Anonymous blue__wave 5w

I get that your whole this is being a hardcore lib but you don’t have to defend Israel with dumb stuff

16

Anonymous #3 5w

That’s true lol. It’s not a defense it’s literally a true statement. Am I not allowed to say a fact? Or if I say a fact am I supposed to say 2 negative fats about Israel. It’s so weird.

-4

Anonymous #3 5w

I can be critical of Israel without agreeing to every dipshit talking point. Idk why other people are unable to do that.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Israel is a literal apartheid so being like some of the Arabs are able to vote is insane

12

Anonymous #3 5w

Yes if you’re an Israeli citizen you’re able to vote, regardless of race. What do you think apartheid is? Apartheid is definitionally racial segregation.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

So you’re telling me Israel isn’t an apartheid?

11

Anonymous #3 5w

Definitionally it’s not. That’s not the problem with Israel.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Arabs & Israeli Jews don’t have the same rights so it is an apartheid. Although I wouldn’t say that is the only problem but it’s a big one. Also your argument is like if I pointed out the first Black senator was in 1870 & black people also have the right to vote like there was still segregation

13

Anonymous #3 5w

What right do Arab people not have in Israel proper?

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

By you’re phrasing I’m assuming you at least acknowledge the West Bank as an apartheid but as for Israel Proper I’d say right of return, the Committees Law, the Citizenship & Entry law, the Nation Sate law, educational funding, some directly & some indirectly create different rights for Arabs as opposed to Israeli Jews.

13

Anonymous #3 5w

Again would we argue that Black people were treated as equals after 1870 because we had a black senator & the right to vote?

12

Anonymous #3 5w

You mean before Jim Crow? Yes lol.

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

No bc the people in the West Bank aren’t Israeli citizens. The right of return people aren’t Israeli citizens either, they’re Palestinian refugees. Is apartheid when you get to immigrate faster based on your religion? That’s not what apartheid is. Idk none of these are rlly apartheid maybe the committees law is getting there.

-2

Anonymous #3 5w

I would even say Israel has a lot of institutionalized racism but I wouldn’t call it an apartheid state like Rhodesia or South Africa.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

The apartheid is specifically in the West Bank. Arabs in Israel proper can vote, but apartheid is referring to the West Bank. For a similar example, in the United States, some Native American tribes were given citizenship if they assimilated and gave up tribal status, while others were denied citizenship as their land got cut up.

10

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Also like. Do you know what apartheid was? Black South Africans weren’t citizen of South Africa, that was the entire point. They were considered citizens of the bantustans, which South Africa considered separate countries. The West Bank, as an occupied territory subject to settler colonization where the indigenous inhabitants are denied citizenship, is extremely similar to apartheid Namibia.

13

Anonymous #4 5w

If you define apartheid as “discriminating against citizens of your country” then under your definition Apartheid South Africa wouldn’t count. As black people were all citizens of other “countries”

17

Anonymous #4 5w

It’s not apartheid if it’s based on nationality. The problem with Israel is the perpetual occupation of Palestinian land. I get we want to make every conflict in history be the same conflict but I would prescribe different things to apartheid South Africa than I would Israel.

-4

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Black South Africans were considered citizens of separate nations. They literally were citizens of other countries created by the South African state for the purpose of denying them voting rights.

16

Anonymous #4 5w

Do you think Palestinians want to be citizens of Israel? No they want a separate Palestinian state or an Arab majority state that’s the difference. I would also say there’s a prescriptive difference, I believe should be a separate Palestinian and Israeli state.

1

Anonymous #4 5w

You realize that Bantustans were created by South Africa right? Black South Africans were considered nationals before the bantusatans. Vs Palestine that has been a recognized country (to some extent) it’s not just an invention of Israel.

2

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Black Namibians didn’t want to be South African. They wanted a separate Namibian state. But they lived in an occupied territory whose white residents were granted South African citizenship, while they were bantustan citizens.

11

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

So you think what made South Africa apartheid was that black people had some rights before they lost them? What makes Israel apartheid is that Israeli law is imported to the West Bank settlements and applied to those settlers, whereas Palestinians are subject to different laws and restrictions.

10

Anonymous #4 5w

Notice how it’s based off race and not nationality then. Thats how I’m defining as apartheid. If South Africa just occupied all Namibians then again that would be analogous. Again, in South Africa proper like you said there was an active racial segregation while in Israel there isn’t.

-1

Anonymous #4 5w

Black people in Namibia had a very brief period of being considered citizens before they were denied it again. It was granted to white Namibians first, then black Namibians had it for a short period, then they lost it again. Do you think that if South Africa had just skipped the part where they had citizenship and just never granted it, it wouldn’t have been apartheid?

9

Anonymous #4 5w

I would much rather be an Arab in Israel vs be a Palestinian in the West Bank. If it was South Africa or Namibia I would be equally fucked.

-2

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Bruh, West Bank Samaritans were literally given Israeli citizenship based on race.

13

Anonymous #4 5w

No I’m just pointing out how your comparison is flawed. If the U.S. invaded Mexico and Mexicans didn’t have rights bc they were occupied. That would be different than the U.S. inventing a fake Mexican state to send all Mexican American citizens to.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

In apartheid South Africa, people of the coloured ethnicity of mixed white and black descent were citizens and even had limited voting rights. America also similarly granted citizenship to assimilated native Americans while denying it to those who remained as tribes.

3

Anonymous #4 5w

No bc in Namibia it was based race if you got citizenship or not. The fact they occupied a place and gave out citizenship based on race would be the apartheid part. Again I’m just following the definition I’ve provided multiple times at this point.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

So you think that if South Africa didn’t have racial segregation in itself, but applied it in Namibia, then Namibia wouldn’t be under apartheid?

9

Anonymous blue__wave 5w

Israel literally gave out citizenship based on race. Samaritan residents of the West Bank were given Israeli citizenship because of their ethnicity, while all Arab residents of the occupied territories were denied it.

6

Oh wow good on you for changing your mind when presented with new information. Most people aren’t willing to do that.

9

Anonymous #4 4w

Oh I should state slight addendum, Arabs in East Jerusalem can apply to become Israeli citizens (similar to the Golan heights) because it’s been officially annexed into Israel, rather than being considered an occupied territory like the rest of the West Bank. Most don’t, for personal reasons and due to a lack of Hebrew fluency. But Arabs in the rest of the West Bank cannot do so. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t misspeaking.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

I think other people will try to apply the apartheid label to all of Israel and I think that’s an ill-informed take. Arabs in Israel proper face a lot of discrimination but I think it’s improper to apply the apartheid label outside of the West Bank and when settlements were in Gaza (with the Golan heights, East Jerusalem, and the former Sinai being debatable)

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Ok I kinda feel like that undermines the apartheid point if they’re accepting Arabs as citizens.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

lol not to flip flop, but honestly I haven’t been learning new things about the issue since Trump has been in office.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Here’s my more fuller take with Israel/Palestine. To me the issue with Israel isn’t that they’re an apartheid state the issue is that the West Bank is in this weird Limbo where it’s treated like both occupied and annexed territory at the same time. If it’s occupied then sure you can take away some rights from the people, but you have to have some end to the occupation and you can’t settle the land. If it’s annexed land then you can’t take away the rights of people and have an apartheid state.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/un-report-chronicles-intensification-decades-severe-racial-discrimination

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Israel should be forced to choose one or the other instead of waiting indefinitely until they get the demographics they want. If a bunch of Palestinians started attacking settlers, especially settlers that are deep in the West Bank I feel like that would 100% justified.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Not that it would be the best course of action but I wouldn’t say that would be immoral.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I have a somewhat similar thought process. Either the West Bank is an occupied territory in which case the settlers are illegal, or it’s part of Israel in which case the denial of citizenship is apartheid. I just think the word apartheid can accurately be applied because Israel is effectively treating the West Bank as part of it by applying its own laws there.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

That’s of course not the only issue in Israel. Palestinians in Israel are still significant subjugated. There’s the social discrimination of course, but also a massive percentage of Arab Israelis were internally displaced and are still denied the rights to their property. Literally weren’t allowed to return home in 1952 and haven’t been allowed back since.

6

Anonymous #5 4w

Yeah I also think there’s reasonable grounds idk what to say to that.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Nah I’m not going to go to the point of morally justifying Israel’s actions. The way I present it is more to undermine people who defend Israel’s actions as not being illegal. Israeli settlers attack and kill Palestinians in the West Bank all the time. I took a class on Plains Indians history, a distinct part of settler colonialism is only punishing violence when the colonized group commits it.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Sure my problem is I feel like it’s meaningfully different than other apartheids. I feel like people call Israel an apartheid bc they want to maximally morally load Israel, bc Israel Palestine is a proxy for all of these other concepts flying around in politics right now. Like American intervention, colonization, nationalism, two minority groups that people are obsessed with, weird religious shit.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

I think Israel’s annexation is fundamentally immoral either way. The fact that Druze in the Golan heights are given the option of becoming Israeli citizens (though most don’t and the language requirement is discriminatory) doesn’t change that Israel ethnically cleansed all non-Druze Syrians from the region. Countries can’t just annex anyone they go to war with.

8

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I agree that people want to use words that are maximally evocative. I think this is also why people overuse the word genocide to refer to all mass civilian deaths. I don’t think that whether it’s genocide or not changes the immorality of mass civilian deaths, but for many people it does so I see why people want to use the most evocative language.

5

Anonymous #4 4w

The word apartheid is certainly used because it’s evocative. But I think in the West Bank it does apply. I originally didn’t think the Gaza war counted as genocide, but now, based on the rhetoric of Israeli politicians, I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate it is done with the intent of killing and displacing the Gazan people.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah I would agree the settler violence I would say is 100% a real issue. I would say Israel has taken some steps to reduce some of it. I think it’s very debatable if these are meaningful steps or not.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I do not think Israel has taken steps to reduce it. Not this government at least. Previous ones maybe, but this government wants to encourage settlement as much as possible. It’s expansionist, it’s dominated by the people who opposed Gaza settlement dismantling and returning the Sinai.

7

Anonymous #4 4w

But I don’t think people are using maximal language to actually solve the issue I think they’re doing it to virtue signal on whatever political issue they think I/P represents that’s my problem. I feel like the only real solution I see these people give is the total destruction of Israel which I don’t think is feasible or would be good for the region.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

I think some people try to act as if the West Bank settlers aren’t official government policy. They are. Some are considered “illegal” and may occasionally get dismantled, but it’s the Israeli government which allows its citizens to enter the region and set them up. The government annexes land to make new settlements, and turns illegal ones official. The soldiers allow settler violence to occur and commit it themselves.

10

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Definitely not all of them. I don’t.

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Oh I do think another point towards apartheid perhaps counting in East Jerusalem is that Jewish neighborhoods are allowed to get gun permits while Palestinian neighborhoods are not.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I disagree that people only say that Israel is an apartheid state committing a genocide as a way to virtue signal. I almost every major human right organization says the same thing, are they virtue signaling? As for West Bank vs Israel proper I call both an apartheid because as I stated earlier there are laws on books that discriminate against arabs in Israel proper although yes I acknowledge it’s far more in your face in the West Bank. Lastly I don’t believe most people who are pro Palestine

6

Anonymous #3 4w

Think the solution is destroying Israel & killing everyone. That’s insane. I disagree with mass death in Israel or even of settlers being a legitimate solution. Although under international law the Palestinians in the West Bank have a right to violently attack the settlers.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

You think the majority of people who call themselves pro palestian are pro two state?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

No but international organizations and the average person into online politics are two very different things lol. What laws on the books discriminate against Arabs? I already kinda went over this with #4 but we can go again ig.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Oh never mind I talked about that with you lol you just never responded. I got you and 4 mixed up. But this should be easy to test what is your solutions to the I/P crisis?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Idk if most people who a pro Palestinian are for a two state solution. That definitely used to be the more popular opinion but now one state is growing in popularity. I honestly don’t know what is more popular. I As for my personal opinion I believe a one state solution would be better for multiple reason that I have no issue sharing

1

Anonymous #3 4w

1. The main reason I’m for a two state solution is because there’s about 750k settlers & growing since Israel keeps building illegal settlements & you can’t have a true 2 start solution without removing the settlers. It was a huge task & mission for Israel to remove 5k settlers from Gaza back in 2005 so if 5k was extremely tough how do you expect them to do at least 750k probably more since they’re still building illegal settlements & hell today Smotrich said

1

Anonymous #3 4w

"There will be expansion in Gaza that will extend our borders. In Lebanon, to the Litani, in Syria, Mount Hermon, parts of the north, south, and east." So yeah sounds like they plan on having way more settlers. The only way you would be able to remove them is violently & while under international law it’s legal I genuinely don’t think killing 750k Israelis is good.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

So the only solution would be for everyone including the settlers to be able to live in the country as equals. The right to return among the other discriminate laws I mentioned that are in place in Israel proper would have to either be removed or change to podstivly include the Arab population.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Reparations given to the Palestinians. The name of the country idk put it to a vote or something. Just make sure everyone has equal rights & equal say. It wouldn’t be easy & would definitely be a process but unless you have a way to get rid of 750k Israeli settlers peacefully I think it makes the most sense

1

Anonymous #3 4w

So that would make Israel no longer exist and would probably cause a lot of violence seeing as both populations are pretty radicalized against each other. They also have completely contradicting views on what the government should look like.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

They aren’t for a two state solution they’re for Israel not existing generally. I like how removing 750 k settlers is impossible and would be super violent, but allowing all Palestinians to come in back would somehow not be hard and would super peaceful.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I have no clue who that quote is from.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You don’t have to get rid all 750k settlers my understanding is if there was a two solution today you likely wouldn’t remove every settler you just remove the ones that are deep into Palestine. There would probably have to be give and take on both sides. I feel like there’s a historical basis for Israel ending settlements like when they gave up Gaza or the Sinai. To my knowledge there’s no historical basis for a country just dissolving all their borders.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Would you be for dissolving all of the borders and the unlimited right of return if it 100% going to be a solid Jewish majority state?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Also you keep just repeating this but a lot of things you mentioned aren’t apartheid. China and other European countries give preferential treatment to people with Chinese ancestry or European ancestry, is that apartheid. Schools in the U.S. get varying levels of funding often with black majority schools getting less, obviously not good, but is that apartheid? A lot of countries are explicitly for an ethnic group that’s not apartheid.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I’m sure I could even find an example for a country banning people from getting a house in region due to culture, maybe that’s getting closer to the definition of apartheid, but none of these things are rlly South African style apartheid.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I provided links a while ago showing how this is apartheid. South-West Africa (present-day Namibia) has been specifically mentioned by South Africa in the ICJ case

2

Anonymous #5 4w

Were they about the West Bank or Israel proper?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Primarily the West Bank, but mentioned Israel too

4

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Idk how Israel growing & Palestine getting smaller is give-and-take that it sounds like one side is getting & the other isn’t especially when you consider the settlements are illegal. You are correct there is history of removing the settlements but that was 5k and not easy idk if can compare 5k to 750k & growing.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

As for giving the right to return to Palestinians & a one state solution would destroy Israel. This argument is always made on the side of the oppressors. Slavery couldn’t be ended because black people would kill all the whites & want revenge. Yet here we are. Hell the KKK was stared in response to black people which is the oppressor fighting to keep those oppressed. Jim Crow couldn’t the ended because black people would kill white people yet here we are. The apartheid in South Africa couldn’t

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Be ended because black peoples would kill white people. Yet here we are again this is always a popular& common argument in the movement to not end the oppression. As I said earlier the quote is from Bezalel Smotrich

1

Anonymous #3 4w

The current government of Gaza killed, raped and kidnapped a bunch of Israelis it’s not even an argument it literally happened.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

There is no Palestinian state at this point, there’s Hamas the pa and some Gaza gangs, so that’s the give. But your ask is bigger than removing settlements you have to realize this.

1

Anonymous #5 4w

Ok I’ll take a peak but I’m guessing they mention most of things already addressed.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I'm confused by your first point I dont remember saying Hamas committed O atrocities. So I'm confused on your 1st point unless you're trying to say the actions of Hamas on 10/7/23 is justification for all of Israel's actions before & after 10/7/23 or that it means the Palestinians aren’t the real oppressed group in this situation. While I high key disagree with you on many things I know that's not what you mean so I'm confused & would like clarification.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

So are you saying sucks to suck they should just take a lot less land if Israel will allow it & be happy? Ending slavery, apartheid, and Jim Crow was considered an unreasonably big ask in the moment too. Yet hear we are

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Ok I feel like shouldn’t be confusing if you’re being good faith. You were saying it’s an unrealistic fear that violence would happen to Jewish people if Israel dissolved their borders. I pointed out that oct7th legitimizes Jewish fear of violence. I said nothing about justifying all of Israel actions that’s just a thing you randomly invented. I’ve been critical of Israeli actions multiple times in these responses already, so obviously I don’t think they’re all justified.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I don’t view this conflict as oppressor vs oppressed I feel like it’s obviously more nuanced.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

That argument can literally be applied to anything. “Hey can I steal everything in your house” “no that’s an unreasonable ask” “well ending slavery was called an unreasonable ask” what lol?

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Both Israel and Palestinians should give up meaningful things for peace, yes. I guess Palestinians can go to war with Israel for the 100th time and lose again. I feel like it would that’s been a pretty harmful cycle that only Israel has gained from.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I literally said I know that’s not what you mean because I was being good faith. You’re a liberal Zionist but not a Khanaist. No I didn’t say they just let down their borders tomorrow & everything is fixed no fear. I legit said it would be a long process. At the same time 10/7 is the definition of blowback. End the conditions that lead to blowback & then there’s far less chance of it happening. I feel like that’s pretty straightforward & common sense yet has not been tried.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Of course someone with your politics wouldn’t view it that way but obviously one side is clearly oppressed here & one side is clearly doing the oppression. I don’t really see the nuance and not giving one group of people equal rights and taking their homes. As for both parties having to give up something which sounds like you mean the Palestinians specifically since you’re not saying the Israelis should even give up all of their illegal settlements. What else do

1

Anonymous #3 4w

You believe the Palestinians should give up in hopes of satisfying Israel? I mean Hamas isn’t an issue in the West Bank yet Israel still kills Palestinians without any repercussions & takes their land so violence or non violence it seems like Israel just kills Palestinians & take more so I ask what do you think they should give & take since my asking of the government giving everyone equal rights is too much

4

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

How tf can you view this as anything other than oppressor vs oppressed Israel is doing literal ethnic cleansing in the West Bank right now

4

Anonymous #3 4w

Also you say that argument can be used for anything which yeah sure but they were famously & heavily used in justifying the upholding of Slavery, Jim Crow, & Apartheid so it’s not just a random argument.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Sure Israel should give up all of their settlements. I’m not attached to any of the settlements I’m saying both sides would have to give something up instead of your version where one side 100% concedes to the other. Palestinians should have equal rights in Palestine that’s my positions I’m not anti equal rights lol, weird implication.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Your not asking for equal rights your asking for them to dissolve their country to people who just did a massive terror attack on them. This is why the oppressor oppressed narrative is stupid bc it’s impossible for you to understand any Jewish perspective. You just think they’re randomly being evil. A 2 state solution was actually polling rlly well in Israel until Hamas attacked. Hamas kinda fucked over the people in the West Bank pretty hard.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Bc Hamas raped, murdered and kidnapped a bunch of random civilians. Do we think that’s bad or…

0

Anonymous #3 4w

It is a random arguments bc you can say that about anything lol.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Crazy that 2023 was named the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank due to Israel killing them & that was before 10/7/23 yet you’re saying Hamas was the one that screwed over the Palestinians in the West Bank? How does that make sense? You understand settlements were being built before 10/7 & before Hamas even existed. You know that Israel kidnapped thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank before 10/7 like how are you saying this is the fault of Hamas who isn’t even running the

1

Anonymous #3 4w

West Bank. But I guess it should be expected of liberal Zionist.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Also there’s no doubt in my mind that rapes happened on 10/7 there’s no justification for rape. At the same time there’s 0 evidence of mass systematic rapes happening on 10/7 & usually something that is said to justify Israel’s actions or at the least defend the current system of country

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Also crazy thing that Zionist never acknowledged is the systematic mass rapes done my the IDF to Palestinians. Hell people got caught on tape rapping a Palestinian to death & the Knesset argued if rape of Palestinians should be legal while people while citizen along with some Knesset members rioted in defense of the rappeist. Ultimately all charges were dropped & everyone was free after 3 days & one of them even didn’t tv appearances being celebrated as a hero

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Like you want to claim I don’t care about the Jewish perspective yet the truth is deep down inside you don’t see the Palestinians as equal to Israeli Jews which explains why you don’t view them as being oppressed & are spouting this Zionist bs. I shouldn’t be surprised given your other political views. At the end of the day liberal Zionist are still Zionist & there’s a reason why everyone hates Israel & Zionist & that they grow more & more hated each day

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I mean yeah Israel and Hamas are both fucking them over. I know under your view Israel justifies everything Hamas does, I think both sides have autonomy over their actions. I never said it was the total fault of Hamas, we’re rlly inventing a lot positions here.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Massacre attacks are an extremely common reaction to settler colonialism. Dozens of Native American tribes did it, Australian Aboriginals did it, indigenous Africans did it, Haitians did it. That doesn’t justify massacres, but do you think Native Americans weren’t oppressed by settlers?

6

Anonymous #3 4w

If I keep talking to a Zionst I will want to end myself so I’m done but may you have a good weekend & hopefully realize why you’re hated by the vast majority of the population & stop being a liberal Zionst. ✌🏿

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Ok i also never brought up systemic rape but keep going king. True I remember when I said the IDF has never raped people, that’s 100% a real position of mine.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Also absolutely has to be noted that the October 7 attack happened a few years after Gazans peacefully protested and were met with IDF gunfire that killed over 200 and injured over 9,000. If peaceful protests are met with massacre, it’s not surprising when violent action occurs.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

Notice how you’re not even responding to anything I’m saying. You’re literally talking about my super real deep dark secret feelings that I’m secretly hiding. I mean I guess if people hallucinate you saying a bunch of bad things that would make sense if they were mad at you.

0

Anonymous #3 4w

Yes king leave the convo after making up a bunch of random shit I’ve never said. That was an epic own.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

It’s not too long of a read, and I strongly recommend it, because it’ll probably clear up a lot of points that will inevitably be brought up in this thread at some point

8

Anonymous #4 4w

Someone can be oppressed by another group that doesn’t mean they’re only oppressed. For example a lot colonized people collaborated with colonizers in that case they would both be oppressed and oppressors. It’s usually more complicated than a dichotomy.

0

Anonymous #5 4w

Ok I some time this weekend.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

What peaceful protest are you talking about?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

That doesn’t mean Palestinians as a whole aren’t primarily oppressed. There were black slave owners, there were tribes that allied with the Americans against their enemies, there were Māori iwi who used European guns for conquest. That doesn’t change that those groups in aggregate were oppressed.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

2018-2019 Gaza border protests

6

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

It's no secret you literally said you don't view that Palestines as being oppressed & that there’s nuance despite them not having equal rights & having their homes taken & now claim that the Palestines are both somehow the oppressed & oppressor due to some complicated dichotomy, so idk what you want. Also saying that the vast majority of people hate Israel & Zionist isn’t an own it’s just a fact. But again have a good weekend & stop with the Liberal Zionism ✌🏿for real this time

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Ok king I’ll get right on that. Just pls stop reading my mind, people aren’t supposed to know all these evil opinions I have that I keep secret for some reason.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah I would call Palestinians oppressed, I’m saying it’s more complicated than them just being oppressed. Again I don’t see it as a dichotomy that’s the disagreement.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

That was not totally peaceful, that’s just not true.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Any protest of tens of thousands of people is going to involve someone getting violent, but the protest as a whole was overwhelmingly peaceful. Israel shot thousands of Palestinians. You are being disingenuous if you believe that wasn’t a violent response to peaceful protests. The ratio of wounded between Israelis and Gazans makes it abundantly clear who was doing the violence.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

Then why did describe it as peaceful lol? I feel like that disingenuous but ok. Idk you can have a protest without throwing Molotov cocktails. I like that whenever Israelis do a bad thing it’s bc they’re being purposefully evil but when Palestinians do a bad things it’s like an inevitable event. The selective autonomy you guys give the two groups is so weird.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Because it was overwhelmingly peaceful. Experts literally commented on it because it was so peaceful and they saw that as a change in Palestinian resistance tactics. Describing it as violent when it overwhelmingly wasn’t is disingenuous. Do you think a civil rights protester never punched someone?

4

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

You’re absolutely just covering for Israel now. They opened fire on marching children. The BLM protests involved some violence, but they were overwhelmingly peaceful. How would you react if they had been mowed down by gunfire? How do you feel about Iran’s response to protests?

4

Anonymous #4 4w

Idk I don’t trust your characterization of these events. You can’t give it as an example of a peaceful protest if it wasn’t peaceful, idk what this argument is lol. I’m a blm simp but I wouldn’t describe it as totally peaceful - I would say mostly peaceful.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Ok. It was a mostly peaceful protest met with live gunfire by IDF forces, killing 223 people including 46 children. Thats still fucking monstrous I don’t see what your point is here.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah it started out as peaceful which is good but then my understanding is Hamas co-opted the fuck out of it. I would have the same standard lmao. If a civil rights protester punched someone that would still be violent idk how it being a civil rights protestor would change that?

0

Anonymous #4 4w

It’s your point idk why you brought it up? Idk what it even has to do with anything I said.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

…you’re fr still going to try to justify dozens of children being shot? I don’t understand the need to excuse the IDF’s actions, they clearly just kill civilians all the time.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

I brought it up because it’s an example of Israel responding violently to overwhelmingly non-threatening activities. You can’t do the “they were just responding to October 7” shit when they were mowing down children in 2018.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

When did I justify that lmao? Are we doing the mind reading thing again.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of the 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analyzed, only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces. So out of the 30k protesters very few were violent & only two actually posed legitimate threat yet the IDF had snipers shooting kids, nurses trying to help people & even someone in a wheelchair.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

So if there was a BLM protest of 30k people & a few were violent would the cops be justified in mass shooting & sniping people?

4

Anonymous #4 4w

I don’t think throwing Molotov cocktails is non violent. If Israel killed random civilians then that’s bad, but this the problem I think legitimate Palestinian resistance is usually co-opted by bad actors like Hamas and let’s Israel justify some crazy shit. That’s why I’m critical of Hamas and Israel they both feed into a violent cycle.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

No, when did I say that was justified? Are we done responding to things critically at this point?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

You really expect me to believe you going “erm actually there was some violence” is just pedantry and not you trying to justify the violence committed by the IDF?

6

Anonymous #3 4w

What’s the name of UN report you’re referencing?

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Idk why you’re mad at me bc you referenced something peaceful that wasn’t peaceful? It being peaceful was the entire reason you referenced it, I like how’s it’s pedantry now and means I’m pro kids getting murdered.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah there was 30k protesters & 2 of them got way out of hand so erm actually it wasn’t a peaceful protest & Hamas co-opted the protest with the action of the 2 protesters who went way overboard so you can’t call it peaceful. The Palestinians need to try fully peaceful protests

3

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

If one in 1,000 people at a protest gets violent do you unironically think that makes the entire protest violent?

5

Anonymous #3 4w

They didn’t say 2 protestors went over board they said 2 protestors were killed justifiably. Assuming they’re referencing it correctly. Which drop a title I’ll change my mind on it, this is just my understanding of what happened.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

It depends, if that one in 1,000 people all throw bombs that violence would probably out characterize the peacefulness if that makes sense. It just depends on the context.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Well in this context for every one Israeli injured, 1,000 Palestinians got shot. So I think it’s pretty damn clear what happened.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

You continuing down the “well I actually think it wasn’t peaceful” train is trying to distract from the astounding immorality of the IDF and it’s very clear why you’re doing it.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

This is like focusing on the sharpeville massacre in apartheid South Africa and going on about how 3 cops got hit by rocks instead of how 91 people were massacred by the police.

4

Anonymous #4 4w

I thought the death count was in the hundreds for the 2018-2019 border protest? How many were shot? What are you referencing for the numbers?

0

Anonymous #4 4w

I know I’m arguing this for super secret evil reasons.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

You realize I haven’t argued once that the IDF didn’t do anything wrong? I would be surprised if they didn’t. Idk what you think I’m arguing?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

223 people were killed but somewhere between 9,000 and 13,000 were injured, primarily by gunfire

4

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

You focusing on the phrase “peaceful protest” thing more than anything else I said shows what your priorities are

3

Anonymous #4 4w

We can never just have a back and forth on this topic. It always turns into the theorizing on what my intent is.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Yes bc that was your entire point. Why wouldn’t I focus on your point?? How does that make me evil?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Dude how do you think that focusing on the use of the word peaceful rather than the broader point that Israel uses disproportionate aggressive violence outside of times of conflict wouldn’t make you look bad and disingenuous

5

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

The point was that less violent methods of resistance are still met with massive violent response from Israel, and that this contributes towards more radical methods by Palestinian groups. The point was that the IDF does evil shit without Hamas incursion as a justification.

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Hamas had no part in the border protest?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Oh my god bruh how do you not see how bad this looks 😭

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Was I supposed to know the word peaceful had a double meaning? If you’re just saying the IDF had a disproportionate response that seems believably to me. I would have to look at sources to say for sure, but just say that lol.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

Idk I feel we’re kinda mind fucked on this issue. What looks bad?

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Focusing on “well there were some Hamas in the protests” and “well there was some violence” facilitates the Israeli government narrative that their use of force was justified, even if you don’t realize that’s what you’re doing.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Why do you bring things up and then get mad when I comment about it lmao. Why not just not say it or clarify what you meant? I never said it was justified I said I wouldn’t be surprised if it was disproportionate. We’re reading so hard into everything I’m saying. Hamas was 100% part of that protest and tried to break the fence idk why you said that.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Hamas was involved as they are in everything in Gaza. But it wasn’t a Hamas protest. I brought it up as an example of disproportionate unjustified violence committed by the Israeli state, and as an example of how the October 7 attack didn’t come out of nowhere. Israel not only funded Hamas but brutally cracked down on less violent methods of resistance. Israel wants groups like Hamas to be active so they can expand and annex more land.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah I would agree with that broadly I think Israel benefits the most from the current cycle of violence.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

Or the Israeli right wing does. I feel like for the average Israeli it’s largely negative.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

The israeli right wing is the Israeli government. They are who is in control. Most Israelis identify as right wing and vote in those right wing parties.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Netanyahu is at 53% unfavorability. Hamas is an even more extreme right wing government. You can account for all bad actors in the region without downplaying any of their responsibility.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Netanyahu is viewed unfavorably. His primary rivals are Bennett, Gantz, and Lapid, who are all right wing. Hell, Bennett wants war with Turkey.

4

Anonymous #4 4w

Gantz is at 54% unfavorability my understanding is they all have high unfavorability. But I only see gantz and Netanyahu on the pew polling I’m looking at.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

52% of Israelis say settlements are a major obstacle to peace, 75% say a lack of trust between Israelis and Palestinians is as major obstacle.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Well they keep voting for governments who support settlements.

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah I agree it’s a problem but my point is multiple actors add to the cycle of violence we see in the region. A two state solution was also polling well before Oct 7th.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

Yes it’s multiple actors but Israel specifically facilitated Hamas’s rise to power. Like fully just funneled them money because it would undermine the Palestinian authority, who they don’t want becoming a recognized state because that would limit their settlement ambitions.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah the Israeli right is pretty toxic I’m not going to disagree.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 4w

The thing is that the Israeli right *is* the Israeli government now. This isn’t the government of Yitzhak Rabin, who was willing to seek peace and was killed for it. This is an expansionist government. That’s their policy now. Israel was expansionist before but it was willing to give up the Sinai or the Gaza settlements if it meant peace. The government now is all the people who opposed those actions.

6

Anonymous #4 4w

Yeah I don’t like the current Israel government either lol.

1