Are you not aware of the Nakba or Israel using banned weapons on civilians for decades? I'm not saying hamas' actions are justified but there is no side in this conflict that can confidently claim moral superiority.
This post and siblings all have maybe the most pro-zionist historical reading of the Nakba imaginable. Look into the Irgun organization for instance and you'll realize that the first Jewish settelers in palestine where incredibly violent against native peoples, and the war of 1948 was not entirely unprovoked.
I also have to clarify that I do believe Israel has the right to defend it's interests and retaliate against enemies. That does not make their actions moral.
Starting a war and losing it should have consequences.
They tried to genocide the Jews in 1948 and lost.
If there are no consequences for what they did - they'll just keep doing it until they'll be successful. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Hamas said about Oct 7 - that they'll repeat it again and again.
If one views what is happening in Gaza as a genocide, then one has to admit that the Palestinians attempted (and succeeded) at genociding Jews multiple times previous to the creation of the state of Israel as well. Most notably the destruction of the Hebron Jewish community in 1929.
The common thread running through Palestinian nationalism from its inceptions is the desire for genocide (though we didn't have the term then) of Jews.
Arab states declaring war on Israel is widely documented part of history. You post does not include supporting arguments for any alternative explanation.
Meanwhile, the arabs that stayed in Israel during that war make up 20% of the population and interestingly enjoy more rights than any arab country.
Arab states declaring war on Israel is a part of history.
Right, but certain other things happened in that time period which are hugely important also.
Meanwhile, [the Palestinians] in Israel enjoy more rights than in [some] Arab countries.
The bigger point is that they have distinctly fewer rights, and are fundamentally less equal as citizens, than a certain other group of people in that country.
Your post does not include supporting arguments for any alternative explanation
There's no need. All of what I'm saying is common knowledge in Israel. It's mostly government propagandists, and Israel's uncritical supporters in other countries who keep rehashing these tired narratives.
> > Meanwhile, the arabs that stayed in Israel during that war make up 20% of the population and interestingly enjoy more rights than any arab country.
> The bigger point is that they have distinctly fewer rights, and are fundamentally less equal as citizens, than a certain other group of people in that country.
No. The 2M Israeli arabs have the same rights as Druze and Jews do. This is a very basic verifiable fact you should be aware of before participating in this discussion.
Your misinterperting my point. I'm not making a political comment on the current conflict. My point is people think Google actually stands for something, but in the end they are a publicly traded company and will act in the interest of their shareholders.
I understand you’re attempting to show an inconsistency. But believing gay people have a right to exist is quite similar to believing Jewish people have a right to exist.
There isn't much of a connection between being Israeli and being gay though. A quick check of the LGBTQ demographics[1] shows that actually Israelis are only a little over twice as likely to be gay vs. the US for example.
> In a sample representative of the Israeli Jewish population aged 18 to 44, it was found that 11.3% of men and 15.2% of women self-reported attraction to the same-gender
> A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men
The figure attributed to Netanyahu in that article is a total of fighters and civilians -- not the "women and children" you claimed above. It's also a very rough estimate.
What does open air prison mean in this context? Would you like to comment why the family of the first minister of Scotland decided it was safe enough to go on holiday in this "open air prison"? Is it common for "inmates" from "open air prisons" to go and work in the neighbouring country while their fellow "inmates" want to wipe out this neighbouring country? Is it common for "inmates" from "open air prisons" to invade their neighbouring countries and murder, rape, burn and drag hostages back to hide in the homes of "innocent civilians" and under schools and hospitals?
Can you think of anything that happened around 2006 that might have made the neighbours not want an open border with this "open air prison"?
