• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    Jews are great. Zionists can have mutual annihilation with Hamas.

    Are you a Jew or a Zionist?

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      And to add onto this, Hamas is like a few hundred or a few dozen people. The rest of Palestine seems cool, they can stay and chill with us.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Maybe their funders like Iranian state officials or the Muslim Brotherhood splinter groups are larger than that, but the gaza strip is like 99.9% not Hamas is the point I’m making.

          • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t think you would be able to back that up if you tried, 100 guys wouldn’t have been able to pull off the attack Hamas performed on Israel.

            • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Yeah obviously they had more people in the gaza strip before this war began. Tens of thousands of deaths later, how many are probably left? Nobody knows.

              Worst case scenario is those tens of thousands were almost entirely civilians, like 99%, and there are still thousands of fighters, but if that were the case then I imagine Israeli Losses would be higher than 1,478 Israelis.

      • Atin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Thanks for letting us know you have absolutely no knowledge of the middle east.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Cool, thanks for letting us know who the “good Jews” and “bad Jews” are. Without this helpful comment, we might have thought calling for the annihilation of 80-90% of an ethnic minority was problematic. /s

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 months ago

            Zionism doesn’t mean any of that.

            Yeah except, that you are entire wrong because you just made that up. Zionism was absolutely founded on the idea of an inherent right to commit violence for the perception of something owed: specifically, Palestinian land.

            https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf

            Read that essay, The Iron Wall, 1923, by Zionist author Ze’ev Jabotinsky, considered to be a foundational document of political Zionism, and then lie to me again telling me that Zionism isn’t founded on political violence.

            • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              If you’ve read Jabotinsky, I assume you’ve also read the far better known Theodor Herzl, whose Old New Land envisions a multicultural Zionist nation of peaceful coexistence between Jews, Arabs and other peoples.

              Zionism does not require violence. That’s like saying that liberalism requires violence because of the writings of the French revolution.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Herzl himself certainly did. Zionism is Settler Colonialism, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough needs to be ‘Transferred’ so that the demographic majority is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.

                Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of Euro pean imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for the newcomers. The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat. An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

                Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                liberalism requires violence

                Liberalism required violence because its built on the principal of a class segmentation. So I’m not sure your point is the point you think you are making.

                Jabotinsky and Herzl are different schools of thought in Zionism, but its absolute historical revisionism to suggest that the advocate of violence wasn’t foundational to the formation of Zionist philosophy.

                • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  liberalism requires violence

                  I’m sorry, but we are just not going to find common ground on that.

                  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    I’m not interested if you buy it or not. Liberal democracy, as in, Western liberal democracy was built directly on the back of an era of global colonialism (1500-1700). The decolonialisation of these democracies was a political afterthought, and where and when it occured, it was simply because the resources or people being abused were simply exhausted. And in the rare instances where a group of the colonized razed up against their (also) access to the keys of democracy, they were struck down. Take the example of the Haitian revolution, where a slave population broke the chains of their masters, and were required to effectively pay reparations for their own lives for literally generations. Fundamentally, liberal democracy as a modern philosophical paradigm is a direct extension of settler colonialism. The segmentation of a population into a apartheid state is fundamental to western democracy, where some populations in the system are afforded the liberties associated with liberalism, and other populations are other-ed, not considered to be worthy of liberty, and extracted from, and is a central aspect of all major western “liberal democracies”, even if they out-grew that period later in their history.

                    Its not something up for debate, so your dissent is irrelevant.