• snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    So Israel needs to stop colonizing Palestine, as that is the primary cause of death and conflict.

    Saying both sides just need to stop when one is constantly the aggressor and the other is responding to that aggression is zero tolerance logic. Blaming the victim is why things have escalated to the point we are at now.

    • Atomic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re not colonizing Palestine. They’re eradicating it.

      And this has been going on for almost 80 years. Anything anyone does, is always, in response to some shitty thing someone did before. But fact of the matter is, Israel benefits more than Palistine to have a conflict. So much that the time when it actually looked like someone could talk both sides to a peaceful conclusion. Israel had him assassinated.

        • Atomic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look. I get that you heard that word somewhere. But everything isn’t colonizing.

          Annexing would be a better description to what they’re doing.

          • flipht@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Its literally colonizing though. It’s sending their citizens to build settlements in areas that do not belong to them.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Annexing implies bringing an area under the control of a government; colonization implies mass movement of people into undeveloped land. If it’s occupied land (necessitating the eviction of the occupants), then it’s ethnic cleansing. Any or all are correct depending on which specific part of Israeli policy one is discussing.

            • Bobert
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Crimea circa 2014 disagrees

              • snooggums@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Russia circa 2024 disagrees because they wanted it to sound voluntary. News went with it because annex is technically correct in the close by/far away context, but not the whole colonialism is always by force context.

                • Bobert
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  News went with it

                  Lexicon > dictionary. See: Literally.

    • S_204@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Day Israel became a country they were attacked. They’ve been on defense since day 1.

      They’re too heavy handed that’s clear but they are not the aggressor or instigator in this fight. They’ve offered dozens of peace deals, brokered by a variety of 3rd parties, only to be rejected because Hamas wants Jews dead. It’s in their founding Charter, just to be clear about who’s intent is what over there in terms of aggression.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Evicting Palestinians from Palestinian territory by force so that Isreali settlers can occupy their land is being defensive?

        • S_204@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand how you could see that in any other context? They’re obviously developing settlements to maintain a front in the region. You can see from this week’s events that having settlements adjacent to the border prevent the incursion from penetrating deeper into the country where the larger population centers are.

          20, or 30 years ago you were seeing bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I was in Jerusalem for a bus bombing and just missed it… Those have died down and been replaced with border skirmishes.

          Whether that’s a reasonable or effective strategy is a different question.

          • ZombiFrancis
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Developing settlements to maintain a front” is a pretty wild tactic, let alone a defensive one.

            • S_204@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Advancing the front is a tactic as old as warfare… that’s how borders moved historically.

              Israel isn’t doing the whole rape and pillage thing, those savages at Hamas are doing that. Israel has taken the plunder part too far imo though.

              • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i appreciate that you admitted unprompted that settlers conduct warfare against palestinians, now have a timeout and do better next time

              • ZombiFrancis
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, uh, I guess the community name here applies rather aptly. Well done.

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the response to that aggression is also genocide fantasies, sometimes a conflict has no good guys.

        • mindbleach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then stop scoffing when people condemn both sides.

            • mindbleach
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You really are. You’re directly responding to someone saying ‘both sides need to stop,’ and your response is sharply negative. You explicitly call it blaming the victim.

              • snooggums@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A blanket statement like ‘both sides need to stop’ by itself as some simple solution ignoring the fact that one side with more power is continuously provoking the other. When a bully constantly picks on someone until they respond with too much violence both sides are wrong AND one of them is still a victim and the other the aggressor. The same thing is true when we are talking about nation states.

                Palestine is still the victim, even if their actions were completely unreasonable, because Israel has far more military and diplomatic power in comparison in addition to being the ones who are constantly invading the land of Palestine. Plus, the most recent peace accords did not require Israel to give the land back, just to stop taking more. It is a one sided situation with a victim that is being dismissed as an equal conflict where both sides just need to get along.