985
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
985 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
2981 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So your issue is that Israel couldn't negotiate better or at all?
And I have Palestinian friends that have lost tens of family members.
What's there to negotiate, one side won't give up hostages without a ceasefire that will greatly strengthen them.
Then why do you seem to support Hamas? Hamas is a cancer to Palestine.
Get rid of Hamas and Nethenyu, then maybe the sides can actually go about negotiating peace.
But here on Lemmy so many of you just scream only Israel bad, Hamas are "good freedom fighters" despite Hamas literally stating they want Israel to kill Palestinians. It's fucking exhausting the shit you people spout.
So no ceasefire till every Palestinian is dead? IOF has a 99% civilian casualty ratio, to take out Hamas fully the civilian death toll would be massive.
A cancer is something that spreads and kills the host. Oh I've just described isaerl, funny that.
Resistance to oppression is always justified. You can critically support groups like Hamas because they are the only ones fighting the oppressor. If the UN was actually stopping Israel I wouldn't need to vocally support the next best thing.
Hamas has come out and said they use tactics that put civilians in the line of fire intentionally. So no, I cannot support the disgusting terrorist group Hamas.
And it's fucking appalling that you can.
My friend, the IOF policy to drop bombs and white phosphorus over densely populated areas (a war crime btw) puts civilians in the line of fire intentionally.
Never mind their policy to shoot any IOF soldiers and settlers who are being taken hostage.
And if Hamas would stop firing rockets from populated areas those areas wouldn't be bombed. 9,500 rockets fired at Israel since Oct. 7th, there's a reason Israel is attacking back.
How many dead? Oh yeah its almost like the billions poured into Israel by the US gives them an unfair advantage and allows them to be the oppressor.
Israel has bombed Gaza with the equivalent of two Hiroshima nukes. 9000 rockets is nothing.
The Hiroshima nuke killed over 100,000 people, Israel has killed 11,000. So nope, they have not bombed Gaza with the power of two Hiroshima nukes.
And because they have an advantage Hamas should be free to attempt to eradicate all the Jews?
You're just A-ok with attempted murder and genocide then are you?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15kT
Gazz sinze the 7th: 25kT
So yes the power of two nukes.
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5908/Israel-hits-Gaza-Strip-with-the-equivalent-of-two-nuclear-bombs
Eradicate the state not the people. Stop projecting your genocidal tendencies onto others.
Yet nowhere near the effect of two nukes. It's almost as if comparing small arms fire to nukes is completely idiotic.
And Hamas' goal is to eradicate the Jewish people, yet you support them.
So no, your last sentence is not what you have been stating you support.
It's not really a bad comparison, Israel has dropped a shit load of ordanence, more than the US used in the Afghan war.
It is funny how you only care about Palestinian civilian deaths when there isn't enough of them.
Hamas' goal is not to eradicate the Jewish people you dolt, are you about to bring up a document written by a couple of people that is largely ignored by most and even refuted by Hamas that they follow it?
Pure Zionist playbook that one.
Yes it is you dolt. They want all Jews removed from Israel, and only a Muslim Palestine in it's place, and they are willing to genocide the Jews to achieve that.
You support a genocidal terrorist organization.
You got a source for that?
You support being uneducated and sticking you head up bibi's ass.
When Hamas said they will repeat the Oct 7th attacks until all of Israel is eradicated, it was all over Lemmy a week or two ago.
Now would that be Israel the state? Or is reading comprehension not a required skill for Zionist shills?
You think their racist ass dog-whistle for eradicating Israel means they are absolutely cool with all the Israeli Jews sticking around?
How stupid are you, eradicate all Israel = eradicate Israeli Jews. From the river to the sea literally means drive the Jews from the river into the sea.
Remember Hamas started this war. Same as the Arabs started the 1948 war, and started the 1967 war.
If Palestine wanted to be free, and not oppressed, maybe they shouldn't have spent the better part of the last 75 years trying to eradicate Israel and the jews.
Uh oh your projecting again.
Bit of a jump to go from "eradicate Israel/all Israel" to "eradicate all israeli jews".
Again Zionist playbook.
River to the sea does not mean that and either you know this or you should actually do some proper research.
The fact Israel colonised occupied land started this off. It wasn't just an empty bit of land.
That is what it means, as stated by the Arab league who expressly invaded Israel on its formation to attempt to eradicate the Jews. That is history, you need to get your facts straight.
It's only in recent years they've tried to rebrand the phrase, because their plan to eradicate the Jews failed.
And the land was not Palestine. It was part of the Ottoman empire, and has been passed from empire to empire throughout history. Everyone there displaced a previous group of peoples.
If you consider Israelis to be colonizers, then so to are the Palestinians. The Jews even have a more historical claim to the land from thousands of years ago than the Palestinians, most of whom showed up only after WW1.
So you're holding a phrase to its meaning 100 years ago and not its current meaning. Language evolves get over it.
Just because the current resident wasn't the original owner of a house, it does not give you the right to evict him and squat in it.
Most Palestinians were there before ww1, sounds like you are describing the European and American Jews.
No, there was a massive Arab immigration into the area following WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the current Palestinians have only been there for 100 years.
And I'm following it's original meaning, because that is how Hamas means it. How are you so blind to that? You seem to get all your news from the Euro med Monitor, a propaganda organization with no verifiable sources.
According to both the Peel commission and the 1946 British survey, there was basically none. “Arab illegal immigration is mainly casual, temporary and seasonal,” said Peel, and the 1946 survey states “"… the expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase…"
The Jewish Historian Roberto Bachi estimates only about 900 Muslims per year immigrated between 1923 to 1946.
Where did the increase come from? According to the British register of Births and Deaths, it came from a natural net increase of 2.7%. (One of the highest recorded birth rates of all of the British controlled lands at 5%, and a high mortality rate of 2.3%.) In fact the estimated number of Muslims in 1947 is simply the number in the 1933 survey plus the net gain.
Peel: https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-495-M-336-1937-VI_EN.pdf
1946 Survey: Population in Palestine and the Increase in Population. British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I
Bachi: http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Public...
Vital Statistics figures from The Fertility and Mortality of the Population of Palestine, By: Hinden, Rita. Sociological Review (1908-1952). Jan/Apr40, Vol. 32 Issue 1/2, p29-49.
You seem to get all your information from Israeli propaganda with no verifiable sources.
According to both the Peel commission and the 1946 British survey, there was basically none. “Arab illegal immigration is mainly casual, temporary and seasonal,” said Peel, and the 1946 survey states “"… the expansion of the Moslem and Christian populations is due mainly to natural increase…"
The Jewish Historian Roberto Bachi estimates only about 900 Muslims per year immigrated between 1923 to 1946.
Where did the increase come from? According to the British register of Births and Deaths, it came from a natural net increase of 2.7%. (One of the highest recorded birth rates of all of the British controlled lands at 5%, and a high mortality rate of 2.3%.) In fact the estimated number of Muslims in 1947 is simply the number in the 1933 survey plus the net gain.
Peel: https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-495-M-336-1937-VI_EN.pdf
1946 Survey: Population in Palestine and the Increase in Population. British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I
Bachi: http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Public...
Vital Statistics figures from The Fertility and Mortality of the Population of Palestine, By: Hinden, Rita. Sociological Review (1908-1952). Jan/Apr40, Vol. 32 Issue 1/2, p29-49.
You seem to get all your information from Israeli propaganda with no verifiable sources.
WW1 ended in 1918. You're missing some vital years there mate.
The Ottoman empire ended in 1923, your claim was that there was a huge influx of refugees from this collapse than population of Palestine at the time.
The data doesn't back you up.
If you want to find data that counters what I've posted then knock yourself out.
I said post WW1, on multiple occasions.
This was a claim you made it turned out to be false.
The claim that there was mass immigration after ww1 I don't think can be proven because the first modern census was in 1922.
I'd love for you to provide a source for your claim and prove me wrong.