this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
12 points (52.1% liked)
Memes
46066 readers
16 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Robert Bulwer-Lytton, George Curzon, and Winston Churchill. Their actions are not considered criminal even to this day - in fact, the first two people are not even known by the common masses. Read about how they are responsible for creating a system of artificial famine in the Indian subcontinent in the 18th, 19th and 20th century respectively. Why is it that just after the Indian independence, there were no major famine?
Those are just three names, British to be exact, and there's many more out there, but I'm pretty sure there's also Portuguese, Dutch, Danish and French war criminals. It is just that they're "lost in history", because history is written by the winners, it seems.
Christ, the Gammons would canonise Churchill if they could, and the man was a monster.
"War criminal" is not a term applied liberally to describe people who presided over bad things. It is a term defined by treaty in international law.
"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;"
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
2/b/xxv
the colonial occupation means a continuous state of war, so it makes it a war crime. maybe you should stop being a debatebro.
You mean... that thing people who know better have been accusing Israel off since the very start?
No matter what anyone has done - it is Israel (and it's western backers) that carries full responsibility for what occurs here. Period.
if a state was perpetuating apartheid (a crime against humanity), ethnic cleansing, and a genocide against your people, where you have most likely personally known/were related to someone who was killed or severely injured by that state
don't you think you'd be just a little bit teeny tiny little bit more radical?
also, do not equate colonizers to the colonized, one is there to displace and oppress, one is the indigenous population that was ethnically cleansed and massacred.
You are correct. I would be easily radicalised, as would most people if I were placed into such a situation. I'm not immune from the same forces that radicalised everyone else there too.
I do not equate colonisers to the colonised, however, one must recognise that both have done things that they shouldn't have done. At this point, "but he started it" is no longer an excuse for racial and religious hatred. It's been 70 years already. People have been born into the conflict, grown up in the conflict, and died from the conflict.
The State of Israel has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. I do not deny it. But at the same time, I cannot wholeheartedly support the other party in this conflict when their methods of resistance include terror attacks, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate bombings—the same things they decry Israel for doing. The Palestinians have rejected several offers of peace. The UN partition plan—rejected. Two state solution proposals—rejected. Peaceful coexistence—rejected. Instead, they counter with a Palestinian state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders want to wipe the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants off the face of the earth, and Israeli leaders want to wipe the State of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants off the face of the earth.
You can say that the Palestinians were right/to begin with—that they had no obligation to cede any territory at all to the Israelis. And you'd be right. But it's important to recognise that being right to begin does not give anyone a mandate to do whatever they want. You can be right and move yourself into the wrong by how you act, and this is exactly what happened. Yes, I sympathise with Palestinians whose lands were taken from them by Israelis. At the same time, I condemn those who take matters into their own hands by bombing Israeli music festivals.
Instead, what is happening is that the situation may quickly be moving to a forcibly-imposed one-state solution with that state being the State of Israel. And that would be a tragedy.
This is what I mean by "history is nuanced". There is no black and white here and to portray any situation as such would be naïve.
it's very funny you say that after the post you just made
the targeting of civilians is not the best, which is why palestinian resistance is clearly in the right, they have killed far far far less civilians than Israel, and Israel has as part of their military doctrine ( https://youtu.be/QraCgxStVcQ ) the targeting of civilians, medics and journalists, they have done this even during peaceful protests like in 2018, the killing of civilians on the palestinian side has never stopped, before the recent events 27 children were killed in the past few month or two by Israeli forces in the west bank
the majority of palestinians would immediately let go of this supposed 'religious hatred' if they stopped being actively ethnically cleansed and genocided, Palestinian resistance in the past used to be majority secular leftist (fatah and the PFLP), Israel created the conditions (and even gave funding at the start) for Hamas in order to divide and conquer, to weaken the secularist leftist resistance.
70 years of continuous death, apartheid, destruction, and oppression for the palestinians, would you tell a slave that fighting for freedom violently is bad since it has been a few hundred years of their ancestors being slaves "People have been born into the slavery, grown up in the slavery, and died from the slavery"
so you don't support Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in south africa? you're aware that they did those things, and that he supported them and refused to condemn them, does that mean that the apartheid south african regime had a point and shouldn't have been removed?
this is propaganda, no offer that Israel made was fair to a people who were ethnically cleansed, sexually assaulted in mass, and massacred as their villages were burned to the ground, giving the colonizer what they want in exchange for 'peace' under an apartheid regime isn't an offer, maybe the native americans shouldn't have fought back if they didn't want to get genocided too.
are you aware of the Oslo accords? are you aware that 'peaceful coexistence' is what currently exists on the ground on the west bank, where Israel continuously expands new colonies, where far right zionist pogroms kill innocent palestinian citizens while being protected by the IDF from any retaliation and while every palestinian lives under one of the most totalitarian regimes on earth, under apartheid with no freedom of movement, with no political right.
leaders in the PLO actually did compromise with Israel and accept deals, which is the current status quo in the west bank, though, having one state that spans from the river to the sea where palestinians have equal rights is the only way a modicum of justice may be served.
false propaganda, palestinians want an end to the genocidal apartheid ethnostate of Israel, and for settlers to return to their homes (by some estimates more than 20% of the Israeli jewish population have dual citizenship), and for palestinians to be given the right to return and the right to self determination, the only group calling for genocide is Israel (as well as some palestinians (not a majority) due to the horrific conditions and trauma they experienced under this genocidal apartheid regime)
so almost every anti-colonial movement is wrong? like in Algeria, in Haiti, south africa as stated before, etc, the majority of these movements have used terror tactics.
do you think they should have been stopped for their terror tactics and that apartheid should have been allowed to continue in south africa?
any leftist should recognize that the evils of the crime of apartheid or colonial violence are the bigger issue, and that they are the reason these terror tactics are utilized.
so they should lie down and accept the genocide? they tried peacefully protesting, every friday in the peaceful march to return, Israeli snipers killed children, disabled people, medics, journalists, civilians, and specifically shot out the knees of thousands of people creating tons of amputees and permanently disabled civilians
they tried negotiation with Israel, and the west bank is what happens, an apartheid regime where you can't visit a neighboring village without the approval of your captors
what is left? only Israel is to blame for the entirety of the violence that they made necessary
if you do not think that this is already the situation then you do not understand the balance of power in the region, Gaza is an open air prison, the west bank is occupied and completely ruled by Israel, Israel is a fascist, genocidal, apartheid, ethnostate, its existence as it stands is not compatible with Palestinians being alive, the goal is complete ethnic cleansing and genocide.
and I say again, there is no nuance here, as much nuance existed in apartheid south africa, which today you'd say is none and that the apartheid regime was obviously bad
hopefully you can recognize that reality without it being 50 years in the past after a genocide occurs.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/QraCgxStVcQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I hate to have to say it, but you've labelled the a party that still commits atrocities as "right" simply because they've committed fewer atrocities. I believe this point requires no further discussion. Both can be wrong for committing atrocities. Again, the main argument you've got here is "Israel bad, Palestine good" and "The things Palestine does are fine because they had the moral justification to begin with."
You are too ideological. I'm a political realist; you're a political idealist. You looked at what "is right" and then decided that anything done in pursuit of that right must be good. You've allowed the ends to justify the means.
In political realism, you must sometimes force off the justice boner and realise that the best result realistically possible is not the one that is the fairest or rights the most historical wrongs. This is what I was trying to get at with my original comment. History is not fair and never will be, and blindly trying to change that is unconstructive. You have to play the cards you're dealt. It was a historical wrong for Israeli settlers to colonise Palestinian land. At the same time, I am saying that in the near-future, it will be impossible to right this wrong. The Israelis will never be punished for what they did. Palestinians will never control land from the west bank of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean again. Believe me, they want that, and they're maybe even justified in wanting that, but it doesn't matter what is right. We need to think of what is the best way to resolve the situation right now. It is pointless to argue about who is right and who is wrong because that means nothing. That is the harsh reality of international geopolitics. That's how it is now, how it's been since the dawn of human civilisation, and as long as the idea of the sovereign state exists, that's how it's always going to be.
I will give one final parting analogy: Imagine you are tied up and being beaten on the ground by an assailant who is many times stronger than you. The beating has gone on for several minutes now until your assailant offers you a deal: "If you allow me to hit you ten more times and give me all the money in your wallet, I will let you go. Otherwise, I will shoot you dead and take your wallet anyway." Is this a fair deal? Of course not. Are you "right" to refuse and your assailant "wrong" for even daring to offer such a thing (and putting you in the situation of having to consider it)? Without question. But at the same time, you'd be a fool not to say "yes" to that. You'd also have to be extremely stupid to say "fuck you" in response to that. Even if there's only a slim chance that they'll actually uphold their end of the bargain. Honour, after all, doesn't actually have any value. Your life does.
That is all I have to say on the matter. I will read your reply if you devote the time to write one but I've said all that needs to be said.
I'm not particularly a fan of Hamas, but historically, violence (including towards civilians of the colonizing force) is the only realistic way to escape colonial violence and apartheid.
I have other reasons, so, I think you probably understand why I feel the way I do, not solely for idealism's sake and simple want for justice.
I do see your point, but you have to keep in mind that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians has never slowed, never stopped, making a deal with Israel would only mean that the genocide and ethnic cleansing will be complete in 20 years rather than 10
Hamas did do that, no? Israel was about to normalize relations with Saudi arabia, and other countries in the region would've undoubtedly followed, if that went through then their fate would really be sealed, condemned to being wiped out, we'll see how it works out now, after all, this is still ongoing, if Hezbollah joins, this may very well lead to a bigger conflict, one which Israel isn't sure to survive, afterall most american weapon stockpiles have been drained and the west doesn't really have the same manufacturing capacity for weapons as they used to have, in any case, this sparking into a larger conflict was basically the goal of this operation, the palestinian's suffer silently while nations start normalizing relations with Israel, so Hamas decided to force the issue to be brought up again.
hopefully this turns into a larger conflict and we see Israel take a loss.
the cards on the table for palestinians are either accepting their own genocide or this, (or the fall of the united states/current western hegemony), so they did play the card they had, which Israel forced into only being violence, Israel has never once made a deal they kept, if you know that the assailant will in both cases pull the trigger, is being agreeable and giving them everything before dying the right option, or is thrashing and trying to grab their gun the right option, which gives a larger chance of survival?
No, you quite enjoy it considering the wall of text that followed.
"ackshually he only committed genocide, not war crimes!!! 🤓" Jesus Christ you're such a fucking redditor, shut up nerd
Death to America
Exactly what I'm saying. And no, I don't find it wrong at all to think this way. I'm sorry if you were angered or offended in some way by my previous comment.
Politician-tier slimy non-apology.