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.

[–] Clever_Clover@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

but you've labelled the a party that still commits atrocities as "right" simply because they've committed fewer atrocities.

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.

You are too ideological. I'm a political realist; you're a political idealist.

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

You have to play the cards you're dealt.

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?

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

I hate to have to say it

No, you quite enjoy it considering the wall of text that followed.