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

You talk about 'consent,' Ferida, but you are completely ignoring how international law, sovereignty, and actual history work.
First, before 1948, the land wasn't an independent Arab country called Palestine. It was a British Mandate, and before that, it was an Ottoman province for 400 years. There was never a sovereign Arab state there to grant or deny 'consent' to anyone. The League of Nations created the Mandate explicitly to recognize the indigenous, continuous historic rights of the Jewish people to re-establish their national home on their ancestral land.
Second, let's talk about the 1947 Partition Plan. The UN the global body representing modern international society voted to split the land precisely because two distinct groups lived there. It was a compromise meant to give both groups self-determination side-by-side. The Jews said yes. The Arab leadership said no, refused to compromise, and chose a war of total extermination instead.
You claim a state was built 'on top of them.' No, a state was built alongside them, but the Arab leadership refused to accept a Jewish neighbor and tried to slaughter them. The fragmentation, the displacement, and the fact that they never got a state in 1948 are the direct results of a genocidal gamble that they lost.
If your neighbors launch a war to erase you from the map, fail, and leave a hostile population on your border that spends the next 80 years using every inch of conceded land to launch rockets, blow up buses, and slaughter families, you don't ask them for 'consent' to expand your security borders. You defend your home. You want to talk about foundations? The foundation of this conflict is, and always has been, the absolute Arab refusal to accept a sovereign Jewish state of any size, anywhere on this land

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jun 26 2026 11:12am

lolwut

This is such a shameful reframing of the events. Reading your post you'd think that Israel accepted the League of Nation's proposal and then just started really tastefully constructing things alongside their Arab neighbors. and then all of a sudden out of nowhere you were attacked for no reason. When in reality even in 1947 Israeli leaders like Ben-Gurion got the Jewish side to support it by admitting it was nothing but a stepping stone to later take more of the territory. so the idea that the Jewish side accepted the partition plan while the Arabs did not isn't accurate, the Jewish side accepted it as a ruse to later take more land and at the start of the Nakba the utter destruction and erasure of the land's arab identity leaves no question that was always going to be the plan.

and why would the arabs accept the plan. put yourself in their shoes in 1947, you hold a 2/3 majority by population, and you're being offered 50% of the land you currently inhabit. who would accept that plan? and dont give me the mandate excuse either. Britain was showing the world it was ready to hand over that territory, you've been under colonial rule for centuries, and now that you might finally get control of the land you live on you at the same time lose 50% to refugees from Europe? of course the jews accepted, they got something for nothing. the arabs got 50% of what they already had for nothing.

Muslim arabs live and coexist pretty fine in Israel proper. most of the domestic issues israel has are with ultra orthodox jews.

why is it Israeli Jews can get along with Israeli Muslims, but not Muslims or Christains in occupied territories?

Hamas didn't get more peaceful inbetween the 2007 withdrawl and October 7th, not arguing that, but after the destruction there it's hard to see Gaza ever being peaceful ever again. At least before Hamas was a preventable issue, they were largely a nuisance before october 7th and their "attacks" were all intercepted via the iron dome. security near the border grew lax, israel knew they were building terror tunnels, they knew weapons invariably got through their blockade, they knew hamas was still in control, they knew they were planning something. all admitted by israel itself. without even getting into tinfoil hat territory the only way to categorize Israel's policy before 10-7 is gross negligence. they failed to treat a threat as a threat.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 26 2026 11:42am