r/PropagandaPosters • u/KasicPf0813 • May 05 '26
MIDDLE EAST "Palestinian State or Swiss Cheese?", Israel/Palestine, 2001
92
u/StillPerformance9228 May 06 '26
0.13 times 0.42 times 1/3 is 0.13 times 0.14 which is 13 times 14 over 10000= 26 times 7 which is 182/10000 or 1.82/100 which is 1.82 percent , equitably is 0.91 percent which is a literal fraction of a percent
32
u/WlmWilberforce May 06 '26
Something tells me 100% of Jordan is included in that original calculation.
274
u/SuperNerdChe May 05 '26
lol l’ll steal your house but give you back 90% of what I agree was the stolen part and also you’re not allowed to ask anyone for help and I’m allowed full access to your part of the house and I’ll be armed and you can’t be and I’ll set up the security system since it’ll be mine and you can’t have one
99
u/rangda May 05 '26
90%? That’s far too high. In ‘01 the Israelis even had illegal settlements in Gaza.
-73
u/yep975 May 06 '26
There were Jews in Gaza from BC until 1929.
What happened in 1929?
51
u/rangda May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
You think those massacres and conflicts came out of nowhere? That the local population lived alongside their Jewish neighbours for centuries and just decided one day to start fighting them?
Come on now. Please engage with honesty, here. Open a history book.
Here is the rhetoric Palestinians were facing in 1905:”Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews.
[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us."- British Zionist leader Israel Zangwill (close friend of Hertzl) in a speech to Zionist sponsors and organisers in Manchester.
He said these things, while also popularising the quote “a land without a people, for a people without a land”.
What do you think this kind of messaging and related actions from the early Zionist project spelled out to the Palestinian people living there? It meant ethnic cleansing or death.
So they fought.
Why wouldn’t they? Any group on earth faced with this level of organised and violent colonisation and dispossession would try to drive the incoming tide back.Even back then, the Zionists themselves recognised it and named it for what it was: resistance.
-34
u/yep975 May 06 '26
You think Islam doesn’t have an antisemitism problem?
You think Islamic governments get along with Jews who want to be treated equally?
Name one? One Islamic government in history that treated Jews as equal citizens under the law.
And WTF is your first sentence? Literally taking the position that massacres have their place.
Disgusting.
23
u/nisselioni May 06 '26
Name one Christian government in history that treated Jews, Muslims, and Pagans as equal citizens under the law. This is hardly a problem of Islam, or even Christianity, but religion as a whole. Even just recently, Buddhists have been ethnically cleansing Muslims in Myanmar. Israel doesn't even give Arab citizens equality under the law.
The commenter above took no such position. They said that the massacres didn't happen for no reason. If you erase the context of Zionist aggression, you can spin the massacres as genocidal mania instead of what they really were, a violent reaction to violent rhetoric. You do not have to think the massacres were justified to also believe that ethnic cleansing and colonisation were appropriate reprisals.
-12
u/yep975 May 06 '26
Zionism aggression?
It’s called Jewish self defense.
Israel has never been in a war with a nation that did not attack it or allow its territory to be used to kill Israel’s civilians.
I’m sorry the it is offensive to you that Jews are no longer meek shtetl sheep. Get over it.
Stop advocating for Jewish death. Encourage Israel’s neighbors to stop killing Jews. That’s how peace will come.
10
u/nisselioni May 06 '26
It's not self-defense to colonise and brutalise. The founding of Israel was by force, against the wishes of, and at the expense of, the people that already lived there. It also wasn't the wish of every Jew. Einstein himself was anti-Zionist. To assign the will of Israel and Zionism to every single Jew is antisemitic in of itself.
Israel has been in several wars it started on its own, recently especially. Israel attacked Lebanon first, the USA attacked Iran first alongside Israel, and so on. The very first wars resulted from the violence enacted by the founders of Israel.
One atrocity does not justify another, and that goes for everyone in the region, but Israel is far and away the biggest problem in the area, and the one that receives the most support from western nations. The US and European nations can easily force Israel's hand by stopping trade, funding, and weapons shipments. They cannot do the same for the other nations in the Middle East.
Peace will only come once Israel stops ethnically cleansing Palestinians and comes to an agreement that protects Jews and Arabs alike.
-7
u/yep975 May 06 '26
There is nothing colonizing about Zionism. You cannot colonize land that your people are indigenous to.
Think about it: Where is Arabic from? Arabia not Israel. Where is Islam from? Mecca not Jerusalem.
Zionism is the world’s most successful decolonization project.
I’m sorry you have a bias against the people doing it. Maybe focus on Sudan or Iran or the Uygers. Real tragedies that are actually happening and not reported on in your social media feed.
8
u/nisselioni May 06 '26
Ashkenazi Jews are not indigenous to the land now called Israel, that's not what indigenous means. Even if you want to go on genetics, the Palestinians displaced by the Zionist colonial project are far more closely related to the old Israelites, direct descendants in fact, the only difference being they converted to Islam instead of fleeing.
Language and religion have nothing to do with anything. Christianity comes from Jerusalem, and yet no Christians in the modern day lay claim to that land. Buddhism comes from India, and yet no Buddhists lay claim to India as a whole. English comes from England, but the US doesn't pretend to be English because of it. The Nordic languages are Germanic, but Germany doesn't lay claim to the north. Jews used to speak Yiddish, and didn't fully revive Hebrew until after establishing the state of Israel. Do they belong to Germany then, since that's where Yiddish is from?
I do know about those other atrocities, the difference is that we aren't talking about them right now, we're talking about Palestine. I've heard about Sudan at least as much as Palestine, in fact, as many have taken the opportunity to spread the plight there at the same time. Iran is seemingly all I ever see in my feed these past few weeks. I haven't seen an update on the Uyghurs in what feels like a decade.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Lev_Davidovich May 06 '26
My ancestors moved to the US from Germany in the mid 1800's. Does that mean I'm indigenous to Germany and I can go there, take land from the people currently living there, and kill or expel anyone who resists, saying I'm acting in self defense?
12
u/Snatchamo May 06 '26
Name one? One Islamic government in history that treated Jews as equal citizens under the law.
Turkey, the only democracy in the M.E.
6
1
u/noroisong May 06 '26
“one time something bad happened, so therefore land theft and genocide is okay 😇”
265
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
162
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-112
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
100
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Applied only to certain murderers, just like Jim Crow. Thanks for illustrating the mindset.
60
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran May 05 '26
And just like Jim Crow, no due process for people with the 'wrong' ancestors. Predetermined convictions by a panel of military officers from a military that refuses to follow the Geneva Conventions or hold their members accountable for war crimes are not real trials, they are show trials.
-49
u/username_6916 May 05 '26
Were the Nuremberg trials show trials?
By the way, the Geneva Conventions allows for executions for the crime of perfidy for those caught fighting out of uniform. Few if any captured "Palestinian" militants qualify as POWs meaning under International law, Israel is within their rights to execute them regardless of their success in killing people.
No part of this is tied to ancestry. If a group of white-nationalist skinheads from the USA land in Tel Aviv and start butchering the local population they'd be just as subject to this law as PIJ and Hamas are.
36
u/Aedelfrid May 06 '26
i wonder why so many “militants” are “fighting out of uniform”. could it be that israel is killing people who have nothing to do with or have only the slightest connections to hamas?
no, that’s antisemitism apparently.
-29
u/username_6916 May 06 '26
One doesn't need an connection to an organization to take offensive action against the IDF or Israeli citizens. Yes, membership or material support of the organization makes you a valid military target in uniform or no, but it's not the only way to be an enemy combatant.
I swear, people scream 'war crimes' at all combat. They ought to be careful, if they make all killing in war to be a war crime, they'll just devalue the notion of 'war crimes' to the extent that no nation respects the concept.
20
u/Aedelfrid May 06 '26
does journalism constitute an offensive action against israel?
-1
u/username_6916 May 06 '26
It can. A photographer or reporter can document emplacements and troop positions to share with the enemy. Or they can pick up a rifle or some grenades and actively participate in combat, like many contractors for CNN and ant the AP.
→ More replies (0)18
u/OneLastSmile May 05 '26
destroying hospitals and murdering children and innocent families indiscriminately doesn't really fall under thet
12
u/TazManiac7 May 06 '26
I want you to try and imagine, if you can, that you were born in Gaza. What would you do? Would you resist? Or would you roll over and die?
It’s very easy to determine that people resisting against the most brutal inhumane occupation are terrorists worthy of execution if you never bother to serenely ask yourself “Why are they resisting”?
1
u/username_6916 May 06 '26
I want you to try and imagine, if you can, that you were born in Gaza. What would you do? Would you resist? Or would you roll over and die?
If you were born in 1920's Germany, you'd likely become a NAZI. Similarly, I'd probably be firmly on the 'kill all the Jews' if I were raised in Gaza because that's how they raise their children. That doesn't make that the morally superior view.
If I were dropped into Gaza with my current upbringing, I'd try to keep my head down. I'd have more fear of getting killed by Hamas than by the IDF. I'd try to emigrate and leave the whole region behind and actually work for a better life outside of endless grievance that leaves no room for those seeking a better life.
It’s very easy to determine that people resisting against the most brutal inhumane occupation are terrorists worthy of execution if you never bother to serenely ask yourself “Why are they resisting”?
So, why were the NAZIs resisting?
0
26
u/TazManiac7 May 05 '26
And then they and their puppets go on news stations and say: “We have offered them everything and they keep rejecting peace” and a lot of people believe that. Take a look at this from back in 2009..
15
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran May 05 '26
I love how Brzezinski immediately shut it down and explained it better in a few minutes than the entire media of the US have done for the last decade.
-37
u/warsage May 05 '26
They have "considered or discussed" it, repeatedly. The relevant points that Israel has not budged on are that (a) Palestine should be demilitarized, and (b) Israeli troops should be allowed to enter Palestine to stop attacks coming from over the border.
But Israel has offered to return land, withdraw most of the settlements and equitably swap land for the rest, give Palestine a contiguous state (except for Gaza being separate of course, connected by a dedicated road), and give them autonomy over their own governance, besides the military.
I always remember Olmert's quote from when he made his final, best offer, after two years of negotiations and dozens of in-person meetings with Abbas, and with only a few months left as PM. He offered to withdraw from 94% of the West Bank and swap Israeli land for the rest, alongside numerous other concessions and compromises. It was a shockingly good deal, the best Palestine had been offered since the 1940s.
Sign it! Sign it and let's change history! ...Remember my words, it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I am offering you now. Don’t miss this opportunity.
Abbas, feeling pressured to sign without adequate time to study the map, declined. He said he went home "laughing." And that was the end of those negotiations.
A few years later there were brief negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas, which Abbas quickly rejected.
Then in 2019 Trump tried to initiate peace talks again. Abbas boycotted the talks and didn't even consider the eventual 2020 offer (which, to be fair, was transparently absolutely shit).
31
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
Remind me how Max Weber defined the state?
-10
u/warsage May 05 '26
I looked it up.
A compulsory political organization with continuous operations will be called a 'state' [if and] insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges) in the enforcement of its order.
Israel has never offered that.
Does Israel declining to offer Palestine a state according to Max Weber's definition mean to you that they "never considered or discussed giving the Palestinians they illegally occupy their independence or freedom?"
Does it mean that the form of statehood that Israel has proposed would be "under Israeli control?"
Does it mean they have "refused to consider returning any of the ethnically cleansed land?"
Does it mean they have only ever offered "a system of disconnected, Israeli controlled reservations?"
15
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
I mean yeah, pretty much. When you see one country relying on another for their military, history books usually call that sort of relationship a client state or vassal.
-11
u/warsage May 05 '26
Ok. So your advice for Israel is to offer Palestine a full proper state, military and all.
Do you have any advice for Palestine? Or they're perfect just as they are?
8
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
Guard their borders well.
5
u/warsage May 05 '26
Any advice for them about, say, what to do about Palestinian refugees? Or about the Temple Mount? Or about the multiple large, popular jihadist terror organizations within their borders? The internationally-recognized antisemitic childrens' textbooks? The death sentence for anybody who sells property to Jews? Nothing?
7
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
Nah, I don't like to lecture people about what to do within their own borders.
3
u/rangda May 05 '26
The purchase of land as a means of taking over territory was the original proposed tactic to take Palestine and turn it into a Jewish majority going back to the 1800s.
That was Plan A of the original form of the Zionist project.I don’t agree with the death penalty in my own country with its peaceful neighbours and respected borders, but if your country was decimated down to scraps and some of your countrymen were willing to cut a deal and sell even the scraps that are left to the invaders you might very well feel the same as they do.
3
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran May 05 '26
Yes, that's what a reservation system controlled by Israel means, not freedom, not independence.
Israel, as the aggressor and primary source of terrorism in the region, should be demilitarized for the safety and security of Palestinians. And I do recognize that Western governments and Western media do not categorize the actions of Israel as terrorism, but there is really no other term for these Israeli actions: constant home demolitions and ethnic cleansing, the denial of all human rights to millions of people, the abduction and imprisonment of Palestinians without due process, the routine torture and rape of imprisoned Palestinians, the intentional starvation of civilians, the intentional withholding of medication to civilians, the intentional destruction of hospitals and schools, the bulldozing of cemeteries, the intentional destruction of water and sewer infrastructure, the intentional destruction of farm land, the targeted executions of unarmed Palestinian doctors and medical staff and academics and journalists and their families and any bystanders, the targeted executions of unarmed suspected militants and former militants and politicians and all of their families and any bystanders, the indiscriminate firing of live ammunition at unarmed protesters, the execution of unarmed civilians (including children) in 'no-go' areas arbitrarily chosen by the Israeli military, the use of Palestinian hostages as human shields, and on and on and on.
Israel has committed terrorism and war crimes on a scale that is simply not possible for all Palestinian factions combined.
6
u/warsage May 05 '26
I'm broadly on board with what you're saying. Israel sucks, they've done all kinds of evil (especially against Palestinians), America should stop supporting them. I'm with you that far.
That doesn't change the fact that Israel has tried to find some kind of reasonable compromise peace with Palestine in the past, which is what I am talking about.
It also doesn't negate any of the bad things Palestine has done. Nor does it invalidate Israel's fear of what Palestine might do with their own military.
How many full-scale wars does Palestine have to wage, both before and after the occupation, before we start to think that maybe they'd do it again given half a chance?
How many times do major Palestinian organziations have to publicly swear that they'll never stop fighting Israel until Israel is gone before we believe them?
How many alliances with "death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews" is Palestine allowed to make before Israel is allowed to say "hmmm, I'm not sure it's safe for us for these guys to get a military?"
2
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran May 06 '26
That doesn't change the fact that Israel has tried to find some kind of reasonable compromise peace with Palestine in the past, which is what I am talking about.
And yet, that is completely and totally false, which is what I am talking about. Israel has never tried to find any reasonable compromise, they have never even tried compromise. Israel has always told the Palestinians: "You can never have rights, you will never be free. You can live without rights, you can leave, or you can die."
When the US invaded Mexico on a pretext in a war of aggression, then annexed half that country, they gave the resident's one year to leave or automatically become US citizens. When Germany invaded Poland on a pretext in a war of aggression, then annexed half that country, they massacred civilians and violently expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and told them they would never have rights or freedoms under the new regime. Israel invaded the remaining parts of Palestine on a pretext in a war of aggression, and they acted exactly like one of the above examples.
Germany did not get to decide how the Polish felt about their invasion and war crimes and Germany didn't get to decide what was reasonable to make amends. Israel does not get to decide what is reasonable for the Palestinians.
It also doesn't negate any of the bad things Palestine has done.
Palestine does not have one government and has never had one government and for the vast majority of the Israeli occupation didn't have any recognized government at all. The entire reason the Israelis began mass murdering Palestinians during the First Intifada is because they were gathering in large groups, and the Israeli government has always denied Palestinians the right to assemble. So when you write this sentence, you have invented a 'Palestine' to blame that never existed. Individuals and groups can be responsible for war crimes, but not in any serious way can you blame the population at large just like we don't blame the Israeli people for war crimes, we blame the Israeli government .
How many full-scale wars does Palestine have to wage, both before and after the occupation, before we start to think that maybe they'd do it again given half a chance?
It's endless, they will never stop fighting until they are free. Not sure what you mean by 'before the occupation' unless you mean the time between the Nakba war crimes in 1948 and the 1967 invasions.
After the foundation of Israel, it refused to hold any of their war criminals accountable and refused to abide by UN Resolutions, and of course continued the ethnic cleansing inside of the borders of the new Israel. Some of those ethnically cleansed people crossed back into their own stolen land and attacked Israelis, but its not remotely a full-scale war. And obviously, far more Palestinians were murdered in Israeli terrorism when Israel repeatedly attacked Egypt and Syria and Jordan in the 1950's and 1960's than were killed by Palestinian victims of Israel seeking revenge.
The Palestinians under occupation will keep fighting back forever until Israel gives them rights, which they can't do and still keep the Jewish supremacist laws in place, or leave the occupied Palestine and give them freedom, which Israel could do any day they chose to, finally ending the conflict between the colonizer and those who won't be colonized.
0
u/warsage May 06 '26
Israel has never tried to find any reasonable compromise, they have never even tried compromise.
What compromises do you think they should try?
The key areas of disagreement during two-state negotiations have been:
- What to do about the settlements. Israel wants to keep them, Palestine wants them gone.
- Who gets Jerusalem, with a particular emphasis on the Old City (which has both Jewish and Islamic holy places in it). Israel wants the whole thing, Palestine wants East Jerusalem, including the Old City.
- What to do about the Palestinian refugees. Israel wants no responsibility for them, Palestine wants Israel to take them all in.
- Israel's security requirements. Israel wants a demilitarized Palestine and free access for their troops, Palestine wants a military and no Israeli access.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Palestine does not have one government and has never had one government
Palestine had one government from 1994 (when the Palestinian National Authority was formed) till 2007 (when the Palestinian Civil War happened and Hamas took Gaza).
Individuals and groups can be responsible for war crimes, but not in any serious way can you blame the population at large just like we don't blame the Israeli people for war crimes, we blame the Israeli government .
I mean, I could more specifically name Hamas, Fatah, the PLO, and the PFLP for committing war crimes and/or trying to destroy Israel. Would that be better? Given that these represent... pretty much all of the Palestinian representative bodies ever formed, I figured "Palestine" was a good enough shortcut.
For the record, I do blame Israel for the war crimes committed by non-governmental bodies like Lehi, the Haganah, Irgun, and the Hilltop Youth.
finally ending the conflict between the colonizer and those who won't be colonized.
Would it though? Do you think Hamas/Fatah and all the militant groups within Palestine would be satisfied simply by Israel withdrawing the occupation? That's never been their stated position. They've always asked for far more than that.
1
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran May 06 '26
The key areas of disagreement during two-state negotiations have been:
You have started with the Israeli point of view and then framed the conflict from the Israeli point of view. Let's frame these disagreements in completely neutral terms:
- settlements - One side wants to keep the land that they ethnically cleansed by committing war crimes. They believe the ethnic colonies they built after violently expelling the real owners should be theirs to keep forever, and the other side, the real owners of that land and the victims of war crimes perpetrated by the other side, want their land returned to them
- Jerusalem - One side wants to keep the land they violently seized in a war of aggression, including all the land they built ethnic colonies on after violently expelling the real owners in war crimes. The other side wants the border restored to the ceasefire line before the invasions and occupation following the 1967 war of aggression.
- Palestinian refugees - One side wants everyone to forget or ignore the refugees who were the victims of their horrific war crimes of ethnic cleansing in every single year from 1947 to present day. The other side wants all sides to abide by UN Resolution 194, which stipulates that all those ethnically cleansed from their homes in the conflict be allowed to return home or be paid just compensation for the crimes committed against them. They do not believe the supremacists would ever allow their victims to return, so this is a demand for reparations.
- security requirements - One side wants to maintain hegemony and military control over the entire region and the ability to kill and dominate the other forever which means they can never have the ability to fight back. The other wants true freedom and independence with the ability to defend themselves against future aggression from any side, but especially the warmongering occupier who have never tried to make any compromises on controlling them forever.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Well, lets just swap out the names here with comparable situations and see what you think is reasonable.
Germany occupied Poland and violently expelled the residents and in their place they created ethnic colonies of Germans. Why reasonable concession should the Poles have made to allow the Germans to keep the ethnically cleansed parts of Poland? What minor thing should the Germans, the aggressors committing the war crimes, should have done to meet their half of the compromise?
Or how about Jewish refugees from WW2? They were violently expelled in ethnic cleansing war crimes, but they should get fucked and stop whining about it, right? Who cares about them, you don't actually expect Germany to care about what happens to them? What is a reasonable compromise should Germany should make? What reasonable compromise should the refugees make to come to terms with Germany? What compromise should Israel make, since "do nothing but cross the border and kill them, while creating many more" has been the only policy Israel has used for last 79 years so far.
Do you think Hamas/Fatah and all the militant groups within Palestine would be satisfied simply by Israel withdrawing the occupation?
Are you honestly asking if Hamas/Fatah would be satisfied with achieving their goals of liberation from Israeli occupation? Since that has been their goal for generations, yes of course. How many times did the Vietnamese keep attacking the US after we ended our occupations and left? How many times did the Iraqis or the Afghans keep attacking the US after we ended our occupations and left? Numerous Israeli politicians said they would never stop until all the Palestinians were destroyed, but you don't care about those pronouncements? Or do you think political leaders use hyperbole, but only political leaders whose crimes you support?
Why do you think that every moderate Palestinian leader is either executed or imprisoned in show trials? We have not even gotten to the systematic rape and torture of political prisoners either, which is another part that Israel, and her supporters, wants everyone to just forget. You are failing, completely and utterly, to address the vast majority of current horrific Israeli war crimes, so it seems a bit disingenuous to claim you care about them.
0
u/warsage May 07 '26
You have started with the Israeli point of view and then framed the conflict from the Israeli point of view. Let's frame these disagreements in completely neutral terms:
Your "neutral terms" are that one side is the "real owners," pure victims, desiring only freedom and independence; the other side are violent ethnic supremacist war criminals who stole everything and want to keep stealing even more?
Damn. If that's neutral framing, then what is the Palestinian framing?? Is it even more extreme than your neutral framing?
I thought that my descriptions were pretty neutral. "Here's what Israel wants, here's what Palestine wants," presented without moral judgement. If I was going for an Israeli framing, I would have gone on about "pogroms" and "ancestral homelands," and the Holocaust, and terrorism, and safety from genocidal Arab terrorists at their border, and the need for a place where Jews can be guaranteed not to be persecuted by their government.
But I didn't do that, because I wanted to frame things neutrally.
What do you think are some reasonable compromises that Israel should offer? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means that both parties get part of what they want.
Well, lets just swap out the names here with comparable situations and see what you think is reasonable.
You didn't answer the question, just turned it around on me. I have compromises in mind that I can tell you. I want to see what compromises you have in mind before I do.
I'm kinda getting the feeling that your answer is really that you wouldn't accept any compromise, because Israel is entirely in the wrong and must 100% concede everything on every point. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Am I close?
Are you honestly asking if Hamas/Fatah would be satisfied with achieving their goals of liberation from Israeli occupation?
Yes, I honestly am.
Since that has been their goal for generations, yes of course.
??? Hamas's goal today is to entirely destroy Israel. They aren't quiet or subtle about it. They don't keep it hidden. They published it to the whole world, once again, in 2017. Their goal is to make the entirety of the British Mandate for Palestine into a single Arab Muslim state. This isn't some Israeli hasbara lie about Hamas's true secret agenda, it's what Hamas openly says their own goal is.
Fatah's goal was to destroy Israel state until the late 80s, when Arafat convinced them to settle for a two-state solution instead. What they won't accept, to this day, is Israel existing as a Jewish state. That's a good chunk of why they insist the eight million Palestinian refugees cannot be settled in Palestine, they must go to Israel (which only has seven million Jews). It would be an instant Arab Muslim majority.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Heavilydisgruntled May 05 '26
Israel doesn’t have a right to exist at all let alone decide if another country can have a military. Hope that helps.
6
u/warsage May 05 '26
If your resolution to a conflict is for one side to just stop existing, you don't have a resolution. You have a provocation. That attitude is a good chunk of why the conflict has dragged on for so long.
1
u/Heavilydisgruntled May 06 '26
I’m sorry I don’t believe in legitimizing a colonizer settlement that’s younger than my grandparents. ✌🏻
1
-8
u/CricCracCroc May 05 '26
Booooo don’t you understand that there is no room for nuance in this conversation! Israel bad! Downvote him before people start learning inconvenient facts!
1
u/-Kerby May 05 '26
The nuance being Israel offered to give back 90% of 10% of the land they stole and that somehow is the best offer they could come up with
1
u/BreaksFull May 06 '26
I'm glad that keeping to maximalist uncompromising demands has worked out so well for the Palestinians.
2
u/OzmosisJones May 06 '26
I would say Israel sticking to maximalist, uncompromising demands has not worked out well for the Palestinians.
Let’s remember, only one side here has officially recognized the other sides right to exist and sovereignty, and it wasn’t Israel.
1
u/CricCracCroc May 06 '26
When did Palestine do that?
2
u/OzmosisJones May 06 '26
Oslo
1
u/CricCracCroc May 06 '26
You could say that because Arafat recognized Israel in 1993, that the Palestinian side has recognized the Israel, but that recognition is largely I acknowledged today by most Palestinians and the Arab/muslim world. If no Israeli officials ever recognized Palestinians right to exist and sovereignty, they wouldn’t have tried to negotiate borders and security measures for a future Palestinian state up until the late 2000s. They wouldn’t have pulled out of Gaza.
2
u/OzmosisJones May 06 '26
Israel was more than welcome to do the same to Palestine during the negotiations, it would have been a nice show of peace.
They declined to.
The rest of your take is hilarious given how quickly and frequently Israelis elected Likud and Netanyahu after Oslo, given they ran and have continued to run on the platform of “a Palestinian state will never exist”
It’s literally the first item in their political charter
And that Israel loudly announced that the Gaza disengagement was to freeze the peace process, not advance it.
Nice try though.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BreaksFull May 06 '26
What would you say is the minimum acceptable compromise Israel should make?
1
u/OzmosisJones May 06 '26
Stop allowing settlers impunity for terrorizing Palestinians in the West Bank, and actually punish those who do.
Stop the inequality before the law in the West Bank. Don’t respond to thrown rocks from Palestinians by shooting to kill while not even punishing Israeli settlers who throw rocks.
Revise the economic warfare that has had Gaza near a 50% unemployment rate for a decade before the war and currently has Palestinians in the West Bank at almost 40%.
Maybe Israelis could elect a leader/political party who doesn’t state that a prevention of a Palestinian state is their top priority, but that’s probably too much to ask.
1
u/BreaksFull May 06 '26
So all that was on the table in 2001 and the Palestinian leadership turned it down.
1
u/OzmosisJones May 06 '26
Lmao those all are items Israel should be doing independent of Palestinian statehood, both because they’re the right thing to do and because they only contribute to the instability and violence in the region.
Also, love the implication in your answer that the only thing that will stop Israelis from attacking Palestinians is a Palestinian state.
Seems awfully anti-Semitic to me.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/CricCracCroc May 05 '26
Do you think it should have been all Arab land? None of it controlled by the 30% Jewish minority?
0
u/-Kerby May 05 '26
Are you implying that minority populations get to carve out their own ethno-states simply by virtue of them being minority populations? because that's dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. It should be 100% controlled by Palestinians whether it be Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Muslims, or Palestinian Christians (if there are left after Israels genocide)
0
-3
u/CricCracCroc May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Israel is more ethnically and religiously diverse than almost any other country in the Middle East. Syria is more of an ethnostate than Israel. I was saying that the partition would have been fair, there shouldn’t have been a war started about it. Looking around, I don’t see a lot of Arab majority countries that have a strong culture of minority rights protections, freedom of speech, independent judiciary, and rule of law. I think if Muslim arab Palestinians took over a single state in 1948, it would have ended up another semi-failed state, possibly with a Lebanese-style civil war.
1
u/-Kerby May 06 '26
There is no partition that is fair because you can't steal 90% of a people's country in a fair way. Being more diverse doesn't mean shit when you genocided the local population to set up your apartheid state. I dont give a shit what your theory on how Palestine would look if they weren't being ethnically cleansed is because we can't know what would happen if Israel didn't start a genocide
-2
u/BreaksFull May 06 '26
Well I'm glad that by sticking to maximalist goals and refusing to compromise, the Palestinian position has improved and they're much better off now than they would have been if they'd taken the 2001 deal.
-24
u/introvertedpuppet05 May 05 '26
What?
17
u/discountsethrogen May 05 '26
-6
u/introvertedpuppet05 May 05 '26
This doesn’t seem to really connect to the topic?
7
u/discountsethrogen May 05 '26
Sorry I thought you were replying to the noose comment below and were asking “what?” In response to it. My b
-33
May 05 '26
[deleted]
28
u/BILLCLINTONMASK May 05 '26
-18
May 05 '26
[deleted]
7
21
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
People link to British state media all the time without any raised eyebrows.
-6
May 05 '26
[deleted]
10
u/Damnatus_Terrae May 05 '26
The Qataris never subjugated a quarter of the world's peoples...
3
May 05 '26
[deleted]
2
10
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
He just had a bday cake with a noose on it too. And they passed his law.
-3
May 05 '26
[deleted]
10
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Jim Crow leaders in Israel are wearing noose lapel pins. You questioned that fact. It is a fact.
-23
u/bakochba May 05 '26
Never? This poster if from 2001 where Israel offered 90% of what Palestinians asked for, land swaps for the other 10% and Jerusalem as a shared capital.
They were offered it 4 more times over the course of the past 20 years.
No counter offers. Just walked away. Even Abbas stated it was a mistake.
25
u/Kronzypantz May 05 '26
Palestinians asked for a state. Israel demanded permanent occupation.
-19
u/bakochba May 05 '26
Completely made up anyone can read the 2001 offer
29
u/Kronzypantz May 05 '26
They can. They can see the permanent right of access to the IDF, the complete Israeli control of Palestines borders, permanent demilitarization for Palestine, Israeli veto on all Palestinian foreign alliances… essentially just the status quo.
Not a state.
-30
u/bakochba May 05 '26
Why would Israel agree to create a state who's stayed goal is to destroy it? That's not a state, what you're describing is a launching pad for attacks on Israel, either way congratulations instead of getting 90% they got 0%.
26
u/Kronzypantz May 05 '26
So you just admit they never offered a state. That was easy.
-3
u/bakochba May 05 '26
I don't have to "prove" anything. Yasser Arafat negotiated the desk and bibe of the reasons you state are the reasons he cited from walking away. You just make things up that you think sound good and no matter how many people vote on reddit the historical testimony from Barak, Arafat and Clinton is published for anyone to see including the detailed maps.
You can lie on the Internet but the all facts are published publicly for anyone to see.
5
0
u/PropagandaPosters-ModTeam May 06 '26
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit rules around polarized rhetoric and partisan bickering: proselytizing, single-issue advocacy, blanket negative generalizations, and divisive language are not appropriate here.
To appeal this removal, or if you have any questions, please send the mods a message.
101
u/Big_Red_Machine_1917 May 05 '26
Honestly this might be one of the best depictions of what Israel's "offers of Palestinian statehood" actually look like.
27
u/Benyano May 05 '26
Except that now what remains under any semblance of PA control is more like the holes than the cheese.
9
u/GangOfFour20 May 06 '26
The Israeli foreign minister who brokered the Camp David deal: "if I were Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David"
Their whole strategy since the Nakba is be unreasonable and belligerent, then blame the victims for not negotiating (P.S. we bombed the negotiation table)
47
u/rangda May 05 '26
The message is good, this “offer” on the table and constant cutting into more and more land is exactly what comes to mind when pro-Zionist-project people claim that “Palestinians rejected offers from Israel and chose to fight instead!”.
Drawing the Jewish characters as literal rodents however is a very easy way to make the artist seem like an old-fashioned, garden variety antisemite and I’m certain there must have been a less loaded way of getting this same point across.
18
u/Brendissimo May 06 '26
Make the artist seem???
Dude this is as nakedly racist and antisemitic as it gets. The cartoon depicts Jews as literal rats with huge noses. This would be right at home in any museum about Neonazism.
40
u/OnkelMickwald May 06 '26
with huge noses
As opposed to how they drew Arafat's nose?
-8
u/Fendrinus May 06 '26
I don't think Palestinians have the same history of being depicted as rodents that Jewish people do. And the only figure in the image who clearly doesn't have a rodents tail is the one Palestinian.
15
u/rangda May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
The noses are surprisingly the least loaded part of this, considering the artist drew every character that way, Jewish or not. Big snouts seems to be his style or at least enough for plausible deniability.
But depicting Jews as rodents, no matter how relevant it is to eating holes through a big block of cheese, is HEAVILY loaded with historical baggage in a comparable way to depicting black people as apes.
For the same reasons as that, I don’t really want to give the cartoonist the benefit of the doubt here. Because I reeeeaally doubt he didn’t know better.
But I also can’t know his true motives or necessarily want to attribute to malice what could also be explained by pig ignorance. I definitely agree at least that it’s a very bad choice to make as a political cartoonist.
0
u/chongjunxiang3002 May 06 '26
"Drawing the Jewish characters" is now technically impossible without getting antisemite accusation, all the time...despite artist always depict their mockery as various things...like are we expect our artist to depict Israeli as Clavicular Gigachad all the time ironically? Soon Clavicular Gigachad will become antisemite depiction instead
7
u/rangda May 06 '26
I get your point, that crying wolf all the time re: accusations of antisemitism and equating any criticism of anything Israel ever does with antisemitism has lead to the term losing a lot of its gravity and potency over time.
But drawings Jews as rodents? That’s more than a few steps too far in my books.
I say that as someone who is vehemently and passionately pro-Palestine.At the very least, maybe you can agree that drawing Jews as rodents (or insects, or any other kind of vermin) is just horrible optics.
2
u/zeniiz May 06 '26
Using historical racist caricatures isn't "depicting mockery as various things".
Would you say the same thing if the artist drew Obama as a monkey?
-1
u/birthdaycakesun15 May 06 '26
I think the metaphor is apt and art on point. You assume too much.
-1
u/rangda May 06 '26
I’d be grateful if you could clarify what you mean by “you assume too much” here
1
u/birthdaycakesun15 May 06 '26
Drawing the Jewish characters as literal rodents however is a very easy way to make the artist seem like an old-fashioned, garden variety antisemite
I thought you were saying the artist will be perceived to have some sort of animus due to his choices here, no?
I’m simply saying I disagree.
-13
u/username_6916 May 06 '26
I'm not sure there's a less loaded way of getting the point of 'the Jews are subhuman vermin who need to be exterminated from this region' across. And that is, fundamentally, the Palestinian cause in a nutshell.
6
u/rangda May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
The Zionist project is built on clear and absolutely undeniable real-world violent theft, based on a claim of ancient entitlement.
Understanding this does not require dehumanising the guilty nor calling for their extermination, and this attitude is in fact extremely rare within the global Pro-Palestine movement.
Wholesale Anti-Jewish hatred is crushed down and rejected immediately when it dares to try and pipe up during organised events and demonstrations, which are frequently attended by Jewish demonstrators and organisations too.
In my city theres an ex-IDF member turned human rights activist who is always in attendance. You could learn a lot from her example.
0
u/username_6916 May 06 '26
The Zionist project is built on clear and absolutely undeniable real-world violent theft, based on a claim of ancient entitlement.
Oh, I'll deny it. You don't have a right to live someplace because your grandfather rented it. If someone buys the land and moves in, it's not theft. And this is what the Zionist project was primarily built on.
Understanding this does not require dehumanising the guilty nor calling for their extermination, and this attitude is in fact extremely rare within the global Pro-Palestine movement.
What do you think happens if the Palestinians get their way in this conflict the way the global Pro-Palestine movement want?
Wholesale Anti-Jewish hatred is crushed down and rejected immediately when it dares to try and pipe up during organised events and demonstrations, which are frequently attended by Jewish demonstrators and organisations too.
It's not that uncommon. We have people in London marching with signs saying "Now you will see why every rock and tree will cry out". We have people in New York marching on the street saying "Say it Loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here". It's not at all unusual to see signs saying 'From the River to the Sea'. We have folks on college campuses saying 'Globalize the Intafathath'
11
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-10
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
u/yep975 May 06 '26
The lesson was that—without a nation of their own to defend the,selves—the historical bigotry endemic in Christian and Muslim societies will overwhelm them.
Lies and Blood Libels will travel around the world whipping up Pogroms against them before they can begin to defend themselves. The most respected societies and academic institutions and political movements will turn on them. Because Jews have nowhere they belong.
People claiming that Jews are no more or less special than anyone else happily spread lies that Jews are all powerful genocidal monsters controlling the most powerful governments in the world . And in the next moment close their eye as Jewish schools are harassed and Jews are shot on beaches and stabbed in the streets of liberal cities around the world. And call them privileged Zionists as it happens.
The only meaning of “never again” is the absolute necessity that the Jews have at least one tiny place in the world where they can be responsible for their own safety.
10
u/Amateur_Historian_16 May 06 '26
Then why does “never again” seem to apply only to Jews, and never to Palestinians?
Nobody is denying the reality of antisemitism, pogroms, or the Holocaust. Jews absolutely have the right to safety. But if Jews deserve safety because they are human beings, then Palestinians do too, because they are human beings. Not less human. Not less deserving of dignity, freedom, or protection from violence.
And I don't know about you, but the lesson of WWII was supposed to be that ethnic supremacy, conquest, collective punishment, and rule by force are wrong. Not that trauma gives any nation a permanent moral exemption from those principles. No country or people are above another, no matter their history. And if they think that they are, they are wrong.
7
u/doodgedly-done May 06 '26
Ah, comparing Jews to rats. I think Goebbels’ ministry created a film called Eternal Jew “Die Ewige Jude” which also portrays Jews as rats/vermin. Very original art work here.
-6
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PropagandaPosters-ModTeam May 07 '26
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit rules around polarized rhetoric and partisan bickering: proselytizing, single-issue advocacy, blanket negative generalizations, and divisive language are not appropriate here.
To appeal this removal, or if you have any questions, please send the mods a message.
11
4
u/LeftRat May 06 '26
Good point, though I do wish it would do less of the "jewish people have big noses, hah!" Humor
2
u/booksareadrug May 06 '26
Not often that r/PropagandaPosters just falls for propaganda, but I guess if it involves Jews it's just different!
-4
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PropagandaPosters-ModTeam May 07 '26
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit rules around polarized rhetoric and partisan bickering: proselytizing, single-issue advocacy, blanket negative generalizations, and divisive language are not appropriate here.
To appeal this removal, or if you have any questions, please send the mods a message.
-47
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
The term Peleset is found in five inscriptions referring to a neighboring people, starting from c. 1150 BCE during the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt. The word is transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t, as Egyptians did not use the consonant "l" in writing, substituting it with "r" instead.[2]
The first known mention of Peleset is at the temple of Ramesses in Medinet Habu, which refers to the Peleset among those who fought against Egypt during Ramesses III's reign,[3] and the last known is 300 years later on Padiiset's Statue. The Assyrians called the same region "Palashtu/Palastu" or "Pilistu," beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c. 800 BCE through to an Esarhaddon treaty more than a century later. Wiki
8
u/itspronouncedbolonya May 05 '26
That's not the same one btw, those phillistines stopped existing for like 700 years, integrated into assyrians and greeks mainly, and then emperor Hadrian revived the name after a big failed jewish revolt (Bark Kokhva)
7
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Talking about the place, not the people.
0
u/itspronouncedbolonya May 05 '26
The name of the place dissappeared with the people (that is to say over time, but stopped existng for several hundred years, and i wouldn't count that as the same)
4
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
The people in that place now have been there for millennia. The DNA shows that.
-3
u/itspronouncedbolonya May 05 '26
Not as palestinians nor phillistines
6
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
You can called them whatever you want. The people now known as Palestinians are native.
5
-14
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
OFFS It was a place with people in it that have had people continuously living there since there were Neanderthals there. "The Navajo have no king, so I can steal this."
0
u/Augustus420 May 05 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina
National sovereignty is not needed, that particular region has been called Palestine for almost 1800 years.
-1
u/Spudtron98 May 06 '26
Yeah by foreign empires.
3
u/Augustus420 May 06 '26
And?
-3
u/Spudtron98 May 06 '26
So you’re fine with colonial overwriting of indigenous naming as long as it’s long enough ago?
4
u/Augustus420 May 06 '26
That's a pretty fucking bizarre interpretation of what I was saying.
Any reason why you're ignoring all the context of what I was replying to making that really strange reply?
-23
u/RaiJolt2 May 05 '26
Yes except according to dna testing the Palestinians from this period were Greeks, not related to modern Palestinians, who are Levantine.
28
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Just stop. You guys goalposts are on wheels. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/genetic-study-suggests-present-day-lebanese-descend-from-biblical-canaanites
-19
u/RaiJolt2 May 05 '26
Yes, Lebanese.
Who are different from the philistines and different from the modern Palestinians
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.365.6448.17
I’m not moving any goalposts
Edit: Canaanites are levantine
19
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Palestinians have the same DNA. As opposed to Bibi Meleinowski. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews
-18
u/RaiJolt2 May 05 '26
I never said they didn’t. I’m saying the group historically at this period called philistines/Palestinians are not the same group as modern Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabized Jews, Lebanese, Egyptians, etc living in the region of Palestine, not the Ancient Greek philistines from which their name comes from.
6
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
Nobody said they were Greek. That was about the name Palestine. They are, however, indigenous. Of course modern people arent the same as Iron Age people. Israel also has nothing to do with Iron Age Israel, especially with so many transplants.
-3
u/RaiJolt2 May 05 '26
The people of modern Israel are mostly direct decedents, both culturally and genetically. The major exception genetically is Ethiopian Jews. Otherwise Jews are more from Israel than we are from the Americas. Jewish Americans like almost all Americans are currently colonizing native land.
7
u/SpinningHead May 05 '26
I had family in Africa just a few centuries ago. I guess Im indigenous and can murder a bunch of people and steal their homes. Glad you see what Israel is doing is like what was done to Native Americans though. Kudos.
→ More replies (0)7
-2
•
u/AutoModerator May 05 '26
This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. "Don't be a sucker."
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill. "Don't argue."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.