A grim poll shows most Jewish Israelis support expelling Gazans. It's brutal - and true
Gorilladrums @ Gorilladrums @lemmy.world Posts 3Comments 291Joined 2 yr. ago
Gorilladrums @ Gorilladrums @lemmy.world
Posts
3
Comments
291
Joined
2 yr. ago
And yet, for all your snowjob bullshit, there is one people in chains and another people putting them in chains. I don’t give a shit what the history is. No one has the right to do that to someone else.
We can condemn the Israeli government's reprehensible actions without using historical revisionism to drive narratives. Also history matters, how else are we supposed to understand why things are the way they if we don't even bother understand what led up to them in an objective manner?
The Nazis had a long list of historical grievances against their Jewish population. You would have been right there on the side of the Nazis, saying that while you don’t support them necessarily, you fully understand what Hitler is trying to accomplish.
That's some colossal bullshit. It's the other way around. The Nazis were notorious for historical revisionism and crafting propaganda narratives that misrepresented history and boiled down all the complexity and nuance to just "Jews bad". That's why they blamed Jews for everything. If the Nazis understood history, then they would've known that their decisions would've led to their demise. You don't seem to understand that no cause is noble enough to justify dishonest representations of reality. This applies to both Israel and Palestine.
And fuck him, all I am saying is that the history that led up today is more complex than you people are making it out to be. From Israel's foundation until today, there is a lot that happened that wasn't foreseen by this guy or anybody. It's like how the US was founded similar principles but ended up being something that's vastly different from it's founders imagined, the same goes for other places like Turkey or New Zealand or Brazil or even Palestine. You can't boil down one of the world's oldest regions with the richest history during one it's most turbulent times to a narrative made by western activists who boil down everything to "this side good that side bad lol", that's ignorance.
And I'll say it again, you're not speaking history, you're speaking narrative and ideology. You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what the founding ideology is, what matters is what actually happened. The fact that you think you can boil this conflict down to "good vs bad" shows that your ignorance on the subject. There are a lot of conflicts in history that could be that simple, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a good example, but this is not one of those conflicts.
History is meant to be something that's factual, because you're retelling what happened. You're not supposed to be taking sides and digest information from the perspective of a side, that defeats the whole purpose of being objective.
I'll give you an example, during the 20th century, around 1 million Jews in the muslim world were forced out from their countries for no other reason than being Jewish. These people didn't do anything wrong, they had nothing to do with the creation of Israel but they found themselves stripped of their property, communities (some of which are thousands of years old) and were forced to go there as that was the only place that would accept them. These people are as much victims as the victims of the Nakba, except this was even larger in scale... yet people like you don't even acknowledge it's existence.
Here's another example, before the creation of Israel and Palestine, the British Mandate had a population of around 750k in the 1920s, and around 10% of those were Jewish. Those Jews were very religious, as opposed to many zionist Jews that migrated there. These Jews were vocal against the creation of Israel, but they became citizens anyway when Israel was established. Those Jews also happen to be from sects that have consistently had the highest birthrates over the decades, and so their descendants today can trace their roots back for thousands of years having never left the region. These people clearly don't fit the narrative you are trying to paint, but again, you don't acknowledge their existence.
Here's yet another example, the Palestinian national identity formed around in the 1920s and 1930s, around the same time the Israeli national identity formed, and both became official after the 1947 partition plan. Prior to the British Mandate, there was no such thing as a Palestinian nation. The term "Palestine" was a colloquial one that loosely referred to the region that made up the "holy land". The borders and identity that we associate with Palestine today didn't exist during the Ottoman period, these are literally British inventions. The region was divided differently and the people there saw themselves differently. The region was filled with Turks, Jews, Christians, Arabs, and bunch of other ethnic and religious groups. They all saw themselves as natives to the region and they primarily identified with their ethnic/religious group first and then as Ottoman second. The same applies to Mamluks before the Ottoman Empire. In this case, the Arabs in the region saw themselves as a part of al bilad al sham (the Levant or greater Syria) which was a part of al ummah al arrabiya (the Arab nation). This is because until the British and the French drew random borders, the Arab world saw itself as a single nation. When people talk about the native nation of Palestine, they have no idea what they're talking about.
I could keep going, but you get the idea. Like I said, it doesn't matter how something was intended to happen, what matters was what actually happened. These are all events things that were not foreseen by Zionist philosophers living in god knows where. This is precisely why you can't develop narratives based on narratives, what you will end up with is a distorted image of reality. I agree with you that what the Israeli government today is doing in Gaza and the West Bank is reprehensible and I agree with you that Zionist philosophers were pro-colonialism, but what I am saying is that only using these two points of the regions history or using a single perspective (especially a biased one) will blind to everything else that happened.
I'm saying you have no moral consistency. Think about it, what purpose does your comment serve besides defending this massacre? You're simply mad that are people are recognizing it as such, and you want to shut down the criticism by screaming hypocrisy, but that in of itself is hypocritical because if China came out and recognized the trail of tears for example, you would be ecstatic with joy. You wouldn't be crying about how China shouldn't preach about human rights due to their extensive record of human rights abuses.
consumes nothing but propaganda
literally make up things as you go
people call you out on it
everybody else is clearly brainwashed except you
Sure thing, bud
When a country does a bad thing, then that thing is indeed bad. It's fairly straight forward. Your persecution fetish isn't going to change the reality. You're not a victim, neither are the communist countries who committed these atrocities. Just because you're soulless ghoul who supports these atrocities, that doesn't means others do as well. This might be shocking to you, but most people don't have ideological brainrot. They call out bad things when they see them. That's called consistency.
But that's something you lack, because if you had consistency then you wouldn't need to use fallacies. You would just defend your positions by their own merits, but you can't do that so you become dishonest. Even now, instead of just taking the high road and saying "these events were atrocities and I condemn them" like a decent human being, you do the opposite by still defending them. You don't seem to understand there is no justification for them. The fact that you are trying to justify them is direct evidence of your ignorance.
Yet Jews had their Golden Age in Spain under Muslim rule and returned to Jerusalem after a 500 year Roman exile after the Muslim conquest of the Levant.
What golden age lmao? islam is crystal clear that it has to be established as the superior religion of the land and that all the religions under it must be treated as inferior by having them be subjugated to additional restrictions like having to pay a jizya tax and being treated as second class citizens. Btw this only applies to religions that fall under the label of "people of the book", aka, Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Other religions, like European Paganism or Hinduism didn't get anything, islam says that they should either be killed, forced to convert to islam, or taken in as slaves.
Until the West started protecting them after WWII, Jews were not treated well for centuries. They're still not treated well today. Several muslim countries today still don't allow Jews to live inside their borders.
They were lured to Israel but with the exception of Egypt they weren’t expelled. Iraq went as far as prohibiting Jews from leaving and the Mossad did false flag attacks to encourage them to leave secretly.
I'm actually from Iraq so I actually understand what happened more than you. You see, Jews in Iraq were always subject to oppression, discrimination, and violence. Whenever something goes bad in the country, religious and ethnic minorities like Jews, Christians, and Kurds face the wrath of events called "farhud". The word loosely translates to "looting" but the actual translation is pogrom. A farhud is when you get a huge mob of angry muslims going into minority neighborhoods and towns and destroying everything. They would kill people, kindnap women, destroy their houses/businesses/religious institutions, and they steal anything they can get their hands on. My family comes from an ethnoreligious minority in Iraq (called Mandaeism), and all the minorities in Iraq saw were subject to this type of violence after the 2003 US invasion.
Anyway, when it comes to the Jews in the country, in 1941 they suffered an extremely bad farhud. This was before the establishment of Israel, this was before the end of WWII, and this was during the holocaust. You see, during this time, muslim Arabs in general were very much fond of the Nazis. The Nazis and the muslim Arabs had a lot of shared goals and desires, they both hated the British/French and wanted to see them defeated, they both hated and wanted to exterminate Jews, and they both thought of themselves as superior and wanted to cleanse their lands of minorities.
The thing is at the time, Iraq was ruled by a royal family that was put there by the British, kind of like Jordan is today. This royal family was kind of supportive of the allies and they wanted to maintain a secular order that allows minorities. Iraqi Arab muslims (both sunni and shia) despised that so much so that there was enough support to foster a pro-Nazi fascist coup attempt in 1941. During the coup, the monarch at the time got ousted and was replaced by, Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, the fascist leader of the coup for a few months.
His reign was no stable but still, he had enough power to terrorize the Jews in Iraq. They were constantly subject to intimidation and violence where they would get their houses painted to mark them or told that they were being moved to detention camps asap. After a few months of this, the British sent in support to squash his regime and reestablish the monarchy, and they did. But the fascist regime's defeat saw the country's Arab muslim population rage and they accused the Jews and other minorities of supporting the British and their influence.
What ensued was two days of anarchy where the muslim population went into the Jewish neighborhoods of Baghdad (where most of Iraq's Jews lived) and they committed one of the worst farhud's in the country's history. They killed hundreds, they injured thousands, they destroyed entire neighborhoods, and stole everything they could. Most of the Jews in the country either fled to other cities (which also had their own farhuds but not as bad) or to neighboring countries like Iran and Jordan. These people either stayed outside the country as refugees or were forced to go back despite the danger.
The antisemitism in Iraq was very strong even after WWII, and the Jews of the country were traumatized from what they went through so they lived their lives covertly. In the 1950s Mossad started their operations to get Jews to migrate to Israel, and at the time, they had shared interests with the muslims in the country. They both wanted to drive the Jews out of the country no matter what. And so another wave of terrorism took place, and this time the Jews packed their bags and left Iraq for good. Mostly to Israel as it was finally established and was the most welcoming place for them.
These people did nothing wrong, but they lost their homes, businesses, community (some of which are thousands of years old), and their citizenship. Why? Because they're Jewish, that's it. It doesn't matter what terminology you use to describe what happened, the point is that these people were driven out of their countries and had nowhere to go but Israel. This wasn't just the case in Iraq, but all over the muslim world. Nearly 1 million Jews had to relocate to Israel due persecution. This is why when people try to pretend that Israel/Palestine conflict is one sided are so mind numbingly ignorant.
Stay mad lol
This isn't the remark you think it is, you're just showing everybody that you're intellectually less capable than a high schooler because you think rhetorical questions are some sort of advanced technique.
Go back and keep digging, I'm sure you're just a scroll away from the ultimate gotcha that will surely justify you and your arguments from being dishonest. Maybe reply to a few dozen more of comments, that will surely help you.
Imagine being so slow that you think being proud of your intellectually dishonesty and poor comprehension is some sort of flex
Lenni Brenner (born 1937), formerly known as Leonard Glaser or Lenny Glaser,[a] is an American Trotskyist writer. In the 1960s, Brenner was a prominent civil rights movement activist and vocal opponent of the Vietnam War. Since the 1980s, his activism has focused on anti-Zionism. He has published widely on the history of Zionism, in particular asserting that the movement collaborated with the Nazis.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenni_Brenner
Ze'ev Jabotinsky[a][b] MBE (born Vladimir Yevgenyevich Zhabotinsky;[c] 17 October 1880[1] – 3 August 1940)[4] was a Russian-born[d] author, poet, orator, soldier, and founder of the Revisionist Zionist movement and the Jewish Self-Defense Organization in Odessa.
With Joseph Trumpeldor, he co-founded the Jewish Legion of the British Army in World War I.[10] Later he established several Jewish organizations, including the paramilitary group Betar in Latvia, the youth movement Hatzohar and the militant organization Irgun in Mandatory Palestine.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky#Early_life
Yeah, I don't care what some activist who has clear biases wrote about some other activist who also has clear biases but in the other direction . We're talking about isn't about ideology, but how the actual history unfolded, what events ended up taking place, and how those events lead us to today. My point is that the actual history that took place is beyond of the scope of ideological framing. The reality is more complex then you give it credit.
Do you dingleberries even understand what you're saying?
Can you quit doing holocaust trivialisation?
Pointing out other atrocities in history that are just as, if not more horrific, is not trivialization. The Holocaust is one of the worst events in history, no doubt about it. That being said there are other atrocities in history that have reached that levels in either ruthlessness, death toll, or both. Ignoring the other atrocities in history would just be us trivializing them.
Attrocities have been commited under every ideologies (wanna talk about Congo?).
Yes, they have, and yes, we should talk about them. Belguim's atrocities in the Congo aren't talked about nearly enough.
Nazis were the only ones with the explicit goal of ethnic purity
No, this is false. The idea of ethnic purity is something that has been around for a long time. The only unique thing about the Nazis was that they industrialized mass killings while carrying out their genocides.
China doesn’t have a penn state day, idiot.
Penn state? Wtf are you talking about?
Also china isn’t arming a genocide right no
Yes, they are. They're arming Russia's genocide in Ukraine and they're also carrying out their own genocides in both Tibet and Xinjiang.
It was a rhetorical question
I mean if your only source of information on this conflict Al Jazeera then maybe, but if you actually look through the history of this region you would quickly understand that this is a gross oversimplification that ignores a lot of context.
It ignores all the previous wars, all the tensions during the British mandate, the tensions during the Ottoman Empire, how the modern states came to be, how they developed their identities, the involvement of other countries in the region, the involvement of distant foreign powers, the insane amount of ethnic cleansing carried out not just in both of these states but also in the wider region as a consequence of that events that took place in this region.
The point is that there is a lot that led us to this point, and it's neither accurate or helpful to boil to replace history with a narrative. We can have an honest discussion about the current situation where we can agree to condemn the atrocities taking place right now, agree that the people responsible should be brought to justice, while also acknowledging the historical reality. From that point of view, I see this analogy as oversimplified, but still accurate tug of war between the two where neither wants to let go of the rope until the other completely loses.
When Whataboutism is Fallacious:
- Tu Quoque Fallacy – Uses whataboutism to dismiss criticism instead of addressing the issue itself.
- Red Herring Fallacy – Introduces an unrelated comparison to distract from the original argument.
- Ad Hominem Fallacy (only in certain cases) – Uses whataboutism to undermine the credibility of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
- Two Wrongs Make a Right – Suggests that an action is acceptable because others have done it.
- Argumentum ad Populum – Justifies a behavior by implying it’s acceptable because many others do the same.
When Whataboutism is NOT Fallacious:
- Exposes Hypocrisy – Highlights inconsistencies in judgment or double standards.
- Provides Relevant Context – Uses other examples to enhance understanding of the issue rather than deflecting.
- Challenges Selective Outrage – Points out biased criticism when similar actions are ignored elsewhere.
So while you're right that there are cases when it's a valid argument, this is not one of those cases. In this case, OP of this comment thread didn't provide an argument or add context or even made a point. Their whataboutism goes through fallacies like a check list. Therefore, their usage is fallacious in this case.
And who told you that I don't? It's funny how Marxists cannot defend their positions with lies, misinformation, and fallacies. Normal people don't function like tankies, they call out atrocities wherever they seem and they acknowledge and condemn the atrocities of the past.
Did you even read the article? It clearly states what I stated. islam allows religious minorities that fall under "people of the book" label (aka, monotheistic Abrahamic religions) to exist under islam, not as equals but as inferior second class citizens with limited rights. This article just states that the persecution was worse for Jews in Christian Europe, not that things were good in Iberia. There are even a few historians in this very article that argue that this label for this time period doesn't actually align with reality.
The Farhud of Baghdad, took place in 1941, that's before the establishment of Israel (1948) and before the end of WWII (19450). Everything that I said, you could easily find in this article or any article about this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
Yes, but Mossad didn't try to get Jews in other countries to migrate to Israel until after Israel was established after the 1948 war.
And vice versa.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
You keep repeating this like a broken record, but all your doing is demonstrating your ignorance. The Iraq government forbade Jews from emigrating to Israel AFTER the 1948 war. The farhud happened in 1941, that's 7 years prior. Also, this policy last two years and the Iraqi government reversed it in 1950, this was the called de-naturalization law
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/pir/article/1/2/392/390094/The-Denationalization-of-Iraqi-Jews-The-Legal-and
The British mandate ended in 1932. Again, you keep spreading misinformation that can easily be fact checked with a single 10 second google search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Iraq
He was born in 1945, the farhud happened in 1941. I know for a fact you didn't read his memoir and you have no idea who this guy is. It doesn't take an acadmic to figure that the article you posted is propaganda that bastardized his work. First of all, his memoir, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, mainly talks about the events AFTER 1948 when Israel was established and he talks about how he and his family were forced to migrate to Israel 1951 (He was 6 at the time). He states that during this time, Mossad was did a bunch of operations that tried to force Jews to migrate to Israel, and if you actually scroll up and read, you'll see that I have mentioned all of these details.
Don't call something ignorant when you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't some hidden secret or some controversial opinion, it's literally fact. You can scroll through this list or the lists that continue it and find hundreds of examples of the Arab muslim world trying to get rid of Jews:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism
This is also relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Arab_world_perceptions_of_Hitler_and_Nazism
That's precisely the issue, you're ignoring 1400 (that's how old islam is) of history for a bullshit narrative that's not based in reality. This is a good example of that. The Farhud in Baghdad had NOTHING to do with zionism. You're such a dunce that you cannot comprehend that antisemtism in the muslim world has existed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the creation of Israel, and I literally gave you an example with the farhud. You're not willing to accept the reality. If you think antisemtism in the muslim world started as a reaction to zionism, then your understand of this region is nonexistent.
I already covered this, so I'm going to move on to the next thing.
The entire point why I brought these people up is to showcase how these people are victims who ended up in Israel as a product of circumstance that was beyond their control. They weren't there for "reparations" or as voluntary "colonialists" as your narrative likes to portray. This is like saying the Vietnamese refugees who fled to the US in the 70s and 80s after Vietnam's neighboring countries kicked them out, only went to North America to colonize the Native Americans. It's just an ignorant take on something that's clearly more complex.
Yes and no. You are correct in the sense that Arab culture is diverse and the ethnic groups that were Arabized through islamic imperialist conquest still remain distinct. However, Arab is still an ethnicity itself. It's important to understand that despite the diversity, Arabs still view themselves as one. This is less true today because we've had around a century of Arabic states being independent, but after WWI, this was very much the case. Arabs back then didn't see themselves as Saudi, Iraqi, or Syrian, etc. They thought of these new states as fake and they just saw themselves as Arabs in the Arab nation. It's not inaccurate to talk about Arabs as a cohesive group, especially during the time period we're discussing, because they did think and act as one nation.
You're right in the first half, but you're still missing the point in the second. It doesn't matter if they were false flags, real flags, or no flags. What matters is that these events happened, and as a result of them, innocent people who done absolutely nothing wrong ended up in Israel by no fault of their own. What happened to the Palestinians during the Nakba was wrong, but what happened to the Jews in rest of Palestine and the muslim world at large was also wrong. These people and their descendants who are in Israel today deserve to be there as much as Palestinians deserve to be there. That's why this conflict isn't black and white.
And this framing is wrong. It might be true today in the West Bank, it might be true back when Zionism was still only a movement, but from that point until today so much has happened that makes this narrative a gross misrepresentation of history. I'll give you an example to demonstrate how using oversimplified revisionist narratives is bullshit. Anatolia for most of history was split between Armenians in the east and Greeks in the West. Then the Turks came in from central Asia and they committed a bunch genocides, colonized Anatolia, and became what is today Turkey. Turkey has yet to stop it's colonization and genocidal efforts, and the effects of o all these events (past and present) can still be felt today.
Yet despite this, so much has happened in Turkey's history that trying to boil it down to "Turkey bad" where the aggressor and the colonizer and Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan, etc are victims and the colonized is just ignorant. It ignores all the wars waged on by Greece or the Kurds or Armenia or the persecutions the Turks faced or the people who were forced to seek refugee in Turkey like Circassians and Tatars. It also ignores the fact that the Turks have been there for generations or that the people and government are not the same thing even if a portion of society supports the government. It doesn't justify Turkey's past or present atrocities, nor does it justify the atrocities against it, but you can't operate from a narrative driven framework that's not based in reality. The same applies here.
History is not zionist propaganda. Though I suppose to someone who consumes nothing but propaganda such as yourself, actual history does seem like revisionist propaganda. Regardless, everything that I have said can easily be verified and sourced. If I forgot to source something, then just show me the claim and I'll provide a source.
He literally hasn't... how can he possibly experience an event when he wasn't even born? Here's a real account from an Iraqi Jew that did actually live through event:
https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2021/03/22/the-farhud-massacre-and-the-jews-of-baghdad-through-the-eyes-of-a-child-survivor-march-23/