• TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I mean English has three different words describing specifically persecuting Jewish populations with death.

    This is not 100 years Hitler blah blah … this is talking about 15 centuries of Christian oppression.

    Linguistically I’m still saying Jewish people need a safe space. And we, as nuclear Americans, call that safe space a fucking nation.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Before WWII the Jewish people had adopted the US as Zion. They already had a country, we didn’t need to refuse their refugees and fuck that shit up.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, the reality is the US was too anti-Semitic to do it as well. And it still doesn’t solve the problem the Zionists justify their crimes on, as seen with the very real modern possibility that America’s protections for religious freedom might fail.

        That’s not even getting into the fact that America was segregated at the time and it would have been easy enough to whip up resentment against millions of refugees and create a second racial underclass…

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      And it had to be in Palestine? And it had to be an unregulated mess of Terrorism? It couldn’t have been in Germany where occupation forces were on hand to do an orderly transition, and from the country that actually committed the sin?

      Everything about the forming of Israel screams, an excuse for one last colonial project. Because none of what you said makes what they did acceptable. The Palestinians didn’t hurt them. They just wanted to keep their land.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          No. That’s a religion. Their religion claims a link to the land. They have been gone 2,000 years and now they want to come back in, genocide the people whose families stayed in the region, and colonize it.

          There’s no part of de-colonialization that accepts a government of settlers over the people who lived there before.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            Jewish people are ethnically and culturally linked to one another and to the land of Israel. There has never been a time in the last 3000 years when there was not a significant native Jewish presence in and around Jerusalem.

            I’m sorry that your history teachers have failed you in this regard, but I urge you to learn more about this history.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah. Cool. That still doesn’t give the ones who left 2,000 years ago the right to kill everyone in order to setup a settler state.

            • finderscult@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              And they were fine without Israel, living in peace along side their relatives that now identify as Arab or Palestinian or just not Jewish. Then white settlers came in and settled the land.

      • random@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        you see, every country would be fighting israel rn, if it’s land was taken by it, so does it really matter?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          After world war 2 we absolutely adjusted the borders of countries and there was no issue. We could have easily given them a chunk of Northwestern German coastline. By 1955, when occupation forces left, it would be a done deal.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not really sure they’d have been down with being Germany’s weaker neighbors, even if that was probably the only “fair” place to carve a nation from.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Nobody forced them to move to Israel after World War 2. Nobody would force them in a more ethical project either. “Carving” a nation out of people who didn’t fuck around and had already been there 4,000 years certainly wasn’t the answer.

              • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                Modern day Palestinians are not the coastal Philistines of the middle bronze age. They’re the descendants of the Arab colonizers of the 7th and 12th centuries.

                Which, for clarity’s sake, does not deny them of a right to their land.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Those people are absolutely still there. The Arabs took anyone willing to convert to Islam.

          • random@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            but the way they split it was at least culturally coherent, they only took the ethnically different parts from germany for example, the only exception I can think of is southern tirol, where ethnic austrians where put into italy

            also no one had to resettle, because they ended up in countries where people would share their culture and speak their language mostly, now if you took a big chunk of land where people lived, they wouldn’t really want to give it up

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Huh. You don’t say. They wouldn’t want to give up their land. It’s almost like dropping a bunch of settlers somewhere isn’t going to result in flowers and unity…

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      Oh, well then, I guess that justifies the ethnic violence and cleansing they’re committing today. If I’d known they’d suffered for centuries I wouldn’t have been upset that they’re now the ones creating the suffering.