This is a war of propaganda. Brush up on your media literacy skills. Trace sources. Make sure what you’re spreading isn’t false. If you can’t verify it don’t post it. Please.
🇳🇱
@Miriamm I assure you as someone who can personally confirm it, most of what we heard is more or less true. Yes there is bias, media spin, and as always not the whole truth... but more or less the jist of hamas murdering civilians is entierly valid.
@freemo @Miriamm I think we can safely say that the following is true: Both sides commit atrocities.
Hamas killed soldiers, but they also deliberately targeted and murdered civilians.
Israel say they target terrorists and say the dead civilians are unfortunate collateral damage. To a dead civilian I don't think that distinction matters much.
However, if the attack came as a surprise, can we really trust the Israeli armed forces when they say they know where the military targets are?
Both sides are projecting, sure.
But only one side has a charter that says "extinction of the other side"... Their sole purpose and reason to exist are to kill everyone in Israel.
And somehow the Gaza people voted for that, sure a long time ago, but if you don't object to your leaders, then you are also partially responsible for what they do.
This Israeli is challenging everyone prove him wrong. Please, go at it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
I see what you say. Yes, the people in Gaza voted for Hamas. Last time I read up on democracy that means you are free to vote, and no matter what you vote it can't be used as justification to kill you. I see you have a different view of what democracy means.
I saw the first couple of minutes of the video and could already have pointed out that there were no Israelis either at the time he claims there were no Palestinians.
Before Israel was formed and the invasion started there were 10 times more arabs than jews in the region.
@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.
Its not "refugee immigration" if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated, they did not.
By collectively, as immigrants, stealing land from someone else, then invading it with missiles and guns and military, is absolutely an invasion.
> 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!)
Unfortunately illegal immigrants tend to cause a lot of anger and violence.. it isnt right. But that doesnt excuse the genocide that followed.
@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".
> "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.
Because your trying to make the absurd claim they arent invaders, just immigrants... immigrants dont come with bombs and guns to take away your land, thats not immigrants, thats invaders, also called an occupying force.
As with any diverse country prior to the invasion there were a great many mixed settlements, and there were some that were primarily jewish or arab.. However the arabs in the area out numbered Jews 10:1, palestine had this makeup for many generations. Despite the overwhelming arab concentration jews were generally welcomed and even allowed to buy land... until they started invading anyway.
> "illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
Depends how you view illegal. Early on they werent illegal, but at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants according to the people/governance who have the right to control that land (palestinians).
> 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?
I misinterprited what experts had said on a reading.. when challenged I reread and changed my opinion... Perhaps you should use that to recognize that I am willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views when proven wrong.. Would go a much longer way than using it as a weapon against someone simply for making a mistake, and learning from it once. Should be proof that I wont continue to assert a thing if there is evidence to the contrary.
> 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.
Ummm, who is the invading and occupying force has **everything** to do with if ISrael or anyone else has a right to continue a war... like a lot to do with it.
The fact that botht he Hamas and Isrtael are committing atrocities and war crimes left and right, and have been doing so for 80 years certainly doesnt give anyone a pass for their continuation of such war crimes.
@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.
> They didn’t “come with” weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group of other nations decided to invade palestine and take the land from palestinians and give it to the Israelis. They came with weapons to take this land for themselves and the first Arab-israeli war began for the palestinians to defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land. This lasted from 1947 to 1849
> They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on.
The violence they expiernce from invading the country and taking it... please stop pretending they are the victims here... they literally were invading Palestine and taking it.. they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it.... funny how you just ignore that part and make it sound like they were just palestinian immigrants... they werent.
> what are you even talking about
I am talking about the fact that since Israel is an occupyign and invading force, and it is not and never was their land (it is palestine)... they are illegal immigrants by any measure of that at best, and an occupying force at worst.
> No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.
They are using the exact same tactics in that regard as freedom fighters dduring WWII, and really any nation being occupied and unable to have a proper army.. That is, their military and its equipment are hidden in the underground... Again nothing wrong with that, what is wrong is when they use human shields during an active attack, somethign Israel also does.
@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.
> “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.
No, there were **very** few isralis already there. Prior to the invasion there were about 160K Palestinian Jews, some of whom chose to stay palestinian at the start of the invasion. Contrast this with the 800K arabs in the area.
Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN, declared they would invade an annex half of palestine for themselves), The resulting population, as part of right-of-return, skyrocketed.
As a result of this invasion by the end of the year in 1947 (the invasion was made official earlier that year) the invading jewish population had more trippled in that short time to over 630.
So no they werent "already there" 2/3 of the invasion were jews from around the world who migrated there to participate in the invasion either as a settler to the newly stolen land, or as military themselves. Often a bit of both.
> “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?
Yes, the british had no rights to allow **anyone** to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory and they had no right to allow anyone in or out, or to occupy the space at all.
So while people may have come thinking it was legal, since the British occupation is illegitmate (as all occupations are) and only the native people had any right to allow immigration, yes they were wholly illegal as an occupying force.
> “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”.
No, it was not where they were living at the time. Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. Yes there were some towns for one group or the other in some cases, but those towns were often intermixed among the landscape.
Also, britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed... their claim to palestine was as invalid as the Jews. The british didnt live there, only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, and this is NOT what happened
To drive my point home attached is a map of the Jewish settlements pretty much the day before the invasion was declared (left).. AS you can see they re intermixed with palestinian/arab land, and this was all one country.
On the right, however, is the borders they declared in their own and intended to Annex in the invasion of 1947 and the war that followed. As you can see not only did they steal **significant** land that had no jews on it.. but the borders change the dynamic significantly since at the time Jews made up something like 10% of the population yet were given more than 50% of the land.
So yea its very clear they invaded and stole land and your narrative of them already being on the land is over the inaccurate.
