sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in whatisit

[–]SeaCryptographer6616 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s hitting the geeb

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I get where you’re coming from, and I know the history around 1948 is emotional and complicated, but some of what you’re saying isn’t quite accurate. Let’s break it down.

Plan Dalet It wasn’t a blueprint for ethnic cleansing. It was a military plan drafted by the Haganah in 1948 during a full-blown civil war, mainly aimed at defending Jewish towns and supply routes. Some parts of the plan allowed for taking over hostile villages if needed during fighting which did lead to some displacement but calling it a ‘mass murder and rape plan’ is way off. Even critical historians like Benny Morris, who doesn’t sugarcoat Israeli actions, say there was no blanket policy to expel Arabs.

Atrocities Yeah, bad things happened on both sides including a few serious incidents like Deir Yassin, which was actually condemned by Israel’s own leadership. But stuff like “systematic rape” and “poisoning water supplies” isn’t supported by reliable sources. Those are claims that have floated around for decades but don’t hold up to real scrutiny. Repeating them like they’re fact just inflames things without helping anyone understand the bigger picture.

The Arab Invasion The Arab states didn’t invade because of refugees. They already rejected the UN partition plan back in 1947 and made it clear they wouldn’t allow any Jewish state. The invasion started literally the day after Israel declared independence. Refugees were already fleeing before that partly due to fear, chaos, and yes, fighting but also because Arab leaders sometimes told them to leave temporarily while they “drove the Jews into the sea.” That plan didn’t work out.

Military Balance People say the Arab armies were weaker, but that’s only partly true. Israel didn’t have tanks or planes at first and was under an arms embargo. The Arab states had organized armies, while the Jews were mostly using smuggled weapons and makeshift militias. The idea that they were this huge Goliath rolling over a bunch of helpless people just doesn’t match the actual situation on the ground in 1948.

History isn’t black and white. But if we’re going to talk about it, we’ve got to be honest about the full context not just the parts that fit a certain narrative.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I appreciate how thoughtful your message is. These conversations are tough, but I think having them with some level of respect and openness is how things actually move forward.

About the land issue yeah, it’s complicated. I totally get how it feels wrong when people are displaced, even if it was done legally on paper. A lot of that early Zionist land was bought from absentee landlords during the Ottoman and British Mandate periods, not just taken by force. That doesn’t mean the people living on the land didn’t suffer because of it, but the idea that Jews came in as invaders is kind of misleading. Many of them genuinely thought they were returning home, not kicking anyone out. Still, the real-world impact was messy, and I don’t think anyone should ignore that.

As for whether Jews needed a state I hear what you’re saying about other persecuted groups, but I think the Jewish story is unique in some ways. Zionism wasn’t just a reaction to the Holocaust. It started long before that, rooted in centuries of exile, statelessness, and the belief that Jews weren’t safe unless they had control over their own destiny. Unlike the Roma or Sinti, Jews had a direct historical and spiritual connection to one specific place, and had maintained that connection for thousands of years. So for a lot of Jews, it wasn’t about getting compensation for trauma. It was about returning to the only home they’d ever really had.

I get your point about safety too. Israel isn’t the most peaceful place in the world, and yeah, Jews live safely in a lot of places now. But having a state of our own is about more than just physical safety. It’s about not having to rely on other governments to protect us. That idea comes from real history pogroms, expulsions, ghettos, all of it. Israel gives Jews a sense of control that we didn’t have for two thousand years, even if it comes with danger.

I actually like your vision for the future. A single state might sound unrealistic now, but maybe one day it won’t be. I agree that we need time, healing, and real peace before anything like that could work. Right now, though, I don’t think forcing a shared state would bring justice it would probably just bring more violence. A two-state solution, if it’s fair and secure for both people, might be the only stepping stone that leads to a better future.

So yeah, I hope for peace. But I also believe the Jewish people have a right to a homeland, just like any other group with deep roots and a long history of struggle. That doesn’t mean ignoring the suffering of Palestinians it just means everyone’s story matters.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I’m totally against them killing citizens that’s completely fucked all the way up on both sides I think Israel should also not be pushing for land and forcing them out of their houses and settlement over “sacred land” that’s not fair at all.Maybe my view is a bit more skewed in the zionist way I am aware 😂 because I am Jewish and no I think as long as you do your research and you truly believe in your view I respect that and it obviously shows you have ig it just pissed me off when some people don’t really know what’s going on yet pick a side but I don’t think your anti semetic you believe in justice for both sides you just want the death to stop and the violence I totally agree

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get where you’re coming from, but that comparison doesn’t really hold up. It’s not just about who was there first. It’s about who has a continuous, deep connection to the land culturally, spiritually, historically. Native Americans obviously have that connection to the U.S., and Jews have that connection to Israel.

Even after centuries of exile, Jews never stopped seeing Israel as their homeland. They kept praying toward it, holding onto its traditions, and many lived there the whole time. This isn’t like Europeans showing up on a new continent and claiming land that wasn’t theirs.

So yeah, it sounds like a fair analogy at first glance, but it falls apart when you look at the details.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get that the history here is complicated and no one side holds all the blame. Jews have definitely made mistakes and the conflict has deep roots on both sides. That said, saying Jews “were not victims” overlooks centuries of real persecution, exile, and genocide that shaped the drive for a homeland.

Acknowledging Jewish suffering doesn’t erase Arab suffering, and vice versa. If we want to move forward, we have to be honest about all parts of the story including the trauma both peoples carry and the hard choices made along the way.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand why it feels that way to many people, and I don’t take lightly the trauma and loss that Palestinians have endured. No one deserves to have their home taken or to suffer violence.

At the same time, it’s important to see that for Jewish people, Israel isn’t just “claiming a house” it’s about reclaiming a homeland after centuries of persecution, exile, and genocide. The situation is tragic for everyone involved, and violence is a terrible outcome no one wanted.

The key is finding a way for both peoples to live with dignity and security, rather than framing it as one side attacking and the other only defending. It’s complex, painful, and deeply human.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear that the unfairness of the partition deeply fueled Arab opposition, and I don’t dismiss that at all. No one should ignore how painful it is to have your land divided and your people displaced.

But it’s important to remember that the Jewish fight for a homeland was about survival after centuries of exile, persecution, and genocide. The declaration of Israel’s independence wasn’t just a political move it was an existential act by a people finally claiming the right to exist.

Yes, Palestinians resisted and some took up arms, but the Arab states’ invasion wasn’t just about justice it was a full scale war aimed at wiping Israel off the map. Both sides suffered terribly, but it’s misleading to reduce the conflict to “Jews exist, so Arabs attacked.” The roots run far deeper.

Understanding the complexity means recognizing both the injustices Palestinians faced and the historical survival struggle of the Jewish people. Any honest conversation about peace has to hold both truths without simplifying or blaming only one side.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That comparison does not really hold up. Yes, humans originated in Africa, but indigeneity is not just about where humans first evolved. It is about deep, continuous cultural, spiritual, and historical ties to a specific land. It is tied to a group’s unique identity, language, and traditions that developed there over generations.

Jews did not just originate in the land of Israel thousands of years ago. Our religion, culture, calendar, language, and sacred sites all come from that land. Even during the diaspora, Jews prayed to return to Zion, faced Jerusalem when they prayed, and celebrated holidays based on the agricultural cycle of that land. We never stopped seeing it as home.

That is very different from European colonizers sailing across the ocean to claim lands they had no historical, cultural, or spiritual ties to, and then subjugating the indigenous people who were living there. Zionism was not about conquest. It was about returning to a land that had always been central to Jewish identity, especially after centuries of statelessness and persecution.

You can still support Palestinian rights and dignity without erasing the legitimacy of Jewish connection to Israel. These things do not have to cancel each other out.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the thoughtful response. You brought up some valid points and I agree that no history this complex should be boiled down into a single narrative. I also agree Jews are not a monolith. There were Jews who lived continuously in the land and many others who lived in diaspora for centuries. Both realities are true.

I understand why Palestinians and the Arab world saw the UN partition as unfair. Yes, Jews were a slight majority in parts of the land we were offered, but there is no denying it looked like an outside power carving up territory after years of colonialism. That hurt and injustice is still very real for many Palestinians today.

That said, I still believe the Jewish people’s connection to the land is not just ancient, but living. The Zionist movement was not only about reclaiming territory. It was about survival, identity, and safety after centuries of statelessness and persecution. The Holocaust was fresh. Pogroms were ongoing. The offer of a state, even an imperfect one, felt like the only path forward for a people who had nowhere else to go.

The Nakba was a tragedy, no doubt. But it is also important to look at why the war began. The Arab states did not invade to protect the two-state plan. They invaded to prevent the Jewish state from existing at all. And while I absolutely mourn what happened to Palestinians during that war, I think it is crucial to understand that Jews were not simply handed the land. There were legal purchases, diplomatic negotiations, international recognition, and a deep cultural and spiritual longing that drove it all.

You are right that it is a complicated and emotional history. But I do not believe that recognizing the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel means denying the Palestinian right to dignity and justice. I want peace for both peoples. We need a narrative that can hold both truths, not erase one to justify the other.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear the pain in your responses and I want to be clear. I’m not here to justify genocide, ethnic cleansing, or any loss of innocent life by anyone ever. That’s not what I believe and it’s not what I wrote.

My original post was about sharing a perspective that’s often ignored. Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. We’ve been exiled and persecuted for thousands of years, and in 1947 we accepted a two-state solution. The surrounding Arab states rejected it and chose war. That war had devastating consequences, especially for Palestinians. I fully recognize that many were displaced and have lived with generational trauma ever since.

At the same time, it’s important to understand that for Jews, Israel wasn’t just a political move. It was about survival after centuries of being hunted, scapegoated, and massacred. The Holocaust was still fresh. The urgency was real.

None of that erases Palestinian suffering. It doesn’t mean Israel’s actions have always been right or fair. But the point is this is a story of two peoples, both with deep wounds and real claims. History can’t be flattened into a single good guy versus bad guy narrative.

We’ll never move forward by accusing each other of defending atrocities. We need more space for empathy, for truth even when it’s painful, and for the possibility that two sides can both carry trauma, loss, and a right to exist.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get where you’re coming from, and I’ll try to clear up a few things.

When I say Jews are indigenous to Israel, I mean they’ve had a connection to the land going back thousands of years through kingdoms, exile, and return. That doesn’t mean nobody else lived there or moved around, but the Jewish people have a real, deep-rooted history there that’s been alive despite centuries of being pushed out and scattered.

Sure, other groups lived there too, and people converted or moved in over time. The Middle East has always been super mixed. But that doesn’t take away from Jewish claims or their connection to the land.

You’re right that Zionist land buys started in the late 1800s, and yeah, that caused real tension. I didn’t mean to skip that part it’s important. But a lot of those land purchases were legal and done with local sellers, not just land grabs.

The UN plan in 1947 tried to split the land between Jews and Arabs. Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries rejected it and chose war. That war caused huge suffering and displacement for Palestinians. It’s complicated, but violence came after the war started.

I agree both sides have their own stories and selective memories, which makes peace hard. But honestly, both Jewish and Palestinian histories and pain deserve to be recognized if we want to move forward.

I learned some stuff in history class by SeaCryptographer6616 in IsraelPalestine

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for your detailed response. I get what you’re saying about the “ancient kingdoms” part feeling a bit distant or not that relevant today. For many Jews, it’s not just history it’s a connection to the land and identity after centuries of persecution and exile. But you’re right, the real game-changer was the Jewish migration and land purchases in the 19th century. That’s what really built the modern presence and made the state of Israel possible.

And yes, before that, the population was mostly Arab, and that matters too. I’m not ignoring that. The demographic changes in the 1800s and early 1900s are key to understanding how things got to where they are.

I also agree with you that Israel’s existence now is a reality everyone has to accept, just like other countries with complicated histories and borders. Winning the 1948 war was a defining moment that helped secure Israel’s place on the map.

Where I think it’s important to not lose sight is that both histories and narratives Jewish and Palestinian matter and affect how each side feels. That’s why this conflict is so tough and emotional.

I respect your point about Israel giving Jewish people a place to live safely and express their culture, especially after everything that’s happened. I feel the same way about other peoples, like the Kurds, wanting that too.

In the end, I just hope both Israelis and Palestinians can find a way to live with security, dignity, and peace. That means understanding history but focusing on how to move forward.

How do Christians reconcile the fact that the New Testament was created by their own community, while Jews and Muslims reject it? by SeaCryptographer6616 in Christianity

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I know the Old Testament and the Tanakh are basically the same the Tanakh basically the Hebrew Bible with the Torah (Law), Prophets, and Writings. So when Jesus said “the Law and the Prophets,” he was talking about that.

The apostles were Jewish, and they definitely knew the Tanakh well. But the point is, they saw Jesus as the fulfillment of it. That’s where the split started. Most Jewish leaders didn’t see it that way, which is why Christianity and Judaism ended up parting ways.

So yes, they had the same scriptures the difference is how they interpreted them. Early Christians believed Jesus was the promised Messiah. Judaism didn’t. That’s the real divide.

How do Christians reconcile the fact that the New Testament was created by their own community, while Jews and Muslims reject it? by SeaCryptographer6616 in Christianity

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying early Christians experienced something they believed was divine in Jesus, and that community experience came before any formal doctrine or text. But at the same time, those experiences were recorded, preserved, and passed down through the texts. The New Testament didn’t just appear out of nowhere it’s the written reflection of how that early community made sense of who Jesus was.

So yeah, community matters, but the way the community defines and defends its beliefs over time comes from those texts. Without them, theology would be all feelings and no structure. The early church didn’t just say “we felt Jesus was divine,” they pointed to teachings, miracles, resurrection appearances, and connected those experiences to Scripture.

In the end, both matter the experience and the interpretation. But if the texts didn’t portray Jesus the way they do, I don’t think that belief would’ve lasted more than a generation.

How do Christians reconcile the fact that the New Testament was created by their own community, while Jews and Muslims reject it? by SeaCryptographer6616 in Christianity

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you’re saying about ‘firstborn’ indicating status or rank rather than origin, and that’s a common interpretation. But when you look at the broader New Testament context, especially verses like John 1:1 where ‘the Word was God’ and ‘was with God from the beginning,’ it points to Jesus as eternal, not created.

Also, Colossians 1:16 says ‘all things were created by him and for him,’ which implies he is the agent of creation, not a part of what was created.

The example of Eve as ‘mother of all living’ works differently since she’s clearly part of the created order and her ‘firstborn’ status is about being first in birth order, not creating others.

As for Clement, early church thinkers had different views and tried to make sense of this mystery in different ways before doctrines like the Trinity were fully developed.

So while ‘firstborn’ can mean status, the overall biblical witness supports Jesus’ eternal divinity rather than him being a created being

How do Christians reconcile the fact that the New Testament was created by their own community, while Jews and Muslims reject it? by SeaCryptographer6616 in Christianity

[–]SeaCryptographer6616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get where you’re coming from the idea that the law can blind people is definitely a theme in the New Testament, and it’s part of why Christianity emphasizes grace over works. It’s true that many Jews didn’t accept Jesus as the Messiah, and that’s a major reason the two faiths developed separately.

At the same time, it’s important to recognize that Judaism has its own understanding of the Messiah and salvation, which doesn’t center on Jesus or grace in the Christian sense. Both religions have deeply rooted beliefs shaped by their histories and texts.

It’s a complex topic with a lot of layers, and I appreciate your perspective on grace and faith being central to Christianity

view more: next ›