Context (for those who don't know): Israel and Palestine
One group was actually living there and the other group moved in and literally ripped people from their homes.
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45726 readers
684 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
One group took 2 years to organize an attack on civilians, the other didnt...
The other has been attacking them for decades...
This was on a different level though. Taking civilian hostages? Launching rockets with the target being a music festival?
That's been happening for the last 5,000 years in that region though, since the Canaanites.
It's not like the Palestinians were the first there.
The Palestinians are descendants of the ancient canaanites. Most of the people in that region never left they just changed their religion at some point. This hasn't always been happening, in Ottoman times Christians Jews and Muslims peacefully coexisted in the region.
I mean, kinda? They're also heavily descended from 7th Century AD Arabic conquerors, but yes, many other natives may have adopted Arabic culture, language and religion at that time.
But Jewish culture is also derived from the Canaanite culture, with arguably more overlap. Jewish culture in the region can be traced back to at least the 9th Century BC, with the literal Kingdom of Israel. So the argument of "Well who was there first?" does not necessarily favor the Palestinians over the Israelis.
This has always been happening though. It's not like the Ottomans took over the region peacefully. It's been conquered and re-conquered by Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans...
Palestinian culture is also derived from canaanite culture. Arabs are semitic people and follow abrahamic traditions. When places get conquered usually the ruling class changes but the lower class people stay in their homes and just change language/religion/identity. Usually the new rulers don't try to completely wipe out the inhabitants of their new land the way israel is doing with Palestinians
Britain has planted the seeds of hatred and bloodshed in the middle east and is now acting as if it has no responsibility towards resolving the conflict.
It is hard to watch the British media coverage of this war acting all outraged and surprised by the violence while being proud of their historical imperial inheritance .
Britain is laughably impotent today.
Britain is still one the Hydra's snake heads in World politics even today
Nice try Boris.
Britain and France are responsible for such an enormous fuck up in Asia, Africa and the middle east, past and present, it's probably impossible to put it in numbers. The US gets bashed a lot (deservedly), but I think those two were planting something way more devastating for generations to come
Borders are violence.
Even animals patrol and defend their territory. Why should human be any different? If anything else, borders are an improvement over constant skirmishes and raids where two different ethnic groups meet.
EDIT: Interesting how you completely ignored the "Borders are a solution to constant ethnic clashes" part of my comment
The reason ethnic clashes are happening in the first place, is because there was not enough intermingling between neighbors, in big part because people like you thought humans aren't smarter then animals and should be separated.
Humans aren't smarter than animals because we are animals. We're also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Easy now dont cut yourself on the edge you've got there bucko
Are you a bot, or just really dumb? That phrase doesn't even apply...
Comeone you are going around all "Hurr durr humans aren't smarter than animals, we are so self-destructive" that's an edgelord position if I've ever seen one
Got it, it was the second option.
You know what I was typing up a whole argument about how the "if you are self-destrucive you are dumb and therefore an animal" logic is flawed but then I remembered I am on the internet and get to do this fun thing instead:
No U
On top of it, you're functionally illiterate, cool.
At no point did I state being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action – go back to school, you clearly need it.
Humans aren’t smarter than animals because we are animals. We’re also not smarter than non-human animals either, as evidenced by our self-destructive behavior.
Great let's dissect this then:
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of "animal" meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform. Yeah yeah go ahead and nitpick about mushrooms and plants if you want to. Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
The first sentence thus becomes a tautology because you moved the goalpost to include humans in the term "animal". I bet you felt clever about that. Just to then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words "non-human animal". Because, turns out, its a useful distinction to make. I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your ignoring of this and use "animal" to refer to "non-human animals".
You claim that humans aren't smarter than animals, which you further claim to be evidenced by the "self-destructivene behaviour" humans display. So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species. I'm now claiming that you putting animals and humans in the same catgegory stems from this false equivalence of intellects, which by your logic is dependent on the actions.
So yes, while you never explicitly said that "being an animal is a consequence of lack of intellect or of an action" your logic and phrasing make it clear that you see animals and humans in the same category, and the reason for that is the, according to you, equivalent level of intellect and actions.
Edit: I am forgetting my nettiquette again, so sorry!
go back to school, you clearly need it
No U
Firstly you are for some reason making the choice to ignore the common meaning of “animal” meaning (very broadly) non-human lifeform.
That's not a common meaning, it's the morons' meaning.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
then go ahead and make that same distinction but with more words “non-human animal”
Are you braindead?
So you are at least saying that the level of intellect is dependent on the behaviour, and thus the actions, of a species.
No. Go back to 1st grade English, your ability to derive meaning from words is simply not there. Everything following this fallacy isn't even worth talking about.
That’s not a common meaning, it’s the morons’ meaning.
Cambridge dictionary has both definitions, the more common one first
something that lives and moves but is not a human, bird, fish, or insect
anything that lives and moves, including people, birds, etc
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/animal
Wikipedia has this to say:
The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, meaning 'having breath', 'having soul' or 'living being'. The biological definition includes all members of the kingdom Animalia. In colloquial usage, the term animal is often used to refer only to nonhuman animals.
So your argument here is basically "But I have big brain because I use the correct word as defined in biological science as opposed to the morons that use language colloquailly on the internet". Good job.
Showing that you see animals and humans in the same category.
As does anyone with a brain.
I mean yeah sure they are in the same category in the sense that both have evolved from the same basis. But humans have evolved further than animals, which is why there is commonly a distinction made between humans and animals without having to say non-human animals.
Examples are:
- animal cruelty
- animal rights
- animal shelter
Obviously none of these relate to humans, because everyone with a brain uses the term animal to mean life that is not human.
Are you braindead?
It sure feels that way when I talk to you, because you are draining my will to live.
behaviour [SIC]
Imagine not knowing that behaviour is a valid spelling of the word everywhere but the place that had to drop the letter U from words to feel special. Time to make a few more rounds in the spelling bee
have evolved further
This sentence alone tells me you don't have an inkling of a proper thought in your smooth marble of a brain. A biologist would punch you for saying that - I'm being nice, here.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning. I won't address this moronic waste of time.
I am again surprised that we apparently are supposed to be talking with rigorous scientific accuracy, here in a thread about terror attacks, between people that are, obviously, not biology scientists.
What I obviously meant was that humans have evolved to have the capacity to do things that no other species can do.
Once again, your argumentation is fallacious and based on fallacious reasoning
Once again, No U
The fact you think basic, school children-level science is "rigorous scientific accuracy" is once again proof that you're brainless.
Meh okay tbh you were more fun when you had more lines than one on repeat.
I guess take your fish >::<'>
Animals kill and eat their young. They roll or eat shit. They rape. You sure that's the argument you want to use here?
That's bad. But why are borders bad?
"animals do it why shouldn't we" is one of the worst reasons to do something. Animals are literally dumber than us.
Interesting how you ignore the reality of constant ethnic clashes and raids inside the borders of many african nations and also across borders e.g. Armenia vs Azerbaijan, Kosovo vs Serbia, Russia vs Ukraine or... Palestine vs Israel.
Wan't that WW1?
Lol at all of the wannabe thirteen year old edgleords on lemmy who are so confident that they understand this extremely complicated and protracted conflict such that they can reduce it to a single generic cause but can't even be bothered to look up which of the two world wars is the correct one to reference for their edgy meme.
Yeah sure. There is absolutely no pattern of former colonizers creating structures that lead to tensions and violence as they leave. Destabilizing entire regions would never be in the interest of receding former global powers or in the interest of current global powers. They all want all the humans in the world to love each other and live in peace and harmony.
Alternate caption: "Zionists smuggling in settlers before the British mandate ended to have enough votes to create a State of Israel as a safe haven for Holocaust refugees, then getting populated mostly by Jews fleeing Arab countries out of fear of retaliation for having created the State of Israel a day early and having pushed most Palestinians out by force"
You realize that most Israelis came from Europe after WW2?
or do you think Liebermann, Herzog, Weitzmann, Goldberg, Weinstein etc. are Arabic names?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelis 33 % are ethnic Europeans as opposed to 12% from asia and 15% from Africa
Ashkenazim have European surnames because Europeans literally forced them unto Jews. Austro-Hungary, Russian Empire - both had policies for giving Jews "local" surnames (for taxation purposes). It's how you get Jews with German surnames in eastern and central Europe (i.e.the ones you have listed), and how you get Jews with Ukrainian and Russian-ish surnames in the appropriate areas (see Abramovich, Litvak)
And they did so in Europe. Which means that people with this family names were Jews coming from Europe to Israel and not from Arabic countries like the comment above claimed.