history.

The conflict didn't start on October 7, nor is it simply a story of one side defending itself. Since the late 1940s, Palestinians have experienced displacement, military occupation, land confiscations, settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, periodic wars, and detention without trial. Human rights organizations, the UN, and many historians have documented these issues. At the same time, Israel has faced wars with neighboring states, terrorism, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, kidnappings, and massacres targeting civilians. Both histories exist. Pretending only one side has inflicted suffering ignores the historical record.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 25 2026 08:01am

You are actively rewriting history to turn a war of annihilation launched against Jews into a narrative of Jewish aggression.
Let's fix your timeline. The UN Partition Plan was passed in November 1947. The Jews accepted it; the Arab leadership rejected it completely and immediately launched a civil war to wipe out the Jewish population. When Israel declared independence in May 1948, five sovereign Arab nations invaded with the explicit, openly stated goal of a war of total annihilation. The Arab Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, declared on the record: 'This will be a war of elimination and a momentous massacre.'
The displacement of Palestinians what you call the Nakba was the direct consequence of the war they started and lost. If the Arab armies had accepted peace instead of launching a war of annihilation, not a single Palestinian would have been displaced, and an independent Palestinian state would have existed since 1948. You don't get to launch a genocidal war, lose it, and then spend 80 years playing the victim.
Your attempt to minimize the 2005 Gaza withdrawal is equally dishonest. Israel pulled out every soldier and dismantled every settlement. Gaza had a maritime border with the Mediterranean and a land border with Egypt. Israel only restricted its own borders after Hamas took over in a bloody coup and started launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. No country is obligated to leave its borders wide open to a hostile entity that explicitly states its goal is your destruction.
But your final move comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is where you completely unmask yourself. It is a grotesque, inverted lie. Israel detains individuals who engage in violent terrorism, stabbings, and bombings, operating under a recognized legal framework. To compare a nation defending itself against a literal, charter-bound genocidal threat to the Nazi regime that systematically industrialized the murder of millions of completely innocent, non-violent people solely for their race is an abhorrent form of Holocaust inversion.
Israel isn't 'stealing land' in Syria or Lebanon. We fought back against Hezbollah after they launched over 8,000 rockets into our northern cities completely unprovoked, forcing 60,000 Israeli civilians out of their homes for years. We destroyed the launchpads raining fire on our children. If you launch a war of annihilation from your territory and lose, you don't get to cry 'land theft' when your neighbor builds a buffer zone to stop you from murdering them.



This isn't a simple difference of opinion or a clash of 'viewpoints,' Ferida. One side is bringing documented historical timelines, international legal definitions, and operational facts. The other side is fabricating death tolls, denying the historical reality of the hostages, and literally comparing the Jewish state to Nazi Germany.
Reducing a defensive war against a charter-bound genocidal enemy down to 'both sides are just frustrated' is a massive cop-out. When people post blatant historical revisionism and toxic propaganda to justify the erasure of my country, I am going to correct them with the facts. If facing those facts frustrates them, that’s their problem, not mine.




You are trying to draw a false moral equivalence by laying out two parallel timelines of 'suffering,' but you are completely ignoring cause and effect.
Every single point you listed on the Palestinian side the displacement, the checkpoints, the defensive wars, the security barriers is the direct, inescapable consequence of the points you listed on the Israeli side.
The security barriers and restrictions on movement didn't drop out of the sky because Israel felt like building them; they were built to stop the wave of suicide bombers who were blowing up Israeli buses, malls, and restaurants during the Second Intifada. The military administration in the West Bank exists because Jordan used that territory to launch a war of annihilation against Israel in 1967, lost, and left a hostile population on our border. The displacement of 1948 happened because the entire Arab leadership rejected a peaceful two-state compromise and chose a war of elimination instead.
There is a fundamental difference between a nation using military force to defend its citizens from annihilation and a movement that uses violence as its primary strategy to achieve annihilation.
Suffering exists on both sides, and no one denies that war is tragic. But pretending this is just a symmetrical cycle of mutual aggression completely ignores the historical record. Israel has repeatedly accepted compromises, offered peace deals, and pulled out of territories like Gaza, only to be met with rockets and terror every single time. One side fights to survive; the other fights to destroy. Those two things will never be equal.

You want History?

Before 1948, the word 'Palestinian' didn't refer to an Arab national identity at all it was used by the international community to describe the Jews living in the British Mandate of Palestine. The local Arab population actively rejected the label because they viewed themselves as part of Greater Syria or the broader Arab nation.
If you looked at The Palestine Post newspaper back then, it was a Jewish paper. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra was entirely Jewish. The British Mandate's 'Palestine Regiment' was made up of Jewish soldiers fighting the Nazis. Antisemic Europeans used 'Palestine' as a slur, telling Jews to 'go back to Palestine.'
The distinct Palestinian Arab national identity was only manufactured decades later, specifically shifting the terminology in the 1960s as a political tool to erase Jewish indigenous history and reframe a genocidal Arab war to destroy Israel into a 'national liberation' movement. You cannot understand the modern conflict without understanding how the very language used today was rewritten.

Go read about it


Edit: they called themselves:
Bilad al-Sham
Southern Syrian


This post was edited by Many_Names on Jun 25 2026 08:40am

round and round we go, this conversation was had multiple times, but you invited it so here we are:

Ultimately, 100 years ago Israel did not exist. The land was Palestine, and the people living there—who called themselves Palestinians, Southern Syrians, or Arabs depending on the era—were the majority. Jewish immigration happened over decades, accelerated after WW2, and culminated in a state being declared on that land while the existing population was displaced, fragmented, and never allowed to return. You can argue about who was there first or who rejected which peace deal, but you cannot argue that the people living there in 1947 were asked for their consent. They were not. A state was built on top of them, not alongside them. That is the foundation of the conflict—and it continues every time a settlement expands or a home is demolished in the West Bank today.

so this:



is the usual trope "we did nothing wrong, they are the terrorists"

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 25 2026 09:42am