So Israel needs to stop colonizing Palestine, as that is the primary cause of death and conflict.
Saying both sides just need to stop when one is constantly the aggressor and the other is responding to that aggression is zero tolerance logic. Blaming the victim is why things have escalated to the point we are at now.
They’re not colonizing Palestine. They’re eradicating it.
And this has been going on for almost 80 years. Anything anyone does, is always, in response to some shitty thing someone did before. But fact of the matter is, Israel benefits more than Palistine to have a conflict. So much that the time when it actually looked like someone could talk both sides to a peaceful conclusion. Israel had him assassinated.
Annexing implies bringing an area under the control of a government; colonization implies mass movement of people into undeveloped land. If it’s occupied land (necessitating the eviction of the occupants), then it’s ethnic cleansing. Any or all are correct depending on which specific part of Israeli policy one is discussing.
Russia circa 2024 disagrees because they wanted it to sound voluntary. News went with it because annex is technically correct in the close by/far away context, but not the whole colonialism is always by force context.
The Day Israel became a country they were attacked. They’ve been on defense since day 1.
They’re too heavy handed that’s clear but they are not the aggressor or instigator in this fight. They’ve offered dozens of peace deals, brokered by a variety of 3rd parties, only to be rejected because Hamas wants Jews dead. It’s in their founding Charter, just to be clear about who’s intent is what over there in terms of aggression.
I don’t understand how you could see that in any other context? They’re obviously developing settlements to maintain a front in the region. You can see from this week’s events that having settlements adjacent to the border prevent the incursion from penetrating deeper into the country where the larger population centers are.
20, or 30 years ago you were seeing bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I was in Jerusalem for a bus bombing and just missed it… Those have died down and been replaced with border skirmishes.
Whether that’s a reasonable or effective strategy is a different question.
You really are. You’re directly responding to someone saying ‘both sides need to stop,’ and your response is sharply negative. You explicitly call it blaming the victim.
A blanket statement like ‘both sides need to stop’ by itself as some simple solution ignoring the fact that one side with more power is continuously provoking the other. When a bully constantly picks on someone until they respond with too much violence both sides are wrong AND one of them is still a victim and the other the aggressor. The same thing is true when we are talking about nation states.
Palestine is still the victim, even if their actions were completely unreasonable, because Israel has far more military and diplomatic power in comparison in addition to being the ones who are constantly invading the land of Palestine. Plus, the most recent peace accords did not require Israel to give the land back, just to stop taking more. It is a one sided situation with a victim that is being dismissed as an equal conflict where both sides just need to get along.
So Israel needs to stop colonizing Palestine, as that is the primary cause of death and conflict.
Saying both sides just need to stop when one is constantly the aggressor and the other is responding to that aggression is zero tolerance logic. Blaming the victim is why things have escalated to the point we are at now.
They’re not colonizing Palestine. They’re eradicating it.
And this has been going on for almost 80 years. Anything anyone does, is always, in response to some shitty thing someone did before. But fact of the matter is, Israel benefits more than Palistine to have a conflict. So much that the time when it actually looked like someone could talk both sides to a peaceful conclusion. Israel had him assassinated.
Colonization is the method Isreal is using to eradicate Palestine.
Look. I get that you heard that word somewhere. But everything isn’t colonizing.
Annexing would be a better description to what they’re doing.
Its literally colonizing though. It’s sending their citizens to build settlements in areas that do not belong to them.
Annexing does not imply the use of force, colonizing does.
Annexing implies bringing an area under the control of a government; colonization implies mass movement of people into undeveloped land. If it’s occupied land (necessitating the eviction of the occupants), then it’s ethnic cleansing. Any or all are correct depending on which specific part of Israeli policy one is discussing.
Colonization does not mean unoccupied land.
Crimea circa 2014 disagrees
Russia circa 2024 disagrees because they wanted it to sound voluntary. News went with it because annex is technically correct in the close by/far away context, but not the whole colonialism is always by force context.
Lexicon > dictionary. See: Literally.
The Day Israel became a country they were attacked. They’ve been on defense since day 1.
They’re too heavy handed that’s clear but they are not the aggressor or instigator in this fight. They’ve offered dozens of peace deals, brokered by a variety of 3rd parties, only to be rejected because Hamas wants Jews dead. It’s in their founding Charter, just to be clear about who’s intent is what over there in terms of aggression.
Evicting Palestinians from Palestinian territory by force so that Isreali settlers can occupy their land is being defensive?
I don’t understand how you could see that in any other context? They’re obviously developing settlements to maintain a front in the region. You can see from this week’s events that having settlements adjacent to the border prevent the incursion from penetrating deeper into the country where the larger population centers are.
20, or 30 years ago you were seeing bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I was in Jerusalem for a bus bombing and just missed it… Those have died down and been replaced with border skirmishes.
Whether that’s a reasonable or effective strategy is a different question.
“Developing settlements to maintain a front” is a pretty wild tactic, let alone a defensive one.
Advancing the front is a tactic as old as warfare… that’s how borders moved historically.
Israel isn’t doing the whole rape and pillage thing, those savages at Hamas are doing that. Israel has taken the plunder part too far imo though.
i appreciate that you admitted unprompted that settlers conduct warfare against palestinians, now have a timeout and do better next time
Well, uh, I guess the community name here applies rather aptly. Well done.
When the response to that aggression is also genocide fantasies, sometimes a conflict has no good guys.
That is correct, there are no good guys in ths situation.
Then stop scoffing when people condemn both sides.
I’m not, but ok.
You really are. You’re directly responding to someone saying ‘both sides need to stop,’ and your response is sharply negative. You explicitly call it blaming the victim.
A blanket statement like ‘both sides need to stop’ by itself as some simple solution ignoring the fact that one side with more power is continuously provoking the other. When a bully constantly picks on someone until they respond with too much violence both sides are wrong AND one of them is still a victim and the other the aggressor. The same thing is true when we are talking about nation states.
Palestine is still the victim, even if their actions were completely unreasonable, because Israel has far more military and diplomatic power in comparison in addition to being the ones who are constantly invading the land of Palestine. Plus, the most recent peace accords did not require Israel to give the land back, just to stop taking more. It is a one sided situation with a victim that is being dismissed as an equal conflict where both sides just need to get along.