I hope they regain all the territory they lost and wipe Russia from the map. But at the same time if they are not able to secure the lands they lost I hope they have sense enough to know when to compromise.
The Palestinian leadership has displayed no such common sense as of yet.
Now imagine a civil war begins in the US. Both sides get too weak. And then the Cherokee, Apache, ... receive all the military help they need from, let's say, China. And they start killing "every non Nation person" because "that was our land". Would you say that's right and that all and every white/black/Asian person deserve it?
I’ll take “Imaginary things that will never happen” for $500 Alex.
That's funny that you think you're on the right side of history for supporting a genocidal ethnostate.
I guess we’ll see in 50 years which nation still exists.
Looks at all of Palestine’s immediate neighbors in the Middle East who won’t even lift a finger to even admit refugees.
I think I know where I’ll put my money.
Might makes right, huh? I already know Palestine will be completely ethnically cleansed and then israel will move onto taking parts of Syria and other countries in their goal of lebensraum. That doesn't mean it's morally right.
You either didn’t read my comment from earlier in the thread or you enjoy trying to frame an argument.
I’ll post it below for you to read and educate yourself.
There have been two state solutions on the table with Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital on the table multiple times. Palestinians turned every one of them down. Instead of building their own state they will be further pushed out of Gaza. Where they go is anyones guess no one wants them, especially other Muslim states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
TLDR: Palestine will be wiped of the map unless they choose a different path. Israel isn’t going anywhere.
The negotiations were argued in bad faith. Israel would put forth ridiculous demands and then lay the blame on Palestine for rejecting them. Why do you think Palestinians are being pushed out of Gaza and have been continually and constantly pushed out for decades? There was never a sincere effort for a two-state solution.
Nobody wants to take on many refugees all at once, it's very difficult to manage. Why do you think Britain "volunteered" Palestinian land to relocate Jews out of Europe? It wasn't out of the goodness of their heart.
No response to this of course. Don't even expect one. They are currently with their fingers in their ears yelling "LALALLALALALA"
There's literally a response just below yours, but of course taking the time to make sure you're actually right is never a strong point for you people.
I personally find it very funny that the pro-Palestinian go-to is that none of the offers Israel made for a 2 state solution were 'realistic' or 'serious' or 'good faith'. No one doubts that there were offers. Tell me, in what other scenario in all of human history do the losers of a war (that they started) get to dictate the terms of their surrender?
What's the ethnic makeup of Israel? What's the ethnic makeup of Palestine? Which one is closer to the definition of an ethno state? Do words not mean anything to you?
You're granted citizenship automatically if you're Jewish and you get a free trip to go there. Being Jewish grants one special privileges. The country is based entirely on ethnicity and was established with that as a core principle. If it's not technically considered an ethnostate, it's about the closest that a country can be one without being one in that case.
The story doesn't start on oct 7th.
But the current chapter does. Gaza would look a lot different today if the October 7th attack had not happened.
Shit it would look like a fucking paradise if they had taken one of the many two state solution deals they were offered.
This shit has been planned for a long time. Here's just one example of the plan being shown out in the open before october 7th: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-brandishes-map-of-israel-that-includes-west-bank-and-gaza-at-un-speech/
All they needed was a "justification" to ramp up their ethnic cleansing and genocide.
So your blame is on hamas and Gaza for what Israel is doing there? Here's a question, if there are terrorists hiding under a school or who were hiding in Manhattan or Tel Aviv. Would it be justified to bomb everything like what happened in Gaza?
Well, New York is American soil, if Terrorists were hiding under a building there I hope our government can surgically remove them. I then hope that our government would glass whatever shit hole those terrorists came from.
Tel Aviv is Israelis territory, it’s response is up to their leadership and the will of populace.
...Just make sure not to pay any attention to Netanyahu's approval rating.
You apply this principle consistently and argue Hitler did nothing wrong because the German public supported his actions, right?
Hot take, but I think genocide is bad, personally.
Maybe Israel shouldn't fund Hamas over secular orgs to manufacture the pretext for the genocide they're now committing in order to create an ethnostate.
Funding might be true. But do we have real evidence that it was done precisely for what you described? Did someone specific decided "let's give them money, so they would build rockets to bomb us, then invade to kill our citizens in an attack we'll be unprepared for and then have all the right to obliterate them and nobody would stop us"?
Incredibly loaded framing aside, what's your explanation for Israel backing a Jihadist group, and helping them displace moderate, secular alternatives while consistently using genocidal language and displacing Palestinians?
I'd say it's not loaded framing on my side, but convoluted assumptions (and possibly clairvoyance) on the other.
I may not have the explanation of why "Israel funded hamas", but I know that half the world funded Palestine for years, and that most of that help naturally must've went through hamas.
Simply put, it doesn't seem like Israel could avoid funding Palestine. Hamas could've put that money in improving lives of citizens.
Israel put a terrorist org that's hostile to them in neighbouring territories they're trying to ethnically cleanse via genocide and you can't figure it why? I suppose critical thought was never fascists' strong suit.
International funding went to Palestinians via aid orgs - not Hamas. That said, anything that did go to Hamas was because Israel put them in power - you don't get to put terrorists in power, commit war crimes, then whine when the international community sends aid to the people you're genociding. Israel is also a recipient of $3.8 billion dollars every year in US military support alone - that's comparable to the total amount of internal aid sent to Palestine between 2014 and 2020.
The problem isn't Israel funding Palestine - it's with them funding a terrorist group to put them in power, removing the secular moderates that were in place already... You know - so they could justify the genocide they've been loudly telegraphing they want to commit.
You don't get to play the victim on this one, Jitler.
What?
And I thought it was Palestinians who chose hamas during elections. The other candidate was also a terrorist group if I'm not mistaken though, so really don't see how complicated the plan of Israel should've been for everything to play out exactly as it had.
So basically the plan was "Kill us, so we could kill you" all along, huh? This is some flat earth level conspiracy.
Hamas is a terrorist org that Israel backed to replace the secular moderates - this isn't half as complex as the narrative knots you idiots tie yourselves in to defend the genocide - in not sure why you're finding this difficult.
They've been signalling genocidal intent for years, but can't just do it without losing the US backing they need to not get obliterated by their neighbours. Why else did they help the hostile jihadists over the secular moderates? Again, really straightforward stuff.
Meanwhile, you use Nazi-tier logic to defend Nazi-tier actions.
First, the whole matter of some country being able to affect political groups in another country being normal, as you're saying about it, is more than lousy to say the least. Israel did not create hamas. Israel could not know how it will act over the years. Israel could not know who will win the elections.
Second, proposing the idea that a modern non-jihad government would put their own population at risk of terrorist attacks in order to have a chance to do genocide of other population is ridiculous.
Third, if the "second" thing above is incorrect, they would instead fiddle with the iron dome. More specifically, there would be no iron dome in the first place - they would take all the rocket hits they could in order to show the world how aggressive terrorists are and invade Gaza asap.
I don't know what to say here. What nazi-tier even means is beyond me. But you here basically operate with extremes like every actor does exactly what they are programmed to do. It seems to me that even if some investigation will conclude that Israel, in fact, did not intent to fund any specific group, you'll still find new twists in order to make Israel guilty of what hamas did.
Noone said Israel created Hamas - but for them not to realise that they would be openly hostile to Israel given their rhetoric would represent a literally unbelievable level of incompetence on Israel's part. Dumb and/or dishonest.
They threw enough money at Hamas to help them successfully win the election. Not a guarantee, but a definite finger on the scale. Dumb and dishonest.
A few of hundred Israelis traded for the extermination of the Palestinians and the annexation of their territory is implausible to you? Just about any force that's conducted an annexation has paid a greater price than this - look at Russia right now. Israel aren't Islamic, so jihadist isn't a great characterisation, but they're theocratic and genocidal - a distinction without a meaningful difference. Dumb and/or dishonest.
Why? It works well enough, and they haven't bothered to invest further in it with Hamas in power and years of rocket attacks? Seems as though Netanyahu isn't too concerned about a few hundred Israeli deaths, no? Dumb or dishonest.
A far-right wing fascist ethnostate doing warcrimes and genocidal bullshit. Dumb and dishonest.
What did these Israeli government representatives mean when they said...
Prime Minister Netanyahu
and
and
"Defence" minister Galant
Kallner...
Atbaryan...
Halevi...
In case you don't remember your Torah, here's a refresher on the Amalekites... I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
You're not convincing anyone, Rudolph Jitler.
I can't care enough to explain contradictions in your comment. It's dumb and dishonest, also speculative.
Do you know that's a baseless conspiracy you're pedaling?
Yeah - nah.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Plenty of credible news outlets are reporting that one. It's not a remotely controversial statement.
Ok so you're against Israel providing work permits to Palestinians?
From one of your articles, they're literally complaining that Israel allows Palestinians to have jobs in Israel and saying that this practice of not totally starving out Palestine is proping up Hamas.
The article is angry at him for something you almost certainly use the opposite of as a reason to call it an apartheid state or open air prison or whatever, this is something you surely think should happen right? Palestinians should be able to work in Israel, right?
They go on to talk about how he shouldn't be letting aid money into Gaza, etc
And do you agree with this from the article?
They argue that anything less than total military destruction of Hamas is equivalent to support, they want a boodier and more brutal war which is why they're saying the claim in the headline - surely you don't agree with that? Surely you don't think that Israel shouldn't let aid into Gaza and should attack more violently? Therefore surely you don't agree with the claim in the title.
You're parroting headlines without reading the article, probably because you've heard the claim repeated by so many people who also didn't bother to read the article and just assumed it validated their existing view.
By your logic, the Innocents killed on 9/11 brought it on themselves.
Well yea, to be fair if half these
RedditorsLemmies lived in the Middle East they would be calling for the genocide of the US after what happened in Afghanistan and IraqThe United States created the conditions for the blowback that resulted in the 9/11 attacks
selfawarewolf?
american war on taliban was the well accepted result. israels war on gazians.... same.
Wow that is some amazing mental gymnastics there. I sure do hope you don’t strain yourself with all those logical fallacies you are jumping through.
Maybe you shouldn't talk shit
Oooo internet tough guy.
Oppression causes terrorism. Israel made Hamas. Why? Because Israel wants an excuse to escalate the conflict
Thats it, shut it down people, we’ve gone full circle. Israel is killing its own people by killing the people who want to kill them…
Your mental gymnastics deserve a gold medal for that performance.
Bro I'll be real with you north Korea got fucking obliterated to the extent that they were living underground because every single building has been bombed to rubble. North Korea was definitely the victim of imperialist interference. No person in that country deserved that level of devastation.
...yea.
Also consider the fact that north Korea is roughly the size of Maine and Japan is roughly the size of the east coast.
That has no bearing on them starting the war. Don't start wars and you are far less likely to suffer wars.
I was gonna ask if you also think this way about Palestine, but looks like I don't need to.
Interesting how you can tell someone is a zionazi based on their comments in this thread. Almost like these are similar situations of people rising up against their oppressors.
I'm not sure how anyone could think that a massive terror attack including rape and kidnapping by the government of a state is not justified pretense for a declaration of war. This is textbook and I'm not sure how Hamas and you could expect anything less.
Israel is missing from the picture
Israel didn't start the war.
People like you always seem to wanna start the story at October 7th while ignoring any relevant history before it. In case you don't know, israel and the zionist project took over Palestinian land and as a result almost a million Palestinians fleed palestine. Amongst many others who were killed. What I find interesting is that zionists in their correspondance with the British at the time is that they weren't pressed about getting palestine to be their homeland, they were okay in finding somewhere else. One of the other possibilities was Uganda for example.
Many, many people have been fighting over the land for thousands of years if you really want to go back. As far as I'm concerned, the land belongs to whoever can hold it.
Here's a question for you, is morally okay to kill innocent children and women? Honestly the fact that you would say that tells me all I need to know about what type of person you are.
If that was the qualification for losing the right to the land then the Palestinians would have lost it long ago
They have lost it... They all live in open air concentration camps...
Where did I say that's the qualification for who has the right for the land? Aren't jewish people who emigrated there anyways from Egypt? Ill ask again, is it morally okay to kill innocent civilians? Innocent children and women?
That's such a nonsense question even before the reality that both sides are killing innocent children, the most over used meme on the internet is the trolly problem but you're still trying to act like you've never heard of it. Yes, if inaction results in a worse outcome then action is permissible from a moral stand point.
Yeah, so mass rape and terrorism is OK in your book if the ends justify the means? Hamas did start the conflict.
Israel was in talks with Saudi Arabia to normalize relations and Iran didn't want that at all and they gave Hamas the green light to attack.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/saudi-israel-normalization-agreement-horizon
Everything that happens in that region is about Saudi Arabia and Iran.
No one said its okay. You're very good at strawmaning me. If Hamas did commit such acts then of course there should be proper justice. However, proper justice isn't blowing up innocent people and children. Just like you don't blow up a school when there's a school shooter.
Where we disagree is in saying Hamas didn't start this current conflict. They certainly did. Has shit been going on here for millenia? of course. The "strawman" was to remind you of the fact this opened with mass rape and murder at a music festival -- that's a fact.
You seemed to argue that thousand years of history seemingly justifies that and I'm telling you that it does not. " If Hamas did "... So you're absolute when it comes to Israel but when it comes to Hamas there' are modifiers. Your bias is showing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67613153
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/middleeast/rape-sexual-violence-hamas-israel-what-we-know-intl/index.html
Israel has done plenty of things that they should not be doing. The warlike bombardment of a city is not justified and has soured world opinion against them.
My "bias" is not an argument. Everyone has their biasias. The problem is that israel continues to lie on the narrative and just in this short span of time we've seen their lies come out. Take the "40 beheaded babies" for example. I'm open to an independent investigator.
Also it's very rich. You really like to dig on this issue of mass killing and rape and take issue with it but don't take issue with israel doing the same exact thing and worse back. That is a double standard hypocrisy.
Keep strawmaning me. I never said it justifies it.
Yes it did when it started the settler colonial project and ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948 and all the subsequent oppression.
Jews started out buying the land legally until Arab nationalists started murdering them, making a one state solution impossible, then declared war on Israel when they used the UN's two state borders.
Arabs who remained peaceful and stayed behind the 48 borders were not "ethnically cleansed," and today are 20% of the citizens of Israel. Perhaps that oppression is due to constant violent attacks and a refusal to lay down arms and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Buying the land legally from other occupiers, the Brits. The native population was never asked if they wanted to receive an influx of refugees from Europe, refugees that other European countries and the US straight up refused to take in.
Besides that, many Palestinians were indeed ethnically cleansed, and this is not even a debated fact, former Israeli soldiers came clean about it in interviews, talking in great detail about all the war crimes they committed.
The 20% Arabs in Israel you are talking about, although Israeli citizens, still do not enjoy the same rights as the jewish population.
I know all of this, I've been to Israel, I have jewish ancestry and relatives there.
And let's not even talk about the Apartheid system on the over 7 million people living under a military dictatorship imposed by the IDF, which is straight up a crime against humanity.
LoL. This is just so stupid. The UN offered the Arabs the same deal. One side chose peace the other chose war.
In the 30s the Arabs were offered more than they were in 48 and didn't want peace then.
900,000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab Nations in the 40s. The Arab population in Israel has risen by tenfold since the inception of Israel. The population of Gaza has increased by a similar level.
You've fallen victim to Arab imperialist propaganda.
Hmmm yes let me take half your land then offer you a peace deal. Then claim you're the one who's causing the problems when you don't take that "peace" deal. Ridiculous.
The lack of imperial Japan in this image is disturbing
At least imperial japan no longer exists. Anyone flying the flag is seen as a nationalistic weirdo by normal Japanese people.
Yeah totally. But if you dare even insinuate that Japan was anything other than a victim of WW2, the public outcry is so massive that you will be forced to publicly apologize and denounce your previous statement
Do you have something to back this up? That wasn't the feeling I had during the seven years I lived in Japan. There was something of a victim mentality, but it wasn't as militant as you are making out.
It's a pity, because the design (!) is pretty rad
The Japanese military still flies nearly the same flag.
Do they play victim? It doesn't look like
No, only the geopolitical enemies of the west are bad.
Noob here, can guess Russia with ukraine but can anyone supply the full list for context on this meme ?
The other two flags are North Korea (left) and Serbia (right).
North Korea began the Korean War by invading South Korea. It didn't end well for them (or for the South, for that matter) but South Korea prospers today while the North is...well, North Korea.
For Serbia, it is one of the many states formed from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Going from one country to several countries which were defined mainly by ethnic association was not a clean transition. There were Serbs living in other former Yugoslav countries, and Serbia used that justification to start occupying those majority-Serbian areas, similar to what Russia has been doing with Ukraine, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and to a lesser extent Abkhazia.
More specifically with Serbia, they were genociding until NATO stepped in and bombed them, and have spent the last 20+ years crying about how NATO was the big bad boogie man who attacked first, while simultaneously trying to destabilize Kosovo through frequent Russian backed violations of the MTA that ended the open conflict. Literal government policies of a schoolyard bully.
South Korea at the time was run by actual fascists, people often originally put in charge by the prior Japanese occupation who helped genocide their own people and kept by the "democratic" Allies because, being fascists, they really hated commies.
It's also simply disingenuous to pretend North Korea's economic problems aren't mostly caused by the embargo they've been under for seventy years.
Does that make North Korea the victim?
Well, not really, but on the other hand, you can certainly understand the invasion.
Unlike some people, they actually were invading fascists. Ones that actually were their people's oppressors, and even to this day most Koreans consider themselves a divided nation and support reunification, unlike Russia and Ukraine or Serbia and literally everyone else from the former Yugoslavia because the Serbs were dicks.
From that point of view it's certainly easier to understand why they would portray themselves as victims compared to people who just want to conquer and genocide their neighbors.
But time is funny, you become what you hate, etc.
Can't really say Marxist-> Feudal Monarchy is the typical trajectory though.
lol Serbians don’t need a majority. If there were two Serbs and a cup living in a given city, Serbia would claim it and ethically cleanse the shit out of it.
Bosnia has entered the chat...
North Korea - Korean war and Serbia - Yugoslav wars
Korean war and probably Kosovo war (or Yugoslavia wars in general) for Serbia
Not pictured: Japan (obvious reasons)
North Korea? Really?
The country that had fucking 20% of its population slaughtered by the US in just 3 years after Korea was split in two against their will after WW2?
Leave it to westerners to be completely ignorant of history lol
This 'meme' is disgusting.
You're the one trotting out a simplistic black and white vision as if anything about any part of history is or can ever be explained in such terms. History is always much more complicated than our ideological biases would like.
They shouldn’t have started a war that they couldn’t win.
There's zero context in your comment. It's just as biased as the meme is. You're blithely glossing over the much larger historical context of WW2 and why the US was there in the first place, and you're eliding the rather obvious fact that a sizable majority of Koreans were opposed to the attempted communist takeover in the first place.
The salient fact about the 2nd half of the 20th century, that is routinely ignored by Lemmy's tankies, is that the men guiding US foreign policy had survived the largest war in human history and were absolutely and legitimately terrified that there would be another even worse war in the very near future if they didn't do everything they could to prevent the kind of runaway imperialism seen in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Furthermore, these men knew for a fact --as even Lemmy's tankies will admit-- that communism by design and by doctrine can only come to its final stage in a globally hegemonic system. If you honestly believed, as they clearly did, that fighting a war in Korea --which after all had been liberated from Imperial Japan by the US-- was part of a much larger strategy to contain communism and thereby prevent a 3rd world war, you would feel yourself morally obliged to do it.
We can argue about whether or not they were correct in their beliefs, but we can't simply condemn them as evil imperialists. That's just stupid reductionist bullshit. Reality is always much more complicated than simple black and white "my team good, your team bad."
Nice post was able to find many pro genocide and colonization users here to be labeled as "idf" or "Zainoist"
NK shouldn’t be here
The number of tankies in this thread is just epic
So, pointing out that the US carpet bombed North Korea with 635,000 tons of bombs, killed 20% of their population and turned all remaining infrastructure to rubble is "tankie" now?
You guys just can't see non-westerners as human.
I think the statistics show it all in the Korean case. May be lot of tankies here, but they'r bringing factual data.
You guys I bit off more than I can chew
Great shitpost 👍
Ehhh the Korean war is complicated. It started with Japan invading Korea and attempting to erase their history and culture. (Worth noting that America gave them the green light on this). After WW2, Korea was divided and backed by US/USSR interests on either side. It was a shitshow with everyone disagreeing how things should be run. Eventually North Korea did invade the South, though, so I guess this meme still applies. But even that fact is unclear - they claim it was retaliatory. Who knows.
It would have been so much easier if instead of splitting Vietnam and Korea, they kept one for each empire to take care of
Doesn't seem very complicated to me
oh well if you think it's simple then please write the historians who cant make sense of it, we don't know who attacked first
Yeah it's a real conundrum, that one
scroll down on the Wikipedia page you copied that from. it describes exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not some Hexbear shill here, the Korean war is a legit fucked up and complicated situation
Honestly why are you so adamant that international conflict must be simple? are you that naive, or are you playing with me, or what?
Who started it is very simple. North Korea started it by invading the South. I'm sorry if that annoys you but it's not a very controversial thing to say at all or something that's highly debated by historians or anything.
sigh you're really not gonna go back and read it, are you?
This isn't some galaxy brain conspiracy take, I'm literally just talking about this ambiguity. And I really don't feel very strongly about this issue - I'm more perturbed that you're be so obstinate about it.
Yes, that claim. It's not highly debated or anything. Like the article says
There's some dubious claims, but almost everyone agrees that North Korea started the war. This is like arguing that there's ambiguity about climate change since there's some scientists who don't believe in it. Meanwhile, the vast vast majority agrees that it's a thing.
It's all well and good to think "there's two sides to this" and whatever, you want to be fair and whatnot, but it's really unwarranted here. You're just unwittingly giving more credence to dubious claims.
Missing the Palestinian flag there Buddy.
*Israeli
Another dope who's swallowed Iran's Propaganda. Good job. Israel didn't start it in October, or in '48 or any of the wars in between.
Either way, it doesn’t make Israel’s actions right.
No but it makes them justified. When faced with an existential threat, there is no choice but to eliminate it.
This all ends when Hamas gives up their terroristic control. Even the Arabs understand that and are including it in their peace deal negotiations.
You didn’t read the article. Your statements make no sense.
It's a picture not an article....and you still struggled to read it. LoL.
You don’t read pictures. You look at them. This is a meme. As you were.
add hamas to this picture
Yes, history started 7th October. Very smart
Ah yes, the good ol "they deserved it"
One of the key differences between Chat GPT and humans is that humans can remember more than 32k tokens in a conversation at a time.
Given that you already forgot what OP wrote by the time you replied to a top level comment, you've performed significantly worse than a bot. Congratulations.
Read that in the voice of GLaDOS.
Sorry, I am unable to fulfill your request. Could you reformulate?
Sorry, I am unable to fulfill your request. Could you reformulate?
Pointing to an ongoing genocide isn't the same as saying citizens of the state committing that genocide deserved it.
That said, it's interesting though not at all surprising that you're running right past the tens of thousands that Israel have killed to cry victim about the couple of hundred that Hamas killed.
No, it started in 1948. And it was started by several Arab nations, who invaded immediately after Britain released their mandate in the region protecting Israelis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
Heard of the six day war? How about the Yom kipour war? Who started any of them?
1948 is the year Israel began their genocide by killing or displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people, after which several neighbouring nations staged a joint military intervention.
Imagine claiming history has spanned a total of 75 years and that an attempted invasion at the beginning of time justifies a genocide in progress today.
Lemme ask you a question: how did Jerusalem get its name, and who lived there and named it thousands of years ago?
Maybe learn something before you advocate for the extermination of an entire people. Jerusalem was named after the pre jewish pagan Canaanite god Shalem. Those ancient Canaanites were there before the Jews and the modern Palestinians are the descendants of those ancient Canaanites.
Will the answer justify the genocide?
No.
Why should anyone care, and why do you deflect to this with less integrity than literal Nazis, who use the same blood and soil arguments you do, but at least tend to own their genocidal positions?
Romans.
Jokes aside, the Bible states that Jews conquered the city from Jebusites. There's no scientific consensus on who Jebusites actually were. But they were not Israelites, that's for sure.
By your logic, who named Los Angeles, Nevada, Texas, Florida, ...? Are you saying the US has to give back more than half of the territory to Spain?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
They also tried to straight up genocide Israel two more times afterwards too.
You mean Israel.