• Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It means different things to different people. There are definitely a few that use it with a genocidal intent. But as you said that he’s not it’s de facto or historical meaning. It has a much longer history than the last few months. Most people complaining about it only just learned of it. And have no idea about its history or what it actually tends to mean.

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t mind them. They probably felt uncomfortable hearing “Black Lives Matter” too. Saying it’s a call for genocide for white people.

      • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and the end of those “illegal occupiers” too.

        Both sides want to genocide each other, it’s just that Israel is more powerful and Palestine is the underdog

      • JoeHill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is Kibbutz Be’eri on occupied land?

        Is Tel Aviv on occupied land?

        Is Haifa on occupied land?

          • JoeHill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            42
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In other words, “Death to Israel!!!”

            Edit: in before “No no. You have to understand that ‘Death to Israel’ is an aspirational call for peace”

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So we’re Indians wanting to get rid of the British Raj all genocidal maniacs?

              • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not a great comparison as Brits have Britain to live in already (I’m British, if it matters).

                If you displaced the Brits from India back in the day, they could return to Britain.

                If you displace the Jews from Israel now, where could they go?

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  All the Jewish people in Israel came from other countries though and a very large percentage of the population of Israel maintain dual citizenship. So they can return to the country they are a citizen of, or return to the country there parents or grandparents came from.

                  Yes, they weren’t being treated well in those countries (to put it lightly) but that doesn’t make them entitled to someone else’s land. He’ll the reason most western countries supported creating Israel is because they wanted their Jewish populations to leave.

                  It would be like unilaterally decided were going to take part of balkans and give it to the Romani people so they have their own country. They are persecuted and don’t have a country of their own, so why not?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The vast majority of Israel’s Jewish population is native-born at this point. They have no connection to those countries. They likely don’t even speak the language. I do not see how that would be a good solution.

                • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There’s a lot of places where Jews can already live safely

                  The hilarious part is upper middle class Jews from like New York running over to colonize Palestine to be “safer”

                  • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not sure why you went straight for “what about”, I’m saying the comparison is bad and that’s it.

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You understand you’re literally just arguing semantics right?

                  And even then its still a good comparison because there was never a country of India until after the British took over either.

                • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  well yes but actually no. Arab states in palestine, yes. However they’ve been under Turkish occupation for most of their modern history

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think Jews and Palestinians both need a place where they can feel safe from anyone trying to kill them off since it’s something one group has already been through and the other group is going through right now and both are at risk from it happening again in the future. This means they either need to give one group a new homeland, which, at this point, would be ethnic cleansing of either group, or find a way for them to share one homeland safely. No ethnic cleansing should be allowed and future ethnic cleansing should be prevented to the best of the international community’s ability.

                Personally, I would prefer UN administration of the region until something equitable for both Jews and Palestinians can be resolved.

              • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes and what guarantees for the Israeli. Various palestinian factions have been commiting massacre and pogroms since the 1930’s where they had a german-sized nazi movement.

                The government is what guaranty people’s right and safety.

                This is exactly why the Palestinian state exist and Arafat refused to integrate into Israel

            • guriinii@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a leap. It means an end to the illegal occupation, apartheid, and Zionism. Give the land back to the indigenous people. I’ve seen talks of the establishment of a secular state where all can be free, which is the ideal here. Not the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Give the land back to the indigenous people.

                That’s easy to say, but means nothing until you define who the “indigenous people” are, which is an extremely fraught topic in this particular case.

                • guriinii@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People indigenous to the land. It’s fairly simple. White European ashkanazi Jews whose descendants lived there 2000 years ago aren’t indigenous. They’re white, white people aren’t from the Middle East, Arabs are.

              • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Give the land back to the indigenous people

                Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. That’s a statement both sides agree on, but not in the way you think

                • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The indigenous people are the (presumably) mesopotamian nomads that eventually became sedentary farmers in the early stages of the Bronze Age.

                  • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Are there any of them trying to lay claim to it? And I was making the point that saying one side is fighting for its indigenous land is true for both sides in the conflict, and is pointless to say as a result.

              • JoeHill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                28
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right…

                You just called for the destruction of Israel. You just said Tel Aviv, which was built on land purchased from the Bedouin, is on occupied land.

                You just said that Be’eri is on occupied land. Since it’s on occupied land, then Hamas’ murder of 100 people is justified in your mind.

                Palestinian policemen massacred non-Zionist Jews in Hebron in 1929. The government of Gaza massacred left-wing Jews in Be’eri in 2023. And you sit here and talk binational bullshit fantasies.

                From the river to the sea, you want it to be Judenfrei.

                  • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If anyone actually bring the Palestinian government to the Hague the country disappear. Without even talking about the two whole ass civil wars they triggered but they also gave a province to international terrorists.

                    This is btw one of the main reaso I think big countries like France only recognizing Palestine as a “delegation” is actually the best : they recognize their authority and legitimacy but don’t have to treat them like they have the same responsibilities and accountability as a state. If France treated Palestine as a full blown state the situation would be dangerously close to having the Foreign Legion marching in Jericho

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Baha’i will not surrender Haifa. That’s our Holy City since you kicked us out of Shiraz and Baghdad. We’ve been there since the Arabs put us there in 1890.

          Edit: sorry Lemmy replied to the wrong comment.