Irrelevant. The Palestinian people were always there in the area called Palestine. The area called Palestine has been there since ancient times. That's a fact.
The West Bank was literally part of Jordan until Israel captured it. And they didn’t renounce the territory until the late 80s.
There has never been a Palestinian state. That doesn’t mean there can’t be one in the future. But it’s never existed. They rejected it in ‘48 because they rejected the idea of Israel.
Gaza further rejected the idea in ‘05/‘06 when they elected Hamas and Hamas violently evicted fatah.
Israel also rejected the idea when a hard liner assassinated Rabin in 95 for getting to close to deal and in the ensuing elections chose hard liners , essentially rewarding the assassin, that was the last time we were close to a solution.
Yeah exactly. You can say that in hindsight the Palestinians should've accepted it given what we know now but at the time the Palestinian Arabs saw the Israelis the way Arab Algerians saw French Algerians.
Of course the fact that Palestinians and some of their supporters view Israelis in 2025 as being little different from French Algerians in 1950 is a big obstacle to peace. Israelis aren't going to pack up and leave like Rhodesians or French Algerians did.
My amateur reading is that on one end you had Zionists whose main priority was getting any state at all and were more than willing to accept a Palestinian one as a concession towards that end but understood the underlying tensions between the two competing nationalisms meant that should hostilities break out there would be expulsion as a kind of necessary evil.
On the other hand you had Zionists who would never be happy without all the land, including some claimed by other Arab states, and felt that expelling the Arabs is a legitimate means of acquiring it. Remember at this time "population transfers" were seen as legitimate even by the liberal West and was implemented in places like Germany. But despite their desire to take more land these Zionists likely understood that expulsion needed a pretense and that you may not have the necessary pretenses to acquire all the land you want which means settling for what you can get your hands on.
In sum all the Zionists were okay with expulsion of Palestinians(which again was also true of the liberal West at this time) but that some saw it as a necessary evil to create the minimum conditions necessary for the creation of Israel while others saw it as a legitimate means of expanding Israel at the expense of her neighbors with either side being aware that they may have to make concessions on their vision for the country.
Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, in an interview said “The government is racing ahead for Gaza to be wiped out. Thank God, we are wiping out this evil. All Gaza will be Jewish.”
He urged finding “ways more painful than death” for Gazans to break their morale,"
"They can go to Ireland or deserts; the monsters in Gaza should find a solution by themselves.” He also opposed humanitarian aid, claiming, “There is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza.”
He also claimed dropping a nuke on Gaza was an option and said that aid should not be given at all to civilians in Gaza.
I mean, maybe we shouldn't take them on their words but they seem to match up with what they've been doing. Let's not take the Israeli word for it though, let's look at what world experts have said:
B’Tselem (July 2025): Israel’s mass killings, infrastructure destruction, displacement of nearly two million, and starvation policies aim to destroy Palestinian society, constituting genocide.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (July 2025): Deliberate attacks on Gaza’s healthcare system, including medical facilities and personnel, indicate genocidal acts under the UN Genocide Convention.
Amnesty International (December 2024): Israel commits genocide through killings, severe harm, and unlivable conditions, violating three acts of the UN Genocide Convention.
Human Rights Watch (December 2024): Deliberate water deprivation and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza constitute acts of genocide and extermination.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)/Doctors Without Borders (December 2024, July 2025): Attacks on healthcare, forced displacement, and unlivable conditions for displaced Palestinians align with genocide.
UN Experts (November 2023): Warned of a “genocide in the making” due to mass civilian casualties, starvation policies, and dehumanizing rhetoric by Israeli officials.
UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (March 2024): Found “reasonable grounds” for genocide, citing the scale of destruction and intent inferred from official statements.
UN Experts (May 2025): Cited over 52,535 deaths (70% women and children) and a blockade trapping 2.1 million as evidence of an “unfolding genocide.”
University Network for Human Rights (May 2024): Concluded Israel’s actions, with 34,568+ deaths and 77,765 injuries, violate the Genocide Convention, showing intent to destroy Palestinians.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) (January 2024): Ruled South Africa’s genocide claim against Israel “plausible,” ordering prevention of genocidal acts and improved aid access due to Gaza’s catastrophic conditions.
South Africa (December 2023): Filed an ICJ case alleging genocide, citing Israel’s mass killings, food blockades, and destruction of healthcare and infrastructure.
UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices (November 2024): Stated Israel’s warfare, including mass casualties and intentional starvation via aid blockades, aligns with genocide characteristics.
Raz Segal, Israeli Historian and Genocide Scholar (2023): Called Israel’s actions a “textbook case of genocide,” citing widespread destruction and dehumanizing rhetoric from officials.
Omer Bartov, Israeli Holocaust Historian (2023-2025): Described Israel’s operation as genocide, not a war, due to official statements indicating intent to destroy Palestinians and extensive civilian harm.
Forensic Architecture (October 2024): Concluded Israel’s campaign is “organised, systematic, and intended to destroy conditions of life and infrastructure,” supporting genocide claims.
Al-Haq, Al Mezan, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (November 2023): Accused Israel of genocide via airstrikes, siege tactics, and forced displacement, urging ICC investigation.
European Center for Constitutional and
Human Rights (December 2024): Supported genocide allegations, pointing to attacks on civilian infrastructure and denial of necessities.
Ilan Pappé, Israeli Historian (2006-2024): Argued Israel’s actions in Gaza across multiple conflicts, including 2023-2025, constitute genocide, distinct from the Nakba
Re the concentration camp claim, I already said that was over egging the pudding a little but that the correlations are clear. It's blockade, restricted movement, mass displacement, and dire conditions indicate it's not far from the truth, supported by human rights reports and statements like Eliyahu’s.
May I ask what affiliation you have to the country of Israel?
Yeah, I'm not buying anything from the UN - especially Albanese - or misguided South Africans who believe they see some type of parallel with their own apartheid.
Eliyahu is a right-wing whackjob that has no effect on Israeli war policy and never has. He's an Israeli version of MTG.
A death rate of 3% is a pretty shit statistic for screaming about genocide - the number is actually lower if you take Hamas' 60,000 and Israel's contention that of those, 20,000 were Hamas fighters (both numbers seem widely accepted). That leaves a civilian death rate of 1.9%. The civilian death rate was around 3% in Germany for WWII.
You're not looking at a genocide - even if the Israelis only saw red after October 7th - they've since evened out and conducted themselves more or less in-line with international standards. More or less, because I'm sure war crimes have been committed by Israeli individual soldiers and units. This is ever thus and ever will be.
We do realize that this Palestinian state was actually under the control of the British mandate. Golda Meir once stated that she was Palestinian...that's what her passport said before 1948.
We do realize that this Palestinian state was actually under the control of the British mandate. Golda Meir once stated that she was Palestinian...that's what her passport said before 1948.
This is a funny piece of propaganda because most people who post it can’t read the “Alef - Yud” acronym also written on the coin which stands for “Eretz Yisrael” aka “The Land of Israel”.
This is a funny piece of propaganda because most people who post it can’t read the “Alef - Yud” acronym also written on the coin which stands for “Eretz Yisrael” aka “The Land of Israel”.
If a deal isn't made when Hamas accepts to release all hostage, it's 100% on Israel. Shills stop saying "release all hostages and it stops" if Israel doesn't accept a truce deal that includes releasing all hostages.
We do realize that this Palestinian state was actually under the control of the British mandate. Golda Meir once stated that she was Palestinian...that's what her passport said before 1948.
Palestine was also under the control of the Ottoman Empire before that. That makes zero difference. Palestine existed as a territory with Palestinians living in it since the Babylonians.
All you Israel shills keep trying to make some lame ass argument "But but they weren't an official state!!" So what? That doesn't give the right for people to come in and ethnically cleanse them from the area.
This is a funny piece of propaganda because most people who post it can’t read the “Alef - Yud” acronym also written on the coin which stands for “Eretz Yisrael” aka “The Land of Israel”.
It is true that the Palestinian identity is quite modern, only emerging recently. Not quite as recent as the Zionists here are claiming but the earliest signs of Palestinian nationalism would've dated back to the early 1920s so only about 100 years old at the oldest. Maybe you could push the timeline up to the late 1940s or 1960s.
Of course the Israeli identity is similarly modern and recently constructed as well. It's the case with most modern forms of nationalism despite the claims of their adherents that they're actually ancient and immutable but it's especially true of these two.
When someone emphasizes that fact for one side and not the other that's when you know you have a partisan on your hands.
If a deal isn't made when Hamas accepts to release all hostage, it's 100% on Israel. Shills stop saying "release all hostages and it stops" if Israel doesn't accept a truce deal that includes releasing all hostages.
Okay but that doesn't change anything I said. Just because the name exists well into the past doesn't mean that there's an unbroken line between Palestinian nationalism as we understand it today and those past societies. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon that might latch onto premodern symbols and identities but is not itself premodern.
Okay but that doesn't change anything I said. Just because the name exists well into the past doesn't mean that there's an unbroken line between Palestinian nationalism as we understand it today and those past societies. Nationalism is a modern phenomenon that might latch onto premodern symbols and identities but is not itself premodern.
If any people live in an area for hundreds to thousands of years, they will have a connection to the land. Like the Native Americans. They had "nationalism" to their tribe and territory.
Just because foreign powers don't codify a territory as a "nation" doesn't mean the people don't have nationalism. It's all semantics - and an irrelevant one at that.
If any people live in an area for hundreds to thousands of years, they will have a connection to the land. Like the Native Americans. They had "nationalism" to their tribe and territory.
Just because foreign powers don't codify a territory as a "nation" doesn't mean the people don't have nationalism. It's all semantics - and an irrelevant one at that.
They will have a connection to the land but that doesn't mean they would develop nationalism.
Most premodern peoples had identities rooted in their immediate local context so they likely would've identified themselves first and foremost with their city. So a person from Nablus would think of themselves as Nabulsi and someone from Jerusalem would think of themselves as a Qudsi before either thought of themselves as Palestinian.
In fact if they did identify with a larger regional identity they would've thought of themselves as Syrian.
This isn't to vindicate Zionist arguments made ITT about how Palestinians are just Jordanians and Syrians or that the idea that because Palestinian nationalism emerged recently somehow that undermines it relative to Israeli nationalism. It's just to make the straightforward observation that nationalism is a modern phenomenon that latches into premodern symbols and precursor identities to justify itself. That is true of both sides here.
If Iran lobbed a missile at any of these military targets, it will inevitably kill many civilians.
Israel is also literally using "human shields." Why the hell is Israel putting military targets right in the middle of the city? They have plenty of desert in the country.
Doesn't change the difference between an HQ being a visibly marked structure, easily identifyable target and free of civilians, doctors and children being different than setting up within a school or hospital to hide and forcing women and children to flock amidst them. The comparison is ridiculous.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
