Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@freemo

160k vs. 700k and "Jews made up something like 10%": Wasn't the Jewish population like 500k by 1940? Your 160k to 700k sounds more like 1930 numbers? I'm not sure where you got those from, are you talking about a specific region that is much smaller than ex-Mandatory Palestine? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945 – is this a total fabrication by the British??)

When the partition was made, Jews were about 600k, 1/3 of the population. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that number went from 160k to 600k *in 1947*. From everything I can find, this is not true? Instead, 160k->600k was gradual over a generation. (Do you have better sources than I do?

(One of the possible complaints about the partition plan that I alluded to, and possibly one of the main causes of the war, was that the Jewish state has 2/3 the land despite having 1/3 the people.)

It's true that Jewish immigration skyrocketed after 1948, but that seems neither here nor there wrt. this discussion.

"Yes, the british had no rights to allow anyone to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory" ...uh, ok... I'm not trying to justify British colonialism here, not sure what your point is. (FWIW the ottomans before the British didn't seem to be stopping this immigration either. Are you arguing someone had a moral right to stop it but was prevented from doing so? If so, who?)

"Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. " Yes, again, as I said, there's probably much about the partition plan that could have been done better. UN == (steaming bowl of elephant piss). fully agree. Something had to happen, though: there were 1/2 million Jews there and tons of violence. Do you think you could have done better?

"britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed" The UN you mean? OK, but ... what should they have done, then? Given Turkey control over everything again, since that is the "country" that existed before the British won WW1? there's no useful status-quo ante here, Freemo. I'm not sure what you are thinking on this one.

"only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, " Yeah, I agree it would have been ideal if the Jewish, Arab, (and other) leadership could have hammered this out on their own. Now, Freemo, why do you think that didn't happen? It certainly wasn't because the British cared, they were clearly just trying to escape without any more of their troops getting killed.

@freemo "Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group " – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don't understand what you're trying to do here.

"they are illegal immigrants" Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you're saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?

"defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land." and "they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it…." No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There's plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can't fathom how it is a "literal invasion".

Then, there was a war, of course, immediately after the partition. (The UN is so useless.) I guess there were foreign fighters in this war – ex-Axis fighters, arabs from outside Palestine, etc. I wouldn't really call that an "invasion", though – the main combatants/sides were local to the area.

"please stop pretending they are the victims here" At various times certain Jews were certainly victims! And at other times and places they were the victimizers. Of course; and we both know this, so, again, I don't understand why you're saying this.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @kjetil_kilhavn "for the "freedom fighters" to have meetings and gather in secret among civilians"

If they were freedom fighters who cared about the people they claim to be fighting for I think they'd do things a bit differently.

@realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @freemo @kjetil_kilhavn It's only understandable because we understand that they don't care about civilians.

This is somewhat common in war – the leadership has twisted motivations misaligned with the population, causing a war to happen or affecting how it is carried out. Consider how Putin is happy to have thousands of his own troops slaughtered and wreck his economy if it means he can cement his position and personal security. Similarly the Kim dynasty in NK: it doesn't bother them in the slightest that their people are starving, as long as they remain firmly in power. It's not like they ever went hungry themselves.

@realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @freemo @kjetil_kilhavn I don't think they have much choice but to go after the terrorists at this point. I think it is incumbent on them to do this with minimal collateral damage, though – I'm ignorant about the best way to do that?

@freemo They didn't "come with" weapons – what on earth are you talking about?

They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on. In situ, yes? The immigrants that came were, you know, immigrants. You know this, right? Can you see that the way you're talking about it makes it sound like all the refugees that came were armed to the teeth and hit the ground shooting or something? Is this some weird definition of "invade" you're using for rhetorical reasons?

Of course, this doesn't justify anything they did with those security forces once they built them! That's an entirely separate issue, and more germane to who is justified doing what this week.

"at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants"

what are you even talking about

"willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views" – I did think that, yes. That's why I'm engaging with you here.

> So they all have to stand in an open field where the inevitable result is a few bombs to whipe them out in a matter of a seconds?

No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @kjetil_kilhavn Wha? It is absolutely not the case that they have no choice but to have military installations in the same buildings as hospitals/schools/residences. There are "literally" other places they could have them.

You seem to be under the impression that Gaza is completely covered, every square inch, in civilian buildings? This is, *of course*, not the case.

@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.

"illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?

I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?

There have been Jews in the area, continuously, for 1000s of years. There has been tension at least since the refugee immigration waves started 100+ years ago. Nebi Musa riots, and so on. People from both groups have committed completely unjustified violence, of course. The situation we are in today is a direct result of those issues building and building, never being resolved.

Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.

"I agree the Hamas commiting attrocities would be a reason to consider stop saying it" That would of course have nothing to do with whether Israel "invaded".

@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid Freemo my guy you gotta stop calling it an "invasion".

Calling refugee immigration an "invasion" is an dickish thing to do. Please stop. It makes you look like those xenophobes in the US who talk about central american immigrant "invasions".

There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)

None of this in the slightest has anything to do with whether Israel is justified in the way they are prosecuting this war against Hamas baby killing terrorists, of course, which is another reason to stop saying it.

@mybarkingdogs @Yehuda Should it be a decolonial project? It seems like describing the situation as colonialism misses the essence of it, which probably won't help resolve it.

@ViciousBabushka @Yehuda There's no point in asking Hamas to do that; they are a terrorist organization. There is no equivalence between Hamas and Israel in terms of what you would ask or expect of them.

@omegahaxors@mastodon.social @emilyk@babka.social @actuallyautistic @mazeldon Depends what you mean by Zionism?

@freemo @realcaseyrollins

> There is no histoical record of any country named israel before the 40's.

This is trivially false as a factual matter, but even if it were true what is the upshot?

Waves of immigration (not an "invasion", that feels like xenophobes today calling central American refugees to the US an "invasion") and poor governance by the British predictably caused tension and violence. (IIUC most of the violence was directed against Jewish communities in those days, ~100 years ago?) But why does any of that matter wrt. this question? It's not like that history justifies any violence or injustices today, surely.

Her video is an inane response to a claim someone made(?) that Hamas is responsible for <something>? Sure: this violence had been going on for at least 80 years before Hamas was founded, great point Mia, thanks for your helpful history lesson.

@freemo "To me this is her mocking the very thing her people has been tortured with her whole life." – right – the raping, torturing, child-kidnapping terrorists the other day brought her this sense of mocking delight.

"overwhelming majority of isralis are people who choose to migrate" ooh ooh please be careful there. A lot of people who moved to Israel over the years were refugees fleeing some pretty bad situations.

"In their eyes that makes them valid targets" This is ghastly, far worse than her other comments. You join the Navy or whatever and suddenly its ok to rape you and post videos of you bleeding out from the rape online because you are or were "active military"? Can you see how this is not actually a valid, or interesting, point? (Did she really say that?? I can't find it.)

Hamas doesn't give a shit about the people of Gaza – they do things like kill babies in order to cement their own power at the Palestinians expense, whom they then use as human shields. Khalifa plays right into their game. Who would want to be suckered into amplifying such a foolish murderer-rapist-kidnapper-supporting message like hers?

Lots of other people seem perfectly able to criticize Israel without rejoicing in the bloodshed and terror of the other day: read the last few posts on the subject from @QasimRashid for example. FWIW I disagree with almost every post he has ever made, but see how he does it without supporting kidnapping raping baby killers? Without trying to justify it with completely psychopathic arguments about "active military"? It's really not that hard.

@freemo Ok, but "if she supported Hamas" ... she almost kinda sorta did? And you didn't quote everything.

The snarky "I can’t believe the Zionist apartheid regime is being brought down by guerrilla fighters in fake Gucci shirts" feels like grave dancing.

"Zionist apartheid regime is being brought down" – i.e. the thing that happened was good. Granted, a stretch.

"the biopics of these moments better reflect that." – here we see a desire to ... something like memorialize the humiliation? There might be a better way to rephrase what I'm saying, but hopefully you see my point.

The next comment you quote about making sure there's good footage of "my people" makes a connection between the raping terrorist child-killers (the videos she had just been talking about) and the people getting out of the bad situation in Gaza – this is a bit of a stretch, admittedly, but I suspect it had something to do with her termination: it's a – sort of if you squint at it just right – argument that abducting children and elderly people, murdering, raping, and posting videos of dragging around women bleeding between their legs because you just raped them are necessary for liberation and justice.

Elsewhere, she called the terrorist rapist child-killing murderers "freedom fighters", which certainly crosses the line for me: I'd kick her off my platform if I had a platform. (She kinda sorta not really walked this back, but didn't.)

(She isn't Palestinian, but that doesn't matter wrt. your point, I think.)

@revphil @deosil @foggyruins@infosec.exchange @danielquinn @debasisg@mstdn.social @breadandcircuses @ClimateHuman a lot of times cost correlates with fuel used. So I think a carrot is already there.

@tofugolem @Raven47 @gwensnyder no, it wasn't, at all, an attempt to do that. 😂

@HolgerFiallo @superheroine But escalating violence (if that is what they're doing, I can't tell because few will talk about this without a political agenda) isn't necessary for that, and will ultimately be unhelpful – I think that is the point others are making here. So: if they're hunting down Hamas terrorists, that's fine – if they're bombing schools, not so much. Too much nuance?

@Raven47 @gwensnyder @tofugolem They fought over land and other resources long before agriculture.

@metaphorology @gwensnyder Two observations: (1) they aren't as "acute" – we don't have anything like these videos of Hamas kidnapping civilians that are covered in blood – instead it's just like oh maybe Israel isn't responding to reports of settlers harassing shepherds as fast as they should – and (2) Hamas keeps diverting attention away from Israel's sins by covering civilians with blood and then kidnapping them.

I guess one way to look at it is like what others are saying in this thread: Hamas is really doing any warmongering Israeli politicians a huge favor by keeping the narrative focused away from whatever Israel is doing wrong.

It's like Putin: maybe he had a legitimate complaint about too many countries joining NATO or whatever. Nobody cares about that anymore, to say the least. (He must have known this would happen, though, so I suspect his real reasons are elsewhere. Same with Hamas.)