this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
227 points (91.3% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2530 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

ah yes, the classic 'it was their land originally' argument. they had to fight a civil war with the local government and won due to support from western powers.

The British government had publicly committed itself to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the 1917 Balfour declaration. Palestinian Arabs opposed this design, asserting their rights over the former Ottoman territories and seeking to prevent Jewish immigration. As a result, Arab–Jewish tensions grew in the succeeding decades of British administration. In late 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of Mandate Palestine and the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state on its territory; the Jews accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it. A civil war ensued, won by the Jews.

After pushing out the Ottomans, Palestine came under martial law. The British, French and Arab Occupied Enemy Territory Administration governed the area shortly before the armistice with the Ottomans until the promulgation of the mandate in 1920.

that not nearly the same thing. as 'peaceful immigration' as you try to imply. I don't particularly care one way or the other, religious fanatics are gonna fanatic. do you have a particular point you were trying to make?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I never said the jewish immigrants from Russia claimed the land was 'theirs originally'. It's a bit weird you make this jump. They were trying to find a place they wouldn't be genocided

And what makes you conclude that violent opposition from muslim fanatics prohibits the immigrants from being peaceful?

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

its a common refrain. I don't particularly care.

And what makes you conclude that violent opposition from Muslim fanatics prohibits the immigrants from being peaceful?

Who invited them to Palestinian? did they have a statue saying 'bring us your tired, your weak, your sick?' why call them violent muslin fanatics and not just Muslim fanatics?

We both know why jerusalum was chosen. because they considered it their holy land. we also both know that immigration is rarely accepted by local populations. just look at our own country (assuming you live in the US).

If you think I care about the palestinians any more than the jews in israel you're incorrect. I care that American weapons and funds are committing a genocide, and act clearly prohibited by our laws. I care very deeply that both sides stop killing each other. Did you know that the biden admin, and the saudis were close to having an agreement to create a palestinian state and normalize relations with israel and the suadis on oct 6 just prior to the attacks? I wonder why hamas attacked, I wonder why bibi is going on a rampage. both parties that benefit from tense relations.

Can you imagine what might have happened in bibi just took the hit and tried to work it out peacefully? can you imagine if biden put his foot down just once early on and forced them to?

I don't give a shit who threw the first punch generations ago. what matters is the actions that are being taken today. I fear now we're another 4 generations away from peace.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago

Can you imagine what might have happened in bibi just took the hit and tried to work it out peacefully?

I think they would just be emboldened to do it again, like they said they would. Sentiment in Gaza has only recently shifted to the idea that "maybe, it wasn't such a good plan". I'm afraid that in the long run, Bibi's reaction might turn out to be the best one for peace