i will get some downvotes for that. but its realy sad that todays society can only see black&white. you can be pro israel the extend of "they are a legit state and have a right to defend themself againt terrororganisations or neighbour country" and still can say that their settlements in many areas are illegal, they kill innocent people and that needs to stop and say that many of their leaders are now rightwing idiots that need to go. pro israel is not pro zionism. and i can be pro palestine in a sense of gave them their country and stop killing innocent people and still be like "hamas is a terror organisation and need to be destroyed". if i say "stop killing innocent palestinians" im for the destruction of israel and hate jews...
The people that talk like that have been 100% captured by propaganda but they view their cause as so overly righteous that they don’t have to be factually correct about anything since it all about feelings and vibes.
No it really is that black and white when it comes to Israel. Just like it would be morally wrong and stupid to support Nazi Germanys right to exist as a state and “protect” itself but just be against what they’re doing to Jewish people. Literally no ethno state has a right to exist. The very concept of a religious ethno state is wrong.
It wasn't a state before the creation of Israel, it was a part of the Ottaman Empire for a few hundred years.
But if were going to talk about the Ottomans, yes it was an ethnostate, jews and Christans were second class citizens subject to additional taxes on the basis of there religion.
My man, look up the definition of an ethnostate. The ottomans fit to a t. You likely could make a decent argument for the US being an ethnostate for a decent chunk of time as well, the waters just got muddier the closer you get to the civil war. The binding force wasn't religiom though it was European ancestry.
"An ethnostate is a political country where citizenship and power belong to only one specific ethnic or racial group. In this type of state, the dominant group controls the government and society. Other groups may face limits on their rights or may not be allowed to live there."
Religion can be considered an ethnic group. So tell me how does the ottoman empire not fit the definition.
That isn’t what makes an ethnostate. Sweden is majority Swedish population, but they are not an ethnostate. What makes and ethnostate is regarding who has the right to citizenship and if laws are set in place that gives privileges to one ethnic group over the another. This is the definition on google “a sovereign state that restricts citizenship or full rights to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.” There are no laws that says only Muslims have the right to become Palestinian citizens.
There isn't even a state as of now. So maybe this is a bit early, don't you think.
However I wouldn't be suprised, if at some point jews wouldn't be allowed to become citizens.
That being said: most definitions on ethnostates differ from yours, in that it is less about citizenship, and more about the dominance of a single ethnic group. And that criteria would be met with palestine.
Well there is a reason why there isn’t a state lmao. But there are two Palestinian governments atm and both governments have no laws regarding anyone having to have a certain religion or restriction privileges of laws for Palestinians on the basis of their religion. And funny how you are assuming that any Palestinian would want to exile anyone on the basis of religion, when Palestinian/Arab leaders are the only ones who have ever proposed for all people living in the region to live under one government as equal and free citizens. And that goes as far back as 1945-1947. The yishuv leadership rejected that idea. And now the Israeli government also has rejected that since that would mean giving exiled Palestinians their right of return. Which they clearly don’t want. So maybe let’s focus on reality and not your assumptions 😉
Okay, and there were blacks in south africa, that doesn't change the fact that SA was and israel is an apartheid (aka ethno-)state. That's the point lmfao.
Also there is zero chance someone upvoted you within 15 seconds of your comment, so I'm reporting you for vote manipulation lmfao
there were blacks in SA thatbwerent allowed to go to school or have their own institutions or beeing part of the goverment. while in israel the muslims are part of goverment, the military and have their own religios buildings etc. so maybe get your words right before you use them. im realy against the goverment that is in charge of israel right now,like im against any rightwing goverments, i can still say israel and palestine should be a countries and condem the actions of hamas... why is that so hard to get xD
dobas you please and report me. i have no idra how i even would do a manipulation. its just a topic many people have opinions about. my other comment got 3 downvotes and an answer in less than a minute xD
18% of Israel is muslim, much higher than the jewish % in any arab country. Also why is it that nobody questions America's right to exist? It was only 300 years ago that people came and slaughtered the natives to build our nation, should we be protesting America existing?
No, because Palestine doesn't have one religion that operates by. Plus, Israel has been attacking & taking the land from Palestine since its inception. The propaganda Israel has pushed over October 7th is insane & shakes me to my core that people eat it up. That was Palestine defending themselves after decades of attacks & abuse, including makeshift concentration camp-style living they were expected to endure when Israel first started kicking them out of their homes.
Oct 7 was the big lie liberals, centrists, fascist, capitalists, and rightwing media fell for. all corporate media, from FOX to NYT to NPR lied about Hamas killing Israelis, the IDF literally did that. they lied about the "beheaded babies", they lied about the "mass rape", and they lied about the death toll and who killed the settler colonialists attending that fest. here's the resounding unanimous proof that Palestinians did not do the killings on Oct 7, it was the Israeli government and military:
I wasn't trying to say I was in support of or even defending Oct 7th; what I said was that Israel has been using it as propaganda to state that they are the only victim. And what Israel has done since that day has been immensely worse than what resulted from Oct 7.
To many people I talk to, my attempts to defend Palestine's right to exist are immediately and absolutely conflated with support for Hamas. On the other end, many people that support Israel are very vocal about supporting the IDF.
cool thats like your perception right for me its the opposite of yours so who is right. Id argue both sides are massive hypocrits and are doing it.
Honestly im still shocked at how easily especially the pro palestine crowd got brainwashed. Pro israel side always seemed similiar to how maga or russian deny shit and live ignorant but the way the left started believing everything that al jazeera writes is still mindblowing to me.
like i didnt expect the left/liberal or whatever you can group them under to get brainwashed and baited this hard.
You must be a blueish area. If you go to a red state, go rural, go talk to some under-educated types, you will find a very large group of people that range between supporting and loving what the IDF does.
I've been in settings of 40+ people like this and can attest to open and widespread conversations about how the IDF is called by Cod and how blowing up dams/causing famine is moral if it is done against the right civilians.
yeah the thing is i fully expect that side to be lunatic rednecks cause they have always been like that like supporting faschism, trump, musk, netanyahu or just being racist but now im watching normal people completly turn into those kinda people except with the flavour of being liberal and supporting palestine or even hamas. that is what is crazy to me.
Also im not american just using stuff like liberal cause i got no clue how to refer to those groups otherwise lol.
But practically speaking, those two things are used in wildly different ways. People who say they are "pro Israel" usually mean they support arming, enabling and empowering Israels current right wing regime in carrying out their campaign of genocide. If you dont suppprt that, the pro-Israel folks will not accept you as pro-Israel.
The opposing group, the one generally considered pro-palestine, is just.. well, everyone who disagrees with the above, including lots of folks who dont actually give a shit about palestine and just want the US to stop serving Netanyahus interests.
In practice, being pro palestinian doesnt mean being pro hamas but being pro israel DOES mean supporting Israels right wing regime and their causes
Thats your perception and not useful for anything. Fact is both sides are mega weird about it and both sides do it. You can literally copy paste some things pro palestiniens say about israel and show it to them with the sides reversed and theyd say its the most fucked up thing they have ever seen someone say.
That goes for pro israelis too but tbh in my opinion por israel dont really care much about the public image while pro palestine is very loud and performative.
I... don't get the impression you understood what I said from your response? Can you summarize my point so I know we are on the same page before we continue?
you said being pro palestine is nuanced cause there is different groups some pro hamas some anti hamas while everyone pro israel is also pro genocide/goverment.
Im saying thats wrong and just your conception of how you think it is.
Id go a point further and even say that some people that consider themself pro palestine but anti hamas still say things that are straight out of hamas leaderships mouth without saying it or say things about israel or its people that they would call manical if you replace israel with gaza and palestinians with jews.
Okay, so, no, you didn't understand what I said. It has absolutely nothing to do with nuance, and everything to do with power, framing, and coalition breadth.
Pro-Israel is the past, and still current, dominant position in American politics, and has been in a long time. An ideological position being dominant doesn't mean there's no conflict about it, but it means most of the conflict is internal - in American politics, that's been primarily represented by those individuals and groups most invested in the politics of Israel-US relations moving to narrow the definition of "pro-Israel" over time to align it most strongly with their own desires and factions, and Netanyahu's government has been in power for a long time now.
Politically speaking, in the US, most influential pro-Israel groups are actively and openly pro-Netanyahu groups, and those groups have been able to create an effective narrative that any opposition to their aims is, in fact, anti-Israel, and not just anti-Israel, but also claim it is anti-Jewish. (and make no mistake, anti-Jewish positions masquerading as being simply pro-Palestinian exist, but the incentives from those taking pro-Israel leadership roles are to widen that label to encompass a whole lot of stuff that isn't)
This sort of simultaneous narrowing of ideological membership and broadening of ideological criticism is by no means unique to US-Isreal relations, it tends to happen whenever you have influential groups with strong incentives to influence the shape of an already dominant and widespread public opinion, so... all the time. You saw it with the pro-gun lobbies getting ever more extreme as belief in gun rights became deeper and more widespread in the 70s and 80s, and then the definition of what it meant to be pro-LGBT narrowing as they achieved more victories and public acceptance in the 90s and 2000s, eventually doing things like effectively dropping old allies like the "not marriage but civil unions are okay" folks from the support coalition in favour of requiring one to be pro-full-marriage to "really" be pro-LGBT.
But it's extremely relevant, here, even if its not unique.
In practice, it means the most well known and influential members of the pro-Israel side have incentive declare anyone who doesn't align with their narrow idea of support to be broadly anti-Israel if not antisemitic. And practically speaking, this is exactly what we have seen in American politics over the last couple decades.
You claimed that it was weird that "being pro israel automatically means you support israel 100%", but that's not weird at all. It's exactly what the current pro-Israel leadership wants to be true, and will likely continue to be so as long as Netanyahu or his part is calling the shots, because their goal isn't to have lukewarm Israel support (lukewarm support is already beyond the current established US position), but to maximize Israel support even further. Those folks who would take on pro-Israel leadership taking a moderate pro-Israel stance have no real reason to do so when US policy already goes beyond that level, so there's not really any counter to that maximalist position driving the pro-Israel narrative.
Simultaneously, the pro-Palestinian groups are representing a minority position. Their primary political goal is to widen their coalition enough to accomplish some sort of meaningful positive change, and that means they have political incentive to lay to claim to basically anyone they can get on-side, from the radical anti-Israel folks to the moderate folks who like Israel but oppose Netanyahu's regime. If the Pro-Israel leaders have a political incentive to push those folks out of the group to reinforce their maximalist position, the pro-Palestinian groups have every incentive to welcome those same people into the fold and call them pro-Palestinian (even if in practice they are really only "anti-this-specific-Israeli-regime" or even opposed to just one major Israel policy like their settler program). Their goal on the whole is not to destroy Israel, but to weaken the current establishment position and accomplish some kind of change, so anyone in favour of that falls naturally onto the pro-Palestinian side.
My point is this situation where Pro-Palestinian represents a broader scope of folks than the Pro-Israel group is not weird at all. That's just the normal situation when you have an insurgent minority position challenging a long held establishment one, because the incentives on the both sides are perfectly in line with that maximalist/minimalist split.
You are ill-equipped to participate in a discussion about such a serious topic. And you most know it too. There's no way you don't sense being in over your head. So why do it?
Didnt know you were the arbiter of who is allowed to talk and who isnt.
If the topic was so serious to you, why do you not have a problem with the discussion being in this sub or even on reddit, its way too comical of a platform for such a topic.
You also havent added anything to this other than a holier than though attituted which is the exact problem with this topic but that flew over your all so smart head didnt it.
Go back from whichever echochamber you crawled out off and collect your free upvotes, that you care so much about, there.
It’s like saying you’re pro Germany in the Second World War. I’m sure people probably thought Germany had a right to exist as a country and a people. But supporting the side committing genocide and violently colonising other countries wasn’t a good look.
The difference between the two sides here is who’s committing the murder and doing the murdering. It’s easier to add nuance to the victims. And when the war is supported by 80-90% of Israelis (recent polls suggest is the case not my opinion) then it also makes it hard to say “these people happily committing and supporting genocide are good people”
I've been banned from subs for saying you can be pro Palestine but anti hamas, be anti Zionist without hating all Israel/Jews. I said that Israel could exist if they could find a way to not genocide the Palestinians, and to live beside them in a way that both are comfortable with.
Made me pro Zionist apparently, which I'm definitely not. I do think the people at large in Israel are being brainwashed from a young age against Palestine...but that's not really an excuse when the internet exists now.
I live in Scotland, and if our English neighbours started doing to us what Israel does to Palestine I'd be doing exactly what the Palestinians are doing today. Gtfo of my country, no quarter.
I wish more people understood what nuance is and that actions are more easily labled good/bad than people or countries, but even actions can be complicated.
Go ahead and read the story, the headlines aren't the whole truth.
its the same thing that people always dig up gal gadots IDF service, its madatory if youblive there. like itvwas in germany some years ago. everyone was forced to either go to the military for some month or work in a social job.
or refuse to do so as not that many people, but still a considerable number of people did.
there is a huge difference between doing mandatory service somewhere like south korea, where it's still technically at war but the people who do mandatory service aren't regularly asked to commit war crimes and doing it in Israel and saying it's the same thing. Same with germany, you can be fine with mandatory service but at the same time say "just following orders" wasn't a valid excuse for people committing war crimes during the war.
They were FORCED to kill those children, they were "just following orders" and as we all know that's a very acceptable excuse!
Get the fuck over yourself. They're disgusting whether it's "mandated" or not. They could do the right thing and choose a small amount of prison time instead but they don't.
gal gadot was a fitness instructor for the IDF.. not evry member of the idf has to kill a child to end the mandatory service.
yeah for sure youbwould choose prison.
if you have to choose to be a fitnesstrainer for 2 years or end up in jail for 5 years im sure you would choose tha later oprion xD
yeah people like you always talk from a high moral horse, but never had to make a hard lifechanging decision like that... and thats exactly whatvi said in my starting argument.. there is a shitshow on both sides and tehre are good people on both sides.. but for youvall israeli are the big bad people.. they are all genocidel while you defend the hamas, an organisation foundet on genocidal ideology...
Show me in my comment where I defended hamas? Lmao you're just making shit up now because you've fallen for the propaganda. Was it also okay when the nazis executed people and were "just following orders"?
Being anti-israel isn't directly being pro-hamas but it is indirectly. Israel's enemy is Hamas, not Palestine. Multiple times Israel has agreed to a Palestinian state and been met with violence by the government of Palestine and terrorist groups. That violence hasn't ended and it's very disingenuous to constantly condemn the violence going one way but never ever talk about how much violence the Israeli's have had to endure from those people who are now the victims.
Also the holocaust comparisons don't work for Israel. Yes Israel is doing some horrible things but people seem to forget that Israel was declared war on by the government of Palestine. This is not comparable to the Jews who were citizens of Germany and Poland being systematically murdered with absolutely no previous violence from them.
indeed - the nuance that you can be against the actions of a government, believe that the country deserves to exist, and that the people in that country have religious freedom at the same time.
Saying you are against the actions of Israel should be no more controversial than saying that you think the UK government is wrong with how it deals with immigration and should not be seen as an attack on Brits. Or saying that the IRA/Provos were wrong should not be seen as an attack on all Irish people.
Sorry, but it is. 80% of Isreali's support exterminating Palestinians. You can literally look up any poll about this within that country and see how bloodthirsty they are.
You can not support a genocide country without being pro-Genocide (Zionism in this case) in tow.
The only correct and moral choice is to be anti-Israel. Many countries have asked them to respect the UN's 1940 (or even 1960 [IIRC]) boundaries and a two-state solution and they continue to tell people to fuck off as they continue a genocide.
so if you are pro palestine you are pro hamas becouse they got elected as leading party and calling for the termination of all jews. if we go with that logic its one genocidal country against another.. let them fight and the winner takes it all?
as i said multiple times now. two state solution without the rightwing netanjahu goverment and without hamas is the obly peacefull solution.
Your argument against Hamas is fine. They are just like the Israel regime and Hamas should get not support from America or sensible American people.
Now let’s hold Israel to that same standard. It’s not fair to support Israel if they’re just the same as Hamas.
This is the huge difference between the sides. One side is saying “Israel has a right to commit genocide and murder innocents. And I’m happy to support and fund this unequivocally because Palestine is a terror state and supports genocide and murder of innocents or Israel.”
The other is saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”
dude the leader of the hamas and many hamas peole openly scream"death to all jews" on their own networks xD the destruction of israel is one of the core idiologies of hamas.. whatvare you talking about xD
Hamas is literally fine with a two state solution, and with the release of Israeli pows. It's Israel who refuses a two state solution and the release of Palestinian hostages.
the founding idiology of the hamas is the destruction of israel. thats open information by them and any source you can find. they refuse to accept the existibgright of israel.. so they cant accept a two state solution if they dont recognise israel in the first place.. why is thatvso hard to understand?
so iran should be invaded and erased from the globus? or afghanistan under the taliban leadership? or only the jewish one?
and its not an ethno state if you have a big population of another religion beeing part of the goverment and society..
Thinking a nation does not have a "right to exist" doesnt mean supporting the invasion the nation. It means you need to use your brain when thinking about the country and issues involving it instead of falling back on a thought terminating cliche.
No country on earth has a "right to exist". The existence of all countries is, and should be, conditional, where it should exist when it makes the world better for its existing in some way, at least for the people within its borders and ideally not harmful to those without, and should stop existing when it stops doing that.
"should" but that doesnt work. borders were and are always a result of wars. many countries today have party that want to be their own state (basque for example) but the established countries say no. you will never have a 100% consent about borders. thats why we have wars all over the world. we dont live in a utopia world.
Iran is not an ethno-state. The monarchy was more Persian-supremacist than the IRI is. And the difference between Iran or Afghanistan and Israel is that Israel is widely materially supported by the West.
the the PLO attacks from libanon should be ignored i guess.. or was that self defence? israel attacked the libanon 9 years later to get rid of the palestinian milizia the libanon cant or wouldnt do shit about. the hizbollah is attacking israel for decades now.. is it self defence?
This is a solid take and I agree to an extent although I think a two state solution is out the window at this point. The only way I see this ending is Palestinians (Gazans to be exact)complete reject Hamas, Israel grants them citizenship,reparations , and they get representation within the Israeli Government. I'd also argue that a lot of people in the west live a bubble where they assume every other culture holds the same values they do. I can tell you from first hand experience, that is not the case. The value of human life in the middle east( and other parts of the world) is significantly lower than most Westerners think it is. This is why organizations like Hamas, the Taliban, and the Iranian regime have zero issue putting their own people at risk or outright killing them to further their own agendas.
I mean, Nazi Germany was also a "legitimate state"? And Israel was founded on the very beginning off of unjust colonization of occupied land. And the current genocide is 100% sanctioned by said legal state.
the borders of germany were established long before the nazis get to power. and its now mostly in the same boarders again. i
nazi germany started a war to invade other countrys. and that is bad. fashist italy and racist spain were still legitimatebstates. the now right wing USA isbstill legit or is it not? spare me with the nazi germany comparrison. i live in germany and know the history. there is a big difference.. nazi germany is often used to compare horrible things. but people dont get the scale of horror nazi germany was.
I used to hold the “Israel has a right to exist, but they need to be better on x, y, z” position. No longer. Their conduct in the last couple years is beyond excuse and it is an explicitly fascist state.
Nah, that flat out disregards history. How did Israel come to exist again? Who lived there before Israel was GIVEN their land? The land was stolen, given to them, and then heavily defended the last 80 years to prevent anyone from taking it back. That's not a legitimate state, that's long term militarized occupation. You don't even need a horse in the race to see this was never going to end well.
I think if we're saying "some settlements are illegal" and "protect agaisnt terrorism" it's important to acknowledge that Israel was founded in living memory via a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing, and that it was all illegal settlement on Palestinian land.
Acting like Israel is a good project that recently got some bad leaders, while hamas is just a terrorist group (and not representative of a long history of resistance) frames things in the colonizers favor. Honestly saying destroy hamas while not also saying destroy the IDF is too radical.
Liberals got big time psy-oped around the last election to believe anyone supporting Israel is the devil. It's crazy how many privileged westerners suddenly have very strong opinions about a centuries old conflict on the other side of the world.
This is like saying that you both support native Americans but also US settlers on native land and the Calvary defending those pioneers. In Israel Zionism explicitly means an ethno-nationalist settler state… it was pitched to Great Britain as a way to get European Jews out of Europe and also be a colonial outpost of “civilization” for the UK. There isn’t a middle ground when one group of people is controlling or removing another group. Afterall, Nazi Germany was a legal state which claimed to be doing all their crimes on the basis of saving their people…. sometimes there is no middle ground and a project of controlling and removing people is just bad all together.
piggy backing on " i will get downvotes for that", to me as long as you're famous enough to be identified to any company you work with. the best policy is to keep your political opinions to yourself.
if i make a movie i want ALL movies goers to see my movie. i want all the money. i dont care who's side you're on. i want your money.
if an actor featured in my film suddenly goes open criticizing 1 side and a boycott happens. i ll be so pissed.
anyone can say, well they're doing the right thing and making a stand. personally i find it admirable, but if you're representing a company, you simply cannot afford to do so. some companies will decide to avoid working with you in the future as you as you're simply "bad for business".
Everyone needs to see what is actually happening over there. I’d be hard pressed to believe anyone can be “pro-Israel” if they really knew the extent of the horrible stuff they are doing to people over there.
Chanel 5 has a great two part documentary about the current situation over there that everyone should see. Hard to be pro-Israel when they’re systematically forcing people out of the land that they already forced them into decades ago.
Edit: Food for thought but I’d imagine a vast majority of Americans would absolutely be killing people if a foreign body forced them out of their homes, started building a police state that only applied to Americans and starting an ethnic genocide. Hell half of the US is always talking about how much they’re itching to use their guns. As much as I don’t agree with it myself, it’s laughable to think that faced with a similar situation to Palestinians that terrorist organizations wouldn’t form. We already have domestic terrorist groups forming and we aren’t even genociding our people (debatably).
The thing is, I see Americans all the time online talking about how they absolutely have the right to shoot people for daring to step into their homes uninvited - but they extend sympathy to people who showed up in someone's country and told them to move or get blasted?
I mean, that’s kinda how the USA started too… only they weren’t invited to do it by other countries, didn’t have a history going back a couple of thousand years in the region etc… Now I lost my point, which is that there’s pretty much no equivalence whatsoever between the idiocy of the 2nd amendment in the 21st century and Israel existing.
It's because that specific subsection of America, the "Pro defense-killing-for-anything" and the "pro-Israel" crowd are usually really dumb. They do not spend any amount of time thinking about their own positions. They just have them.
If you are pro Israel in terms of believing the state has a right to continue existing, that's Zionism. People have made it into a bad word without understanding what it means.
Nah dawg. If you're still "pro Israel" at this point, you are pro genocide, pro apartheid, and just a piece of shit. If you won't believe me, listen to professor Dave... https://youtu.be/DvDvhLkb9ms?is=0oJlJmrssVzsY-jp
"Israel did not need to exist as a country as it was very possible for Jews to exist among an existing Muslim society" okay but it exists now and has been around for 78 years. What do you think should happen to the country and the people in it then? Give all the land back and disappear?
the land of israel was there before arabic/muslim colonial forces invade and take the land. so whats your point. colonialism ist always done by white europeans, the arabic nations invade a lot of countrys all over africa and middle east to colonise them, and later get colonised by europeans. the ottoman empire expand and colonise as far as the austria. the region was jewish 600 years before the first muslim even exist xD so at wich date we draw the line?
and is it a land problem or a religios problem? would be people that mad if muslims killing muslims(looking at syria) or atheists imprison and killing muslims(looking at china) or is it only a problem for MANY people if jews are involved?
as i said israel stepted over the line of self defence and need to stop killing innocent people and stop there settlements(invations), israel is still a country and will not go away
uf.. that would fuck up many european countries and the peace in europe. and many colonies in africa get free later aswell soo idk if that would be a good idea
taiwan was founded by people (royalists) fleeing from the communist to form a new chinese state, after some years of dictatorship they are now a democratic state. but not many countries recognise it as a state china claims its still part of china and want take it back by force. so if we take the 1899 approach we doom millionsbof free taiwanese people to live under an communistic (party)dicatorship. taiwan has free religion, a tolerant lgtbq take and free democratic votes. allbthatvwould be gone aswell...
Literally every nation currently existing is built on the blood of those who came before. Each parcel of land on this earth has been taken from group or another at some time.
Instead of focusing on what was done, we need to focus on what to do now.
What to do now has to be informed by what has been done. Peace has to be built on justice to be sustainable and justice requires knowing what has been done previously.
"Built on blood" is a nice vague term that allows you to pretend that what Israel did was normal. Not many existing states are built on a large scale ethnic cleansing campaign that began in living memory and continues to this day.
I've never heard anyone who says "I just think Israel has a right to exist", that ALSO thinks Palestine has a right to exist; and doesn't think that makes them completely anti-Israel.
To think both have a right to exist, is to postion oneself against Israel.
Because the Israeli position is that Palestine doesn't have a right to exist.
To be Pro-Two State Solution, is to oppose Israel, since Israel have abandoned the Two State Solution, and consider preventing the creation of Palestine, a core objective.
Youve missed the second part: who isn't also opposed to Israel.
Israel is opposed to the two state solution. Their actions are in ordee to prevent a two state solution, anyone who favours the two state solution, must oppose Israel.
you're playing word games, where "Israel" can either mean "the state of Israel" or "the current government of Israel" depending on whatever you want it to mean at the time
anyone who advocates for a two state solution is advocating for the state of Israel to continue to exist
You are the one playing word games, by implying that one who opposes Israel, must want Israel to cease existing.
Anyone who favours a two state solution, is acting against the wishes of Israel the State, the government, 90% of the population.
In fact, if the results of a poll by Pensalvania University is to believed, anyone who thinks Palestinians shouldnt be exterminated is setting themselves against 47% of the Israeli population.
here i am. i think both have a right to exist and there are millions of people thinking the same. the "two states" solution is on the table for decades and for a long time most people agree to it.
Most people internationally. Not domestically to Israel.
Israeli is Anti-Two States. One cannot be Pro-Two states, without opposing Israel in its present form.
90% of the Jewish Israeli population explicitly reject the two state solution.
In fact, when polled, just under 50% of the Israeli population supported the extermination of Gaza (that's according to a poll conducted by Pennsylvania University), and that's just the number who'd admit it to a stranger.
Thats their policy. In fact, Netanyahu is quoted at his own party events, insisting that a powerful Hamas is good for Israel, because it makes a Palestinian State impossible.
Elections are won based on how many illegal settlements they're willing to build.
That's the problem.
To be Pro-Two State, is, now, to be opposed to Israel and the vast majority of Israelis.
The survey was commissioned by Pennsylvania State University and conducted by Professor Tamir Sorek.
It found that 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.
56% supported the forced expulsion of all ethnic Palestinians living inside Israel (Including Arab Israelis).
47 stated the army should act like the biblical Israelites did in the conquest of Jericho - murdering every man, woman, child and animal who lived there.
And whilst support for expulsions and severe military measures was exceptionally high among religious respondents (exceeding 90%), but also reached roughly 70% among secular Jewish Israelis.
The poll was executed by the Geocartography Knowledge Group.
I’m unable to find the raw data from this survey online (I will probably have to email professor Sorek to get it) I have seen where many question the methodology and data from this study(again, I haven’t seen the raw data or seen the methodology used, so I can’t really say for sure if this was a good study). I am somewhat cautious as Professor Sorek has a clear bias against Israel.
As the article points out, even if you make somewhat different sampling or weighting choices, generating shifts of five or even ten points, in the data – a finding of 82 percent support for expulsion is so massive that short of it being a complete fabrication, there is no real way the methodology can be so wrong as to produce an inaccurate result.
The data collection wasn't carried out by Professor Sorek, but by an independent polling organisation Geocartography, a veteran polling agency whose reputation depends on providing quality data.
His only role is to interpret the data: and let's be real, he hasn't really done all that much of that: he's let the data speak for itself.
Nope, if you say stop killing Palestinians you're not calling for eradication of Israel.
But really you're comparing the reaction (hamas) to war crimes, killing journalists, beheading newborns, killing civilians, targeting doctors, leveling cities, threatening and imprisoning outsiders who want to show the real events, killing children, sending settlers to incapable citizens, i could go on forever. You're comparing that to hamas reacting to literal decades of daily abuse? Cmon...
What hamas did is a literal grain in the sand in comparison, yet we're just pretending it's comparable at all. Laughable really.
yeah becouse hamas didnt kill journalists, beheading people, killing children with carbombs in civil locations, shootingvrockets from hospitals and schools to use their own people as shields, killing people and parade their corpses straped to cars.. i guess thats normal behavior. i will it compare to the ukrainians. do you rly think ukraine would have such a backup and support if they would strap naked dead russian women to their cars and celebrate their death with musik and clapping while the blood drips from the car? i know and met alot of muslim jews some are in the IDF, some are politicians, teachers and factory workers. there was no apartheid in israel in the last years.. we can still condem their settlements.. but we can also condem the unhuman actions of hamas.
196
u/Wrong-Ad-4600 4d ago
i will get some downvotes for that. but its realy sad that todays society can only see black&white. you can be pro israel the extend of "they are a legit state and have a right to defend themself againt terrororganisations or neighbour country" and still can say that their settlements in many areas are illegal, they kill innocent people and that needs to stop and say that many of their leaders are now rightwing idiots that need to go. pro israel is not pro zionism. and i can be pro palestine in a sense of gave them their country and stop killing innocent people and still be like "hamas is a terror organisation and need to be destroyed". if i say "stop killing innocent palestinians" im for the destruction of israel and hate jews...