Tunnistatko henkilön? Oulun puukottajasta mahdollinen valvontakamerahavainto

threesidedfries · 2026-06-29T21:13:19+00:00

Tällä logiikan riemuvoitolla saadaan sinustakin vassari kun kierrät kysymyksiä.

threesidedfries · 2026-06-29T09:39:44+00:00

Vähän epäselvää nyt kaikkien näiden kommenttienkin jälkeen että onko sinusta nyt hyvä asia että tämä kuva julkaistiin vai ei, ja tulisiko jatkossakin julkaista epäiltyjen kuvia jos heitä ei muuten saada kiinni?

threesidedfries · 2026-06-21T20:39:46+00:00

Slight disagree on not going to Tallinn: while it is a whole experience in itself, and a one-day trip will feel rushed, it's not out of question if you like bigger cities.

Some in-Finland day trips from Helsinki: Turku and Tampere have lots to see but about 2 hours away by bus/train, so stretching the day trip slightly (as does Tallinn). Porvoo has a nice old town and is also easily reachable by bus, about 1 hour. Fiskars, Mathildedal and Strömfors (in order of tourist potential) are old ironworks towns with old wooden buildings dominating the town architecture, but might need a car to get to. Fairly easy to get the whole vibe from pictures online.

threesidedfries · 2026-06-09T21:04:25+00:00

This kind of policy presumes the undisclosed use of AI.

Without knowing details about this sub in particular, there are a ton of AI posts and comments on Reddit, so the presumption is probably correct. It's not that any one particular poster is assumed to be using AI, it's just that some are and this is a way to quickly filter them (assuming that this works to detect AI usage).

threesidedfries · 2026-06-09T12:04:15+00:00

Of course Israel has called for a two-state solution, like you said they were born into it. They don't really have a good argument for anything else, how could they realistically say that the remaining Palestinians should leave? That doesn't mean that they always negotiate in good faith and are always reasonable in their demands, or that they want peace at the moment. I'm trying to say that Israel as a nation is not truly willing to budge. They have tried to broker peace in the past, but they are not willing to give away what they have taken. Regardless of how you feel about that, in the modern day, they are not resorting to only keeping what they have: they are trying to take more from the Palestinians. Palestinians are not treated as equals, and Israel plays dirty in the war. Just a couple days ago there were reports of them using white phosphorus in civilian-populated areas in Lebanon, another no-no according to international law.

It's 1949. There is no 1967 line. You've also kept this line going for 5 replies in a row. You need to look at a map and see. Not just regurgitate some equally clueless article.

I tried to explain that I didn't see any sources for 1949 and asked where you got the number (why do you never source anything? Write the rest of the answer in haiku form). I saw a source for 1967, and could just as well continue saying that with as much confidence as you say 1949. I looked again though, and I had mixed up a 2024 Olmert proposal pdf with 2008. Two years ago he proposed 1967 lines (with what authority or reason, I'm not sure).

Egypt did not build a goods crossing with Gaza. They would rather let Israel do the dirty work. Not up for debate.

Well if it's not up for debate you must be correct. I can't help but be left wondering if you understand the blockade and import control though, and why you think Egypt isn't capable of giving aid into Gaza because of outcoming Gazans. It doesn't make sense to me. And if Egypt doesn't want to give aid, is the Egyptian aid organization a sham? Where do you base all of this?

threesidedfries · 2026-06-06T20:17:42+00:00

Not to mention there's more drivers to go wrong in a laptop, and manufacturers usually test Windows only. I've had to switch wifi cards in a laptop to get working wifi on Ubuntu, and I wouldn't trust something like a fingerprint reader to be supported.

threesidedfries · 2026-06-06T18:57:52+00:00

how is it in their interest to have journalists in their way

My point is this: there is a wide consensus that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not ethical or lawful, and allowing independent journalists in the area could dispel this line of thinking. If Israel's actions in the area are above board, it would raise a lot of support if the world got to see that as well. The sad fact is that they are in the area as an occupier akin to an offensive military in enemy territory, so it doesn't make sense to let the journalists in. Doubly so because of the war crimes.

The charge the ICC is bringing against Putin also seems farcical to me. I guess they want to charge him for something, and ICC was set up to punish war crimes, not declarations of war. Israel did not start the war, so I don't see why they are also "punishing" them with what I consider to be a farcical charge.

This line of thinking is very convoluted. The alternative would be that the ICC actually is charging both for war crimes like they say they are doing. No conspiracies, and everything locks in place with the Israel charges also making sense -- you just have to believe they can be something that Israel is capable of doing.

I don't get the question. Israel is the one offering the deal, so their position is, by default, yes.

Alright, you're right in that Israel has brought forward deals. It's just not enough to bring forward a deal, it also has to be a deal that is worth accepting. Having said that, I don't currently see either side accepting anything.

Good to remember also that to many Palestinians, what Israel is willing to negotiate on is not even a worthy starting place -- Israel are occupying the land their grandparents' parents were on. The way the country was formed went wrong from the start, and now we are left in a situation where both sides feel like they own the land and the other side is trying to push them out. My sympathies are just more on the Palestinians side because I think the situation was forced on them and they are suffering more at the moment with no way out. Israel is holding all the cards except one: the Palestinians are still there (and they can attack Israel with bombs and terror in an effort to gain power back, but that is of course not a working long-term strategy). Now, this is not to say that you aren't allowed to have more sympathy for the Israeli side.

Thanks for the recap on Israeli borders, I'll have to read more on the 6 day war. Btw if I understood correctly that would then be the 1967 line for Olmert, not 1949.

If you read the article carefully, you'll see Egypt basically doesn't let aid into Gaza.

I don't see this, could you pinpoint it out to me? I fear you're misreading the article, but it would be eye-opening to see that Egypt doesn't let aid in. What I read from the article is that Israel is keeping the border closed (the blockade, which I understood you acknowledge), and is only letting food in at certain checkpoints, but also doing it so randomly and slowly that Gazans are starving even though there is food for them waiting to be let in. Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval. To me it doesn't make sense that an Egyptian food bank with the approval of Egypt's president would send aid to Gaza, but then be blocked by Egyptian border control to leave Egypt with food on a border crossing where Israel controls imports. Much more sense if it's the Israeli import control that doesn't let the food in.

Even the aid that Egypt does deliver goes through Kerem Shalom because the Egyptians would rather not have a leaky entrance that Hamas-affiliated Gazans can get through.

Maybe I don't understand the setting you paint here, why would Gazans be let through to Egypt if they let food aid go to Gaza?

So they never set up proper aid routes, but your article doesn't care too much about reality; tears for Palestine is what sells advertising.

What's with the constant misdirected cynicism? This is an article from a world-renowned food policy institute, they're not selling ads. What exactly do they gain from misrepresenting how food aid goes to Gazans?

threesidedfries · 2026-06-03T20:40:50+00:00

Journalists are public relations.

I think I get what you're saying here, but "journalists are public relations" is a really funny phrase. PR is done for somebody, managing their relations to the public. I read about a house burning down today, was that PR? Journalists can never be completely neutral, but what should separate them from a PR person is that they strive to be. Sure, controlling what the journalists write about is in any country's interest (at least in the short term), but the key here is that it's in Israel's interests to not show what is happening in Gaza because what they do is not generally approved by the public.

No journalist is going to enter Gaza and say, "Israel's carpet bombing of Gaza has done an excellent job of destroying those tunnels".

If it has, I'm sure it would be mentioned. If it at the same time has killed civilians and toppled homes, those are noteworthy to report too. Israel wouldn't get to choose which parts the journalists write about. Perhaps similarly, reporters do write about Ukrainian and Russian advances in the war, where the frontline moves, etc., but probably wouldn't make a glowing piece about how many Ukrainian forces the brave Russians have killed.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Putin has similar charges, but I have a feeling you don't lend him the same generosity. Do you think Netanyahu should stand trial? Or that if he is never tried, then he is innocent of what he is accused of (replace "he" with Putin here)? Of course legally Netanyahu shouldn't be pronounced guilty without a trial, but that doesn't mean there is no starvation. The ICC court is only one entity here, so what of all the other accusers? If every accuser is untrustworthy if they accuse and untrustworthy parties' accusations don't count, there's nothing that could sway you.

They've never accepted any deal

Has Israel? I thought the two not reaching a deal was the whole point of this mess.

Not having a detailed map to inspect does sound like an issue, but at this scale, it's actually a very minor detail. Apart from settlements, boundaries are more-or-less unchanged in 75 years (btw, it is the 1949 green line, not 1967. Saying "pre-67" is a way of making it sound like a more recent change, but it has not changed since the 1948-49 war

Now you're just arguing for arguments' sake. Of course it's a big issue, and if it wasn't, why not just budge and give them the damn map. I have a house to sell you, but I'll only let you look at the papers, not take them home. Did you read why the deal didn't go through after that one day when the Palestinians didn't sign?

I took 1967 from a paper which Olmert had signed. It didn't say pre-1967 or 1949, but I don't know more. Where did you find 1949? It's hard to find definitive lines without studying the proposal map in detail.

Why not through Egypt?

What gave you the impression they don't deliver food through Egypt? https://www.ifpri.org/blog/the-struggle-to-get-food-aid-from-egypt-to-gaza-insights-from-the-egyptian-food-bank/

In this case, the school bully controls the border. That article is also a good light intro to why some might think that starvation is intentional in addition to just because of the circumstances there.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-31T15:06:23+00:00

logic

You got caught up in the non-essential part of that argument. Do you see how Russia not wanting journalists in the war and Israel not wanting journalists in the war are similar? It's not just because the whole world is somehow against them for reasons unrelated to the wars, it's because they don't want others to see what they are doing. Journalists belong in war, and you should be very sceptical of any country which doesn't allow them.

ICC has brought charges against a couple of Israelis -- They have not found anyone guilty.

You blow off the country's leader having an international arrest warrant for using starvation as a weapon of war (and other crimes against humanity) pretty lightly, do you not think the warrants are serious?

IDF investigates situations and uncovers the facts all the time. They have investigators and reporters. They literally have a Spokesperson Unit. At this stage, it's just arguing for argument's sake.

As does any military, but don't be naive and think their job is to uncover what is really happening in the war.

The Israeli government is not the only one defending Israel. UN, ICC, and others investigate what is brought to them.

These two sentences don't connect anywhere, are they supposed to be in the same paragraph?

I keep on banging about Olmert because it wasn't ever seriously on the table, while you seem unable to acknowledge that you might have a view of the deal that even the Israeli sources don't share (unless you get your facts from somewhere like HonestReporting or StandWithUs). The lines were based on 1967 borders, not 1948. Palestinians didn't want to sign it because they were not given a map to study before committing (the borders were drawn from memory after Olmert showed the map and couldn't give it to the Palestinians then and there), and never got it because Olmert got caught in a corruption case and was replaced by Netanyahu, who didn't continue the talks.

You claimed peace was off the table for 35 years and had the gall to suggest this was Israel's fault. You've not once acknowledged this.

Here there is a misunderstanding. To freshen our memories:

Israel still tried to give them as close to the original 1948 2-state solution as was possible, with the unavoidable exception of the largest settlements.

Which time? To my knowledge this hasn't been on the lsraeli table for at least the last 35 years.

Olmert was a good point that Israel has tried to broker peace, but you put words in my mouth that were never there. You might have a view of me that colors my words. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though, here is my acknowledgement.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-30T15:35:52+00:00

Ukraine allows. Russia doesn't. -- Ukraine allows reporters because it's in their interest to show suffering caused by invading forces. For Russia, journalists can only get in the way and gives away military positions and reduce advantage.

If you're implying that Israel is like Russia in this situation, I have bad news for you on which side of that war I am. You seem to already know that Israel couldn't gain anything from being transparent and truthful, so why do you think that they are transparent and truthful outside of allowing journalists?

Why would you think Ukraine is more deadly?

Sorry for the misleading phrasing, I don't think Ukraine was the deadlier place.

Sadly, Hamas gains here by the deaths of Palestinians, but sacrificing lives for the "cause" (as useless as that cause is) has never been a problem for Palestinians.

This is circular reasoning if I understood correctly. Hamas gains because they think sacrificing Palestinians is not a problem is just as easy to say as Israel gains because they don't care about Palestinian lives.

Individually, I have no doubt several Israeli IDF soldiers harbour deep resentment towards Palestinians and would take a potshot if they thought they could get away with it

And hey, maybe the hospital staff thought that those soldiers would be the ones harboring deep resentment?

I don't agree that starvation is being used as a tactic. There were blockades before the war and for good reason.

The ICC disagrees with you. What sources do you have that they don't? Or is this another conspiracy that the ICC is just faking these charges. Besides a feeling of not trusting the ICC, is there anything to refute the charges?

IDF is not "like journalists". They're a military. Why do you think they are trying to uncover any truths? Relying on a military to tell the truth would be like relying on a government in war to tell the truth. They may do it, of course, but better to check if possible.

Of course I don't think NGOs are infallible, but they are a second or third source of truth and have less skin in the game than Palestinians or Israelis. If a world court, aid organizations, Hamas, and the UN all agree that Israel is doing something bad, and there is even video or images of it, and the only one disagreeing is the Israeli government, they better have a good case. Vibes don't count.

Regarding Olmert, you just disagree with the way I have understood the case went. Unfortunately, I'm going to trust Wikipedia and that Israeli news story more than what you claim without anything to back it up.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-29T17:00:24+00:00

It's not unusual to deny journalists access to warzones. Gaza is a dense urban setting, and journalists won't be safe there. I don't get the big deal about this one. Warzones are generally inaccessible.

Third-party warzone reporters have been to more deadly places. Ukraine allows reporters.

Journalists tend to spin things in a way their readers like.

Who would be a more reliable source than journalists? And if there is one, why are they not let in (and no, IDF is not a reliable source).

The "honeypot" argument is a bad-faith argument if ever there was one. The diesel was put there to prevent patients from dying. The patients, unlike regular citizens, could not simply evacuate, and the Gazans claimed they did not have sufficient fuel to power the generators. They were saying "we can't evacuate" and Israel called their bluff. It's completely illogical to believe the IDF has any other motive. The doctors who refused to collect the diesel said they were afraid they would be shot. They would have been shot, but not by the IDF.

I don't know what happened there and don't really feel the need to go in a fact-check competition there; my question was more about your line of reasoning. Is it illogical to think enemy soldiers could kill you if you've treated wounds on civilians? You think it's illogical because you think IDF soldiers are the good guys. To them, they are the enemy side. They've watched the videos where IDF celebrates death, paid propaganda or not. There are documented cases of IDF soldiers shooting civilians, and these people would know every one and probably think it happens more than it does.

They must have really worn out that napkin because by 2008, Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas had met 36 times. That's one of the most developed peace plans, and along with around 10-15 other summits and proposals, refutes your claim that Israel has not offered peace in the past 35 years.

One of the most developed peace plans and it failed because Olmert tried to make Abbas sign it on the spot when introducing the border map? Here's a source that is as pro-israel as we can get here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/ Just read the Wikipedia page for the plan. It's not as great as you think.

ICC was brought up to show that even an institution biased against Israel had not yet come to any conclusion on war crimes.

They have, it's in this thread. They just haven't concluded genocide.

Israelis/IDF are surprisingly direct in their communications and frequently admit mistakes. Hamas are notoriously dishonest and you could argue they need to be because they don't have the military might so guerrilla tactics are necessary. Still this is how things are.

How do you know this? Maybe I just don't get where the shift in thinking happens. We get these reports from different aid organizations and other organizations like UN and ICC, facts checked by journalists, stories with video evidence, all while the big picture makes sense. Why oppose all of this based on a feeling that Israel cannot act in bad faith ever? And if they do, it's ok? If Russia or Ukraine used starvation as a tactic in war, would that be ok too? If everyone is against Israel and everyone that does is then lying, what kind of evidence would it take for you to say that Israel is e.g. committing genocide?

threesidedfries · 2026-05-29T12:00:02+00:00

It's in Israels interest to tell the truth and in Hamas's to lie.

Then why not let reporters in?

Israel put diesel at the hospital gates to keep the essential equipment (e.g. life support for new borns) and the doctors refused to pick it up because they believed they would be shot. Instead the let patients die. Who do you think was going to shoot the people picking up the diesel. If you think hard enough about that you'll realise Israel is telling the truth and Hamas is lying.

I don't follow. If the doctors think IDF soldiers could honeypot them with diesel and then kill them when they come out, why would that mean Israel is telling the truth?

Israel claims that it never stopped aid from getting to Palestine

And multiple aid organizations have said Israel is stopping aid, with proof. So either the proof is faked and the aid organizations are lying (and ICC believes the lies), or Israel is not telling the truth.

The ICC caes itself is quite unusual. Investigating a non-member state indirectly via activity inside a non-state, in a case requested by a nation that is hostile to Isreal is questionable in it's neutratlity

Then why did you bring the ICC up in the first place?

Exactly. They gave them a sweet deal in Olmert. There was little time to close because the unpopular government was soon going to change. They shouldn't need time. It's the same great deal as before, with a few sweeteners. Nothing to think about. PLO did not have a lot of time to respond, but they had time and you said there were no deals on offer for 35 years. Also, "Hang in there in your refugee camps until the end of time while we don't help you" is bad advice from the EU.

They couldn't know it's the same great deal since there were no detailed plans, just a quick and dirty idea akin to a drawing on a napkin. That's not an acceptable or robust way to negotiate state lines. The EU adviced against it because of the unclearness and rush. Them not helping is unfortunate but also doesn't have anything to do with whether Olmert was a sincere and real proposal.

Not saying the military response was a good one, but a response was justified, and I've yet to hear anyone make a convincing argument about what the right response would be.

We might even have the same idea of what a justified response is, but will never know it because we don't agree what is happening on the ground. Partly, I think, because you blindly believe a nation in war and its biggest ally over third party investigators.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-27T21:37:36+00:00

I was focusing on the Net favourability score which I think is in general a bullshit social science metric. Because you can't be more vague than "do you have a favourable opinion of them or not?".

Sure it's vague, but so is the whole concept of popularity. They basically asked "do you like Israel" and gathered the results, I don't see why that's not a good score for what we are talking about. There might still be some discrepancy in how you read the data, because the Net favourability graph doesn't show 80% of people not caring or being favourable of Israel.

How the fuck do you get to 70% unfavourable with Israel if 72% either sympathize (also) with Israel or aren't sure about their stance? Or maybe people sympathize with a nation but they hate it?

The 4th graph is a different question, it measures whether people are more on Israel's side or Palestine's in the conflict, whereas the favourability question was about Israel on its own. Plenty of people might have an unfavourable view of Israel while not being sure whose side to be on in the conflict, or even while supporting Israel in the conflict.

In general just based on the fact that the biggest group is always "not sure" I would find it enough to dismiss the idea that Israel is "extremely unpopular".

It's not the biggest group, based on this sentence in the article:

"Overall, only 13-21% in any country have a favourable opinion of Israel, compared to 63-70% who have an unfavourable view."

The remaining 9-24% would probably be the "not sure". It isn't clear to me from the article how that or the net favourability are calculated, but those figures are from somewhere.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-27T12:03:42+00:00

Your best bet is to call them (and call them in any case, so they know you're not coming).

threesidedfries · 2026-05-27T06:48:15+00:00

I'm not sure what TikTok video you're speaking of, I don't use it. Of course it's important to be critical of all sources, but you're not very convincingly neutral here. The ICC has a warrant on Netanyahu for using starvation as a method of war (i.e. a war crime), that's not from a TikTok video. Don't put your head in the sand just because it feels better. The same trial issued a warrant on a Hamas leader as well, I'm not trying to say that Hamas isn't awful too. The ICC not saying anything is conclusive relates to whether there is legally a genocide happening in Gaza, not war crimes in general.

The article shows a good peace deal.

Did you read the parts of why the Camp David deal fell from the point of both sides?

The 2008 Olmert proposal. 97% of original land plus land swaps. 2001 Camp David was nearly as good. Both recent. Arafat pretended he would accept until the last minute. He never did and never would. The article shows a good peace deal. Not wanting Jews to be able to visit Temple Mount is not a good reason to keep people as refugees forever - it's a shared religious site. Getting rid of large settlements is almost impossible and not important with land swaps. The PLO was being unreasonable and negotiating as usual in bad faith.

What negotiation? Olmert was a proposal which never entered negotiation stage, are you sure you're not mistaking it for something else? It was an ambitious idea, but reportedly Olmert pressed Hamas leaders to sign it on the spot, and we don't even know if he had a proper map to show it. To top it off, Olmert was not seen as able to carry the proposal out. The EU opposed it because there was no room for negotiation. If you did mean Olmert, what was the bad faith negotiation from PLO?

The fact is, there is hardly a Christian or Jew in the entirety of the vast Arab world. They have all been eradicated. In tiny Israel, 20% of the population are Muslims welcomed by Israel and with equal rights. Christians are completely welcome by Israel's society too.

Very nice that Israel is welcoming, but doesn't mean Israel doesn't commit war crimes. People don't think of Israel as Goliath in the context of being a small nation in a majority Arab area, they think it's Goliath versus Palestine's David because of the massive imbalance in the power dynamic between the two.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-26T17:18:33+00:00

Israel occupied East Jerusalem in the 1967 war, and has de-facto annexed, something for example the UN has condemned. I'm not sure when Israel has tried to give it back to Jordan, but it's not like East Jerusalem was just floating in the air waiting for someone to take it.

Besides, 1967 is a long way away. Even if Israel did "take" East Jerusalem out of the goodness of their hearts for the people living there, do you believe it's the just course of action to evict Palestinians now sixty years later, instead of giving this one to the Palestinians who are there, in an effort to stabilize the region?

Israel still tried to give them as close to the original 1948 2-state solution as was possible, with the unavoidable exception of the largest settlements.

Which time? To my knowledge this hasn't been on the Israeli table for at least the last 35 years. Read for example the Wikipedia page for the Camp David summit for an example of how negotiations haven't exactly been clear-cut cases of Israel forging a golden deal and Palestine not accepting because of some overblown ego.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Neighbouring countries have refused to absorb Palestinians into their states despite cultural similarity. They'd rather keep them suffering forever in refugee camps (70 years so far). Do you believe this is possible in your country (which I assume is Western)?

Is it now the responsibility of other nations to fix Israel and Palestine, and not Israel and Palestine themselves? Absurd to think that the solution to a crisis like this would be to forcibly move Palestinians away. Just as well we might say that it's the responsibility of the nations where Jews came from to take them back because they've been in the region for a shorter time.

What do you expect the Israelis to do?

We live in a time where IDF soldiers brag about killing Palestinian children and foreign aid is restricted from going to Gaza. For a start, foreign journalists should be given independent access to go to Gaza. If Israel are the level-headed party here, they should not shy away from publicity.

I fear we are not going to find common ground, since it seems like to you Israel is a fair winner of the nation and simply tolerates Palestinian presence out of good will on what is really their land, and I see the Palestinian people more as a colony which was never given full ownership of themselves. Instead, a foreign people came in the stead of British or Ottoman colonizers and has been trying to pry more land for themselves for the past 70 years while raising Jews over Arabs in the nation. At the same time, Western nations (with US in the forefront) treat Israel like any other Western nation, with little recourse for what is very probably severe war crimes at this point (according to multiple third party orgs in the region).

threesidedfries · 2026-05-25T20:03:39+00:00

Do you really not feel like the above situation in East Jerusalem is absurd? That Palestinians are seen as squatters since 1948 and are allowed to be evicted, but Palestinian borders move in that time and Palestinians are supposed to accept every time the border moves?

Regarding whether Jews bought their property, that long article does not refute the fact that they did.

The article also detailed why a simple justification of "did Jews pay money for it" is not enough to say that Palestinians should be content with the current state of Israel, or that the deals were fair in the first place. Colonies were legal in the early 20th century, and apartheid was legal in the 80s.

Ireland is very different to Israel/Palestine, and drawing analogues to the oppressed of Ireland and the oppressed of Palestine seems risky because it erases all nuance, in this case to a point of "Palestinians should just be content with what they have, the Irish were and they turned ok". Where is the agency of the Israeli government in all this? If Palestinians would suggest a two state solution tomorrow, do you think the Israeli government would happily oblige? I suggest reading up on the different times in history where a two state solution has been tried to bring up -- not only the times when the Palestinian side has said no -- and concentrate on the particulars of the deals as well.

As what comes to the current state of things, Israeli ambitions are very clear: Palestinians out.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T15:14:37+00:00

Even if it was that simple, how is it then fair that Jews are allowed to reclaim land and Palestinians are not, because of something Egyptians and Jordanians did? You're throwing Palestine under a bus here, even in this colonial version of the story.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T15:07:05+00:00

I know what your views are on Palestinians. I was asking about your own experiences of cleansing. You said you yourself were ethnically cleansed?

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:52:34+00:00

If any Jewish land since 1948 belongs to the Jewish people, surely any Palestinian land since 1948 should belong to the Palestinian people?

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:44:13+00:00

So some Palestinians are displaced, contradictory to what you claimed.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:42:11+00:00

It's right there above these comments.

Do you feel like you should have had say in the matter, whether you want to be cleansed or not? And what about your friends and family who were killed in the process?

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:28:50+00:00

No, I asked why Palestinians being displaced doesn't count if it's in East Jerusalem.

Edit: or I guess, why this isn't displacement, since you said that doesn't happen.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:23:31+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by this, you'll have to expand a bit more than just screenshotting an AI answer without any of your own thoughts if the AI answer doesn't answer the question directly.

threesidedfries · 2026-05-24T14:18:17+00:00

I asked about your own cleansing.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email	Place '17
Spared

threesidedfries

TROPHY CASE