There is a reason the Jews needed a place to go. Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists. Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge. Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well. Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal. But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
And that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. Zionism is the sole reason it exists.
Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists.
Still has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel other than an excuse to justify its existence when people point out its a rogue and genocidal nuclear state.
Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge.
Virtually all Western countries, hell even some of the Eastern European countries at the time would have been preferable, and mostly familiar countries for them to live in.
Tell me, was it simpler to start genocide against Palestine and to create a state that would perpetually continue this genocide and act as the West’s puppet state in the region? An imperial puppet that keeps invading its neighbors unprovoked and now illegally has nukes? I think it would have been easier to simply give them refuge in safer countries, such as those that liberated Jews in the Holocaust.
Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well.
Completely irrelevant to this conversation. Palestinians had been living in the region for centuries. Modern Israel only formed as Zionists demanded the Jews rule the region for religious nut-jobbery and antisemitism, in relatively recent history.
Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
You understand Palestine is actively undergoing a 80 year long genocide from Israel, right?
The audacity and stupidity of your question is outstanding.
No, I believe we should treat Israel like Nazi Germany. The parallels are absurdly on point, and they must be stopped.
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal.
Wrong, their country was founded on it in both ideology and action.
But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
Absolutely moronic and unhinged take. This is some insane Zionist bullshit you’re spewing here. Is Israel paying you to say this shit? Or are you defending a rogue genocidal nuclear state for free?
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.” Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust, but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state. That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration (e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba). That is a documented and serious historical grievance. But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law. The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention), and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides (e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians), just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side. Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
Wrong but let’s see how you wasted time here.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.”
Oh of course not. Its the perpetual excuse Zionists use to justify Israel’s existence as a genocidal ethnostate and silence all opposition to it.
Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust,
So does the alliance between Zionists and the Nazis
but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state.
Of course, fascists such as Zionists love to capitalize on a major catastrophe to push for their agendas.
Probably why so few countries acknowledge the Nakba that happened just 2 years after the end of WWII.
That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Yup. Its a historical level manipulation of public outrage over a colossal genocide that lead to the creation of a Zionist genocidal state.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration
You understand the vast majority of Jews who were victims and survivors of the Holocaust were citizens of the countries they were attacked in, right? They already had a country to go to, and a colossal amount of support that could just as easily been used to loosen immigration restrictions and welcome refugees.
But instead Zionism won out. That’s not a coincidence. That’s intentional manipulation of the situation.
You still haven’t gotten to any part that justifies support for Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians or the countless subsequent wars of aggression Israel held against its neighbors shortly after its founding.
(e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
*Conveniently leaves out any specifics or dates.*
Do show me this data of low support for Jewish refugees or allowing Jews to return to their home countries after WWII.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba).
What a cute way to describe GENOCIDE AND REMOVAL
That is a documented and serious historical grievance.
Given the little to no backlash Israel faced from the West, and the continued and escalating genocide against the Palestinians today, I don’t think too many Israelis and Western leaders feel grievance over it.
But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law.
I’ve never read something so incredibly stupid before. I was taken aback by it.
Israel was founded on genocide of Palestinians (The Nakba).
Israel is an ethnostate. You can’t establish an ethnostate without forced removal, restriction and elimination of other ethnicities, which are all major factors in contributing to, and to even outright resulting in, GENOCIDE, which has objectively been happening since the beginning of modern Israel.
If you’d like, we can easily go over the 10 Steps of Genocide and very easily discuss how Israel meets all 10 with flying colors.
The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention),
And the term applies perfectly to what Israel is doing to Palestine, and let’s be honest, its neighbors like Lebanon.
and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
God forbid you provide any specific reputable sources that could possibly deny Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
This is like an appeal to authority fallacy with absolutely no specific authorities given
No one who’s word is worth a damn would consider Israel’s actions against Palestine to be anything other than genocide. To do so would be to deny reality.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides
Throwing a whataboutism to justify Israel’s unjust and offensive wars against its neighbors such as Lebanon and Iran. There is no nuance to these wars, nor some others like when Israel invaded Egypt to steal the Suez Canal with the UK and France.
Nothing justifies these wars, and the situation is very clear cut.
(e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Here’s a great video of Mehdi Hasan did in response to an almost equally absurd claim from Bill Mahr:
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
ISRAEL OBJECTIVELY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY
They’re committing genocide against ethnic minorities within their country
They’re unjustly invading surrounding countries to expand their territory
They intentionally and actively target noncombatants in war
Their mainstream and most powerful politicians openly dehumanize other ethnic groups in the region while calling for their extermination
If you’re not seeing the parallels, you’re either that insanely naive, or a Zionist arguing in bad faith.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians),
Genocide
Rape of prisoners
Sponsoring Epstien and his sex trafficking of minors to political and economic elites
Illegal and offensive wars of expansion
Illegal possession of nukes
Threats to use nukes on Palestine
Dragging the US into unjust offensive wars of aggression multiple times now
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
The fact you refuse to use such language tells me you’re either a Zionist or insanely naive and live in fantasy land.
just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side.
More whataboutisms. Nothing that’s happened to Israel justifies their actions as I’ve listed and countless more I haven’t.
Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
Nobody is doing that. I’m calling out the indisputably and very easily provable and observable facts about Israel’s crimes against humanity. It really is that black and white. Israel commits crimes against humanity, and those are ALWAYS unjustifiable.
You’re asserting certainty where the facts are actually contested, and that’s the core problem.
Haavara ≠ “alliance with Nazis”
The Haavara Agreement was a limited, controversial arrangement to get some Jews out of Nazi Germany with part of their assets. It wasn’t ideological alignment or a “Zionist–Nazi alliance.” Reducing it to that ignores the context: people trying to escape persecution with very few options.
Refuge elsewhere wasn’t realistically available
Before and after the war, large-scale refuge largely did not materialize. The Évian Conference is a clear example—many countries expressed sympathy but refused to take in significant numbers. After the war, millions were displaced and many survivors had no homes or communities left to return to.
Nakba is real—but “genocide since founding” is not a settled legal fact
The Nakba involved expulsions and flight on a massive scale—serious and well-documented. But calling Israel’s entire existence “genocide” is a legal claim that is actively disputed, including under the United Nations Genocide Convention. You can argue it—but you can’t present it as uncontested fact.
“Ethnostate = genocide” is not how the term works
Many states define themselves in ethnic or national terms. That alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold for genocide, which requires intent to destroy a group. Conflating these weakens your argument.
Wars in the region aren’t one-sided
The Arab–Israeli War of 1948 involved multiple states and actors. Israel has initiated some actions; so have others. Claiming everything is unilateral aggression isn’t supported by the historical record.
Nazi comparison breaks under scrutiny
Invoking Nazi Germany doesn’t clarify anything. It’s rhetorically strong but analytically weak, because the structures, scale, and intent are not equivalent.
There are serious, evidence-based criticisms of Israeli policy—settlements, civilian harm, occupation. Those stand on their own.
But when everything is framed as “objectively genocide, no debate,” you’re not strengthening the case—you’re stepping outside what can actually be demonstrated and defended.
There is a reason the Jews needed a place to go. Neither the first nor last time probably this reason exists. Probably simpler to give them a place of refuge. Also your comment shows you don’t know how Palestine cameu to be, because it happens to match exactly these circumstances as well. Should we treat them the same as you suggest we treat Israel?
Nobody expected them to go full fascism and genocidal. But then again, this is the cycle of abuse, isn’t it?
And that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. Zionism is the sole reason it exists.
Still has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel other than an excuse to justify its existence when people point out its a rogue and genocidal nuclear state.
Virtually all Western countries, hell even some of the Eastern European countries at the time would have been preferable, and mostly familiar countries for them to live in.
Tell me, was it simpler to start genocide against Palestine and to create a state that would perpetually continue this genocide and act as the West’s puppet state in the region? An imperial puppet that keeps invading its neighbors unprovoked and now illegally has nukes? I think it would have been easier to simply give them refuge in safer countries, such as those that liberated Jews in the Holocaust.
I mean seriously, are you trying to justify the state that was fucking founded on genocide
Completely irrelevant to this conversation. Palestinians had been living in the region for centuries. Modern Israel only formed as Zionists demanded the Jews rule the region for religious nut-jobbery and antisemitism, in relatively recent history.
You understand Palestine is actively undergoing a 80 year long genocide from Israel, right?
The audacity and stupidity of your question is outstanding.
No, I believe we should treat Israel like Nazi Germany. The parallels are absurdly on point, and they must be stopped.
Wrong, their country was founded on it in both ideology and action.
Absolutely moronic and unhinged take. This is some insane Zionist bullshit you’re spewing here. Is Israel paying you to say this shit? Or are you defending a rogue genocidal nuclear state for free?
What you’re arguing mixes a few real points with several claims that don’t hold up factually, and it ends up oversimplifying a very complex and still ongoing conflict.
First: the link between Jewish persecution and the creation of Israel is not “nothing.” Modern political Zionism (associated with figures like Theodor Herzl) predates the Holocaust, but the scale of the genocide during The Holocaust was a decisive factor in accelerating international support for a Jewish state. That’s historical consensus, not a post-hoc excuse.
Second: the idea that Jews could simply have been “given refuge” elsewhere ignores what actually happened. During the 1930s–40s, many Western countries severely restricted Jewish immigration (e.g. Évian Conference showed how little willingness there was to accept refugees). In practice, there was no large-scale safe alternative offered.
Third: the founding of Israel in 1948 did involve mass displacement of Palestinians (often referred to as the Nakba). That is a documented and serious historical grievance. But calling the state’s creation or its entire existence “genocide” is not how genocide is defined under international law. The term is used very specifically (e.g. by the United Nations Genocide Convention), and its application to this conflict is heavily disputed among legal scholars and institutions.
Fourth: describing Israel as uniquely “invading neighbors unprovoked” or as a simple “puppet state” ignores that the region has seen multiple wars initiated by different sides (e.g. the Arab–Israeli War of 1948). Responsibility is not one-sided.
Finally: comparisons to Nazi Germany are not just inflammatory—they collapse fundamentally different historical contexts and tend to shut down any serious discussion rather than clarify it.
There are legitimate criticisms to make of Israeli policy (including settlement expansion, military actions, and treatment of Palestinians), just as there are real security concerns and historical traumas on the Israeli side. Reducing everything to “genocide vs. pure victimhood” on either side doesn’t reflect the evidence and makes meaningful analysis impossible.
Wrong but let’s see how you wasted time here.
Oh of course not. Its the perpetual excuse Zionists use to justify Israel’s existence as a genocidal ethnostate and silence all opposition to it.
So does the alliance between Zionists and the Nazis
Haavara Agreement
Of course, fascists such as Zionists love to capitalize on a major catastrophe to push for their agendas.
Probably why so few countries acknowledge the Nakba that happened just 2 years after the end of WWII.
Yup. Its a historical level manipulation of public outrage over a colossal genocide that lead to the creation of a Zionist genocidal state.
You understand the vast majority of Jews who were victims and survivors of the Holocaust were citizens of the countries they were attacked in, right? They already had a country to go to, and a colossal amount of support that could just as easily been used to loosen immigration restrictions and welcome refugees.
But instead Zionism won out. That’s not a coincidence. That’s intentional manipulation of the situation.
You still haven’t gotten to any part that justifies support for Israel committing genocide against the Palestinians or the countless subsequent wars of aggression Israel held against its neighbors shortly after its founding.
*Conveniently leaves out any specifics or dates.*
Do show me this data of low support for Jewish refugees or allowing Jews to return to their home countries after WWII.
What a cute way to describe GENOCIDE AND REMOVAL
Given the little to no backlash Israel faced from the West, and the continued and escalating genocide against the Palestinians today, I don’t think too many Israelis and Western leaders feel grievance over it.
I’ve never read something so incredibly stupid before. I was taken aback by it.
And the term applies perfectly to what Israel is doing to Palestine, and let’s be honest, its neighbors like Lebanon.
Throwing a whataboutism to justify Israel’s unjust and offensive wars against its neighbors such as Lebanon and Iran. There is no nuance to these wars, nor some others like when Israel invaded Egypt to steal the Suez Canal with the UK and France.
Nothing justifies these wars, and the situation is very clear cut.
Here’s a great video of Mehdi Hasan did in response to an almost equally absurd claim from Bill Mahr:
https://youtu.be/bBrc0fIlk0U
ISRAEL OBJECTIVELY JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY
If you’re not seeing the parallels, you’re either that insanely naive, or a Zionist arguing in bad faith.
The fact you refuse to use such language tells me you’re either a Zionist or insanely naive and live in fantasy land.
More whataboutisms. Nothing that’s happened to Israel justifies their actions as I’ve listed and countless more I haven’t.
Nobody is doing that. I’m calling out the indisputably and very easily provable and observable facts about Israel’s crimes against humanity. It really is that black and white. Israel commits crimes against humanity, and those are ALWAYS unjustifiable.
You’re asserting certainty where the facts are actually contested, and that’s the core problem.
Haavara ≠ “alliance with Nazis” The Haavara Agreement was a limited, controversial arrangement to get some Jews out of Nazi Germany with part of their assets. It wasn’t ideological alignment or a “Zionist–Nazi alliance.” Reducing it to that ignores the context: people trying to escape persecution with very few options.
Refuge elsewhere wasn’t realistically available Before and after the war, large-scale refuge largely did not materialize. The Évian Conference is a clear example—many countries expressed sympathy but refused to take in significant numbers. After the war, millions were displaced and many survivors had no homes or communities left to return to.
Nakba is real—but “genocide since founding” is not a settled legal fact The Nakba involved expulsions and flight on a massive scale—serious and well-documented. But calling Israel’s entire existence “genocide” is a legal claim that is actively disputed, including under the United Nations Genocide Convention. You can argue it—but you can’t present it as uncontested fact.
“Ethnostate = genocide” is not how the term works Many states define themselves in ethnic or national terms. That alone doesn’t meet the legal threshold for genocide, which requires intent to destroy a group. Conflating these weakens your argument.
Wars in the region aren’t one-sided The Arab–Israeli War of 1948 involved multiple states and actors. Israel has initiated some actions; so have others. Claiming everything is unilateral aggression isn’t supported by the historical record.
Nazi comparison breaks under scrutiny Invoking Nazi Germany doesn’t clarify anything. It’s rhetorically strong but analytically weak, because the structures, scale, and intent are not equivalent.
There are serious, evidence-based criticisms of Israeli policy—settlements, civilian harm, occupation. Those stand on their own. But when everything is framed as “objectively genocide, no debate,” you’re not strengthening the case—you’re stepping outside what can actually be demonstrated and defended.