EDIT: Yes Lemmy, if you take Palestine, give it’s territory to Israel and disband Palestine, and then impose control upon them - that’s a form of genocide.
But of course you want this towards another country/state, just giving you a good example of your own hypocrisy.
Are you the moron who reported my comment “genocidal”? Wtf is wrong with you? How dense do you have to be to have that interpretation?
Israel is an erhnostate. It’s existence is built on genocide. I said Germany shouldn’t support the state of Israel because it is inherently genocidal, and it fucking is. That means Germany ignored the lessons they were supposed to learn from the Holocaust and is endorsing genocide.
Maybe think before you comment and report baselessly like that.
I don’t even know who you are, but to me it’s quite clear they feel like they owe to the Jews, but hey, those are just my last 2 brain cells connecting the dots and not being obnoxious or angry online, or insulting others based on assumptions
So what part of owing the Jews plays into their support of Israel(a state that does not represent Jews as an ethnicity) factors into supporting:
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about? You can’t even easily get a citizenship without Jewish links, and that’s not even without getting into the WW2 and how modern Israel came to be (again?)
An apartheid ethnostate?
It might be best to refrain from using words whose definitions can be a bit advanced, and therefore end up being misused in completely wrong contexts.
For the rest of your points - I just simply stated why Germany does this, not really getting into why they should not, but if you look at the Ie. military exports, then it has fallen quite drastically, so the support has definitely fallen.
When it comes to Europe and support of Islamic States versus support for other western countries or their allies - I don’t think I need to elaborate here.
So what part of owing the Jews plays into their support of Israel(a state that does not represent Jews as an ethnicity) factors into supporting:
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
You said something incredibly stupid and I’m wanting answers about it. I highly doubt the Germans feel they owe the Jews to the point Israel should have their full support to commit crimes against humanity.
Also, Israel DOES NOT represent Jews as an ethnicity nor a religion. Don’t spew Zionist propaganda.
You can’t even easily get a citizenship without Jewish links,
Yes, because its an ethnostate.
and that’s not even without getting into the WW2 and how modern Israel came to be (again?)
Yes, it came to be through a fascist ideology (colonialism and Zionism) and genocide of Palestinians (the Nakba). Did Geany owe the Jews to the point of supporting those atrocities?
It might be best to refrain from using words whose definitions can be a bit advanced,
ISRAEL IS INDISPUTABLY A GENOCIDAL APARTHEID STATE
May want to join us in reality.
and therefore end up being misused in completely wrong contexts.
May not want to dish out advice you clearly do not have any intentions to follow.
For the rest of your points - I just simply stated why Germany does this, not really getting into why they should not,
My points are to bring up the absurdity of your statement. Israel is not some gift to the Jews. It’s a genocidal monster and you can’t in earnest pretend for a second that the German political class isn’t fully aware of this by this point.
but if you look at the Ie. military exports, then it has fallen quite drastically, so the support has definitely fallen.
Support above 0% is too much and unjustifiable.
This article isn’t even about support. Its about censoring dissent against the GENOCIDAL APARTHEID STATE OF ISRAEL.
When it comes to Europe and support of Islamic States versus support for other western countries or their allies - I don’t think I need to elaborate here
Yes, you do. Its an irrelevant point but do elaborate.
I wrote a pretty long comment arguing all your points, but in the end realized that what I’m doing is pretty stupid from me as this is equalivent of arguing with a religious person or MAGA fanatic - completely detached from reality. All I can just say that please do not argue like this outside of 4chan and Lemmy or you will have a terrible time. It’s also seriously not wise to take awful historical events (Ie. Apartheid) and suddenly change their meaning and apply it to completely unrelated events/countries, downplaying the original event.
Quite a leap from a legitimate criticism over their politicians actions to denying a whole people statehood… Maybe add some nuance to your thinking like the other comments on this thread have.
No. No ethnic group is entitled to their own statehood. That’s a blatant endorsement of ethnostates, which is an inherently authoritarian and genocidal concept.
Also, some random dickhead reported my comment for “promotion g genocide”. Some real backwards ass shit right there.
There is a reason the Jews needed a place to go. Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists. Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge. Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well. Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal. But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
And that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. Zionism is the sole reason it exists.
Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists.
Still has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel other than an excuse to justify its existence when people point out its a rogue and genocidal nuclear state.
Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge.
Virtually all Western countries, hell even some of the Eastern European countries at the time would have been preferable, and mostly familiar countries for them to live in.
Tell me, was it simpler to start genocide against Palestine and to create a state that would perpetually continue this genocide and act as the West’s puppet state in the region? An imperial puppet that keeps invading its neighbors unprovoked and now illegally has nukes? I think it would have been easier to simply give them refuge in safer countries, such as those that liberated Jews in the Holocaust.
Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well.
Completely irrelevant to this conversation. Palestinians had been living in the region for centuries. Modern Israel only formed as Zionists demanded the Jews rule the region for religious nut-jobbery and antisemitism, in relatively recent history.
Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
You understand Palestine is actively undergoing a 80 year long genocide from Israel, right?
The audacity and stupidity of your question is outstanding.
No, I believe we should treat Israel like Nazi Germany. The parallels are absurdly on point, and they must be stopped.
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal.
Wrong, their country was founded on it in both ideology and action.
But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
Absolutely moronic and unhinged take. This is some insane Zionist bullshit you’re spewing here. Is Israel paying you to say this shit? Or are you defending a rogue genocidal nuclear state for free?
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.” Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust, but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state. That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration (e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba). That is a documented and serious historical grievance. But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law. The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention), and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides (e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians), just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side. Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
Wrong but let’s see how you wasted time here.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.”
Oh of course not. Its the perpetual excuse Zionists use to justify Israel’s existence as a genocidal ethnostate and silence all opposition to it.
Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust,
So does the alliance between Zionists and the Nazis
but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state.
Of course, fascists such as Zionists love to capitalize on a major catastrophe to push for their agendas.
Probably why so few countries acknowledge the Nakba that happened just 2 years after the end of WWII.
That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Yup. Its a historical level manipulation of public outrage over a colossal genocide that lead to the creation of a Zionist genocidal state.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration
You understand the vast majority of Jews who were victims and survivors of the Holocaust were citizens of the countries they were attacked in, right? They already had a country to go to, and a colossal amount of support that could just as easily been used to loosen immigration restrictions and welcome refugees.
But instead Zionism won out. That’s not a coincidence. That’s intentional manipulation of the situation.
You still haven’t gotten to any part that justifies support for Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians or the countless subsequent wars of aggression Israel held against its neighbors shortly after its founding.
(e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
*Conveniently leaves out any specifics or dates.*
Do show me this data of low support for Jewish refugees or allowing Jews to return to their home countries after WWII.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba).
What a cute way to describe GENOCIDE AND REMOVAL
That is a documented and serious historical grievance.
Given the little to no backlash Israel faced from the West, and the continued and escalating genocide against the Palestinians today, I don’t think too many Israelis and Western leaders feel grievance over it.
But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law.
I’ve never read something so incredibly stupid before. I was taken aback by it.
Israel was founded on genocide of Palestinians (The Nakba).
Israel is an ethnostate. You can’t establish an ethnostate without forced removal, restriction and elimination of other ethnicities, which are all major factors in contributing to, and to even outright resulting in, GENOCIDE, which has objectively been happening since the beginning of modern Israel.
If you’d like, we can easily go over the 10 Steps of Genocide and very easily discuss how Israel meets all 10 with flying colors.
The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention),
And the term applies perfectly to what Israel is doing to Palestine, and let’s be honest, its neighbors like Lebanon.
and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
God forbid you provide any specific reputable sources that could possibly deny Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
This is like an appeal to authority fallacy with absolutely no specific authorities given
No one who’s word is worth a damn would consider Israel’s actions against Palestine to be anything other than genocide. To do so would be to deny reality.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides
Throwing a whataboutism to justify Israel’s unjust and offensive wars against its neighbors such as Lebanon and Iran. There is no nuance to these wars, nor some others like when Israel invaded Egypt to steal the Suez Canal with the UK and France.
Nothing justifies these wars, and the situation is very clear cut.
(e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Here’s a great video of Mehdi Hasan did in response to an almost equally absurd claim from Bill Mahr:
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
ISRAEL OBJECTIVELY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY
They’re committing genocide against ethnic minorities within their country
They’re unjustly invading surrounding countries to expand their territory
They intentionally and actively target noncombatants in war
Their mainstream and most powerful politicians openly dehumanize other ethnic groups in the region while calling for their extermination
If you’re not seeing the parallels, you’re either that insanely naive, or a Zionist arguing in bad faith.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians),
Genocide
Rape of prisoners
Sponsoring Epstien and his sex trafficking of minors to political and economic elites
Illegal and offensive wars of expansion
Illegal possession of nukes
Threats to use nukes on Palestine
Dragging the US into unjust offensive wars of aggression multiple times now
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
The fact you refuse to use such language tells me you’re either a Zionist or insanely naive and live in fantasy land.
just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side.
More whataboutisms. Nothing that’s happened to Israel justifies their actions as I’ve listed and countless more I haven’t.
Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
Nobody is doing that. I’m calling out the indisputably and very easily provable and observable facts about Israel’s crimes against humanity. It really is that black and white. Israel commits crimes against humanity, and those are ALWAYS unjustifiable.
You’re asserting certainty where the facts are actually contested, and that’s the core problem.
Haavara ≠ “alliance with Nazis”
The Haavara Agreement was a limited, controversial arrangement to get some Jews out of Nazi Germany with part of their assets. It wasn’t ideological alignment or a “Zionist–Nazi alliance.” Reducing it to that ignores the context: people trying to escape persecution with very few options.
Refuge elsewhere wasn’t realistically available
Before and after the war, large-scale refuge largely did not materialize. The Évian Conference is a clear example—many countries expressed sympathy but refused to take in significant numbers. After the war, millions were displaced and many survivors had no homes or communities left to return to.
Nakba is real—but “genocide since founding” is not a settled legal fact
The Nakba involved expulsions and flight on a massive scale—serious and well-documented. But calling Israel’s entire existence “genocide” is a legal claim that is actively disputed, including under the United Nations Genocide Convention. You can argue it—but you can’t present it as uncontested fact.
“Ethnostate = genocide” is not how the term works
Many states define themselves in ethnic or national terms. That alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold for genocide, which requires intent to destroy a group. Conflating these weakens your argument.
Wars in the region aren’t one-sided
The Arab–Israeli War of 1948 involved multiple states and actors. Israel has initiated some actions; so have others. Claiming everything is unilateral aggression isn’t supported by the historical record.
Nazi comparison breaks under scrutiny
Invoking Nazi Germany doesn’t clarify anything. It’s rhetorically strong but analytically weak, because the structures, scale, and intent are not equivalent.
There are serious, evidence-based criticisms of Israeli policy—settlements, civilian harm, occupation. Those stand on their own.
But when everything is framed as “objectively genocide, no debate,” you’re not strengthening the case—you’re stepping outside what can actually be demonstrated and defended.
Are you deducing my point of view to a discussion of mere feelings?
In case my opinion is not worthy enough for you, check out Israel Zangwill, who was a zionist and a proponent of ”people without land, land without people” narrative, but after realising it was already inhabited turned against it.
International law do not prohibit merging and separating states. Because of Israel policies since it’s creation and building colonies over the decade a two state solution is impossible to do. I have yet seen anybody saying how to implement a two state, politicians only say it without conviction to protect Israel goals and maintaining the status quo
So you propose merging both States and creating a single governing body? What would that look like? UN coming in and both sides stop fighting? Honestly asking, sounds like an interesting idea.
So you propose merging both States and creating a single governing body?
Yes
What would that look like?
A one state with equal rights and a form of democracy only palestinians and israelis can decide
UN coming in and both sides stop fighting?
Not only the UN but Palestinians and Israelis themselves would form an anti terrorist force dealing with Palestinians and Israelis . Just like many countries with civil wars was able to reconciliate. If you think two population can never live together then even a two two state solution would not solve the issue since the two state would still be side by side. Modern warfare is about drones so you don’t even need ground invasion to attack your neighboring country. Of course it is not easy but it makes a lot more sense then a two state solution.
Sounds reasonable. I had only though to separating both and stop fighting and restoring original borders. But yes a democracy with both groups would make sense. How would you go about equal representation? They are not equal in numbers and simple direct democracy would create underrepresentation.
Removed by mod
Yeah, it really looks like Germany has learned the wrong lesson from the Holocaust.
“Genocide for thee, not for mee”
EDIT: Yes Lemmy, if you take Palestine, give it’s territory to Israel and disband Palestine, and then impose control upon them - that’s a form of genocide.
But of course you want this towards another country/state, just giving you a good example of your own hypocrisy.
Are you the moron who reported my comment “genocidal”? Wtf is wrong with you? How dense do you have to be to have that interpretation?
Israel is an erhnostate. It’s existence is built on genocide. I said Germany shouldn’t support the state of Israel because it is inherently genocidal, and it fucking is. That means Germany ignored the lessons they were supposed to learn from the Holocaust and is endorsing genocide.
Maybe think before you comment and report baselessly like that.
Ethnic nationalism is a medieval idea that creates unstable societies
I don’t even know who you are, but to me it’s quite clear they feel like they owe to the Jews, but hey, those are just my last 2 brain cells connecting the dots and not being obnoxious or angry online, or insulting others based on assumptions
So what part of owing the Jews plays into their support of Israel(a state that does not represent Jews as an ethnicity) factors into supporting:
An apartheid ethnostate?
Genocide against Palestinians?
Rampant and violent expansionism in Palestine?
Rampant and violent expansionism against nearly all of Israel’s neighbors?
Mass rape of prisoners of war?
Employing the most notorious pedophile to traffic minors to rich elites and politicians in an elaborate blackmail scheme?
An illegal and offensive war with Iran that has tanked the global economy?
Illegally possessing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them against Palestine?
Exporting mass surveillance technology to authoritarian regimes?
These are just a few of Israel’s crimes against humanity. But I guess you think Germany should have to endlessly support those monsters.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about? You can’t even easily get a citizenship without Jewish links, and that’s not even without getting into the WW2 and how modern Israel came to be (again?)
It might be best to refrain from using words whose definitions can be a bit advanced, and therefore end up being misused in completely wrong contexts.
For the rest of your points - I just simply stated why Germany does this, not really getting into why they should not, but if you look at the Ie. military exports, then it has fallen quite drastically, so the support has definitely fallen.
When it comes to Europe and support of Islamic States versus support for other western countries or their allies - I don’t think I need to elaborate here.
So what part of owing the Jews plays into their support of Israel(a state that does not represent Jews as an ethnicity) factors into supporting:
You said something incredibly stupid and I’m wanting answers about it. I highly doubt the Germans feel they owe the Jews to the point Israel should have their full support to commit crimes against humanity.
Also, Israel DOES NOT represent Jews as an ethnicity nor a religion. Don’t spew Zionist propaganda.
Yes, because its an ethnostate.
Yes, it came to be through a fascist ideology (colonialism and Zionism) and genocide of Palestinians (the Nakba). Did Geany owe the Jews to the point of supporting those atrocities?
ISRAEL IS INDISPUTABLY A GENOCIDAL APARTHEID STATE
May want to join us in reality.
May not want to dish out advice you clearly do not have any intentions to follow.
My points are to bring up the absurdity of your statement. Israel is not some gift to the Jews. It’s a genocidal monster and you can’t in earnest pretend for a second that the German political class isn’t fully aware of this by this point.
Support above 0% is too much and unjustifiable.
This article isn’t even about support. Its about censoring dissent against the GENOCIDAL APARTHEID STATE OF ISRAEL.
Yes, you do. Its an irrelevant point but do elaborate.
deleted by creator
I wrote a pretty long comment arguing all your points, but in the end realized that what I’m doing is pretty stupid from me as this is equalivent of arguing with a religious person or MAGA fanatic - completely detached from reality. All I can just say that please do not argue like this outside of 4chan and Lemmy or you will have a terrible time. It’s also seriously not wise to take awful historical events (Ie. Apartheid) and suddenly change their meaning and apply it to completely unrelated events/countries, downplaying the original event.
Sounds like you’re incapable of defending your position and are coping and seething.
Do stop yourself from embarrassing yourself like this outside the internet. The cringe you’ve given here is bad enough.
Weird how you’re getting downvoted when it’s just facts. No reasoning or anything either.
Quite a leap from a legitimate criticism over their politicians actions to denying a whole people statehood… Maybe add some nuance to your thinking like the other comments on this thread have.
No. No ethnic group is entitled to their own statehood. That’s a blatant endorsement of ethnostates, which is an inherently authoritarian and genocidal concept.
Also, some random dickhead reported my comment for “promotion g genocide”. Some real backwards ass shit right there.
There is a reason the Jews needed a place to go. Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists. Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge. Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well. Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal. But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
And that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. Zionism is the sole reason it exists.
Still has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel other than an excuse to justify its existence when people point out its a rogue and genocidal nuclear state.
Virtually all Western countries, hell even some of the Eastern European countries at the time would have been preferable, and mostly familiar countries for them to live in.
Tell me, was it simpler to start genocide against Palestine and to create a state that would perpetually continue this genocide and act as the West’s puppet state in the region? An imperial puppet that keeps invading its neighbors unprovoked and now illegally has nukes? I think it would have been easier to simply give them refuge in safer countries, such as those that liberated Jews in the Holocaust.
I mean seriously, are you trying to justify the state that was fucking founded on genocide
Completely irrelevant to this conversation. Palestinians had been living in the region for centuries. Modern Israel only formed as Zionists demanded the Jews rule the region for religious nut-jobbery and antisemitism, in relatively recent history.
You understand Palestine is actively undergoing a 80 year long genocide from Israel, right?
The audacity and stupidity of your question is outstanding.
No, I believe we should treat Israel like Nazi Germany. The parallels are absurdly on point, and they must be stopped.
Wrong, their country was founded on it in both ideology and action.
Absolutely moronic and unhinged take. This is some insane Zionist bullshit you’re spewing here. Is Israel paying you to say this shit? Or are you defending a rogue genocidal nuclear state for free?
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.” Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust, but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state. That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration (e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba). That is a documented and serious historical grievance. But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law. The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention), and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides (e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians), just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side. Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
Wrong but let’s see how you wasted time here.
Oh of course not. Its the perpetual excuse Zionists use to justify Israel’s existence as a genocidal ethnostate and silence all opposition to it.
So does the alliance between Zionists and the Nazis
Haavara Agreement
Of course, fascists such as Zionists love to capitalize on a major catastrophe to push for their agendas.
Probably why so few countries acknowledge the Nakba that happened just 2 years after the end of WWII.
Yup. Its a historical level manipulation of public outrage over a colossal genocide that lead to the creation of a Zionist genocidal state.
You understand the vast majority of Jews who were victims and survivors of the Holocaust were citizens of the countries they were attacked in, right? They already had a country to go to, and a colossal amount of support that could just as easily been used to loosen immigration restrictions and welcome refugees.
But instead Zionism won out. That’s not a coincidence. That’s intentional manipulation of the situation.
You still haven’t gotten to any part that justifies support for Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians or the countless subsequent wars of aggression Israel held against its neighbors shortly after its founding.
*Conveniently leaves out any specifics or dates.*
Do show me this data of low support for Jewish refugees or allowing Jews to return to their home countries after WWII.
What a cute way to describe GENOCIDE AND REMOVAL
Given the little to no backlash Israel faced from the West, and the continued and escalating genocide against the Palestinians today, I don’t think too many Israelis and Western leaders feel grievance over it.
I’ve never read something so incredibly stupid before. I was taken aback by it.
And the term applies perfectly to what Israel is doing to Palestine, and let’s be honest, its neighbors like Lebanon.
Throwing a whataboutism to justify Israel’s unjust and offensive wars against its neighbors such as Lebanon and Iran. There is no nuance to these wars, nor some others like when Israel invaded Egypt to steal the Suez Canal with the UK and France.
Nothing justifies these wars, and the situation is very clear cut.
Here’s a great video of Mehdi Hasan did in response to an almost equally absurd claim from Bill Mahr:
https://youtu.be/bBrc0fIlk0U
ISRAEL OBJECTIVELY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY
If you’re not seeing the parallels, you’re either that insanely naive, or a Zionist arguing in bad faith.
The fact you refuse to use such language tells me you’re either a Zionist or insanely naive and live in fantasy land.
More whataboutisms. Nothing that’s happened to Israel justifies their actions as I’ve listed and countless more I haven’t.
Nobody is doing that. I’m calling out the indisputably and very easily provable and observable facts about Israel’s crimes against humanity. It really is that black and white. Israel commits crimes against humanity, and those are ALWAYS unjustifiable.
You’re asserting certainty where the facts are actually contested, and that’s the core problem.
Haavara ≠ “alliance with Nazis” The Haavara Agreement was a limited, controversial arrangement to get some Jews out of Nazi Germany with part of their assets. It wasn’t ideological alignment or a “Zionist–Nazi alliance.” Reducing it to that ignores the context: people trying to escape persecution with very few options.
Refuge elsewhere wasn’t realistically available Before and after the war, large-scale refuge largely did not materialize. The Évian Conference is a clear example—many countries expressed sympathy but refused to take in significant numbers. After the war, millions were displaced and many survivors had no homes or communities left to return to.
Nakba is real—but “genocide since founding” is not a settled legal fact The Nakba involved expulsions and flight on a massive scale—serious and well-documented. But calling Israel’s entire existence “genocide” is a legal claim that is actively disputed, including under the United Nations Genocide Convention. You can argue it—but you can’t present it as uncontested fact.
“Ethnostate = genocide” is not how the term works Many states define themselves in ethnic or national terms. That alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold for genocide, which requires intent to destroy a group. Conflating these weakens your argument.
Wars in the region aren’t one-sided The Arab–Israeli War of 1948 involved multiple states and actors. Israel has initiated some actions; so have others. Claiming everything is unilateral aggression isn’t supported by the historical record.
Nazi comparison breaks under scrutiny Invoking Nazi Germany doesn’t clarify anything. It’s rhetorically strong but analytically weak, because the structures, scale, and intent are not equivalent.
There are serious, evidence-based criticisms of Israeli policy—settlements, civilian harm, occupation. Those stand on their own. But when everything is framed as “objectively genocide, no debate,” you’re not strengthening the case—you’re stepping outside what can actually be demonstrated and defended.
I would feel the same if the Zionists had picked my country as destination and I’d live on a strip of land while everything else would be Israel.
You can feel the same. And you have the right to speak out for that. Your and my feelings are not a suitable basis for international politics.
Are you deducing my point of view to a discussion of mere feelings?
In case my opinion is not worthy enough for you, check out Israel Zangwill, who was a zionist and a proponent of ”people without land, land without people” narrative, but after realising it was already inhabited turned against it.
I’m saying you havesa right to your opinion and there should be no law restricting your freedom to speak it.
Also saying that power does not care about those opinions and that changing something requires more than just our opinions being spoken out publicly.
International law do not prohibit merging and separating states. Because of Israel policies since it’s creation and building colonies over the decade a two state solution is impossible to do. I have yet seen anybody saying how to implement a two state, politicians only say it without conviction to protect Israel goals and maintaining the status quo
So you propose merging both States and creating a single governing body? What would that look like? UN coming in and both sides stop fighting? Honestly asking, sounds like an interesting idea.
Yes
A one state with equal rights and a form of democracy only palestinians and israelis can decide
Not only the UN but Palestinians and Israelis themselves would form an anti terrorist force dealing with Palestinians and Israelis . Just like many countries with civil wars was able to reconciliate. If you think two population can never live together then even a two two state solution would not solve the issue since the two state would still be side by side. Modern warfare is about drones so you don’t even need ground invasion to attack your neighboring country. Of course it is not easy but it makes a lot more sense then a two state solution.
Sounds reasonable. I had only though to separating both and stop fighting and restoring original borders. But yes a democracy with both groups would make sense. How would you go about equal representation? They are not equal in numbers and simple direct democracy would create underrepresentation.
Estimates indicate around 7.5 million Palestinians (gaza, west bank and israel) and 8.5 million Jewish Israelis so both population are pretty close
Before or after the Israeli genocide?
Before. We have no idea how much Palestinians was killed killed
It is known since South Africa situation and many politicians have suggested that.