You're viewing a single thread.
Edit: Well, as horrifying as it is to see how shallow folks understanding of history is, no one is paying me to be online and screaming against tiktok or whatever isn't that much fun. G'night y'all!
Unpopular opinion but do folks honestly not understand how those borders shifted? Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives.
If Ukraine kept Kursk, I can't imagine we'd really be complaining?
Basically, if you launch a surprise war I think you forfeit the right to be surprised or angry when your land gets taken.
Edit: Jesus, are the downvoters confused like the response below and think this is talking about Oct 7 as opposed to say, the repeated wars that actually changed the borders? Does TikTok not cover modern history or what?
Hey dude, I just wanted to let you know there is an option in your settings so you don't see upvotes or downvotes.
Lemmy (AFAIK) doesn't even show you your total upvotes (karma... whatever it's called) by default either. None of these imaginary points fucking matter.
So why don't you do yourself a favor and uncheck these boxes and not give a fuck what others think about your comment.
I know I have.
(Lemmy is rad as fuck)
Oh neat, thanks for sharing!
I don't actually care about downvotes or upvotes for comments (for posts, I'm generally trying to make communities laugh, so I do like them there to refine my approach etc.)
I'm more just... Well, it's Lemmy, some of the replies are, uhhh, impressive and heartbreaking (not because they're mean, it just makes me wonder about how we win a majority of votes while being associated with some goddamn crazy people.)
Anyway, really appreciate you sharing this, I'll probably use some of these settings!
"Unpopular opinion but do folks honestly not understand how those borders shifted? Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews" You can't genuinely be this conceited. How about Israel's "independence" which was a massive ethnic cleansing done by Jewish terrorists who were all non native from Europe and would avoid native Palestinan Jews because they found them "too weak" David Ben gurion the founder of Israeli was apart of it and was well aware what he was doing was colonisation. The stern gang and lehi group then became Israels army and government, with their teaching still very in place. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine#%3A~%3Atext=The+main+terrorist+groups+were%2CFreedom+of+Israel)%20or%20LHI.)%20or%20LH
https://www.progressiveisrael.org/ben-gurions-notorious-quotes-their-polemical-uses-abuses/
It's ironic how you use this projection about others getting their info from tiktok when come unsourced, arrogant and wrong, it's impossible not to think you are brainwashed or an awful human being and uneducated. All of this is to say, Israel has a clear greater Israel plan even literally showing a map of Israel pre Oct 7 of them owning west bank and Gaza https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-map
So suprise suprise when Israeli leaders talk about "claiming greater Israel" we gotta fight back and dismantle that nation. You and you're people oppressed the Jews for 2 thousand years, to the middle east in 1930s the Jews were colonisers no different to the Brits acting with imperialist intentions with Israel capitalising on the holocaust to form some special protected minority status no other people on earth have even tho the Jews are ABSOLUTELY not the most victimised people in the planet or even they era of history. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-confirmed-that-the-quest-for-greater-israel-is-real/ https://www.newarab.com/news/israeli-paper-op-ed-claims-south-lebanon-northern-israel?amp
Yeah, you don't deserve the downvotes (IMO). The article is referencing border changes since Israel's inception. It's a lot more complicated than Gaza and Oct. 7th.
I appreciate that! Honestly, it's a little worrying how little historical context folks seem to have.
Don't know why I feel compelled to point it out other than being a glutton for punishment.
Anyway, thanks!
Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives.
Either your ignoring Israeli history older than the babies shot in Gaza, in which case you should finish your studies, or you think this applies throughout Israeli history, in which case you should start your studies.
What on Earth?
When do you think the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars happened?
Lemmy is anti Israel at best and absurdly anti semitic at worst. Palestine is schrodinger's country. It exists at the 47 borders, despite the inhabitants at the time rejecting those borders and losing several wars about it.
lol at the people downvoting you. While other people in this thread argue that Israel should not exist. With the heavy implication certain people living in that territory should also stop existing.
Then you should work on your reading comprehension. Saying a state shouldn't exist is different from saying certain people shouldn't exist. This is not implied at all.
Based on my past conversations about this topic and the kind of people who say that.
"Israel should not exist" begs the following questions.
Who rules the area now? What form of government will be established? Which of the ethnic groups (that hate each other) are going to form that government? What happens to people deemed 'colonizers' and other minorities living there?
Who did you have such conversations with? People who hate Israel because they colonised Palestinian territory, or actual anti-semites? In the latter case, I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but in my experience, most people (at least on Lemmy) are part of the first group, who have no intention to kill everyone in Israel.
Regarding the questions, this is something both the Israelis and (more importantly) the Palestinians need to talk about to find the best solution for everyone involved. But they can all be answered without "Kill all the people living in Israel".
How the fuck can a population that you're killing and stealing the land from start a SURPRISE war?
I take it you have 0 knowledge of the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars? Which is how the borders in the headlines moved. I mean, heck, a lot of recent maps of Israel show in which war the territory was taken.
I kinda guessed folks were ignorant of the history but come on, this is pretty basic stuff.
The existence of Israel as a settler-colonial entity nullifies any argument that any resistance in the area can be a "surprise".
It shouldn't exist. It is all stolen land that they are continuing to steal.
It shouldn’t exist. It is all stolen land that they are continuing to steal.
You're right, we should give the whole area back to the Romans.
I mean, Israel was taken from the Jews way back when so by your logic, aren't they just taking back their land and thus, apparently according to you, allowed to do whatever?
Initially they only had land that they legally bought. When they declared themself as a state, the surrounding countries declared war on them, and they turned the tide in this (initially defensive) war and actually gained territory.
Not defending what they're doing today, but history shouldn't be twisted.
This is if you view the Arab states as the aggressor in 1967 even though Israel was the one who initiated the conflict. If you see Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and the yom kipper war as a counter offensive to take back land that Israel had stolen then it becomes less justifiable.
It's more like Russia keeping the Donbas after it launched a "preemptive strike" because it was afraid Ukraine was gonna team up with nato to attack them. Then 5 years after trump forces Ukraine to make peace they launch an offensive into the donbas to take there land back, only to get repelled again.
Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.
Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.
The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.
It's been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel's access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying "if you do this, we consider a war to have begun."
The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel's by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)
The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I've always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
The fact that they struck first. Closing a maritime route is not a cause for war just because someone says it is, just like Ukraine applying for nato wouldn't be. Any action done by a country within its own borders is up to them, that's sovereignty. Saying those acts are a cause for war and invading them for doing so is a violation of that sovereignty.
Almost every invader in history claims their attack was a pre-emptive strike and/or the other countries legitimate peaceful sovereign actions are a cause for war. Japan told the u.s. if it continued its oil embargo that it would be a cause for war. The u.s. continuing that embargo doesn't make pearl harbor a legitimate response. Poland began massing troops on the border prior to the nazi invasion, that doesn't make them the agressor.
The Arab states had done nothing that broke the peace prior to the war. They cut off maritime access through a strait completely within their territory and then massed troops on the border of a state that had invaded one of its neighbor a decade ago and was threatening to do so again.
There's a reason the UN doesn't recognize preemptive attacks, they're just excuses for aggressors to invade.
So your position is they should have waited until the massed armies that outnumbered them 2:1 attacked?
That seems like an insane demand to thrust upon a people who had years earlier been murdered on an industrial scale.
You're assuming they were going to attack when there is no evidence for that. Amassing troops at the border doesn't mean you're going to attack, like with Poland in 1939 it could just mean you're trying to defend yourself from an expansionist nation who is threatening you. Israel a decade before 1967 had invaded Egypt to take the Sinai peninsula with the help of the French. It makes sense if you have a neighbor like that who just made a threat to you for exercising your sovereignty to put troops on the border in case they try to invade again.
Yeah Israel had a gun to its head, but so did the Arab states, it wasn't as if Israel wasn't also fully mobilized and ready to attack. International relations, especially in the nuclear age, is a series of guns pointed at the heads of everyone else. With ICBMs and nuclear submarines, any enemy of the u.s. is constantly under the threat of nuclear annihilation. That doesn't give Iran the right to attack the u.s. because it constantly threatens them and is afraid they will nuke them.
Even ignoring nukes the north Koreans constantly have missiles and artillery pointed at Seoul, ready to level it at any moment, and vice versa for south Korea and the u.s. If either side attacked both could credibley claim they felt threatened, especially the north with the world's most powerful country on its doorstep, who carried out a near genocidal bombing campaign against the north in the last war. If either side launched a "preemptive strike" they would rightly be called the agressor and should be condemned for breaking the peace. They definitely shouldn't be rewarded with more land.
And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.
As a lot of Jews died in
IsraelPoland, I'm pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.
At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it's not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)
Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.
These aren't standoffs, you think I'm talking about Russia, where yes MAD prevents either from attacking, I'm talking about the people living outside the small group of countries that have nukes. Iran isn't covered by MAD, the u.s. could nuke Tehran tomorrow and nothing would be done besides severe diplomatic push back. Any "enemy of the u.s." that doesn't have nukes is subject to the constant fear of the u.s. war machine, which may not nuke you but will definitely relentlessly bomb your territory with drones. That doesn't give them the right to attack the u.s. because they feel threatened.
Maybe they did act recklessly, that doesn't make it right to attack them. Reckless is such a subjective term in that it's heavily dependent on the party you sympathize with. You sympathize with Israel so you think the Arab states acted recklessly for the above reasons. I sympathize more with the Arab states because they were just blockading a single port to a country which they saw as being a serial bad actor in the region. This wasn't some existential threat to them, they were still better off than near landlocked Jordan since they have a ton of Mediterranean coast. And again Israel was also fully mobilized, apparently a lot more then the Arab states.
Either way you and I can argue back and forth all day on who behaved more recklessly, just like north Koreans and south Koreans can argue back and forth all day on whose behaving recklessly, they won't get anywhere because it's a subjective opinion. This is why "preemptive strikes" are against international law, they always rely on these subjective terms like "threatening" and "reckless" such that any major power with significant sway in the international sphere can use them to justify any attack.
I just don't think your position holds up under its own assumptions.
First, you require an Egypt that is simultaneously terrified of Israel but also blockades the Strait of Tiran for no obvious strategic or economic purpose. Yes, Israel was a part of the winning side in the previous war but also had significant British and French help.
Yes, Israel was fully mobilized, because Egypt had just crossed a line that Israel said was an act of war. Having neighbours on all sides who occasionally try to invade and murder all your people will also make you more willing to mobilize quickly, especially when about 1/3 of all Jews had just been murdered.
It just boggles the imagination that someone could look at the following facts and say "yeah, Israel started this.":
A) Egypt, against maritime and international law (as brokered by the UN) and the terms of its previous peace deal, blockaded Israel from a major port. Israel declares (as per the terms of the peace treaty and Israel's stated position) that this is an act of war.
B) Egypt then along with several neighbours deploys, along multiple borders, an army that outmans, outguns and outplanes (okay, has air superiority but that doesn't work as well with the pattern!) Israel by a 2:1 ratio and 3:1 in the serious stuff (armour/planes.)
C) Israel on the night of the attack is alone, without allies or material support.
I cannot imagine you are seriously saying that despite all the facts on the ground, the correct course of action for Israel was to wait until being engaged and then just pray that this time things worked out for the Jews? That's just wild to me. "Sorry kids, sure, we saw all those soldiers massing but we really thought the Jews were only due one massacre per half century. Whoopsies!"
You keep assuming the Arab states were going to attack when there is no evidence of that. It's just the fact that Israel felt threatened, when every country feels threatened. The way nations form is the basic narrative that there is an enemy out there threatening you and you have to band together to take on that enemy. Even countries as secure as the u.s. will contrive threats from China or the cartels to point to an enemy.
Again I'm not going to argue which party fealt more threatened because that's a subjective experience. There are countries that are just as threatened as Israel was and they don't attack.
All the points you just made could be made for enemies of the u.s. like Iran, north Korea and Cuba. North Korea also suffered a horrific bombing campaign by a country on there border and suffers far more from economic sanctions then Israel ever did when the straits were closed. The embargo on Cuba has repeatedly been called out as against international law. If Cuba or north Korea demanded an end to sanctions or it would be war, and then the u.s. poured troops in to surround them on there borders would it be right for them to launch a first strike against Seoul or Florida?
No you'd probably say they made a threat to the u.s. with that ultimatum and the u.s. deploying troops was a valid response to that threat. Any sort of ultimatum that involves war should be considered a threat and an escalation. You don't get a pass because you were treated horribly before.
Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives
There's that then-Israeli PM's statement about how Israel knew Egypt and Syria weren't going to start a war and yet attacked anyway, you can look it up.
Last comment didn't go over well with moderators. To be more polite, I have you tagged as someone with whom it is not worthwhile to engage.
Regards.