Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
Perhaps you should educate yourself before opening your mouth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing.
Tell me that this isn't a terrorist attack, and mind you this isn't the only one. So in a way the Jewish state exists today due to Jewish terrorism.
By your logic, the US exists because of American terrorism.
In fact almost every country would exist because of terrorism.
Yes.
That's the main issue with colonial-settler states - they colonize the land (via terror and extermination) and then settle either in borders they've drawn up (or even outside if there's not enough resistance)
Using past native American genocide to justify the current native Levant genocide isn't the trump card you think it is...
And we can go on a whole debate around "oh but other states got to establish their borders this way in the past - why doesn't Israel get to do the same?" - because we're supposed to be more civilized by now and understand that killing people to take their land is an extremely inhumane and reductionist point of view.
The whole phrasing around "a land without people for people without a land" is the same native population erasing shit the European settlers used to colonize the Americas.
If Israel wants to be a brutal colonial state - it gets to decide that - but at least be honest and don't pretend it has some sort of divine right to do so while expecting to not be met with resistance.
If Israel really wanted a land for its people (while not infringing on the rights of Arabs already living there) they could have assimilated into the already existing population where they are just one of the people living on that territory and not gone for the nuclear option of total dominion over everyone else.
Which is why Israel is so afraid of Hamas and the general resistance - because it understands the world from a dominator-dominee perspective - they cannot envision a world where somebody doesn't try and take over Israel in return for them doing the same. Since if "every country exists because of terrorism" then the Arabs have as much right to terror and conquest as anyone else - but I doubt you would you defend their rights to do as fervently as Israel's....
So instead a much less bloody way forward would be to work on dismantling borders for the benefit of everyone instead of stockpiling more and more guns while waiting for the inevitable boom...
The problem with your argument, is that you want to continue to allow the results of the past native American genocide, while disallowing the results of the Israeli conflict. That's hypocrisy.
Nah - i want both the west and Israel to pay reparations and return as much of the land as possible (not just some nature reserves as pittance) while also apologizing and commemorating the ones that have been displaced.
I wasn't around when the native American genocide was happening to "disallow" the outcome - but i sure can do something about the one going on right now instead of throwing my hands up and going "well same thing happened with slavery, so I guess we should just sit around and do nothing" while crying "hypocrisy!" - just because bad things occurred in the past isn't an excuse to keep doing bad things in the future...
You can do something about the native American genocide now, but you won't because it's a hardship for you. If someone asked you to give back the land you own for free, you'd fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
It's still hypocrisy to call for other people to fix a wrong, while you refuse to do the same. If you won't deal with it, they shouldn't have to either.
If someone asked you to give back the land you own for free, you'd fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
As these are words you are trying to put in my mouth - I can only assume it's your stance on the issue, in which case if you claim to not be hypocritical then you have to admit to also supporting Palestine's right to land sovereignty, right? And one could argue their claim is more valid as they weren't the ones that explicitly took the decision to appropriate somebody else's land by force.
Also I'm not even from the US but because like most countries, mine has had a history of both being occupied and occupying other people's land - I am a supporter of a no borders policy, inheritance abolishment and wealth redistribution, starting from the ones that have extracted the most and giving to the ones that have been exploited the most (and I'm more than willing to distribute my fair share)
Which is why I am actively doing everything in my power to "fix a wrong" both domestically (supporting immigrants and locals and fighting for land reform policies) and internationally (pressuring governments to stop engaging in colonial practices)
So "If you won't deal with it, they shouldn't have to either." doesn't even apply here but I'd still warn against that kind of thinking as a certain "nationalist" used very similar rhetoric to claim that if the US were allowed to put native Americans in internment camps, so was he...
Translation: You don't own property, so you're happy to talk about people giving it up.
I really shouldn't have to keep justifying myself to you but I do own personal property to have a place to live..
Here we're not talking about kicking your grandma out of her single bed flat and onto the street - the main argument is that individuals that already have disproportionately more than others - should distribute it instead of hoarding more and more (especially to ones impacted by historic land grabs) - as in do you genuinely think it's fair for one individual to own 250,000 times more land than the average person?
Land should be shared as much as possible not being an "investment" to hoard. That's why I'm also against inheritance and have been looking into how to give away the land I'm supposed to inherit (as nobody should ever really own more than one property)
Close, the us exists because a bunch of europeans moved to a new land and ethnically cleansed the natives.
Pretty sure the US part involved attacking the British government.
The USA got to do a genocide, so we get to do a genocide! Why are people so unhappy about this? "Never again" just means against us, right? We can still do it?
If both are bad, why is the US not being required to make up for their genocide?
Calling for one to be disallowed, while continuing to allow the results from the other is hypocrisy. It's not like the US couldn't give back the land if the same level of will we see towards Gaza existed for native Americans. That's never going to happen though, Americans are completely comfortable with the results of their genocide at this point.
There's a huge movement to do so that. Look into land back rights and all that. But the Israel Palestine thing is more urgent because it's better to stop a genocide from happening in progress right now, then to make up for one that has already happened. The only people comfortable with America's genocide are the same right wing and centrist people supporting Israel right now.
No there isn't. There's a TINY movement to do that, and it's never going to happen.
They're comfortable saying we should do something, until it would cost them something personally.
You'll find almost every American becomes very comfortable with the genocide very quickly when you start talking about taking away their home to give the land back.
