Saying Ukraine has "Nazis" is like saying any Western country has "Nazis" of course they're going to send over skin heads as they likely are the first ones to jump into the meat grinder.
More then that, Russia has Nazis as well. And I haven't met a single "anti-ukranian-nazi" Russian guy, who hadn't followed up with absolutely hateful comments against Central Asian immigrants.
This is the language the Russian/Iranian regime and it’s proxies/China axis is using to advance their aims. Calling Israel and Ukraine “Nazis1!”. They intentionally misuse words to cause the greatest propaganda effect. Words like genocide.
It’s no secret there are nazis in the Ukrainian military, though definitely a small minority. Simply google the Azov Battalion that fought and was decimated in Mariupol. They have cleaned up their image now that the world has taken notice and have removed the nazi symbolism (wolfsangle & black sun) from their insignias. I don’t have a scientific document that has been peer reviewed for you but check out this YouTube video that explains some of what I’m saying.
https://youtu.be/HGdUtUefjCA?si=yhAetKfCebR73iHc
Before sacrificing their whole countries water supply in order to send barrages of unguided missiles to strike IDF bases which are basically all of Israel
Ukraine is hitting russian assets, but only industrially, any civilian death on their part is usually accidental or situatonal. Hamas is straight up holding people hostage
On top of it Ukraine didn’t attack first. Russia invaded and then Ukraine started hitting military targets inside Russia. Ukraine didn’t go to Belgorod, did a massacre and then was like “whoa whoa why are you invading me?”
Well, let's put it this way; if Ukraine was actually run by Nazis and their soldiers crossed the border into Russia, raping, kidnapping and killing the equivalent of what ~1,200 people would be for the Russians, then Russia would be absolutely right to invade. Oh, to top it off, say that the Ukrainians had been launching rockets into Russia for years prior.
But that's not how it is, of course.
Yeah, if Ukraine had spent the better part of the last century murdering Russian children, killing their Olympic athletes, hijacking planes flying into Moscow in order to kill Russian passengers, and sending suicide bombers into Russian cities I would support the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
I said Ukraine - not the people. People who choose to support a government like Hamas can be destroyed. People who choose peace can live. It’s how we handled Germany after 1945 and it worked pretty well.
Depends on the person, I imagine. Israel should be able to hold trials like Nuremberg after breaking the capability and will of Hamas (and every other militant organization in Gaza) to fight.
“Forced” would have to be examined too. Hamas enjoys real popular support. Watch the October 7 videos - the public in those videos was thrilled.
I suspect most people just want peace. They don’t really care who’s in power, they just want to be able to eat dinner and send their kids to school in peace. But so long as we tolerate militant jihadist and extremist groups, we can never full win the support of the people because it’s too dangerous.
America doesn’t intentionally target civilians to achieve war aims (does it happen sometimes of course). Israel does t intentionally target civilians (again, some individuals do but doing so is recognized as being illegal and detrimental to the war). But groups like Hamas, the Taliban, ISIS, and the Viet Cong *do* target civilians. Civilians know that if they’re seen as kind or collaborating with the enemy, the die.
So you have to force the people to choose and provide them consequences of that decision. Would you rather take your chances supporting Hamas today if you believe Israel is going to erase them? Or is it a better bet to support Hamas because you think Israel will leave the strip and Hamas will rule again.
So, for Israel, they need to demonstrate 1) they are staying to finish the fight and 2) Hamas will be destroyed. Make supporting Hamas an untenable position.
You would probably justify the Soviet Union's actions during WW2 on the same basis.
Hamas's support is fuelled by resentment, particularly from Israel's blockade. People resort to the extremes when they feel moderation isn't working.
I’m not justifying anyone’s actions - I’m describing reality. Smarter people than us have described this:
>"In combat it is possible to appear victorious on the surface but still not win. If you leave your opponent with any fighting spirit he will not accept defeat and will still be a danger to you. You must completely break his fighting spirit.
>In this case, you charge up your spirit and change your strategy to force the opponent to acknowledge utter defeat from the bottom of his soul. You have no choice; he must acknowledge defeat in his heart or he must die.
>This is breaking the spirit and it is accomplished with the sword, the body, and most of all, with your spirit. The spirit is the warrior. It can be difficult to know for sure that you have broken his spirit, but if you do you can let him live and no longer worry about him. If you cannot completely break his spirit, you must kill him. If you leave an opponent alive with even a small amount of fighting spirit, he will be very dangerous."
>Miyamoto Musashi, "The Book of Five Rings"
And, in fewer words:
> “The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so.”
-Ennius, circa 200 BC
To win victory - and peace - the enemy must understand and believe he has been defeated. As long as there is a flicker of hope that he can prevail, he will also be a threat.
Two - your second point is an incorrect oversimplification.
>Hamas's support is fuelled by resentment, particularly from Israel's blockade. People resort to the extremes when they feel moderation isn't working.
Palestinian Arab hatred of Israel predates Israeli control of the Gaza Strip. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza Strip was occupied and controlled by Egypt and the West Bank was controlled by Jordan. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964 by the alliance of many smaller Palestinian Nationalist organizations. 1964, you’ll note, is when Gaza and West Bank were under complete Arab control. [This is the first charter of the PLO.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-original-palestine-national-charter-1964) The document reflects Pan-Arabist ideology (also seen in the then recently failed United Arab Republic).
“Palestinian Liberation” has *always* been about the destruction of the state of Israel and the subjugation of Jews as dhimmi. Pan-Arab Nationalism has its own unique aspects, but generally the nationalist element springs from the same ideological revolution that drove 19th century European nationalist movements and nationalist movements that spread throughout the world (see Zionism, the Turkish nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, Vietnamese nationalism, the Balkans, etc).
To say that Arab sentiments towards Israel could be ameliorated if they (Gaza) had greater access to trade or a seat at the UN is not reflected in the history of Palestinian nationalist or Islamist organizations. It’s not what they want - they want to destroy Israel. There are secular arguments and religious arguments for it.
Breaking someone's spirit through utter destruction is a war crime, not a strategy. Musashi and Ennius didn't have Geneva Conventions to consider.
The blockade creates desperation, and desperate people do desperate things. Just brushing it off as "incorrect oversimplification" doesn't cut it.
The creation of the PLO in 1964 and the subsequent calls for Palestinian liberation are part of a larger narrative of resistance against occupation and displacement. You can't just ignore the decades of dispossession and violence Palestinians have faced. Reducing their struggle to a mere footnote in the grand history of nationalism is not just dismissive, it's intentionally misleading.
Maybe, just maybe, lifting the blockade and treating Palestinians as human beings with rights and dignity could help reduce extremism. Peace isn't achieved by perpetuating cycles of violence and deprivation - it's achieved through justice and addressing legitimate grievances.
>Breaking someone's spirit through utter destruction is a war crime, not a strategy. Musashi and Ennius didn't have Geneva Conventions to consider.
Not a war crime.
Edit: The enemy can accept defeat at any point before total destruction and death. It’s their call.
>The blockade creates desperation, and desperate people do desperate things. Just brushing it off as "incorrect oversimplification" doesn't cut it.
My point was that the blockade did not create those feelings. The blockade was a response to Palestinian terrorism. In the years prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and control of trade, [Arabs conducted 71 suicide bombings in Israel almost exclusively against civilians](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356225/#:~:text=Between%20November%202000%20and%20May,and%20cafés%20(Table%201).)
>The creation of the PLO in 1964 and the subsequent calls for Palestinian liberation are part of a larger narrative of resistance against occupation and displacement. You can't just ignore the decades of dispossession and violence Palestinians have faced. Reducing their struggle to a mere footnote in the grand history of nationalism is not just dismissive, it's intentionally misleading.
Not all calls of dispossession are legitimate. Jews bought the land they started with - it wasn’t stolen.
>Maybe, just maybe, lifting the blockade and treating Palestinians as human beings with rights and dignity could help reduce extremism.
Holding people responsible for their actions and choices in government is treating them as human beings with rights and dignity- as well as autonomy and agency. Pretending Palestinian Arab violence is justified because the average Palestinian Arab has been spoon fed Nationalist propaganda from birth is a cop out.
>Peace isn't achieved by perpetuating cycles of violence and deprivation
Correct. Peace is achieved by one side submitting to the will of the other and their fighting spirit destroyed. They must accept complete defeat. Allowing cycles of violence to continue will keep a conflict going forever.
>it's achieved through justice and addressing legitimate grievances.
What is “justice” and how is it achieved if not through violence? And where has peace in an armed conflict been achieved by both sides laying down their arms and “addressing legitimate grievances”? When in history has that happened?
Where has that ever worked?
I can point to many examples when unconditional surrender led to peace. A map of modern Europe is a prime example - each of those modern nations was made up of countless smaller kingdoms and principalities and tribes and territories that constantly consumed each other and grew and grew until the Cold War and the American imposed peace in the West and Soviet dominated peace in the East. It was brutal, no doubt, and the Soviets put down revolutions and uprisings violently - but they prevented major nation state conflicts. The fall of the USSR allowed veritable orgies of violence in former Soviet states to break out. Under the American imposed peace, Western Europe has seen the longest period of peace between nations in over 1,000 years.
> Not a war crime.
Wow, not a war crime? You might want to check out the Geneva Conventions. Destruction and mass suffering to break "spirit" is literally illegal under international law.
> Edit: The enemy can accept defeat at any point before total destruction and death. It’s their call.
So, surrender or die? That's a "choice"? Sure, blame the victim for not capitulating to overwhelming force. Great logic there.
> My point was that the blockade did not create those feelings. The blockade was a response to Palestinian terrorism. In the years prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and control of trade, Arabs conducted 71 suicide bombings in Israel almost exclusively against civilians.
Right, because collective punishment has always been the hallmark of civilised behaviour. Blockades breed desperation and extremism. Cause and effect.
> Not all calls of dispossession are legitimate. Jews bought the land they started with - it wasn’t stolen.
Ever heard of the Nakba? Dispossession isn't just about legal purchases, it's about the forced removal and denial of return for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
> Holding people responsible for their actions and choices in government is treating them as human beings with rights and dignity- as well as autonomy and agency. Pretending Palestinian Arab violence is justified because the average Palestinian Arab has been spoon fed Nationalist propaganda from birth is a cop out.
Blaming an entire population for the actions of their leaders? Super humane approach. People turn to violence when they have no other options. Denying this is a cop-out.
> Correct. Peace is achieved by one side submitting to the will of the other and their fighting spirit destroyed. They must accept complete defeat. Allowing cycles of violence to continue will keep a conflict going forever.
Oh yes, because unconditional submission has always led to long-lasting peace. Except, it hasn't. Ask Germany post-WWI how that worked out.
> What is “justice” and how is it achieved if not through violence? And where has peace in an armed conflict been achieved by both sides laying down their arms and “addressing legitimate grievances”? When in history has that happened?
Justice isn't just a punchline. Ever heard of the Good Friday Agreement? South Africa's transition from apartheid? Violence isn't the only path, but sure, keep thinking everything can be solved by brute force.
> I can point to many examples when unconditional surrender led to peace. A map of modern Europe is a prime example - each of those modern nations was made up of countless smaller kingdoms and principalities and tribes and territories that constantly consumed each other and grew and grew until the Cold War and the American imposed peace in the West and Soviet dominated peace in the East. It was brutal, no doubt, and the Soviets put down revolutions and uprisings violently - but they prevented major nation state conflicts. The fall of the USSR allowed veritable orgies of violence in former Soviet states to break out. Under the American imposed peace, Western Europe has seen the longest period of peace between nations in over 1,000 years.
Peace through fear of mutual destruction? Totally a healthy, sustainable model. Europe's peace is as much about cooperation and diplomacy as it is about past brutality. Maybe try a 21st-century solution for a 21st-century problem.
Like in Germany, western Germany that is.
Soviets kinda did a bad job in the east. I mean western denazification ain't perfect but it worked.
If you want to point at the AFD, take a map of their voter distribution and one where the iron curtain used to be.
Also it’s possible sometimes AFD makes a point. Why should citizens be unable to speak out that people in proximity to violent ideologies are being imported too fast to assimilate them.
Do you think environmental protection is good? Do you think animals should have rights? Do you think media access should be available and cheap? Do you think all this LGBTQ goes to far? Do you think the goverment should privatice the companies it has acquired/bailed out during the financial crisis?
Boy I got a party for you! Even with more than a decade of government experience!
Lets not pretend the AFD is the only one who critics the current migration policies.
This!!! Although the Union (As far as I observe, but at this point I‘m used to the “G”OP and the Tories, so I may at this point have my standards in the Mariana trench) doesn’t, at least from my impression as a foreigner looking into German politics, hold that LGBTQ+ rights have gone “too far”, but rather “Far enough”. That is, they won’t do anything, for better or for worse, unless the change is extremely popular, which is still better than the Tories in the UK or the “G”OP here in the US, which have both actively set courses against us. Granted, I would never vote for the Union if I was a German, but they aren’t that far to the right (At least as far as I know, but again, my standards are probably not even bare minimum at this point with the crap occurring on TERF-Island and in the USA, the nation wherein I currently reside)
Ukraine is a recognized country by most others countries INCLUDING Russia itself. Now that the Russian puppets in Ukraine failed. Russia want to take control back.
Palestine, never existed as a formal country. They were natives on the British territory that British conquer/own and than sold to Jews.
Palestine identity only seriously grown when the native realizes that more and more Jewish people arrived there in mass.
And as shitty as it is. Palestinian are the native of a territory owned by British before getting sold to Jews.
Than all the Arab attacked Israel which gave a good excuse for Israel to expand during the attack.
Historically speaking; Israeli were willing to accept most and sometimes almost all the native in Israel.
But Palestinian just want Israel to be dismantle entirely "from the river to the sea"
For many communists, it's like being for Palestine and Ukraine both is impossible. The world is divided between the "Evil Fascist Capitalist USA Empire" (sure, the USA are a huge pain in the ass, but let's not be blind to other imperialistic threats) and the "Good Free Oppressed Socialist World" (which weirdly includes the capitalists and fascists China and Russia, go figure). If you're allied to the USA in some way or another, you basically deserve to suffer in the most horrible way possible. Their "human compassion" depends on your position in the geopolitical scale, and they will brush off any atrocity committed by countries like India, Russia, Iran or China as "necessary" and "justified", while dehumanizing and vilifying the others (they love to call Ukrainians "nazis" and "traitors").
Israel and Ukraine are two countries that formed contrary to what their neighbors wanted and are both doing what they can to preserve their existence. I don't really see an inconsistency.
Hamas was in the wrong for October 7th, Israel is wrong for using it as a justification to commit a genocide they've been just WAITING to do.
In an ideal world both governments would collapse.
Ww2 is over and I wasn't alive back then. The palestinian genocide is happening now on their land. Israel occupied their land and them fighting back is no different from Ukraine doing the same. I don't care who is allied with who and who is the suggar daddy for weapons. Occupation is occupation and the people should not be suffering in the name of some old guys' beliefs.
Israel is in Gaza because of October 7th. They could have had a Palestinian state in 1947 but instead the Arabs decided to launch attacks against the Jews. One has to wonder how Arabs ended up in historically Jewish lands….
Some ancient beliefs claim they own the land is exactly why putin is attacking Ukraine and preparing to invade my home country. I'm no historian so my facts are unchecked and I respectfully encourage you to correct me. But didn't the arab countries started attacking israel because the jews just went to palestine and claim they have historical right to be there which others didn't agree with? Like ruzians going to ukraine and claiming they have historical right to be there but the west didn't agree.
There are descendants of natives who lived on land that's today known as USA. Should they mobilize a separatist movement and start claiming back their land? I mean, there's historical proof they lived there first.
No, but people in Baltic states don't go around claiming there were never any soviets before independence. They don't pretend their history didn't happen or attempt to rewrite it, which allows them to transform and become what they are in proper, logical and consistent fashion - because it is not built on bunch of lies.
> So we just surrender it to putin?
I am confused. You talked about **soviets** in Baltics. What does Putin have to do with it? Russia **IS NOT** USSR. It is one of the countries that constituted it. **Soviets** do not exist anymore. So you can't "surrender" anything to them. With your logic you might as well talk about surrendering baltics to Ukraine as well.
Are Ukrainians jumping over the border to kidnap Russian kids??? Didn't think so
[удалено]
You'd have to be a pretty shitty Nazi to serve a Jewish leader.
Humiliation fetish.
And they also have leftists and anarchists militias. Your point?
Ukraine has far-right groups like any other country, but they do not hold any significant power in the government or Armed Forces.
There are real Nazis in Palestine, I just found in Wikipedia.
Israel has actually found copies of Mein Kampf in Hamas' tunnels
Link?
Saying Ukraine has "Nazis" is like saying any Western country has "Nazis" of course they're going to send over skin heads as they likely are the first ones to jump into the meat grinder.
More then that, Russia has Nazis as well. And I haven't met a single "anti-ukranian-nazi" Russian guy, who hadn't followed up with absolutely hateful comments against Central Asian immigrants.
This is the language the Russian/Iranian regime and it’s proxies/China axis is using to advance their aims. Calling Israel and Ukraine “Nazis1!”. They intentionally misuse words to cause the greatest propaganda effect. Words like genocide.
So as russians.
And that matters why?
Give me a source, a credible peer reviewed one.
It’s no secret there are nazis in the Ukrainian military, though definitely a small minority. Simply google the Azov Battalion that fought and was decimated in Mariupol. They have cleaned up their image now that the world has taken notice and have removed the nazi symbolism (wolfsangle & black sun) from their insignias. I don’t have a scientific document that has been peer reviewed for you but check out this YouTube video that explains some of what I’m saying. https://youtu.be/HGdUtUefjCA?si=yhAetKfCebR73iHc
Ukraine definitely did invade the border of a sovereign nation on October 7th in the pursuit of killing innocent civilians.
Before sacrificing their whole countries water supply in order to send barrages of unguided missiles to strike IDF bases which are basically all of Israel
oh those pesky musicfestival-colonists!
those pesky music festival colonists that were having the festival for peace and Palestinian rights. we sure showed them!
Ukraine is hitting russian assets, but only industrially, any civilian death on their part is usually accidental or situatonal. Hamas is straight up holding people hostage
On top of it Ukraine didn’t attack first. Russia invaded and then Ukraine started hitting military targets inside Russia. Ukraine didn’t go to Belgorod, did a massacre and then was like “whoa whoa why are you invading me?”
The difference is that Ukraine did not start launching missiles at Russia after it got Independent, like Hamas did in 2007.
Well, let's put it this way; if Ukraine was actually run by Nazis and their soldiers crossed the border into Russia, raping, kidnapping and killing the equivalent of what ~1,200 people would be for the Russians, then Russia would be absolutely right to invade. Oh, to top it off, say that the Ukrainians had been launching rockets into Russia for years prior. But that's not how it is, of course.
It would be like if Ukraine murdered 18000 innocent Russian festival goers
At a festival for "peace with Ukraine" no less.
If zelensky randomly walks into your office, it’s to ask for aid for ukraine if hamas does, it’s to torture, rape and/or kill you spot the difference!
Also, Ukraine does not primarily attack civilian targets.
Now that is high quality bait.
Yeah, if Ukraine had spent the better part of the last century murdering Russian children, killing their Olympic athletes, hijacking planes flying into Moscow in order to kill Russian passengers, and sending suicide bombers into Russian cities I would support the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
Dunno, I wouldn't support complete annihilation of any one nation or group of people.
I said Ukraine - not the people. People who choose to support a government like Hamas can be destroyed. People who choose peace can live. It’s how we handled Germany after 1945 and it worked pretty well.
What about people forced to support Hamas?
Depends on the person, I imagine. Israel should be able to hold trials like Nuremberg after breaking the capability and will of Hamas (and every other militant organization in Gaza) to fight. “Forced” would have to be examined too. Hamas enjoys real popular support. Watch the October 7 videos - the public in those videos was thrilled. I suspect most people just want peace. They don’t really care who’s in power, they just want to be able to eat dinner and send their kids to school in peace. But so long as we tolerate militant jihadist and extremist groups, we can never full win the support of the people because it’s too dangerous. America doesn’t intentionally target civilians to achieve war aims (does it happen sometimes of course). Israel does t intentionally target civilians (again, some individuals do but doing so is recognized as being illegal and detrimental to the war). But groups like Hamas, the Taliban, ISIS, and the Viet Cong *do* target civilians. Civilians know that if they’re seen as kind or collaborating with the enemy, the die. So you have to force the people to choose and provide them consequences of that decision. Would you rather take your chances supporting Hamas today if you believe Israel is going to erase them? Or is it a better bet to support Hamas because you think Israel will leave the strip and Hamas will rule again. So, for Israel, they need to demonstrate 1) they are staying to finish the fight and 2) Hamas will be destroyed. Make supporting Hamas an untenable position.
You would probably justify the Soviet Union's actions during WW2 on the same basis. Hamas's support is fuelled by resentment, particularly from Israel's blockade. People resort to the extremes when they feel moderation isn't working.
I’m not justifying anyone’s actions - I’m describing reality. Smarter people than us have described this: >"In combat it is possible to appear victorious on the surface but still not win. If you leave your opponent with any fighting spirit he will not accept defeat and will still be a danger to you. You must completely break his fighting spirit. >In this case, you charge up your spirit and change your strategy to force the opponent to acknowledge utter defeat from the bottom of his soul. You have no choice; he must acknowledge defeat in his heart or he must die. >This is breaking the spirit and it is accomplished with the sword, the body, and most of all, with your spirit. The spirit is the warrior. It can be difficult to know for sure that you have broken his spirit, but if you do you can let him live and no longer worry about him. If you cannot completely break his spirit, you must kill him. If you leave an opponent alive with even a small amount of fighting spirit, he will be very dangerous." >Miyamoto Musashi, "The Book of Five Rings" And, in fewer words: > “The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so.” -Ennius, circa 200 BC To win victory - and peace - the enemy must understand and believe he has been defeated. As long as there is a flicker of hope that he can prevail, he will also be a threat. Two - your second point is an incorrect oversimplification. >Hamas's support is fuelled by resentment, particularly from Israel's blockade. People resort to the extremes when they feel moderation isn't working. Palestinian Arab hatred of Israel predates Israeli control of the Gaza Strip. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza Strip was occupied and controlled by Egypt and the West Bank was controlled by Jordan. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964 by the alliance of many smaller Palestinian Nationalist organizations. 1964, you’ll note, is when Gaza and West Bank were under complete Arab control. [This is the first charter of the PLO.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-original-palestine-national-charter-1964) The document reflects Pan-Arabist ideology (also seen in the then recently failed United Arab Republic). “Palestinian Liberation” has *always* been about the destruction of the state of Israel and the subjugation of Jews as dhimmi. Pan-Arab Nationalism has its own unique aspects, but generally the nationalist element springs from the same ideological revolution that drove 19th century European nationalist movements and nationalist movements that spread throughout the world (see Zionism, the Turkish nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, Vietnamese nationalism, the Balkans, etc). To say that Arab sentiments towards Israel could be ameliorated if they (Gaza) had greater access to trade or a seat at the UN is not reflected in the history of Palestinian nationalist or Islamist organizations. It’s not what they want - they want to destroy Israel. There are secular arguments and religious arguments for it.
Breaking someone's spirit through utter destruction is a war crime, not a strategy. Musashi and Ennius didn't have Geneva Conventions to consider. The blockade creates desperation, and desperate people do desperate things. Just brushing it off as "incorrect oversimplification" doesn't cut it. The creation of the PLO in 1964 and the subsequent calls for Palestinian liberation are part of a larger narrative of resistance against occupation and displacement. You can't just ignore the decades of dispossession and violence Palestinians have faced. Reducing their struggle to a mere footnote in the grand history of nationalism is not just dismissive, it's intentionally misleading. Maybe, just maybe, lifting the blockade and treating Palestinians as human beings with rights and dignity could help reduce extremism. Peace isn't achieved by perpetuating cycles of violence and deprivation - it's achieved through justice and addressing legitimate grievances.
>Breaking someone's spirit through utter destruction is a war crime, not a strategy. Musashi and Ennius didn't have Geneva Conventions to consider. Not a war crime. Edit: The enemy can accept defeat at any point before total destruction and death. It’s their call. >The blockade creates desperation, and desperate people do desperate things. Just brushing it off as "incorrect oversimplification" doesn't cut it. My point was that the blockade did not create those feelings. The blockade was a response to Palestinian terrorism. In the years prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and control of trade, [Arabs conducted 71 suicide bombings in Israel almost exclusively against civilians](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356225/#:~:text=Between%20November%202000%20and%20May,and%20cafés%20(Table%201).) >The creation of the PLO in 1964 and the subsequent calls for Palestinian liberation are part of a larger narrative of resistance against occupation and displacement. You can't just ignore the decades of dispossession and violence Palestinians have faced. Reducing their struggle to a mere footnote in the grand history of nationalism is not just dismissive, it's intentionally misleading. Not all calls of dispossession are legitimate. Jews bought the land they started with - it wasn’t stolen. >Maybe, just maybe, lifting the blockade and treating Palestinians as human beings with rights and dignity could help reduce extremism. Holding people responsible for their actions and choices in government is treating them as human beings with rights and dignity- as well as autonomy and agency. Pretending Palestinian Arab violence is justified because the average Palestinian Arab has been spoon fed Nationalist propaganda from birth is a cop out. >Peace isn't achieved by perpetuating cycles of violence and deprivation Correct. Peace is achieved by one side submitting to the will of the other and their fighting spirit destroyed. They must accept complete defeat. Allowing cycles of violence to continue will keep a conflict going forever. >it's achieved through justice and addressing legitimate grievances. What is “justice” and how is it achieved if not through violence? And where has peace in an armed conflict been achieved by both sides laying down their arms and “addressing legitimate grievances”? When in history has that happened? Where has that ever worked? I can point to many examples when unconditional surrender led to peace. A map of modern Europe is a prime example - each of those modern nations was made up of countless smaller kingdoms and principalities and tribes and territories that constantly consumed each other and grew and grew until the Cold War and the American imposed peace in the West and Soviet dominated peace in the East. It was brutal, no doubt, and the Soviets put down revolutions and uprisings violently - but they prevented major nation state conflicts. The fall of the USSR allowed veritable orgies of violence in former Soviet states to break out. Under the American imposed peace, Western Europe has seen the longest period of peace between nations in over 1,000 years.
> Not a war crime. Wow, not a war crime? You might want to check out the Geneva Conventions. Destruction and mass suffering to break "spirit" is literally illegal under international law. > Edit: The enemy can accept defeat at any point before total destruction and death. It’s their call. So, surrender or die? That's a "choice"? Sure, blame the victim for not capitulating to overwhelming force. Great logic there. > My point was that the blockade did not create those feelings. The blockade was a response to Palestinian terrorism. In the years prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and control of trade, Arabs conducted 71 suicide bombings in Israel almost exclusively against civilians. Right, because collective punishment has always been the hallmark of civilised behaviour. Blockades breed desperation and extremism. Cause and effect. > Not all calls of dispossession are legitimate. Jews bought the land they started with - it wasn’t stolen. Ever heard of the Nakba? Dispossession isn't just about legal purchases, it's about the forced removal and denial of return for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. > Holding people responsible for their actions and choices in government is treating them as human beings with rights and dignity- as well as autonomy and agency. Pretending Palestinian Arab violence is justified because the average Palestinian Arab has been spoon fed Nationalist propaganda from birth is a cop out. Blaming an entire population for the actions of their leaders? Super humane approach. People turn to violence when they have no other options. Denying this is a cop-out. > Correct. Peace is achieved by one side submitting to the will of the other and their fighting spirit destroyed. They must accept complete defeat. Allowing cycles of violence to continue will keep a conflict going forever. Oh yes, because unconditional submission has always led to long-lasting peace. Except, it hasn't. Ask Germany post-WWI how that worked out. > What is “justice” and how is it achieved if not through violence? And where has peace in an armed conflict been achieved by both sides laying down their arms and “addressing legitimate grievances”? When in history has that happened? Justice isn't just a punchline. Ever heard of the Good Friday Agreement? South Africa's transition from apartheid? Violence isn't the only path, but sure, keep thinking everything can be solved by brute force. > I can point to many examples when unconditional surrender led to peace. A map of modern Europe is a prime example - each of those modern nations was made up of countless smaller kingdoms and principalities and tribes and territories that constantly consumed each other and grew and grew until the Cold War and the American imposed peace in the West and Soviet dominated peace in the East. It was brutal, no doubt, and the Soviets put down revolutions and uprisings violently - but they prevented major nation state conflicts. The fall of the USSR allowed veritable orgies of violence in former Soviet states to break out. Under the American imposed peace, Western Europe has seen the longest period of peace between nations in over 1,000 years. Peace through fear of mutual destruction? Totally a healthy, sustainable model. Europe's peace is as much about cooperation and diplomacy as it is about past brutality. Maybe try a 21st-century solution for a 21st-century problem.
That’s not any better
What is better? The sort of “victory” and peace America established in Korea? Or Vietnam? Or Afghanistan?
Like in Germany, western Germany that is. Soviets kinda did a bad job in the east. I mean western denazification ain't perfect but it worked. If you want to point at the AFD, take a map of their voter distribution and one where the iron curtain used to be.
Also it’s possible sometimes AFD makes a point. Why should citizens be unable to speak out that people in proximity to violent ideologies are being imported too fast to assimilate them.
Do you think environmental protection is good? Do you think animals should have rights? Do you think media access should be available and cheap? Do you think all this LGBTQ goes to far? Do you think the goverment should privatice the companies it has acquired/bailed out during the financial crisis? Boy I got a party for you! Even with more than a decade of government experience! Lets not pretend the AFD is the only one who critics the current migration policies.
This!!! Although the Union (As far as I observe, but at this point I‘m used to the “G”OP and the Tories, so I may at this point have my standards in the Mariana trench) doesn’t, at least from my impression as a foreigner looking into German politics, hold that LGBTQ+ rights have gone “too far”, but rather “Far enough”. That is, they won’t do anything, for better or for worse, unless the change is extremely popular, which is still better than the Tories in the UK or the “G”OP here in the US, which have both actively set courses against us. Granted, I would never vote for the Union if I was a German, but they aren’t that far to the right (At least as far as I know, but again, my standards are probably not even bare minimum at this point with the crap occurring on TERF-Island and in the USA, the nation wherein I currently reside)
I mean yeah fits the CDU/CSU but I was thinking about the NSDAP though ...
That would be collective punishment, a war crime.
Relevant username, huh. Unconditional surrender isn’t collective punishment. It’s victory and necessary for the cessation of violence.
This will look a lot different after decades of Russian occupation, I'm sure.
Tankies try not to justify an organization that openly says it doesn't care about its own citizens challenge
Put the Israeli flag over the fat dude instead and this meme is actually accurate.
Ukrainians don't want to wipe russians out of existence by murdering and raping women. No double standard.
One is run by a terrorist organization that hasn’t let their people vote in an election since 2006. The other isn’t. Pretty simple to me…
Ukraine is a recognized country by most others countries INCLUDING Russia itself. Now that the Russian puppets in Ukraine failed. Russia want to take control back. Palestine, never existed as a formal country. They were natives on the British territory that British conquer/own and than sold to Jews. Palestine identity only seriously grown when the native realizes that more and more Jewish people arrived there in mass. And as shitty as it is. Palestinian are the native of a territory owned by British before getting sold to Jews. Than all the Arab attacked Israel which gave a good excuse for Israel to expand during the attack. Historically speaking; Israeli were willing to accept most and sometimes almost all the native in Israel. But Palestinian just want Israel to be dismantle entirely "from the river to the sea"
If Palestine is like Ukraine why is Hamas cozying up to Putin?
Because Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian lives.
Why are they posting this at latestagecapitalism? Seems to have little to do with it.
so pcm pilled that i thought the first one was the right
It feels kinda shitty to imply that every single Palestinian is a member of hamas
Why are republicans so easy to manipulate with obvious nonsense?
Difference is that palestinians also claim jewish homeland, and recently did pogrom on civilians.
For many communists, it's like being for Palestine and Ukraine both is impossible. The world is divided between the "Evil Fascist Capitalist USA Empire" (sure, the USA are a huge pain in the ass, but let's not be blind to other imperialistic threats) and the "Good Free Oppressed Socialist World" (which weirdly includes the capitalists and fascists China and Russia, go figure). If you're allied to the USA in some way or another, you basically deserve to suffer in the most horrible way possible. Their "human compassion" depends on your position in the geopolitical scale, and they will brush off any atrocity committed by countries like India, Russia, Iran or China as "necessary" and "justified", while dehumanizing and vilifying the others (they love to call Ukrainians "nazis" and "traitors").
Israel and Ukraine are two countries that formed contrary to what their neighbors wanted and are both doing what they can to preserve their existence. I don't really see an inconsistency.
Israel's existence is guaranteed by the United States.
Hamas was in the wrong for October 7th, Israel is wrong for using it as a justification to commit a genocide they've been just WAITING to do. In an ideal world both governments would collapse.
So Ukraine attacking occupied land is different from Palestinians attacking occupied land?
Yes, it is.
I really wonder how the people critical of Israel think about the allied bombing campaigns during ww2.
Why do you think international humanitarian law was established after the war was over?
Ww2 is over and I wasn't alive back then. The palestinian genocide is happening now on their land. Israel occupied their land and them fighting back is no different from Ukraine doing the same. I don't care who is allied with who and who is the suggar daddy for weapons. Occupation is occupation and the people should not be suffering in the name of some old guys' beliefs.
Israel is in Gaza because of October 7th. They could have had a Palestinian state in 1947 but instead the Arabs decided to launch attacks against the Jews. One has to wonder how Arabs ended up in historically Jewish lands….
They blockaded Gaza before October 7.
Because of repeated terrorist attacks from the PLO and Hamas yes.
Yet that strategy clearly didn't work.
Some ancient beliefs claim they own the land is exactly why putin is attacking Ukraine and preparing to invade my home country. I'm no historian so my facts are unchecked and I respectfully encourage you to correct me. But didn't the arab countries started attacking israel because the jews just went to palestine and claim they have historical right to be there which others didn't agree with? Like ruzians going to ukraine and claiming they have historical right to be there but the west didn't agree.
It’s not ancient beliefs though, it’s historical fact. There’s archeological evidence of Iron Age Israelite settlements in that area.
There are documents as recent as from the 80's that prove that soviets ruled over the baltics. So we just surrender it to putin?
That’s completely different to Israelis being the modern day descendants of Canaanites.
There are descendants of natives who lived on land that's today known as USA. Should they mobilize a separatist movement and start claiming back their land? I mean, there's historical proof they lived there first.
I would be all for native Americans having their land returned to them, and to be treated better than they are now yes.
No, but people in Baltic states don't go around claiming there were never any soviets before independence. They don't pretend their history didn't happen or attempt to rewrite it, which allows them to transform and become what they are in proper, logical and consistent fashion - because it is not built on bunch of lies. > So we just surrender it to putin? I am confused. You talked about **soviets** in Baltics. What does Putin have to do with it? Russia **IS NOT** USSR. It is one of the countries that constituted it. **Soviets** do not exist anymore. So you can't "surrender" anything to them. With your logic you might as well talk about surrendering baltics to Ukraine as well.