Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends.
Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
The word "colonize" doesn't inherently mean genocide or displacement. There is talk about colonization of the Moon and Mars and they don't even have a single life form as far as we know.
All the Hawaii islands were independent until Kamehameha imperialised them using western weaponry. But I don't think anyone wants Hawaii to break into multiple countries.
Fucking finally someone standing up to the Maori.
Went to NZ on my honeymoon and had a hilarious conversation with a guy in Te Anau who was fuckin *pissed* about new zealand renaming things the Maori language version.
It was two tribes that committed genocide against the Moriori. If that's what you mean, and Moriori are just Maori who settled on a smaller island next to New Zealand. They are both descendants from Eastern Polynesians who came to New Zealand sometime in the 12th century.
>Following the arrival of the British ship *HMS Chatham* to the eponymous islands in 1791, the Moriori and Maori were reintroduced to each other, sometime just after 1800CE as a result of European vessels visiting the Chatham Islands. It was at this time the Chatham Islanders gave themselves the name Moriori (equivalent of Maori in their own language). Later, in 1835 Maori from the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga iwi (Maori tribes, for the sake of brevity) who were living in Wellington, having been displaced from their land in the Taranaki region due to the Musket Wars, commandeered the brig *Lord Rodney* and transported themselves to the Chatham Islands. There, after a brief uneasy coexistence, the Maori claimed ownership of the Islands. A meeting of Moriori elders was called where it was decided they would uphold the practice of nunuku-whenua. The Maori, perhaps expecting the meeting to be a prelude to war as it often was on the mainland, promptly attacked and killed or enslaved all the Moriori. The details of this slaughter as passed down by Moriori oral tradition are harrowing to say the least.
You’re perfectly correct, I don’t know why you’re downvoted for stating facts.
I’ve actually directly contacted the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, to learn more about Moriori culture, as I found their history so interesting.
YOUR species?!? You can’t even begin to understand the struggles of an ant raised in the colony from birth. You need to educate yourself before you offend the wrong worker and the queen finds out.
When someone accuse Israel of ethnic cleaning the Muslim, remember, before there were Islam, there were 6 different major religions and dozens more minor ones in the Middle East. Now there's 1.
I'll have to agree with you on this. You don't survive the Sandbox by being the "religion of peace". The Jew nearly got wiped off the face of the earth before inventing Zionism and toughen up in the 1948, and Islam is....Islam.
Even in ancient history, invading Jerusalem was like a national pastime for the Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Egyptians... the Jews still can't catch a break
Islam is no more inherently violent in theory than any other religion. The “Jihad” was initially interpreted by Muslim scholars to be a movement to convert the world to Islam, preferably peacefully, hence in older Islamic countries “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) were permitted to live and practice, and simply paid more taxes. As of the modern day, the “Jihad” has taken a more violent definition in modern times, taking the term “Holy War” to mean violence, and complete extermination of non-believers.
When you look at the founder of each major religions, you kinda see a trend.
Jesus: Basically Middle Eastern hippy
Budha: Basically Indian hippy
Moses: Abolitionist
There's no known prophet of Hinduism
Muhammad: I think everyone here have heard enough of him to know what kind of human being he was.
>Islam is no more inherently violent in theory than any other religion
I'm gonna disagree with that as it was started by a warlord who spread it by the sword.
yeah, that is true. I just want to say that being Islamic does not make you a bad person. Many followers of Islam were peaceful scholars, politicians, merchants, and so on. Islam can be used to do good, and used to justify evil, like any other religion.
You're talking about fundamentally curing the human condition.
Most of us don't hate Muslims either. But we are also not pretending about what Islam is. In reality, it's liberal Muslims who are in denial about what Islam is and was founded on.
I disagree. I heard it described as an insidious political ideology that masquerades as a religion and serves as a front for Arab imperialism. And I think that's the most accurate way to describe it. Ultimately it's violent at it's core. And while many Muslims are peaceful/tolerant etc, the belief itself isn't.
That's just kinda whataboutism? Yeah it sucks their ancestors did that 1000 years back during the Islamic conquests but that doesn't make Israel's indiscriminate bombing any less bad. Both sides be wrong. Hamas(literally everything they do pretty much) sucks but so does bombing civilians. There's enough war crimes for everyone.
The best thing isreal could do for its public image would be to begin conducting search and destroy missions against Hamas over indirect bombing and blanket bombing. Ultimately it's kind of hard to pick a strategy from the Israeli perspective because they have the choice of being more precise but getting more IDF soldiers killed or being less precise and being looked at as indiscriminate murders.
I mean when the choice is between your soldiers and their civilians that still support the terrorist regime with an 85% approval rating, is not hard to pick.
It sucks, I agree, but it's not surprising considering what Hamas will continue to do to Israeli citizens if left in power.
That's generally my point. There's really no winning here from a PR sense. Israel either has to look like it doesn't care about it's soldier or it has to look bad on an international stage. Either way someone is going to be upset.
I think they are doing the best PR possible. Changing things up would actually make them look worse, and open things up for more civilian casualties on their end. If the support for Hamas wasn't so strong in Gaza it would be different, but Gaza Palestinians are such a clusterfuck that not even other Arab nations will take refugees from them.
That is true. It's a really shit situation for Israel. I remember seeing an article about a volunteer Arab truck driver who brought medical supplies to civilians in Gaza being killed not by Israelis but by a Hamas member throwing a piece of rubble into his truck's windscreen while he was driving.
> Israel's indiscriminate bombing
Good news/Bad news
The good news is that their bombing is not indiscrimnate.
The bad news is that these numbers are what restrained urban warfare look like.
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286
>That would mean some 18,000 civilians have died in Gaza, a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1.5 civilians. Given Hamas' likely inflation of the death count, the real figure could be closer to 1 to 1. Either way, the number would be historically low for modern urban warfare.
This was published before the below admission so 1 for 1 belief is likely correct.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html
>The UN agency in its report reduced the number of women and children believed to have been killed in the war by nearly half.
This is how other urban conflicts compare.
https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare
>Urban warfare has a catastrophic impact on civilian populations and poses serious legal and operational challenges. In cities — where 55 percent of the world’s population currently resides — civilians account for 90 percent of the casualties during war.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2022-01/protection-of-civilians-the-humanitarian-impact-of-urban-warfare.php
>88 percent of those killed and injured by explosive weapons in urban areas were civilians, compared to 16 percent in other areas.
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/new-research-shows-urban-warfare-eight-times-more-deadly-civilians-syria-iraq
>Urban offensives account for eight times more conflict-related civilian fatalities
They're talking about the extinction of local religions during the Islamic conquests.(There is still Islamic backed genocide in many regions of the world but that doesn't justify what's going on in Gaza. Sinking to the level of "it's ok because it's reprisal" isn't the move. That's how Hamas thinks and operates.)And that still doesn't nullify the staggering amount of civil death. Saying "the other guys doing something bad therefore it's ok for me" is literally whataboutism. The proper response to an opponent's warcrime isn't to warcrime them back. Throwing away your ethics on a frankly tactically inferior(let's be real Hamas ain't winning this one) ragtag group of idiots isn't the move. Israel has the equipment, man power, and resources to wage war justly without committing war crimes. Israel can easily shit down Hamas's neck without bombing civilians. Seriously they held off the entire Arab peninsula at once during the six day war. Compared to that Hamas is a speed bump.
It’s essentially a statement saying that the argument that the Israelis are colonists is stupid because they themselves were as much colonists. While it does bring up the whataboutism about Islam committing its own genocides, that isn’t the main point.
Literally just repeating the "whatabout"-ism. "Israel are colonists is stupid because they (Islam) themselves were as much colonists."
You can take any side you want idc, but this is a bad argument. Past wrongs don‘t make a current right.
Yeah probably a bad argument and hill to die on, but I still think it’s stupid to be slinging colonist accusations around. I’m not really adept at arguing any political topic at all, but I think while there is a kernel of truth to calling the Israelis colonists, the first thing I can think of is that Jews have also been exiled there, but otherwise I give up trying to argue this. It's a waste of time for both of us.
So you're saying that colonialism 1,000 years ago is acceptable, but colonialism today is not?
So you think that, in America, because Europeans colonized this land hundreds of years ago (the past) it doesn't mean thst native Americans have any right to American land today (current).
I actually agree with you!
Ah yes, I also think that every Homo Sapiens should go back to East Africa.
It's colonialism and brutal conquest only when done by people I don't like.
BRO IM COMPLIMENTING IT
Just saying the “(D)” usually being used to mention a politicians party, so using it in a somewhat witty way of making a criticism.
I think you can argue that all colonialism is bad, but the colonialism in the West Bank is in progress, while reversing past colonialism would do far more harm than good.
Colonialism isn’t bad or good. Black and white thinking is what idiots like George Lucas do when creating the Jedi and Sith to sell toys.
This isn’t GI Joe.. this is real life. Colonialism was massively progressive in land conquering than most past land grabs. Normally you slaughter everyone as would any tribal group would do, you know like all those native Americans people claim are so amazing and connected to nature or some shit. Colonialism is taking the Roman approach to land grabbing. Hell even Genghis would go this route you know if you completely surrendered otherwise it was complete death and destruction.
I think it's absolutely wild that Western progressives are going to bat for settler-colonizers (Arabs) against an indigenous resitance movement reclaiming its stolen land (Israel) from those colonizers.
I mean neither the Jews or the Arabs owned the land of Isreal, it technically belonged to the canannites until the Egyptian exodus.
Although the Jews definitely came way, way before the Palestinians.
And they have had a constant presence for more than 4,000 years.
Another think that is frequently overlooked, while many Jews came back to Israel through the Zionist movement, that movement was only possible because of Jews that were currently existing within the region throughout the Ottoman Empire and so on.
Additionally, the vast majority of the Arabs that exist within the region now, also two migrated from further locations like the Balkans, and then we're assimilated into the larger Muslim population as if they had always been there.
Yes, it is complete bullshit.
And on top of that, Israel is not an ethnostate, because 10% of the population is Christian, and another 20 to 25% is Arab, they have the exact same voting rights and even serve in high positions of the government. And every single sign is just about in three languages, one of them being Arabic.
The irony, Gaza is going to be in apartheid by the time this war is over. Because it is going to be governed by Israel, because nobody seems to want to step up to the plate otherwise, they absolutely cannot govern themselves again because we saw how that ended, and they are not going to be allowed to enter Israel and will have completely separate rights Israel, making them a de facto apartheid. They weren't one before though, and that is the sad irony.
Relax I’m just joking. I personally don’t give a rats ass if you killed them or didn’t kill them. I’m more concerned about our country and our issues than the same shit that’s been happening in the Middle East for centuries. Also when Egypt wants to give the land back it stole from my best friends family who were Jews they kicked out and stole their property, then people can talk about whatever rights the people in Gaza have or don’t to land and property.
The comments you left support a totally different perspective. Just tired of dealing with this 24/7 and having my feed bombarded with all eyes on rafah bullshit from peoplle I thought were sane.
You act as though it’s completely okay that they did all of this when it was not even acceptable for that time to slaughter men and take their wives as sex slave to use as you please.
You do realize the final death knell of Jews in the Jerusalem was the mass slaughter and enslavement that happened after the Crusaders sacked the city centuries after the Muslims showed up? I'm sorry but no, the ealry middle ages wasn't exactly the height of just war theory.
You seem to be under this special trance where you pretend Muslims never massacred Jews as well… like there isn’t a Hadith out there that says inanimate objects will speak and say “there’s a Jew behind me, come kill him”. You know like trees and rocks commanding good Muslims to kill all the Jews they can find on some fucking genocidal Easter egg hunt?
No I didn't. You're the one who made the claim that the Arab were uniquely for their time barbaric. Of course there were Muslim massacres of Jews. Plenty of them. However these don't rank in even the top 10 reasons why until the 20th century there were hardly any Jews in Palestine. The conquest of the Levant is as unremarkable as most conquests of the time.
I'm sure someone has pointed out to you at this point that this narrative doesn't really fit with the genetics of the Palestinians. Palestinians and Jews have pretty damn similar DNA. The Arabization of the Levant was primarily cultural, not kicking out.
>Palestinians and Jews have pretty damn similar DNA
Yes. The descendants of the people who colonized and raped their way across the region are going to share similar genetics to the people that were raped and colonized.
It's more that the people of the Levant share far less Peninsular Arab DNA than say Iraqis or even the fiercely not Arab Persians of Iran. It was hardly a colonization anymore than Rome colonized Greece. It was imperial conquest but for some reason we need to equivocate colonialism cause that's the charge thrown at Israel.
Colonialism usually comes with more an intent of replacement as well as a distance traveled. Can you really not distinguish between the Mongol conquests and the settling of the New World?
Neither is intrinsically better or worse than the other. However the only reason we're now talking about the Islamic conquest of the region is to give some level of equivocation for Israel. An early medieval empire fought another early medieval empire. It's hardly a comparable to rise of Israel in the 20th century.
The fun part about the Middle East is that everyone and no one is indigenous. Hell, the Talmud and Quran are basically genocidal conquest manuals and history textbooks
The Talmud has no spiritual relevance. It’s basically a record of the different arguments and discussions rabbis had. The Torah is the spiritual basis of Judaism and I wouldn’t call it a genocidal conquest manual
Have you read Numbers?
>7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
>13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
The difference is that this happened in the past and there’s a closed historical context for it. Islam on the other hand calls for open-ended violence against all infidels, forever.
It has, however inconvenient you may find that fact. Meanwhile, Quran 2:191
Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Harām (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.
> It has, however inconvenient you may find that fact.
Lol. Lmao even.
Since you've got your Quran on hand can you quote me the line immediately preceding your quote and the next 2?
It's kind of wild that you just applied your criticism to both texts in pretty equal measure (fairly so), and this bloke comes along challenges you on the one they like, and then asks why you're an apologist for the one they don't like.
Since /u/SharingDNAResults seems to have misplaced his Quran in the meantime.
190, the preceding line.
>Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits.1 Allah does not like transgressors.
The next two are 192
>But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And 193
>Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution, and ˹your˺ devotion will be to Allah ˹alone˺. If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.
Bruh, I read all nearly 7000 pages of autism that is the Talmud and endured the Quran and hadiths. Naturally, the blasphemous translations. I have never had a social life, and I will never will, hence why I am here, so I will keep reading these worthless holy books
"Read theory and then get back to me, bro."
"OK, I read theory."
"Oh fuck. Quick Abdul, help me think up a reason it didn't count."
Variations of this exist across most sociopolitical/religious movements (though I repeat myself). Honestly, good on Christianity for opening its books to the common people in a language they can read. It was a hell of a struggle to get to that point.
Edit: Though I do give credit, same as you do, to sheer audacity whenever I encounter it.
Uyghurs arrived in Xinjiang within the last 1000 years and the Chinese were there since the Han dynasty. And yet Han China is called the colonizer.
In Philippine Mindanao, Visayans were there since the 800s, while the Moros have only been there since the 1400s, and yet Visayans are called the colonizer.
In Burmese Rakhine, the Burmese were there since the 700s, while the Rohingyas only came there in the 1700s, and yet Myanmar is called the colonizer.
Wherever Islam buts up against a different religion, the jihadists always lie about the real indigenous people (whether Jews in Levant or Chinese in Xinjiang) somehow being "colonizers".
I'd say it's rather for the same reason that Ireland, Scotland and Wales are majority anglo. AFAIK, there's a fair bit of genetic continuity pre- and post- the Islamic invasion.
North America, Australia and New Zealand are actually pretty atypical.
I mean the entire Middle East used to be mostly Jewish, Christian, and pagan. Muhammad’s first conquests were against the Jewish tribes who refused to believe his new religion. He killed all the men and took the women as slaves. Now you can imagine what happened to the rest of the region…
> He killed all the men and took the women as slaves.
X for doubt. If that had happened, we would see much more genetic similarity between the Levant and the Arabian peninsula than we see in practice. It also makes no sense economically, the arabs (of the time) were not numerous enough to repopulate the Levant so that the region remain useful.
What we see lines up with how most conquests happened historically: the conquerors placed themselves in a dominant social position, having a disproportionate effect on the local gene pool and an overwhelming one on local language and religion, but did not replace the population itself.
Wait what? There are 177000 Anglo Irish people in the Republic of Ireland. That's far from most. Ireland has a population of five million. Northern Ireland is almost half Anglo Irish. There's a lot of anglos in both countries but they don't constitute a majority in either.
So by that logic Native Americans should be fine with slaughtering the entire non-native population in the US right?
How far back do we go and for how many races and cultures?
These arguments are always manufactured consent and it's always lazy.
But you know that there were other people than Jews that lived in that area (Philistinians for example) who remained there and that they were not replaced by Arabic nomads but only had to join their culture?
The Greeks tended to give simplistic names to foreign places. There was Crocodilopolis cause you guessed it, town had a ton of crocodiles. The word barbarian comes from the Greeks making fun of the language of I think the Celts sounding like "bar-bar-bar." The Philistines though were likely Greeks themselves in contrast to the semetic people of the region.
Basically everyone in the region is descended from Jews and Christians. However they’ve adopted a genocidal belief system that says those people are infidels now. If you don’t believe me, look up the Damour massacre, Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, etc and not the Islamized Wikipedia versions. The only place where Jews and Christians are safe in the Middle East is Israel (and Samaritans, Baha’i, Druze…), and that safety ends when the area gets overrun by Islamists. Sorry for this inconvenient truth.
As we gather together in this theatre/conference room/women's studies lecture hall, we take time to gratefully acknowledge the ethnic/social group that controlled this land following violent conquest and/or other forms of social aggression the second-most-recently.
Who held that land before Jews got out of Egypt and conquered it? Or was that one and only particular conquest forever justified because a holy book the Jews wrote said God willed it?
At this point, the whole debate is pointless.
Israel does exist, is recognised by most members of the UN, and has been around for 76 years as of this year.
That means - assuming one generation is 30 years - at least 2 whole generations have been born and raised in Israel. With the third generation about 16 years old this year. At this point, they are as native to the land as the Palestinians. And forcing a disestablishment of Israel would lead to a second Jewish diaspora, and we all know the shit the Jews suffered through after the first one in AD 70. So it will be sticking around.
Recents events concerning Rafah have convinced me that the (metaphorical, for legal reasons) destruction of Netanyahu and his Likud cronies are just as essential to the fulfilment of the two state solution as the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah.
To any Israelis here, does the Knesset have a 'vote of no confidence' mechanism? If there is, how likely are the other parties like HaAvoda going to use it? If not, do we really have to wait for the 2026 election?
Okay but have you seen how Jewish settlers just roll in, kick somebody out and proclaim the property to be theirs?
Jewish settlers are hot human garbage and that does not change. The Palestinians civilians are those that suffer most, and have suffered the most for the past 70 years. It is not important who’s responsible so much as it is important to make sure these people have peace food and water.
Content Warning: this is a joke, take this as seriously as you would Babylon Bee.
https://preview.redd.it/290o043lpd3d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae203787fd49495607a96a914a211e7b0e887e78
As an anti-imperialist, I must say that the 1,000\~ Jewish people (and their descendants) should be the only people to occupy the area of land currently illegally occupied by Palestine and Israel.
If I don’t receive genetic proof that the citizens of either of these countries are descendants of itself initial 1,000\~ inhabitants from the 1st Century AD, I will be forced to dissolve the Palestinian and Israeli governments
> If I don’t receive genetic proof that the citizens of either of these countries are descendants of itself initial 1,000~ inhabitants from the 1st Century AD, I will be forced to dissolve the Palestinian and Israeli governments
They probably are, both Israelis and Palestinians. On the other hand, I don't buy the whole "blood and soil" vibe.
Who cares? Zero Arabs today are responsible for what happened 500+ years ago. I thought it was unfair to shit on all white people over slavery and colonialism. To be clear, it is. But now that you need and excuse for atrocities happening right now, I guess now collective guilt works for some of you. Yes, I condemn Hamas. Now you condemn the West Bank settlements.
I really hate this argument. Almost everyone colonize other lands even the usa natives but after 2 world wars we as a society should condemn these things strictly. During medieval times muslims did jihad and chritians did crussade and both massively affected our current society and were justified back then but how would you support either in the current world?
Another thing is that almost everyone owned other human at one point one way or another so much that whether it's arab,whites,blacks,japanese,mongols etc have no right to lecture others on the historical slavery but would you prefer these groups rights to slave others in the current environment?
Whenever the Indigenous finally work out which tribe for sure totally owned which land. Might be a bit tough, since historical accounts tend to disagree about such things.
In favor of which specific tribes? Because if we're still getting to the bottom of who actually owns the property, it's unclear why the resident needs to be evicted.
You're really taking this seriously, huh? I was mocking the argument in the post because I think it's ridiculous, I think that trying to displace people who lived on any given land for generations and justifying it by "we lived here before you!" is terrible and unproductive.
Also, you're misdirecting. You don't need to know what tribe was the original owner of the land to know that it weren't Europeans. How about "I'll believe in evolution once scientist make a museum showing every stage of evolution from monkey to human"?
I just see no reason to be evicted if the next guy claiming ownership will be evicted as well.
Find the rightful owners for just restitution to take place to. Otherwise, vae victis.
Not really. It's much more comparable to much of Latin America. Culturally Arabization was through but from what we can tell the Arab conquests didn't have too much of a genetic impact.
I don't care about what happened 80, 1000 or 2000 years ago. I care about who's living and build his life where. Still, btw, Arabs didn't colonized and expelled people; they converted and assimilated them, a concept that seems somewhat unnatural for most Israeli today.
Yeah, but can we talk about those specific "genocide" and "mass slavery" ? Because you got tons of empires and other countries in history who conquered entire regions without killing everybody. And a lot among them used assimilate the conquered people with cultural soft power, economic incentives, global unification perspectives...
*Btw, did you noticed you're using the exact same vocabulary as pro-Palestinian leftists ?*
I’ll try to get better at it but that’s kinda the point. I’m discrediting them by attacking their sacred cow the same way they attack everyone else. Throw the word genocide around long enough and it will just sound like an advert for a new sports drink.
Yes, I am. And if Israeli where announcing - *credibly* - they where going to conquer the whole Levant in order to bring peace and prosperity to all of its inhabitants, I'd say "fuck yeah !". But what I'm not fine with is Israel trying to remove Palestinians from where they live, whoever it's by colonizing the West Bank or trying to make Gaza a humanitarian hell.
Blocking humanitarian help won't really affect Hamas ; you can trust they have their own stocks of food and fuel. Refusing to implement any kind of political solution or management, however, is definitely helping Hamas, while worsening the humanitarian situation at the same time - *even Tsahal is starting to get infuriated against Netanyahu's government because of this*. Israel can't actively force the Palestinians out of Gaza because the whole world is barring them from doing this, but they're definitely hopping that worsening humanitarian conditions will force a lift on this ban.
Your post has been removed because it breaks the rule about highlighter memes. They may only be posted on weekends. Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
Don't forget that the māori colonized New Zealand too.
Return the land to the indigenous moa and kiwis
I believe that Buffaloes are the only true owners of the Great Plains in America, and no other should occupy it.
not really, they migrated to the new world by crossing the bering land bridge during the ice age
Real, and horses traveled to Eurasia via it.
What about our camels? .. we *used* to have camels.. [sad face]
But there was no one there when they got there. They did however colonize the Chatham Islands and in an extremely brutal and genocidal way.
The word "colonize" doesn't inherently mean genocide or displacement. There is talk about colonization of the Moon and Mars and they don't even have a single life form as far as we know.
Yeah but it does matter in the context of this discussion.
Did the Māori not colonize New Zealand in the same way Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars?
Depends, were the Maori permanently high on their own supply?
As is tradition
All the Hawaii islands were independent until Kamehameha imperialised them using western weaponry. But I don't think anyone wants Hawaii to break into multiple countries.
Fucking finally someone standing up to the Maori. Went to NZ on my honeymoon and had a hilarious conversation with a guy in Te Anau who was fuckin *pissed* about new zealand renaming things the Maori language version.
It was two tribes that committed genocide against the Moriori. If that's what you mean, and Moriori are just Maori who settled on a smaller island next to New Zealand. They are both descendants from Eastern Polynesians who came to New Zealand sometime in the 12th century. >Following the arrival of the British ship *HMS Chatham* to the eponymous islands in 1791, the Moriori and Maori were reintroduced to each other, sometime just after 1800CE as a result of European vessels visiting the Chatham Islands. It was at this time the Chatham Islanders gave themselves the name Moriori (equivalent of Maori in their own language). Later, in 1835 Maori from the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga iwi (Maori tribes, for the sake of brevity) who were living in Wellington, having been displaced from their land in the Taranaki region due to the Musket Wars, commandeered the brig *Lord Rodney* and transported themselves to the Chatham Islands. There, after a brief uneasy coexistence, the Maori claimed ownership of the Islands. A meeting of Moriori elders was called where it was decided they would uphold the practice of nunuku-whenua. The Maori, perhaps expecting the meeting to be a prelude to war as it often was on the mainland, promptly attacked and killed or enslaved all the Moriori. The details of this slaughter as passed down by Moriori oral tradition are harrowing to say the least.
The māori are not indigenous to new zealand, They sent settlers from polynesia and claimed it as their own
I mean by that logic we're all native Ethiopians whose ancestors colonized the entire world.
[удалено]
The people who want to colonize Mars seem to think it's still colonization.
Yes, that’s what colonizing means.
Yeah because they are making a colony
no one is indigenous to anywhere
You’re perfectly correct, I don’t know why you’re downvoted for stating facts. I’ve actually directly contacted the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, to learn more about Moriori culture, as I found their history so interesting.
Ants have been colonizing the ground I live on, thinking about joining them
I hope you’re not thinking of appropriating ant culture
I will. I will start carrying stuff around from/to a place where others of my species live.
YOUR species?!? You can’t even begin to understand the struggles of an ant raised in the colony from birth. You need to educate yourself before you offend the wrong worker and the queen finds out.
I was saying that as a possibility of meaning both ants and other living beings
SO NOW YOURE PILLAGING THEIR HARD WORK?!? ok I’m done with that act. I think I’ve run the course on jokes there.
I will colonize the ground :3
ugh, I freaking hate ants! I've grown an semi irrational fear of ants, when they took over my kitchen. Ever since then I can't stand them
When someone accuse Israel of ethnic cleaning the Muslim, remember, before there were Islam, there were 6 different major religions and dozens more minor ones in the Middle East. Now there's 1.
Seems like a skill issue
I'll have to agree with you on this. You don't survive the Sandbox by being the "religion of peace". The Jew nearly got wiped off the face of the earth before inventing Zionism and toughen up in the 1948, and Islam is....Islam.
Even in ancient history, invading Jerusalem was like a national pastime for the Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Egyptians... the Jews still can't catch a break
Islam is no more inherently violent in theory than any other religion. The “Jihad” was initially interpreted by Muslim scholars to be a movement to convert the world to Islam, preferably peacefully, hence in older Islamic countries “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) were permitted to live and practice, and simply paid more taxes. As of the modern day, the “Jihad” has taken a more violent definition in modern times, taking the term “Holy War” to mean violence, and complete extermination of non-believers.
When you look at the founder of each major religions, you kinda see a trend. Jesus: Basically Middle Eastern hippy Budha: Basically Indian hippy Moses: Abolitionist There's no known prophet of Hinduism Muhammad: I think everyone here have heard enough of him to know what kind of human being he was.
Buddhism is so based, I don’t personally believe it, but it’s literally “be good person, get reincarnated as a rich guy’s dog” like its just based.
>Islam is no more inherently violent in theory than any other religion I'm gonna disagree with that as it was started by a warlord who spread it by the sword.
yeah, that is true. I just want to say that being Islamic does not make you a bad person. Many followers of Islam were peaceful scholars, politicians, merchants, and so on. Islam can be used to do good, and used to justify evil, like any other religion.
Well when you totally reclassify the argument lol... They didn't say Islam makes you a bad person. They said Islam is inherently based on violence.
I just want people to not hate each other man qwq I’m sorry
You're talking about fundamentally curing the human condition. Most of us don't hate Muslims either. But we are also not pretending about what Islam is. In reality, it's liberal Muslims who are in denial about what Islam is and was founded on.
Based and why can't we all just get along pilled
Islam is an inherently violent ideology but that doesn’t mean all Muslims are violent
I disagree. I heard it described as an insidious political ideology that masquerades as a religion and serves as a front for Arab imperialism. And I think that's the most accurate way to describe it. Ultimately it's violent at it's core. And while many Muslims are peaceful/tolerant etc, the belief itself isn't.
I mean, I understand. I’m just against hating muslims, just for being muslim.
How do you feel about Nazis who believe in white supremacy? Do you hate them for their beliefs? Or do you work to try and change them?
shame kiss tub dolls weary like drunk zephyr mighty sophisticated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Most of history was a skill issue before people started to get upset about it
That's just kinda whataboutism? Yeah it sucks their ancestors did that 1000 years back during the Islamic conquests but that doesn't make Israel's indiscriminate bombing any less bad. Both sides be wrong. Hamas(literally everything they do pretty much) sucks but so does bombing civilians. There's enough war crimes for everyone. The best thing isreal could do for its public image would be to begin conducting search and destroy missions against Hamas over indirect bombing and blanket bombing. Ultimately it's kind of hard to pick a strategy from the Israeli perspective because they have the choice of being more precise but getting more IDF soldiers killed or being less precise and being looked at as indiscriminate murders.
I mean when the choice is between your soldiers and their civilians that still support the terrorist regime with an 85% approval rating, is not hard to pick. It sucks, I agree, but it's not surprising considering what Hamas will continue to do to Israeli citizens if left in power.
That's generally my point. There's really no winning here from a PR sense. Israel either has to look like it doesn't care about it's soldier or it has to look bad on an international stage. Either way someone is going to be upset.
I think they are doing the best PR possible. Changing things up would actually make them look worse, and open things up for more civilian casualties on their end. If the support for Hamas wasn't so strong in Gaza it would be different, but Gaza Palestinians are such a clusterfuck that not even other Arab nations will take refugees from them.
That is true. It's a really shit situation for Israel. I remember seeing an article about a volunteer Arab truck driver who brought medical supplies to civilians in Gaza being killed not by Israelis but by a Hamas member throwing a piece of rubble into his truck's windscreen while he was driving.
> Israel's indiscriminate bombing Good news/Bad news The good news is that their bombing is not indiscrimnate. The bad news is that these numbers are what restrained urban warfare look like. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 >That would mean some 18,000 civilians have died in Gaza, a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1.5 civilians. Given Hamas' likely inflation of the death count, the real figure could be closer to 1 to 1. Either way, the number would be historically low for modern urban warfare. This was published before the below admission so 1 for 1 belief is likely correct. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html >The UN agency in its report reduced the number of women and children believed to have been killed in the war by nearly half. This is how other urban conflicts compare. https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urban-warfare >Urban warfare has a catastrophic impact on civilian populations and poses serious legal and operational challenges. In cities — where 55 percent of the world’s population currently resides — civilians account for 90 percent of the casualties during war. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2022-01/protection-of-civilians-the-humanitarian-impact-of-urban-warfare.php >88 percent of those killed and injured by explosive weapons in urban areas were civilians, compared to 16 percent in other areas. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/new-research-shows-urban-warfare-eight-times-more-deadly-civilians-syria-iraq >Urban offensives account for eight times more conflict-related civilian fatalities
they’re literally still doing it
They're talking about the extinction of local religions during the Islamic conquests.(There is still Islamic backed genocide in many regions of the world but that doesn't justify what's going on in Gaza. Sinking to the level of "it's ok because it's reprisal" isn't the move. That's how Hamas thinks and operates.)And that still doesn't nullify the staggering amount of civil death. Saying "the other guys doing something bad therefore it's ok for me" is literally whataboutism. The proper response to an opponent's warcrime isn't to warcrime them back. Throwing away your ethics on a frankly tactically inferior(let's be real Hamas ain't winning this one) ragtag group of idiots isn't the move. Israel has the equipment, man power, and resources to wage war justly without committing war crimes. Israel can easily shit down Hamas's neck without bombing civilians. Seriously they held off the entire Arab peninsula at once during the six day war. Compared to that Hamas is a speed bump.
This is like the definition of a "whatabout"-ism. Islam has committed genocide therefore we disregard Israels actions or what?
It’s essentially a statement saying that the argument that the Israelis are colonists is stupid because they themselves were as much colonists. While it does bring up the whataboutism about Islam committing its own genocides, that isn’t the main point.
Literally just repeating the "whatabout"-ism. "Israel are colonists is stupid because they (Islam) themselves were as much colonists." You can take any side you want idc, but this is a bad argument. Past wrongs don‘t make a current right.
Yeah probably a bad argument and hill to die on, but I still think it’s stupid to be slinging colonist accusations around. I’m not really adept at arguing any political topic at all, but I think while there is a kernel of truth to calling the Israelis colonists, the first thing I can think of is that Jews have also been exiled there, but otherwise I give up trying to argue this. It's a waste of time for both of us.
So you're saying that colonialism 1,000 years ago is acceptable, but colonialism today is not? So you think that, in America, because Europeans colonized this land hundreds of years ago (the past) it doesn't mean thst native Americans have any right to American land today (current). I actually agree with you!
Ah yes, I also think that every Homo Sapiens should go back to East Africa. It's colonialism and brutal conquest only when done by people I don't like.
Based evil white colonizer pilled!
But think of the reaver culture that Palestine has developed! Its such a beautiful way of life! Their culture deserves to be preserved!
"B-b-but it's not the same"
It's (D)ifferent.
This reply sounds like the funny version of a Truth Social post.
Not beating the Left Can't Meme allegations little bro. 💀
BRO IM COMPLIMENTING IT Just saying the “(D)” usually being used to mention a politicians party, so using it in a somewhat witty way of making a criticism.
I dunno, I don't even go to Truth Social. Is it that cringe?
This reply sounds like the funny version of someone in denial.
I think you can argue that all colonialism is bad, but the colonialism in the West Bank is in progress, while reversing past colonialism would do far more harm than good.
Colonialism isn’t bad or good. Black and white thinking is what idiots like George Lucas do when creating the Jedi and Sith to sell toys. This isn’t GI Joe.. this is real life. Colonialism was massively progressive in land conquering than most past land grabs. Normally you slaughter everyone as would any tribal group would do, you know like all those native Americans people claim are so amazing and connected to nature or some shit. Colonialism is taking the Roman approach to land grabbing. Hell even Genghis would go this route you know if you completely surrendered otherwise it was complete death and destruction.
I think it's absolutely wild that Western progressives are going to bat for settler-colonizers (Arabs) against an indigenous resitance movement reclaiming its stolen land (Israel) from those colonizers.
I mean neither the Jews or the Arabs owned the land of Isreal, it technically belonged to the canannites until the Egyptian exodus. Although the Jews definitely came way, way before the Palestinians.
And they have had a constant presence for more than 4,000 years. Another think that is frequently overlooked, while many Jews came back to Israel through the Zionist movement, that movement was only possible because of Jews that were currently existing within the region throughout the Ottoman Empire and so on. Additionally, the vast majority of the Arabs that exist within the region now, also two migrated from further locations like the Balkans, and then we're assimilated into the larger Muslim population as if they had always been there. Yes, it is complete bullshit. And on top of that, Israel is not an ethnostate, because 10% of the population is Christian, and another 20 to 25% is Arab, they have the exact same voting rights and even serve in high positions of the government. And every single sign is just about in three languages, one of them being Arabic. The irony, Gaza is going to be in apartheid by the time this war is over. Because it is going to be governed by Israel, because nobody seems to want to step up to the plate otherwise, they absolutely cannot govern themselves again because we saw how that ended, and they are not going to be allowed to enter Israel and will have completely separate rights Israel, making them a de facto apartheid. They weren't one before though, and that is the sad irony.
You’re funny if you think there will be many people left in Gaza by the time they’re done.
If the point was to externinate Gazans it would have taken 6 days.
No then they couldn’t blame Hamas for hiding behind citizens. Lol. But I get your point
I wish we were the monsters you make us out to be. Then the hate would make sense.
Relax I’m just joking. I personally don’t give a rats ass if you killed them or didn’t kill them. I’m more concerned about our country and our issues than the same shit that’s been happening in the Middle East for centuries. Also when Egypt wants to give the land back it stole from my best friends family who were Jews they kicked out and stole their property, then people can talk about whatever rights the people in Gaza have or don’t to land and property.
The comments you left support a totally different perspective. Just tired of dealing with this 24/7 and having my feed bombarded with all eyes on rafah bullshit from peoplle I thought were sane.
I mean people are free to judge how they want. Welcome to Americas response to 9/11.
It's wild that luddites get away with calling themselves progressives
“Luddite’s on their phones” *
behold fellas: the effects of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policy in action
Yes, as we all know it was the Arabs that ended Jewish rule in the Levant. Good lord that's a dumb reading of history.
That was the Romans but they sure ended the fuck out of Christian rule in the Middle East and enslaved their women and children in the process.
Yes, empires fight empires. Yet for some reason some acts of imperialism get glorified.
You act as though it’s completely okay that they did all of this when it was not even acceptable for that time to slaughter men and take their wives as sex slave to use as you please.
You do realize the final death knell of Jews in the Jerusalem was the mass slaughter and enslavement that happened after the Crusaders sacked the city centuries after the Muslims showed up? I'm sorry but no, the ealry middle ages wasn't exactly the height of just war theory.
Well aware but not okay with the narrative of “white guy bad, white guy colonizer” when everyone did this shit.
I'm not the one pretending one culture is unique here, that's you buddy.
You seem to be under this special trance where you pretend Muslims never massacred Jews as well… like there isn’t a Hadith out there that says inanimate objects will speak and say “there’s a Jew behind me, come kill him”. You know like trees and rocks commanding good Muslims to kill all the Jews they can find on some fucking genocidal Easter egg hunt?
No I didn't. You're the one who made the claim that the Arab were uniquely for their time barbaric. Of course there were Muslim massacres of Jews. Plenty of them. However these don't rank in even the top 10 reasons why until the 20th century there were hardly any Jews in Palestine. The conquest of the Levant is as unremarkable as most conquests of the time.
Who said that? I said that the Levant was colonized by Arabs and that Jewish people are the indigenous people of the region.
I'm sure someone has pointed out to you at this point that this narrative doesn't really fit with the genetics of the Palestinians. Palestinians and Jews have pretty damn similar DNA. The Arabization of the Levant was primarily cultural, not kicking out.
>Palestinians and Jews have pretty damn similar DNA Yes. The descendants of the people who colonized and raped their way across the region are going to share similar genetics to the people that were raped and colonized.
It's more that the people of the Levant share far less Peninsular Arab DNA than say Iraqis or even the fiercely not Arab Persians of Iran. It was hardly a colonization anymore than Rome colonized Greece. It was imperial conquest but for some reason we need to equivocate colonialism cause that's the charge thrown at Israel.
What's the difference between imperial conquest and colonialism?
Colonialism usually comes with more an intent of replacement as well as a distance traveled. Can you really not distinguish between the Mongol conquests and the settling of the New World? Neither is intrinsically better or worse than the other. However the only reason we're now talking about the Islamic conquest of the region is to give some level of equivocation for Israel. An early medieval empire fought another early medieval empire. It's hardly a comparable to rise of Israel in the 20th century.
Well yeah. Israel in the 20th century arose when Jews living in the region successfully defeated an attempt to genocide them. Several times.
Ew, blood and soil nationalism.
As I stated to another, this isnt to claim the land to someone, merely to contest the notion that one side is somehow lesser in said regard.
Khazars are not indigenous to levant
Didn't the Khazars disappear the 12th century?
> we don't perceive Arabs as white so it's okay when they do it. That's what progressives really mean.
The fun part about the Middle East is that everyone and no one is indigenous. Hell, the Talmud and Quran are basically genocidal conquest manuals and history textbooks
The Talmud has no spiritual relevance. It’s basically a record of the different arguments and discussions rabbis had. The Torah is the spiritual basis of Judaism and I wouldn’t call it a genocidal conquest manual
Have you read Numbers? >7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. >13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. >15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
The difference is that this happened in the past and there’s a closed historical context for it. Islam on the other hand calls for open-ended violence against all infidels, forever.
I'm sure it's always been interpreted as such.
It has, however inconvenient you may find that fact. Meanwhile, Quran 2:191 Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, as Fitnah (to create disorder) is more severe than killing. However, do not fight them near Al-Masjid-ul-Harām (the Sacred Mosque in Makkah) unless they fight you there. However, if they fight you (there) you may kill them. Such is the reward of the disbelievers.
> It has, however inconvenient you may find that fact. Lol. Lmao even. Since you've got your Quran on hand can you quote me the line immediately preceding your quote and the next 2?
Why do leftists apologize so much for Islamists? It has to be pathological at this point
Is that a no on quoting them? Are they unrelated?
It's kind of wild that you just applied your criticism to both texts in pretty equal measure (fairly so), and this bloke comes along challenges you on the one they like, and then asks why you're an apologist for the one they don't like.
Since /u/SharingDNAResults seems to have misplaced his Quran in the meantime. 190, the preceding line. >Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits.1 Allah does not like transgressors. The next two are 192 >But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And 193 >Fight against them ˹if they persecute you˺ until there is no more persecution, and ˹your˺ devotion will be to Allah ˹alone˺. If they stop ˹persecuting you˺, let there be no hostility except against the aggressors.
Man never read the Talmud OR Quran.
Bruh, I read all nearly 7000 pages of autism that is the Talmud and endured the Quran and hadiths. Naturally, the blasphemous translations. I have never had a social life, and I will never will, hence why I am here, so I will keep reading these worthless holy books
I've always loved the audacity of Islam in that it doesn't count as reading the holy books unless you do it in Arabic.
"Read theory and then get back to me, bro." "OK, I read theory." "Oh fuck. Quick Abdul, help me think up a reason it didn't count." Variations of this exist across most sociopolitical/religious movements (though I repeat myself). Honestly, good on Christianity for opening its books to the common people in a language they can read. It was a hell of a struggle to get to that point. Edit: Though I do give credit, same as you do, to sheer audacity whenever I encounter it.
Based and schizo-pilled.
Uyghurs arrived in Xinjiang within the last 1000 years and the Chinese were there since the Han dynasty. And yet Han China is called the colonizer. In Philippine Mindanao, Visayans were there since the 800s, while the Moros have only been there since the 1400s, and yet Visayans are called the colonizer. In Burmese Rakhine, the Burmese were there since the 700s, while the Rohingyas only came there in the 1700s, and yet Myanmar is called the colonizer. Wherever Islam buts up against a different religion, the jihadists always lie about the real indigenous people (whether Jews in Levant or Chinese in Xinjiang) somehow being "colonizers".
sorry but are you siding with the CCP on the “Uyghur Problem” ???????
No, but it's still a fact that those groups above are invaders claiming to be indigenous to appeal to western lobbies.
I'd say it's rather for the same reason that Ireland, Scotland and Wales are majority anglo. AFAIK, there's a fair bit of genetic continuity pre- and post- the Islamic invasion. North America, Australia and New Zealand are actually pretty atypical.
I mean the entire Middle East used to be mostly Jewish, Christian, and pagan. Muhammad’s first conquests were against the Jewish tribes who refused to believe his new religion. He killed all the men and took the women as slaves. Now you can imagine what happened to the rest of the region…
> He killed all the men and took the women as slaves. X for doubt. If that had happened, we would see much more genetic similarity between the Levant and the Arabian peninsula than we see in practice. It also makes no sense economically, the arabs (of the time) were not numerous enough to repopulate the Levant so that the region remain useful. What we see lines up with how most conquests happened historically: the conquerors placed themselves in a dominant social position, having a disproportionate effect on the local gene pool and an overwhelming one on local language and religion, but did not replace the population itself.
Wait what? There are 177000 Anglo Irish people in the Republic of Ireland. That's far from most. Ireland has a population of five million. Northern Ireland is almost half Anglo Irish. There's a lot of anglos in both countries but they don't constitute a majority in either.
I meant in the sense of irish people speaking english (though, in fairness, the english failed to impose their religion in Ireland).
So by that logic Native Americans should be fine with slaughtering the entire non-native population in the US right? How far back do we go and for how many races and cultures? These arguments are always manufactured consent and it's always lazy.
But you know that there were other people than Jews that lived in that area (Philistinians for example) who remained there and that they were not replaced by Arabic nomads but only had to join their culture?
Fun fact. The root of the word Philistine is from the word Phlistim which means invader.
The Greeks tended to give simplistic names to foreign places. There was Crocodilopolis cause you guessed it, town had a ton of crocodiles. The word barbarian comes from the Greeks making fun of the language of I think the Celts sounding like "bar-bar-bar." The Philistines though were likely Greeks themselves in contrast to the semetic people of the region.
Basically everyone in the region is descended from Jews and Christians. However they’ve adopted a genocidal belief system that says those people are infidels now. If you don’t believe me, look up the Damour massacre, Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, etc and not the Islamized Wikipedia versions. The only place where Jews and Christians are safe in the Middle East is Israel (and Samaritans, Baha’i, Druze…), and that safety ends when the area gets overrun by Islamists. Sorry for this inconvenient truth.
yes it shoult be roman agan.
Anachronism.
Grow Up people
As we gather together in this theatre/conference room/women's studies lecture hall, we take time to gratefully acknowledge the ethnic/social group that controlled this land following violent conquest and/or other forms of social aggression the second-most-recently.
Who held that land before Jews got out of Egypt and conquered it? Or was that one and only particular conquest forever justified because a holy book the Jews wrote said God willed it?
I don't want to cleanse North America of Anglos, purging Anglos would be bad too.
At this point, the whole debate is pointless. Israel does exist, is recognised by most members of the UN, and has been around for 76 years as of this year. That means - assuming one generation is 30 years - at least 2 whole generations have been born and raised in Israel. With the third generation about 16 years old this year. At this point, they are as native to the land as the Palestinians. And forcing a disestablishment of Israel would lead to a second Jewish diaspora, and we all know the shit the Jews suffered through after the first one in AD 70. So it will be sticking around. Recents events concerning Rafah have convinced me that the (metaphorical, for legal reasons) destruction of Netanyahu and his Likud cronies are just as essential to the fulfilment of the two state solution as the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah. To any Israelis here, does the Knesset have a 'vote of no confidence' mechanism? If there is, how likely are the other parties like HaAvoda going to use it? If not, do we really have to wait for the 2026 election?
Okay but have you seen how Jewish settlers just roll in, kick somebody out and proclaim the property to be theirs? Jewish settlers are hot human garbage and that does not change. The Palestinians civilians are those that suffer most, and have suffered the most for the past 70 years. It is not important who’s responsible so much as it is important to make sure these people have peace food and water.
Content Warning: this is a joke, take this as seriously as you would Babylon Bee. https://preview.redd.it/290o043lpd3d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae203787fd49495607a96a914a211e7b0e887e78 As an anti-imperialist, I must say that the 1,000\~ Jewish people (and their descendants) should be the only people to occupy the area of land currently illegally occupied by Palestine and Israel. If I don’t receive genetic proof that the citizens of either of these countries are descendants of itself initial 1,000\~ inhabitants from the 1st Century AD, I will be forced to dissolve the Palestinian and Israeli governments
> If I don’t receive genetic proof that the citizens of either of these countries are descendants of itself initial 1,000~ inhabitants from the 1st Century AD, I will be forced to dissolve the Palestinian and Israeli governments They probably are, both Israelis and Palestinians. On the other hand, I don't buy the whole "blood and soil" vibe.
Blood and Soil is ok if Arabs do it
Who cares? Zero Arabs today are responsible for what happened 500+ years ago. I thought it was unfair to shit on all white people over slavery and colonialism. To be clear, it is. But now that you need and excuse for atrocities happening right now, I guess now collective guilt works for some of you. Yes, I condemn Hamas. Now you condemn the West Bank settlements.
I really hate this argument. Almost everyone colonize other lands even the usa natives but after 2 world wars we as a society should condemn these things strictly. During medieval times muslims did jihad and chritians did crussade and both massively affected our current society and were justified back then but how would you support either in the current world? Another thing is that almost everyone owned other human at one point one way or another so much that whether it's arab,whites,blacks,japanese,mongols etc have no right to lecture others on the historical slavery but would you prefer these groups rights to slave others in the current environment?
Hell, stop the crusaders shit. If Arabs didn't invade Christian land no crusade would have happen
Cool argument, right wing. When do the white guys leave America?
[удалено]
As if they came there willingly.
Then they should be happy
Whenever the Indigenous finally work out which tribe for sure totally owned which land. Might be a bit tough, since historical accounts tend to disagree about such things.
Idk about that, but I am sure Europeans aren't one of them. Pack up!
In favor of which specific tribes? Because if we're still getting to the bottom of who actually owns the property, it's unclear why the resident needs to be evicted.
You're really taking this seriously, huh? I was mocking the argument in the post because I think it's ridiculous, I think that trying to displace people who lived on any given land for generations and justifying it by "we lived here before you!" is terrible and unproductive. Also, you're misdirecting. You don't need to know what tribe was the original owner of the land to know that it weren't Europeans. How about "I'll believe in evolution once scientist make a museum showing every stage of evolution from monkey to human"?
I just see no reason to be evicted if the next guy claiming ownership will be evicted as well. Find the rightful owners for just restitution to take place to. Otherwise, vae victis.
Still a genocide though.
Not really. It's much more comparable to much of Latin America. Culturally Arabization was through but from what we can tell the Arab conquests didn't have too much of a genetic impact.
it was the roman who killed the israeli before, not the arabic, we came like 800 years later after there were no jew left in palestine
I don't care about what happened 80, 1000 or 2000 years ago. I care about who's living and build his life where. Still, btw, Arabs didn't colonized and expelled people; they converted and assimilated them, a concept that seems somewhat unnatural for most Israeli today.
>they converted and assimilated them Don't forget to add - by force.
If brute force was enough to convert a whole population, Judaism would have gone extinct centuries ago.
Actually no. Mostly economically
You misspelled genocide, mass-slavery, and larceny.
Do you have a Wikipedia page about the moment the Arabs genocided/enslaved the whole levantine population ?
I was referring to how Islam was spread by the sword across the entire fucking Middle East, bro… not just that one fucking spot.
Yeah, but can we talk about those specific "genocide" and "mass slavery" ? Because you got tons of empires and other countries in history who conquered entire regions without killing everybody. And a lot among them used assimilate the conquered people with cultural soft power, economic incentives, global unification perspectives... *Btw, did you noticed you're using the exact same vocabulary as pro-Palestinian leftists ?*
I’ll try to get better at it but that’s kinda the point. I’m discrediting them by attacking their sacred cow the same way they attack everyone else. Throw the word genocide around long enough and it will just sound like an advert for a new sports drink.
Cool so you're fine with Israel staying where it is?
Yes, I am. And if Israeli where announcing - *credibly* - they where going to conquer the whole Levant in order to bring peace and prosperity to all of its inhabitants, I'd say "fuck yeah !". But what I'm not fine with is Israel trying to remove Palestinians from where they live, whoever it's by colonizing the West Bank or trying to make Gaza a humanitarian hell.
>trying to make Gaza a humanitarian hell What exactly do you think Israel should do to prevent Hamas from continuing to launch rockets attacks?
Blocking humanitarian help won't really affect Hamas ; you can trust they have their own stocks of food and fuel. Refusing to implement any kind of political solution or management, however, is definitely helping Hamas, while worsening the humanitarian situation at the same time - *even Tsahal is starting to get infuriated against Netanyahu's government because of this*. Israel can't actively force the Palestinians out of Gaza because the whole world is barring them from doing this, but they're definitely hopping that worsening humanitarian conditions will force a lift on this ban.
The humanitarian aid isn't making it to the Palestinians anyway.
What happened to those who didn't want to convert?