Anonymous #1 1w

At no point was Isreal justified to do any kind of violent action because they are a colonizing apartheid state that is doing to the indeginous people of the region what America did to the Native Americans

7

Anonymous #1 1w

Based then let’s just do forever wars based on old ethnic claims on land. The Germans should go to war with Poland for their ethnic land, Celtic people should go to war with France and the United kingdom. You guys interested in a more peaceful you’re interested in virtue signaling.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Aren’t interested*

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I never said we should enable forever wars. I think American must stop all aid to Isreal and defund its military so that they can face judgment through international sanctions and be pressured into ending their genocide and making major concessions. Im just not blaming the Palestinians for engaging in violent resitance which is 100% legal under international law. Whats the solution youre going for with this? Everybody just stop fighting and gold hands?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

So do you condemn the Jews who formed terror groups against the Nazis Who decided to fight and die for the slim chance of freedom? Because ya know that kind of resistance only gives more justification for the Nazis

3

Anonymous #1 1w

His solution is lala land believing that if the Palestinians just dropped their guns the genocide would stop when the Israeli will just find other ways to justify massacring them

2

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s legal to engage in resistance it’s not legal to target civilians or take hostages. You were just justifying forever wars but I’m glad you’re dropping that. If the U.S. wants to condition aid on Israel being a better actor I think that’s good.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

Yes if there were Jewish terrorist groups who killed random German civilians yes that would be bad.

0

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

You don’t have to kill civilians to engage in armed resistance.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I was not justifying a forever war man. I was justifying resistance as a genocide is taking place. And yes obviously oct 7th was a horrible war crime but leading up to that Isreal had shut off half of Gaza's water access in a bid to further weaken the palestinian people through structural violence. The genocide started long before oct 7th and since oct 7th Isreal has committed thousands of times the number of civilian casualties. Truly wtf are you talking about trying to equate these?

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

It’s maybe a good analogy it depends on what he did. Killing slave owners would be a fundamentally different thing than killing random people at a music festival. If he went around killing random southern people I would also say that was wrong.

-2

Anonymous #3 1w

You don’t have to kill civilians to fight back. Just bc you’re weaker doesn’t justify immoral and illegal actions.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

I literally just agreed with the solution 1 gave of conditioning aid ig 1 is also living in lala land.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You don’t need to kill civilians to resist. I’m not trying equate I’m making a comparison by saying they’re both wrong not the same.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Ok but who tf does that help if you're not specifying that one is thousands of times worse than the other to such a magnitude that it is comically evil? It helps Isreal. It helps them portray this as just another war where both sides do some fucked up shit when in reality its the incredibly one-sided holocaust of an entire people.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Bc I already acknowledge that. Israel is the side with the upper hand they’re the side we’re supporting, so that’s why we should condition aid to that side.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Am I reading blue waves response correctly that he is alright with supporting aid to Israel because they are winning?

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

No you are not lol.

1

Anonymous just_a_bucket 1w

I have no idea man. If he agrees with so much of what I'm saying I don't get why he's so much more interested in condoning or condemning palestinian resistance (or people advocating for that resistance) that he made a repost about it rather than putting forth the effort to dismantle Isreali talking points when they occur. It seems like he's agreeing w me about removing all US funding and support to isreal but he keeps calling it "conditioning aid" which means a different thing Im pretty sure.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You can just ask me lol. Bc everyone here agrees Israel bad. I’m more concerned about the people who are openly doing terrorism justifications. By conditioning aid I mean Israel does x thing for aid. I think if you freeze all Israeli aid that could be a dangerous situation bc then you lose all leverage on Israel then you have zero say over what they do in Gaza or the West Bank.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Im pushing for complete divestment and then cooperation with UN to perform international sanctions which the US has been consistently protecting Isreal from for years, not conditional aid. And literally nobody is saying Hamas should attack civilian targets or engage in what you label as "terrorism" from waht I can tell. It seems like youre assuming anyone saying Palestine has a right to engage in resistance is saying they should attack more civilian populations

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Also very interesting that youve consistently used the word terrorism when speaking about palestinian resistance but call isreals actions merely "immoral". As though bombing civilians becomes less terrifying when a western power does it 1000x more than any arab or muslim majority nation ever has. If everyone here already knows isreal bad why use more damning language to describe palestinian reisistance?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Nope not at all, I’ve stated probably around 4 times that you can engage in resistance as long as you’re not targeting civilians. I’ve clarified that multiple times. The U.S. has done an arms embargo before in the 1940s with Israel. still Israel was able to win. I think just surrendering all leverage over Israel without even attempting to curb the violence is silly and hasn’t worked out historically.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sorry I misread what you said. No I think people are giving weird justifications for it just like how you wouldn’t even call it terrorism just now.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Terrorism is a term coined by western governments to justify the alienation and brutal disproportionate retaliation against foreign peoples. Its almost excusively used to justify bombing civilians in the mid-east post 9/11. If it was a truly neutral classifcation then the US and Isreali govts would be considered the largest terrorist orgs on the planet.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Also that was one embargo without international sanctions to go w them, in fact at the time Isreal was being heavily backed by the british govt if I remember right. Since then we've tried to do conditional aid under several admins and even if they stopped isreal from outright military action, they allowed isreal to the the kind of structural violence to Gazan water supplies and electricity services and agriculture that made a desperation attack like Oct 7th practically inevitable.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I like how at the end you just answered your own question. Yes I use more specific language bc 1. people on here give weird terrorism defense so I like to call it out. 2. Israel does a lot of things I disagree with like withholding of aid, bad bombings, flirting with ethnic cleansing, occupations that seem like they’ll never end, settlements in the West Bank. I used the word immoral to cover all of those things it wasn’t supposed to be coded lol.

-3

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

What weird terrorism defense? What do they say? Ive never seen it here and I didn't see one on the post you were reposting. That shit sounds so made up to me lol

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I’m pretty sure other western countries were involved in the embargo not just the U.S. that’s why they had to smuggle guns from Czechoslovakia. To my understanding the British didn’t support them beyond the British equipment they used from when they were a British mandate.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The weird terrorism defense is how you refuse to call them terrorist or how this entire reply chain stated by going after someone who was saying Hamas bad.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Because terrorist is a made up designation designed to make violence done by non-western powers look more treatening than they are and this whole reply chain is about how complicated it is to unilaterally denounce a resistance group that is essentially the only organized resistance to Isreal currently in the region when there are are atrocities of a much higher caliber being done by western powers that are much more causal to the situation and much more important to adress.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You guys also blatantly have been justifying it too by comparing it to John brown, Jewish terrorism during ww2.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Because those were very similar situations. Slave owners mind you were civilians. Nazi beuracrats were civilians. In those situations, it was the fault of the oppressor for causing a situation where the only reply could be uncontrolled violence more so than the insigators of that violence.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s not complicated to say killing, raping kidnapping random people at a music festival is bad and doesn’t help any form of actual resistance lol. Then just denounce it, if no one here is doing terrorism defense then just denounce it.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Yes that’s how it’s not analogous we’re not talking about slave owners or bureaucrats we’re talking about random people again. We’re doing the Arabs have no autonomy argument. Nope Arabs are adults just like us they can chose to target civilians or a valid military target.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I literally already did lol. I called it a war crime several times. Im horrified that it got to a place where they thought that was their best option or that they were so resentful that they intentionally chose a civilian target. But it doesn't change the fact that the conditions that were created by Isreal and the US made a violent response inevitable. So I would much more strongly condemn the actions of Isreal and US for causing the conditions for oct 7th

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure maybe I missed it, when did you ever call it a war crime? You called them a “resistance group” you refuse to call them terrorist you took international law out of context and said “for engaging in violent resistance which is 100% legal” if anything you’ve implied they weren’t war crimes.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure and that’s fine to be critical of how other actors have made conditions a certain way. But again they ultimately have autonomy over their actions.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I did call it a war crime. I have explained why I do not use the word terrorist twice. Resistance against an occupying military force is protected under international law and they do engage in legal violent resistance both before and after oct 7th despite having commited the illegal war crimes on oct 7th. I don't see any contradictions in these statements. Non of these things are justifying Oct 7th. They are just factual statements.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

They do have autonomy over their actions but the actions they can feasibly take are limited heavily and they are under conditions that are entirely foreign to you or I so why are you spending so much time ajudicating their actions without any kind of compassion or understanding of that. Like why is it so important that people condemn unilaterally hamas for you? I said I think Oct 7th is a war crime so early in this convo and it wasn't enough for you so like what is?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Sure that’s fine I missed the one time you used the word war crime in between all the weird justification. The reason why I don’t care for your definition of terrorism is bc it’s very obviously how we’re using the word in this convo. They are justifying it, by playing weird semantics games and weird comparisons. If I didn’t push you on any this 100% the perception would be you think Hamas is a residence group who is legally resisting.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Yeah you said it was a war crime after you implied very heavily it was legal. It’s important bc terrorism is bad, that shouldn’t be controversial. You’ve never been to Israel but you feel 100% justified in selectively giving autonomy to them but not to Hamas. You don’t think having rockets fired at you since 2001 would create negative conditions for Israelis or their perception of Palestinians.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

The Isreali govt has pretty much all of the levers of power and access to major resources in the region through their occupation and blockage of aid. You are the one who's engaging in weird semantics arguments that have nothing to do with the material reality in the region. And also for the 4th time terrorism isn't a valid designation. I don't know how you're defining it and honestly at this point I think youre a lil bit justifying isreals insanely violent response with that last thing

1

Anonymous #1 1w

What have I said thats been a semantics argument? I’m broadly defining it as targeting civilians for politically driven reasons. I feel like that’s extremely obvious given the criticism I’ve repeatedly given.

1