This shithead’s genocide is going to birth a new generation of vengeful extremists out of the ashes of Gaza for the rest of the world to deal with, in the future
By design. Fascists need an enemy to protect people from, in order to justify their cruelty. And they need a underclass to oppress, to demonstrate their power.
If they can make one out of the other - why, that’s just efficiency.
Thus the cycle continues. Come the end of humanity, the last two people in the middle east will still be throwing rocks at each other.
The onion had ‘news from the future’ from several years ago and showed the last Israeli fighting the last Palestinian over a stray cat that wandered into the Gaza scrap
Hey look. Its what we’ve been telling you it was the whole time. A genocidal eradication of a people to take their land.
The weakness of western ‘democracies’ is disgusting.
To a certain extent. But aren’t the countries in the near vicinity the most able?
deleted by creator
Oh, look, an open admission of genocidal intent.
Should be useful in the court case against Israel.
These are the quotes this article is based on according to another news outlet, and it is unsure if the translation (especially the wording for the proclaimed statement in the title) is up for debate since there are multiple translations.
(“from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation on the Israeli news channel i24NEWS.
According to other translations, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River,”)
"Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
“And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
"This truth I say to our American friends,” Netanyahu said Thursday. “And I also stopped the attempt to impose on us a reality that will jeopardize us. A prime minister in Israel has to be able to say no, even to the best of friends. To say no when you need to and to say yes when you can.”
Does anybody know what “proposal” the USA made that he’s referencing?
Maybe they should put the natives in reservations.
Ahhh there it is. The PM of Israel just said he plans to violate the treaties and annex Gaza and the West Bank. By ejecting these people from their homeland or just wholesale killing them, that’s fucking genocide. It really never was about Hamas. And Hamas still exists.
Or, like JJJ would put it in the Bugle: “Bibi goes unashamedly Nazi”.
It almost makes you wonder if he had a hand in oct 7 for pretext.
My opinioj as a stranger on the internet (so like your new best friend)/: A direct hand as in organizing it? No. Indirectly as in financing Hama’s? Sure. A hand as in knowing it was about to happen and let it happen? Maybe, probably.
It’s ok when Zionist colonisers say “from the river to the sea” but it’s hate speech when the original inhabitants or their supporters say it
Just a reminder that before Palestinians lived there Jewish people lived there. I don’t really support either side. I just like saying uncomfortable facts out loud because I’m on the internet. Downvote away
Give it back to Rome. Roma Invicta.
Did rome take it from anyone?
I couldn’t give a shit if they lived there 2000 years ago. It doesn’t give them the right to colonize it in 2023.
There’s never been a period of time when Jewish people weren’t living there. How can a group of people colonize the place they’re already living?
Because you see all Jews as from Palestine. That isn’t the case. Before the colonization project started Jews and Arabs had lived together there for thousands of years. Then Europeans showed up, and suddenly most of the Arabs are corraled into reservations that the Europeans and Americans keep encroaching on with settlements.
Rather than assimilate to the existing culture and produce a single post colonial state they decided to try and push the Arabs out. Nobody would care if they had produced a post colonial state that had heavy protections for Jewish refugees, but was not a Jewish state.
3 thousand years ago? Before there was Jewish or Palestinian people there, the was no one. Hence I believe the area should be completely emptied. Just like to say uncomfortable facts out loud.
I hate him so much. Way before the Gaza war. He’s an alt right tyrant regardless of his religion.
Don’t call Zionists Jews.
Zionists are a disgrace using Judaism only as a shield for their war crimes.
Netanyahu is quite literally a white surpremacist that just wants to kill brown people and expand the Lebensraum.
Nazism isn’t a religion.
That won’t stop them from calling any criticism “antisemitism”.
That’s what I’m saying, I hate him because regardless of what his religion or ethnicity is, he himself is just evil. He’s out for wealth and power and fuck whoever gets in his way.
“For 30 years, I am very consistent and I am saying something very simple: this conflict is not on the lack of a state of Palestinians, but the existence of a state, the Jewish state,” Netanyahu said, according to a translation on i24NEWS. “Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
It turns out, when you terrorize people and steal their land for decades they are still angry at you when you('re forced to) let them borrow some of their land back while continuing to terrorize them.
So…they just lost the international court case then, no? He legit just said “we’re taking it over.”
'Course, this is me just being hopeful there is some recourse for the blatant disregard for humans 🫤
No, waging a war of conquest is a fundamental right of any sovereign state. That doesn’t bear directly on a question as to the prosecution of a genocide.
Patently false.
UN Charter Article 2, paragraph 4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
UN Charter doesn’t abridge the natural rights of sovereigns. The UN Charter is also not a binding document apart from governing the internal workings of the United Nations. Maybe make sure you know anything about a topic before making yourself look foolish.
Wtf even is a “fundamental” or “natural” right of a sovereign state?
You know, whatever the
abuserstate says it is.Here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8D95DEA9B7DFE825
If you don’t have that concept firmly established as a basis for more complex ideas, there’s nothing for us to discuss.
My point is, sovereign states are things we made up while “fundamental rights” are things that apparently are just properties of those things that we didn’t add.
It’s all just bullshit trying to justify power hungry assholes wanting to increase their web of influence (over people who don’t want to follow them) to the people whose lives and well-being they need to risk to extend their power.
And yeah, evidently there isn’t anything to discuss if you can only reply to a specific question with a link to a lecture series about the broad topic. Though I know you dodged the question because you can’t use logic to get to that point, you either believe in “fundamental rights” or you don’t and picking at that thread is more likely to lose support than to gain it because the right you are arguing for essentially says states have the right to go kill people in neighbouring states if they want to take them over, which was largely rejected after WWI and even more so after WWII when the colonial empires started realizing “hey maybe it’s not ok to rule all these other countries for our own benefit”.
This comment isn’t for you anyways. It’s for people who read what you said and got a feeling of, “this doesn’t sound right” but weren’t able to put their finger on exactly why.
What the fuck are you on about the charter is absolutely legally binding, and binds nations to decisions of the Security Council which has repeatedly stated that wars of conquest are illegal.
It does to the nearly 200 signatories of its charter.
Fuck that’s depressing.
Chin up. Just because it’s the right of a nationstate doesn’t mean it’s accepted. Wars of conquest have been almost universally denounced in the post-WW2 period. Treaties and mutual-defense agreements have been structured in the post-war period to forestall any such wars and have largely proven successful at doing so.
I’m sure all the people pissed that Rashida Talib used those words will be equally upset about Bibi saying it. /s
But Bibi is white, so… /s
We literally have Jewish Nazis
I thought they’d wait longer before doing this. Don’t they want to tease the West a bit longer? See if they can get more weapons and stuff? Or are they calling their bluff, knowing they’ll give them stuff no matter what they say at this point?
Of course he says this, all of his actions for the last thirty years have telegraphed this intent. War is how he stays in power, and he takes it personally.
Hubris is thy name. The seeds of the next Holocaust is planted. Thanks, Netanyahu!
Nice chap that one ☝️
According to Google translate, the exact quote is:
מדינת ישראל חייבת לשלוט ביטחונית הכל השטח מערבת הירדן.
“The State of Israel must control the security of all the territory west of the Jordan.”
Reverso:
“The State of Israel must control the security of everything from the Jordan Valley.”
