Context (for those who don’t know): Israel and Palestine

  • Haus@kbin.social
    2201·
    1 year ago

    It worked so well when they did the same thing for themselves and Ireland.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        811·
        1 year ago

        Because all those countries had lovely relationships among the people beforehand with absolutely no genocide and war.

        Really easy to make perfect borders that makes everyone happy.

        • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
          271·
          1 year ago

          They weren’t countries. They became countries when the colonizers (and I’m using that term as accurately as possible) lumped together into managed regions and then told them they were countries with their own governments and flags. It was all “We’re going to conquer these people and these people and these people, then put Governor Fitzroy, nephew to the Prince, in charge of all of it with a big army to back him up.” Then they wrote laws and made flags and all the happy crappy stuff they do. Then they lost WWII (because pretty much everyone except for the US lost WWII), and said “you’re on your own.”

          They turned former colonies into artificial countries with governments that all but guaranteed factionalism.

          There was always war, and there always will be war. But the specific type of war we’re seeing in former colonies is because of the post-colonial situation.

          • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
            4·
            1 year ago

            Exactly and when they drew the borders of those artificial nations, they had a strange talent for choosing two or more peoples who would otherwise never have formed a nation together voluntarily, so they still don´t get along today and probably never will.

            • Rambi@lemm.ee
              21·
              1 year ago

              How the fuck did you get that from what you just read??

    • dreadgoat@kbin.social
      66·
      1 year ago

      It always works out fine for them. I don’t know why anybody says imperialism or colonialism are bad or destructive, seems to me that Britain and France and Spain and Portugal and the Dutch are all doing fine. Really weird how maps of their empires seem to overlap a lot with parts of the world that currently or recently experienced a lot of, idk let’s call it “troubles?” They must be dumb or smth

      • YourFavouriteNPC@feddit.de
        343·
        1 year ago

        Well, since those former colonies can’t quite work it out on their own, maybe they should just be brought back into their respective empires again? 🤔

  • erranto@lemmy.world
    1224·
    1 year ago

    Britain has planted the seeds of hatred and bloodshed in the middle east and is now acting as if it has no responsibility towards resolving the conflict.

    It is hard to watch the British media coverage of this war acting all outraged and surprised by the violence while being proud of their historical imperial inheritance .

    • Rubanski@lemm.ee
      30·
      1 year ago

      Britain and France are responsible for such an enormous fuck up in Asia, Africa and the middle east, past and present, it’s probably impossible to put it in numbers. The US gets bashed a lot (deservedly), but I think those two were planting something way more devastating for generations to come

  • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
    10321·
    1 year ago

    One group was actually living there and the other group moved in and literally ripped people from their homes.

  • Lmaydev
    9921·
    1 year ago

    Someone’s parents never taught them to share.

    Obligatory fuck religion.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      2753·
      1 year ago

      Palestine is not a religious entity, and have been in favor of religious coexistence since the very beginning. It is the Zionist state that is exclusive of other religions by design.

      • Chr0nos1@lemmy.world
        4420·
        1 year ago

        All the yelling of “Allahu akbar” while celebrating the death and destruction in Israel, would seem to be in conflict with your statement.

      • Flumsy@feddit.de
        61·
        1 year ago

        So then, why is their official goal to destroy Israel? Thats 100% a religious war

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
          83·
          1 year ago

          Israel is by its own definition the Zionist state founded on religious exclusivism. An ethnocentric state in a land inhabited by other religions and ethnicities. It should absolutely be taken down.

          religious war

          Israel is not Judaism.

          • Flumsy@feddit.de
            42·
            1 year ago

            An ethnocentric state in a land inhabited by other religions and ethnicities.

            • In land bordering the lands of lther religions and ethnicities.

            What exactly justifies the takedown of Israel? That its religion is different or what? Thats none of ghe other countries business.

            • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
              65·
              1 year ago

              as I already said above, it is because it is an ethnoreligious state that excludes people of other ethnicities (Arabs, Africans, etc) and other religions (Muslims, Christians, etc). It has engaged in massacre and forced expulsion of those people, so it must be taken down and the genocide must cease.

              • Flumsy@feddit.de
                46·
                1 year ago

                ethnoreligious state that excludes people of other ethnicities (Arabs, Africans, etc) and other religions (Muslims, Christians, etc)

                So what? Thats their business what rules they want to have inside their country. Thats nl reason to attack them.

                forced expulsion of those people, so it must be taken down and the genocide must cease.

                Forced expulsion is dtill inside their own country. So you take them down with a genocide yourself? Fight fire with fire?

                • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlMEnglish
                  51·
                  1 year ago

                  No it is not their business to genocide ethnic and religious minorities lmao. Would you say the same about the Nazis too? was the US justified in genociding native americans also? ridiculous.

                  Forced expulsion is dtill inside their own country

                  yes it is. I hope you dont mean that this makes it better. I may be failing to understand this genocide sympathizer logic.

                  So you take them down with a genocide yourself?

                  No. The only one committing genocide at the moment and in this conflict is Israel itself.

                • Bob@feddit.nl
                  41·
                  1 year ago

                  So what? Thats their business what rules they want to have inside their country.

                  Come on…

  • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
    572·
    1 year ago

    Also Britain: Oh good, the UN voted in favor of splitting up the land except the entire Arab League voting against the plan? Ok, sounds good, bye guys, have fun!

    • Neato@kbin.social
      411·
      1 year ago

      It’s like an HOA: The council is deciding how to divide up your backyard between your neighbors. The lawn owner is the only dissenting vote and then the neighborhood wonders why they are being so hostile.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        13·
        1 year ago

        Except in this case it costs you not just your backyard but basically your entire life.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        1 year ago

        In this case the land owner has been renting for 100 years and doesn’t really care what the tenant thinks.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 year ago

      Also Britain: our troops and colonial administrators are getting killed and attacked by both groups of locals, bye guys, I’m noping out of here!

  • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
    462·
    1 year ago

    It’s working as intended, the whole Ottoman Empire was split to create manufactured internal conflict.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      77·
      1 year ago

      The Ottoman Empire split after WW1, Israel/Palestine happened in 1948. No one was anticipating Hitler doing genocide in 1919. Britain hadn’t considered a plan to award Israel to the persecuted Jewish population of Europe at that point in time.

      • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
        131·
        1 year ago

        The Balfour Declaration was in 1917, and Britain began discussing support for the Zionist project in Palestine immediately after declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914. The idea dates back to at least 1896 when Theodore Herzl proposed it as a solution to the “Jewish question” which, itself, was being asked as early as the 1750s.

        • Espi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          101·
          1 year ago

          I cant believe it, someone who actually knows what they are speaking about?? in my imitation Reddit forum???

          Let’s not forget that Britain also ensured the rights of Palestinians in that same declaration, I would like to see them act on that one.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        5·
        1 year ago

        The meme is wrong though and should say WW1, not WW2. The creation of the State of Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust, all of it was planned before WW2.

  • jarfil@lemmy.ml
    4318·
    1 year ago

    Alternate caption: “Zionists smuggling in settlers before the British mandate ended to have enough votes to create a State of Israel as a safe haven for Holocaust refugees, then getting populated mostly by Jews fleeing Arab countries out of fear of retaliation for having created the State of Israel a day early and having pushed most Palestinians out by force”

      • BOMBS@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        1 year ago

        Interesting info and I’m not arguing against your point, but that source doesn’t address their point at all. The cited source covers recent demographics. The previous user is referring to events that occurred in 1947ish. The time periods are not close enough to be relevant to each other, especially considering the massive changes that occurred throughout that period in the area.

        That’s kind of like if someone said that the Caribbean was entirely populated by natives when the Europeans showed up in 1492, and someone responded with demographics from the 1570s after the Spanish had established settlements in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad, and conquered the Aztecs to dismiss the initial point. The demographics are going to be vastly different. It kind of sheds doubt onto your rebuttal since there seems to be a logical disconnect.

        Does anyone have any sources on the demographics right before the British invited Jewish people to move to the Levant?

      • Shrike502@lemmy.ml
        13·
        1 year ago

        Ashkenazim have European surnames because Europeans literally forced them unto Jews. Austro-Hungary, Russian Empire - both had policies for giving Jews “local” surnames (for taxation purposes). It’s how you get Jews with German surnames in eastern and central Europe (i.e.the ones you have listed), and how you get Jews with Ukrainian and Russian-ish surnames in the appropriate areas (see Abramovich, Litvak)

    • Haagel@lemmings.world
      2350·
      1 year ago

      Lol at all of the wannabe thirteen year old edgleords on lemmy who are so confident that they understand this extremely complicated and protracted conflict such that they can reduce it to a single generic cause but can’t even be bothered to look up which of the two world wars is the correct one to reference for their edgy meme.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        201·
        1 year ago

        Yeah sure. There is absolutely no pattern of former colonizers creating structures that lead to tensions and violence as they leave. Destabilizing entire regions would never be in the interest of receding former global powers or in the interest of current global powers. They all want all the humans in the world to love each other and live in peace and harmony.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        87·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that complicated, the land in question has been owned by a conquering empire for the better part of two millenia. After WWII and emipres falling out of favor, splitting it up was decided. The locals didn’t like the jews getting a country and attacked, they lost. They mobilized for round two, and Israel hit first and won again. Since then Israel started giving back land it seized to the respective countries, in exchange for not attacking again. The region has been at an uneasy truce for 50ish years other than Palestine launching terrorist attacks every few years.

    • Rooty@lemmy.world
      1223·
      1 year ago

      Even animals patrol and defend their territory. Why should human be any different? If anything else, borders are an improvement over constant skirmishes and raids where two different ethnic groups meet.

      EDIT: Interesting how you completely ignored the “Borders are a solution to constant ethnic clashes” part of my comment

      • SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
        154·
        1 year ago

        Animals kill and eat their young. They roll or eat shit. They rape. You sure that’s the argument you want to use here?

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              12·
              1 year ago

              Freedom good! Borders allow different systems or countries to exist so you have the FREEDOM to choose the one you like the most instead of there being only one option. Borders good!

              • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                3·
                1 year ago

                I´ll assume you are just uninformed and not a hypocrite. Refugees get stuck, pushed back and even killed at borders all around the world when trying to choose the country they like the most. Borders bad!

          • coltorl
            1·
            1 year ago

            Borders don’t have to be proven to be bad for the above “Borders are violence” to be true. But that doesn’t necessarily make them good either. Borders are pissing contests that result in wars, crime and ostracism. They also can help keep a national identity, a sense of stability and protection.

            When a border conflict exists in the form of a line that separates us from them, it tends to highlight the pretty arbitrary and hurtful attributes of borders.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        83·
        1 year ago

        Interesting how you ignore the reality of constant ethnic clashes and raids inside the borders of many african nations and also across borders e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Kosovo vs Serbia, Russia vs Ukraine or… Palestine vs Israel.

      • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca
        95·
        1 year ago

        The animals argument is bad. We are animals and the idea is to refrain of our bad instincts in favour of the greater good most of the time.

        That being said abolition of borders is a very bad idea, a very basic visit of human history will squash any misplaced idealism regarding that subject.

        That also being said immigration is most of the time a good idea as long as you put a consideratr effort into integration for your newly minted citizens.

        Now I realize most of those are opinions without substance, the idea is to realize where people push back and why before backing them up.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        84·
        1 year ago

        “animals do it why shouldn’t we” is one of the worst reasons to do something. Animals are literally dumber than us.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        23·
        1 year ago

        The reason ethnic clashes are happening in the first place, is because there was not enough intermingling between neighbors, in big part because people like you thought humans aren’t smarter then animals and should be separated.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          35·
          1 year ago

          Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              34·
              1 year ago

              Are you a bot, or just really dumb? That phrase doesn’t even apply…

              • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                43·
                1 year ago

                Comeone you are going around all “Hurr durr humans aren’t smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive” that’s an edgelord position if I’ve ever seen one

      • ssboomman@lemm.ee
        46·
        1 year ago

        The animals argument is fucking stupid.

        How exactly are borders helping? In what was specifically?

  • YTG123@feddit.ch
    192·
    1 year ago

    This war really makes you hate Britain (and possibly France) for causing unrest in the first place

        • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
          12·
          1 year ago

          Not for the Jews. Zionism and Islamic anti-Semitism and the violence from these movements predates the British trying to find a solution. However mishandled it was. They are two ideologies fundamentally opposed to one another, and they are incapable of coexistence in their current forms.

    • Jose@lemmy.world
      41·
      1 year ago

      Every should know about the Sykes–Picot Agreement, it’s one of those treaties/laws that have long lasting consequences in the current world (same with ww2 agreements).

  • ChiefSinner@lemm.ee
    143·
    1 year ago

    Palestinians also contain Christians. Its just the modern term for gentiles in Israel now.

      • nephs@lemmygrad.ml
        1·
        1 year ago

        I generally agree. It’s often used as yet another form of oppression.

        But right now, capitalism and its byproducts of colonialism and imperialism are a bigger problem for a bigger number of people than religion.

        The root for Palestine Israel conflict isn’t religious. Religions have cohabitatedthe region for centuries in relative peace.

      • nephs@lemmygrad.ml
        175·
        1 year ago

        If you just state it’s religious, you open up space for “Muslim bad”, or “Christian bad” arguments. Which lead to nonsense and prosecution to specific peoples

        If you use imperialism concepts, everything fits well together, and it leads to structural criticism of capitalism, and prosecution (to use the same word) against oppressive ideas and power structures, not against specific peoples.

        But I can agree that imperialistic forces oppress religions that are not the same as theirs, if that’s what you meant.

  • Joliflower@lemmy.ml
    21·
    1 year ago

    France and England seeing their current new citizens and wondering if it was worth it to fight.

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    1·
    11 months ago

    “promising to give two different groups”? You mean the natives and the colonisers? Tf is this “meme”?