The Tamils were denied autonomy or self governance in their own country after the colonial powers left - sound familiar? They rebelled and had their own state for decades until the Sinhalese majority decided to crush the rebels, causing over 20,000 civilian deaths in five months of the final offensive (sound familiar?) , atop the displaced and civic destruction. The issue of Tamil self-determination is still not really resolved, to this day, and remains a friction point - sound familiar?
Ireland had Sinn Fein running the Republic for decades as the IRA’s political wing, and that stood down as part of the peace process. Irish republicans arent super happy, the Nothern Irish more so - but they are at peace. Until Brexit opened the old wounds, there was very low levels of sectarian violence outside of marching season. Very different outcome.
Palestinians after Camp David weren’t offered any real choice, and still are not seeing a way out besides a “maybe, sorta, potentially if allies help and pay for it, but we still control you” future by Israel in negotiations - but that is predicated on total surrender and capitulation by Hamas.
That same week Israel stole another 650 acres of land designated as Palestinian in Oslo II - that Israel signed and was internationally recognized. Why would you capitulate to a state that openly breaks trust, offers nothing today for your complete surrender, and talks vaguely about a ‘suitable security arrangement’ while cabinet ministers drone loudly for ethnic cleaning and annexation?
Neither side are responsible actors here; both are repressing internal dissent heavily, both have broken and reneged on treaties and ceasefires, both have taught their society to hate the other, and the international community shouldn’t support either while they both pursue a path of destruction.
Isolate Netanyahu, let the Israeli courts send him to jail, and let the people vote new leaders who don’t court openly racist Kahanists that accelerate sectarianism and the violence it requires.
Neither side are responsible actors here; both are repressing internal dissent heavily, both have broken and reneged on treaties and ceasefires, both have taught their society to hate the other, and the international community shouldn’t support either while they both pursue a path of destruction.
One is a state and happens to be a democracy, with flaws albiet. The other is a failed terrorist territory with no right to continued existence. Hamas has to be destroyed now and if Israel has to annex all of Gaza to do it, that’s the moral and just outcome. Terrorists don’t get to have a state.
Hamas has to be destroyed now and if Israel has to annex all of Gaza to do it, that’s the moral and just outcome. Terrorists don’t get to have a state.
You are familiar with the origins of Israel and the ongoing campaigns of Jewish terrorism against both the British overseers and the Arabs, right? And the tit-for-tat escalation responses following soon after, leading to the Nakba, leading to the present day scenario.
Or the modern origins of the United States, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Myanmar, etc history tends to blur the line between terrorist, rebel, and resistance fighter once the violence settles. Do they all deserve subjugation by the strong, because they rebelled and resorted to violence? Or do we recognize them for the current/former colonial holdings they are/were, admit that European drawing lines on maps don’t know everything, and that the people living there need to work out a solution to borders, population transfer, restitution, etc, while the international community tries to stop abuses happening?
The Tamils were denied autonomy or self governance in their own country after the colonial powers left - sound familiar? They rebelled and had their own state for decades until the Sinhalese majority decided to crush the rebels, causing over 20,000 civilian deaths in five months of the final offensive (sound familiar?) , atop the displaced and civic destruction. The issue of Tamil self-determination is still not really resolved, to this day, and remains a friction point - sound familiar?
Ireland had Sinn Fein running the Republic for decades as the IRA’s political wing, and that stood down as part of the peace process. Irish republicans arent super happy, the Nothern Irish more so - but they are at peace. Until Brexit opened the old wounds, there was very low levels of sectarian violence outside of marching season. Very different outcome.
Palestinians after Camp David weren’t offered any real choice, and still are not seeing a way out besides a “maybe, sorta, potentially if allies help and pay for it, but we still control you” future by Israel in negotiations - but that is predicated on total surrender and capitulation by Hamas. That same week Israel stole another 650 acres of land designated as Palestinian in Oslo II - that Israel signed and was internationally recognized. Why would you capitulate to a state that openly breaks trust, offers nothing today for your complete surrender, and talks vaguely about a ‘suitable security arrangement’ while cabinet ministers drone loudly for ethnic cleaning and annexation?
Neither side are responsible actors here; both are repressing internal dissent heavily, both have broken and reneged on treaties and ceasefires, both have taught their society to hate the other, and the international community shouldn’t support either while they both pursue a path of destruction. Isolate Netanyahu, let the Israeli courts send him to jail, and let the people vote new leaders who don’t court openly racist Kahanists that accelerate sectarianism and the violence it requires.
One is a state and happens to be a democracy, with flaws albiet. The other is a failed terrorist territory with no right to continued existence. Hamas has to be destroyed now and if Israel has to annex all of Gaza to do it, that’s the moral and just outcome. Terrorists don’t get to have a state.
You are familiar with the origins of Israel and the ongoing campaigns of Jewish terrorism against both the British overseers and the Arabs, right? And the tit-for-tat escalation responses following soon after, leading to the Nakba, leading to the present day scenario.
Or the modern origins of the United States, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Myanmar, etc history tends to blur the line between terrorist, rebel, and resistance fighter once the violence settles. Do they all deserve subjugation by the strong, because they rebelled and resorted to violence? Or do we recognize them for the current/former colonial holdings they are/were, admit that European drawing lines on maps don’t know everything, and that the people living there need to work out a solution to borders, population transfer, restitution, etc, while the international community tries to stop abuses happening?