232
Despite Gaza death toll soaring, U.S. unlikely to rethink weapons supplies to Israel
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
232 points (92.3% liked)
News
23413 readers
2500 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And you're referring to land seizures that happened even earlier, so I'm not really sure what your point is.
So I already know where this is going, so let me save some time and skip ahead:
I'm sorry, but the Bible (old testament, Torah, whatever you want to call it) isn't an accurate historical record. And even if it was, it explains exactly how the Jews got their land, doesn't it? How come Canaanites haven't ever existed since then? Huh. But I guess that's different somehow?
The Old Testament is chock full of genocide, whether it be through the Israelites (and the magic box they liked to carry) themselves commiting it in god's name, someone claiming that god spoke to them and commanded them to commit genocide, or even just god zapping entire cities himself. But Sodom and Gomorrah "deserved it" right? But not Lot's daughters that literally fuck their dad (shortly after their dad offered them up to be raped by the people of Sodom). That shit is A-OK.
Are these also accurate historical records then? If so, then it seems like, even by your own metric, Israel took that land from other people.
But regardless, again, the Bible (old testament, Torah, whatever you want to call it) is not history.
I genuinely have no idea why you're talking about the Bible, and I've been a pretty stringent atheist for most of my life. I agree it's a pretty poor moral guide and an unreliable source for history, but I'm not sure how that's at all relevant.
So er, I'm just gonna bow out of whatever this conversation was meant to be, because I don't know what you're trying to say. Cheers I guess.
Because these conversations always go back to that. We can go back and forth about who lived where, and when, and it will always lead back to "the Bible says that land is theirs." Because when you get down to it, that's the only claim they really have. And even if you did want to go back that far, they still took that land from someone else.
If that's not where it was going, then there's no valid argument whatsoever that Israelis were there first. It's just not true.
I don't give a shit about the Bible, but I would say that a bunch of Jews legally bought a bunch of land in the late Ottoman period, a lot more legally immigrated during the British mandate after WW1 (which was wrong, I'd say; the land had been promised to the Hashemites before Sykes-Picot to create a unified Arab state in exchange for Arab support against the Ottomans, but the British and French reneged), then ethnic tensions exploded as everyone did a lot of violence to everyone. In 1947, a UN partition plan was proposed to create two states; the Jews accepted, the Arabs didn't, and war broke out. Once fighting had ended and the first lines were drawn, we have a state of Israel and the mess has properly begun.
None of this involves the Bible.