this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
486 points (83.2% liked)

World News

39356 readers
2496 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Before the hostilities began Jews were legally buying land in Palestine, not annexing it. There’s nothing wrong with legally purchasing land with the eventual goal of statehood.

True, that's a good point. But the point still remain, Zionism's goal is to annex the whole palestine.

As of April 1, 1945, Jews had acquired 5.67% of the land in Palestine.

And they were given 56% of the territory by the UN in 1947. But after the war they annexed the whole Palestine and some Sinai region.

So if they drove Gazans out and let Bedouins or another Arab Islamic group live on that land, or left it empty, it wouldn’t be ethnic cleansing? Interesting, considering it’s the same act.

You conveniently left out my second and third citation from the definition. But either way, it seems that you already admitting Israel is currently doing ethnic cleansing.

I suspect Israel would be willing to negotiate for long-term peace with the PA in the West Bank as soon as this war with Hamas is over, provided they can prevent rocket and guerilla attacks from within their borders and are willing to make adequate concessions.

Do you have any source claiming that West Bank attack on Israel with rocket and guerilla attack? also not gonna happen, if you haven't pay any attention to the article i provided.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Zionism’s goal is to annex the whole palestine.

Zionism means they want a Jewish homeland/nation, originally they considered many different territories for this. Today it's generally understood to mean a home in Palestine, but not necessarily the whole of it. The details of what territories they believe it specifically should be comprised of will vary from Zionist to Zionist.

And they were given 56% of the territory by the UN in 1947. But after the war they annexed the whole Palestine and some Sinai region.

Ceding territory via annexation is a natural and predictable consequence to declaring war and losing.

it seems that you already admitting Israel is currently doing ethnic cleansing.

Once again, I don't think this label fits because Israel is heterogeneous, but you've make a pretty good case that I might be legally incorrect depending on who moves into the territories and who gets displaced. The interesting thing about this to me is that even if safety, not racism, is the motivation for forcibly displacing this perpetually belligerent population it still could be legally classified as ethnic cleansing simply because the hostile territory is homogeneous. Were these heterogeneous territories doing the exact same things, none of this would apply. It would just be governments at war.

Generally when people say "ethnic cleansing" it's tacitly implied that prejudice is the reason for it, and I don't think that's the case here. Israel should be free to annex hostile foreign territories and displace belligerent populations from there to keep itself secure, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of those who comprise the groups trying to destroy them. This conflict is not about ethnicity or religion for them, it's about safety, and it seems they've tried everything else.

Do you have any source claiming that West Bank attack on Israel with rocket and guerilla attack?

Ctrl-f, "west bank"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Once again, I don't think this label fits because Israel is heterogeneous, but you've make a pretty good case that I might be legally incorrect depending on who moves into the territories and who gets displaced.

You either use the official definition or you don't. There's no inbetween. Displace of a group of people from a geography location is ethnic cleansing, the "intent" can be rationalised, the action is what being judged. Imagine killing off your neighbour and tell the court they're unhinged and you doing so is to keep your family safe. That make it two unhinged people.

Even if the label don't fit, as it's the only thing you cared about, it's still warcrime.

List of Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks: The West Bank doesn't fire as many as Gaza but they do fire some.

1 from the last decade. 1. Could be PIJ, could be ISIS, could be Hezbolah.

Palestinian political violence: Lots of examples, but again fewer than Gaza

How many of that is recent year?