Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East
Thread gallery
11
Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 20:45

Voxon · 27/07/2025 20:36

What do you think would happen if this "occupation" ended tomorrow. Be really specific.

I will tell you what I think would happen.

In Gaza, weapons of all kinda, including weapons of mass destruction would be imported along with fighters from other jihadi organisations that would be used to launch an attack on Israel that would make Oct 7 look like a Sunday picnic.

I base this on what Hamas have openly said, along with evidence of multiple ships filled filth weapons being intercepted before the blockade as well as the support hamas has from Iran amd other terror proxies.

In the west bank, I think Hamas would take over quickly, or similar groups (polls show this is likely) and without Israeli forces present the thousands of Jews living there would need to flee or would be murdered. I then think exactly the same as has occurred in Gaza would also occur in the west bank, albeit from positions from which it would be far easier to murder everyone in tel aviv.

I base all this on evidence of what Palestinian leadership has said, done, polls and what they've done every chance they've had previously.

So tell me what you think would happen if mean old Israel stopped defending itself occupying because I'd really love to know?

Ok. You can justify the occupation of another country anyway you want. (Britain did the same with Ireland in 1916, we would never be able to govern ourselves)
They should stay under Israeli control then. Better off anyway Israel can pay to rebuild the country they destroyed.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 20:45

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 20:37

Democracy backsliding? Perhaps, but so has the US, Poland, Hungary. That’s not the same as not being a liberal democracy.

I would not exactly call any of these a "liberal democracy" in their current state either. Hungary under Orban in particular, has openly aspired to being an "illiberal democracy". Claim made by Orban, not me.

And, yes, Israel is multi-ethnic in practice. It is also, in law, a state in which "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people" (direct quote from the 2018 nation state law - the same law also downgraded Arabic - the native tongue of most non-Jewish Israelis - from its status as a national language to one with merely "special status". It is not equal.

And that is without even getting into the nitty-gritty of various laws on details.

So, yes, "increasingly authoritarian ethnocracy with democratic features".

You're cherry-picking legislation while ignoring the full picture. Yes, the 2018 Nation-State Law controversially stated that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and gave Hebrew precedence, but it did not remove citizenship rights from Arab Israelis or override the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which guarantees equality to all citizens.

There is nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state. That was the entire point, but they welcome others and give equality under law to minorities. It's amazing really that they do that given that not a single Arab state returns the same!

Arabic still has protected status and is used in official capacities (including courts, hospitals, and government websites).

Arab citizens vote, run for office, and serve as judges, including on the Supreme Court.

An Arab party was part of the ruling coalition in 2021–2022.

The judiciary is independent and regularly rules against the government.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, and protest are enshrined and regularly exercised.

Minorities serve in the police, civil service, and army (if they choose).

You can look for whatever you want but the fact remains that in israel you can be gay, straight, Arab, Jewish, whatever you want and freely express it. You can vote, you can slag off the government, you are free.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 20:47

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 20:45

Ok. You can justify the occupation of another country anyway you want. (Britain did the same with Ireland in 1916, we would never be able to govern ourselves)
They should stay under Israeli control then. Better off anyway Israel can pay to rebuild the country they destroyed.

I do justify occupation if that occupation is necessary to prevent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people being murdered. Yes.

Dangermoo · 27/07/2025 20:55

Voxon · 27/07/2025 20:47

I do justify occupation if that occupation is necessary to prevent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people being murdered. Yes.

hear hear

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:04

Voxon · 27/07/2025 20:47

I do justify occupation if that occupation is necessary to prevent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people being murdered. Yes.

And you accused me of a strawman??
Millions of people?

I genuinely never thought there were people out there who wouldn't believe that every people deserve to be free and have the right to govern themselves. Maybe it's my background but I would have thought it's a fundamental human right to be allowed to live freely without restrictions and without fear of arrest and persecution.

As I said will be better that Israel stays occupying them and pays the 50 billion to rebuild Gaza as well as the years of medical care from malnutrition, therapy from PTSD, housing orphans etc.

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 21:11

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:04

And you accused me of a strawman??
Millions of people?

I genuinely never thought there were people out there who wouldn't believe that every people deserve to be free and have the right to govern themselves. Maybe it's my background but I would have thought it's a fundamental human right to be allowed to live freely without restrictions and without fear of arrest and persecution.

As I said will be better that Israel stays occupying them and pays the 50 billion to rebuild Gaza as well as the years of medical care from malnutrition, therapy from PTSD, housing orphans etc.

It's not your background - it's someone literally arguing for ethnic supremacy and probably genuinely thinking it's defensible.

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:13

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 21:11

It's not your background - it's someone literally arguing for ethnic supremacy and probably genuinely thinking it's defensible.

Thank you. I'm genuinely perplexed at the notion that it is acceptable for a country to be occupied by another and treated so terribly. Fascinating it can be justified.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 21:14

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:04

And you accused me of a strawman??
Millions of people?

I genuinely never thought there were people out there who wouldn't believe that every people deserve to be free and have the right to govern themselves. Maybe it's my background but I would have thought it's a fundamental human right to be allowed to live freely without restrictions and without fear of arrest and persecution.

As I said will be better that Israel stays occupying them and pays the 50 billion to rebuild Gaza as well as the years of medical care from malnutrition, therapy from PTSD, housing orphans etc.

How many people being murdered would be okay for you?

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:20

Voxon · 27/07/2025 21:14

How many people being murdered would be okay for you?

Preferably none but hopefully less than the 60,000 murdered in Gaza and the 1000 murdered in the West Bank since this conflict began.

BelleHathor · 27/07/2025 21:39

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:13

Thank you. I'm genuinely perplexed at the notion that it is acceptable for a country to be occupied by another and treated so terribly. Fascinating it can be justified.

It the whole basis of this whole mess. Superiority.

Colonialism and Imperialism tinged with a large dose of eschatology dressed up as the modern day manifest destiny.

Remember that "the borders of the Middle East were drawn during World War I by a Briton, Mark Sykes, and a Frenchman, Francois Picot.

The two diplomats' pencils divided the map of one of the most volatile regions in the world into states that cut through ethnic and religious communities."

The initially secret (before being leaked by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in Russia) agreement.

Sony Thang, born in Vietnam so intimately knowledgeable about imperliasim said something that resonates to every colonised person:

"When European settlers displaced Native Americans, they too said it wasn’t ethnic cleansing. They called it "conflicting claims to the land."

When the French ruled Algeria, they too claimed ancient ties and called it a civilizing mission, not colonialism.

You’re not making a new argument. You’re just recycling it with better PR.

Let’s start with 1947.

The UN didn’t propose peace.

It proposed partition, not between two states, but between a native majority and a foreign settler movement that owned 6 percent of the land and represented one-third of the population.

The Palestinians didn’t reject peace.

They rejected a plan they never agreed to, written by people who never lived there, giving away land that was never theirs to offer.

What you call rejection, we call refusal to be erased on paper before being erased in stone.

You say "160,000" Palestinians remained.

You forget to mention the 750,000 who were expelled.

You forget the over 400 villages erased from the map.

You forget the laws that turned the Palestinians who stayed into second-class citizens on their own land.

Ethnic cleansing is not disproven by the survival of a remnant.

That’s what survivors are. The ones who were not killed, not exiled, not erased.

You say Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Yes. That is what happens when a population rises against colonial settlement.

But that expulsion ended in 1967, when Israel took all of it, and still has not given it back.

You talk about Jewish indigeneity.

Let’s talk about it.

Being indigenous to a land does not give you the right to colonize it.

You cannot reclaim roots by uprooting others.

You cannot revive a past by extinguishing a present.

Indigeneity is not a license for apartheid.

It is not a moral shield for bombing refugee camps, bulldozing homes, or jailing children.

It is not a justification for a state that grants citizenship by bloodline and shoots journalists in the face.

Palestinians are not being punished for rejecting coexistence.

They are being punished for refusing to disappear.

You want to talk about ancient ties? Fine.

But if we are going back 3,000 years to justify modern supremacy, then every empire will rise again, every border will burn, and every genocide will have its excuse.

This is not a tragic clash between equals.

This is a military superpower, armed to the teeth, funded by billions, and shielded by the most powerful empire on Earth.

It is imposing itself on a stateless, occupied, and besieged people.

You say calling Israel a colonial, ethnic cleansing project is false.

But the mass graves say otherwise.

The checkpoints say otherwise.

The separation wall says otherwise.

The refugee camps say otherwise.

And the silence that follows every airstrike says it loudest of all.

You say denying one side’s history is dishonest.

What do you call erasing 77 years of dispossession, siege, and exile, and blaming the victims for surviving it?

This isn’t a conflict.

It is a conquest.

And the only thing more dishonest than denying it is pretending both sides hold the gun."

Voxon · 27/07/2025 21:41

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 21:20

Preferably none but hopefully less than the 60,000 murdered in Gaza and the 1000 murdered in the West Bank since this conflict began.

Israel did unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005, completely. It dismantled all settlements, removed every soldier, and handed over full control. What followed was not peace, but a violent Hamas takeover, the firing of thousands of rockets at civilians, cross-border tunnel attacks, and ultimately the massacre of 1,200 people on 7 October.

And now you propose that Israel should remove the blockade and repeat the same in the West Bank. This is a territory directly adjacent to Israel’s most populated cities and its only international airport. Your position effectively demands either the forced evacuation of 300,000 Jews or for them to remain and wait to be murdered.

If Hamas had unrestricted territorial control over Gaza and the West Bank, with no blockade, no Israeli security presence, and open borders with access to weapons imports, the number of people they could realistically kill is enormous. Hamas’s charter and numerous public statements make clear that their goal is not a two-state solution, but the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. They glorify martyrdom, teach children to embrace death for Palestine, and explicitly reject peaceful coexistence.

On October 7, with very limited resources and a small border breach, they managed to murder 1,200 people, injure thousands, and take 240 hostages including babies and Holocaust survivors. And that was under heavy surveillance and restricted access to arms.

If Hamas had free access to weapons and materials like rockets, drones, and explosives, they could easily launch tens of thousands of long-range missiles into Israeli cities within minutes. They could target airports, hospitals, power plants, and even the ammonia storage facility near Haifa, which alone could kill tens of thousands of civilians. These are not hypotheticals. Hezbollah already has over 150,000 rockets. With the same support, Hamas could match that over time. A coordinated attack from the north and south would be devastating.

There is nothing theoretical about Hamas's intentions. They have shown they will massacre civilians when given the chance. Palestinian society at large has celebrated these atrocities publicly. Without Israeli intelligence or counter-terror operations, Hamas would expand its training camps, weapons production, and terror infrastructure freely.

Realistically, if left unchecked and fully armed, they could kill thousands or tens of thousands easily. If they acquire weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, or radiological - which other terror groups have attempted before, the casualties could rise into the hundreds of thousands or even millions in a worst-case scenario.

On October 7, they fired over 3,000 rockets in a few hours. If Iron Dome were overwhelmed, and rockets hit synagogues, schools, or high-rises during peak times, the result would be catastrophic. Israel is home to more than 9 million people, mostly in coastal cities. Mass attacks on Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem could easily result in staggering civilian deaths.

Hamas has made their goals clear. They do not want a state. They want Israel gone. The only thing stopping them is lack of capacity. You are seriously proposing giving them the capacity as the moral thing to do.

Nobody is denying that Palestinians deserve freedom and a better future. But the path to that future is not just letting terrorists annihlate a country. I'm so baffled over how you've got here in your mind, but maybe it's that you're projecting Ireland onto Palestine as if it's the same thing.

It's not.

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 21:53

Voxon · 27/07/2025 21:41

Israel did unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005, completely. It dismantled all settlements, removed every soldier, and handed over full control. What followed was not peace, but a violent Hamas takeover, the firing of thousands of rockets at civilians, cross-border tunnel attacks, and ultimately the massacre of 1,200 people on 7 October.

And now you propose that Israel should remove the blockade and repeat the same in the West Bank. This is a territory directly adjacent to Israel’s most populated cities and its only international airport. Your position effectively demands either the forced evacuation of 300,000 Jews or for them to remain and wait to be murdered.

If Hamas had unrestricted territorial control over Gaza and the West Bank, with no blockade, no Israeli security presence, and open borders with access to weapons imports, the number of people they could realistically kill is enormous. Hamas’s charter and numerous public statements make clear that their goal is not a two-state solution, but the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. They glorify martyrdom, teach children to embrace death for Palestine, and explicitly reject peaceful coexistence.

On October 7, with very limited resources and a small border breach, they managed to murder 1,200 people, injure thousands, and take 240 hostages including babies and Holocaust survivors. And that was under heavy surveillance and restricted access to arms.

If Hamas had free access to weapons and materials like rockets, drones, and explosives, they could easily launch tens of thousands of long-range missiles into Israeli cities within minutes. They could target airports, hospitals, power plants, and even the ammonia storage facility near Haifa, which alone could kill tens of thousands of civilians. These are not hypotheticals. Hezbollah already has over 150,000 rockets. With the same support, Hamas could match that over time. A coordinated attack from the north and south would be devastating.

There is nothing theoretical about Hamas's intentions. They have shown they will massacre civilians when given the chance. Palestinian society at large has celebrated these atrocities publicly. Without Israeli intelligence or counter-terror operations, Hamas would expand its training camps, weapons production, and terror infrastructure freely.

Realistically, if left unchecked and fully armed, they could kill thousands or tens of thousands easily. If they acquire weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, or radiological - which other terror groups have attempted before, the casualties could rise into the hundreds of thousands or even millions in a worst-case scenario.

On October 7, they fired over 3,000 rockets in a few hours. If Iron Dome were overwhelmed, and rockets hit synagogues, schools, or high-rises during peak times, the result would be catastrophic. Israel is home to more than 9 million people, mostly in coastal cities. Mass attacks on Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem could easily result in staggering civilian deaths.

Hamas has made their goals clear. They do not want a state. They want Israel gone. The only thing stopping them is lack of capacity. You are seriously proposing giving them the capacity as the moral thing to do.

Nobody is denying that Palestinians deserve freedom and a better future. But the path to that future is not just letting terrorists annihlate a country. I'm so baffled over how you've got here in your mind, but maybe it's that you're projecting Ireland onto Palestine as if it's the same thing.

It's not.

You are denying that Palestinians deserve freedom.

You just said you supported occupation - based on a hypothetical scenario in which a nuclear power with massive backing from some of the world's most militarily potent states is overrun and helpless in the face of an opponent you yourself describe as having minimal means.

You can't have it both ways: you're either David or Goliath but not "one in practice which justifies the hypothetical other".

Voxon · 27/07/2025 21:56

BelleHathor · 27/07/2025 21:39

It the whole basis of this whole mess. Superiority.

Colonialism and Imperialism tinged with a large dose of eschatology dressed up as the modern day manifest destiny.

Remember that "the borders of the Middle East were drawn during World War I by a Briton, Mark Sykes, and a Frenchman, Francois Picot.

The two diplomats' pencils divided the map of one of the most volatile regions in the world into states that cut through ethnic and religious communities."

The initially secret (before being leaked by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in Russia) agreement.

Sony Thang, born in Vietnam so intimately knowledgeable about imperliasim said something that resonates to every colonised person:

"When European settlers displaced Native Americans, they too said it wasn’t ethnic cleansing. They called it "conflicting claims to the land."

When the French ruled Algeria, they too claimed ancient ties and called it a civilizing mission, not colonialism.

You’re not making a new argument. You’re just recycling it with better PR.

Let’s start with 1947.

The UN didn’t propose peace.

It proposed partition, not between two states, but between a native majority and a foreign settler movement that owned 6 percent of the land and represented one-third of the population.

The Palestinians didn’t reject peace.

They rejected a plan they never agreed to, written by people who never lived there, giving away land that was never theirs to offer.

What you call rejection, we call refusal to be erased on paper before being erased in stone.

You say "160,000" Palestinians remained.

You forget to mention the 750,000 who were expelled.

You forget the over 400 villages erased from the map.

You forget the laws that turned the Palestinians who stayed into second-class citizens on their own land.

Ethnic cleansing is not disproven by the survival of a remnant.

That’s what survivors are. The ones who were not killed, not exiled, not erased.

You say Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Yes. That is what happens when a population rises against colonial settlement.

But that expulsion ended in 1967, when Israel took all of it, and still has not given it back.

You talk about Jewish indigeneity.

Let’s talk about it.

Being indigenous to a land does not give you the right to colonize it.

You cannot reclaim roots by uprooting others.

You cannot revive a past by extinguishing a present.

Indigeneity is not a license for apartheid.

It is not a moral shield for bombing refugee camps, bulldozing homes, or jailing children.

It is not a justification for a state that grants citizenship by bloodline and shoots journalists in the face.

Palestinians are not being punished for rejecting coexistence.

They are being punished for refusing to disappear.

You want to talk about ancient ties? Fine.

But if we are going back 3,000 years to justify modern supremacy, then every empire will rise again, every border will burn, and every genocide will have its excuse.

This is not a tragic clash between equals.

This is a military superpower, armed to the teeth, funded by billions, and shielded by the most powerful empire on Earth.

It is imposing itself on a stateless, occupied, and besieged people.

You say calling Israel a colonial, ethnic cleansing project is false.

But the mass graves say otherwise.

The checkpoints say otherwise.

The separation wall says otherwise.

The refugee camps say otherwise.

And the silence that follows every airstrike says it loudest of all.

You say denying one side’s history is dishonest.

What do you call erasing 77 years of dispossession, siege, and exile, and blaming the victims for surviving it?

This isn’t a conflict.

It is a conquest.

And the only thing more dishonest than denying it is pretending both sides hold the gun."

If aliens landed on Earth, they’d be utterly baffled to find a large group of educated adults who genuinely believe that Jews "colonised" the very land they’re indigenous to. The mental gymnastics involved in claiming that Jews - who share their country with millions of Muslims ' are the ones committing ethnic cleansing, while the other side openly refuses to let a single Jew live among them, is staggering. It’s a masterclass in how effective propaganda and indoctrination can be. I'd read about this kind of mass brainwashing in history but watching it in real time is wild

Voxon · 27/07/2025 22:03

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 21:53

You are denying that Palestinians deserve freedom.

You just said you supported occupation - based on a hypothetical scenario in which a nuclear power with massive backing from some of the world's most militarily potent states is overrun and helpless in the face of an opponent you yourself describe as having minimal means.

You can't have it both ways: you're either David or Goliath but not "one in practice which justifies the hypothetical other".

I believe Palestinians deserve freedom - freedom from the oppressive regimes they live under. But that’s a fight they need to lead for themselves. Right now, I honestly don’t know what their definition of “freedom” even is, and I suspect it may look very different from mine.

What I don’t believe in is giving freedom to leaders, and the Palestinians who support them, whose stated mission is the annihilation of Israel.

They shouldn’t have freedom to import weapons, build terror tunnels, or murder civilians. Israel has every right to prevent that, including restricting the movement of weapons and hostile actors. That’s not oppression; that’s basic self-defence.

Should they at any point decide they'd like to have a peaceful country that didn't want to murder people I'd be very happy to discuss again.

BelleHathor · 27/07/2025 22:10

It's not about being indigenous to the land.

It's about the fact that Palestinians land was given away by a people who never lived there to a people who had not lived there for years aka Colonialism.

Being indigenous to a land does not give you the right to colonize it.

You cannot reclaim roots by uprooting others.

You cannot revive a past by extinguishing a present.
And if we're going to talk about that let's remember that DNA testing shows that the Levantine (Palestinians, Lebanese, Samaritans, Syrian) population have been there for thousands of years with ancient Canaanite/Bronze Age DNA.

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 22:16

"Israel did unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005, completely. It dismantled all settlements, removed every soldier, and handed over full control. What followed was not peace, but a violent Hamas takeover, the firing of thousands of rockets at civilians, cross-border tunnel attacks, and ultimately the massacre of 1,200 people on 7 October."

Full control?? Except for the air land and sea blockade, except for control of imports and exports, except for control of movement of people, except for control of buildings, farming your own land(if it's not beside your house), going to an educational institution (average queuing times 15 hours every 3 months to renew permits)etc.

Oh and work permits which can be reversed if any family member is killed by an Israeli soldier because they are deemed a security risk. Like the Tel Aviv contractor who was going to picnic with his family, reversed the car 4 Israeli soldiers decided that was Dodgy, shot his car killing his 11 year old. Because of the fathers work permit was revoked because he was deemed involved in the conflict.

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 22:17

Voxon · 27/07/2025 22:03

I believe Palestinians deserve freedom - freedom from the oppressive regimes they live under. But that’s a fight they need to lead for themselves. Right now, I honestly don’t know what their definition of “freedom” even is, and I suspect it may look very different from mine.

What I don’t believe in is giving freedom to leaders, and the Palestinians who support them, whose stated mission is the annihilation of Israel.

They shouldn’t have freedom to import weapons, build terror tunnels, or murder civilians. Israel has every right to prevent that, including restricting the movement of weapons and hostile actors. That’s not oppression; that’s basic self-defence.

Should they at any point decide they'd like to have a peaceful country that didn't want to murder people I'd be very happy to discuss again.

I believe Palestinians deserve freedom - freedom from the oppressive regimes they live under.

So what you are saying is, really:

"I believe Palestinians deserve to be free to accept Israeli primacy - at which point I am open to debate about how kind Israel should be towards them. But until then: the kind thing to do is to is to make them accept this faster. That includes giving Israel every right I think they should not have"?

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 27/07/2025 22:18

@Martymcfly24 are they taking us for fools

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 27/07/2025 22:19

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 22:17

I believe Palestinians deserve freedom - freedom from the oppressive regimes they live under.

So what you are saying is, really:

"I believe Palestinians deserve to be free to accept Israeli primacy - at which point I am open to debate about how kind Israel should be towards them. But until then: the kind thing to do is to is to make them accept this faster. That includes giving Israel every right I think they should not have"?

Yeah very similar to an abusive partner.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 22:20

BelleHathor · 27/07/2025 22:10

It's not about being indigenous to the land.

It's about the fact that Palestinians land was given away by a people who never lived there to a people who had not lived there for years aka Colonialism.

Being indigenous to a land does not give you the right to colonize it.

You cannot reclaim roots by uprooting others.

You cannot revive a past by extinguishing a present.
And if we're going to talk about that let's remember that DNA testing shows that the Levantine (Palestinians, Lebanese, Samaritans, Syrian) population have been there for thousands of years with ancient Canaanite/Bronze Age DNA.

Jews have always lived in the land continuously, for over 3,000 years, including throughout the Arab conquest, Ottoman rule, and British Mandate. Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, and Safed existed long before the Zionist movement. So this is not a case of a totally foreign people returning, it’s a people reclaiming sovereignty in their ancestral homeland after centuries of persecution and exile.

The UN Partition Plan of 1947 wasn’t “Palestinian land being given away.” It was land under British Mandate, i.e., a League of Nations trusteeship, not sovereign Arab territory. Jews legally purchased large portions of land, and the Partition Plan proposed two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish side accepted it. The Arab side rejected it and started a war. That was their choice.

As for “you can’t revive a past by extinguishing a present”, that’s exactly what Arab armies tried to do to the Jews in 1948 and every day since. Their empire and complete domination fell, and they need to accept it and more broadly accept the right of other groups to self determination. They don't own all of it. They can't have everything.

Regarding DNA: Jewish DNA studies show a clear Levantine origin, with common ancestry to Samaritans and other regional groups. Palestinians do have ancient Levantine roots too, but those roots don’t invalidate Jewish ones. This isn’t a DNA contest, both peoples have deep ties to the land. But only one side has continually rejected peaceful coexistence and demanded the other's elimination.

Israel isn't a colonial state. It's a restored homeland of an indigenous, exiled people. Colonisers don’t come home. The premise of this entire movement rests on untruth, distortion, double standards and historical revisionism. The use of words are objectively absurd.

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 22:20

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 27/07/2025 22:18

@Martymcfly24 are they taking us for fools

Absolutely. Talk about cherry picking history. I truly believe some posters have no idea of what life was like for a Palestinian before October 7th.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 22:27

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 21:53

You are denying that Palestinians deserve freedom.

You just said you supported occupation - based on a hypothetical scenario in which a nuclear power with massive backing from some of the world's most militarily potent states is overrun and helpless in the face of an opponent you yourself describe as having minimal means.

You can't have it both ways: you're either David or Goliath but not "one in practice which justifies the hypothetical other".

So in your scenario, where Hamas gains the capability to launch a far more advanced and large-scale attack, Israel would understandably respond with overwhelming force to protect its citizens. That would likely result in mass casualties, potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions. And at that point, Israel would have every legal and moral justification to reoccupy or annex territory to ensure its long-term security, just as the Allies did with Germany after World War II.

Great plan.

Martymcfly24 · 27/07/2025 22:28

@Voxon what about the Zionist militia's during this time and the terrible violence/biological warfare?What about the laws passed by the new Israeli state that they could take a Palestinians home if they left it for a short while..The house Netanyahu lives in was seized by the Israeli state when it's owner left to seek refuge during the uprisings in 1948. His family then bought it a decade later.

No one is denying that Jewish people have a very sacred claim on the area and have every right to choose to settle there legally and buy property. What they do not have the right to do is take another person's home like what is currently happening in the West Bank by settlers.

Jujujudo · 27/07/2025 22:31

Voxon · 27/07/2025 16:56

Sure.

Your is full of emotional reasoning, false equivalence, and selective evidence, all wrapped up in moral relativism. Here’s a breakdown of the mental gymnastics involved:

Strawman Argument
Youre distorting mu original point. i never said Israel was blameless. I said its foundational aim was liberal democracy and coexistence, compared to the stated goal of Hamas, and indeed many other groups, to destroy Israel. That’s a clear, factual contrast, not a claim that Israel has never done wrong.

Moral Equivalence Fallacy
You conflate systemic, genocidal ideology (Hamas) with individual bad behaviour (settlers, fringe politicians, social media users). A few Israelis mocking Palestinians is not comparable to a terror regime indoctrinating children to kill Jews or launching wars of extermination. These aren’t equivalent.

Selective Outrage
You highlight everything wrong with Israel (many of which are genuine criticisms) while saying almost nothing about the governing party in Gaza committing mass rape, murder, hostage-taking, and openly declaring it wants more. You ignore the backdrop all your criticisms are set against- thousands of terror attacks, half a dozen wars, outspoken and proud hatred of Jews to a point they would be literally killed if they walked into Gaza. You admit Hamas is hateful, but still try to present both sides as equally bad, which is nonsense.

Guilt by Association
You point to extremists like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, as if their existence nullifies Israel’s entire legitimacy or intentions. That’s like saying the UK is a fascist state because Farage exists. Extremists in a democracy don’t define the whole nation. Israel, as a whole nation, since it's Inception, has largely tried everything to live in peace and failed because the other side refuses.

False Inference from Policy to Motive
You list policies (permits, demolitions, etc.) and assume those policies reflect Israel's foundational desire to dominate. They ignore context: terrorism, security threats, and a long history of wars started against Israel. That’s bad-faith reasoning. Objevtively, a lot of israel's policies are the result of Israelis not wanting to die.

You've sidestepped my actual point about ideological goals and twisted it into a morality competition. Instead of engaging with Hamas’s (and actually pretty much all leaderships) genocidal aims or the liberal democratic nature of Israel’s government, you derailed the conversation with cherry-picked misdeeds and knee-jerk whataboutism.

That is mental gymnastics - because it takes real effort to ignore the core facts and shift the debate into a fog of moral ambiguity. Palestine, and every leadership its ever had, has always held the same view: that Israel cannot exist. Its that simple, and it remained that simple before any of the misdeeds you listed ever happened.

Thunderous applause.

Voxon · 27/07/2025 22:31

SomeWomanSomewhere · 27/07/2025 22:17

I believe Palestinians deserve freedom - freedom from the oppressive regimes they live under.

So what you are saying is, really:

"I believe Palestinians deserve to be free to accept Israeli primacy - at which point I am open to debate about how kind Israel should be towards them. But until then: the kind thing to do is to is to make them accept this faster. That includes giving Israel every right I think they should not have"?

Oh please. What I actually said - in plain English - is that I believe in freedom, not a free pass for mass murderers. If your definition of “freedom” includes importing weapons, building tunnels under kindergartens, and slaughtering civilians in their homes, then yes, we have very different ideas of what that word means.

I find it fascinating that so many people aren't very bothered about Palestinians lacking freedom to vote, form political parties, protest, marry who they like, be gay, criticise their leaders or do basically anything, but they're oh so very concerned that they can't freely import ballistic missiles to kill Jews with.

Telling.

Swipe left for the next trending thread