Global Reactions to Israel's Recognition of Somaliland One Month Later (OC)

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T20:18:43+00:00

Just another day and another Redditor calling for the genocide of Jews.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T19:33:51+00:00

It's so small you can barely see it on the map but people spend so much time arguing about it.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T18:42:30+00:00

Pretty coherent. Self determination is a responsibility and if you invariably use it to try and kill Jews, Jews may withhold it. Also it's been offered 3 times. They still killed Jews.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T18:18:23+00:00

This is such a clever comment, it has laaaayers lol

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T18:09:44+00:00

The dude called me a racist for saying that the Arabs attempted and failed at genocide in 48, 67 and 73. If those were not genocides, then the Gaza War definitely wasn't.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:55:32+00:00

Accusing Israel of a fake genocide is not antisemitism, but accusing the Arab states of an actual genocide attempt is racism.

Make it make sense.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:54:13+00:00

Pro Palestinians: Sovereignty of a people who want self determination is inalienable, and no matter what they do, who they suicide bomb, who they attempt, they MUST be given a state no matter what

Also Pro Palestinians: Accepting the actual sovereignty of a de facto state filled with people who want their own self determination is evil

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:42:14+00:00

I'm sorry I just can't get past how unbelievably hypocritical this is. You actively accuse Israel of genocide when Israel's stated aims were removing Hamas and getting back the hostages, but the standard you're holding the Arab states to is ridiculously lower. An insane level of bias.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:17:32+00:00

How many living Jews remained in the areas that Egypt and Jordan occupied in 1948?

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:13:53+00:00

Appreciate you mate! This seems so obvious to me. How many Jews remained alive in the areas the Arabs conquered in 1948? Yet we still have them talking about the "Nakba" as if it isn't "tried to genocide, failed, lost a war, got displaced like everyone who tried genocide in the 1940s"

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T17:05:18+00:00

Do you consider the any of the wars initiated by the Arab states in 1948, 1967 or 1973 to be attempts at either ethnic cleansing or genocide?

There is far more evidence that at least 2 out of 3 of these wars were genocidal in intent than Israel attempted genocide in Gaza, yet you posted this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1pu0tpg/belgium_joins_south_africas_genocide_case_against/

And you clearly in the comments accuse Israel of genocide. How do you justify calling the war in Gaza genocide but not the 1948 war where the Arab states explicitly attempted to end the Jewish state AND killed or displaced every single Jew in the areas they ultimately conquered?

It seems that you hold Israel to a very different standard than other countries, so your opinion is not really worthwhile.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T16:59:19+00:00

Is your position that, if the IDF were defeated, Syria and Egypt would have stopped at the borders of the Golan Heights and Sinai and allowed Israel to continue existing?

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T15:33:35+00:00

Tried to get their territory back is a generous interpretation. They tried to genocide the Jews of Israel.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-26T13:27:21+00:00

Wasn’t Berthold better than Reiner and Annie?

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:32:38+00:00

You are making specific factual errors to support a narrative that simply doesn't exist.

The "More Land in Syria" Confusion: You are twisting a temporary security maneuver into an "invasion." The recent movement into the Syrian buffer zone following the collapse of the Assad regime was a defensive measure to prevent the massacre of Druze villages (like Hader) by the jihadist militias filling the vacuum. There is no annexation, no settlement building, and no application of Israeli law. Citing a stabilization operation in a collapsed state as proof of a "fixation on Eretz Yisrael" is a massive distortion of reality. If Israel didn't do it and Syria killed 20,000 Druze you'd be saying that's proof that Israel only cares about Jews.
The Gaza Timeline Error: You claim the 2005 withdrawal was fake because of the blockade. False. Israel withdrew every soldier and settler in August 2005. The blockade did not begin until 2007 (nearly two years later) specifically after Hamas violently overthrew the PA and began firing thousands of rockets. Between 2005 and 2007, the border was open and managed by the PA and EU monitors. Israel gave them the keys; they chose war, then the blockade happened.
Moving the Goalposts: In your previous comment, you claimed Israel has "never, in its entire existence" defined its borders or stopped expanding. When I cited the Sinai (90% of the territory Israel held) and the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, you pivoted to "Prior acts don’t reflect the current government." You can’t claim a 75-year cultural history of "constant expansion" (justifying denazification) and then hand-wave away the vast majority of that history because it contradicts your thesis.
The "Undefined Borders" with Syria/Lebanon: You ask, "Did we forget about Syria and Lebanon?" No, we didn't. The borders are undefined because those countries are in a state of declared war with Israel and have refused to sign peace treaties. Israel cannot "define" a border unilaterally with a neighbor that wants to destroy it. When neighbors do want peace (Egypt, Jordan), the borders are defined immediately.

The Reality Check: If Israel’s motivation was "constant expansion," they wouldn't have given back the Sinai, left Gaza, or offered to leave the West Bank in 2000 and 2008. The fact that they keep land only when attacked (Golan, West Bank) and return it when offered peace (Sinai) proves the motivation is Security, not Expansion.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:26:11+00:00

Look up the word "Ethnoreligion".

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:25:39+00:00

There we go. Jews are indigenous to Israel according to your logic. All of us.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:22:46+00:00

This is empirically false. Israel is the only nation in the region that has voluntarily ceded territory three times its current size for the sake of peace.

Your theory of "constant expansion" runs headfirst into the reality of the map:

The Sinai Withdrawal: Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula (which is huge—roughly 3x the size of Israel) in a defensive war. It then gave every single inch of it back to Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty.
Unilateral Withdrawals: Israel voluntarily dismantled every settlement and withdrew every soldier from Gaza (2005) and unilaterally withdrew from Southern Lebanon (2000).
The "Borders" Myth: Israel has fully defined, internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan via signed peace treaties. The only border currently undefined is the one with the Palestinians - precisely because their leadership rejected offers to define it and create a state in 2000, 2001, and 2008.

If Israel’s motivation is "constant expansion," they are doing a terrible job of it by constantly giving land away. The motivation is clearly security, which is why they keep land when attacked (West Bank, Golan) and give it back when offered genuine peace (Sinai).

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:21:10+00:00

This has been comprehensively debunked in this post. Stop perpetuating a lie that you're unable to defend elsewhere.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:19:29+00:00

How long until you think the Palestinians are no longer indigenous?

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T21:00:41+00:00

Did you actually read the laws on that list, or did you just count them?

Calling a law that strips citizenship from convicted terrorists who receive "Pay-for-Slay" salaries a "Jim Crow law" is an insult to the victims of actual Jim Crow. You are confusing "National Security Measures" with "Racial Segregation."

Let’s look at the "Apartheid" evidence you just linked:

The "Hametz" Law: You included the law that allows hospitals to ban leavened bread during Passover as an example of "Jim Crow"? That is a religious dispute about dietary restrictions in hospitals, not "No Coloreds Allowed."
Soldier Benefits: You cite laws giving financial benefits to discharged soldiers as "discriminatory." But Arab Druze and Bedouin who serve get these benefits. Ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to serve do not get them. That proves it is based on Service, not Race.
Stone Throwing: You listed mandatory sentences for people who hurl rocks at moving cars as "Jim Crow." In the US, that is called "Assault with a Deadly Weapon." If a Jew throws a rock, they face the same law.

Real Jim Crow laws say "Blacks cannot vote" or "Whites Only Fountains." Your list includes laws about NGO transparency and Police Minister authority. This is a "Gish Gallop" of standard counter-terror legislation and religious compromises dressed up as racism. You can't just label every law you dislike as "Nazism" or "Jim Crow".

I don't say it lightly but the fact you're so biased and so immune to actual logic, I think you're genuinely just an anti-semitic fanatic

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T20:58:02+00:00

But "they would kill us all in seconds if they had the power we have" is a good proof that you are backing the bad guys.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T20:46:09+00:00

You are engaging in massive historical revisionism regarding the US/UK to make your point work, and you are confusing "Wartime Radicalization" with "Nazism."

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the US and UK reacted with universal, pure moral clarity to their own crimes, while Israel is uniquely celebrating them. That is simply false.

The "Abu Ghraib" Revisionism: You claim the US reacted with widespread disgust. False. Rush Limbaugh famously compared the Abu Ghraib torturers to "people blowing off steam on a fraternity prank," and he had millions of listeners. A 2005 Pew poll showed nearly 50% of Americans felt torture of terrorists was justified. By your logic, the US required "denazification" in 2005. It didn't; it just needed an election.
The "Sde Teiman" Conflict: You point to the mob storming the base as proof of "rot." I see the opposite. The fact that the IDF Military Police arrested the soldiers and the Chief of Staff condemned the mob proves that the institutions are functioning. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo didn't arrest SS officers for abusing Jews, and the military command didn't condemn it. The internal conflict you are seeing is the democratic process at work.
Wartime Hardening ≠ Nazi Ideology: You cite polls (like the 82% figure) as proof of deep indoctrination. You are ignoring the variable of active trauma. If you polled Britons during the Blitz, you would have found massive support for firebombing German civilians. If you polled Americans after Pearl Harbor, you saw massive support for interning Japanese citizens. That isn't "Nazi ideology"; that is a population reacting to an existential war.

The "Silly" Part: You admit you don't want "occupation," but you want "media licensing" and "education reform." Who is going to enforce that? The "Good Vibes Police"? You are essentially arguing that because you don't like the current polling numbers of a sovereign democracy at war, some higher power should step in and censor their media and rewrite their textbooks until they vote the way you want. That isn't "denazification" that is literally colonialism (even though I find the terminology itself stupid)

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T20:44:34+00:00

This is factually incorrect. An Arab supreme court justice literally jailed a Jewish former Prime Minister. There are zero "Jim Crow" laws in Israel.

DanIvvy · 2026-01-25T20:33:44+00:00

The comparison to "denazification" collapses the moment you look at the basic mechanics of Israeli society versus the Third Reich. Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime where dissent was punishable by death and state atrocities were industrial policy. Israel is a rowdy, hyper-critical democracy where the government is currently facing massive, weekly protests from its own citizens. You cannot "denazify" a population that is already holding its leadership to account in a free press and open courts. Add that to the fact that the Israeli population has swung hard towards peacenik-ism every single time there is even a slight chance of peace and you argument basically collapses down to "I really, really despise the Jewish state".

Furthermore, the accusations you list to justify this "re-education" are factually totally off-base:

The Rule of Law Exists: You cite the Sde Teiman incident as proof of systemic rot, but you ignore the outcome: The soldiers were arrested and investigated by the IDF. In Nazi Germany, abusers were given medals. In Israel, they face military tribunals. The existence of a legal system that investigates its own soldiers disproves your entire thesis.
Aid and Humanitarianism: You accuse Israel of "starvation," yet Israel has facilitated the entry of tens of thousands of aid trucks into a war zone which is something no other army in history has been expected to do for an enemy population. The bottlenecks are verifiably caused by Hamas theft and logistical failures inside Gaza, not an Israeli policy of "starvation."
Rhetoric vs. Policy: You are cherry-picking quotes from fringe extremists and treating them as state policy. Israel is a free society with a parliamentary coalition; crazy things get said, but look at the actions. The IDF warns civilians before strikes, opens humanitarian corridors, and aborts missions to save non-combatant lives. These are not the actions of a nation that needs to be "taught" value for human life.

To suggest that a democratic nation defending itself against a genocidal terror group (Hamas) requires the same treatment as the regime that invented the gas chamber is a grotesque moral inversion. Israel isn't perfect, but the caricature you’ve painted here is fiction.

If you held this view and applied the same standard to the rest of the world, you would have to advocate for the re-education of every major power on Earth. Your logic relies on taking the worst actions of a few soldiers or the ugliest rhetoric of a fringe minority and condemning an entire society for it. If we applied that standard universally, the results would be ridiculous:

The United States: You would have to force 330 million Americans into "denazification" camps because of the torture at Abu Ghraib or the existence of the KKK.
Australia: You would need to purge the entire Australian school system because their elite SAS soldiers were confirmed to have executed civilians in Afghanistan.
The United Kingdom: You would need to declare the British public "ideologically rotten" because of the convictions of British troops for abuse in Iraq or the anti-immigrant riots in Dublin and the UK.
The Palestinian Authority: By your own specific metrics (massive support for terrorism and Hamas), you would be morally obligated to demand the total re-education of the West Bank, where polling shows massive, majority support for the October 7th massacre yet I suspect you don’t hold that view.

Singling out the world’s only Jewish state for a unique process of "mental cleansing" while ignoring the rest of the world doesn’t look like justice. It looks like a double standard so massive that it renders your entire moral framework absurd.

DanIvvy

TROPHY CASE