232
Despite Gaza death toll soaring, U.S. unlikely to rethink weapons supplies to Israel
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
232 points (92.3% liked)
News
23014 readers
11 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder why so many foreign citizens got caught up in this.... certainly not because there's so many settlers who came to help colonize. Couldn't be it.
Maybe they were at a party when Hamas murdered and kidnapped them?
The land immediately outside Gaza has been recognized as Israel proper since the 40s, and it has never been included as part of any proposal for a Palestinian state.
So, unless your actual aim is the complete eradication of Israel entirely, there's no real grounds for criticism there. And if your aim is indeed the forced elimination of all Israelis, don't bother pretending to care about peace.
Palestinians gave up on the land inside Israel's 1949 borders, but that doesn't mean it wasn't ethnically cleansed as part of Israel's colonial project. See: The Nakba. Politically pursuing them is impossible, but that doesn't mean the people who "settled" them aren't complicit in Israel's genocide.
I don't think any of the people involved in the Nakba are alive anymore, beyond perhaps a few dinosaurs in nursing homes.
I'll be the first to admit that the founding of Israel was a disastrously messy process that, frankly, probably shouldn't have happened, and certainly shouldn't have happened the way it did. But the fact of the matter is that it happened, Israel is here now, and there are generations of Israelis that have known no other home (most of whom are not of European heritage, it should be said).
I'd agree that there were very real historical wrongs that need to be accounted for, but that won't happen with the Israeli right dreaming of eliminating all Palestinians or Palestinians hoping to eliminate all Jews and destroy Israel. A random Israeli civilian living near Gaza is no more responsible for the Nakba than a random American today is for the ethnic cleaning of the Americas, and there is absolutely no pretense for random violence against them (just as there is zero pretense for West Bank settler violence against Palestinians).
Yet you're using arbitrary lines drawn after WW2...
And you're referring to land seizures that happened even earlier, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
So I already know where this is going, so let me save some time and skip ahead:
I'm sorry, but the Bible (old testament, Torah, whatever you want to call it) isn't an accurate historical record. And even if it was, it explains exactly how the Jews got their land, doesn't it? How come Canaanites haven't ever existed since then? Huh. But I guess that's different somehow?
The Old Testament is chock full of genocide, whether it be through the Israelites (and the magic box they liked to carry) themselves commiting it in god's name, someone claiming that god spoke to them and commanded them to commit genocide, or even just god zapping entire cities himself. But Sodom and Gomorrah "deserved it" right? But not Lot's daughters that literally fuck their dad (shortly after their dad offered them up to be raped by the people of Sodom). That shit is A-OK.
Are these also accurate historical records then? If so, then it seems like, even by your own metric, Israel took that land from other people.
But regardless, again, the Bible (old testament, Torah, whatever you want to call it) is not history.
I genuinely have no idea why you're talking about the Bible, and I've been a pretty stringent atheist for most of my life. I agree it's a pretty poor moral guide and an unreliable source for history, but I'm not sure how that's at all relevant.
So er, I'm just gonna bow out of whatever this conversation was meant to be, because I don't know what you're trying to say. Cheers I guess.
Because these conversations always go back to that. We can go back and forth about who lived where, and when, and it will always lead back to "the Bible says that land is theirs." Because when you get down to it, that's the only claim they really have. And even if you did want to go back that far, they still took that land from someone else.
If that's not where it was going, then there's no valid argument whatsoever that Israelis were there first. It's just not true.
I don't give a shit about the Bible, but I would say that a bunch of Jews legally bought a bunch of land in the late Ottoman period, a lot more legally immigrated during the British mandate after WW1 (which was wrong, I'd say; the land had been promised to the Hashemites before Sykes-Picot to create a unified Arab state in exchange for Arab support against the Ottomans, but the British and French reneged), then ethnic tensions exploded as everyone did a lot of violence to everyone. In 1947, a UN partition plan was proposed to create two states; the Jews accepted, the Arabs didn't, and war broke out. Once fighting had ended and the first lines were drawn, we have a state of Israel and the mess has properly begun.
None of this involves the Bible.
Yet the effects continue to this day, in the form of an overpopulated Gaza and 6 million Palestinian exiles.
No, because the Nakba continued. People continued to be expelled from their lands after 1949. It's like someone moving to live on ancestral Native land that was taken three decades ago. I'm not saying all of them are criminals, but anyone who wasn't born there is the same as West Bank settlers.
Well, 70% of Israelis were born there, and most immigrant Jews go to firmly Jewish lands, so the odds of any random Israeli being a foreigner who came to settle traditionally Arab lands is quite small, though they do exist of course, and are rather shitty.
Regardless, the attacks on October 7th were concentrated on the land immediately surrounding Gaza, which has been firmly Jewish since the 40s. No Palestinian peace plan has ever claimed them. So even if you accept that direct violence is acceptable against people explicitly displacing Arabs, that describes essentially no victims of the attacks.
Are these stats for people in the attack's range or Israelis in general? I'm talking about the former.
Almost all of Israel is traditionally Arab land.
Also in the first place we're talking about foreign citizens (except for ones who were born there and inherited citizenship from their parents), who while not necessarily deserved to die are 100% not innocent.
Ah yes, since the 40's. That makes it legitimate and completely justified. My bad.