Grayox to [email protected] • 1 year agoHow did this break rule 1? Did you just not read the 2nd panel?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square83fedilinkarrow-up1465arrow-down1101
arrow-up1364arrow-down1imageHow did this break rule 1? Did you just not read the 2nd panel?lemmy.mlGrayox to [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square83fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink29•edit-21 year agoEven if you take his statement as true it’s essentially arguing that historically genocides have happened and therefore Israel should get free rein to do one.
minus-squareGrayoxOPlinkfedilink16•1 year agoIts the exact same as when we talk about Police brutality and chuds say, ‘what about black on black crime’
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish7•1 year agoEven if that argument was viable, I would argue Israel’s genocide starting less than a century ago makes it much more imperative to act against it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-2•1 year agoSo instead we should genocide Israelis or what is your suggestion?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish0•1 year agoPalestinians taking their land back is justice after a century of genocide, not genocide.
Even if you take his statement as true it’s essentially arguing that historically genocides have happened and therefore Israel should get free rein to do one.
Its the exact same as when we talk about Police brutality and chuds say, ‘what about black on black crime’
Even if that argument was viable, I would argue Israel’s genocide starting less than a century ago makes it much more imperative to act against it.
So instead we should genocide Israelis or what is your suggestion?
Palestinians taking their land back is justice after a century of genocide, not genocide.
Do you mean the settlements in the Westbank?