That's my first thought but I know some people are very touchy on this topic. The challenge is to say something most people will agree with. It seems like some people pick a side between violence and non-violence, others pick a side between the people groups, some seem to make the two inseparable, and others make it separable.

[–] quack@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 days ago

The issue is more the bad faith actors who will ignore what you say and just call you antisemetic anyway.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Well, now you're getting into people parroting talking points back so they don't have to think about what you're saying. I wish you luck with that battle. I've had it many times. Using things people feel strongly about might help; like the Afghanistan "conflict". If someone is informed about the atrocities american's commited and are against it, that can be likened to Israel's treatment of Palestinians and might get them to think.

[–] KiwiTheFlightless@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's looks like as long as you voice out against what Israel is doing in Gaza, you are branded an antisemite... That term has since lost its meaning.

"Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer"

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Yup, Israel is actively harming fighting antisemitism by diluting its meaning to "doesn't support the government of Israel."

[+] Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world -6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

general sentiment: Gazans are currently paying the price for 80+ years of making the wrong political decisions and supporting terrorism.

genocide claims are specious at best. Just like at the end of WW2, where a lot of German civilians had to die as a consequence of bad political decisions made back in the 1930's. Even if they didn't vote for Hitler, all had to pay the price collectively. In this world, sometimes, that's just the way it goes. Time to pay the piper. Chickens come home to roost and all of that.

general sentiment: shout less slogans you heard on social media, and read a history book now and then.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What constitutes a genocide? What is your personal definition of a genocide, and what makes you consider the actions that Israel is undertaking in Gaza not satisfy that definition?

By the way, it's very nice to speak to someone who has read the history books, because I have, like, a bunch of questions.

What poor political decision lead to the deir yassin massacre? Is there any particular political decision that caused settlers to burn entire cillages to the ground in the 40s? Who made that decision?

And what poor political decision on the part of the Palestinians lead to the ethnic cleansing of 400k arabs in 1967?

And what decision lead to the murder of 3000 palestinian refugees over the span of two nights in the refugee camps sabra and shatila?

[–] Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What poor political decision lead to

Both sides walking away in 1947...

Although time has demonstrated that it was a bigger mistake for the Palestinians than it was for the Jews.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ok, I didn't expect much, but this is very little. When you said we should read the history books, which books did you mean? Did you read them? Have you read any Pappé? Have you read Morris' early work?

And when you completely ignored my question about what your personal definition of genocide is, and how it leads you to deny the genocide in Gaza, was that because you don't have or know one? I feel like this is the more important of the questions I asked. Just like with your intellectual siblings, holocaust deniers, I expect you to either put up or shut up.

[–] Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago