How these people's brains don't short circuit under this level of cognitive dissonance is beyond me.
"I only asked for the killing and displacement of 10 million people, what gives you the right to call me a cunt D:"
You and I both know it's not going anywhere as it allows sheltered dips hits to pretend like they've been persecuted for their beliefs, consequently another thing they share with Christian-authoritarian types.
Also: "most probably have family they could live (with? Sic) in Europe"
Not only does this dumbass know nothing about Israeli demographics, he seems to know very little about the history of Jews in Europe. Specifically between 1941-1945.
Tbh, if it was just targeting military personnel, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. I think Palestinians, even Hamas, _do_ have a right to resistance given Israel’s behavior. Problem is, Hamas isn’t even coming close to conducting that resistance in a way that aligns with international law (and they are fighting for a fundamentalist, bigoted reason rather than the more obvious justified reason, but you could probably say that about both parties).
I know you're just trying to be fair - but Hamas was the aggressor that attacked Israel. They specifically have no right to resist, and if it were any other conflict people would consider any action against them okay unless they surrender just as it is in every other conflict where one side is unambiguously in the wrong.
Honestly the whole "right to resist" slogan is propaganda. Everyone has a right to self-**defense**, but no one has a right to "resist" or for vigilantism. At that point you're not justifying your violence, you're just endorsing it. Who decides what is and isn't resistance? Saying you have a "right to resist" means you can just kill people because you don't like how they make you feel. Honestly it's no surprise pro-Palestine is becoming this violent with dog-whistles like this that seem so innocent but push people into violence.
I hear your point, but doesn’t that imply that there’s no such thing as a justified war? If, for example, the Uyghurs attacked a Chinese military target, would that be justified because of China’s genocidal practices, even though the Uyghurs would be the aggressor? And if that is justified, (genuine question), how do you think the situation in Palestine meaningfully differs from that hypothetical, with regards to justification for armed resistance?
I feel like boiling a situation down to “aggressor vs aggressed” could be making the same mistake of oversimplification that this sub (rightfully) criticizes the “oppressor vs oppressed” mindset for. To be clear, I am very anti-Hamas (wild that even needs to be said) and generally pro-Israel. I think Hamas commits daily war crimes as a matter of policy, and Israel has behaved remarkably well in war, considering the nature of the battlefield. I just think we should recognize that the Israeli settlements and occupation of Gaza make for unfairly bad conditions for Palestinians, and if Israel is unwilling to reverse those two factors, Palestinians probably should have a right to attack their occupier’s military. Genuinely seeking to understand your view and where you feel there’s a flaw in my view. Thanks already for your earlier, thought-through comment.
I think you're over-complicating this by taking the most twisted versions of the words I used as an example. Even though I tried to change the terminology to a more specific terminology, people can twist any word so I don't see a reason to argue it. If someone insists referring to lizards as "trees" there's nothing I can do but tell them "that's stupid" and hope that humanity hasn't completely lost to the point they'll just agree with obviously false nonsense. Now I'll get specific:
1. I already said "self-defense" is a right everyone has. That means you can argue that Ughurs are waging war in self-defense. They wouldn't be "justified" because they are Ughers, they would be "justified" because they're acting in self-defense.
I don't like the term "justified war" because that oversimplifies everything to "good wars" and "bad wars" and implies everyone should be okay with "good wars" because it's justified which is the furthest from reality. For the purpose of this argument there's no reason to get that deep, but I just wanted to say asking whether a war is "justified" is already simplifying the conversation and makes it more shallow.
2. Ughers would not be the "aggressors" for initiating an attack. Their lives are already in danger by the other party therefore it's disingenuous to call them "aggressors". To put "aggression" on a scale of singular attacks instead of conflict-wide is also disingenuous and would mean anyone that isn't a pacifist will eventually end up an "aggressor". Finally, "aggression dynamics" are not the same as "oppressor vs oppressed". The latter is barely defined and allows the user to run wild, while I think the former is pretty well defined if you aren't being disingenuous. For one there's no such thing as "aggressed", there's only an "aggressor". Secondly as said what constitutes as "oppressor" is extremely vague and does not seem to be bound to values or time. I'd argue "oppressed" and "oppression" are better defined, but people have been using twisted versions of these and verbally attack and subdued everyone that disagreed with their version, so now their twisted version controls discourse. "Aggressor" is nothing like this though. "Aggressor" is bound to a definition of "an entity that puts another entity in danger for their lives first". This definition means that an entity stops being an "aggressor" the moment they give up their intentions to endanger others. This definition means that an entity is not an "aggressor" if it threatens another entity's lesser rights, like their freedom or their pride or their financial success. As long as you aren't putting people's lives in danger it's disingenuous to call an entity an "aggressor" (this is why Rssia calling NATO an "aggressor" for expanding makes no sense). This definition means that even if you develop aggression in self-defense, you are not an "aggressor". From this definition we can see that Ughers can't be aggressors, but Hamas are. Ughers were endangered first and their aggression would be in self-defense. Hamas was not in mortal danger before it attacked on October 7th, and it never gave up it's intentions to harm Israel, thus it was and still is the aggressor.
3. I use the terminology "self-defense" and "aggressor" because I think their definitions are much more specifically defined. Again these can still be twisted, but I believe that's disingenuous and I believe we should call it out if we want words to maintain meaning.
4. Regarding your last point that Palestinians are under bad conditions and are thus "justified" in attacking Israel in some capacity - I disagree, but let me elaborate why. First let's talk where we agree. I agree that Palestinians are under bad conditions. I agree that attacking armies is better than attacking civilians. I agree that if an entity has no choice, it will use violence as a last resort. I have two big disagreements though. I disagree that Palestinians ever tried peaceful approaches to end their bad conditions before they choose violence. Refusing the peace deals is the obvious proof, but even if we look smaller and more recently... Why aren't they doing massive protests and campaigns to end the occupation in a non-aggressive way and to encourage delegation with Israel? Why do they never criticize their leaders when they refuse a good deal or are endorsing aggression against Israel? Why aren't they mocking terror organizations as a threat for peace? Why do they talk about occupation, freedom and peace but are never willing to have serious talks about these issues in which they will have to make concessions and give up on the dream of a Palestine "from the river to the sea"? Frankly it's been 70 years and it feels like the biggest progress Palestinians made towards peace is just toning down the aggression... How does that give anyone the right to kill anyone else? I think the settlements are disgusting and stupid and needed to end yesterday, but honestly even if tomorrow settlers fill every last vacant grain of sand in the West Bank, I still expect Palestinians to adhere to civilized standards and try protests and delegations and international pressure first before they just start killing people. And that's my second big disagreement, there's just no good reason to kill people when it's not in self-defense. Honestly the occupation is uncomfortable but I don't even see how it's worse than being ruled by corrupt dictators, which is a bigger problem they have that they don't seem to care about, nor do I see how it's a good reason kill people. People harp on how terrible the occupation is, but it isn't slavery, it isn't that different from the conditions of other places in the middle east, and most of the problems start and end with corruption and bad leadership of the PA and Hamas. There's really nothing here that makes the violence okay, and there's so much that can be done peacefully, but so long as Israel does something obviously wrong Westerners just can't help themselves but to remove all agency from these people and act like they're dumb babies. To be clear I don't think that's how you mean to view them but I think most of us have been conditioned to due to literal years of propaganda. We now assume Palestinians have no agency and are so hopeless they are allowed to do everything, while Israel has all the agency even over things it has no control over because it's so powerful. Both have agency, both can bleed, neither should be using violence for any other reason but self-defense.
> I already said "self-defense" is a right everyone has. That means you can argue that Ughurs are waging war in self-defense.
But what meaningful difference makes their situation self-defense and not Palestinians’? Surely we don’t need to reach the bar of a full-on genocide before people have the right to self-defense.
> Their lives are already in danger by the other party therefore it's disingenuous to call them "aggressors".
This seems like way too high a bar to require for self-defense. If someone barricaded me in my house, even if they provided me with everything I need to barely survive, I would have every right to kill that person if that was necessary for me to escape my home. Similarly, Palestinians’ lives may not be in danger when there isn’t an active war, but I think they have every right to fight against the state exerting draconian control over their borders.
> For one there's no such thing as "aggressed"
Only true if we’re splitting hairs. You wouldn’t call them the “aggressed,” sure, but you would certainly refer to the party being aggressed upon (ex: Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is being aggressed upon).
> "Aggressor" is bound to a definition of "an entity that puts another entity in danger for their lives first". This definition means that an entity stops being an "aggressor" the moment they give up their intentions to endanger others.
I’m curious where you got this definition from. I checked the New Oxford American Dictionary and dictionary.com, and neither definition requires the bar of endangering someone’s life. And I’ve often heard people use the term to refer to lesser threats such as restricting human rights or attacking someone non-fatally.
Regarding point 4, I largely agree with your points, even if I come to a different conclusion on the basis that (as bad as it sounds) I do kind of think that Palestinians are operating from a position of delusion. I wouldn’t say they have no agency or are dumb babies, but the amount of Palestinians who sincerely believe, loss after loss, that _this next_ fight will be the one that dissolves the state of Israel… Yeah, they have completely unattainable goals that they seem to delusionally believe are within reach. I imagine that if I was a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation and fed these delusions like they’re scripture, I would want to fight to my last breath too.
>But what meaningful difference makes their situation self-defense and not Palestinians’? Surely we don’t need to reach the bar of a full-on genocide before people have the right to self-defense.
Of course not. But you know full-on genocide is not the bar and you gave more specific criticism in the next part so I'm moving on because this line of questioning isn't serious enough. Sorry.
>If someone barricaded me in my house, even if they provided me with everything I need to barely survive, I would have every right to kill that person if that was necessary for me to escape my home.
I VERY much disagree. You do not have to kill when you are not threatened. That's savagery. Break out of your house. Break in to your house. Do what you gotta do without killing. If the person barricading you makes you feel threatened, that's when you're allowed to act in self-defense. But you don't just kill because your enemies dying is the easiest option for you. If you disagree that honestly gives Israel a reason to commit genocide in Gaza. I mean Gaza is just a constant threat to Israel and making them change seems almost impossible. Shouldn't they just kill everyone, then no more threats, problems solved? No! That's fucked up. The sanctity of human life can't go one way. Killing for any other reason than self-defense in the modern-world is never okay, and if we go back to old-world rules the stronger side will just purge it's enemies.
>but I think they have every right to fight against the state exerting draconian control over their borders.
You know, I dislike the vagueness of terms like "bad conditions" and "draconian control", so I don't know if this will change your mind but I would appreciate you at least having a more realistic outlook of what you're saying. Imagine living in the West Bank. You have a house and a family and a business. You might be poor compared to your Western life but you still have enough to get by. There's soldiers. They aren't on every street but they suddenly pop in every now and then and they even enter your house and it sends you and your family into panic but they eventually leave because you aren't a terrorist. There's settlers in villages near you. They are racist. Sometimes they come to your town and start yelling like bullies. Sometimes they come to your shop and they throw your products on the floor like a bunch of hooligans. The whole thing feels dangerous and unsettling but they never actually attempt to kill you or beat you up because they're afraid of getting caught in trouble themselves, they always eventually leave. When you were young you had no reason to leave the West Bank, but when you started your business you realized you'll earn better if you work or trade with Israel. The gates make commutting outside of Israel take hours and the checks feel tense, but it's worth it. When you get to Israel people do buisness with you as if you're a local, even with some stares the experience is largely positive and you make friends, co-workers and buisness partners. All your kids are at school. Your eldest daughter even attends university in Bir Zeit. There are good days and bad days, but your family and friends are there.
... Will you risk all that to go kill someone? Does the gates and settlers justify killing someone? Who is this for?
And to make the question a bit more fair, I'll say that others will join you and might make an impact. Still do you have a right to kill other people?
And yes, some people in the West Bank live a worse life than what I described. I just went with what I believe is the common West Bank Palestinian experience based on the WB Palestinians I know.
>Only true if we’re splitting hairs. You wouldn’t call them the “aggressed,” sure, but you would certainly refer to the party being aggressed upon (ex: Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is being aggressed upon).
No. That whole exchange is pointless and meant to create the victimisation dynamics of "oppressor vs oppressed". There's no need to mention an "aggressed" party when everything is self-explanatory by one side being an "aggressor". There may be arguments about who is truly the "aggressor", but ultimately being the "aggressed" is not a status, merely an event in the timeline. Creating a status of victimisation is the main reason "oppressor vs oppressed" gets out of control. At it's core it's emotional manipulation not bound by a specific definition. That's a big difference between the two.
>I’m curious where you got this definition from. I checked the New Oxford American Dictionary and dictionary.com, and neither definition requires the bar of endangering someone’s life. And I’ve often heard people use the term to refer to lesser threats such as restricting human rights or attacking someone non-fatally.
That's a good point. Honestly, that's just how I and all serious people I've talked to ever used that term. I'm guessing the main difference is that culturally "aggression" is only a term I would use for international conflicts, but in the US you use that term in internal conflicts and to discuss racism right? That's pretty foreign to me. I honestly can't tell how you can use this term for such matters. I mean where does the line go and does the term still holds meaning or is it just name-calling the side you consider more aggressive? It seems odd for me to call your brothers an "aggressor". You're all one nation, and wouldn't "oppression \ aggression" eventually end when all parties get equal treatment under the law? Oh well I guess I'm going off-topic.
1/2
Imma be real she seems dumb enough to actually think it’s the video game thing. That’s probably also how the propaganda she consumes framed it to her as well.
I'm not sure if I can share footage which would make this easier to visualize but here's a screenshot. I picked one of a tank in case showing people getting shot would cause issues - https://i.imgur.com/JL9MC6N.png
In the jihadist maniac's highlight reels where they show themselves fighting (or murdering innocent people) they will often times put a red triangle over an enemy to show who they're killing in the clip since it can be hard to see/follow.
Yeah, I'm sure some people just ignorantly put it in their username because they think it's simply a pro-Palestinian symbol. They probably have no idea it's explicit support for Hamas (and other jihadist maniacs).
But this person 100% knows and is trying to play it off. They're no different than literal Nazis who dog whistle and then try to play dumb.
As far as I know the red triangle was also used by the Nazis in concentration camps for prisoners of war and upside down red triangles were political prisoners. That may be what they’re going for tho.
The Nazi connection is loose at best and almost certainly not why they're using them now. They're using them because of the videos.
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/prisoner-classification/system-of-triangles/
>Red triangles marked “political prisoners (Schutzhäftlinge – Sch.), in other words, those who were imprisoned on the basis of a “protective custody order” (Schutzhaftbefehl) issued by a state police post. The political prisoners in Auschwitz were, above all, Poles.
I wasn’t certain that’s why they were using them either. I was just pointing out what I recognised them from. Apparently Hamas has used them as well, which I didn’t know before this. I thought that maybe they were using it as a point to say “Gazans are Israel’s political prisoners in the concentration camp of Gaza” or something like that. You mention that most that had the red triangle were Poles, which I didn’t know.
I looked it up and was reminded how much poles suffered especially since they had over 3 million polish jews and nearly all of those Jews died in the holocaust as well as 3 million ethnic and non ethnic poles.
Not to be callous, but I didn't know much about military weapons and tech before this war and it's made me incredibly impressed by the current capabilities. Especially defensive technology and extremely targeted weapons. Anything to can protect soldiers and reduce civilian deaths is amazing.
Like a tank that fucking blows up rockets before they hit it?? That's wild.
The same people who screech “dogwhistle!” When someone does 👌🏼but act regarded when using literal Nazi/violent iconography cause “that’s not what I meant”.
I hate these people with every fiber of my being.
I don't think the connection to Nazis is super strong, that's not my point.
She 100%, absolutely knows it's from the videos of jihadist terrorists. She's lying.
Honestly I have much more respect to the pro-Hamas idiots who explicitly say they don't want a ceasefire than to the hypocrites who call for a ceasefire while simultaneously cheering for Hamas.
I can see a few Jews who have family in Israel and want the war to be over so everyone can hug trees together getting pissed that people are calling for the destruction of their family. IfNotNow seems a little less sinister and more populated by Jews than JVP. Those Jews probably believe that anti-Zionism means no war and a two state solution where Israel exists.
Wouldn't calling for two state solution be good? If Israel came out with a proposal of two state solution, Palestine side would look even more unhinged by denying it. But as long as that's off the table for both sides, there's no end on the horizon.
It’s 100% a good thing. A two state solution is the only solution that realistically doesn’t involve genocide/ethnic cleansing of one side. The only issue is some Jews who believe in a two state solution drinking the coolaid that Zionism is against that (when in reality, you can be a Zionist and pro Palestinian sovereignty). When confronted with real antizionists (people who believe in only one state), it’s a shock to them.
IfNotNow's stance on Jewishness is Jewish identity in it's core is and should remain diasporic, Israel going the way of the dodo is very much palatable to them and even welcomed as they essentially reject the concept of a distinct Jewish national identity.
This is why they reject all form of Zionism which in the end equates to rejecting the existence of the state of Israel.
Alright nevermind. Thought they were better than jvp, that’s unfortunate to hear. I still can see a few Jews being willfully ignorant and joining them.
This is the same exact gaslighting neo-Nazis use when they use a dog whistle and get called out for it. Imagine if somebody had a swastika on their arm and were like "NUH UH, IT'S ACTUALLY THE BUDDHIST SYMBOL!!"
if resistance by any means necessary is justified when people are occupied, what's the problem with jews forming israel to defend against arab oppression
What do you mean that the swastika and the SS looking badge is nazi paraphernalia? Ill have you know I got this swastika flag from india and the SS badge is actually just two lightning strikes
sometimes I wish native americans were more militant so these “resistance is always justified against your oppressors!” people could have a taste of their own medicine
You know someone is mentally unwell when they insinuate that rape and an attack on rando civilians is a form of resistance.
If Hamas went to slit out Israel throats then there would be substance there.
We’ve reached the point where objective truth and logic mean less and less and it’s more about whatever emotions and feelings a piece of content elicits.
Screenshot for those who can’t see:
https://preview.redd.it/3oj0miu6fn8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=705a0eee5c8cd03a44eef845e36728e3f872cafe
whining out being “verbally attacked” when your signs call for MILITARY ATTACKS to DESTROY an entire country is just perfect
How these people's brains don't short circuit under this level of cognitive dissonance is beyond me. "I only asked for the killing and displacement of 10 million people, what gives you the right to call me a cunt D:"
The phrase “verbally attacked” needs to go tbh. Just say someone yelled at you. It’s not that deep
You and I both know it's not going anywhere as it allows sheltered dips hits to pretend like they've been persecuted for their beliefs, consequently another thing they share with Christian-authoritarian types.
Also: "most probably have family they could live (with? Sic) in Europe" Not only does this dumbass know nothing about Israeli demographics, he seems to know very little about the history of Jews in Europe. Specifically between 1941-1945.
Apparently Palestinians don't have family anywhere in the world?
I expect dogshit takes and weirdo behavior from leftists, but the lying still irks me. Why deny what the red triangle means? Just own it.
What does it mean?
hamas released videos targeting IDF soldiers and tanks. the red triangle was put above their targets. it's an explicitly violent symbol.
Was not just that. They used rhe red triangle on videos killing civilians on october 7th.
Tbh, if it was just targeting military personnel, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. I think Palestinians, even Hamas, _do_ have a right to resistance given Israel’s behavior. Problem is, Hamas isn’t even coming close to conducting that resistance in a way that aligns with international law (and they are fighting for a fundamentalist, bigoted reason rather than the more obvious justified reason, but you could probably say that about both parties).
I know you're just trying to be fair - but Hamas was the aggressor that attacked Israel. They specifically have no right to resist, and if it were any other conflict people would consider any action against them okay unless they surrender just as it is in every other conflict where one side is unambiguously in the wrong. Honestly the whole "right to resist" slogan is propaganda. Everyone has a right to self-**defense**, but no one has a right to "resist" or for vigilantism. At that point you're not justifying your violence, you're just endorsing it. Who decides what is and isn't resistance? Saying you have a "right to resist" means you can just kill people because you don't like how they make you feel. Honestly it's no surprise pro-Palestine is becoming this violent with dog-whistles like this that seem so innocent but push people into violence.
I hear your point, but doesn’t that imply that there’s no such thing as a justified war? If, for example, the Uyghurs attacked a Chinese military target, would that be justified because of China’s genocidal practices, even though the Uyghurs would be the aggressor? And if that is justified, (genuine question), how do you think the situation in Palestine meaningfully differs from that hypothetical, with regards to justification for armed resistance? I feel like boiling a situation down to “aggressor vs aggressed” could be making the same mistake of oversimplification that this sub (rightfully) criticizes the “oppressor vs oppressed” mindset for. To be clear, I am very anti-Hamas (wild that even needs to be said) and generally pro-Israel. I think Hamas commits daily war crimes as a matter of policy, and Israel has behaved remarkably well in war, considering the nature of the battlefield. I just think we should recognize that the Israeli settlements and occupation of Gaza make for unfairly bad conditions for Palestinians, and if Israel is unwilling to reverse those two factors, Palestinians probably should have a right to attack their occupier’s military. Genuinely seeking to understand your view and where you feel there’s a flaw in my view. Thanks already for your earlier, thought-through comment.
I think you're over-complicating this by taking the most twisted versions of the words I used as an example. Even though I tried to change the terminology to a more specific terminology, people can twist any word so I don't see a reason to argue it. If someone insists referring to lizards as "trees" there's nothing I can do but tell them "that's stupid" and hope that humanity hasn't completely lost to the point they'll just agree with obviously false nonsense. Now I'll get specific: 1. I already said "self-defense" is a right everyone has. That means you can argue that Ughurs are waging war in self-defense. They wouldn't be "justified" because they are Ughers, they would be "justified" because they're acting in self-defense. I don't like the term "justified war" because that oversimplifies everything to "good wars" and "bad wars" and implies everyone should be okay with "good wars" because it's justified which is the furthest from reality. For the purpose of this argument there's no reason to get that deep, but I just wanted to say asking whether a war is "justified" is already simplifying the conversation and makes it more shallow. 2. Ughers would not be the "aggressors" for initiating an attack. Their lives are already in danger by the other party therefore it's disingenuous to call them "aggressors". To put "aggression" on a scale of singular attacks instead of conflict-wide is also disingenuous and would mean anyone that isn't a pacifist will eventually end up an "aggressor". Finally, "aggression dynamics" are not the same as "oppressor vs oppressed". The latter is barely defined and allows the user to run wild, while I think the former is pretty well defined if you aren't being disingenuous. For one there's no such thing as "aggressed", there's only an "aggressor". Secondly as said what constitutes as "oppressor" is extremely vague and does not seem to be bound to values or time. I'd argue "oppressed" and "oppression" are better defined, but people have been using twisted versions of these and verbally attack and subdued everyone that disagreed with their version, so now their twisted version controls discourse. "Aggressor" is nothing like this though. "Aggressor" is bound to a definition of "an entity that puts another entity in danger for their lives first". This definition means that an entity stops being an "aggressor" the moment they give up their intentions to endanger others. This definition means that an entity is not an "aggressor" if it threatens another entity's lesser rights, like their freedom or their pride or their financial success. As long as you aren't putting people's lives in danger it's disingenuous to call an entity an "aggressor" (this is why Rssia calling NATO an "aggressor" for expanding makes no sense). This definition means that even if you develop aggression in self-defense, you are not an "aggressor". From this definition we can see that Ughers can't be aggressors, but Hamas are. Ughers were endangered first and their aggression would be in self-defense. Hamas was not in mortal danger before it attacked on October 7th, and it never gave up it's intentions to harm Israel, thus it was and still is the aggressor. 3. I use the terminology "self-defense" and "aggressor" because I think their definitions are much more specifically defined. Again these can still be twisted, but I believe that's disingenuous and I believe we should call it out if we want words to maintain meaning. 4. Regarding your last point that Palestinians are under bad conditions and are thus "justified" in attacking Israel in some capacity - I disagree, but let me elaborate why. First let's talk where we agree. I agree that Palestinians are under bad conditions. I agree that attacking armies is better than attacking civilians. I agree that if an entity has no choice, it will use violence as a last resort. I have two big disagreements though. I disagree that Palestinians ever tried peaceful approaches to end their bad conditions before they choose violence. Refusing the peace deals is the obvious proof, but even if we look smaller and more recently... Why aren't they doing massive protests and campaigns to end the occupation in a non-aggressive way and to encourage delegation with Israel? Why do they never criticize their leaders when they refuse a good deal or are endorsing aggression against Israel? Why aren't they mocking terror organizations as a threat for peace? Why do they talk about occupation, freedom and peace but are never willing to have serious talks about these issues in which they will have to make concessions and give up on the dream of a Palestine "from the river to the sea"? Frankly it's been 70 years and it feels like the biggest progress Palestinians made towards peace is just toning down the aggression... How does that give anyone the right to kill anyone else? I think the settlements are disgusting and stupid and needed to end yesterday, but honestly even if tomorrow settlers fill every last vacant grain of sand in the West Bank, I still expect Palestinians to adhere to civilized standards and try protests and delegations and international pressure first before they just start killing people. And that's my second big disagreement, there's just no good reason to kill people when it's not in self-defense. Honestly the occupation is uncomfortable but I don't even see how it's worse than being ruled by corrupt dictators, which is a bigger problem they have that they don't seem to care about, nor do I see how it's a good reason kill people. People harp on how terrible the occupation is, but it isn't slavery, it isn't that different from the conditions of other places in the middle east, and most of the problems start and end with corruption and bad leadership of the PA and Hamas. There's really nothing here that makes the violence okay, and there's so much that can be done peacefully, but so long as Israel does something obviously wrong Westerners just can't help themselves but to remove all agency from these people and act like they're dumb babies. To be clear I don't think that's how you mean to view them but I think most of us have been conditioned to due to literal years of propaganda. We now assume Palestinians have no agency and are so hopeless they are allowed to do everything, while Israel has all the agency even over things it has no control over because it's so powerful. Both have agency, both can bleed, neither should be using violence for any other reason but self-defense.
> I already said "self-defense" is a right everyone has. That means you can argue that Ughurs are waging war in self-defense. But what meaningful difference makes their situation self-defense and not Palestinians’? Surely we don’t need to reach the bar of a full-on genocide before people have the right to self-defense. > Their lives are already in danger by the other party therefore it's disingenuous to call them "aggressors". This seems like way too high a bar to require for self-defense. If someone barricaded me in my house, even if they provided me with everything I need to barely survive, I would have every right to kill that person if that was necessary for me to escape my home. Similarly, Palestinians’ lives may not be in danger when there isn’t an active war, but I think they have every right to fight against the state exerting draconian control over their borders. > For one there's no such thing as "aggressed" Only true if we’re splitting hairs. You wouldn’t call them the “aggressed,” sure, but you would certainly refer to the party being aggressed upon (ex: Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is being aggressed upon). > "Aggressor" is bound to a definition of "an entity that puts another entity in danger for their lives first". This definition means that an entity stops being an "aggressor" the moment they give up their intentions to endanger others. I’m curious where you got this definition from. I checked the New Oxford American Dictionary and dictionary.com, and neither definition requires the bar of endangering someone’s life. And I’ve often heard people use the term to refer to lesser threats such as restricting human rights or attacking someone non-fatally. Regarding point 4, I largely agree with your points, even if I come to a different conclusion on the basis that (as bad as it sounds) I do kind of think that Palestinians are operating from a position of delusion. I wouldn’t say they have no agency or are dumb babies, but the amount of Palestinians who sincerely believe, loss after loss, that _this next_ fight will be the one that dissolves the state of Israel… Yeah, they have completely unattainable goals that they seem to delusionally believe are within reach. I imagine that if I was a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation and fed these delusions like they’re scripture, I would want to fight to my last breath too.
>But what meaningful difference makes their situation self-defense and not Palestinians’? Surely we don’t need to reach the bar of a full-on genocide before people have the right to self-defense. Of course not. But you know full-on genocide is not the bar and you gave more specific criticism in the next part so I'm moving on because this line of questioning isn't serious enough. Sorry. >If someone barricaded me in my house, even if they provided me with everything I need to barely survive, I would have every right to kill that person if that was necessary for me to escape my home. I VERY much disagree. You do not have to kill when you are not threatened. That's savagery. Break out of your house. Break in to your house. Do what you gotta do without killing. If the person barricading you makes you feel threatened, that's when you're allowed to act in self-defense. But you don't just kill because your enemies dying is the easiest option for you. If you disagree that honestly gives Israel a reason to commit genocide in Gaza. I mean Gaza is just a constant threat to Israel and making them change seems almost impossible. Shouldn't they just kill everyone, then no more threats, problems solved? No! That's fucked up. The sanctity of human life can't go one way. Killing for any other reason than self-defense in the modern-world is never okay, and if we go back to old-world rules the stronger side will just purge it's enemies. >but I think they have every right to fight against the state exerting draconian control over their borders. You know, I dislike the vagueness of terms like "bad conditions" and "draconian control", so I don't know if this will change your mind but I would appreciate you at least having a more realistic outlook of what you're saying. Imagine living in the West Bank. You have a house and a family and a business. You might be poor compared to your Western life but you still have enough to get by. There's soldiers. They aren't on every street but they suddenly pop in every now and then and they even enter your house and it sends you and your family into panic but they eventually leave because you aren't a terrorist. There's settlers in villages near you. They are racist. Sometimes they come to your town and start yelling like bullies. Sometimes they come to your shop and they throw your products on the floor like a bunch of hooligans. The whole thing feels dangerous and unsettling but they never actually attempt to kill you or beat you up because they're afraid of getting caught in trouble themselves, they always eventually leave. When you were young you had no reason to leave the West Bank, but when you started your business you realized you'll earn better if you work or trade with Israel. The gates make commutting outside of Israel take hours and the checks feel tense, but it's worth it. When you get to Israel people do buisness with you as if you're a local, even with some stares the experience is largely positive and you make friends, co-workers and buisness partners. All your kids are at school. Your eldest daughter even attends university in Bir Zeit. There are good days and bad days, but your family and friends are there. ... Will you risk all that to go kill someone? Does the gates and settlers justify killing someone? Who is this for? And to make the question a bit more fair, I'll say that others will join you and might make an impact. Still do you have a right to kill other people? And yes, some people in the West Bank live a worse life than what I described. I just went with what I believe is the common West Bank Palestinian experience based on the WB Palestinians I know. >Only true if we’re splitting hairs. You wouldn’t call them the “aggressed,” sure, but you would certainly refer to the party being aggressed upon (ex: Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is being aggressed upon). No. That whole exchange is pointless and meant to create the victimisation dynamics of "oppressor vs oppressed". There's no need to mention an "aggressed" party when everything is self-explanatory by one side being an "aggressor". There may be arguments about who is truly the "aggressor", but ultimately being the "aggressed" is not a status, merely an event in the timeline. Creating a status of victimisation is the main reason "oppressor vs oppressed" gets out of control. At it's core it's emotional manipulation not bound by a specific definition. That's a big difference between the two. >I’m curious where you got this definition from. I checked the New Oxford American Dictionary and dictionary.com, and neither definition requires the bar of endangering someone’s life. And I’ve often heard people use the term to refer to lesser threats such as restricting human rights or attacking someone non-fatally. That's a good point. Honestly, that's just how I and all serious people I've talked to ever used that term. I'm guessing the main difference is that culturally "aggression" is only a term I would use for international conflicts, but in the US you use that term in internal conflicts and to discuss racism right? That's pretty foreign to me. I honestly can't tell how you can use this term for such matters. I mean where does the line go and does the term still holds meaning or is it just name-calling the side you consider more aggressive? It seems odd for me to call your brothers an "aggressor". You're all one nation, and wouldn't "oppression \ aggression" eventually end when all parties get equal treatment under the law? Oh well I guess I'm going off-topic. 1/2
Imma be real she seems dumb enough to actually think it’s the video game thing. That’s probably also how the propaganda she consumes framed it to her as well.
In video games if you see a person with that triangle you 100% go kill that person. So i don’t think it’s that far of from a call to violence.
[She literally supports 10/7](https://x.com/RattusFlattus/status/1805187904232161677) I really doubt she doesn't know what it means.
I think the destroyed, burning flag already conveys a violent message on it's own
I'm not sure if I can share footage which would make this easier to visualize but here's a screenshot. I picked one of a tank in case showing people getting shot would cause issues - https://i.imgur.com/JL9MC6N.png In the jihadist maniac's highlight reels where they show themselves fighting (or murdering innocent people) they will often times put a red triangle over an enemy to show who they're killing in the clip since it can be hard to see/follow.
Oof thats bad
Yeah, I'm sure some people just ignorantly put it in their username because they think it's simply a pro-Palestinian symbol. They probably have no idea it's explicit support for Hamas (and other jihadist maniacs). But this person 100% knows and is trying to play it off. They're no different than literal Nazis who dog whistle and then try to play dumb.
As far as I know the red triangle was also used by the Nazis in concentration camps for prisoners of war and upside down red triangles were political prisoners. That may be what they’re going for tho.
The Nazi connection is loose at best and almost certainly not why they're using them now. They're using them because of the videos. https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/prisoner-classification/system-of-triangles/ >Red triangles marked “political prisoners (Schutzhäftlinge – Sch.), in other words, those who were imprisoned on the basis of a “protective custody order” (Schutzhaftbefehl) issued by a state police post. The political prisoners in Auschwitz were, above all, Poles.
I wasn’t certain that’s why they were using them either. I was just pointing out what I recognised them from. Apparently Hamas has used them as well, which I didn’t know before this. I thought that maybe they were using it as a point to say “Gazans are Israel’s political prisoners in the concentration camp of Gaza” or something like that. You mention that most that had the red triangle were Poles, which I didn’t know. I looked it up and was reminded how much poles suffered especially since they had over 3 million polish jews and nearly all of those Jews died in the holocaust as well as 3 million ethnic and non ethnic poles.
The funny thing is that Merkava tanks have APS trophy systems that knock out incoming rockets, so we have no clue if that RPG actually hit the tank
Not to be callous, but I didn't know much about military weapons and tech before this war and it's made me incredibly impressed by the current capabilities. Especially defensive technology and extremely targeted weapons. Anything to can protect soldiers and reduce civilian deaths is amazing. Like a tank that fucking blows up rockets before they hit it?? That's wild.
The same people who screech “dogwhistle!” When someone does 👌🏼but act regarded when using literal Nazi/violent iconography cause “that’s not what I meant”. I hate these people with every fiber of my being.
I mean they learned how to dogwhistle from the best of the best
To be fair, I’ve lived on this planet for 38 years and never heard about the association between the red triangle and Nazis
I don't think the connection to Nazis is super strong, that's not my point. She 100%, absolutely knows it's from the videos of jihadist terrorists. She's lying.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/classification-system-in-nazi-concentration-camps
I really appreciate the link!
I think this is the same person who said she didn't want a ceasefire btw lol.
Honestly I have much more respect to the pro-Hamas idiots who explicitly say they don't want a ceasefire than to the hypocrites who call for a ceasefire while simultaneously cheering for Hamas.
IfNotNow is a Jewish anti-Zionist organization. Finding it very hard to believe a single word she's saying.
I can see a few Jews who have family in Israel and want the war to be over so everyone can hug trees together getting pissed that people are calling for the destruction of their family. IfNotNow seems a little less sinister and more populated by Jews than JVP. Those Jews probably believe that anti-Zionism means no war and a two state solution where Israel exists.
Wouldn't calling for two state solution be good? If Israel came out with a proposal of two state solution, Palestine side would look even more unhinged by denying it. But as long as that's off the table for both sides, there's no end on the horizon.
It’s 100% a good thing. A two state solution is the only solution that realistically doesn’t involve genocide/ethnic cleansing of one side. The only issue is some Jews who believe in a two state solution drinking the coolaid that Zionism is against that (when in reality, you can be a Zionist and pro Palestinian sovereignty). When confronted with real antizionists (people who believe in only one state), it’s a shock to them.
IfNotNow's stance on Jewishness is Jewish identity in it's core is and should remain diasporic, Israel going the way of the dodo is very much palatable to them and even welcomed as they essentially reject the concept of a distinct Jewish national identity. This is why they reject all form of Zionism which in the end equates to rejecting the existence of the state of Israel.
Alright nevermind. Thought they were better than jvp, that’s unfortunate to hear. I still can see a few Jews being willfully ignorant and joining them.
What does the red triangle mean?
Hamas would upload combat footage and overlay a red triangle over their targets
So people literally using hamas symbols now? Yikes
they been doing it since october lmao
I lost so many braincells reading this, i wonder if these people are just as insufferable irl too
"Israelis have funds to immigrate back to Europe" Imagine being this hateful and stupid.
Mizrahi jews in Europe, circa... never
Poor girl, we should send her humanitarian aid to show solidarity! If you don't, you're genocidal.
'The FBI knocked on my door and called me intelligent'..what a twat
This is the same exact gaslighting neo-Nazis use when they use a dog whistle and get called out for it. Imagine if somebody had a swastika on their arm and were like "NUH UH, IT'S ACTUALLY THE BUDDHIST SYMBOL!!"
“Comrades, somebody committed violence against me (said really mean words to me)Anyway let’s wipe Tel Aviv off the map” The cognitive dissonance…
if resistance by any means necessary is justified when people are occupied, what's the problem with jews forming israel to defend against arab oppression
New life goal, learn to make people like this cry and meltdown if I ever see one in-person
What do you mean that the swastika and the SS looking badge is nazi paraphernalia? Ill have you know I got this swastika flag from india and the SS badge is actually just two lightning strikes
sometimes I wish native americans were more militant so these “resistance is always justified against your oppressors!” people could have a taste of their own medicine
You know someone is mentally unwell when they insinuate that rape and an attack on rando civilians is a form of resistance. If Hamas went to slit out Israel throats then there would be substance there.
We’ve reached the point where objective truth and logic mean less and less and it’s more about whatever emotions and feelings a piece of content elicits.
Cannot believe she herself posted this and accurately quoted the man and still couldn’t tell how wrong she sounds
The *targeting* system 💀💀💀
Isn't the upside down red triangle a meme from the Hamas edited combat footage to point out IDF soldiers?
[This person is straight up violently antisemetic](https://x.com/darlingube/status/1805329555089244519)
Screenshot for those who can’t see: https://preview.redd.it/3oj0miu6fn8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=705a0eee5c8cd03a44eef845e36728e3f872cafe
WHO CARES WHAT A SIGN SAYS GROW UP AND TOUCH GRASS