this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Death to NATO
1551 readers
13 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a defensive partner it makes sense to continue to provide aid and arms to Israel for defensive purposes, which includes the removal of a condemned terrorist organization as the acting government of the Gaza strip. This does not reduce or remove the US effort to provide aid and humanitarian support to the citizens of Gaza. A 2 state solution remains the policy of the United States, even if this is a foil with both Hamas and the Netantahu government.
You wouldn’t say this if it was Russia bombing Ukrainians. I’m gonna blame this on racism against Arabs. No other reason to describe the murder of 18,000 civilians and the bombing of schools and hospitals as defensive.
Citation needed.
According to Wikipedia the countries that consider it as terrorist are only than 13% of the world’s population. That doesn’t seem like much condemnation when 87% of the world aren’t on board.
Russia has been and is currently bombing Ukrainians on sovereign land. Pretty easy to learn this tidbit of information.
And the Palestinians are bombed where? in the skies? they are being bombed on their own land that was stolen from them, and in the refugee camps they are forced to live in. Internally displaced on their own land.
Was this supposed to draw a response? Can you reiterate your question?
I'm trying to understand why bombing Palestinians is okay when bombing Ukrainians is not. Just looking for consistency.
Palestinians are not a target of bombings in Gaza, they're sad casualties of the realities of war and conflict. Bombing non-military targets is never okay, but there's limits to the precision of weapons in use today.
eat my shit and hair
There are two ways to read this:
If 2, then maybe this will help make it clear to you that the occupation military always intended to target and kill as many civilians as possible:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/
I have not voiced my support for the Netantahu government, and am failing to see the connection to the United States official policy for a 2 state solution.
The US government has though and everyone knows that Netanyahu always opposed a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has been playing the US as a sock puppet for years.
Here was when he scammed the US into invading Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHzSr52fZLQ
Thankfully democratic institutions with likeli guide a change in Israeli policy here. Netanyahu is on his way out.
Oh... If only you were well read... You would have known...
"There is no democracy with occupation"
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/there-is-no-democracy-with-occupation/
"Meanwhile, most of protestors in Tel Aviv are wary of making this connection and are horrified by speakers who try to connect the palpable risk to democracy with the occupation of the territories or the waving of Palestinian flags in protest. However, the moment may well come when they too will recognize that there is no democracy alongside occupation."
Haven't I been reiterating my support and official US policy for a 2 state solution?
Why would Palestinians need two states?
Palestinians would want two states so they can govern themselves in a sovereign nation, while concurrently Israel can do the same.
Palestinians need a state I agree, not sure what the second state would be for
Most of the world already recognized Palestinian statehood by the way, not the US or the civilized and european west though
The second state would be the counterpart to Palestine in a 2 state solution. Based on historical context, this would be the Israeli government.
While I am going to entertain your idea of 2-states, your government doesn't and never did.
Based on official US policy, the support for a 2 state solution remains remarkably unchanged and clear.
Yet it still refuses to recognize the 2nd half of the 2-state solution. بقى احنا عبط
Oh well, we refuse to recognize Israel. It is a modern Crusader state and will go away when this phase of the Crusader Wars end.
If you don't want to debate about the requirements for peace and stability, then I don't have much more to discuss with you. Have a nice weekend!
Simple, Zionist settlers go back to where they came from, just like the Crusaders before them. Palestine is for Palestinians.
Peace will happen when the US is too broke to prop up Israel anymore.
Israel isn't a real state, it's a neoimperialist attack dog that occasionally forgets its leash. It's theft and murder incarnate. If you really consider historical context to be important and still hold to a two-state solution as the ideal outcome, then I'm sorry, you're lacking a great deal of historical context and haven't the right to invoke it here.
Unfortunately the stain of religion has caused the fruition of needless casualties throughout the centuries. As the world becomes more atheistic over time due to the nature of scientic discovery, my hopes for change grow.
Broadly speaking, religion is not diminished by scientific discovery, it is diminished by people's material needs being met and their prospects looking good. Our friend Marx called that one a long time ago, but modern studies on secularization say the same thing.
But Israel/Palestine is not about religion except as a smokescreen. It is about race, specifically an overwhelmingly white population of settler colonists creating and expanding an ethnostate. The aggrievement of the Palestinians is not that Jews exist, but that their homes were taken and their family members and friends were butchered like animals.
Alright, I mean this in the kindest way possible, you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have the time required nor the desire to rectify that, so I'll simply say that you've spent a regrettable amount of time here embarrassing yourself in front of people who know substantially more about history and politics than you do. Trying to debate communists on those subjects at all is generally a bad idea, but to do so armed only with natsec PR and mystery statistics is something else.
I mean personally I support communism, but I have yet to see it implemented without authoritarian influence. The Native Americans have a pretty decent communal system, which the US should learn from.
Pretty rich coming from someone on the side of
Also you do realize why socialists and communists become "authoritarian" right? It's at least partly to do with people like you who would have snitched to the Apartheid government and even attempted to kill them.
i hope someone kills you
I want you to consider this comment and compare it to your previous comment above. You said that the US is reducing spending on Israel because of Israel's brutal actions. Then when it was pointed out to you that they in fact were doing the opposite, your response was not to then say "wow, that's really shitty of them" but instead to try and justify their actions to yourself.
Have you no brain? No heart? No soul? No spine? Is this really the person you want to be? Someone licking the boot of the dickhead politicians in Washington so much that you'll abandon any and all morals to do so? It's ok to be mad at your government when they do shitty things, even if they are "your team."