this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
299 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

8411 readers
2308 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I don't think Germans visiting those concentration camps paid any attention and I don't think they have any guilt towards the Holocaust whatsoever.

If they did Germans would be absolutely disgusted with a new genocide happening with German support. Hell the AfD neo-Nazis are the most popular party in Germany these days.

Germany similar to the USA has a very strong Zionist lobby and that's it. They do not care about the Holocaust.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is such an ill informed and disgusting comment. It comes from a place of media propaganda. Germany is having an issue with the AfD, yes, but the rest of the world is also struggling with far right extremism and its rise to power again. Go to Germany, you’ll change your outlook on the people, the culture, and hopefully regret the blanket statement you just made.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you replace the word Muslim with Jew Germany basically looks like 1930.

The German lack of self awareness is only surpassed by their racism because they now think Jews are white and don't understand how a genocide could have been perpetrated against white people.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Such a statement proves you know nothing of Germany, little of its history and shows you lack empathy. You're being willfully cruel towards a population you've never encountered, towards a place you've never been. Its ironic, really, how you're so quick to judge us, but don't see your own projections. I really wish I knew you personally, just to show you how wrong you are.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you ever been to Nazi Germany in 1940?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, and neither have you. We humans have this wonderful tool that allows us to transmit information across space and time, it's called communication.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Does it also allow me to observe present day Germany?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

you’re being willfully cruel towards a population you’ve never encountered, towards a place you’ve never been.

No, that's what Germany is doing towards Gaza.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If they did Germans would be absolutely disgusted with a new genocide happening with German support. Hell the AfD neo-Nazis are the most popular party in Germany these days.

Believe me, many of us are disgusted. Not only the AfD has grown, the leftist party DIE LINKE has almost tripled their poll results over the last year. The problem is that the left half of the spectrum (SPD, Grüne and LINKE) still can't agree which flavor of "left" is the correct one so they rather blame each other than form a coalition which leaves the CDU/CSU as the strongest power that can just dictate what happens and the SPD has to go along with it out of fear that otherwise the CDU will eventually work with the AfD.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Die Linke is the only slight anti genocide party and they have like 10% of the votes. The Greens are literally saying it's OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians. Germany is fully doomed and the only people unable to see it are Germans.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The Greens are literally saying it’s OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians.

Where? When? You can't just claim that without providing a source and expect us to believe it.

While they do state on their website that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas should release all remaining hostages, they immediately follow it up with this (translated by me to the best of my ability):

Israel's military operation must happen under the conditions of international humanitarian law. The new military offensive of Israel's government in Gaza will further worsen the dramatic humanitarian conditions for civilians in Gaza. The suffering of the people of Gaza is immeasurable. We expect the federal government to increase their efforts to advocate for Israel's government to obey international humanitarian law, for a ceasefire and for an immediate end of the blockade of humanitarian aid. The people of Gaza need access to vital help right now. Every day costs more human lives. For this, the federal government should strengthen the principles of the G7 - no displacement, no occupation, no decrease in territory, no decision about the future of Gaza without the Palestinian people.

How is that "OK for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians"?

Edit: Rephrased the initial "They don't" to a question about the source; translated a bit more of the page.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

German FM: Israel can kill civilians in Gaza to ‘defend itself’

Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, addressed parliament yesterday and justified Israel's targeting of civilians in Gaza. 'Self-defence means not only attacking terrorists but destroying them. When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools… civilian places lose their protected status because terrorists abuse it.'

This, however, is not true, according to human rights lawyer, Craig Mokhiber. The former senior UN human rights official told MEMO claims that Israel has a right to 'self-defence' in Gaza don't have a standing in international law.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And where does that say that it's okay to kill civilians? She very clearly says that civilian places, not people can, not must, lose their protected status if Hamas, not the civilian population, use them to hide weapons or active combatants. This is in accordance with the Geneva Conventions:

The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

(GC (I), Article 21, emphasis mine)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Stop with the Zionist propaganda. You are literally doing the Nazi thing. "Hitler defended himself into Poland".

As an Occupier, Israel Has No Right to “Self-Defense”

Also

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How about you stop assuming things that I never said or meant? I fully agree that Israel has no rights to set even one foot into Gaza, that every dead civilian is one too many and that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be dragged before the ICC as soon as possible.

But it's still important to look at facts about what some party or the other said and not your twisted interpretation based on what you want to believe the world to be. Calling everyone who even slightly deviates from your opinion Zionist and a Nazi just strengthens the actual Nazis in the AfD, the right wing of the CDU/CSU, the Republicans in the USA and so on. This is exactly what I meant by 'left half of the spectrum (SPD, Grüne and LINKE) still can’t agree which flavor of “left” is the correct one'. If we want to prevail against the flood of right-wing hatemongers who twist the narrative to their advantage, we must stick together and we must stick to the facts. Otherwise, we are, as you have phrased it, doomed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What she is saying is not facts it is Zionist propaganda contradicting international law.

Adolf Hitler said he was defending himself into Poland. Was he? Is anyone repeating what he is saying "repeating the law"?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I never said, that what she said is factually correct. I said that what you said is not what she said and that you are interpreting things that are not in the original video you linked, let alone in the full-length unedited version.

Also, quoting someone to illustrate what they actually said does in no way mean that one agrees. What I quoted was a text straight from the Greens website as well as part of the Geneva Conventions. I clearly marked both as such and I included them to illustrate someone else's opinion, not my own.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This section of ~~the Geneva Convention~~ international law. does not apply to a belligerent occupying force. Which is what Israel is.

The line "Israel has the right to defend itself" legally does not apply to Gaza or the West Bank.

Also, quoting someone to illustrate what they actually said does in no way mean that one agrees.

Well the Greens are still voting to send weapons to the genocide. So it really doesn't sound like they disagree with Israel to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

Wrong, see Article 2.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yes it triggers article 51

an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn't a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn't apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

Also note that I'm not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You are right I confused the Geneva Convention for international law there i will correct it.

Edit: apparently the other poster switched trom international law to Geneva Convention which caused my confusion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are different coventions and signatures. There's the Geneva Convention, ICC, UN Charter and much more.

Here's a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law..

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-legal-study2023/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Second%2C+where+a+belligerent+occupation+follows+from%2Cproportionality%2C+the+resulting+occupation+may+become+illegal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.

Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.

Hence my confusion about your confusion.

Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…

TL;DR.

Again, I wasn't agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn't a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Well the Greens are still voting to send weapons to the genocide.

That's indeed correct, it's a huge problem, it's something that the Greens' base has massively criticized about the higher ranks in the party and, as a personal aside, was one of the reasons why I refused to vote for them in the last election (the other being that they were absolutely incompetent in defending their climate politics against the FDP).

So it really doesn’t sound like they disagree with Israel to me.

Best I can do for an up-to-date source is an Article from German newspaper Die Zeit which also mentions Merz' quote that started this thread. According to the article (not myself!), Greens leader Felix Banaszak argues that Israel is surrounded by enemies that have an interest in destroying it, especially Iran and that they need weapons to defend against possible attacks on their own land. At the same time, he concedes that those same weapons being used in Gaza is a problem which why a nuanced discussion is necessary.

From here on, personal opinion:

That's why this whole thing is so difficult. If someone who says "Israel has a right to defend itself", some people (apparently including you) take that to mean they have a right to attack Gaza. I can't look into people's heads, but if "Israel has a right to defend itself" means "Israel has a right to defend its civilian population inside its pre-1967 core territory, explicitly excluding Gaza and the West Bank", things sound a lot different. We could still argue all week long if the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948/49 was a good idea. It was probably at least short-sighted. But the fact is that this region has been part of Israel for over 75 years now and not a single Israeli civilian alive today had a say in the matter. Even Netanyahu, as much as I hate him, wasn't even born when the Green Line was drawn. The world is in the difficult position where it seems almost impossible to protect Israeli and Palestinian civilians at the same time. In an ideal world, we could establish a united Palestine where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully but let's face it, that doesn't sound very realistic. On the other hand, forcefully removing either population can't be the solution either. Palestinians/Arabs have lived in the region for millennia, as have some of the Jews. And even for those whose families got relocated after WW2, it's now the region where they, their parents, for some even their grandparents have lived their whole lives. The chance to find a better place for them was in the 1940s, the Allies messed it up and we have to deal with the consequences.

So what do we do now? How do we even talk about the topic, espcially in Germany? If one says even one positive thing about Israel, they immediately get called Zionist and Nazis because apparently it means you fully support the genocide in Gaza. If one sides with Palestine, they also get called Nazis because apparently it means you hate all Jews. And if you say nothing you get called a Nazi because saying nothing apparently means you're okay with the status quo.

So please, I beg you, stop treating everyone who tries to have a calm and nuanced discussion as the enemy, just because they disagree with you in a few points. I assure you that for the vast majority of people, saving civilian lives on both sides is the top priority. It's just that this situation is so extremely complex, has been brewing for decades (and if you really want to get into it, since the Crusades or even the Greek, Roman or Babylonian occupation), nobody has a clue how to solve it without making things even worse and everybody feels utterly helpless.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

"We gotta send weapons to the people committing genocide because Iran!"

Wow another bad excuse to keep sending the new Nazis weapons.

Thank you for nuancing the Holocaust. I wonder if anyone has improved their view of Hitler. I haven't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That’s indeed correct, it’s a huge problem

Remember that you were originally citing the electoral success of the Greens to evidence that Germany wasn't all in support of the genocide. That doesn't' really work when you admit that the Greens are, in fact, in support of the genocide.

If someone who says “Israel has a right to defend itself”, some people (apparently including you) take that to mean they have a right to attack Gaza.

Yes, that's because that's what it was coined to mean, and overwhelmingly used to mean.

It’s just that this situation is so extremely complex, has been brewing for decades

Technically true of the Holocaust as well, but you still rightfully accuse anyone of saying so of trying to obfuscate a very clear case of right and wrong. The same applies to the Gaza genocide.

I assure you that for the vast majority of people, saving civilian lives on both sides is the top priority.

I assure you that this is not true; the lives of Palestinian civilians are very much not top priority. For many westerners, they are a negative priority.

nobody has a clue how to solve it

Yes, the Nazi's said the same thing about the Jews. And then they came to the same solution that Israel has come to.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Holocaust once came up in conversation with a German and he was moved to tears. He was an older generation though, somewhat less removed from the reality.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ask that same older generation about the genocide in Gaza. See what they say.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

My parents were born late in the 1940s.

Both are disgusted by the actions of Israel as well as Hamas.

What's your point?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Both are disgusted by the actions of the Nazis as well as the Jews."

That's your parents

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein Vergleich.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Wir haben er nicht gewusst.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So your parents would have been disgusted by both the actions of the Nazis and the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. Sounds like they were 'good Germans'

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
  • Warsaw ghetto was closed in 1943. The war was over in 1945. As I said, they were born in the late 40s.
  • They also know how to differentiate between Hamas and Palestinians.
  • You are implying that Palestinians and Hamas are one and the same. Which they are not.
  • You are also equating Hamas and the Jews massacred in the Warsaw ghetto.
    • Hamas are terrorists. The Jews were not.
    • Hamas did deserve a forceful reaction. The Palestinians did not.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Warsaw ghetto was closed in 1943. The war was over in 1945. As I said, they were born in the late 40s.

Hence why I said "would have".

They also know how to differentiate between Hamas and Palestinians.

Clearly not, given that Hamas aren't a different species or people. Hamas is literally the government of Gaza, it is made up of Palestinians.

You are implying that Palestinians and Hamas are one and the same. Which they are not.

This is always just a lazy excuse to keep massacring Palestinians.

Hamas are terrorists. The Jews were not.

"They weren't terrorists, they were freedoms fighters!"

You would have called the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto uprising terrorists.

Hamas did deserve a forceful reaction

You would have justified the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto in the same way.

Turns out, any time someone says they disagree with "both a sides" of a genocide, you don't have to dig far to discover that they support the genocide

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hence why I said “would have”.

You also said "Sounds like they were ‘good Germans’"

I don't even with the rest of your message. You know two things. How to argue in bad faith and intentionally misunderstand people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You also said “Sounds like they were ‘good Germans’”

So your objection to the idea that your parents would have been good Germans is just "they were born to make late"?

I don’t even with the rest of your message. You know two things. How to argue in bad faith and intentionally misunderstand people.

I've been entirely good faith and haven't intentionally misunderstood anything. You're just launching personal attacks now because you don't have a counter argument

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow. Some preconceptions you have there.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have some preconceptions about the Nazis too.

My perception of Germans would greatly improve if they did not come running to defend their government's complicity in genocide all the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I don't think bashing you is helpful, that's why I kept it short. The other comment here made some excellent points.

The main gist being we're not allowed to say anything about this. We're really not.

So this very and too late message is impressive, for our circumstances.

Don't mix what we're allowed to say with the public opinion.