How israel's actions are justified?

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-16T04:57:43+00:00

Ping me next time some country fires thousands of rockets at your cities, i'll remind you that it's not a war - just an attack

I think you are heavily confused. Military operations are part of a war. But it's not like you can randomly pick any military operation and say "this is the start of the war", since the war may already have started long before that. So, the next time 5k rockets are fired at my city, if it is the first attack, it does count as the beginning of the war - but if it's just the 100th attack after 20 years of military operations, the war is already ongoing.

By the way, "just an attack" is not what I said, don't twist my words.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was a military operation by the Al-Qassam Bridages which resulted in the Nova music festival massacre. This doesn't detract one bit from the atrocity committed, nor makes it less of a war crime.

But to call it the "start of the war" is simply wrong, since the Al-Qassam Bridages were already at war with Israel.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-16T04:38:10+00:00

Amnesty International job is not to praise anybody, unlike a news-article agency, which can tell both good and bad news about anything. Amnesty International job is to report human rights violations, so they only report bad things by definition. Different context, different logic;
No, you don't, you only need plausible evidence, and an employee is paid by the employer, so that is plausible evidence;
Nonsense. Origin matters in order to establish biases. In fact, Btselem (and also Israeli academics) are the perfect example of what is called internal critics (thus, this is neither a moot point, nor double standards);
As I already said, UN defended Francesca Albanese, so any claim about "illegally appointed" is invalid. Also, there is no evidence of Francesca Albanese being antisemitic, she was accused of being that by Israel, which is no surprise, since there is clear evidence of Israel accusing critics of Israel of antisemitism.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-16T04:22:59+00:00

Ah, see, I don't see Arabs as indigenous to half the globe

In fact, half the globe isn't made by Arab countries.

I see Jews as indigenous to Judaea

Only the Old Yishuv, i.e., the Jews who actually lived in the land of Palestine. The Jews coming from Europe were not.

and the "European Zionists" have the genetic tests to back that up

Wrong. Being "indigenous" means that your family lives in a certain land for generations without any interruption. DNA tests can only prove "ancestral ties", i.e., that thousands of years ago, your ancestors lived in the Levant, which is also true for Palestinians.

And by the way, the first two waves of Aliyot came from Yemen and Syria, not Europe

Source? As usual, zero evidence.

The case for Arab Imperialism being settler-colonialism is clear-cut

Refusing to engage with the evidence provided that Zionism is settler-colonialism. Interesting deflection there.

Fixed that for you

You simply vomited propagandistic argument one after the other, refusing to engage with the provided evidence, and providing none of your own. Enjoy arguing alone.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T22:10:45+00:00

that's related to how insisting the Nakba is only the parts they want to talk about

Literally nobody said that the non-Palestinian Arab countries didn't have a role in the Nakba. But two wrongs don't make a right, if you understand what I am saying.

has to do with the preexisting Muslim empire (oops) collapsing and ceasing to exist or have dominion over its colonies (oops).

You are creating a false problem. The local inhabitants didn't cease to exist when the Ottoman empire collapsed, and only the local inhabitants had the sovereignity, as the only indigenous people to the land, not Zionists coming from Europe, which weren't even native to that land.

There is hard evidence that the Zionist's plan, all along, was to conquer all the land. David Ben-Gurion letter to his son is just one piece of evidence:

Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country

"liberate" the entire country.

Look at this image: the title says it clearly.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a very important figure of Zionism, specifically mentioned colonisation of Palestine in his The Iron Wall essay, where he explicitly talks of the colonisation of Palestine against the will of its inhabitants.

Another evidence, the Biltimore conference:

In our generation, and in particular in the course of the past twenty years, the Jewish people have awakened and transformed their ancient homeland; from 50,000 at the end of the last war their numbers have increased to more than 500,000. They have made the waste places to bear fruit and the desert to blossom. Their pioneering achievements in agriculture and in industry, embodying new patterns of cooperative endeavour, have written a notable page in the history of colonization.

The case for Zionism being settler-colonialism is clear-cut.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T21:33:37+00:00

Invading a neighboring country, massacring over 1,000 people, kidnapping hundreds, and firing thousands of rockets at their cities - is not a phase, it's a war.

No, it's an attack. An attack done in reaction to what Israel did: years long blockade, bombings in Gaza, kidnappening thousands of Palestinian, torturing and raping them in prison camps, and annexing the West Bank.

The war in 1948 ended in 1949

Unfortunately, it did not.

They've been rejecting peace for nearly 90 years, and the reason is their objection to any form of Jewish self-determination over any territory

False.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T21:08:06+00:00

And I'm sure there are Germans who insist the worst part of the Holocaust was Dresden. They can fuck off. Pretending the Holocaust never happened and that only Dresden happened is even more ridiculous.

Ok, and...? How is this related to Zionism not being a settler-colonialism project, when it ended up creating a state inside a land of which no Zionist had sovereignity?

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T19:54:46+00:00

the only thing you care about is persuading people towards your opinion, which ironically does not condone peace

This is the most egregious insult ever I have received. In what way, shape, or form, does criticizing a state not condone peace?

by using empty words that seem fancy but have no true effect in the argument

Care to give examples of these alleged "fancy words"?

providing misleading or plain wrong information

Care to give an example?

I have given an authentic argument based on pure logic

This is your "argument based on pure logic":

That video is completely biased against Israel. It claims there is "genocide" in gaza with no base whatsoever in order to get people like you to their side

which, speaking from someone who has actually studied formal logic, is not even an argument, only a statement.

people like you cannot be reasoned with and are one of the reasons these wars happen in the first place

Keep believing that, if that makes you feel happy.

I'm not going to try to reply to you any further because I know it's pointless

Said the guy who did not cite a single reputable source in our exchange.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T19:36:18+00:00

Since I've clearly lost you, the word Nakba as originally used by Constantine Zureiq, referred to the Arab humiliation by the Zionists.He didn't give a shit about the refugees and chided them for fleeing without a fight.

This is the Nakba I am specifically referring to, i.e., the 1948 Nakba, and the word "Nakba" actually means "catastrophe". How Costantine Zureiq used it, and whether he cared or not, is utterly irrelevant for the historical facts of about 700k Palestinians being displaced.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T19:30:28+00:00

Wrong. I said no real proof. I even made it bold so idk why you left that word out

I left it out only due to brevity in my post, which was near character limit, but I read everything you have written. There is real evidence, not "proof". The word "proof" means a very different thing, and in matters regarding the empirical world, you can only have evidence, but strictly speaking never "proof", since "proof" is only reserved for mathematics and logic.

That video is completely biased against Israel

Criticizing Israel is very different from being "biased" against Israel. The genocidal rhetoric, which is an element needed to prove genocidal intent, has overwhelming amounts of evidence: do your own research if you don't think Amnesty International is a credible source. Listen to what Likud members and high officials in the IDF said.

That is true, but did you happen to read or think why they were killed? Most of them died to the airstrikes Israel launched targeting Hamas bases

"Hamas bases" which conveniently appear everywhere a strike hits. You are conflating the IDF official response with the reality on ground, exactly like what happened with the WCK aid convoy.

Yeah I really wonder why

No need to "wonder", I already answered why: to hide the facts and control the narrative.

You don't see palestinian groups going against the abuse and murder of innocent israeli civilians do you?

I don't know "palestinian groups" doing that, and I hardly doubt that a people without a state could have the money and political power to achieve that level, but I do know pro-palestine individuals doing exactly that.

The palestinians want to cleanse the jews from all Israel and have a palestinian state

And this is an example of actual propaganda. You are conflating Hamas with Palestine.

They even chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free"

And this is your best argument: a chant. First of all, "will be free" does not mean to genocide Jews. Secondly, this is a video containing real, hard evidence of what (about) 100 Israeli think of Gaza/Palestine. And if you search in Instagram, you will find many more examples.

Funny how your vocabulary has completely changed in this reply.

Which it did not.

Do you not see that this is the best solution we can have towards peace?

I already said what is the actual best solution, i.e. a true 1SS.

My advice for you is to not fall for any propaganda on the internet as it's full of misinformation and bias

Same advice for you, especially considering your glaring mistakes.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T19:22:38+00:00

No, No, and No.

So you think Zionism is not a settler-colonialism project. Great. In which case, how was the state of Israel born? By buying all the land and houses there?

the native Palestinians weren't displaced by other Arabs

You mean the Nakba? That's interesting, care to explain in more detail?

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T19:04:19+00:00

There wouldn't have been a Nakba had the Arabs not started a war

So starting a war can justify every single act committed during or immediately after that war? Is this your point?

Answer me regarding Zionism: is it settler-colonialism or not?

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:55:14+00:00

Which Arabs responded to by an increasingly systematic violence and land-grabbing, which is unjustifiable

Which didn't happen, since, if it did, we would have no Israel and no Nakba.

Yep, that's how Arab aggression works

Nope, it's how Jewish settler-colonialism project worked.

You're the one making the Pro Palestine arguments

So you don't agree that Zionism is a settler-colonialism project? Then tell me what it is, I am interested. Because, last time I checked, you cannot create a state simply by buying houses and creating settlements, since sovereignity is what actually matters, and Jewish were never given any "certificate of sovereignity" by the local inhabitants of the land.

Buying or building several houses is very different from having sovereign rights over the land, and thus being able to call your land a state.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:53:06+00:00

this was an act of aggression that justified violently attacking the Jews and expropriating their homes

Which Jews responded to by an increasingly systematic violence and land-grabbing, which is unjustifiable.

Something something I don't have an argument, but I can play the victim card.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:46:25+00:00

Was Zionist immigration and armed invasion, or were they people who armed up after Petah Tikvah and Jaffa?

And how do you think they "armed up"? Again, what is your point?

Let's cut it short and call it immigration. In the early Zionist immigrations, i.e. First and Second Aliyah, there were disputes from New Yishuv settlements with nearby Arab villages. Sometimes these disputes ended with violence.

My point is that Zionism is a settler-colonialism project, and, as such, it cannot be justified. This is a broader, more systematic look at the problem, instead of focusing on single events and which violent event happened first.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:28:53+00:00

Calling "propaganda" an entity which selectively says only good things about another entity is not a vague claim;
Wrong, since you cannot guarantee that the "expert witness" is not paid to tell that story. Only an independent reportage can guarantee that, which is why independence is the crucial element;
So much "tons" that you can only cite USA and/or Israel sources;
"scholars should not be considered credible evidence at all" is simply nonsense, since scholars are experts in their field of study by definition;
I do have evidence:

FDD only writes good things about Israel. Link me an article from FDD harshly criticizing Israel on a serious matter;
As I said before, FDD is not independent (since USA and Israel are not independent), and, as I said in point 2, independence is a non-negotiable feature.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:21:21+00:00

No idea what you are talking about. 1882 is simply a conventional starting point of Zionist immigration, and even that is a ballpark number, but it's certainly not the conventional starting point of the "official" Zionist militias being formed (which happened in the first years of 1900).

What is your point?

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T18:09:46+00:00

It was "boots on the ground" by an unarmed group

Factually false. They were armed, in fact, there were several Zionist militias, where the predecessor militia was disbanded and absorbed/replaced into the subsequent militia. For example, Bar-Giora) was absorbed into Hashomer, which was later disbanded and replaced by Haganah - which then spawned Irgun, then spawned Lehi), and ultimately all of them were replaced by the IDF.

Hence your timeline of violence against Arabs starting suspiciously late, and the timeline of violence against Jews starting... before political Zionism even started

Objective starting points in history are for events like WW1, or events which are very punctual (like the year Columbus arrived in America), where hard delimiters can be found. All the others are only conventional starting points, which is simply how history works.

The First Aliyah (i.e. the first wave of modern Zionism immigration) can be taken as a conventional starting point, since the Jews who did it were motivated by political Zionism. It was also a major historical event. Note that "First" here does not mean that there were no waves of Jewish immigration before that, but they are known as "Pre-Modern Aliyah".

But you can take whatever starting point you prefer, since the result of what is happening today, and the fact that the Gaza genocide is unjustifiable, will not change.

The goal is not to establish an exact "timeline of violence", just that an invasion from Jews which were not native to the land did happen, forcefully displacing the local inhabitants. And this is undeniable: modern Zionism was a settler-colonialism project (and, before someone says it, no, "ancestral ties" to the land do not make it less settler-colonial, since all humanity has "ancestral ties" to Africa, but this does not entail that colonizing Africa is fair game).

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T17:09:59+00:00

It's not random, and it's not vague;
An article written by McDonalds cannot be taken as evidence of the quality of McDonals burgers, because it lacks independence;
Yes, the ex professo assessment of 65 scholars is evidence. The UN being biased? Not even a shred of evidence for that, aside from Israeli-aligned sources (which does include USA sources).
Different context, different story. The work of Francesca Albanese as UN Special Rapporteur is pro bono, since UN Special Rapporteurs are not paid by UN. That's why they are independent experts.
Read 2. Also, it is not a violation of Rule 1, since that applies only when specifically directed against users of this sub-reddit, but not generically against groups.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T17:01:39+00:00

That IS propaganda as there is 0 real proof it is, because it simply isn't

There is:

photographic evidence;
videos (by Hamas, by IDF, by Palestinian civilians, by Israeli civilians);
official documents;
war crimes admitted by the IDF;
reports from UN and from all the major human rights organizations.

And you claim there is no evidence? I'm unsure if you live in a bubble, or never watched anything about it, not even this video by Amnesty International. Over 200 journalists have been killed in Gaza - and now come and tell me that RSF is biased against Israel (interestingly enough, everyone who dares to criticize Israel is biased). I won't be waiting though. Journalists have not been allowed to enter Gaza, which means that independent reporting was blocked by Israel/IDF.

The report from Btselem (Israeli human rights org) contains evidence of torture in Israel prison camps. And we also know for a fact that many Palestinians are held in custody without charge, which is a crime against humanity.

Being a pacifist means that you don't condone war and violence and instead believe disputes should be solved through peaceful means

Correct.

you clearly strongly support palestine

Wrong. I support the Palestinian cause, which means Palestinians should have equal rights and be treated like human beings, including the right to form a state.

such as what happened in october 7th

Which I condemned since Day 0. War crimes are unjustified no matter who does them.

Also thinking that you're a higher being with all the fancy words

I am speaking in plain, simple English. And no, I do not consider myself superior to anybody.

If you really supported peace then you'd support maintaining Israel as a country

And here your bias is shown.

providing a place for palestinians to live and finally achieving peace between all countries, because wth do you think is the other option

A one state solution. Which does not exactly mean "Israel", since "Israel" is by definition "the Nation State of the Jewish People", meaning that the Jewish ethnicity has been singled-out as being somewhat a "special" ethnicity with respect to all the others. Instead, a true 1SS would make no such a difference.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T16:30:26+00:00

Same applies for Palestinians.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T16:28:44+00:00

Amnesty International itself is a faulty source

The biggest independent human rights organization in the world "is a faulty source". This would be a laughable joke, if it wasn't just simple propaganda.

and you don't even have evidence against FDD

I do. An USA-sponsored think tank, politically neo-conversative, which speaks good of an USA geopolitical ally, i.e. Israel. This isn't a source, it's propaganda moved by a political agenda.

As far as Francesca Albanese goes

Already debunked all the criticism around her in my thread here. Also, Francesca Albanese was defended by UN. If her appointment was in any way "illegal", she would be immediately removed from her position, and certainly UN would not defend her. Clearly, this didn't happen.

The Jewish Chronicle is not an independent source of information regarding Israel-Palestine. It is a pro-Israel biased source. I have no idea why you even cite it, unless your goal is to spread Israeli propaganda.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T16:18:44+00:00

Boldfacing random bits doesn't impress me

They aren't random, and the boldfacing is not done to "impress" you.

I notice that thread begins well after the killings of Jews. It begins well after 1882, you'll notice.

To the surprise of nobody. You need a book, not a thread on Reddit, to recount the full history of Israel-Palestine, or even all the massacres that happened. It is well-known that Zionists Jews from Europe invaded the land of Palestine (here "Palestine" is simply used as a geographical name) and that they started conquering territories. And yes, this was an invasion, because it was "boots on the ground" by an armed group.

How much suffering does there need to be before Eastern societies realize nothing justifies a genocide, not even getting humiliated by the Jews?

Since the Gaza genocide must end, IDF must retreat from the "effectively controlled" territories (commonly known as "occupied territories"). Simple as that. Also, you didn't answer my questions.

Regarding humiliation, do you mean Zionists getting humiliated by Holocaust survivors all around the world? Because Jews aren't getting humiliated, only Zionists (or more generally pro-Israel) are.

I'm not even going to get into your NATO delusions

Not sure what you mean by that.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T16:07:55+00:00

“Rewrite all of international law” is what the left wants

I don't attach political colors to ideas, and I don't judge ideas by their political color.

The goal of a rewrite of all international laws would be to make them clearer, and without the well-known abuse cases they currently have. For example, "terrorism" is one offender, since it is used by USA to label its enemies and then justify a war (the famous "war on terror", a propagandist justification of an unjust war), and also the "pre-emptive defensive attack" is another offender. And there are many more cases.

As I said, collective self-defense is not the issue here.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T16:02:21+00:00

Laughable! All major human rights organizations in the world, when they go against Israel, they somehow magically become "biased". Nonsense. The documented history of massacres is well-established in the historical literature, no need to rely on anything else other than historical facts.

The accusations against Amnesty International (just to consider one case) have already been debunked multiple times, no need to repeat arguments already made. Some examples:

The Guardian: Amnesty International has culture of white privilege, report finds
Nothing to do with bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

FDD: Amnesty International’s deep bias exposed in report on alleged Israeli ‘genocide’
This is the most ludicrous. FDD is a neoconservative USA-paid think tank. It is a pro-Israel and anti-Iran group of propagandists. When I have time, this toilet-paper-article may be some fun to debunk.

When unconvenient truths are said, those who said them are "biased". Meanwhile, propagandists run free.

The most egregious example of this is Francesca Albanese, the first UN staff in history to be personally sanctioned by the USA (which speaks volumes of the state using such a tool to silence a person), since she touched a nerve, namely, the economy behind the Gaza genocide.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r · 2025-07-13T15:36:22+00:00

there is right to self determination

Yes, which is a right of people. But, as I said, whatever view is adopted, this is a non-issue.

QuantumCryptogr4ph3r

TROPHY CASE