Do you consider Hamas the aggressor in the overall context of the Israel- Palestinian conflict?
Not being the aggressor does not give you a licence to murder civilians.
Is it amoral? Yes, for sure 100%. But as a global community, we barely punish those who engage in this kind of tactic, and when we do, it's for some kind of political theater. More Palestinian civilians will die in this conflict by a factor, if you're going to criticize Hamas for this, I'd like to see the same standard applied to IDF.
I'm not saying either side is innocent, but you cannot compare this to the invasion of Ukraine since Ukraine does not deliberately target Russian civilians.
Wow. I apologize for the confusion. I absolutely do not believe these two situations are comparable. My bad.
Do you think only one side can be responsible in a conflict?
Sometimes yes. I know very little about the Israelo-palestinian confilct (only what I read from news outlet) so I can't say anything for sure here.
But more generally, in history, there have been plenty of conflicts that were one side's responsability: Ukraine's invasion, WW2, colonie's independance "wars"... IMO, when you defend yourself from an agression, you are not responsible for the conflict.
In this case, I tend to agree with other commentors - Israel seems to have been increasingly oppressive and brutal at least in the past 2 decades, and you can only push people so far before they react.
How they react matters though. If Palestinians brutally murdered Israeli children, I think we'd all agree there's absolutely no justification for that, no matter what rings wrongs Israel has committed.
Palestine has every right to fight back against Israel, but not the civilians. When a country kills your civilians, you solve absolutely nothing by retaliation killing their civilians. Your enemy is their military and government.
I firmly believe it is impossible to push someone to a point where their attacking innocent people can be justified.
Sometimes yes.
No one is denying that.
Israel has left Gaza in 2005 and only received missiles and terrorist attacks in return.
Although no side is mother Teresa in this conflict, one is is definitely less mother Teresa than the other.
Israel continues to expand their occupation of Palestinian land, though. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza have no stake in the well-being of other Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
They're only bringing about their own ruin. Fuck, if they actually wanted to do something, then be human fucking beings and adults and come to solve agreement/ compromise. Israel isn't going anywhere. They only stand to lose more and more by not coming to the table but instead being violent terrorists. They can keep killing for hundreds of years. They'll end up with even less and accomplish nothing.
Colonizers are always responsible for any violence that follows.
So if Native Americans fired rockets on e.g. Corpus Christi, Texas, they would have no responsibility at all for this action?
I am not denying the responsibility of "the colonizers", I think other people can also have some responsibility.
They'd be justified.
The point is to not condemn the oppressed without regard for their oppression.
So just to be clear, if a Native American went up to you, told you that he was going to shoot you because your ancestors stole his land, and then murdered you, you have no qualms about this?
I'm not a colonizer.
Neither are most people living today. Their ancestors were. And as a Westerner, you're benefiting from the colonizers' actions even if you're an immigrant. By your logic, their murder of you would be justified.
You can't blame descendants for what their ancestors did, but you can ask them to share the wealth they own because of their ancestors with you.
When did the colonization of the Americas end? I must have missed it.
I'm not an immigrant. Not really sure what you're trying to say.
There's no political will to make up for past and ongoing crimes against Native Americans. In a democracy that makes the common people complicit, no?
Where in this thread did someone "condemn the oppressed without regard for their oppression"?
They're not being oppressed if they choose to live the why they do. At some point the drug addict needs to come to terms with the fact they are the ones causing their self harm. They could compromise and stop their killing/ bloodshed to build a peace but they don't. Continuously attacking is one of the most dumbass moves they keep making. I'm out of sympathy and patience for these idiots. Keep crying but do nothing. Other parts of the Arab world have moved on and made peace with Israel. The Palestinians only have excuses and children to sacrifice at this point.
I'm down with blaming the British
Well, that goes without saying.
He said aggressor.
And idoubledo did not say aggressor. So what do we gain by fixating on this word?
Do you consider Hamas the aggressor in the overall context of the Israel- Palestinian conflict?
Not being the aggressor does not give you a licence to murder civilians.
Is it amoral? Yes, for sure 100%. But as a global community, we barely punish those who engage in this kind of tactic, and when we do, it's for some kind of political theater. More Palestinian civilians will die in this conflict by a factor, if you're going to criticize Hamas for this, I'd like to see the same standard applied to IDF.
I'm not saying either side is innocent, but you cannot compare this to the invasion of Ukraine since Ukraine does not deliberately target Russian civilians.
Wow. I apologize for the confusion. I absolutely do not believe these two situations are comparable. My bad.
Do you think only one side can be responsible in a conflict?
Sometimes yes. I know very little about the Israelo-palestinian confilct (only what I read from news outlet) so I can't say anything for sure here.
But more generally, in history, there have been plenty of conflicts that were one side's responsability: Ukraine's invasion, WW2, colonie's independance "wars"... IMO, when you defend yourself from an agression, you are not responsible for the conflict.
In this case, I tend to agree with other commentors - Israel seems to have been increasingly oppressive and brutal at least in the past 2 decades, and you can only push people so far before they react.
How they react matters though. If Palestinians brutally murdered Israeli children, I think we'd all agree there's absolutely no justification for that, no matter what rings wrongs Israel has committed.
Palestine has every right to fight back against Israel, but not the civilians. When a country kills your civilians, you solve absolutely nothing by retaliation killing their civilians. Your enemy is their military and government.
I firmly believe it is impossible to push someone to a point where their attacking innocent people can be justified.
No one is denying that.
Israel has left Gaza in 2005 and only received missiles and terrorist attacks in return. Although no side is mother Teresa in this conflict, one is is definitely less mother Teresa than the other.
Israel continues to expand their occupation of Palestinian land, though. Do you think Palestinians in Gaza have no stake in the well-being of other Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?
They're only bringing about their own ruin. Fuck, if they actually wanted to do something, then be human fucking beings and adults and come to solve agreement/ compromise. Israel isn't going anywhere. They only stand to lose more and more by not coming to the table but instead being violent terrorists. They can keep killing for hundreds of years. They'll end up with even less and accomplish nothing.
Colonizers are always responsible for any violence that follows.
So if Native Americans fired rockets on e.g. Corpus Christi, Texas, they would have no responsibility at all for this action?
I am not denying the responsibility of "the colonizers", I think other people can also have some responsibility.
They'd be justified.
The point is to not condemn the oppressed without regard for their oppression.
So just to be clear, if a Native American went up to you, told you that he was going to shoot you because your ancestors stole his land, and then murdered you, you have no qualms about this?
I'm not a colonizer.
Neither are most people living today. Their ancestors were. And as a Westerner, you're benefiting from the colonizers' actions even if you're an immigrant. By your logic, their murder of you would be justified.
You can't blame descendants for what their ancestors did, but you can ask them to share the wealth they own because of their ancestors with you.
When did the colonization of the Americas end? I must have missed it.
I'm not an immigrant. Not really sure what you're trying to say.
There's no political will to make up for past and ongoing crimes against Native Americans. In a democracy that makes the common people complicit, no?
Where in this thread did someone "condemn the oppressed without regard for their oppression"?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/3820195
They're not being oppressed if they choose to live the why they do. At some point the drug addict needs to come to terms with the fact they are the ones causing their self harm. They could compromise and stop their killing/ bloodshed to build a peace but they don't. Continuously attacking is one of the most dumbass moves they keep making. I'm out of sympathy and patience for these idiots. Keep crying but do nothing. Other parts of the Arab world have moved on and made peace with Israel. The Palestinians only have excuses and children to sacrifice at this point.
I'm down with blaming the British
Well, that goes without saying.
He said aggressor.
And idoubledo did not say aggressor. So what do we gain by fixating on this word?