I’d argue it’s the perfect case for a no-state solution. Multiple faith groups have history in the region, they should rally around that and preserving it instead of some colonialist military state that’s practically a U.S outpost in all but name. But blind dogma is rarely conducive to peace I guess.
Responses like these that so confidently state obviously incorrect information/poor perspectives really remind me of answers generated by AI. Things that appear syntactically correct, but at the same time are bizarrely illogical.
Thanks, GONADS125. Totally can’t say the same about your post. Not one bit. Maybe I was a little unserious there but I mean what I say lol. I’m a anarchist, I honestly think any given government has a vested interest in fucking over their people. And a lot of Israelites don’t seem to support their own government’s actions as of late.
People can sometimes solve problems as individuals, just look at netanyhu or trump- we see they can certainly cause them.
If you form a militia you’re halfway to reinventing a state, but without even a pretense of accountability to the citizenry—basically what Hamas is.
If you want diplomacy to work, you have to 100% re-invent the state, because nobody will negotiate with a self-appointed “diplomat” who can’t guarantee the people they claim to represent will abide by the agreements they make. Now you’re talking about something like the Palestinian Authority.
Your other options are ways to make life hard on occupiers, which means you’ve already lost, like people in Iraq or Afghanistan. You’ll note that neither territory is currently without a government, and the one that “won” the occupation by driving out the invaders has an especially brutal government. And in both cases a shitload of people died before the invaders left.
I’d argue it’s the perfect case for a no-state solution. Multiple faith groups have history in the region, they should rally around that and preserving it instead of some colonialist military state that’s practically a U.S outpost in all but name. But blind dogma is rarely conducive to peace I guess.
How is a non-state supposed to defend itself from people who want to make it their state?
Militia, diplomacy, blackmail, molotovs… Imagination is the limit. Ideally the second and third I suppose.
Responses like these that so confidently state obviously incorrect information/poor perspectives really remind me of answers generated by AI. Things that appear syntactically correct, but at the same time are bizarrely illogical.
Thanks, GONADS125. Totally can’t say the same about your post. Not one bit. Maybe I was a little unserious there but I mean what I say lol. I’m a anarchist, I honestly think any given government has a vested interest in fucking over their people. And a lot of Israelites don’t seem to support their own government’s actions as of late. People can sometimes solve problems as individuals, just look at netanyhu or trump- we see they can certainly cause them.
If you’re going to call yourself an anarchist you need to have a serious answer to that question or you make your cause look like a joke.
edit: your takes on prohibition are on point though
If you form a militia you’re halfway to reinventing a state, but without even a pretense of accountability to the citizenry—basically what Hamas is.
If you want diplomacy to work, you have to 100% re-invent the state, because nobody will negotiate with a self-appointed “diplomat” who can’t guarantee the people they claim to represent will abide by the agreements they make. Now you’re talking about something like the Palestinian Authority.
Your other options are ways to make life hard on occupiers, which means you’ve already lost, like people in Iraq or Afghanistan. You’ll note that neither territory is currently without a government, and the one that “won” the occupation by driving out the invaders has an especially brutal government. And in both cases a shitload of people died before the invaders left.