It’s quite spectactular. I think the politcs on both sides are awful, and I really feel for the civillians who are just trying to live their lives under this bullshit. Both sides need to step up and take responsibility for their major, horrific fuckups and problems; and the west in general needs to take responsibility for kicking people out of their homes to make homes for others… but also both sides just need to stop fucking hurting each other for a minute in order to progress.
So Israel needs to stop colonizing Palestine, as that is the primary cause of death and conflict.
Saying both sides just need to stop when one is constantly the aggressor and the other is responding to that aggression is zero tolerance logic. Blaming the victim is why things have escalated to the point we are at now.
They’re not colonizing Palestine. They’re eradicating it.
And this has been going on for almost 80 years. Anything anyone does, is always, in response to some shitty thing someone did before. But fact of the matter is, Israel benefits more than Palistine to have a conflict. So much that the time when it actually looked like someone could talk both sides to a peaceful conclusion. Israel had him assassinated.
Annexing implies bringing an area under the control of a government; colonization implies mass movement of people into undeveloped land. If it’s occupied land (necessitating the eviction of the occupants), then it’s ethnic cleansing. Any or all are correct depending on which specific part of Israeli policy one is discussing.
Russia circa 2024 disagrees because they wanted it to sound voluntary. News went with it because annex is technically correct in the close by/far away context, but not the whole colonialism is always by force context.
Blow up the radical zionists and hamas, maybe blood eagle the prime minister of Israel (I am not even gonna try to spell his name) threaten to bomb Tel Aviv if Israel tries anything again. Best idea I have.
“both sides just need to stop fucking hurting each other”
Just apply that one to the other invasion we’ve been talking about of late, that of Russia in Ukraine, and see how well that “both sides” “argument” sounds to you.
If one puts on hold any feelings that lead to one favoring one side over the other (say, because one side is culturally quite close and familiar whilst the other is filled with people who will shout “god is great” whenever shit happens), it’s pretty clear that you can’t apply a “both sides” demand to a situation were one side is the invading one and has overwhelming force, whilst the other side is a far weaker resistance movement living in a tiny slice under siege of a much vaster occupied land.
Your point would make absolute sense if the Palestinians had all of their land (or at least to the Oslo Agreement borders) and still kept sending rockets to and attacking Israel, but that’s not at all the situation that we have now.
Two sides going ‘I’m gonna wipe you off the map!’ ‘No I’m gonna wipe you off the map!’ is not comparable to one side going ‘get back on your side the line’ while the other goes ‘half your country is our side, actually all your country, also we’re not here, also it’s a special police double-secret operation, also nice kids you got there.’
It’s quite spectactular. I think the politcs on both sides are awful, and I really feel for the civillians who are just trying to live their lives under this bullshit. Both sides need to step up and take responsibility for their major, horrific fuckups and problems; and the west in general needs to take responsibility for kicking people out of their homes to make homes for others… but also both sides just need to stop fucking hurting each other for a minute in order to progress.
So Israel needs to stop colonizing Palestine, as that is the primary cause of death and conflict.
Saying both sides just need to stop when one is constantly the aggressor and the other is responding to that aggression is zero tolerance logic. Blaming the victim is why things have escalated to the point we are at now.
They’re not colonizing Palestine. They’re eradicating it.
And this has been going on for almost 80 years. Anything anyone does, is always, in response to some shitty thing someone did before. But fact of the matter is, Israel benefits more than Palistine to have a conflict. So much that the time when it actually looked like someone could talk both sides to a peaceful conclusion. Israel had him assassinated.
Colonization is the method Isreal is using to eradicate Palestine.
Look. I get that you heard that word somewhere. But everything isn’t colonizing.
Annexing would be a better description to what they’re doing.
Its literally colonizing though. It’s sending their citizens to build settlements in areas that do not belong to them.
Annexing does not imply the use of force, colonizing does.
Annexing implies bringing an area under the control of a government; colonization implies mass movement of people into undeveloped land. If it’s occupied land (necessitating the eviction of the occupants), then it’s ethnic cleansing. Any or all are correct depending on which specific part of Israeli policy one is discussing.
Colonization does not mean unoccupied land.
Crimea circa 2014 disagrees
Russia circa 2024 disagrees because they wanted it to sound voluntary. News went with it because annex is technically correct in the close by/far away context, but not the whole colonialism is always by force context.
Lexicon > dictionary. See: Literally.
When the response to that aggression is also genocide fantasies, sometimes a conflict has no good guys.
That is correct, there are no good guys in ths situation.
Then stop scoffing when people condemn both sides.
What plan would please both sides?
Ur mum
Blow up the radical zionists and hamas, maybe blood eagle the prime minister of Israel (I am not even gonna try to spell his name) threaten to bomb Tel Aviv if Israel tries anything again. Best idea I have.
“both sides just need to stop fucking hurting each other”
Just apply that one to the other invasion we’ve been talking about of late, that of Russia in Ukraine, and see how well that “both sides” “argument” sounds to you.
If one puts on hold any feelings that lead to one favoring one side over the other (say, because one side is culturally quite close and familiar whilst the other is filled with people who will shout “god is great” whenever shit happens), it’s pretty clear that you can’t apply a “both sides” demand to a situation were one side is the invading one and has overwhelming force, whilst the other side is a far weaker resistance movement living in a tiny slice under siege of a much vaster occupied land.
Your point would make absolute sense if the Palestinians had all of their land (or at least to the Oslo Agreement borders) and still kept sending rockets to and attacking Israel, but that’s not at all the situation that we have now.
I’m sure we would be saying the exact same about the Ukraine war if Ukrainians were treating the Russians the same way Hamas was treating Israelians.
But they aren’t, so it is a moot point.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Two sides going ‘I’m gonna wipe you off the map!’ ‘No I’m gonna wipe you off the map!’ is not comparable to one side going ‘get back on your side the line’ while the other goes ‘half your country is our side, actually all your country, also we’re not here, also it’s a special police double-secret operation, also nice kids you got there.’