“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented” is a quote by Elie Wiesel from his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Centrist opinions be like Six million Western European Jews were killed in the holocaust so millions of Eastern European and American Jews, who were supported by the Nazi’s, deserve to kill any middle easterner that stands against the formation of their own imperialist state
More accurate would be "Committing genocide" and "Wants to commit genocide but doesn't have the guns", with the majority of the actual population on both sides (rather than the politicians and emboldened extremists) just wanting to not be genocided. Personally I'm picking the "chuck the politicians in a hole and let the people live" option. No idea what the ideal solution looks like but I feel like getting the fascists and religious extremists on both sides out of the equation would be a good starting point
Just have to love that you get downvoted for this. Delusional people here as if Hamas would not murder them all. What they had in their constitution does not matter, because they are ignorant.
Yep. Also calling it the“Israel-Hamas war” is propaganda. Makes it sound like the only people dying in Palestine are Hamas soldiers, which is obviously nowhere near the truth.
Centrists are literally just anti-opinion and spineless.
Yep we totally need a middle ground between settler colonialism, genocide and apartheid and not that. There is obviously no right side maybe we can have a little settler colonialism, gentler apartheid and a gentler genocide.
What I've seen plenty of those alleged "centrists" doing is the opposite - removing the nuance. For example, conflating the four sides (Israelis, Palestinians, State of Israel, Hamas) into two.
How is "Everyone needs to end the violence and seek an ideal solution for everyone involved." a nuanced position? That's what I expect every person to believe when they first start thinking of Israel and Palestine.
How is "Everyone needs to end the violence and seek an ideal solution for everyone involved." a nuanced position?
It's not nuanced, just naive. You'll never get Israel as it currently exists to willingly acknowledge that Palestinians deserve human rights, which is exactly why the non-violent option already failed multiple times.
Because people aren't interested in solutions. They really just want to talk about the genocidal colonialist imperialist western project. And then move on. With little consideration or forethought for either the Palestinians or the Jews - literally anyone living in the region.
Case example: Hasanabi fans cheering Hezbollah rockets hitting areas inside Israel. But because the rockets have incredibly low precision they were frequently hitting Arab quarters in Haifa and elsewhere.
To sum up: whenever you talk to anyone about me or ip first establish how much they actually understand about the conflict before continuing the conversation any further. My experience is that most people online are locked behind memes and virtue signaling while having absolutely no comprehension of what in actually going on there
The problem is, it very much feels like the "middle of the road" opinion on this issue is "both nations have the right to exist."
Both sides are going to tell you that you are supporting genocide. And now you're a centrist for thinking everyone is shit in the terrorist vs right wing government fight....but that's enough about the IRA.
People have a right to exist and to self-determination, not nations. "Israel has a right to exist" is just a strawman argument.
Especially since the Israeli people already have self-determination and overwhelmingly support their government committing countless crimes against humanity to ensure that Palestinians never will.
You're right, I don't have to think for myself to feel that murdering innocent people is wrong. Maybe if I thought about it a bit harder I'd find a way to justify it, like you have.
Ironically enough, even the "think for themselves, it's all nuanced" option often gets picked up from subscribing to someone else's views, mostly because staying in the middle and considering all options sounds like the 'smart thing to do' even if there's some deliberate ignorance of the facts to retain this position (like with the current Israel Palestine war).
It's a very similar thing to those kids in school who'd hear the quote "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing", then go around and immediately start telling everyone how they know nothing to try and appear very deep and smart.
Besides, there's way less original thought in the world than you think - in order to actually properly research a subject and MAYBE come to a nuanced, informed, open-minded view, you'd have to do a ton of research, know all the history and little quirks, things that most people don't have time or education to do especially for multiple important events going on at the same time.
I'm also against genocide. I don't think advocating for brain use is self-righteous. We don't have to agree on every minor point is what I'm saying
Edit: I've probably blocked any idiots that may have responded but the downvotes on this comment tell me everything. I'd rather talk to those that celebrate brain use.
Let me guess...
"Oh so you think..."
"How could there possibly be any nuance..."
Etc. lol
Stfu
As long as you don't add nuance to that the mob won't attack you. Even I agree with you, I mean that's probably the safest opinion you can possibly have
Yeah... pretty sure genocide is bad everywhere. You're not going to spin this one, and walk away thinking iM sO SmArT. You're like a fucking pigeon who knocks over all the pieces on a chess board, takes a shit, and then declares victory over your opponent.
p.s. My wife is a professor, pretty sure the Israel-Hamas war hasn't come up once while she's teaching.