Is the media really trying to blame the wrong perpetrator just like they did for 9/11? I guess people learned nothing from the US's botched response to 9/11.

It's pretty simple really. Not including the recent attack, Israel has killed 10k+ Palestinians since 2000 vs the ~500 Israelis killed in conflict. It is pretty simple to see why a group of Palestinians would do something like this. They are angry at Israelis oppressing them.

With that being said, their desire for revenge is understandable. There is still no reason to murder innocent Israelis.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't get why both sides bring the innocent into it. The one place for moral high ground and they both double down on the atrocities...

I barely understand how this has gone on for so many generations/centuries, however - does it predate some of the agreed conventions of war?

[–] centof@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My understanding is that after ww2 lots of Jews moved to Israel until they made up a sizable portion of the population of Palestine. There was enough conflict between the 2 races/religions that Britian petitioned the UN to come up with a solution. The solution was breaking Palestine up into Israel and Palestine. There has been on and off conflict between the two groups ever since with Israel being the most successful in the conflict. I would say it's recently been largely a cold conflict with a few little skirmishes between them. Conventions of War only apply if there someone willing to enforce them.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not accurate. Almost at all. Zionism started long before WWII and there wasn’t pronounced conflict with Arabs until political Zionism took hold and the Irgun began their terrorist campaign against Arabs and the British. That’s why the British left. They didn’t want to start a war against Jews right after the holocaust. But not for some great humanitarian reason, they just didn’t want the bad press as their empire was falling to pieces.

[–] centof@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which part is is inaccurate?

The conflict I am referring to in the second sentence is Haganah or Irgun's bombing of the british embassy. To go into more detail, the same group of people that were assisting to bring Jews to Israel was also behind an attack on the British Embassy.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You literally don’t mention Irgun or their war against the British. You said that inter-ethnic strife was the cause of Britain abandoning the region. Everything you said was wrong, misleading, or omitted crucial details.

[–] centof@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I did not fully explain all the context of the situation. I did so intentionally as I was providing a high level overview. Omitting details does not make me wrong.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

You were wrong, biased, and misinformative

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This makes it sound like Britain is the good guy breaking up a fight. They literally planned for the whole thing, this is public information now. They intentionally massacred Palestinians and founded Israel as a genocidal state.