Karmadhi

What Britain did is a war crime by 2024 standards. The issue is that you like to use different timelines to justify atrocities. What UK did to Germany during WW2 would be considered an unacceptable war crimes, especially the bombing of Dresden and to some extent Hamburg. But in 2014, we use different standards and the same tactics are totally unacceptable and horrible. Just some food for thought: What Hamas did in Israel on October 7th used to be textbook military practice for most of human history. When armies invaded villages and towns that is exactly what they did, what Hamas did. However in 2024, we call that horrible acts and terrorism because with our current moral framework such actions are not acceptable. Also what UK did to Germany at the time was textbook military practice (Germany did the same to the UK prior) but today it is not acceptable. So when I hear people like Naftali Bennet justify Israel current indiscriminate bombings by saying "UK did it also", well UK also did what Hamas did at some point in the past. Lets justify that too now. See the issue with that reasoning?

So did the Palestinians. The number of Palestinians dead is 10-20x more than Israelis through the decades. In 2014 alone they killed like 1500 civilians and they lost like 6 civilians themselves. That act alone is enough to want them to commit October 7th. And that is just 1 out of many times Isarel did such things. 2014 Gaza War - Wikipedia

@Nivsch If you consider women and childreen as Hamas then yes it does. I do not. 25.000 women and childreen with your ratio would assume the total death toll to be close to 50.000 and it is currently around 33.000. So your math is off. Out of the 33.000 around 25.000 are women and childreen which leaves 8000 men. From these not everyone is a fighter, civilian men can also die in air strikes.

US Defense Minister said 25.000 of those killed in Gaza are women and childreen. Your math does not add up. I did not see UK destroy Ireland even though they did plenty terrorist attacks there.

How about not mixing them into 1 thing? I do not think most people have issues with Jews but they do with Israel. Especially liberals. There are tons of Jews protesting about Israel atrocities in Gaza at the moment and they have my eternal respect. Ironically it is Israeli actions that are making Jews outside Israel feel so unsafe. Hating Jews outside Israel for what Israel does is indeed anti semetic and not acceptable in my opinion.

If genetics are so important, how come girls care so little about a guy having a good frame, musular and lean athletic type of body. Not a mass monster but like fit looking. How come height matters 10x more? So a skinny tall guy will do as well if not better than a shorter muscular fit guy. In prehistoric times, gyms did not exist so you could not really change being skinny. A tall skinny guy is not more useful for survival than a fit strong short guy no? Am I missing something?

Can you explain to me then how did those people get elected in the first place? Israel is a democracy you say hence whoever is in power represents what the majority thinks/feels. If the people in power represent a minority then how did they get elected? Why was not a more moderate liberal people elected? I did not see Italy, Germany or Japan loose 70% of their territory even after causing a world war. Most of their territories are still intact. There was no Israel until 1947. The sentiment began when Jews started being dumped there from the British empire. People do not like when random people start being dumped into your land without your consent. To give you an example we have far right parties getting popularity and even elected in some Western countries because people do not like the migrant influx in their countries. And this is done by their governments. Meanwhile in Palestine it was done without asking anyone, of course people will be pissed. Imagine USA dumping 1 million random people into France and not asking France any permission. France would be enraged. Does not help that most of the people living there were uneducated and not very developed which can result in them responding with violence.

At the expense of others. You keep ignoring this. I think that is why Leo keeps calling you out.

Most people that were kicked out had lived there for generations. I do not think you can realistically disprove that or argue against it. I am not saying what is right, I am saying why Palestinians are so stubborn to accept White Europeans in their doorstep.

@Danioover9000 A big issue is the Zionism ideology which runs the whole show. Personally I find it extremely toxic ideology and I think the world would be better without it. Jews do not need Zionism to be safe, it just makes them look bad and makes them prone to being attacked. I am shocked to see people in this group supporting it, especially these days where Zionism fuels downright facist and racist behavior from Israeli government.

@Breakingthewall Saying "both sides need to learn to co live with each other" is the ultimate peace creating solution, however it is MUCH easier to say this to Israelis than Palestinians. Israelis are the ones that came in massive numbers after WW2 and basically colonized a land where others lived. If I take 2/3 of your house it is easier for the new guy to be ok with co living than the one whose house was taken. Hence Palestinians are much more stubborn due to them feeling deeply like they were stolen and kicked out. And I am not talking about political stuff like "soviergn country", that is irrelevant when it comes to how people feel. If I live here for 500 years and am Arab in land surrounded by Arabs then White Europeans from Poland come and want to take the place i lived for generations I will feel like they are thieves and I will not accept it. So politics become useless.

"No country on the planet should trust any of the big powers" is a better title. It is not like China or Russia are much better.

Funny how you tell us "Al Jazera is biased etc because they are arabs, stop sending it" then you send us a source from Israel.

What values? Israel does not respect human rights, US does. The shit they do in West Bank goes against all human right laws. USA does not do that. The only thing they have in common is free elections and being rich. If they were a true developed democracy they would not put 12 year old kids in military court trials and detain them for years over silly things like throwing stones. Rest is purely interest. Jews having so much influence on the US being a big reason. AIPAC too.

Well Israel hates them too so it is a toxic duo where none accepts the other. The difference is that Israel has the education level, the means and support to make Palestinians accept them far more. Ending the illegal occupation and treating them well would be a good start. Unless they are treated well then they will always hate Israel. So why not start there? By respecting international laws

1. Germany and Japan had legit governments. Hamas is not a legitimate government. Most people were not even born when it was elected in 2005. Hence most cannot choose what Hamas does. 2. Germany and Japan launched wars based on desires of expansion. They wanted to conquer others because they thought themselves as superior. In Gaza you have mostly refugees fighting for land that used to be theirs for centuries but were violently kicked out by massacres and ethnic cleansing. Neither were Germans or Japanese subject to a fascist occupation for decades which violated every human right that exists. 3. Germany killed close to 25 million civilians and Japan close to 20 million. Hamas has barely killed 1000 civilians. During WW2 there were 20 times more Allied civilians deaths than Axis. Here its the opposite. 4. We have evolved since WW2 standards. Thats what the Geneva convention is for. We are past that brutal collective punishment type of warfare. At least first world democracies. Bonus: Even though Germans killed closed to 18 million Soviets, when the Soviets took control of Berlin they immediately tried to secure food for the German civilians stuck there to avoid a famine. Israel meanwhile is using famine as a tool of war. And Soviets were not known for being the most kind army. So basically Soviets tried to avoid a famine in Berlin after loosing 18 million civilians by Germans. Here Israel wants a famine in Gaza after loosing 800 civilians. Shows how inhumane they are even compared to a revenge thirsty WW2 USSR So please before saying such nonsense comparisons do some research otherwise you look very ignorent

I have not seen an entity become condemned and criticized by literally the entire world since ISIS. Nice job Israel You have become the newest “Enemy of humanity”

Because to them Israel is a fake colonizer country that should never have existed. That is the sad truth of how they see it. From what I saw they treated Jews quite well before WW2 so I am still unsure why a Jewish state was needed in the first place. Was there hardcore Nazi type of discrimination against Jews? I lack education here so I am open to corrections as long as its not Zionist sources. This deep hatred was created by Israel being created as a state, I did not find much sources of Jew hate before 1947 and 1920s to be more exact.

And to think this is justified in the eyes of many, because 700 or something people were killed by some terrorists. Insane how stupid humans can be.

You can frame everything as a "defense strategy". Russian invasion of Ukraine is also a defensive strategy to protect itself against NATO, its historical enemy. Yet we can agree that the invasion is wrong and not the way you go around protecting yourself. Same logic here. I can understand on an invidiual level your life can be threatened but as a collective, Hamas or whoever in Palestine cannot threaten to wipe out Israel from the map. The balance of power is too big. It would be like USA fearing Puerto Rico or something. Terror attacks are not existencial threats. Existential threat is all Israeli cities razed to the ground and a death toll of 1 plus million. Do you think Hamas can do this? I am sure they want to. But do they have the actual capability?

Then how come all map between Israel and Palestine of 1968 is different to the one of today. Who took all that land? Is it just that minor Likud party or many goverments through decades are responsible for it. Logically the borders should not have changed after 1968, but they have. Why so?

I find it weird that people that follow your work on this forum are so in denial about Israeli atrocities and other injustices. I have seen countless videos online of Jews denouncing what Israel is doing and has historically done. I would expect people that follow your work to do the same.

Zionism is a toxic stage blue ideology which hurts Jews more than it helps them. It basically claims Jews should have a country which is at first not a bad idea. Issue is that it is obsessed with having that country in X land based on religious nonsense and this goal is to be achieved with 0 regard for the damage it can do to others. Selfishness 101. I do not think Israel wanted to kill the Palestinian Arabs, they wanted to expel them so they would have their holy land to make their state. Killing people is a good way for them to flee. The difference with the Nazis is that Nazis wanted to kill the Jews meanwhile Israel wants to expel the Palestinian Arabs. So it is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing although horrible is still better than genocide. A real life comparison would be someone stealing your house and kicking you out versus killing you. Murder is sentenced more than theft. There are countless cases of Jews trying to flee during the Holocaust (after the Final solution was passed in early 1942). If they were caught they were killed. "Let me leave your land" would not work. Meanwhile in ethnic cleansing it would work.

It is true that the "Palestinian identity" might be a new thing but I think Palestine existed as a country before WW2. I have seen this clip of Hitler in a meeting at the Bunderstag in Germany in 1938 reading a letter from Roosevelt. In the letter Roosevelt calls for "Germany should not invade the following countries" which include basically all of Europe. Palestine is on the list. So USA did recognize it as an entity even before WW2. Now regarding national identities they are indeed fictions but my point is about the tangible components which is houses and people living in X place. Those people lived there for centuries and the idea of them having to move out is not acceptable nor desirable. They will not be happy with it. Whether they were called Palestinians or this or that is irrelevant. I am very open to the idea that Palestine is a new concept, so we can agree on that part. And do not forget that you have a shit lot of Jews being dumped into that land which started at early 1930s and culminated after WW2. Considering people in that area were not involved with the Holocaust it is kind of understandable why they would not be happy with this dumping because it had nothing to do with them. It was an European issue. If it was just Arab Jews I think the situation would be different. White people going in Arab land can give the idea of colonization which is why liberals support Palestine so much. Keep in mind here I am playing mostly the devil advocate and explaining to you the reasons why people are not happy about this rather than giving my personal opinion. Personally to me the whole idea of "nations" is just fiction human nonsense and I despise nationalism and hardcore religion. However I care deeply about people dying, having their homes destroyed and other things I consider "tangible". The main reason I despise Israeli occupation of Palestine is not because "national identity gets erased" and stuff like that. It is because Israel treats them like absolute shit, denies rights, kill them, torture, jail them etc. If they treated Palestinians Arabs as well as White Jews I would care far less about this whole issue.

Fair. There is a difference between spontaneous random war crimes which happen in every war and a systematic organized attempt to do war crimes and atrocities. I currently lack the information to know whether back then it was the former (acceptable), or the latter (unacceptable).