| ▲ | simonh 11 hours ago |
| It's not so much them being a theocracy IMHO. It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. Put those Israeli shoes on. There's a state armed with ballistic missiles in easy range of you, they have the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium, recently acquired more advanced centrifuges, they have the uranium already enriched far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, they have far more of it than they credibly need for such civilian use, and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you. How well would you sleep at night? |
|
| ▲ | McAlpine5892 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. And the US is full of Christo-fascists who believe they have a religious duty to "defend" Israel by any means necessary. It absolutely blows my mind that in this day and age people are taking sides on a religious war. Stay out. Stay far out. There is no winning. There is no stopping the conflict. Every side has an ordained right to blow the others off the face of the planet. The only thing to see is human atrocities as far as the eye in the name of <your god of choice>. > There's a state ... [that has] ... the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium Do they? It's oft repeated. But I vaguely remember this country being sold on an Iraq invasion due to nukes. Nukes that never existed and never were close to existing. This wasn't a simple miscalculation. The nukes were entirely and knowingly fictional. And that's just one example of a bullshit made-up reason this nation has started a war to waste lives. How do you think Palestinians sleep at night? With the threat of Israel, funded by the largest military in the world, looming over them every night? Why should I believe my country today? Why is today the day of all days that the truth is finally being told? Why is today the day that god is real and I should jump in on the bloodshed? Your masters are lying to you, to their benefit. They didn't wake up today and decide to be honest. |
| |
| ▲ | GlacierFox 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | _How do you think Palestinians sleep at night? With the threat of Israel, funded by the largest military in the world, looming over them every night?_ Probably pretty badly now after squandering decades on building tunnels, hiding weapons and generally being a backwards fundamentalist cultish death camp. It's a mini Iran, and just as hateful. There's a reasom there's a massive security wall along the Egyptian border. They know what's up. | |
| ▲ | imperfect_blue 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. > And the US is full of Christo-fascists who believe they have a religious duty to "defend" Israel by any means necessary. How do you even begin to equivocate this? One wants to destroy a country, one wants to protect it from destruction. > How do you think Palestinians sleep at night? With the threat of Israel, funded by the largest military in the world, looming over them every night? Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian - and they've had ample capacity to do. The reverse can't be said to be true. If there's a button that the Iraqi or Palestinian leadership that can press that would wipe out the state of Israel and everyone in it, do you think that they won't press it as fast as they can? | | |
| ▲ | oa335 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian They clearly and openly state that they want to force Palestinians off of their land and are using violence towards that end. If there were a button to get rid of Palestinians, Israelis would “hit it twice”. https://youtu.be/BkP78hyLl4w | | |
| ▲ | samjones33 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is two random youtubers. You know better than to listen to rants on line... I hope! |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of every Palestinian Uh? So can you explain the genocide? | | |
| ▲ | samjones33 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain a genocide in Gaza or the West Bank both of which have growing Palestinian populations even during wartime? (If you correct for the 100K+ who left Gaza before Egypt closed its border in 2024) | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | lokimedes 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Those with the spirit to strike, will always dominate those with a mind to moderate. | |
| ▲ | KnightSaysNi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Every side has an ordained right to blow the others off the face of the planet. What? Israel is 2000 Kms away from Iran, and would want nothing do to with them if not for Iran's "Death to Israel" slogan and policy... > Do they? The IAEA declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, hardly a "bullshit made-up excuse" | |
| ▲ | ngcazz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | None of what is going on in the Middle East is a "religious war" as such. That's a thought-terminating cliche that you're putting in practice pretty clearly here. | |
| ▲ | adastra22 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications. | | |
| ▲ | McAlpine5892 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not about democracy. If it were, we wouldn't have overthrown countless democratically elected leaders throughout South America during the 20th Century. Our elected leaders constantly attempt to expand their own power. To maximally punish whistleblowers. Our election system is ran by a duopoly who exerts extreme power over those voicing alternative views and opinions. About democracy, it is not. Let's say it was though. What gives us the right to blow other countries off the face of the planet? Are we somehow so much better than everyone else because we believe we're democratic? We don't even rank in the top 10 most democratic countries. We throw more people in jail than China. Per capita AND total overall. We throw more kids in jail than any other first world country [0]. Surely, democracy does not automagically lend to treating people fairly. We have enough problems in our own damn democracy to worry about. Crazy to be starting wars to "help" someone who never asked for it. Forcing violence upon those who never consented is absolutely abhorrent. [0] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/afric... | |
| ▲ | oliwarner 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Whose fault is that? The US and Russia have propped and warred every angle to extract as much oil as possible. The instability maintains a heavy flow of refugees into Europe, destabilising the freedoms they have there and pushing the politics further right. The sudden switch yesterday from "they can't make nukes" to "they're a fortnight away from ICBMs" felt a little too reminiscent of Iraq twenty years ago. If we want a stable Middle East, we have to stop bombing the shit out of it, and invest. Negotiate fairly for resources. Offer them a future. And demand Israel stop committing war crimes. | | |
| ▲ | eptcyka 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wonder if the _negotiate fairly_ option is viable after countless generations have been bombed. | | |
| ▲ | oliwarner 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | We either try, or resign to slowly killing each other until one does figure out how to wipe the other out forever. Forced separation only deepens the hatred. |
| |
| ▲ | simonh 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It can be simultaneously true that Iran is sitting on a huge pike of precursor materials for nuclear weapons, and is not currently actually making bombs. Last week she was emphasising the latter, now she’s emphasising the former. Disingenuous? Sure. Trump and his people are children in the back of a car that found mummy’s gun in her purse. They have no idea what they are doing. I understand what Israel is doing but the US administration are clueless and rudderless. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway7839 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel is the only country with tiered citizenship. It is the only country that has constitutional preference for an ethnic group instead of equality of all subjects/citizens. It is also the only country with automatic citizenship based on religion. It is also the only country with nuclear weapons but not part of NPT. Even North Korea is a member of NPT. The myth of Democracy is just that, a myth. It doesn’t work anymore. | | |
| ▲ | samjones33 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | - There is only one Israeli citizenship. Jews have it. Israeli Arab Muslims have it. Israeli Arab Christians have it. Druze have it. It's the same. Is there discrimination, in all directions? Yup. The world is a tribal place. But you should move on from that "tiered" thing. I live here. I have been doing a project with Arabs for the last two weeks. We have lunch together most days. Move on. - Constitution -- You clearly have not read the constitutions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, or many other countries. Ethnic groups are all over the identities of most of the world's countries. - Automatic citizenship - How narrow do you define this? African Americans can go to Liberia and other countries of Africa. Until just twenty years ago or so anyone with a German grandparent could automatically get German citizenship. If you are Cuban you can get American citizenship. Are you thinking this through? - NPT, I am not sure anyone cares, but this is very different than your other topics. | |
| ▲ | packetlost 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The myth of Democracy is just that, a myth. It doesn’t work anymore. That is a very strong claim that needs very strong evidence. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway97894 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have been provided with a list of items that undermines the claim of democracy, the evidence is also pretty strong. What else do you want? |
| |
| ▲ | adastra22 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The 18% of Israeli citizens that are Muslim are 100% equal to their Jewish brethren under the law. There is no tiered citizenship. | | |
| ▲ | chgs 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-rejects-israeli-... Looks theocratic to me | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think you understand what you linked to. That is about government census forms that track ethnicity, same as any other country. Nationality here doesn’t mean citizenship, but rather something closer to “tribe.” Some well meaning citizens said “I want to check Israeli rather than Jew, Druze, Arab, etc.” Except Israeli is not a nationality in this sense. Nor is Jewish, on this form, a religious identification. It is a way of tracking, for census reasons, something closer to ethnicity. Not for nefarious purposes, but just to track demographics. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway97894 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is a very dishonest interpretation not only because the national registry is not a mere question of census but of identity, but because the Supreme Court clearly outlines that it in black and white that it is about the question of Jewish supremacy. from the article: > the court explained that doing so would have “weighty implications” on the State of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dreghgh 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's only 3 problems with this old claim. 1. You have to define 'Israel' quite carefully to make it work. Palestinians in East Jerusalem cannot vote in Israeli elections. Is East Jerusalem part of Israel or not? 2. There are several other democracies in the Middle East, for example Iraq and Lebanon. 3. Some of the countries which aren't democratic, would be democratic, except that representative governments were overthrown by the United States, in part to enforce cooperation with Israel, against the wishes of most of the people in the country. For example, Egypt. | | |
| ▲ | samjones33 an hour ago | parent [-] | | East Jerusalem is ... not a nut anyone here is going to crack. What do those folks want for themselves? Be part of the Palestinian Authority? (Not the ones I have been doing a remodel with.) Make them part of Jordan? Jerusalem is disputed territory. That makes it an uncomfortable mess, for more or less everyone. The region needs more efforts toward peace, and less black and white, good/bad labeling. East Jerusalemites are in limbo waiting for peace. It's Jerusalem. It's a strange place. |
| |
| ▲ | CalChris 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran was democratic … until we overthrew them. | | | |
| ▲ | hopelite 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You seem to believe “democracy” is some kind of magic spell or something? This “democracy” just perpetrated and are continuing to perpetrate the worst kind of wanton and sadistic genocide in full view of the world and are doing it in high definition and with impunity. America is supposedly also a democracy and we just in fact bombed a place objectively without any provocation, in violation of our own supreme law, and being utterly counter to American interests, because an alien and foreign interest group has a stranglehold on America. Democracy is not some magic word that justifies things | |
| ▲ | alfiedotwtf 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran used to be a democracy in the Middle East until the US got involved | |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | reillyse 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A shining beacon of democracy. | |
| ▲ | compiler_queen 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications Yes, it extends that support to cover apartheid colonial occupation, more-than-likely genocide by all the accepted definitions, and the usual smattering of targeting civilians, executing paramedics in marked ambulances and ethic cleansing. | |
| ▲ | wun0ne 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel, the democratic country whose prime minister appears to be deliberately prolonging the current conflict in Gaza and starting a new war with Iran to avoid facing corruption charges? | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bad hasbara. | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel has elections. So does Russia. Is Russia a democracy? | |
| ▲ | fluorinerocket 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I could really care less what theit form of government is | | |
| ▲ | Tylkwvld 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | petre 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > starting a new war with Iran Hamas has started in on the 7th of october 2023, effectively rolling back years of negotiations done by Yasser Arafat. Where do you think they've got the weapons from? Netanyahu is no better, but they offered him the perfect motive for a response. | | |
| ▲ | dreghgh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Where do you think they've got the weapons from? Ultimately, from the United States taxpayer. Who supply the Egyptian military government, who turn a small proportion over to the Islamists to keep them from too much rabble-rousing. Who smuggle them to Hamas. Both Qatar and Iran supply money and other forms of support to Hamas. But no RPG makes it into Gaza (across a shorter than 10 mile border) without the Egyptian military sort of knowing about it. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All this talk about nuclear weapons is purposefully misleading. Iran had agreements in place to keep its nuclear program under strict and thorough international checks, and was currently negotiating a new one. The original deal was scrapped on Netanyahu's request, and the bombing was started by Netanyahu to prevent a new one. Israel doesn't fear Iran's nukes. Israel fears an economically functional Iran and uses the wmd excuse to sabotage it as much as possible. The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted. |
| |
| ▲ | k7sune 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | How about the UN censuring Iran for not complying with the agreement? Was this a manufactured consensus? I don't see anyone mentioning IAEA's decision here. www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/un-nuclear-watchdog-censures-iran-a-move-that-could-lead-to-restore-sanctions | |
| ▲ | nine_k 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Realistically, a secular Iran would be the only real ally of Israel in the region. This is how it was under the shah, until 1979. Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, with sanctions lifted, and a sane, non-fanatical, non-oppressive government. Iran used to be a pretty cool and developed country in 1960s, and could be now. (Edit: typo) | | |
| ▲ | dttze 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re like the gusanos that say Cuba was so much better before the revolution. Without mentioning it was only great for the landowning slavers. Why do you think there was a revolution? | | |
| ▲ | HK-NC 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well I'd argue 50% of the population got a raw deal in the revolution at least. | |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nine_k 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Cubans kept massively supporting Fidel for quite some time, and quite explicitly, even through the disastrous Communist economic policies. Iranians keep protesting; last few years have seen several large protests, involving hundreds of thousands, and continuing for months. The popularity just isn't there. Regarding revolutions, it's quite often that a relatively small group of like-minded people capture the control, and the majority is weakly supporting them, or is even weakly opposed but complies. The French revolution was mostly about some nobility wanting to remove the monarchy that oppressed them, along with the rest; most of the population wasn't overtly anti-monarchy, and not even covertly so, but it did not like the monarchy's pressure either. The Russian revolution was "communist" and "proletarian", but even by their own Marxist accounting, proletarians were less than 10% of Russian population, and communists, much fewer still. Nevertheless, they subdued most of the Russian empire. The Iranian revolution was also done by a group of highly religious people who were fed up with the shah's secularization reforms. The shah, AFAICT, was a guy a bit like Putin, or Saudi kings: efficient and geared towards prosperity of the country, but quite authoritarian. The fact that e.g. the educated urban population in Iran wasn't happy about authoritarianism does not imply that the same people were (or are) huge fans of theocracy. Actually, the theocracy ended up even more oppressive. | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Cuban revolution was more of a coup than a widespread national uprising. It was a blind alley anyway. Zero countries that embraced Marxism-Leninism were able to reach prosperity on that ideology. Meanwhile, a lot of desperately poor countries of the 1950s are nowadays reasonably well of, on the basis of a normal, regulated market economy. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you have sources for all of this fantasy spin on history? | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIK Castro had never more than 3 thousand armed men at his side, and often much fewer, down to lower hundreds, spending much of the protracted conflict hiding in the countryside. A revolution is something in which a significant part of a nation actively participates, not something that almost the entire population sits out passively. Of course we can debate what is the necessary fraction, but 3000 militants isn't a big deal in a country of several million. Every Iraqi cleric in 2010 was able to put together a bigger militia than that. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is how it was under the shah, until 1979. Sort of? The US played a role in that shit show and it wasn’t all happy days under the Shah. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not "happy", but Iran was quite a bit more sober, not hostile towards Israel, and relatively secular. (Similarly, China under Deng Xiaoping was not a paragon of political freedom at all, but it was quite a bit more sober than under Mao Zedong. The US administration had tons of shortcomings under president Biden, but it was in quite a bit less of disarray than under president Trump.) |
| |
| ▲ | praptak 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Shah was a dictator propped up by US. There's no going back to these times. | | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Israel is set to benefit enormously from an economically functional Iran, Israel is currently engaged in genocide, how would it be good for it to benefit enormously? | | |
| ▲ | foxglacier 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | People keep saying genocide but has it been established objectively? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't, but that was some time ago. | | |
| ▲ | tdeck 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't Is this some reality distortion field? This never happened. Instead the ICJ issued multiple explicit orders to Israel that Israel has violated and the genocide case is still ongoing. | |
| ▲ | Krasnol 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who cares about ICJ or any International Law these days anymore? Yeah, I mean we can still use it (or it's slowness and uselessness) to hide behind it but the facts are on the table. Gaza looks like post-war Germany at this point. People ARE starving. Meanwhile Israel expands to the east. Also illegally. | |
| ▲ | qwery 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People keep questioning the definition of genocide, as if finding some technical distinction will absolve the perpetrators. If you actually care about international law, you might be interested to know that the ICC has issued (standing) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the former Israeli Minister for Defense for various crimes against humanity and the use of starvation in warfare. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Tylkwvld 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | ivell 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted. Circumstantial evidence seems to be that Iran indeed was enriching Uranium beyond what was necessary for electricity. Why would they build enrichment facility deep underground? It is not that Iran is having energy crisis. The claim that Iran is thinking of green energy and climate change effects is a bit weak. | | |
| ▲ | compsciphd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | its not circumstantial. Even Iran has publicly said that they have enriched to 60%. 60% is not needed for civilian uses and only useful for research in how to make it go boom. | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Remember all that evidence about iraq? Remember the british guy who worked at the ministry and went to the news saying there was no evidence and then suicided without leaving his own fingerprints on the weapon? |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran has violated the NPT so many times at this stage that no good faith observer can say what you've said here with a straight face. This is just using words to persuade for political purposes, it is not analysis. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iran has violated the NPT because there were agreements in place for it to respect it, and the agreements have been violated by the other side. An action that must have consequences, otherwise there is no point in making deals with anyone. |
| |
| ▲ | petre 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, they're making weapons grade uranium to exhibit it in the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense in Teheran. |
|
|
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | 9dev 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | These positions are not mutually exclusive though. You can both be in favor of stripping Irans ability to build nukes and oppose Israel’s settlements. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. I can oppose IRA violence and British imperialism at the same time but if we're having a reasonable conversation we have to recognise that British colonial force in Ireland is what drove people to form the IRA. | | |
| ▲ | shusaku 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Israel's settlements are the reason Iran feels the need for such developments though. Even Iran’s leaders would laugh in your face at such a naive statement, you should reconsider your media diet | |
| ▲ | mrkstu 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You know that isn’t true. Israel could withdraw to the 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to destroying it. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure how that contradicts what I'm saying. To continue the analogy that's like going back to 1900 and saying Britain could pull out of Ireland except for Ulster and there'd still be people calling for further decolonisation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | spiderfarmer 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran is stupid trying to covertly get to a nuclear bomb, Israel is very stupid with those illegal settlements. It’s costing them both a lot of sympathy. |
| |
| ▲ | ivell 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My understanding is that most countries support a two nation solution. I have not seen any Iranian statement that accepts this. On the other hand I have seen them consistently calling for outright destruction of Israel. Given their declared intend of destruction, no one in right mind would allow them the capability of destruction. | |
| ▲ | dlahoda 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | just exactly predating goverment was friendly with israel: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/496386/Pahlavi-and-Israel-t... so what exact goverment your arr referring? | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Occupation of "Muslim lands"? Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities. Before the Ottomans and various Islamic conquests it was almost entirely Christian/Roman (as was the whole Middle East). Before that Jewish. And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there. Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN which you reference. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > and a fairly even mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims False. The population in 1800 was ~90% Muslim, ~8% Christian. > let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN The UN had no authority to partition other people's land. | | |
| ▲ | sgt 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wrong. They were given the authority by general consensus after WW2. Maybe a poor choice, but it's not at all the responsibility of current Israelis to think about what their grandparents did. For a Gen Z Israeli, there's only one country. | | | |
| ▲ | fastball 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If they don't control it, it's not the "other people's" land either. Land belongs to whoever controls it. That's it. That is all it will ever be. If there is not some higher power (e.g. the UN, who you say does not have authority), you have no recourse. No matter what land it is or who they are: nobody currently living was there first. The only claim is always "I was the last to control it". But none of us are the first. | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The censuses were always flip-flopping back and forth, until the 1880s. You cherry picked one nice one, but I could check pick over half a dozen censuses that show Jewish majority during the 19th century - no less than the amount of censuses that promote the other competing narrative. And all the later censuses, after 1880, show Jewish majority. That was over three decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire. Source for census data:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
| |
| ▲ | motorest 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From wikipedia's article on the history of Palestine: > "Most of Palestine's population, estimated to be around 200,000 in the early years of Ottoman rule, lived in villages. The largest cities were Gaza, Safad and Jerusalem, each with a population of around 5,000–6,000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's in the 16th century. Almost no Jews at that time either. | | |
| ▲ | motorest 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's in the 16th century. OP's point was "Under the Ottoman Empire it was (relatively) scarcely populated and a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims, plus some religious minorities." What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then? > Almost no Jews at that time either. What a wild claim: almost no Jews in places like Jerusalem? Please cite whatever source you have to make such an extraordinary claim. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > What are you trying to dispute here? That the territory of today's Israel was sparsely populated back then, or that the Ottoman Empire existed back then Exactly the part that you left out: that the Jewish presence (before zionist immigration began) was of any relevance in the demography of the region. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've never understood the argument of Muslim Land or Arab Land. If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that? Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]. How does that become suddenly Muslim Land? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerus... | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1] (Links a page that shows the exact opposite) > If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that? Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleanse 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Links to a page that shows the exact opposite
This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources. All the censuses in the decades before the fall of the Ottoman empire show a Jewish majority. And for the century preceding that, the censuses flipped back and forth. > Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleans 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
No. The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish) and the majority of the rest Arab (not Muslim, not Palestinian, and not Egyptian or Jordanian). The Arab states rejected this, and opened a war with the newly formed Israel. Many Israeli leaders pleaded with the Arab residents not to heed the Arab states' calls to evacuate. The situation in Haifa is well documented, I know this from living with Arabs in Haifa two decades ago. They tell how the Haifa mayor pleaded with their families to remain in 1948. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read sources. Exactly. The Ottoman rule of Palestine spans 400 years, and the graph at the top of the page you linked shows that Jews became a majority in Jerusalem only at the very end of it, following zionist immigration at the end of the 19th century. > The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes Israeli (not Jewish) The problem is that this isn't reddit and people actually read the sources. This is the text of the Partition Plan: "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence..." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp | | |
| ▲ | loandbehold 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why do you have such a problem with Zionist immigration that made Jerusalem a Jewish-majority city? It was legal immigration allowed by Ottoman Empire. Do you see Muslims immigrating to Europe in the same light? Many previously "white" cities in Europe are now Muslim. Should Europeans call it "Muslim occupation of white land"? That sounds pretty racist. Why double standard? | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah no, I have no problem with it, as much as Palestinians had little problem with the tens, and then hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to their land. Of course if the UN were suddenly to declare that half of my country is now assigned to them only to build their, say, Arab state- then I would be quite pissed. Wouldn't you? | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | "their land." It wasn't "their" land, it was Ottoman land and they let Jews migrate there because Jews paid for the land. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From Wikipedia: > The First Aliyah, also known as the agriculture Aliyah, was a major wave of Jewish immigration (aliyah) to Ottoman Palestine between 1881 and 1903 ... An estimated 25,000 Jews immigrated.
Jerusalem was already Jewish majority before 1881. And the large waves of the movement were towards the end, not towards the beginning. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, as we said, zionist immigration to Palestine began at the end of the 19th century. Nothing to do with the small historical Jewish population of Palestine or Jerusalem. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes indeed, if white British people were expelled from their lands and their homes confiscated by anyone, Norse, Germanic or Russian, it'd be considered ethnic cleansing and a war crime. The jews of Ottoman era were Sephardic and Mizrahi jews of N. Africa, not the Yiddish speaking Ashkenazis of Germany, France and Russia. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you for your support. After the UN divided the holy land into an Israeli and an Arab state, the Arabs began their ethnic cleaning campaign. That is why there were zero Jews left in Gaza or the West Bank after the war. The war that was started with the stated goal of eliminating the Jews. And note that despite Arab calls for the Arabs to evacuate the holy land, it remained 20% Arab. And let's not get started on the Jews in the other 20 plus Arab states. What at happened to them? | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Ashkenazis
A word which literally means "from the Levant", where Ashkenaz (Noah's descendent) had settled. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Like how the Arab countries expelled Jews after Israel was founded? The double standard about Israel and Arab colonization and ethnic cleansing is absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_... |
| |
| ▲ | dismalaf 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I actually do know the "Muslim lands" reference. Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. It's a conquest tactic. It gets slightly reframed to be tolerable for westerners by invoking the idea that they're "indigenous", when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2016/8/12/israel-sau... | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > when they're largely Arabs who committed genocide against the previous peoples. So what area are arabs from? You know there are arab jews and christians right? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula. After they accepted Islam in the 7th century, they turned to conquest other areas. This is all well documented in Arab sources, they are very proud of this. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | >they accepted Islam in the 7th century Oh i didn't realize we're going back more than a millennia. Well, in that case every modern nation state is the product of one form of genocide or another - the USA being the worst genocidal state, going back just 500 years. >The Arab culture, identity, and distinct racial features formed in the Arabian peninsula Seems silly to me to claim a land that "your people" inhabited centuries and millennia ago, as it honestly seems silly to me talk about "racial features" when talking about humans. Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"? | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim, christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by virtue of being of the same "race"?
Not by virtue of being the same race, but by virtue of being the offspring of parents who are proud of their heritage and teach their children.Denying the existence of Arab culture, of which the Arabs are (rightly, in my opinion) very proud of, is racism. Not everybody has the same values and customs as you do. | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you mention one cultural trait that an arab jew, muslim, and atheist would share? That's like saying there is a european culture, it's nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | vntok 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Europe | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Whilst there are a great number of perspectives that can be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a single, all-embracing concept of European culture." Literally the second sentence in that wiki | | |
| ▲ | vntok 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you frequently stop reading articles two sentences in? It's amazing how much knowledge and intelligence you must be missing. Please do keep reading past. The next sentence (literally sentence #3) gives you: Nonetheless, there are core elements which are generally agreed upon as forming the cultural foundation of modern Europe. One list of these elements given by K. Bochmann includes: And then a detailed list of shared-culture-related items. - A common cultural and spiritual heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, Judaism, the Renaissance, its Humanism, the political thinking of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the developments of Modernity, including all types of socialism;[5][4] - A rich and dynamic material culture, parts of which have been extended to the other continents as the result of industrialization and colonialism during the "Great Divergence";[5] - A specific conception of the individual expressed by the existence of, and respect for, a legality that guarantees human rights and the liberty of the individual;[5] - A plurality of states with different political orders, which share new ideas with one another.[5] - Respect for peoples, states, and nations outside Europe. And then there are 15 categories from Music to Science to History, listing cultural similitudes or shared values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Religious Muslims believe any land ever controlled by Muslims must remain Muslim forever. What are you basing this on? Are "religious" Muslims some kind of True Scots Muslims? I'm willing to bet that if I speak to any of my Muslim neighbours none of them will agree with this. | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well if you go back enough… all english people are actually vikings who committed genocide against the britons. And all swedish people are steppe barbarians who committed genocide against the local sami people. | | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Source on Swedes being steppe barbarians? Most historians agree that Vikings originated in Scandinavia. Sami peoples originated in northern Russia and moved to the furthest north regions of Scandinavia. The Vikings were also more concerned with seafaring and raiding to the south and west and all the history I know of is that they coexisted mostly peacefully (Vikings would trade with the Sami). Conflict arose centuries after the Viking age. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So why was it called Palestine Partition Plan, and not Israeli partition plan: "Palestine Partition Plan" is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29, 1947. This resolution, officially titled "Future Government of Palestine," recommended the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem and its environs to be placed under a special international regime." | | |
| ▲ | fastball 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Palestine" is a term which pre-dates Islam (coming from the Greek "Palaistine"), so I don't think you are making the point you are trying to make. | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yup, Palestine is a name for the land, not the people. It is a Roman era corruption of Phoenician. | | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, Philistine (and all the variants) comes from a Greek word for "uncouth" and is a word for the ancient Philistines given by their neighbours; it's unknown what the Philistines called themselves. The Philistines weren't the Phoenicians, they were more recent invaders (possibly some of the "Sea People"). For one, the Philistines were Aegean and the Phoenicians were Semitic. The Philistines also disappeared (either killed or assimilated) while the Phoenicians spawned Carthage (the ones in the Levant probably just assimilated over time as many powers controlled the area after them). It only became the name for the land after the Bar Kockba revolt, the Romans named it such specifically to spite the Jews. And then it stuck when various powers controlled the land over time (Romans/East Romans aka. Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, British). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Also let's not forget that the partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the UN Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior? | |
| ▲ | iamacyborg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > And keep in mind Zionism started during the Ottoman era, with Jews simply immigrating there. Presumably during one of the frequent rounds of forceful expulsion from European states. | |
| ▲ | woodpanel 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. Ill intended actors (Soviets, competing European interests, Islamists etc.) even propped up the propaganda fiction about the "evil" Crusaders, while in fact the Crusaders fought against colonization. The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders came. |
| |
| ▲ | golol 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can oppose something or you can create terorrist militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring countries. | | |
| ▲ | FilosofumRex 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists. Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you? https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yass... | | |
| ▲ | golol 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you fight in an active civil war you are not a terrorist (1948 Arab-Israeli war) If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of guerilla warfare you are not a terrorist. (Many palestinian fighters when there is an active conflict with Israel) If you strike military targets of an occupation force in a time of relative peace, and your reignition of violence has no goal of achieving anything for your people, you are probably not a terrorist, but probably doing something wrong and stupid and horrible that hurts your own civilians, driven by nationalism or ideology or whatever. (Palestinian fighters on October 7 that struck military bases for example). If you strike civilian targets or tage hostages, you are a terrorist. And worse if you do it at a time of relative peace to ignite violence against your own people.
Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi's have engaged in plenty of the latter since a long time. By the way, if you level a building with 8 militants and 20 civilians that is brutal urban warcare but not terrorism. If you go to a festival and kill predominantly hundreds of civilians, that's terrorism. | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you name a single Palestinian who has actually moved the needle on a functioning democratic Palestinian state? Every single current and former Palestinian leader has been heavily theocratic, has pledged to kill Jews wherever they are and has never considered sharing any of whatever power he’s gotten with anyone else. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you stop to ask what creates the environment where the most extreme views flourish and gain traction? | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I always marvel at the extreme racism required to so thoroughly dehumanize an entire population. | | | |
| ▲ | Ray20 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Islamist majority? | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nope, Islamism is an extreme position so that gets you no further in the answering the question. What set the stage for an Islamist majority? Again I assert that extreme politics don't develop in vacuums. | | |
| ▲ | golol 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The thing is it doesn't help. Yes of course the horrible situation of the palestinians promotes extremism, but you still have to face that there is a lot of extremism. What was Israel to do before October 7 (besides making sure Oct 7 could not happen)? Of course there are ppints where history could have gone in a better direction but I really don't see an easy way for Israel to achieve a better situation. Say they had withdraw from the west bank in 2018 for some reason. Who says that Oct 7 would still not have happened on a much greater scale? In fact I find it quite likely that it would. And then you might be looking at 3000 dead Israelis instead. The only rational reason for the Oct 7 attacks I can see is that Hamas wants to incite as much violence as possible to put as much political pressure as possible on Israel due to the inevitable retaliation. So Oct 7 would have made even more sense, as the deoccupation of the west bank is far from the total of their political goals. | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And here you are continuing to dehumanize and remove all agency for an entire religion now. Truly the bigotry required to hold these beliefs is breathtaking. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not doing that in any way. Islamism != Islam, and I'm not suggesting that the entire population of following Islamist beliefs, only that there's an environment where it can gain traction. Please explain your reading if you're going to make such personal attacks. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re missing the point because you’re so unaware of your own enormous bigotry. All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make. You do not believe the above. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm honestly not sure if this is satire or why you feel the need to tell me what I believe. > All Muslims have their own agency. They are all humans capable of making their own decisions. And like all humans are happy to be held responsible for the decisions they make. And I'm not sure why you feel I don't recognise the agency of Muslims? As I said previously please make an argument or explain your position and I'll respond to it, but it feels absurd to entertain these seemingly baseless ad hominems. I grew up in a conflict zone and feel that I have some understanding of the group dynamics. That's totally reasonable and I encourage you to ask yourself if your apparent anger and incredulity here is misplaced. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tdeck 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is like complaining that Nat Turner didn't move the needle on moving the US toward universal suffrage. | | |
| ▲ | dontTREATonme 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right because slaves in the American south were offered freedom tens of times but refused it always bec it might have involved some compromise they didn’t like. These childish comparisons don’t even pass the sniff test. |
| |
| ▲ | orwin 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No? The issue US had with the PLF is that it was controlled by Marxist. the theocratic pro-palestine movements didn't start until the 90s. |
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All of that Palestine resistance to Israel has accomplished nothing except misery for Palestinians. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | They should just let the second Holocaust happen? | | |
| ▲ | golol 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The west bank seems to not be doing so bad compared to Gaza. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should stop lying about a non-existent genocide. Israel just wants to live in peace. This is why 20% of the Israel population is Arab and 0% of Gaza and the West Bank are Jewish. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dartharva 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anyone who unironically attributes any land to be Muslim, Jewish or of any other religion must be immediately dealt with. Land is land. It should never, never be beholden to any one religion. | |
| ▲ | edanm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Iran opposition to Israel's occupation of Muslim lands and territories, predates the current government of Iran. And yet, the previous government of Iran had friendly relations with Israel, as do some other Arab and Muslim countries. The US also has friendly relations with countries with whom it disagrees vehemently, and that do (IMO) far worse things than Israel does. | |
| ▲ | fortran77 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A complete inversion of history. What an insane take! | |
| ▲ | alex1138 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel occupies lands belonging to the Biblical patriarch Jacob. That was something like 1800 BCE, two and a half millennia before Mohammed. Islam refers to Jacob, as does the Torah/Old Testament as "Israel". I find the repeated suggestion that those are Muslim lands because Israel is a new territory to be strange -- it can't be a Quranic position. It doesn't appear consistent with history either. | | |
| ▲ | bambax 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a ridiculous position. We can't organize today's world based on who was where 4 millennia ago. (If we did, most if not all countries would immediately cease to exist, starting of course with the US but not limited to them.) | |
| ▲ | samaltmanfried 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Assuming this claim were true, which it isn't, the modern Israelis have genetically nothing in common with the Jews of the old testament. They don't have the same culture, religion, language or genetics. | |
| ▲ | ivell 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find historical claims like this not very convincing. 1800 BCE looked very different from today and if people from old civilizations start claiming their land, we would not see any end of wars. Should Italy claim most of Europe because Romans had it under their control? | |
| ▲ | quietbritishjim 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You make it sound like the dispute is about who has some ancient religious right to the land. It's true that both sides claim that but it's totally disingenuous to pretend that is the reason for so much Arab anger. People still have a living memory of specific properties in specific locations that they were forced out of and are now occupied by other families, often with some of their relatives killed in the process That applies both to places in Israel proper (displaced in 1940s to 1960s) and to Gaza and the West Bank (in the time since then). Even before the most recent war in Gaza, any Palestinian could be forced out of their home at any moment by an Israeli settler with no recourse. |
| |
| ▲ | kikimora 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Last time I checked history books said Britain donated land to Jews. At the time Britain took house land there were no state and no nation called Palestinians, just tribes. Since then Palestinians formed as a nation. So what do you want Israel to do, disappear? Or negotiate, but with whom? The only power there is hamas which is non-negotiable. I really interested in seeing any realistic solution to the problem, however far fetched it is. | | |
| ▲ | bambax 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Britain donated land to Jews Land it didn't own. Most people can be very generous with what they don't have. | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agree, but my point is in the question how to untangle the mess we have today. |
| |
| ▲ | chgs 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are arguing in favour of the land allocations in 1948? | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m asking for realistic ideas how to deal jews and palestinians occupying same land, hating each other and having no where to go from that land. |
| |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you start from made up premises, the conclusion is also made up. Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book… | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no conclusion on my part. There is an ask for reasonable ideas how to untangle the mess between jews and palestinians. | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you start from made up premises, you will not be able to judge "reasonable ideas". | | |
| ▲ | kikimora 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So I’m not good enough for you to share your ideas, did I get it right? You realize this is not how people reach consensus? If you cannot give me a compelling argument what makes you think jews and arabs would be happy with your ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | compiler_queen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > How well would you sleep at night? Well, considering that Israeli's are occupying land that rightfully belongs to someone else, I'd say not very well indeed. It's the final major European colonial outpost, and its fighting hard not to go the way of Algeria, Kenya, Malaya and a long long list of others. |
| |
| ▲ | elcritch 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even if you believe Israelis don’t have a right to the land, it’s still not a colonial outpost. That’s just lazy European and American self important intellectualizing in my opinion. First a colony is one controlled by a foreign nation. Next the population of Israel is, or was, about half Sephardim. Meaning Jews from the Middle East, many of whom were unwilling expelled from Muslim countries. Secondly Arab Muslim Palestinians could also be considered colonizers if ones that’d been there many generations. The Israel and Palestine conflict in many aspects is more similar to between Turkey and Greece after WWI. In 1923 they “swapped populations” due to the aftermaths of Greeces independence from the Turkish Ottaman Empire and the following wars. Populations which had lived together segregated after the wars and were expelled on both sides in roughly equal numbers. It was similar after the 1948 war with about 850,000 Middle Eastern Jews and 750,000 Palestinians being displaced. Except Palestinians were never integrated into Egypt or Jordan. Partly by their own choice and partly by that of the Arab countries. The stated goal was that they’d destroy the new state of Israel and return. | |
| ▲ | kanbara 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | you do know that jews come from the current state of israel right? and that they lived there before the founding of said state? and that, no, neither group of 7M people are going to pack up and leave. | | |
| ▲ | compiler_queen 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is no more relevant than the guys in the OAS banging the table and claiming 2M Frenchmen have always lived in Algeria. It's not the age of exploration any more, you can no more rock up on someone else's patch, declare it terra nullis and start building condos. What's worse again, is trying to make it some religious thing... this book here says I own all you guy's land because the book says God gave it to us guys and not yous. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | _tik_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Then how is that any different from what the USA has done. Bombing and destroying many countries in the name of spreading democracy? |
|
| ▲ | bambax 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you Maybe, but obviously the other side thinks exactly the same. Religious wars were lots of fun five centuries ago. They will be funnier still in the nuclear age. |
| |
| ▲ | Alex_L_Wood 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, yes, Israel famously publicly declaring that its' holy mission is to destroy Iran. Happened so many times, yes. |
|
|
| ▲ | mykowebhn 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. I believe this is very important to highlight, and, unfortunately, many Iranians will suffer because of the Iranian government's views. But I do believe there are viewpoints held on both sides that can make achieving peace in that region extremely difficult. Consider these two video excerpts (You only need to watch about 10 seconds for each) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYoa9hI3CXg&t=1948s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEiL_5h14pY&t=452s |
|
| ▲ | powerapple 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What's the reason of incompatibility of Islam and Jewish religion? |
| |
| ▲ | elcritch 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nothing in most of their beliefs. They’re both monotheistic and similar in many regards as Islam largely inherited its tenants from both Judaism and Christianity. Jews were often well treated and flourished in the earlier Islamic caliphates. But with the formation of a Jewish Israel the conflict. Generally in Islamic belief there must be an Islamic caliphate with Sharia Law. Jerusalem is considered one of the holy sites of Islam and therefore belongs to that caliphate. That’s contrasted with Judaism and Israel being the land promised to the Jews. Though modern Israel was largely founded by secular Jews so it’s a bit more complicated on that front. |
|
|
| ▲ | tharmas 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran? |
| |
| ▲ | raffraffraff 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's "having nukes" and there's "using nukes". https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QgkUVIj3KWY The trouble with a regime like Iran is that they are a death cult. The price the put on human life (their own people as much as anyone else) is low, and they're all for martyrdom. With Iran, you cannot assume it's a just a deterrent in a cold war. You have to assume an increased likelihood that they will actually use them. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The trouble with a regime like Iran is that they are a death cult. Compare the number of deaths caused by Iranian weapons and those caused by Israeli weapons in the last year. Or 5 years, or 10. Do you have some other way of defining ‘death cult’? | | |
| ▲ | raffraffraff 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | A death cult doesn't care about deaths in it's own population as long as it wipes out it's enemy. A death cult prizes martyrdom. |
| |
| ▲ | tharmas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only the USA has ever used Nukes. | |
| ▲ | djfivyvusn 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not only that, they were planning to give them to Hezbollah. The brain-dead takes I'm hearing about this shitty war amazes me. |
| |
| ▲ | deepsun 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The main point of having nukes is not using them. The moment one uses them -- they lost. Nukes are good as a deterrent, not good as a weapon. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same reason the U.S. and USSR were afraid of each other in the Cold War. | |
| ▲ | shusaku 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People are just fear mongering to suggest Iran would use them or give them to those who would. The real issue here is that once you have them, you basically entrench yourself as a regional power. If the regime started falling out of favor, all their neighbors would be obliged to come to their aid to protect the nukes. Also, you would be far more limited in how you fight your proxy war. These are the things the involved parties are considering, not Armageddon fantasies. | |
| ▲ | dismalaf 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would they? How would they deliver it? If they were caught trying to do it, what would happen? Why is an Iranian weapon somehow different do one held by any other country? Countries with them usually don’t use them, and the one that has is attacking Iran. |
| |
| ▲ | motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | MaxPock 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | They woke up and started bombing Israel for no apparent reason or they are responding to Israeli attacks ? | | |
| ▲ | motorest 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They woke up and started bombing Israel for no apparent reason or they are responding to Israeli attacks ? You failed to answer my question. Why? Check out YouTube and see the high rate of ballistic missiles thrown at Israel. Those existed for years, and were developed for this exact purpose. It just so happened they didn't have the nuclear warhead yet. I repeat the question: are you really asking why a country would be afraid of a regime which is literally raining ballistic missiles over them? | | |
| ▲ | MaxPock 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1.Israel bombed Iran
2.Iran is bombing Israel back How is it supposed to work ? |
| |
| ▲ | 9dev 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reducing the Middle East conflict so much makes the entire discussion useless. If you want to point at someone guilty, look at the British who fucked up Palestine big time. Everything since then is a spiral of revenge and spite. |
|
| |
| ▲ | snapetom 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think you realise how ignorant and racist is this idea that an entire religion and country of 90 million doesn't behave like normal human beings. | | |
| ▲ | raffraffraff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you lived in Iran? It's not a whole country of 90 million people who will shout "Push the button!". Most of them are unwillingly imprisoned under a regime lead by the religious zealots who will push that button, even if it means destruction of themselves and their population. Or at least, that's the assumption that the west must make, based their religious views and their past rhetoric. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which is their past rhetoric? As for their religious views, hasn't their supreme leader declared multiple times that nuclear weapons are prohibited by their religion? | | |
| |
| ▲ | sfe22 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn’t take 90 million iranians to push a button. | | |
| ▲ | hajile 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Here in the US, our soldiers insert their nuclear keys and await instructions to turn them several times per day. If even just ONE of the hundreds of pairs of soldiers turns the key, then ALL the nukes get launched. 99.999999% of Americans have no say either. The truth is that Iran doesn't want to take out the holy sites in Israel and if martyrdom were the real goal, then Iran would have started all-out war with Israel decades ago. |
| |
| ▲ | throw2235 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | ta12653421 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There was a very interesting "street walk video" by a somewhat-famous travelling-blogger, he visited Afghanistan, talked to a lot of people, created a lot of footage of their daily life, asking about the regime etc. This video got blocked after publishing by a political action group / NGO, it came back online only after dozens of other YouTube channels reported that. And yes - this video depicted life of people in a theocracy ;-) | | |
| ▲ | LtWorf 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can cherry pick and show anything you want. I can go to USA, interview a few crazies (and there's a lot of them) and then make a documentary. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kennywinker 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Isn't christianity the one that has martyrdom at its core? Jesus was martyred for our sins after all. Christians can’t really be trusted not to sacrifice themselves at the drop of a roman helmet. Or not. Perhaps, we understand the nuances of that because we were raised in a christian culture, but don’t understand the nuances of martyrdom in islam because we weren’t raised in a muslim culture? I know that’s true for me, i assume that’s true for any non-muslim who claims stuff about the core of islam. | |
| ▲ | asadm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are wrong. Muslims don't wake up trying to get martydom asap. Protecting life (own included) is top-most goal, so much that even harming your body (tattoos etc) is strictly prohibited. | |
| ▲ | kergonath 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s bizarre to read that in a world where news have been dominated by American conservatives trying to bring us to the end times for years now. Bizarre, disturbing, and terrifying. | |
| ▲ | Alex-C137 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is an extremely insane take and should be deleted immediately. Disgusting | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jhanschoo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The first thing I would want to do after wearing Israeli shoes would be to find a way to flee immediately and disassociate myself from being complicit with the ongoing genocide (or to resist it if I were in such a position), Iran's hostility be damned. In which case, I suppose that any resistance I might do would have the state call me an anti-Semite. |
|
| ▲ | asadm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ... so you preemptively attack every neighbor and commit genocide? |
| |
| ▲ | lostmsu 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Was this bombing a genocide? | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The word “and” can be used to delineate two linked ideas. Sometimes they’re closely linked ideas like bombing someone AND accusing them of being two weeks away from nukes for decades. Sometimes they’re less closely linked ideas, like bombing someone AND committing genocide against someone else. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Krasnol 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You make it sound like it's some natural law that they have to destroy the state of Israel. I mean, did you even think about this when you heard it for the first time? Do you think your common Iranian citizen wake up in the morning and feels the natural urge to destroy Israel? What is this? Be serious. This is no justification to ignore international law. But that's dead now. Nobody will ever care again until we're done with the next big war or something. Bomb away... |
| |
| ▲ | simonh 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think the average Iranian citizen cares at all about Israel, one way or the other, but they don't have any say in Iranian state politics. There's no natural law setting the mullahs against the existence of Israel, as I said they think and vocally declaim publicly that it is divine law. Don't believe me, just look up what they say. I do think the way this is being handled is a travesty though. There was a functioning agreement with international monitoring in place in 2016 and Trump tore it up. Since then Iran has increased their enrichment capacity, and their stockpile of enriched material by 22 time above what they committed to in that agreement. Canceling that deal was a foolish blunder that had lead us to this. Ultimately the only path to long term peace has to be the fall of theocratic rule in Iran, but that's a mater for the Iranian people. It's quite possible the nuclear question could have been managed, but just as with NAFTA Trump saw personal political advantage is scrapping an old deal in order to rebrand it as his better deal, but dropped the ball because he doesn't understand the geopolitics, and here we are. | | |
| ▲ | Krasnol 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it's important, especially so shortly after the fact not to mix up things. Trump wanted another deal and told Bibi not to attack. Bibi didn't want that and attacked. Trump jumped on the bandwagon and now everybody is talking about him again. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throw310822 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | jdietrich 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions. Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement. I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith. | |
| ▲ | 9dev 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You’d need to make a distinction between the Iranian regime, a corrupt band of thieves in charge of the government, infused by religion, and the Iranian people, who have been suffering through this for almost half a century. Any criticism is directed against the former, and fully valid: These people are fanatical idiots, albeit dangerous. | |
| ▲ | sreekanth850 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is why they formed the Axis of Resistance. They will act through their proxies. And imagine if Hezbollah or the Houthis got nuclear weapons, the whole world would be threatened. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the whole world would be threatened. Why? What do Hezbollah or the Houthis care about the world? They fight Israel, which is a genocidal regime. This even ignoring the ludicrous idea that if they got a nuclear weapon they could deliver it anywhere. | | |
| ▲ | sreekanth850 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why do Al-quaeda organzied september 11 attacks? I can give countless example to show that they doesnt need a reason to attack. Its just religion that matters and their goal of global islamisation.
Recently in pahalgam they killed 26 civllians by asking their religion and verifying it by asking them to pray. You said israel regime as genocidal? What was the cause of all this issues? How many was killed in october attacks in israel?
Why did they held hostages from different countries?
So, yes i strongly believe that those terrorist doesnt need a reason to attack. Their goal is global islamisation.
Khamenei had openly said that their number 1 enemy is America. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid
It's the Iranian government saying they'd do it, not westerners. And you seem to have some sort of culture complex. Their culture is different than yours (not better, not worse, but different) and for them dying to liberate land from infidels is not crazy, it is the highest honour their society bestows.There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position. | |
| ▲ | dartharva 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To suggest Iran would do it anyway would actually just be taking Iranian leadership at their word. | |
| ▲ | JodieBenitez 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They might be fanatical, but to the point of desiring the destruction of themselves, their loved ones, their country, their culture, their literature, their history.. just to inflict genocide on others? This is a dehumanising thought. Besides, the fanatical leader of that country has said in clear terms that they consider nuclear weapons forbidden by their religion. They have also said in clear terms that oppose the "Israeli regime" and the existence of Israel as a political entity- that's what they mean by "destruction of Israel", not nuking it. | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In 1930s and early 1940s, emperor Hirohito of Japan approved of a number of terrible things done by the Japanese imperial armed forces to people of China and Korea, and warred bitterly with the US. But once he realized that he's losing the war, and Japan can be just destroyed by nuclear bombs, he decided to surrender, in order to avoid the complete destruction of his country and senseless deaths of Japanese people. (This is somehow documented.) He cared about the Japanese and Japan more than he cared about his majesty, or honor, or abstract ideas; he agreed to abdicate of all his powers. Sadly, I highly doubt that the regime of the ayatollahs is going to act like that, instead of fighting fanatically to the bitter end and the last drop of Iranian blood if need be. (A bitter end is very far from the current situation though.) | |
| ▲ | Nathanba 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes I think so, if they believe that they are stopping another genocide then they'd conceivably be willing to risk their own genocide to help do what's right. |
| |
| ▲ | tda 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't Israel a defacto theocracy too? | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, Israel is not using religious norms or holy scriptures as the law, and establishes no state religion. Iran's constitution directly says that the norms of the Sharia law are its foundation, and makes Shia Islam the state religion. | | |
| ▲ | helge9210 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Jewish State" literally means religious norms and holy scriptures are considered a law. Rabbinical courts are part of the Israeli legal system, which operates religious courts in parallel to the civil court system. | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The rabbinical courts exist for sorting out religious issues, such as religious marriages and divorces of Jewish citizens. Judaism is not even special-cased: «Such courts exist for the recognized religious communities in Israel, including Muslim courts, Christian courts, and Jewish Rabbinical courts.» (Wikipedia). The Basic Laws, which sort of comprise the makeshift constitution of Israel, don't seem to make any religious references, but rather refer to the founding UN principles like human rights. | | |
| ▲ | helge9210 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | My apartment rental agreement had a clause all "all disagreements are to be resolved in rabbinical court". Reach of the religious courts is unlimited. Even civil courts are allowed to refer to holy texts if the law is not clear. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would say the US is too at this point, given continued references to god by its leaders. A country where a senator can say he supports a certain foreign policy because it's written in the Bible? | |
| ▲ | JodieBenitez 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, it's not. | |
| ▲ | HaZeust 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | farzd 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | recroad 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel. The whole “preemptive strike” stuff is BS and not a serious argument. |
| |
| ▲ | intermerda 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? I'm guessing from the words and actions of Iranian leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani... | | |
| ▲ | recroad 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | What are you pointing at there? Their position from 1979 which is 12 years after 1967? Also, let’s leave rhetoric aside. What is the actual record of violence between Israel and anyone else? It’s not even close https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties Israel here is the aggressor. Not acknowledging that makes no sense and doesn’t leave grounds for any meaningful discussion. | | |
| ▲ | untrust 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From the wiki they linked: In 2015, former Basij chief and senior RIGC officer, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, stated in an interview that the destruction of Israel is "nonnegotiable". In addition, according to the Times of Israel, Naqdi said that during the summer Gaza conflict with Israel, a significant portion of Hamas’s weaponry, training, and technical expertise was provided by Iran.[27][28] In 2019, Naqdi made a direct call for the destruction of Israel during a televised interview. Naqdi asserted that the Zionist regime must be "annihilated and destroyed," asserting "This will definitely happen." He declared his intention to one day raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution over Jerusalem. | | |
| ▲ | recroad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Zionist state as it is since 1967 has to be dismantled and it must go back to its 1967 borders. That’s international law. Also, you seem to be putting a lot of weight from words 10 years ago by former officials when current Israeli officials including the head of state is clearly voicing support for genocide. The otherising of brown Muslims comes easy. |
| |
| ▲ | nkmnz 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Rhetoric aside. What was the actual record of violence when Hitler published „My Struggle“ in 1925, laying out his ideas of solving the „Jewish question“? Why should one believe the evil of it lays out its plans way in advance? | | |
| ▲ | recroad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | By 1925 the Beer Hall Putsch had already happened and Hitler was in jail for high treason. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel. Even by your own logic, do you believe that having a country threaten your existence is not reason enough to want them destroyed? | | |
| ▲ | recroad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This whole “threaten your existence” is a clutch in your argument. It smells like “but Hamas…” and tries to create a precondition of condemnation of one side which also happens to be the victim. | |
| ▲ | recroad 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | destroy Iran I mean | | |
| ▲ | motorest 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you pay attention to my question, you'll notice that it isn't conditional to who made threats to who. Do you believe this influences your answer? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. Do they? What is this based on? My understanding was that they were reacting to a pattern of imperialism of which Israel was the crown jewel. Is there actually something inherent about the Shi'ite religion which says Israel must fall? |
| |
| ▲ | loandbehold 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iran was one of the first countries in the Middle East to recognize Israel. But it all changed since Islamic Revolution. Their official position since than have been that Israel cannot exist. They don't even refer to it as Israel but as "Zionist Regime". It's their official public position and what they say on their (government controlled) TV. They've been fighting proxy war with Israel since 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani... | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure that answers my question. They could have a political belief that Israel must fall but you haven't shown a reason to believe it's based on their religious beliefs. Obviously the two things are tied up together but I don't believe that if a Jewish homeland state had been created in Western Europe or in Antarctica that Iran would have an issue with it. Their problem is surely that Israel represents an historical and continuing power play by Western forces, a springboard from which the US and it's allies can encourage coups, wage wars and dominate the trade of the natural resources in the region. It seems like a very practical concern more than a religious one. | | |
| ▲ | Ray20 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >but you haven't shown a reason to believe it's based on their religious beliefs. Their religious leaders like literally come out and say, "This is based on our religious beliefs." | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does every Shi'ite hold these same beliefs then? What is the religious basis for the belief? Henry VIII used religious justification for breaking off from the pope as well but surely we're grown up enough to recognise those movements came about from a desire for political autonomy more than disagreements over bible interpretations? | | |
| ▲ | simonh 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're looking for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani... >In 2024, Ali Khamenei told Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: "The divine promise to eliminate the Zionist entity will be fulfilled and we will see the day when Palestine will rise from the river to the sea." In particular check out the "clerics" section of that article for the statements of multiple leading religious authorities in the regime on the religious justifications. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well, to start off I want to reiterate what I said about the reformation era political upheavals in Europe and religion being used as a justification and easy explanation for very real geopolitical concerns. But just for argument's sake and to respect your position I always want to point out that your quote subtly talks about "the Zionist entity" and not about Israel or Jews. So I can assume that you're equating Israel with Zionism, which is arguably fair. Now the question I would have is do we recognise the inherent violence of Zionism and, if so, why do we decentre that in our conversation and instead focus on the reaction to it? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | loandbehold 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn't matter for Israel weather it's based on religious belief or not. But Iran does frame their opposition in Islamic context in its communication to Iranian people. E.g. Khamenei says things like "fighting Israel to liberate Palestine is an obligation and an Islamic jihad."
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-supreme-leader-israel-cancerous... | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It might not matter for Israel but it matters for me as an Irishman watching the rest of the world getting sucked into a conflict. Framing it as a religious opposition paints Iran as an irrational actor which can't be reasoned with, when it appears to me that it's behaving the way it's been pushed to behave by encroaching colonial forces. I don't believe in Islam or in Judaism but I do believe in radical discourse and trying to understand the position of the other. Saying "it's their religion to be bloody violent and destructive, what can we do?" throws any space for understanding out of the window. |
| |
| ▲ | nec4b 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you proposing moving Israel to another location? | | |
|
|
|