Except Israel isn’t just defending themselves anymore. They’re carpet bombing Gaza trying to turn it into a parking lot.
If Israel was just defending themselves, nobody would have an issue with that.
Instead, they’re bombing hospitals, and murdering children in cold blood. And the president of Israel has made some very concerning comments indicating that he doesn’t see Palestinians as people.
So, yeah, saying Israel has a right to defend itself is a complete mischaracterization of what’s going on right now over there.
And I can also argue that when you have a neighbor that launches soo many rockets across the border that you have one of the best and most expensive anti-rocket defenses in the world, that has proven in the last few day that it still exists, you won’t stop until its gone.
This conflict exists because politicians and the intl community failed miserably - Rwanda level failed. I blame the UNSC personally.
As I’ve said in other comments before, I seriously hope that regardless of who you support, at the end of this conflict the acts above and beyond proportionality are thoroughly investigated, and I hope to see militants and politicians on both sides swinging in prison by the end of it.
You said in another comment that Israel is justified in their violence because Hamas is their neighbor that has been launching bombs across the border.
And in this comment you blame Hamas violence on bigotry.
Until you acknowledge the decades of unprovoked violence to the Palestinian people by Israeli settlers, you will not be taken seriously.
Israelis are capable and have shown clear bigotry towards the Palestinians. And Hamas is violent because they were forced to be neighbors with settlers that were often violent.
You can keep pretending to be unbiased, but your bias is showing very clearly.
Assuming yes, I don’t know if I’d call it ironic. Any group is just as capable as any other regardless of history.
And before you call me a genocide denier, there is a good reason I’ve reserved that statement at this stage. I wouldn’t be surprised if that changes shortly.
I want to say yes, but also aware that legal definitions take a long time to work through. Current discussions by those much further in the know are “allegations” of genocide, “could amount” to genocide, “could lead to” genocide.
Are the flags there - absolutely. The hold out (as far as im aware) is the intent vs causality aspect. I suspect investigation will start to lean to intent existing.
Legal definitions in the end are trying to turn a hammer into a scalpel.
They don’t fucking matter for moral judgments.
Israel is committing a genocide to anyone with even a highschool level knowledge of history. Want a simple definition that is very effective?
Any government that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers undesirable is intentionally committing genocide.
Starvation is historically the most effective method and most used method of committing genocide. Everyone knows what the outcome is. Anyone trying to use legal definitions at this point is an asshole genocide denier trying to pretend they’re not.
I personally blame the failure of the United States, United Kingdom, and United Soviet Socialist Republics for their failure to deal with the humanitarian crisis of 1930s Germany (read: accept all Jewish refugees) resulting in a traumatized stateless people feeling they needed to reclaim their ancestral home by any means necessary as an existential crisis. From there we have seen failure after failure to attempt peaceful coexistence from either side or to attempt safe and peaceful decolonization from the Israeli government or any other world government or for the world to accept Palestinians’ right to create a nation
That being said Israel is a colonizer state and an apartheid state. Who is to blame for what is currently happening? Israel and Hamas. Who is the victim? The people of Palestine. A people who are overwhelmingly too young to have voted in the last election. Since that point Hamas has refused to hold elections and has moved from moderate anti colonial to this. Furthermore Israel has spent the time since the nakba more or less going full USA on their colonized people.
Except the Zionists have been working to conquer the place since the 19th century. They even wanted an arrangement with the Nazis to settle in Judea… but not for the Jews that were poor. Only the rich ones.
Not against you personally, but your premise sounds like a weak bothside-ism that justifies the cycle of violence. “He did first” kind of argument. “An eye for an eye makes us all blind.” as Ghandi put it.
The most rational and objective bothside advocacy is the two-state solution. It seems like the mainstream neglect this and does not think outside the box. I understand that there is so much bad blood between Palestinians and Israelis, but if both sides realise they are blinded by rage, they could emulate the Northern Ireland peace agreement that ended the 20 year cycle of violence between the Irish nationalists and British unionists. Many scholars and activists from both Israeli and Palestinian side advocate for two state solution and a Northern Ireland-style peace agreement. It is just a matter of ordinary people to look past the rage. Israel is there to stay and advocating to rid Israel is like trying abort a baby. And Israel stepping on Palestinians is repeating what the Nazis did to them and thus Israel could not claim the higher moral ground.
There has to be a united civilian will to accept that both sides are here to stay, like the Irish nationalists and British unionists have done. But both Israeli and Palestinian sides have internal divisions and many support their own radical groups representing their own beliefs.
While I get your understanding from my comment, I don’t know if I’d call it both-sideism as much as I would neither is innocent. Either was quite capable of taking steps to stop this before it happened.
If it wasn’t for the fact it had happened before in Ireland I would 100% say there is no way the differences could be reconciled to a permanent two-state solution - but clearly there must be a pathway to peace. Unfortunately I don’t hold much confidence in it actually happening and more will continue to suffer because of it.
Except Israel isn’t just defending themselves anymore. They’re carpet bombing Gaza trying to turn it into a parking lot.
If Israel was just defending themselves, nobody would have an issue with that.
Instead, they’re bombing hospitals, and murdering children in cold blood. And the president of Israel has made some very concerning comments indicating that he doesn’t see Palestinians as people.
So, yeah, saying Israel has a right to defend itself is a complete mischaracterization of what’s going on right now over there.
And I can also argue that when you have a neighbor that launches soo many rockets across the border that you have one of the best and most expensive anti-rocket defenses in the world, that has proven in the last few day that it still exists, you won’t stop until its gone.
This conflict exists because politicians and the intl community failed miserably - Rwanda level failed. I blame the UNSC personally.
As I’ve said in other comments before, I seriously hope that regardless of who you support, at the end of this conflict the acts above and beyond proportionality are thoroughly investigated, and I hope to see militants and politicians on both sides swinging in prison by the end of it.
Wonder what happened to make Palestinians want to launch rockets across the border?
Removed by mod
My first guess would be the Nakba, which led to the current apartheid state.
What’s the date of that charter?
You said in another comment that Israel is justified in their violence because Hamas is their neighbor that has been launching bombs across the border.
And in this comment you blame Hamas violence on bigotry.
Until you acknowledge the decades of unprovoked violence to the Palestinian people by Israeli settlers, you will not be taken seriously.
Israelis are capable and have shown clear bigotry towards the Palestinians. And Hamas is violent because they were forced to be neighbors with settlers that were often violent.
You can keep pretending to be unbiased, but your bias is showing very clearly.
They’re committing genocide now, which is ironic given who’s doing it.
Assuming yes, I don’t know if I’d call it ironic. Any group is just as capable as any other regardless of history.
And before you call me a genocide denier, there is a good reason I’ve reserved that statement at this stage. I wouldn’t be surprised if that changes shortly.
Will you be surprised when that statement doesn’t change?
I want to say yes, but also aware that legal definitions take a long time to work through. Current discussions by those much further in the know are “allegations” of genocide, “could amount” to genocide, “could lead to” genocide.
Are the flags there - absolutely. The hold out (as far as im aware) is the intent vs causality aspect. I suspect investigation will start to lean to intent existing.
Legal definitions in the end are trying to turn a hammer into a scalpel.
They don’t fucking matter for moral judgments.
Israel is committing a genocide to anyone with even a highschool level knowledge of history. Want a simple definition that is very effective?
Any government that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers undesirable is intentionally committing genocide.
Starvation is historically the most effective method and most used method of committing genocide. Everyone knows what the outcome is. Anyone trying to use legal definitions at this point is an asshole genocide denier trying to pretend they’re not.
Like you.
I personally blame the failure of the United States, United Kingdom, and United Soviet Socialist Republics for their failure to deal with the humanitarian crisis of 1930s Germany (read: accept all Jewish refugees) resulting in a traumatized stateless people feeling they needed to reclaim their ancestral home by any means necessary as an existential crisis. From there we have seen failure after failure to attempt peaceful coexistence from either side or to attempt safe and peaceful decolonization from the Israeli government or any other world government or for the world to accept Palestinians’ right to create a nation
I think that a pretty fair belief.
That being said Israel is a colonizer state and an apartheid state. Who is to blame for what is currently happening? Israel and Hamas. Who is the victim? The people of Palestine. A people who are overwhelmingly too young to have voted in the last election. Since that point Hamas has refused to hold elections and has moved from moderate anti colonial to this. Furthermore Israel has spent the time since the nakba more or less going full USA on their colonized people.
Except the Zionists have been working to conquer the place since the 19th century. They even wanted an arrangement with the Nazis to settle in Judea… but not for the Jews that were poor. Only the rich ones.
And I repeat: Zionists. Not Jews. Zionists.
Not against you personally, but your premise sounds like a weak bothside-ism that justifies the cycle of violence. “He did first” kind of argument. “An eye for an eye makes us all blind.” as Ghandi put it.
The most rational and objective bothside advocacy is the two-state solution. It seems like the mainstream neglect this and does not think outside the box. I understand that there is so much bad blood between Palestinians and Israelis, but if both sides realise they are blinded by rage, they could emulate the Northern Ireland peace agreement that ended the 20 year cycle of violence between the Irish nationalists and British unionists. Many scholars and activists from both Israeli and Palestinian side advocate for two state solution and a Northern Ireland-style peace agreement. It is just a matter of ordinary people to look past the rage. Israel is there to stay and advocating to rid Israel is like trying abort a baby. And Israel stepping on Palestinians is repeating what the Nazis did to them and thus Israel could not claim the higher moral ground.
There has to be a united civilian will to accept that both sides are here to stay, like the Irish nationalists and British unionists have done. But both Israeli and Palestinian sides have internal divisions and many support their own radical groups representing their own beliefs.
While I get your understanding from my comment, I don’t know if I’d call it both-sideism as much as I would neither is innocent. Either was quite capable of taking steps to stop this before it happened.
If it wasn’t for the fact it had happened before in Ireland I would 100% say there is no way the differences could be reconciled to a permanent two-state solution - but clearly there must be a pathway to peace. Unfortunately I don’t hold much confidence in it actually happening and more will continue to suffer because of it.