No. The real reason is to keep an ally in the very Muslim middle east and because they believe that it’s a prerequisite for the rapture.
At this point, I don’t think anyone involved believes in a loving God, or even a God that will punish sinners. Neither of them would want this.
Oh, they figured their way out of that painted corner a long time ago. All they need is Matthew 5:17 and the Old Testament in order to justify any atrocity.
Whenever they are tired of the whole love thy neighbor/turn the other cheek/cast no judgements side of Jesus, they just bring up Matthew: he didn’t come to DESTROY the OT law he came to FULFILL it!
That’s all it takes to make it OK for them to smite enemies and hate people for their sexuality.
They wouldn’t think a holy war sinful. Not when done for their pick of the almighty litter. On that, the three involved parties agree.
and im sure the oil deposits sweeten the deal too
They didn’t even live there, they are foreign LARPers who hate Arabs
Over 80% of the population of Israel was born in Israel. If you want them to leave then you’re talking about ethnic cleansing, not decolonization.
Your statistic is wrong 80% of the Jewish population were born there. Jews are 73% of the population at 7.2 million which means 1.44 million weren’t born there. It isn’t about leaving or kicking people out. It is about the Israeli government was founded on false pretenses, ethnic cleansing and genocide. They owe reparations to the people who lived their before. The nation shouldn’t be Israel and shouldn’t be an ethno-state (all ethno-states are bad) it should have been Palestinian and every one should live their peacefully like they have before
deleted by creator
So you’re saying the people in Gaza have to pull a reverse uno?
The jewish people have never wholly owned that area. Persians, Arabs, and many other races have also always lived there. It’s literally in the bible.
The bible that has how many version and retellings?
If you’re using the old testament to say they lived there then you cannot ignore the old testament saying other people lived there too.
I think you misunderstand. I’m saying the bible is a shit piece of cobbles together fairy tales, ramblings, sheep herder narrations, and hallucinations that has been rewritten and retold in so many different versions that is serves little to no historical evidence. You might as well be born in 4000 and basing your historical knowledge on winnie the pooh to recount what happened in 2000.
Fair enough.
They genocided the Canaanites in all of them.
There is historical/archaeological/genetic evidence.
That was how they stole that land in the first place. By murdering every man, woman, child, and animal in the land.
Genocide of the canaanites is definitely in the Bible but possibly/probably didn’t happen as much as the Bible says. I’m sure there were times when whole cities were put to the sword but a lot of the stories in the Bible seem more like they were made up later as a way of claiming racial purity. It made it so the Hebrews could say “there’s no way we’re mixed with canaanites cuz we killed all the canaanites”
(The Israelites were likely a subset of Canaanites)
Also remember that the bronze age Jews were not at all special among the tribes of the area, their story about themselves is aggrandizing fiction that all the tribes did, it’s just the Jews’ stories survived and became popular
Also bronze age. Those that left left so long ago, the only right they have to the place is military might and the legal right given based on lobbying and the racism of the law makers in question.
Iron age, the Hebrew age of myth was set during the bronze age and in the immediate period of the bronze age collapse. Moses was bronze age, david was post bronze age collapse, the first diaspora was during the early Iron age, and the second diaspora was during antiquity.
Sorry if im being anal about it but one of the few good things about the old testament is that it tracks the evolution from bronze to iron pretty well, also Cyrus the great works as a solid historical reference point. But yeah there was about 700 years between the end of the bronze age and the end of the first diaspora, and about a thousand years to the second diaspora. For reference the Roman empire still existed seven hundred years ago.
Thanks, I’m not great on biblical history, so corrections and detail are welcome
Oh I aint either, but certain groups and events mentioned work as solid reference points. The Philistines were most like Bronze age Greek settlers set up by the Egyptians to work as a march for example. I just know a lot about the Bronze age collapse and the Bronze age. Also when I say set during its in the same way Red dead 2 is set during the late 1800s, Moses at best is the faint memory of a legendary story that was mythologized similar to King Arthur.
Native Americans are not The Chosen People. And it is antisemitic to make the comparison.
The Chosen People
Found a supremist.
You say that, but . . . :
…Throughout the 1800’s, adherents cited the current existence of the “red sons of Israel” (i.e. Native American) as evidence of the authenticity of the The Book of Mormon.
Adherents saw Native Americans as part of God’s chosen people and they believed that preaching to them was part of the gathering of Israel which will precede the millennium. The church’s long history with Native Americans is tied to their beliefs about The Book of Mormon. According to sociologist Marcie Goodman, historically Latter Day Saints held paternalistic beliefs about Native Americans needing help. Outreach to Native Americans became the first mission of Smith’s newly organized Church of Christ, as the purpose of The Book of Mormon was to recover the lost remnant of the ancient children of Israel (e.g. Native Americans).
You caught me, the haredi raised Persian Jew who is an antisemite.
I’m going to say something probably incredibly offensive, but I have the safety of my funny online username so it’s ok.
The people are only “chosen” if you subscribe to their beliefs. If you’re insinuating that Native Americans aren’t “chosen” either, then you’ve forgotten that they actually use a picture of you in the dictionary to define “hypocrite”.
You are allowed to question peoples’ beliefs, but you are certainly NOT allowed to take harmful action against them because they are different.
And to be perfectly clear, I am not commenting on which side of the current conflict is entitled to what. I’m not touching that conversation with a 12ft pole.
Technically the Greeks own the Earth, because Zeus has a bigger imaginary dick than Jehovah, Yaweh, Allah, Buddha or Krishna. 🤷
Thanks for the laugh.
I don’t understand this comment - are you saying they’re a higher/better people because they’re “The Chosen People”? That they deserve the land? And how is the comparison antisemitic?
It’s sarcasm
Lol… Their ancestors only lived there after they ethnically cleansed the people who were already living there. They’ve been doing this crap for a long time.
What? Who are you talking about here?
Israel. According to the bible, the hebrews conquered the area and killed a lot of people living there
The Israelites conquered Canaan from the Canaanites who were already living there.
Removed by mod
… they’re eating the pets in canaan
Removed by mod
According to the bible, not history.
They definitely took the land from someone. The funny thing is that it doesn’t even matter who “they” refers to in that sentence because it is universally true. Everyone is from somewhere else if you go back far enough. This whole thread is just different people picking different points in time to refer to as the original state of things, despite the fact that history is literally the study of the constant evolution of humanity.
Americans conquered America from the aboriginals who were living there
So you’re agreeing that giving Palestine “back” to the Jews just because their ancestors lived there was stupid?
That’s a different point entirely. I was only disagreeing with the commenters comparison of what happened to the Canaanites thousands of years ago to what’s happening today with the Palestinians. What i think about giving the land back to the Palestinians doesn’t matter.
Who were you disagreeing with? The comment you replied to just stated a fact… I don’t see any of this comparison in that comment
It’s a false equivalence. Yes, it’s a fact, but let’s not pretend like they weren’t trying to use the Canaan conquest example to put a bit more dirt on Israel’s name. Yes, they did it. But so was every other empire and nation back in the day. Context matters.
Yes, we should condemn all of that
Because we sit at the pinnacle of history, judging all the past generations who came before us. Holy Whig historiography Batman.
Very well. I don’t disagree. But the commenter specifically made mention of how “Israel” has been doing this, while ignoring historical context.
Depends on what you mean by condemn. All of those things were bad when they happened. But we can’t forever condemn the descendants of warlike people as tainted colonizers.
On the other hand, in the case of some of the more recent events, we still have people today who are marginalized, impoverished, and lack access to land as a result of those past atrocities. Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others. This situation calls out for a just solution. The redistribution of land, extra services, reparations, etc. should all be on the table for the descendants of the colonized. But notably, the expulsion of the descendants of the colonizers should not be—this will just perpetuate a similar injustice into the future.
I 100% agree with you. Those things were bad in retrospect, but it’s not worth comparing actions of today to back then because the times have changed.
Also, there definitely should be a concerted effort to resolve the concerns of those who still suffer from those past atrocities. For the Israel-Palestine saga, that might well be a two state solution as many propose, but i know there will still be people willing to argue with and insult me for this position.
I think a two state solution is probably the most realistic one, even if it might not be my perfect ideal solution. But a big issue with it (at least as currently conceptualized) is that Israelis already occupy a large portion of the more valuable and productive land and water resources, while Palestinians have been pushed into marginal areas. So drawing up the boundaries where people currently live perpetuates this injustice.
Additionally, creating two hostile neighboring ethnostates creates a lot of future problems. Will these nations coexist more peacefully than in the past? That’s not totally clear but at least it will make the ongoing settlements and ethnic cleansing more politically complicated for Israel and give Palestinians more official recognition at the UN and elsewhere. Furthermore, it will also be very likely to result in the expulsion of some people from their homes and lands which I oppose in almost all circumstances.
All that said I don’t see how any other solution is really possible so if the parties could agree on it I would support it, imperfect though it may be. Peace is rarely perfectly fair but it is still worthwhile nonetheless.
Oh definitely, it’s not the best, but it’s the most that can be done. Especially with the point about hostility. I mean Israel already withdrew from Gaza before, and we know how that went, so there’s always that threat that’s going to be looming over their heads. Let’s just hope they can settle this soon.
Most notably for the west, this includes native Americans and Palestinians, among others
The Palestinians have been given more money in real terms than Germany did post WW2.
The fact that they’re country is a shit tip of humanity is entirely on them.
Yes, it’s exactly the same as post-war Germany… if we ignore the bombings, indiscriminate murder, lack of productive capacity, lack of free movement, evictions and land theft, lack of democratic processes and institutions, and many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.
ignore the bombings
Yes, because Germany was never, ever bombed during the war.
many other factors that have been imposed on them externally.
Every single one of those actions have been taken because they continue to do everything that they can do to kill Israelis.
They’ve been offered statehood multiple times and turned it down every time
Their lack of elections is because they continue to support a terrorist organisation.
The bombings are because they continue to support a terrorist organisation
Everything is because they continue to hate.
Excellent comment, I frequently bring this concept to others attention when the term “colonizer” is used.
Arbitrary and selective use of the term to fit a specific narrative detracts from current day realities.
Somehow people seem to have forgotten that times of peace and respect for manmade borders and laws of sovereign nations are not the norm for history.
You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why people argue without considering context. It’s not like I’m disagreeing that Israel’s genocide is wrong, but we have to consider context when we compare this stuff to history.
Surely it’s impractical to continue supporting theft, genocide, kidnapping, torture, SA, etc.
Just because genocide has been “acceptable” in the past, that doesn’t mean we should support it now.
TBH it’s kinda gross and uber-privileged to suggest this.
If you go back and take a look at what i typed, i never said anything about supporting what Israel is doing today
It would be impractical to undo every theft that has ever occurred, and yet we still condemn theft, work to prevent it, punish thieves for it, and try to undo what thefts we can.
So you are disagreeing with me how? You want to punish Israel for what they did thousands of years ago to the Canaanites?
Removed by mod
This is exactly the point, but some people don’t mind twisting rhetorics and context when it benefits their argument. Truly annoying.
Not true, not all conquests involved erasing the indigenous peooples. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:
“The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations the Arabs did not engage in farming…their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam, and to collect taxes…the Jewish farmer, like any other farmer, was not easily torn from his soil…Despite the repression and suffering the rural population remained unchanged.” [7]
Ben Gurion is quoted by Shlomo Sand in his book https://blogs.umb.edu/joinercenter/2012/10/09/review-of-shlomo-sand-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-london-verso-2009-translated-by-yael-lotan/
Fair enough. My point still stands though. The person i responded to’s comment can be applied to any number of these peoples, so it’s wrong to claim, “The Israelites have been doing this stuff”, when really, everyone was doing it
I’m no historian, but I presume the Canaanites then moved to North America and founded Canaada
I think you’ve invented Mormonism
They’re referring to Native Americans
…waaait a minute
Are you a Mormon?
No need for insults
Their ancestors only lived there after they ethnically cleansed the people who were already living there.
If this even happened…
Pretty sure they believe it did
According to the Bible, yes. Which is most likely not true. Remember that Zionism started as a secular movement, with religious people getting more (very) on board relatively recently
Interesting… Is there more accurate information about how the Israelites ended up in that region? Did they just never do the whole Egypt thing?
The history has scant evidence, but we can discount the whole exile story. Slaves tend to be maltreated and are the last ones to be fed during famine, and that leaves physical evidence on their skeletons. We don’t have evidence of that in Egypt; for the most part, their monuments were built by farmers who didn’t have anything else to do when the Nile flooded. Also, a large nomadic group–which Israel would have been under Moses according to the Biblical account–should leave behind a lot of trash for archeologists to find today.
Fundie Christians like to say “Egypt wouldn’t have told stories about a time they lost”, but that doesn’t matter. First, you better bring some good evidence to say the Red Sea parted and people could walk on dry land. Second, as shown above, there should be physical evidence that we can find. It’s not there, and it’s hardly for a lack of trying. This is one of the most picked over parts of the planet by archeologists.
What seems to have happened is that they just came from there in the first place. Yahwah started as a war god among a larger pantheon. The people who later became the Hebrews worshiped that god as their primary; they didn’t discount the existence of other gods, but they worshiped this one as their primary one (still polytheism at this point). This later evolved into discounting the importance of other gods (henotheism), and much later disregarding the existence of other gods altogether (monotheism). That especially came into play with Persian Zoroastrian influence after the Babylonian Exile.
In short, it was a religion that evolved out of the beliefs of the people already living there, and they mostly stayed right there. The Egyptian slavery bits were probably from oral stories at a time when Israel had a conflict with Egypt.
There could have even been a smaller group of former Egyptian slaves that fled and settled in Israel with the people who already lived there and over time their religion/culture was adopted by more and more people until it became the dominant one.
Like a large group of people wandering a desert for 40 years doesn’t make sense, even if 40 years is just a metaphor for a long time and was just one full year. But a small group could have wandered and visited other settlements that might have helped them out but didn’t want them to settle down there, even for a long time.
Kinda like how most Christians today aren’t descendents of anyone who would have had anything to do with Jesus or even descendent from Jewish people who believed in the Christian predecessor religion. They were just people who at one point were told they had to convert by words, swords, or guns.
Just speculation based on thinking about the scenario and what cases might put the story somewhere between fiction and truth rather than just being entirely made up (which is also certainly possible).
Do you have any sources to start learning about/researching this? This is very fascinating and haven’t heard much, if any, of this before.
Religion For Breakfast is a pretty good YouTube channel for this. Would also recommend Bart Ehrman’s podcast.
That’s correct
The tribes of Israel were most likely Canaanites that made up the whole came in and conquered everyone in the area after being slaves story.
Everything before the Babylonian Exile was made up, because the Babylonians sacked, well everything. They destroyed the First Temple, and took away the nobility and priests.
It was only after the Exile ended that the Hebrews became monotheistic… Sort of. There has been some noises before the Exile, but afterwards it was official.
It was also after the Exile that the stories of Noah and Moses were first added to the Torah.
As a note, the Epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story, and as an ancient Babylon story, would have been available for the hostages (the Hebrew priests and nobility) to read.
Makes sense with the flood story… I wonder where the Moses story came from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity
The TLDR; no mentions of Moses in Egyptian or Persian texts until about the 4th century BCE. He may have been a Hebrew specific quasi mythic figure based on a possible real person. But there’s no evidence at all.
Which makes sense, because that’s the timeframe that the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and started letting the exiles return to Judah. Exiles who compiled a new Torah from scraps they saved and from making shit up.
Not entirely made up. Some of the late first temple period can be verified. Such as the split between the northern and southern kingdoms, or the Assyrian invasion under Hezekiah. The further you go back, though, the worse the evidence gets. David and Solomon are questionable as historical figures, and anything before that, just forget it. The Egyptian exile never happened.
This is according to their own religious texts which can be found in the Bible as well. A religion of genocide that instructed on brutal racial slavery.
When you say “they,” are you referring to all humans throughout all of human history? Not conquering/displacing people is a much more recent international norm
The ancients very much understood the value in just changing leadership. So conquering yes, genocide? Usually only when religion is involved.
deleted by creator
That’s breathtakingly untrue. I know it’s the sensational popular view of historical warfare but it’s just not true. Generally the worst thing that would happen is to be enslaved. But as time goes on and we develop different power structures after the Romans, decapitation of the government becomes far more preferred. So there’s a big battle, the loser leader gets killed, and the remaining nobles swear loyalty to the new leader. Trained people are simply too valuable to kill out of hand.
Of course we do have documented instances of genocide and mass destruction. Nobody is saying it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t the normal mode of operation.
This is fundamentally not true. Invading, looting then burning down entire towns, killing men, and raping and/or kidnapping women and children was practiced across the globe by many different cultures for thousands of years
You’re confusing the fact that stuff happened, with that stuff being the go to thing to do. Even the Mongols preferred to take towns with the populace intact so they could get taxes as soon as possible. Popular history blows the genocidal stuff way out of proportion.
Dude. I’m confusing “the fact that stuff happened” with the fact that stuff happened lmao
I don’t know what history you’re reading, but sexual violence and the destruction of towns and cities has been pervasive in war for millennia. Here’s a brief introduction for you
Stop. Just stop. If you can’t defend this-
When you say “they,” are you referring to all humans throughout all of human history? Not conquering/displacing people is a much more recent international norm
Without bringing up a Wikipedia article about rape then you’ve already lost.
More of a recent virtue signal we’ve been propagandized to believe, while continuing the conquering and displacement without skipping a beat.
While the west was writing the UN declaration of human rights, they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.
At the end of WW2 America, and the rest of the anglo-allies, assisted France in trying to reclaim their colonies, rejecting hundreds of millions their “basic human right” to democracy; all of this went on for decades after the declaration was ratified, as if that meant anything.
Human rights don’t apply as long as you are labelled a communist, terrorist, separatist, extremist, pedo, etc, etc. Then they can torture you in a black site all nice and legal.
Most of our history has been written by sociopathic criminals.
If you look at the entirety of human history, genocides and displacements have objectively been at an all-time low since the end of WWII
It’s not the first time that peace exists you know, and it’s an incredibly short span that you’re describing, one which I think everyone agrees is closer to its end than anything
if you look at the entirety of human history, since WWII is a blink of an eye
fight complacency.
…they were hard at work creating the state of Israel, directly denying Palestine their right to democracy and displacing a million of them.
There was no Palestinian sovereign state prior to Britain’s decision to establish a Jewish homeland in the region. It was briefly under shared British and French control following a revolt against the Ottoman Empire during WWI; then the League of Nations assigned Britain control over the region as “Mandatory Palestine”.
Mandatory Palestine was explicitly intended to be temporary, with Britain providing “administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”. Additionally, it was always intended to provide a home for the Jewish people without displacing Palestinian Arabs. Of course, this didn’t really work out. There was a lot of conflict between the Palestinian nationalists and the Jewish nationalists.
The UN’s action in 1947 was to partition the region into separate Jewish and Palestinian sovereign states. The reason this didn’t actually happen was because Arabic leaders both within the region and nearby rejected the idea of a sovereign Jewish state in the region. Israel declared independence anyway, and as the Palestinian Mandate expired, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began as an effort to destroy the newly formed Israel. But of course Israel got support from other countries, and the war ended with Israel controlling most of Palestine and believing its neighbors to be a constant existential threat.
The Palestinians did not declare an independent, sovereign state until 1988, at which point they actually declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Palestine. There has never been a proposal for a two-state solution that Palestinian leaders have endorsed.
Not true. At least not for the Muslim conquest of the Levant according to Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister:
“The fellahin are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations the Arabs did not engage in farming…their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam, and to collect taxes…the Jewish farmer, like any other farmer, was not easily torn from his soil…Despite the repression and suffering the rural population remained unchanged.” [7]
Ben Gurion is quoted by Shlomo Sand in his book https://blogs.umb.edu/joinercenter/2012/10/09/review-of-shlomo-sand-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people-london-verso-2009-translated-by-yael-lotan/
Oh snap! Gottem!!!
Not really, it’s just a thinly veiled excuse so that any criticism of our current neocolonialist policies can be treated and swept up under the rug just like centuries before, except the rug is painted in the color of supposed religious intolerance (oh shit, guess I still can’t be atheist in the 21st century).
This is a weird comparison. Native Americans were the victims a of horrific genocide similar to Palestinians now.
is land not supposed to be claimed through war? was biological warfare Evan a crime at the time of its use? who even had property rights to America before the Russians and Europeans came here?
Morality did not suddenly appear with international law and international law does not define morality now. What an ignorant take. ‘Property rights’ are made up by western colonialists to oppress indigenous peoples.
I understand it more in a way of “if you think Israel is morally doing the right thing, give native americans back their land.”
It becomes pretty horrible if you believe that Israel is in the wrong, though, which is probably why people don’t think it works
The post is literally a satire towards ones who support Israel, it shouldn’t work any other way
Native Americans should be given back their land just like Palestinians.
“their ancestors”
The first Jews to move to Palestine were European Jews, they can’t use the “our ancestors” card.
I don’t understand. They’re talking about Biblical era ancestors
DNA tests show that their ancestors mostly have the same markers found in southern Italian or Sicilian populations.
If a Japanese converts to Judaism, can they claim that their ancestors used to live in Israel? Well, the same logic applies to the European Jews of Europe that moved to Israel. They then convinced Jews that are actual descendants of the Levant populations to move to Israel with them, but the first settlers didn’t have Israeli ancestors, or didn’t have more of them than any other Joe Schmo from Southern Italy
Can you provide some sources I can use for explaining that to others?
Check out some history. It’s sort of obvious at its face when these white people claim to be from the middle east.
Judaism is - mostly - not a religion of conversion, that’s why it’s always complicated to separate the religious aspect from the ethnic side when talking about ‘Jews’.
Even if the ancestry is muddled in millennia of mixing with other local populations, I suppose most Jews can still claim that they descend from Israeli ancestors at some point, and it makes sense.
By this logic anyone can claim their right to seize African land
Or understand that remote ancestry doesn’t necessarily give you a right to some land
Ding ding ding! Right answer!
Although I’ll be the first to admit that what happened to first Nations and indigenous populations during modern colonization is completely unfair and the reservations system is completely broken and it’s recent enough that it’s perfectly fair for them to fight it, but claiming you’re owed a piece of land because you’re ancestors got kicked out millennias ago? Nah.
Yeah, I’d be inclined to agree with your last point too. Especially when you consider the Holocaust, and how the Jews were forced to relocate or die. It’s like what do you want them to do in that situation.
It’s like what do you want them to do in that situation.
I want them not to steal the land and genocide the people who are completely unconnected to the holocaust. Zionism was a form of fascism before WW2. It’s always been the plan to rob palestine (apart from when they wanted argentina, etc.).
Are you aware of the history of the state of Israel beyond what affirms a bias? The modern state of Israel was formed after Jews around the world started purchasing land in modern day Israel. 28% of Israel was purchased this way, and that’s most of the land the original waves moved to. Arab states surrounding that 28% had a huge issue with Jews existing in that space considering every one of those nations had genocide the Jews from their borders and even aligned with Hitler during WW2 (including the Palestinians, who allied with Hitler and whose leaders were eventually sent into exile by the British for doing so).
So, because the Arab states already had designs on the area of Palestine (they were going to annex once the British left), and they couldn’t tolerate Jews existing in the area… The Arab nations attacked. And lost, soundly. And Israel grew much, much larger. Israel seized more land by fighting off a war than anywhere else. That’s what happens when countries lose wars of aggression which they start; they lose territory. That’s what Ukraine is doing to Russia right now and they’d be foolish to ever give it back.
But sometimes they do give some or all land back. Which Israel did. They gave a lot of the land back in exchange for peace.
There’s no perfect entity in the world, and definitely not one in the Middle East. But please, spare us the Boogeyman one sided tales. The Jews fought for Israel so adamantly because they were exterminated from the region long before any fascist rose to power in Germany. They were forced out into diaspora several times, too. It’s all complicated and unfair and it isn’t as simple as Jews = European and don’t belong there.
Palestinians need to bite the bullet. There are generations of people born there now and Arab states are not going to exterminate them again. So a two state solution is what they better seek unless they want to lose it all with their constant aggression. Is it ideal? No. Would it secure an actual state and begin the process of normalization? Maybe. But first they need to purge terrorists from their leadership. And that’s the real stickler considering that shit runs deep in many Arab Nation governments. The two are intertwined just like emergency companies are in the west.
Fair enough. However, i don’t know about Zionism being fascism. It’s simply Israeli nationalism. Sure, there are a few far right Zionists, but they are in the minority.
Actually Judaism is a religion of conversion since ancient times and to this day.
Compared to other religions, conversion to Judaism is quite complex and sometimes not allowed at all. The proselyte culture is a lot less developed than for other monotheistic religions.
Yet the Edomites were forcefully converted to Judaism in the 2nd century BCE https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-edomites
It is a religion with converts even if they are pickier about who is converted, and being the oldest of the Abrahamic religions its converts go back millennia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism
with modern converts even stirring debate over their right to “return”: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2013-02-19/ty-article/.premium/peruvian-converts-denied-aliyah/0000017f-f79e-d887-a7ff-fffea6480000
I suppose most Jews can still claim that they descend from Israeli ancestors at some point, and it makes sense.
Just like christians, muslims, and probably the majority of people on the planet. But most convincingly the palestinians who continuously inhabited that land throughout history.
Dude, jews have been living in israel all throughout history. They’ve been forcefully expelled from the country by the various empires which have conquered it but there has always been a jewish presence in the land. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
Yes, there have been palestinians practicing judaism for a long time.
But that doesn’t give europeans (and africans and asians and others), regardless of their religion, the right to steal the land and genocide the people.
In the olde days they called them crusades and they were garbage then too.
When you say steal land and genocide people, are you referring to the survivors from the Holocaust granted part of the british controlled land called (by the british BTW and not the indigenous people) Palestine? Those folks who we’re then immediately set upon by the arabic folk living in said land?
The fallacy of this never ending debate is kinda displayed when there’s stories in the bible where God tells the Jews to displace the Canaanites and take their land.
Can we just, not?
See my reply to someone else, the Jews that moved to Israel after WW2 were just Jewish of European origin.
“Always” when semitic monotheism didn’t exist before the 6th century BCE? When do you think the world was created?
A unified and stable middle east would be and would have been a global superpower with the ability to influence independent control over major global trade routes and energy supply.
This is why the Israel is and has been imperative to U.S. foreign policy.
deleted by creator
Far less inter-secular conflicts there before the WW1 promise of not dividing the region up amongst European empires was broken.
deleted by creator
Yet Jews and Muslims lived in relative peace with each other in Jerusalem for long periods of time. They don’t have to fight. The fighting mostly comes to them. Anyone claiming it’s because the religions must fight is lying or mislead. I don’t know which you are, if that’s what you’re implying.
They did before Europeans took over the area post ww1
Peace and harmony ?
deleted by creator
Money, guns and oil baaaabbbbyyy. Everything else is propaganda and distractions
Thanks, Dr. Rockzo!
Lol I thought this was a Mormon meme at first
Urim and thummim pilled
I think support for Israel is based on their sharing three principle values of the west: liberalism, democracy, & capitalism.
deleted by creator
I’ve met a few fascists in my life and every one of them has referred to Israelis as “the tribe,” and advocated for arming the Palestinians so they could finish what Hitler could not. Their ideology was ugly but also very unsupportive of Israel.
Godwin’s Horseshoe.
Common hamid W
Fuck Israel and America
I mean, I also think American Indians have a right to live and self govern in the Americas, and likewise have a right to defend themselves in that context. They just also don’t have the right to bomb and push out all the white people who were born here too. We actually do have somewhat of a two state solution with some tribes in the US, it’s just very inequal and there’s massive systemic problems obviously. I’m not sure this meme is quite making the point you think it is?
Ok, now do the right of the US to claim and govern the territories that were taken from them by gunpoint.
Big stick and live here, same way it works basically everywhere. But like I was born here too, both of my parents were born here, two of my grandparents were born here. Why would I NOT have the right to be part of the democratic government of the land of my birth?
So the Israelis also don’t have a right to commit genocide.
No argument there. It’s just unclear what point the meme is making. I agree with the message they’re clearly TRYING to say.
So you got the message, and you’re just ignoring it?
The meme is saying that Israelis rights to the land dont override the rights of other peoples, like the Palestinians. Its pointing out that many who think Israel are doing nonwrong would not be infavour of native Americans bombing their cities, or even giving up their land.
