You must log in or register to comment.

tattertotts t1_j1jyqkl wrote

This is the sort or thing a country should be sanctioned over. Full stop.


Kriticalmoisture t1_j1kxn09 wrote

To be clear, Israel is a full on apartheid state committing a slow genocide of Palestinians. They should have been sanctioned decades ago.


jewishMaleSupremacy t1_j1mguno wrote

israel has the right to destroy anti semitic islamists who want to kill jews full stop and un/eu takes money from terrorists like qatar/iran to flood their own countries with terrorists israel shouldnt listen to hypocrties who destroy themselves for qatar money either


marwayne t1_j1nk1dz wrote

Lol with a username like “jewishMaleSupremacy”, you sound real trustworthy on matters like peace and equality


mrrosenthal t1_j1lalsm wrote

Palestinians should have accepted peace terms and statehood offers from Israel decades ago but decided blowing up busses is better


marwayne t1_j1le2k0 wrote

Your argument is that they should’ve accepted Israel taking 57% of their land, and when they didn’t, they lost the right to 78% of it? And deserve to be occupied militarily?

Name any group of people on the planet that would accept that.


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1me1vk wrote

Thats not an accurate depiction of what happened at all.


marwayne t1_j1nh6ng wrote

How so? How else do you explain the population being 60,000 Jewish / 600,000 Palestinian in 1918 and 630,000 Jewish / 1,324,000 Palestinian in 1947 then 716,700 Jewish / 156,000 Palestinian in 1948?


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1kzjgi wrote

How is there apartheid and how is Israel "committing a slow genocide of Palestinians" as their numbers have went up over the years?


Sufficient_Matter585 t1_j1mfgbi wrote

genocide is more than "MURDER THEM ALL". its the destruction of who they are as a people. Taking away their sense of cultural identity and taking away all their lands until they have nothing left. Thats how you commit genocide.


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1mlfsh wrote

Welp maybe if they want to keep their identity they should not elect terrorist groups like Hamas to lead them. They should stop declaring and losing wars against Israel, they should take aid and not use it for weapons and propaganda. Not sure what you expect Israel to do here, when their neighbor just wants to launch rockets while its leaders sit happy in Qatar. Israel left Gaza in 2005, all they got for it was rocket attacks. Palestine(specifically the leaders not the people) have no interest in making peace, they will lose more until that changes.


blumpkinmania t1_j1mqf79 wrote

Welp. Maybe the Israelis shouldn’t have created Hamas if they actually wanted a peace deal.


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1mtz6z wrote

They didn't create Hamas, they worked with Hamas when it was a religious organization and non violent as opposed to the PLO that carried out terrorism globally and did attacks like hijacking the plane to Uganda or the massacre of Israeli athletes during the Munich olympics. No surprise Israel wanted to work with the non violent(at the time) organization over the terrorist group. Not much different with the US and the Mujadeen.


Wotg33k t1_j1mur66 wrote

Blah blah blah. Religion is stupid and humans are dumb.

If you learn to abstract, you'll see that all these words are worthless. I guess I should say the same thing to myself, though, because here I fucking am, writing worthless words for people who won't even remember them 5 seconds from now.

Man. To quote Bill Nye, "the world is on fucking fire". None of this shit matters. Israel and Palestine sound like wonderful places to learn more about when the literal world isn't ending.

I know, I know. It's not that bad, guy. Right?

Is it not, though? Here we are worried about whether or not a country should be sanctioned when an entire new, plastic landmass exists in the ocean.

The real slow genocide is the genocide of humanity over the course of these years. And, yet, here you are discussing a temporary culture. It doesn't matter!

This shit is going to turn sideways to the point that Hamas and Israel and America doesn't exist anymore if we don't change big shit. These political issues don't fucking matter.


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1mz8yg wrote

This is an idiotic comment. As a point though, although there are religious aspects to to the conflict(Ownership of Jerusalem and temple mount, ect..), it really has very little to do with religion anymore as much as it's about control of land and not wanting to be attacked.


Wotg33k t1_j1n16t8 wrote

It's not idiotic. It's naive to think that any human problem today is important at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to lose Ukraine or see genocide in Palestine. No thanks.

But none of that matters if we don't rein in our bullshit ON A GLOBAL, SPECIES LEVEL.

Really. What difference does it make if we save Palestine from Israel only to see that entire swath of the earth be uninhabitable?

That's what we're looking at here. Make no mistake. It's that serious. I'm not some insane mfr either. I just study shit and know stuff. Climate change is going to kill us all. This petty bullshit is just a grain of sand compared to that.


TheQuarantinian t1_j1l1flk wrote

Palestinians: we hate you, you have no right to exist, we state so in your country's charter document, we are going to shell civilians from the Golan Heights, and tried to divert Israel's legal (by treaty) water resources. Then we're going to war, lose the territory, then whine that not giving us back our shelling positions is genocide.

Bet you didn't know any of that.


marwayne t1_j1le9ji wrote

It’s weird how you phrase this. Makes it seem like Palestinians don’t think Jews have the right to exist when really they’re just opposed to the creation of a Jewish ethnostate where they lived before they were forcefully removed from their homes.

Isn’t the concept of an ethnostate inherently discriminatory?


TheQuarantinian t1_j1lukm5 wrote

>Isn’t the concept of an ethnostate inherently discriminatory?

Like the ethnostate the Palestinians want?


marwayne t1_j1m8lv5 wrote

Palestinians are not a monolith. There is a wide array of racial/ethnic/religious backgrounds. There is Sunni Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Druzism, Samaritanism, Shia Islam. From an ethnic perspective, Arabs, Jews, Samaritans, Assyrians, Arameans, etc.

As a result, Palestinians are not looking for an ethnostate. Just the return of the land they owned before Israel took it by force


[deleted] t1_j1nwiln wrote



marwayne t1_j1o5fur wrote

I’m sorry, are you suggesting that modern development is a prerequisite for land ownership? So no rural community has a right to the land they live on?

You do realize that sounds crazy, right?


[deleted] t1_j1o5qo6 wrote



marwayne t1_j1o7f1j wrote

That is incorrect. They didn’t care until they tried to create a Jewish country in a place that was 90% non-Jewish.

That land has always been worth a lot of money, ask the crusaders or Romans or ottomans or British


TheQuarantinian t1_j1maja4 wrote

Jews are also not a monolith.

Israelis also don't have children's TV shows where they tell each other that killing Palestinians is a good thing, and that they should beat their faces until like look like a tomato.

Israel didn't take it by force. You really don't know your history.

And Jews were living there long before the Palestinians were, and there were non-Palestinians who were probably there before the Jews were.

Solomon's first temple was there in the 10th century BC. Palestinians as a people didn't exist until the mid 1800s, before which they considered themselves to be Palestinian Arabs, subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Who was there first?


marwayne t1_j1nepxn wrote

Ok first of all, if Israel doesn’t want Islamic fundamentalists in power, it shouldn’t arm and fund them. That’s the only reason Hamas has any power in the first place.

In what sense did Israel not take the land by force? Zionists and the United Nations came to Palestinians with a proposal where israel would take 57% of the mandate of Palestine and Palestinians would keep 43%. This 1947 proposal was called the Palestine partition. Palestinians rejected this. When the British mandate ended in 1948, israel seized what we know as modern day israel, which comprised of 78% of the land that made up the mandate of Palestine.

To say that Palestinians didn’t exist before the 1800s is an egregious lie. That region has historically been referred to as Palestine for millennia, first written record is 5th century bce by a green historian. Modern nations and nationalities are made up of a bunch of different ethnicities. When regions change rulers, they don’t normally change populations. Throughout history, peoples have often changed how they identified politically. The Sardinians eventually became Italians, Prussians became Germans. It would be laughable to suggest that the Sardinians were kicked out and replaced by a distinct foreign Italian people. We must separate the political nationalist identity of people from their personhood as human beings, as nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East.

Also, it seems to me that you are suggesting that Jews were the only people to exist in this region historically which, again, is patently false. And the Jews that did live there had a variety of ethnic backgrounds. There were two primary reasons Jews became a minority in Palestine in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD 1) diasporas caused by Jewish rebellions against the Roman Empire and 2) conversions to Christianity.

The people who remained in Palestine and the Jews who left are brothers. To say the Jews are the only people with a right to live on their ancestral land is a crazy take.


TheQuarantinian t1_j1py5vv wrote

> Ok first of all, if Israel doesn’t want Islamic fundamentalists in power, it shouldn’t arm and fund them. That’s the only reason Hamas has any power in the first place.

Hamas was a gamble that Israel took decades ago. Israel screwed up. So what should the lesson be here? Should Israel never trust any Arabic groups again?

> In what sense did Israel not take the land by force?

Some history.

In 1947 the United Nations (the same organization that antisemetic groups rely on to support their anti-Israel position these days) passed a resolution calling for separate independent states for Jewish and Arab populations, with the city of Jerusalem held in an international trust since nobody could get along when it came to control of the city. Britain, anxious to maintain the status quo continued to arrest Jewish immigrants who were trying to enter the areas designated for them.

Arabic militants who were committed to hating the Jews until the end laid seige to the 100,000 Jewish people living in Jerusalem, killing anybody who attempted to bring them supplies (meanwhile, today, people who say that this kind of action is justified against Jewish people get irate when Jerusalem forces simple screen incoming shipments for bombs and rockets. One side definitely plays by different rules than the other.)

The British eventually left the area (keeping large numbers of Jewish immigrants in detention centers in Cyprus until the following year) and worked to set up an arms embargo against the fledgling Jewish state which was asking only for the right to live in a contiguous swath of territory and not be targeted for slaughter - again. Arab forces mustered 250,000 heavily armed fighters against a civilian population, relatively outgunned until Czechoslovakia broke the embargo and provided equipment to counter the British weaponry the Arab states had pointed at the new Israeli state.

After a month long truce brokered by the United Nations ran out, Arabic forces once again attempted to expel or kill all Jewish settlers in the area. Israel pushed back and started to capture territory that had been used to stage attacks against them. Later that year, Jordan annexed swaths of Palestine in an agreement that nobody except for the British accepted as valid.

In 1949 Israel signed ceasefire agreements with Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. Not formal peace treaties, they were maining "you stop trying to kill us and we'll stop shooting back" deals. There were no formally recognized international boundaries established, but rather what was essentially putting a line of tape on the floor saying "you stay on that side of the room, and we'll stay on this side".

Real history is a far cry different than your portrayal of "and they burst into the area with guns and just took everything they wanted".

> To say that Palestinians didn’t exist before the 1800s is an egregious lie.

Except they didn't". "Palestine". "Palestinian Arab". See how different terms are used? Why do you think that different terms are used? Perhaps could it be that they refer to different groups? People lived in the US Midwest 1,000 years ago. Did that make them American Midwesterners? No, no it did not.

"Palestine" as you are using it did not exist before the mid 1800s. It was not a unified people with their own identity. Want to talk about egregious lies? Let's start by your claim that Palestinians existed as a unique cultural agglomeration before that time.

> That region has historically been referred to as Palestine for millennia

You rather disingenuously leave out that the region had been home to Akkadians, Gutians, Elamites, and Amorites - none of which are Palestinans as used and understood today. Then the Semitic Hyksos people came (they weren't related to modern Palestinians either) and were driven out. Then Egypt took control of the territory. Then the Sea People (nobody know who they were) showed up and caused a bunch of problems - their victories might later have been claimed by Jewish groups, but there is nothing even close to a consensus on this.

At some point during the 10 year reign of Merenptah of Egypt (round 1210 BC) he wrote that "Israel had been devastated" in wars against Libya (who were allies of the Sea People), which is the first known external reference to Israel in the area, though it is unclear what "Israel" referred to - an ethnic group or tribe or minor independent or other state in the area.

By 1100BC and 1050BC Israel was firmly established in the region, with the splitting of the unified kingdom into the North and South (with the Southern kingdom centered in Jerusalem around 930BC).

The Assyrians (not modern Palestinians) took over the region around 720BC, but unable to defeat the Israeli capital of Jerusalem contented to making it a vassal state around 720BC.

They were then driven out by Babylonians around 600BC, who destroyed everything in the region including Solomon's Temple and took the remaining Jewish people into captivity, pulling them out of the region.

In the late 500s BC, Achaemenid king Cyrus the Great defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Jewish people to return to the region. (Still nobody from whom modern Palestinians can draw historical legitimacy, as if you cared.)

Then Persia fell to Alexander the Great, eventually the Maccabees revolved around 200 BC and formed what would be the last independent Jewish state in the region, until they were conquered by the Romans, with the Palestinina region being placed into Roman Judea by Agustus around 30 BC.

Romans destroyed Jerusalem around 70AD, a defeat of the Jewish people in the area by Lucius Quietus around 115 AD, the Bar-Kochba Revolt around 135AD during which Roman/Jewish fighting led to almost 600,000 Jewish deaths, after which Hadrian renamed the region Syria Palaestina specifically to insult the remnants of the Jewish people.

In the 300s Constantine the Great made the region a Christian land, and Muslim groups showed up in the mid 600s.

Flash to today, when you say "hey, the Arab Palestines were there first, no fair driving out people and capturing their lands, give them back! Oh, the Jews were there first and were driven out? Well, you can capture their lands and not give them back, the rules of fairness don't apply to them."


marwayne t1_j1rin10 wrote

You seem to be using a lot of regurgitated talking points so I’m going to break this down very simply.

It does not matter if Palestinians did not have a national identity before the 1800s. Modern nationalism is a new concept in the Middle East. What matters is that there were people there in that area that were kicked out of their homes by the nationalist movement for a Jewish ethnostate called Zionism. The region, as you alluded to, had a wide array of ethnic and religious backgrounds all living in harmony. Jews and Christians and Muslims were neighbors and brothers.

The UN, a bunch of white colonizing nations who were not from the region, decided that 57% of that land would be taken away from the population that was living there. The indigenous people. They revolted. In the ensuing ethnic cleaning, zionists siezed 78% of that land. The indigenous population went from ~1.3 million in 1947 to ~150,000 in 1948.

It doesn’t matter who lived on that land 2000, 3000, however many years ago. You cannot go to someone’s home and say my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago so I’m taking it back now. If that was the case for even 400 years ago, America wouldn’t be a country.

The modern state of Israel militarily occupies the West Bank and Gaza and continually kicks Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They are about to annex the West Bank. They armed and funded Islamic terrorists in order to create a rift in the Palestinian population and pull support away from the primary Palestinian political party. Now, they collectively punish all Palestinians living in Gaza with a blockade that controls water, electricity, construction materials, access to their air and sea space, natural resources, etc. 57% of Gaza children are anemic and 90% of the water is unsafe to drink. You’re quick to brush this off as a failed gamble, but it is a cold and calculated move. They even calculated the caloric intake required to keep people on the brink of starvation but wouldn’t die. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Israel is not even a nation of its citizens. It is, by law, a Jewish nation. The Jewish nation state law declares the right to self-determination in Israel/Palestine “is unique to the Jewish people,” and the “state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation,” effectively encouraging racial segregation in housing.

Former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have both warned that a continuation of the occupation will lead to Israel becoming an "apartheid" state. Barak stated: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

There are more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, heroes of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, have both compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to apartheid.

These are not actions that the good guy takes. Fascism and apartheid have always been inevitable for Israel, and maybe this new government of theirs will convince you of that. But honestly, I doubt it.


TheQuarantinian t1_j1rogra wrote

>It does not matter if Palestinians did not have a national identity before the 1800s.

Then the nation cannot have a claim. That simple.

> What matters is that there were people there in that area that were kicked out of their homes

Like the Jews. But according to you they don't matter because Jewish.

> Jews and Christians and Muslims were neighbors and brothers.

And now the militant factions of one of those wants to commit genocide and you support them.

>The UN, a bunch of white colonizing nations

Like the Syrian Arab Republic (charter member, but you didn't know that).

>It doesn’t matter who lived on that land 2000, 3000, however many years ago. You cannot go to someone’s home and say my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago so I’m taking it back now.

What is the statute of limitations?

> If that was the case for even 400 years ago, America wouldn’t be a country.

Nothing would be a country because everything has been captured by somebody at some point.

> Now, they collectively punish all Palestinians living in Gaza with a blockade that controls water, electricity, construction materials, access to their air and sea space, natural resources, etc.

Which would stop at any time with a pro.ise to stop trying to exterminate the Jews and punish people who try instead of affording them nation hero status.

> 57% of Gaza children are anemic and 90% of the water is unsafe to drink. You’re quick to brush this off as a failed gamble, but it is a cold and calculated move.

Easy fix. They stop advocating genocide and figure out a way to share the region, problem solved. Launching rockets at civilians does not make them good guys, nor does it encourage cooperation.

> They even calculated the caloric intake required to keep people on the brink of starvation but wouldn’t die.

Citation needed. This is Alex Jones level of conspiracy nutzo-ness.

In 2008 Israel set to ensure just under 2,300 calories/day per person which is on the brink of starvation for nobody.

> “The idea is to put the Palestinians 2008a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Who are you quoting? And since when is 2,279 calories a diet?

>These are not actions that the good guy takes.

Do I need to link to videos of Palestinian actions and let you avoid having to ignore them because they are indefensible?


RowdyRoddyRosenstein t1_j1oprjz wrote

Shouldn't the onus lie on the corporations selling security cameras with atrocious security?

I have many criticisms of Israel, but can't say I blame an Israeli firm for taking advantage of electronics manufacturers' lack of encryption and/or shitty code.


ihavestrings t1_j1kd4dh wrote

As if other countries aren't doing the same


Roshprops t1_j1kp5b2 wrote

That doesn’t excuse it. They should stop too, they should be sanctioned too.


[deleted] t1_j1l9d21 wrote



marwayne t1_j1led01 wrote

Morals, right? Isn’t that what being the good guys is all about? Being better and leading by example?


[deleted] t1_j1m0q7d wrote



marwayne t1_j1nhpvz wrote

So, just to make sure I’m understanding, your philosophy is that there is no point in taking the moral high ground because other people do not? What makes you right and them wrong in that case? Doesn’t that make you just another bad guy?


[deleted] t1_j1nld1j wrote



marwayne t1_j1nnxnq wrote

That’s a weird false premise and very distopian/Orwellian of you.

You sound like big brother himself.

Your assumption is that people in power are benevolent actors doing what’s in the best interest of the common person. You’re telling me the only options are sacrifice your rights/privacy for safety or die?

A far more plausible explanation for this rhetoric is fear mongering, which far right governments do all the time in order to consolidate their power and maintain it.

There is such a thing as deescalation


[deleted] t1_j1notq5 wrote



marwayne t1_j1o5on2 wrote

Did we read the same article?

““These are capabilities that were previously unimaginable,” says human rights lawyer Alon Sapir. “This is a dystopian technology from a human rights perspective. Just its mere existence raises serious questions.

In theory, such tech can be abused, he says, “One can imagine video being manipulated to incriminate innocent citizens or shield guilty parties that are close to the system, or even just manipulative editing for ideological or even political purposes should it fall into the wrong hands,” he says.”

This does not sound like the type of tech used by the good guys in defense. This technology is terrifying.


[deleted] t1_j1o7n3i wrote



marwayne t1_j1ob1j9 wrote

So your argument is, yea this tech is dystopian and terrifying so rather than fight against its use we’re going to do the bad thing first?

I don’t get it, are you a nihilist?


LeavingTheCradle t1_j1l54tr wrote

Israel is using american zeroes from the NSA though.

Kinda hard to take a stance without addressing the NSA sitting on the largest trove of undisclosed zero day vulnerabilities.


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1kzq8i wrote

Honestly there are many companies is the US and other countries that do exactly the same thing. I did this for a living, this overblown. This company just happens to be good at it, a lot of places that do it are not.


ligmapolls t1_j1lexsh wrote

That can't be true. I mean, Israel bad right


onecrazyguy1 t1_j1md1pl wrote

That would be the narrative people want to push. Quite frankly I blame the products more for having terrible security. As someone who did this for years, some companies have great security, some don't spend any time and have easy to break apps.


ArcheryTXS t1_j1mbdx8 wrote

Really ? A link to the article that you cannot read unless you pay ? Smh


Ecyclist t1_j1mrtbs wrote

Full circle. Gotta pay for information to find out where to pay for information.


palox3 t1_j1llt8a wrote

this is why I don't have kids. future is very dark


speneliai t1_j1m6zqq wrote

wait wait first lets cry about holocaust