• @rdri
    link
    English
    01 year ago

    Says someone who defends terrorism?

    • @neeshie
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, I don’t think terrorism is always bad. Would you condemn the ANC, the Native Americans, the Viet Cong, Nat Turner, and the Algerians for doing what they had to do to fight oppression?

      • @rdri
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Did any of them ever win their fight?

        Seriously, what do you propose? Israel doesn’t want to spend resources on war. Hamas doesn’t want to spend resources on anything but war. Israel will not liv

        And you still didn’t explain exactly what’s happening to Palestinians that would suggest their choices are justified. Maybe if they’d be forced to live near an active volcano or something I’d consider stuff. But as it is now, they are being thrown to get killed, by hamas and not anyone else.

        • @neeshie
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          The native Americans and nat turner lost, the Viet Cong, the ANC, and the algerians won.

          I did explain what conditions justified revolutionary violence and you said apartheid is ok actually. If you aren’t willing to listen, I’m just gonna stop responding.

          • @rdri
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            the Viet Cong, the ANC, and the algerians won.

            Did any of them practice terrorist attacks on peaceful citizens, took hostages, broke their limbs, beheaded them and let their citizens spit on their bodies? Which exact part of strategies like that worked for them?

            I did explain what conditions justified revolutionary violence

            No, your explanation is literally “they lost homes and were getting killed” with no specifics. It doesn’t add up with anything: how it was (not) exposed in media for years, how those deaths are only a result of specific acts of violence from Palestinians themselves, how they live in a “total isolation” that allows them to get work permits in Israel (whose numbers were increasing too), how hamas produces tons of fake news to appear more of a victim, how there is no evidence of systematic hate from the Israel side and tons of evidence of systematic hate from Palestinians’ side.

            Palestinians’/hamas’ desire to destroy Israel is ungrounded, irresponsible, and idiotic, which basically means their violence is unprovoked. Israel is the opposite. Same as Putin with his idiotic reasoning for violence, hamas with their idiotic reasoning for violence should either surrender or be defeated as aggressors.

            • @neeshie
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.

              If we go back in history, Israel was built on ethnically cleansed land. In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists militaries. Since then they’ve continuously been oppressed, and their land has continued to be stolen. Currently, they live under apartheid conditions according to human rights organizations.

              This justifies armed resistance.

              • @rdri
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                Yes, the ANC used to put suspected collaborators in tires and burn them alive. They also took civilian hostages and killed civilians in bombings. The Viet Cong killed about 150k civilians. The algerians killed French people regardless of their combatant status.

                Why do I have a feeling all these parties still have much less in common with hamas?

                If we go back in history

                If we do we’ll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it’s past when it benefits them.

                Again you didn’t explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.

                This justifies armed resistance.

                I would even agree with that. If only it would look even remotely as a resistance. As something that would eventually give a chance to anyone to get whatever they call “freedom”. But it’s just not that. It’s a suicide. Hamas can’t defeat Israel with terrorism, and even in a strange course of events it would, I can’t see how it can become a proper country anyway. They would lose all support and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.

                • @neeshie
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  If we do we’ll surely find that many other people lived there, not just these 2. But some people still want to judge a land by it’s past when it benefits them.

                  Interestingly, Palestinians (muslims christians and jews) can trace their ancestry to the Caananites mostly, which in turn decended partially from Neolithic farmers that lived in the area and partially from immigration. So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up. If we look to today, their land is still being stolen. Israel continues to build illegal settlements in the west bank. Palestinians are denied a right to return, while people from New York are allowed to kick a Palestinian out of their home and take it. The Nakba was 75 years ago, people who were kicked out as children are still alive.

                  Again you didn’t explain how exactly this affects their lives to an extent that they see violence as the only option.

                  Again, I’ll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid. They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.

                  There is continues settler colonialism in the West Bank, with regular violence against Palestinians living there (journalists and children included). Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it’s being used by Hamas. In 2006, they tried to starve the population of Gaza (not to death, just to the point where they started suffering) to try and force Hamas out. Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture). A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven’t given back a few hundred bodies iirc. And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison. It does a garbage job keeping weapons out, but it does do a great job hurting everyday Palestinian civilians (collective punishment, a war crime).

                  Hamas can’t defeat Israel with terrorism

                  I agree with you that it seems improbable for Palestinians to beat a huge military power like Israel, but plenty of things seemed impossible yet still happened. A lot of people thought the Viet Cong couldn’t win but they did. All that needs to happen is enough violence to force Israel to the bargaining table. Preferably the western world would do a BDS campaign against Israel, like we did with South Africa, but that also seems unlikely considering how much money the defense industry makes from them.

                  They would lose all support and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves.

                  This is just speculation, we don’t know what it would look like if the Palestinians won. Some post colonial states did ok for themselves, others didn’t. They’re surrounded by other Arab countries, so even if the western powers decide to sanction them, they’ll still have some trading partners, but they would definitely be behind for a bit. Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.

                  • @rdri
                    link
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    So it really has just been 1 people genetically and the differences are mostly just made up.

                    As with the whole Earth population. I couldn’t find proofs that Palestinians have deeper or bigger presence over time there than Israeli.

                    But either way, this is something I refuse to accept as an argument. Nations move. Some not but it doesn’t mean they are unable to. I’d check out specific reasons like natural disasters, resources etc. But I see no such arguments - everyone just scream “this is our land and we must take it back”. Humans don’t work like that and there is no need to spend tons of resources to fight for it. Adaptation is how everyone lives. Sure, spend some resources on figuring out diplomacy, but terrorism is beyond the adequate line.

                    I’ll point you to human rights organizations describing the current conditions as Apartheid

                    And I thought the current condition is war.

                    They see violence as the only option, since when they peacefully protest (eg. great march of return), they get shot. And no, throwing stones does not justify that. Israeli soldiers got at most a few bruises.

                    If there was anything like throwing stones with slongshots then it wasn’t a peaceful protest. We know palestinians are raised with “gotta kill a jew to become a hero and make my parents proud” thought, and it’s easy to realize those were aggression actions masked as “protests”. Before you judge an army for shooting them, you have to consider palestinian “protesters” would not be judged if they manage to kill anyone with a stone, they would be praised instead.

                    Israel regularly overreacts to violence from Gaza

                    “Chill up Israel, it’s just a child’s play”?

                    by leveling civilian infrastructure without providing proof that it’s being used by Hamas

                    Maybe we should ask hamas to provide proofs that they fire missiles at military objects in Israel?

                    Over 1000 palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons without any charges against them. Some children in prisons are held in solitary confinement (torture)

                    You really can compare that to (and justify) what happend at October 7? At this point I’ll kindly ask you to agree that you are applying different judgement systems for 2 nations. You allow palestinians be bloody monsters but you require that israeli would not touch them no matter what happens.

                    A while ago it came out that Israel used to harvest organs from dead Palestinians, and currently they haven’t given back a few hundred bodies iirc.

                    Spooky. Any investigations of that at all?

                    And human rights organizations have describes Gaza as an open air prison.

                    It’s just a nice word. If you can build rockets surely you can build something more useful, and it can’t happen in a prison.

                    considering how much money the defense industry makes from them

                    There is a contradiction when people first expect the western world to take the side of Gaza in order to save lifes, and then say that the same western world really sell defense equipment for profit only and not to save lifes.

                    This is just speculation, we don’t know what it would look like if the Palestinians won.

                    Basically, it would look like there is no more Israel, and a lot more of “Allahu Akbar” screams everyday all over the world, probably.

                    Worth it in my opinion, if it means that there is relative peace.

                    Worth it to get rid of Israel? Or worth it to leave a terrorist organization in power of 2 million people alone?

                    if it means that there is relative peace

                    And I thought people learned a lesson from the WW2, from the Ukraine war. Once you appease the aggressor there is no way back. And certainly no way for a peace.