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?
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?