this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024

228 points (70.4% liked)

Memes

45264 readers

3221 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

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

228

Israel’s imminent fate (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 96 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Maybe creating an ethno-state wasn't the best way to prevent genocide after all?

[+] Beaver@lemmy.ca -42 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Genocide justifying Zionism

Lemmy.ca

About what I expected.

[+] Beaver@lemmy.ca -8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The genocide needs to stop. Support BDS and No Thanks.

I’m just talking about history context.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The historical context is Western settler-colonialism.

[+] toastboy79@kbin.earth -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's a fair take, put yourself in that timeframe. WW2 just ended, you're one of the world leaders and you learned all about the "final solution".

what do you do? how do you prevent another genocide of the Jews?

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Give them sanctuary with protected status in your own country rather than driving other people out of some other country.

[+] toastboy79@kbin.earth -6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Bit of an idealistic answer but I like it.

Points for consideration, there were a handful of ships full of Jews during WW2 seeking asylum. It's widely believed that world leaders knew of or suspected that the Holocaust was murdering Jews around the time those boats were rejected for asylum.

Additionally, even after people knew the details of the Holocaust people still didn't really like Jews.

how would you account for those points?

also thank you for engaging with me on this. I'm genuinely enjoying our conversation!

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Everything you're saying really just supports the fact that the nations of the time were handling the situation in a wildly immoral way, and the creation of Israel as an ethnostate was part and parcel of that immorality, and remains highly consequential to this date.

There's no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time, because one person can't unilaterally force a nation to do anything without being a dictator, and people don't become dictators without doing horrible things.

What matters is recognizing that the Israel of today came to exist out of two factors:

Wealthy and influential Zionists wanted to claim Palestinian land by any means possible to further enrich themselves.
Other nations wanted somewhere to send as many Jewish people as possible because they were antisemitic and didn't like refugees.

Now we're stuck dealing with the consequences of our idiot racist ancestors. Let's just try our best to not be overtly idiotic or racist ourselves (racist, for example, by turning a blind eye to the genocide happening to Palestinians, as if they're not even human beings, or idiotic by thinking that there's any justification for Israel's insanely disproportionate use of force).

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you specifically of being racist or idiotic, I'm just describing my general position on things.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago

There’s no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time

[–] toastboy79@kbin.earth 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It won't solve the problems of today but sometimes it can be interesting to see what people of today think for problems and crisises of yesterday. I was in model UN and that was a fairly frequent conference idea.

I also enjoy talking to people because it's easy for us to say "that's a colonialist action" and even though it's true the question becomes (for me) 'alright how could we have done better' and discussing that thought experiment

and I appreciate the call-out, I definitely didn't assume you were calling me one.

Maybe for a better question we ask "what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman." While they were singular people they did give the diplomats their marching orders when it came to the peace resolutions.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman."

These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.

[–] toastboy79@kbin.earth 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mmm that's a pretty fair point. Even back then being the President that ended a war only got you so much political good will in the States. Not sure how it worked for Churchill.

I kinda wonder what if any good solutions there were for this. Doing the moral thing but losing your job doing it and potentially seeing the work you did undone by your successor would suck hella bad.

Well thank you for indulging my questions this has been really fun chatting with you!

[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Churchill lost re-election because he made a really tone-deaf radio address on Labour's plans for socialized medicine, national insurance, and nationalisation of utilities and critical industries (all of which the overwhelming majority of the country wanted), basically calling them communism, said it would require a "gestapo" to implement, and he wouldn't stand for it.

Clement Atlee more or less thanked him for that speech the next day, and assumed the Prime Minister role after the Tories were absolutely trounced in the 1945 election.

Atlee lasted 6 years. Labour ran the show with a huge majority for a full five year term, then got an unworkably small majority of 5 seats in 1950. Snap election was called in 1951, and Conservatives retook the majority, despite Labour getting 48.8% of the vote, and Conservatives only getting 48.0%.

...Funny how that keeps happening.

Churchill resumed the role of Prime Minister until he retired in 1955.

[–] Omniraptor@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Why did they still lose, was it like a gerrymandering thing?

[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

It wasn't (maybe still isn't?) a strictly proportional representation system, so the urban areas get slightly fewer members per vote. More equal than the Electoral College, but still imbalanced in favor of the rural areas where wealthy people have huge estates that have been handed down for generations.

[–] toastboy79@kbin.earth 1 points 3 months ago

Nifty!

Thank you for the history lesson I actually had no idea that's how that all went down.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Zionism did not start with WW2. Nor the migration of jews to Mandatory Palestine.

[–] toastboy79@kbin.earth 4 points 3 months ago

I'm aware of this fact. thanks.

[–] moshtradamus666@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Sometimes I wish there really was a higher power watching over this kind of thing, but I don't think anything like that exists. Probably all those evil people will die old and peacefully. It's not fair.

[–] Midnight1938@reddthat.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is said the older you are the more you suffer. But these rich phoques just get themselves nurses

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A rich phoque

[–] Midnight1938@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

As I intended

[–] DarkenLM@kbin.earth 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"I am atheist, but I'm tempted to convert just so I have a hell to send you to after you die."

[–] Midnight1938@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

You could just set them on fire

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I mean, look at all the old, evil shits destroying the world right now. That's proof enough that there is no higher power concerned with justice

[–] praise_idleness@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

Spectre of communism has led a lot of innocent soul as well. Very fitting.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

they've got almost every single monied interest behind them; the last times that the stars lined up like that for anything we got this and another country that have lasted the last few centuries.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Spectre of communism killing Israelis and damning them to hell

Oh shit, a bona fide and certified .ml moment!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can advocate for dismantling the Israeli ethnostate without advocating for genocide of Israelis! Fun fact

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can even do those things without raising the spectre of communism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Sure, but you can also do those things and advocate for Communism.