this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
499 points (91.0% liked)

Political Memes

5234 readers
2330 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snek@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I think the only reason Israel should exist today is that people already live there and it would be a mistake to force them out and create more displacement. That being said, Israel, a supremacist ethnostate, should never have had the right to exist... You shouldn't exist if you have to build your fucking country on the mass graves of the native people, and then you are so deep in this shit you have to develop tech to be able to apartheid them all behind walls and systems and bullets, starving and dying. No, an entity like that should not deserve to exist. I still have hope that some reasonable Israelis will turn this all around, and Israel will stop being a genocidal mission.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You shouldn’t exist if you have to build your fucking country on the mass graves of the native people

So where do you draw the line? Most - if not all - countries were created with bloodshed at some point. People in my country moved into the area around ~1200 years ago and I don't think the locals welcomed the new inhabitants with open arms. So should we move back then? What about the people who now line in the place we (at least assume) to had come from?

[–] snek@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So should we move back then?

Read the first sentence of the comment you just replied to.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but at that point you just rant how all these states should disappear without any idea what to do with the people in them.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Hmmmm, sounds to me like you ignored my first sentence. Read it again. I don't think they should go anywhere. Doesn't make what they did right though.

For Israeli settlers, there is still a window of time to kick them the fuck out given as to how they go into people's homes with the blessings of Israeli police and IDF and kick the residents out...

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The country Israel was founded by people who are native to the land. Perhaps read up on the history of the area, because what you are writing is factually incorrect.

There was no country before and the area was populated by multiple different groups of people. Those people wanted to found countries in the area. There is war(s) regarding where the borders of these countries should be.

That's how almost every country in the world came into place. The only difference here is that it is taking place in a time when the whole world is watching in real time and people are much more globally mobile.

I know it's much easier and comfortable to paint a black and white picture of the situation, but it is just false...

[–] snek@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If they were native to the land, how do you explain Deir Yasdin or the Nakba?

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

??? What does that have to do with the fact that Israel is a country founded for people who are native to the land?

[–] snek@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If they are native to the land, why did they have to massacre (Deir Yassin) and ethnically cleanse (the Nakba) the other natives? 🤔

I'm asking because Deir Yassin is the massacre that eventually convinced my grandmother's family to leave their hometown and become refugees in Jordan, especially after the men in the village tried to fight off these "natives to the land" because they were attacking and killing everyone. Deir Yassin convinced Palestinians that they couldn't trust these "natives", since they don't stick to their treaties, and go around marauding.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Jews were killed and oppressed in the area already thousands of years ago. How is that possible if they are not natives to the land?

For example during the Levant conquest or the regular and ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Jews in the area when it was still Transjordan? These conflicts are so fucking old they are mentioned in the Koran.

It's nonsensical to try and claim Jews aren't native there.

[–] snek@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Please answer my question first. If they were natives to the land, why did they have to commit massacres and ethnic cleansing against the other natives of the land?

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For the same reason why people do that in every country to each other. Religion, incompatible cultural values, ideologies that go against other people, ... It's sadly something people do and have done everywhere in some way or another.

In Transjordan and the greater area between Northern Africa and Asia there were countless shifts and movements, mixing and separation of groups for all kind of reasons. But I think the separation because of different religions is probably the reason that lead to the biggest rifts, at least in that place.

I don't see how that has anything to do with whether or not a group of people is native to or had ancestry in a land.

[–] snek@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Because people native to a land don't tend to butcher their neighbors and then establish an apartheid state, even for ideological differences,

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I am not sure if you are serious.

[–] snek@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I think I'm not sure if you are... Israeli apartheid crimes, it all claims to do because it's people are "native to the land"... what does that even mean if you have to butcher all the other natives? Jews who wanted to be closer to the holy lands could have had a controlled migration to Palestine without taking up arms and committing massacres. But no, there was a bigger idea, that they are "natives" of the land, so they have the right to murder and to maim.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You shouldn't exist if you have to build your fucking country on the mass graves of the native people, and then you are so deep in this shit you have to develop tech to be able to apartheid them all behind walls and systems and bullets, starving and dying. No, an entity like that should not deserve to exist.

Just for curiosity, are you American?

Because you literally just described America.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. You'll be shocked, I'm Palestinian.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

For that you know awfully little about the history of the area. Or you just love propaganda.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I fucking love all that "propaganda" from HRW and the UN.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The UN, which includes the HRW, have a historic bias against Israel that is an ongoing topic. They admitted so themselves in the past and have been called again and again to justify their strong bias that shows, among other things, in the fact they find the majority of all human rights offenses in Israel.

The focus on Israel from the UN stems form the fact that the majority of it's members states are anti-democratic and their council is dominated by oil states and muslim states who see Israel as a thorn into their side.

While I wouldn't call everything from the UN as propaganda, they are definitely not a neutral source for information.

[–] snek@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The focus on Israel from the UN stems form the fact that the majority of it’s members states are anti-democratic and their council is dominated by oil states and muslim states who see Israel as a thorn into their side.

Ah yes that totally explains these results in the UNGA 🙄

All those 153 counties just want Hamas to have a great life /s

It's not at all that they are against war crimes or genocide or anything, noooo, they're just "biased"

All 153 of them

Only Paraguay and Israel and wherever the fuck Nauru is....

[–] snek@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

Yep there it is, ladies and gentlemen. Anyone who reports on Israeli crimes has a bias.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Because you literally just described America.

Given what you know about our species and nature in general, what country in the world do you think doesn't fit this description?

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 1 points 9 months ago

Countries still standing, flying (mostly) their original flag, with a significant chunk of peak territory remaining?

Yeah, America isn’t unique. Lots throughout history. I guess you could say most of the new world, but certainly one of the largest…with Russia, China, Canada, and maybe Australia if you stretch the definition enough (and I’m not trying to ignore or dismiss their treatment of the aboriginals in saying that).